onald trump has character bashed hillary clinton because he knows nothing about the if he is easier to pick on the other person so you don't have to answer the he seemed to just pick on the other person so we do not have to answer the questions. the republican congress -- we would have more of the same come up because the only thing that the republican congress did in boastlame-duck years was their pension for the rest of their lives. what they did was take care of themselves. what they did was interfere with anything that president obama did. it was not in the best interest of the country. host: joan, thank you for

calling in and sharing and giving your thoughts about the debate. we have to leave the conversation there for now. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy your monday and the rest of the week. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> more road to the white house coverage today. following last night's presidential debate, the candidates including mike pence will be speaking around the country. mike pence will be in charlotte, north carolina. you can let his remarks live on

c-span at 1:00 eastern time. at 2:45, democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton will be in detroit for a campaign rally. we will take you live over on c-span2. later, donald trump will appear in pennsylvania today. his remarks will be live at 3:30 on c-span. the coverage of the two third-party candidates. we have special, in-depth coverage during a 8:00 with libertarian presidential nominee terry johnson about his positions and policies. we will take your phone calls. at 9:00, we will have green party jill stein. the third-party candidates will be live tomorrow night starting at 8:00 eastern time. one of the verb -- one of the reviews from after the debate said that hillary clinton won the debate but that donald trump exceeded expectations. that was according to a poll of debate watchers. it shows a clear victory for hillary clinton. 57% saying that hillary clinton

one. mrs.ong showing for clinton. it was not as good as her performance at the first debate when she got 62% of the debate watchers saying that she won. the results try to closely to what the watchers thought about last night's debate. here is a look at last night's debate in st. louis. it is an hour and a half. martha: good evening i martha

rights. anderson: and i am anderson cooper. tonight is a town hall format that gives people the right to ask the candidates questions. the night belongs to the people in this room and across the country that have submitted questions online. the people on the stage were chosen by the gallup organization. they have notup yet committed to a candidate. each of them came here with questions they want to ask. we saw those questions for the first time this morning. anderson and i and our team from abc and cnn are the only ones that have seen them. both candidates will have two minutes to answer each audience and online question. we hope to get to as many questions as we can. we asked the audience here not to throw things down -- slow things down with any applies. except for now. ladies and gentlemen, the republican nominee for

president, donald j. trump. and the democratic nominee for president, hillary clinton. [applause] anderson: thank you very much for being here. we will begin with a question from one of the members of our town hall. each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. secretary clinton, you will go first. >> thank you, and good evening. the last presidential debate ford've been rated as ma mature audiences. do you feel you are modeling

appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth? ms. clinton: thank you. are you a teacher? well, thank you. that is a very good question. i've heard from teachers and parents that they are concerned about some other things being done in this campaign. i think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we are good. we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. we are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity. we are going to try and reach out to every boy and girl and every adult to try and bring them in to working on behalf of our country. positive,ery optimistic view on what we can do together. that is why the slogan of my campaign is "stronger together."

if we can overcome the divisiveness that sometimes sets americans against one another and we instead make some big goals -- i've set forth some big goals and the economy working for everyone and not just those at the top, making sure we have the best education system from preschool to college, and making it affordable, and so much else. if we set those goals and work together to achieve them, there is nothing, in my opinion, that america cannot do. that is why i hope we will come together in this campaign. obviously, i am hoping to earn your vote and be elected in november. i promise you, i will work with every american. i want to be the president for all of americans regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. i want to heal our country and ring it together. that is how i believe -- that is

the best way i believe we can get the future that our children and grandchildren deserve. anderson: mr. trump you have two minutes. mr. trump: i agree with everything she said. i began in this campaign because i was tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country. this is a great country. it is a great land. i've gotten to know the people of this great country over the last year and a half. my whole concept was to make america great again. when i watched the deals being made and what is happening with some horrible things like obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that is astronomical. 68%. 59%. 71%. when i look at the deal, it is a one-sided transaction or we get

back $150 million to a terrace state. state, we have made them a very strong country when they were a very weak country. when i look at our country, we have such tremendous potential -- whether it is in business or trade, where we are doing so badly. last year, we had been almost $800 billion trade deficit. with other countries, we had an $800 billion trade deficit. that is inconceivable. we are going to make great trade deals. we are going to have a strong border. we are going to bring back law and order. just today, two police officers were shot. this is happening on a weekly basis. we have to bring back respect for law enforcement. at the same time, we need to take care of people on all sides. we need justice. i want to do things that have not been done.

that includes fixing and making our inter-cities that are for the african-american citizens that are so great. and for the latinas. it is called "make america great again." anderson: the question was about if you are modeling appropriate behavior. we received a lot of questions online about the tapes that were released on friday. you called it, "locker room banter." what you described is sexual assault. you brag that you sexually assaulted women. do you understand that? mr. trump: i did not say that at all. i do not think you understand. it was locker room top -- talk. i am not proud of it. topologized to my family and the american people. i'm not proud of it, but this is locker room talk. we live in a world where you have isis chopping off heads. and horriblee wars

sites all over, where you have so many bad things happening -- this is like medieval times. we have not seen anything like this. the carnage all over the world. can you imagine the people that are doing so well against us with isis? they see our country and what is going on. i am embarrassed by it. i hate it. it is locker room talk. it is one of those things. i'm going to knock the hell out of isis. we are going to defeat isis. it happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. i will take care of isis. we will get onto much more important things and bigger things. anderson: for the record, are you saying that those things you said 11 years ago -- are you saying that you did not say that you kissed women without consent or groped women without consent? mr. trump: i have a lot of

respect for women. you hear these things that are said, and i was in tears by it. i have respect for women. women have respect for me. anderson: have you done those things? mr. trump: no i have not. we are going to make our country safe. we do not have borders on our country now. people are pouring in from our country from the middle east and other places. we are going to make america safe again. we are going to make america rate again, but we are going to make america safe again. wealth to build up the of our nation. other nations are taking our jobs and wealth. anderson: thank you, mr. trump. secretary clinton, d want to respond -- do you want to respond? ms. clinton: like everyone else, i spent the last 48 hours to give out what we heard and what we saw. nominees cometial a i disagreed with them -- prior

republican presidential nominees, i disagreed with them, but i never questioned their ability to serve. donald trump is different. i said back in june, he is not , to -- fit to be president be commander in chief. since then, many republicans and democrats have said the same thing. what we saw and heard on friday was donald trump talking about women. what he thinks about women. what he does to women. the video doest not represent who he is. i think it is clear to anyone that heard it, it represents exactly who he is. we have seen this throughout the campaign. we have seen him insult women. women oneen him rate their appearance, ranking them

from one to 10. we have seen him and there's women on tv and twitter. -- embarrass women on tv and twitter. he denigrated a former miss universe. it was in the harshest, most personal terms. yes, this is who donald trump is. it is not only women. it is not only this video that raises questions about his ability to be our president. immigrants,targeted african-americans, latinos, people with disabilities, pows, muslims, and so many others. this is who donald trump is. the question for us -- the question our country must answer are?s this who we to go back to your question, i want to send a message.

we all should to every boy and girl into the entire world that america is already great, and we are great because we are good. we will respect one another. we will work with one another. we will celebrate our diversity. these are very important values to me. this is the america that i know and love. i can pledge to you tonight that this is the america that i will serve if i am so fortunate enough to become your president. martha: we want to get to some questions from online? mr. trump: may i respond to that? martha: yes you may. mr. trump: they are just words folks i've heard them for many -- words, folks. i've heard them for many years. i've heard them when chemically -- hillary is currently talking

about the inter-cities of our country. they are a disaster education wise, job wise, safety wise, in every way possible. i'm going to help the african americans, the latinas, the hispanics. i am going to help the inter-cities. she has done a terrible job for the african-americans. she wants their vote, and she does nothing. the last she then comes back four years later. we saw that firsthand when she was the united states senator. martha: mr. trump, i want to get to audience and all my questions. mr. trump: so she is allowed to do that but -- martha: you can do that right now. mr. trump: sounds fair. martha: this tape has become the most talked about story of between 16 election millions and millions of people are talking about it on the social network. we want to bring any questions from viewers all across the

country. jeff from ohio asks, "donald trump says the campaign has changed him. when did that happen?" let me add to that. when you walked off that bus at age 59, were you a different man? or did that behavior continue until recently? mr. trump: that was locker room talk. i am not proud of it. i am a person that has great respect for people, my family, the people of this country. i am not proud of it, but that was something that happened. if you look at bill clinton, far worse. women, thereone to has never been anyone in the history of politics in this nation has been so abusive to women. it, --you want to say you can say it anyway you want to say it.

bill clinton was so abusive to those women. hillary clinton attack those women. for them are here tonight. was a 12 -- women was a wonderful woman. she was raped at 12 years old. the client she represented got him off -- he laughed at the girl that was raped. that young woman is here with us tonight. do not tell me about words. i absolutely apologize for my words. it is things that people say. what president clinton did -- he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. finead to pay in $850,000 to one of the women, polly jones, who is also here tonight -- paula jones, who is also here tonight. when hillary clinton talks about words i said 11 years ago, i think it is disgraceful.

she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [applause] martha: please hold the applause. secretary clinton, you have two minutes. ms. clinton: let me start by saying that so much of what he has said is not right. but he gets to run his campaign anyway he chooses. he gets to decide what he wants to talk about. if he does not want to answer questions, talk about the agenda, laying out the plans we have that we believe can make for a better life and country, that is his choice. when i hear something like that, i am reminded of what my friend michelle obama advised us on. high."hey go low, you go [applause] if this were just about one video, then maybe what he is saying tonight would be understandable.

everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. to anyonepologizes for anything. he never apologized to the gold star family whose son died in the line of duty in iraq. donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion. he never apologized to the distinguished federal judge who was born in indiana. donald said he cannot be trusted to be a judge, because his parents were quote, "mexicans." he never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television when our children are watching.

he never apologized for the racist lie that resident obama was not born -- president obama was not born in the united states of america. he owes the president in our country and apology. he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words. mr. trump: you owe the president and apology, because as you know very well -- your campaign, sidney blumenthal coming he is blumenthal, heey is another one who got the start of. an apology.we him you are the one that sent the pictures around of president obama around in a certain garb. that was long before i was involved. so you owe him an apology. and then michelle obama, i got to see the commercials they did on you. i got to see some of the most vicious commercials i have ever seen. michelle obama was talking about you, hillary.

"friend."bout go back and look at those commercials. it was a rescue lost fair and square, unlike the bernie sanders race where you one, but not fair and square in my opinion. just take a look at wikileaks and what they said about bernie sanders and what debbie wasserman schultz had in mind. between the superdelegates and debbie wasserman schultz, bernie sanders had no chance. i was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil. when you talk about apologies, i think you should be apologizing e-mails -- 33,000 are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted. that you acid washed. -- the items that were taken from an office last week that are missing. it, but if i win

-- i am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. there has never been anything like it. we're going to have a special prosecutor. when i go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. the people that have been long-term workers at the fbi are furious. there has never been anything like this. you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you deleted 33,000 e-mails. you then acid washed them or bleach them. a very expensive process. we are going to get a special prosecutor and look into it. people's lives have been destroyed for doing 1/5 of what you have done. it is a disgrace. you ought to be ashamed of yourself. irtha: secretary clinton,

will let you talk about the e-mails. ms. clinton: every thing he said was absolutely false. i'm not surprised. martha: the audience needs to call down here. ms. clinton: if i was fact checking donald all the time, i would never get to talk about what i want to do to make lives better. once again, go to hillary clinton.com. donald trumpcheck in real-time. at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking. i imagine we will have millions more fact checking. it is just awfully good that someone with the temperament of donald trump is not in charge of the law in our country. mr. trump: because you would be in jail. [applause] we want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. do not apply.

you are just wasting time. i doa: secretary clinton, want to follow-up on the e-mails. you set your handling of the e-mails was a mistake. you disagreed with secretary james comey as your handling of classified information as "extreme a careless." eight e-mails that were exchanged were top-secret. it is possible that hostile actors gained access to those e-mails. you do not call that extremely careless? ,s. clinton: first, let me say that was a mistake. i take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. if i was to do it over again, i would not. i am not making any excuses. it was a mistake. i am very sorry about that. i think it is also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others.

after a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server i was using. anyones no evidence that can point to at all -- anyone who says otherwise has no basis, that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands. i take classified material very seriously. i always have when i was in the senate armed services committee. i was privy to a lot of classified material. as secretary of state, i have had some of the most important had some of the most important secrets that we have, such as going after bin laden. i am very committed to taking pacified information seriously. as i said, there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands. martha: were going to move on. mr. trump: yes, she did not know letter c on a document

meant. it is amazing. i'm watching her go over facts. she is going after fact after fact. she is lying again come up because she said what she did with the e-mails was fine. you think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? i do not think so. she said the e-mails had to do with her daughters yield a class class orer's yoga something. she got after subpoena. she got it from the united states congress. i am so disappointed in congress, including republicans, for allowing this to happen. department, where her husband goes on to the back of an airplane in talks to the attorney general days before they are going to try her case -- for you to say that there is nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you

should be ashamed of yourself. this is after getting a subpoena from the united states congress. anderson: we have to move on. martha: we want to give the audience a chance here. mr. trump: after getting a subpoena from the united states of america. anderson: we need to move on to audience questions. ms. clinton: it is just not true. mr. trump: you did not delete them? anderson: allow her to respond. mr. trump: 33,000 e-mails? ms. clinton: we turn over 35,000. anderson: allow her to respond. she did not interrupt you when you are speaking. ms. clinton: i did not. i did not in this -- in the previous debate. intoonald, i know you are big diversion tonight. anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it is exploding -- the way republicans

are leaving you. mr. trump: let's see what happens. anderson: allow her to respond. ms. clinton: let's get to the audience questions. anderson: our first question from ken. >> why are you not bring up the e-mails? ken has a question. mr. trump: nice, one on three. >> the affordable care act known as obamacare is not affordable. premiums have gone up. deductibles have gone up. co-pays of donna -- have gone up prescriptions have gone up. what would you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better? anderson: the first one goes to secretary clinton. ms. clinton: if you want to start, he can start. gentleman,no, i am a hillary. you go ahead. ms. clinton: i think donald was

about to say that he is going to solve it by repealing it. i am going to fix it. i agree that premiums have gotten too high. deductibles, prescription drug costs, they are too high. i have laid out a series of actions to bring those costs down. what don't want people to forget is that -- when we talk about reining in the costs, which has to be the highest priority of the next president, when the passed, itcare act was not just 23 million people that got health care that they do not have before. that alone is a good thing. i've met these people all the time, and a tummy how much of a good thing it was for them and their families. -- million of us that get health insurance through our employers that big benefits. number one, insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. number two, no lifetime limits.

it is a big deal if you have serious health problems. number three, women cannot be charged more than men for health insurance. that is the way it used to be before the affordable care act. under 26ur, if you are and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26. that is something that did not happen before. i want very much to save what works and is good about the affordable care act. we have to get cost down. he have to provide some additional help to small business, so that they can afford to provide health insurance. if we repeal it as donald trump has proposed and start over again, all of those benefits that i just mentioned are lost to everyone. it is not just for people that get their health insurance on the exchange. we would then have to start all over again. right now, we are at 90% health insurance coverage. that is the highest we have ever been in this country. anderson: secretary clinton or

time is up. ms. clinton: i want to get it to 100% and keep costs down. anderson: donald trump, two minutes. mr. trump: it is a great question. it is when i get almost all the time. obamacare is a disaster. you know it, we all know it. it is going up at numbers that no one has ever seen worldwide. no one has ever seen numbers like this for health care. it is only getting worse. of fixing it is to go back and ask congress for more money. more and more money. we have now almost $20 trillion in debt. obamacare will not work. it is very bad, very bad health insurance. it is far too expensive. it is not only expensive for the person who has it, it is unbelievably expensive for our country. it and replaceal it.

we have to replace it with something much less expensive, and something that works. something where your plan can be tailored. we have to get rid of the artificial lines around the state where we stopped insurance companies from coming in and competing. they wanted president obama and whoever was working on it to leave the lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. we want competition. you will get the finest health care plan there is. noticed, whent the canadiens need a big operation and something happens, they come to the united states. their system is so slow. it is catastrophic in certain ways. she wants to go to single-payer, which means the government basically rules everything. hillary clinton has been after this for years. obamacare was the first step. it is a total disaster.

not only are your rates going up by numbers that no one has ever believed, but your deductibles are going up. unless you get hit by a truck, you are never going to be able to use it. , and itdisastrous plan has to be repealed and replaced. anderson: secretary clinton, let me get to you. your husband called it the craziest thing in the world. was he mistaken for telling the truth -- or telling the truth? ms. clinton: no, he clarified what he meant. we are in a situation in our country, where if we started all over again, we would come up with a different system. however, we have an employer-based system. that is how it vast majority of people get their insurance. the affordable care act was meant to fill the gap between people who are too cold -- two poor and could not put together resources to afford health care.

medicare, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, and all the people that were employed -- people who were working that did not have the money to afford insurance. i do not have an employer to help them. that was the slot that the obamacare approach was to take. 20 million people now have health insurance. if we just rip it up and throw it away, what donald trump is not telling you is that we turn it back to the insurance companies the way it used to be. that means that insurance companies get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, "look, i am sorry. you have ibd's, you have had cancer, your child has asthma, you may not be able to have insurance, because you cannot afford it." let's fix what is broken about it, let us not just throw it away. anderson: let's just -- mr. trump: first of all,

everything is broken about it. everything. second, bernie sanders said that hillary clinton has every bad judgment. this is a perfect example of it. anderson: mr. trump, you said you wanted to end obamacare. you also said you wanted to make coverage available for people with pre-existing conditions. how are you going to do that? mr. trump: you are going to have plans. anderson: what does it mean? mr. trump: i'll tell you. you will have plans, because we had the competition in the insurance industry -- once we break up the lines -- anderson: are you going to -- mr. trump: excuse me. until the enddone of the passage of obamacare. it was a fraud. jonathan gruber, the architect of obamacare, he said it was a big lie.

president obama said you keep your doctor, you keep your plan to the whole thing was a fraud, and it did not work. you get rid of those lines, you can have a petition. you can keep pre-existing. we will also help people that who do not have money, because we will have people protected. republicans feel this way, believe it or not. we are going to block grant into medicaid. be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves. go to a question for both candidates. >> hello. million muslims in the united states, and i am one of them. you mentioned working with muslim nations. with islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country when the election is over? martha: mr. trump, you are first. mr. trump: you are right about

islam a phobia. that is a shame. one thing we have to do is that -- there is a problem. ,e can be politically correct but whether we like it or not there is a problem. we have to be sure that muslims come in and report when they see something going on. when they see hatred going on, they have to report it. bernardino,e in san many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and horribly wounded so many. muslims have to report the problems when they see them. there is always a reason for everything. if they don't do that, it is a very difficult situation for our country. if you look at orlando and san bernardino, and the world trade center, you go out and you look at paris, these are horrible, radical, islamic terrorists.

she will not even mention the word, and neither will president obama. they will not use the term "radical islamic terrorists." to solve the problem, yet to be able to state what the problem is. she will not say the name, and president obama will not say the name. the name is there. terror."dical islamic before you solve it, you have to say the name. martha: secretary clinton? ms. clinton: thank you for asking your question. i've heard the question from a lot of muslim americans to out our country. unfortunately, there has been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about muslims. like captain khan, who sacrificed himself defending our country in the united states attack fromen under donald trump. we have had muslims in america since george washington.

we have had many successful muslims. we just lost a particularly well-known one with mohammed ali. my vision of america is an america where everyone has a place if you are willing to work hard and do your part. if you contribute to the community. that is what america is, and that is what we want america to be for our children and grandchildren. it is also very shortsighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogue it rhetoric that donald trump has used. we need muslim americans to be our eyes and ears on the front lines. we have worked with a lot of muslim groups around america. i have met with a lot of them. i have heard how important it is with them to feel that they are wanted, included, and part of our country. part of our homeland security. that is what i want to see.

important -- i intend to defeat isis. i plan to do so in a coalition of a majority of muslim nations. right now, a lot of those nations are hearing what donald says and wondering why they should cooperate with america. this is a gift to isis and the terrorists. violent, jihadist terrace. sts.re -- terrori we are not at war with islam. it is a mistake to think that. you and country where your family are just as welcome as everyone else. martha: thank you, secretary clinton. donald trump, you said this. talking --trump is is calling for a complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our government to figure out what the hell is going on. we have no choice. we have no choice."

earlier this week, your running mate said that the muslim ban is no longer your position. was that a correct? mr. trump: first of all, captain khan is an american hero. if i was president at that time, he would be a life today. unlike her who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, i would not have had our people in iraq. it was a disaster. he would have been alive today. something inn is some form that has morphed into some extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. hillary clinton wants to allow -- ms. clinton: -- martha: why didn't morphed into? mr. trump: i would like to -- martha: please explain. mr. trump: it is called extreme vetting. we are going to go into areas

like syria, with a tens of thousands because of barack obama and hillary clinton -- they want to allow 550% increase of people coming into our country. we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings are about our country. she wants 550% more. it is good to be the greatest trojan horse of all time. we have enough problems in this country. i believe in building safe stones. i believe in having other people -- in building safe stones. zones. with all the problems going on, there are hundreds of thousands of people coming into syria, when we know nothing about them, their values, their love for our country. martha: secretary clinton, the me ask you about that. you have called for increased

55,000 -- 10,000 to 55,000 increase of syrian refugees. why take the risk of having those refugees, into the country? ms. clinton: first of all, i will not allow anyone into our country that poses a risk to us. there are a lot of refugees, women and children. think of that picture we saw of a four-year-old boy with blood on his four head because they were bombed by russian and syrian air forces. there are children suffering in this catastrophic war largely because, i believe, of russian aggression. we need to do our part. carrying thes are load that europe and others are. -- vetting that in that is as tough as it needs to

be from our intelligence experts and others. it is important for us as a policy not to say, as donald has said, we are going to ban people based on religion. how do you do that? we are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. how do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own country? are going to have religious tests when people fly into our country? how do we expect to be able to implement those? i thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous. indeed, you can look at the propaganda on a lot of terr sites and what donald trump has said is being used to recruit fighters. they want to create a war between us.

i will say isg that this is the 10 or 12 time for the ward being on iraq. we have the tape of it. it has been about. debunked. mr. trump: it has not been debun ked. martha: there is a lot of fact checking already done on that. mr. trump: excuse me, she went about 20 seconds over her time. can i please respond? martha: quickly. mr. trump: we have many criminal illegal aliens. when we want to send them back to their country, their countries do not want them. they do not want them. hillary clinton, when she was secretary of state, she said it was ok. we cannot force them into their country. i will force them right back into their country.

they are murderers and some very bad people. when bernie sanders said she had bad judgment, she has a very bad judgment. we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you have never seen. we are letting drug's poor through our southern border at a record clip. it should not be allowed to happen. patrol agents, 16,500, just recently endorsed me. they endorsed me because i understand the border. she wants amnesty for everyone. she wants them to come in, come right over. she has -- it is a horrible thing she is doing. she has horrible judgment. it is so bad that she should never be present of the united states. -- president of the united states. martha: this next question comes from an online forum where americans submitted questions.

wikileaksn involves of hillary clinton's paid speeches that she has refused to release. one line that you have reportedly said, "you need both the public and private positions on certain issues." from virginia, is it ok for politicians to be two-faced? for politicians to have a private stance on issues? ms. clinton: as i recall, that was something i said about abraham lincoln after having seen the wonderful steven spielberg's movie called "lincoln." it was a master class watching and getting get the congress to prove -- watching lincoln get the congress to approve the 13th

amendment. i was making the point that it is hard at times to get the congress to do what you want to do. you have to keep working at it. yes, president lincoln was trying to convince some people with some arguments, and he used other arguments with other people. was, i thought, a great display of presidential leadership. let's talk about what is really going on here, martha. community juste came out and said in the last few days that the kremlin, meaning who didn't in the russian government, are directly -- putin and the russian government, are directing the attacks on american accounts to affect our elections. the russians hacked information, and we do not even know if it is accurate information. wikileaks is one of those sites

that use to put it out. never in our country, how we been in a situation where an power, is a foreign working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. they are not doing it to get me elected. they are doing it to try and influence the election for donald trump. maybe it is because he has praised putin or that he agrees with a lot of what putin wants to do. i do not know the reason. we deserve answers. i think donald trump needs to release all of his tax returns so that people can see what the entanglements and financial relationships -- martha: we will get to that later. secretary clinton, you are out of time. mr. trump: she got caught in a total lie. her papers went out to all of her friends at the banks, goldman sachs and everyone else.

also on wikileaks, that just came out. she lied. she is now laming the light on the late, great abraham lincoln. [laughter] mr. trump: honest and never lied. abe never lied. that is the big difference between him and you. as far as other elements of what she was saying, i do not know putin. i think it would be great if we could get along with russia, but i do not know putin. she does not know if it is the russians doing a hacking. maybe there is no hacking. they always blame russia, because they believe they are trying to tarnish me with russia. i know nothing about russia. i know nothing about the inner workings of russia. i have no businesses or loans from russia. i have a great balance sheet. it was so great that when i

visit the post office on pennsylvania avenue -- the united states government, because of my balance sheet, they chose me to do the old post office between white house and congress -- they chose me to do the old post office. one of the primary things i think was alan's sheet. i have no loans -- balance sheet. i have no loans with russia. the taxes are a very simple thing. 100 that il, i take pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. -- i pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. many of our friends take a massive deduction and profits. summoning people that are giving her money so that she could do more commercials than me. -- so many people that are giving her money so that she could do more commercials than me. i've paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

as soon as the audit is over, i will happily lease them. anderson: on the topic of the taxes, we have a question from spencer maas. spencer? >> my question is what specific tax provisions will you change to mention that the wealthiest of americans pay their fair share in taxes? mr. trump: the one thing i would do is get rid of carried interest. i give up a lot when i run, because i knock out the tax code. she could've done this years ago. she was a united states senator. she complained that donald trump took advantage of the tax code, but why did she not change it? the reason is that your friends take all the same advantages the idea. there are provisions in the tax code that we could change. you would not change it, because so many of these people give you money so that you can take negative ads on donald trump. i say that about a lot of things

. i have heard hillary clinton complained about so many different things over the years, but she has been there for 30 years doing this stuff. she has never changed, and she never will change. of carrieding rid interest provisions. we are lowering taxes, because i think it is so important for corporations -- massive and little ones cannot perform. we are getting rid of regulations which go hand-in-hand with the lowering of the taxes. we are bringing the tax rate down from 35% to 15%. we are cutting taxes for the middle class. we're cutting them big league for the middle class. hillary clinton is raising your taxes. she is raising your taxes really high. what that is going to do is a disaster for the country. she is raising your taxes, and i am lowering them. that in itself is a great difference. we have no growth in this country. 7%, it isas a gdp of

like a national catastrophe. we are down to 1%. that is like no growth. and we are going lower, in my opinion. a lot of that has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world. i am bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. i think it is one of the most important things we can do. she is raising everyone taxes massively. anderson: secretary clinton, you have two minutes. every thing you heard now from donald is not true. i am sorry i have to keep saying -- inbut he lives in in an alternative reality. it is amusing to hear someone was not paid federal income taxes in 20 years to you what he is going to do. i will tell you, his plan is to give the wealthy corporations the biggest tax cuts they have ever had. more than the bush tax cuts by a

factor of two. donald always takes care of donald and people like donald. this would be a massive gift. the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes for the middle class families. millions of middle-class families. here's what i want to do. nobody that makes less than intuitive $50,000 a year, and that is a vast majority -- $250,000 a year, and that is a vast majority of americans, will have their taxes raised. you have to go where the money is, and that is where the people are what taking advantage of every signal tax break. and yes, as senator, i voted to -- to close some of the loopholes that he took advantage on. i want to have a tax on people that are making a million dollars. called buffet -- it is

"the buffett rule." --, warren buffett said that we have to make up for lost time, because i want to invest in you. i want to invest in hard-working families. i think it has been unfortunate, but it has happened that since the great recession that the gains have all gone to the top. we need to reverse that. people like donald trump who pay zero is in taxes, 04 our military, 04 health and education -- zero for our r health andro fo education. we will make you that no one can get away without paying their fair share. with a numbers one issue on facebook for the first time in the campaign. the new york times posted pages of your tax return. they showed you claimed and $960 million lost. that means that you could have

avoided paying income taxes for years. you said you paid taxes -- you have not answer the simple question, did you do that $960 million lost to avoid playing personal, federal income taxes. mr. trump: of course i do. so do her donors. her donors took massive tax write-offs. a lot of mine were depreciation. another thing that hillary as a center has allowed, and will always allow, it is because people give her all that money. she allows it. thatry clinton hasalways friens want all of these provisions and he cared interest provision. that is very -- the carried interest provision. that is very important to wall street. hillary clinton is leaving carried interest. i will tell you, number one, i

pay tremendous number of taxes. i use them, and so did warren buffett, and the other people that hillary is getting money from. i will not mention their names, because they are rich but not famous. anderson: you tell us how many years you have avoided paying federal income tax? mr. trump: no, but i have a right off. i love depreciation. she gave it to us. if she had a problem -- for 30 years she has been doing this, and i've said this all the time -- she talks about health care, she talks about taxes, why did she not do anything about it? she does not do anything but talk. with her it is all talk and no action. again, bernie sanders's she has a very bad judgment. she has made bad judgment on taxes, on libya, on syria, on

iraq. bernie sanders's she has a very bad judgment. her and obama -- whether you like it or not, the way they got out of iraq, the vacuum they left is why isis formed in the first place. they started hillary. congratulations. great job. anderson: want you to be able to respond, secretary clinton. secretary clinton: well, here we go again. i've been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when i was a senator from new york but that's not the point here. years, starta senator from new york but that's mr. trump: why didn't you do it? anderson: allow her to respond. secretary clinton: because i was a senator with a republican president. [applause] mr. trump: oh, really? if you were an effective senator you could have done it but you were not an effective senator. eisenhower could have done it but you were not an effective senator. anderson: please allow her to respond. she didn't interrupt you. secretary clinton: you know, under our constitution, presidents have something called veto power. he has now said repeatedly 30 years this and 30 years that. so let me talk about my 30 years

in public service. i'm very glad to do so. eight million kids every year have health insurance because when i was first lady i ask worked with democrats and republicans to create the children's health program. hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because i worked to change our adoption and foster care system. after 9/11 i went to work with republican mayor, governor and president to rebuild new york and to get health care for our first responders who were suffering because they had run toward danger and gotten sickened by it. hundreds of thousands of national guard and reserve members have health care because of work that i did and children have safer medicines because i was able to pass a law that required the dosing to be more carefully done. when i was secretary of state i went around the world advocating for our country but also vobalingting for women's rights. to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better

life and negotiated a treaty with rurving -- russia to lower nuclear weapons. 400 pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or co-responseor when i was a senator for eight years. i worked very hard and wats very proud to be re-elected by an even bigger margin in narc -- new york than i was the first time. i tyke -- you have to be able to get along with people to get things done in waushtd and i've proven that i can and i'm proud of the 30 years. martha: we're going to move ton syria -- mr. trump: she said a lot of things -- martha: no. tr -- mr. trump, we're going to move on. the heartbreaking view of a 4-year-old boy sitting in an ambulance after being pulled

from an air strike in aleppo focused the world's attention on the horrors of war in syria with 130 million views on facebook alone but there are much worse views coming out of aleppo, just days ago the state department called for a war crimes vesks the syrian regime of bashar al-assad and russia for their bombardment of aleppo. this next comes from associate media through foofpblgt diane from pennsylvania asks if you were president, what would you do about syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo?

isn't it a lot like the when the united states waited too long? beginary clinton, we'll with you. two minutes. secretary clinton: the situation in syria is catastrophic and every day that goes by we see the results of the regime by assad in partnership with the iranians on the ground and russians in the air bomb barding places, in particular aleppo where there thousands of people, probably 250,000 left and there is a determined effort by the russian air force to destroy aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the syrian rebels who are really holding out against the assad regime. russia hasn't paid any attention to isis.

they're interested in keeping assad in power. so i when i was secretary of a no-fly zoneated and safe zones. we need some leverage with the russians because they're not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them. and we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground. but i want to emphasize that what is at stake sheer the ambitions and the aggressiveness of russia. russia has stided that it's all in in syria and they also have decide who they want to be president of the united states and it's not me. i've stood up to putin and others and i would do that as president. wherever we can cooperate with russia, that's fine and i did. that's how we got the sanctions on iran that put a lid on the iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot so i would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now but i do support the effort to investigate for war crimes committed by the syrians and the russians and try to hold them

accountable. martha: thank you secretary clinton the mr. trump? mr. trump: she was there with the so-called line in the sand -- secretary clinton: no, i wasn't. hate to interrupt but i was gone. at some point we need to do fact -checking. mr. trump: sadly, president obama probably listened to you. i don't think he would be any more. the line in the sand was laughed at all over the world with what happened. that being said, she talks tough against russia but our nuclear program has fallen way behind and they've gone wild with their nuclear program. not good. our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. russia is new in terms of nuclear. we're old, tired, exhausted in terms of nuclear. a very bad thing. now, she talks tough. she talks really tough against putin. and against assad. she talks in favor of the rebels. she doesn't even know who the

rebels are. you know, every time we take rep -- rebels, whether it's in a ,ing and, iraq or anywhere else we are army people and you know what happens? they end up being worse than the people. look what happened in libya. it's a mess. and isis has a good chunk of their oil. you have probably heard that. it was a disaster because almost everything she's demun foreign policy has bain mistake and i disaster. but if you look at russia and look at what they did this week. where i agree, she wasn't there but possibly she's consulted. we sign a peace treaty. everyone is all excited but what russia did, with assad and by the way with iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal i have ever seen in the history of deal making, the iran deal with the $1.7 million in cash, enough to fill up this room, but look at that deal. iran now and russia are now against us.

so she wants to fight. she wants to fight for rebels. one problem. you do not even know who the rebels are. martha: mr. trump, your two minutes is up. mr. trump: i don't like assad at all but russia is killing isis, assad is killing isis and iran and those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy. martha: mr. trump, let me repeat the question. if you were president, what would you do about syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo? i want to remind you what your running mate said. he said, provocations by russia need to be met with american strength and if russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the syrian government forces of the side, american forces should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the regime.

mr. trump: ok. he and i haven't spoken and i disagree. i disagree. you have to knock out isis. we have people who want to fight both at the same time by -- but syria is not any longer sir -- syria is no longer syria. it's iran, which she and the deal made into a very powerful nation very quickly we have to get isis. we have to worry about isis before we get too much more involved. she had a chance to do something with syria. that because the line. martha: what do you think will happen if aleppo falls? mr. trump: i think it basically has fallen, ok? let me tell you something. take a look at mosul. the biggest problem i have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have mosul, they think a lot of the isis leaders are there. so we have announcements coming out of washington and coming out of a rack.

-- coming out of iraq. we will be attacking mosul in three or four weeks and all these bad leaders from isis are leaving mosul. why can't they do it quietly, make it a sneak attack and after the attack is made inform the american public that we've knocked out leaders, had a tremendous success? people leave. why do they have to say we are going to be attacking mosul in the next four to six weeks? how stupid our country? martha: there are sometimes reasons the military does that. psychological warfare. it might be to help the civilians out. look, i have 200 generals and admirals who endorsed me. 21 congressional medal of honor recipients endorse me. we talk about it all the time. they understand, why can't they do something secretively where they go in and they knock out the leadership? why would these people stay there? i have been reading now four weeks --

martha: tell me what your strategy is -- mr. trump: i've been reading about mosul that it's the harbor where, this is where they think the isis leaders are. why would be -- they be staying -- they are not staying there anymore. everybody is talking about how iraq, which is us with our leadership, goes in to fight mosul. now, with these 200 admirals and generals, they can't believe it. all i say is this, general patton and general douglas macarthur are spinning in their graves with the stupidity of what we are doing in the middle east. martha: secretary clinton, you talk about arming ebb rebels but it looks like that may be too late for aleppo. cease fires have failed. would you introduce the threat of u.s. military force beyond a no-fly zone against the assad regime to back up diplomacy? secretary clinton: i would not use american ground forces in syria. i think that would be a very serious mistake.

i don't think american troops should be holding territory which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. i don't think that is a smart strategy. the i do think the use of special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests so i do support what is happening. martha: what would you do differently than president obama is doing? secretary clinton: martha, i hope by the time i am president that we will have pushed isis out of iraq. i do think that there is a good chance we can take mosul and, you know, donald says he knows more about isis than the generals. no, he doesn't. there are a lot of very important planning going on and some of it is to signal to the

sunnis in the area as well as kurdish fighters that we all need to be in this and that takes a lot of planning and preparation. i would go after baghdadi. i think the targeting made a difference and that would help. i would also consider arming the kurds. partners been our best in syria as well as iraq. and i know there is a lot of concern about that in some circles but i think they should have the equipment they need so the kurdish fighters on the ground are the principal way that's we take rock after pushing isis out of iraq will -- writers on the ground are the principal way that we aqqa after.

mr. trump: she goes one minute over and you don't stop her. i go one second over and you stop me. martha: you had many -- anderson: question from mr. james carter. >> my question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the united states? mr. cooper: that question goes to mr. trump. mr. trump: absolutely. she calls our people deplorable. a large group. and irredeemable. i will be a president for all of our people and i'll be a president that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back because nafta, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. not of this country. it stripped us of manufacturing jobs. we lost our jobs. we lost our money. we lost our plants.

it is a disaster and now she wants to sign tpp, even though now she says, she's for it, called it the gold standard. at the last debate she lied, said she didn't say it's the gold standard. they actually said she lied. and she lied. ok? she lied about a lot of things. i would be a president for all of the people. african-americans, the inner cities. devastating what's happening to our inner cities. she's been talking about it for years. as usual, she talks about it, nothing happens. she doesn't get it done. same with the latino americans, the hispanic americans, the same exact thing. they talk. they don't get it done. you go into the inner cities and you see it's 45% poverty. african-americans now 45% poverty in the inner cities. the education is a disaster. jobs are essentially nonexistent. i mean it's, you know, and i've been saying it, big speeches where i have 20,000 and 30,000 people, what do you have to

lose? it can't get any worse. and she's been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. nothing is going to ever happen. let me tell you, if she's president of the united states, nothing is going to happen. it is just going to be talk. and all of her friends, the taxes we were just talking about , i would get it by osmosis. she's not doing me favors but by doing all the others favors, she's doing me favors. but i will tell you she's all she has, it doesn't get done. take a look at her senate run and upstate new york. it turned out to be a disaster. mr. cooper: you have two minutes, secretary clinton. secretary clinton: well, 67% of the people voted to re-elect me when i ran for my second term and i was very proud and very humbled by that. mr. carter, i have tried my entire life to do what i can to support children and families. you know, right out of law school i went to work for the

children's defense fund and donald talks a lot about, you know, the 30 years i've been in public service. i'm proud of that. you know, i started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against african-american children in schools and in the criminal justice system. i worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get a public education, something that i care very much about. i have worked with latinos. one of my first jobs in politics was down in south texas registering latino citizens to be able to vote. so i have a deep devotion, to use your absolutely correct word, to making sure that every american feels like he or she has a place in our country. when you look at the letters i get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn't have a place in donald trump's america. they write me. one woman wrote me about her son felix.

she adopted him from ethiopia when he was a toddler. he's 10-years-old now. this is the only country he has ever known anti-listens to donald trump on tv and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to ethiopia if he gets elected? you know, children listen to what is being said. to go back to the very first question, there is a lot of fear. in fact, teachers and parents are calling it the trump effect. bullying is up. a lot of people are feeling uneasy, a lot of kids are expressing their concerns. so first and foremost i will do everything i can to reach out to democrats, republicans, independents, people cross our country. if you don't vote for me i still want to be your president. i want to be the best president i can be for every american. mr. cooper: secretary clinton, your two minutes are up.

i want to follow up on something donald trump said. last month you said half his soup -- supporters are racist, sexist, and deploreables. how can you be the president if you have written off tens of millions of americans? clinton: well, within hours i said i was sorry i said that because my argument is not with his supporters, it's with him and the hateful, divisive campaign he has run and the inciting of violence at his rallies and his very brutal kind of comments about not just women but all americans. all kinds of americans. and what he has said about african-americans and latinos, about muslims, about p.o.w.'s, about immigrants, about people with disabilities, he's never apologized for. and so i do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said -- i'm proud of the campaign back to bernie sanders

in diagram. bernie sanders and i ran. we ran a campaign based on issues, not insults and he is supporting me 100% because we talked about what we wanted to do. we might have had some -- mr. cooper: thank you, secretary clinton. mr. trump: we have a divided nation. we have a very divided nation. you look at charlotte, boorges the violence taking place in the inner cities. chicago. you take a look at washington, d.c., we have an increase in murder within our cities much the biggest in 45 years. we have a divided nation because people like earth. and believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. and when she said deplorables, she meant it and when she said irredeemable, they're irredeemable -- you didn't mention that but when she said irredeemable, that might have been even worse.

she has got tremendous hatred. and this country cannot take another four years of barack obama. and that is what you are getting with her. cooper: mr. trump, in 2008 you wrote in one of your books that the most important characteristic of a leader is displain. you sent out a series of tweets that said to check out a sex tape. mr. trump: no. it wasn't check out a sex tape. it was so see take a look -- by the way, when she said 3:00 in the morning, take a look at benghazi. she said who is going to take the call at 3:00 in the morning? guess what? she didn't answer it. because when ambassador stevens -- 600 times -- she said she was awake at 3:00 in the morning and i -- she sent a tweet out at 3:00. i won't even mention that. but she said she would be awake.

but the famous thing, who is going to answer at 3:00 in the morning? guess what happened? ambassador stevens sent 600 requests for help and the only one she talked to was sidney blumenthal, who is her friend and not a good guy, writing way. way. the so you know, she shouldn't be talking about that. now, tweeting happens to be a modern-day form of communication. you can like it or not like it. between facebook and twitter i have almost 25 million people. it's a very effective way of communication. you can put it down but it's a very effective form be communication. i'm not unproud of it to be honest with you. anderson: secretary clinton, does mr. trump have the discipline to be a good leader? secretary clinton: no. mr. trump: i'm shocked to hear that. [laughter] secretary clinton: it's not only my opinion, it's the again -- opinion of many others. national security experts, republican, former republican members of congress. but it's in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job up

close and know how difficult it is, and it is not just because i watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit around turn into a 200 million dollars surplus and incomes went up for everybody, everybody. african-american incomes went up 33%, and it is not just because i worked with george w. bush after 9/11 and i was very proud that when i told him what the city needed, what we needed to recover, he said you've got it and he never wavered. he stuck with me and i have worked with and i admire president obama. he inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression. that was a terrible time for our country. mr. cooper: we have to move along. secretary clinton: millions of homes were lost and $13 trillion in family wealth wiped out. we are back on the right track. he would send us back into recession with his tax plan --

martha: secretary clinton, we are moving to an audience question. we're almost out of time. mr. trump: the lowest growth since 1929. martha: mr. trump, secretary clinton, we want to get to the audience. thank you very much, both of you. [laughter] martha: we have another audience question. beth miller has a question for both candidates. question: good evening. perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the supreme court justice. what would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a supreme court justice? martha: we begin with your two minutes, secretary clinton. sec. clinton: thank you. you are right, this is one of the most important issues in this election. i want to appoint supreme court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who would -- who have not just been in a

big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench but maybe they tried more cases, they actually understand what people are up against because i think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. so i would want to see the supreme court reverse citizens united and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. donald doesn't agree with that. i would like the supreme court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. i want a supreme court that will stick with roe v. wade and a woman's right to choose and a supreme court that will stick with marriage equality. now, donald has put forth names of people he would consider and among those are people who would reverse roe v. wade and marriage equality. i think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. i want a supreme court that

doesn't always side with corporate interests. a supreme court that understands that because you are wealthy and can give more money to something doesn't mean you should have any more rights than anybody else so i have very clear views about what i want to see to change the balance on the supreme court and i regret deeply that the senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that president obama, a highly qualified person, they've not given him a vote to be able to have the full complement of nine supreme court justices. i think that was a dereliction of duty. i hope that they will see their way to doing it. but if i'm so fortunate enough is to be resident, i will sureiately moved to make that we feel that can't have nine justices to work on behalf of our people. martha: thank you, you are out

of time. mr. trump? mr. trump: justice scalia, great judge, died recently and we've a vacancy. i am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of justice scalia. i'm looking for judges and i have actually picked 20 of them so that people would see. highly respected. highly thought of and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. but people that will respect the constitution of the united states. and i think that this is so important, also the second amendment which is totally under siege by people like hillary clinton. they'll respect the second amendment and what is stands for, what it represents. so important to me. now hillary mentioned something , about contributions. just so you understand, so i have in my race, more they than $100 million of

my money, meaning i'm not taking all this big money from all these different corporations like she's doing. i'm putting in more by the time it's finished, more than $100 million invested. pretty much self funded. we're raising money for the republican party and doing tremendously on the small donations, $61 average or so. i asked hillary why doesn't she -- she made $250 million by being in office. she used the power of her office to make a lot of money. $10 million orut $25 million or $30 million of your own money into your campaign? $30 million less for special interests that will tell you exactly what to do and it would be a nice sign for the american public. you have a lot of it because of the fact that you've been in office. you made a lot of it while you were secretary of state , actually. so why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? just curious? martha: thank you very much. we're going ton one more question -- secretary clinton: the question about the supreme court, i want

to combickly say i respect the second amendment but i believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and -- close the online loophole. martha: we have one more question, mr. clinton. mr. cooper: we have one more question from can about energy policy. ken? >> what steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil fuel power plant workers? mr. trump: such a great question. energy is under siege by the obama administration. under absolute siege. epa, environmental protection agency, is killing these energy companies and foreign companies are now coming in, buying so many of our different plants and then rejiggering the plants so that they can take care of their oil. we are killing, absolutely killing our energy business in this country.

now, i'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, etc., but we need much more than wind and solar and you look at our miners. hillary clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. there is a thing called clean coal. it will last for 1,000 years in this country. now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. unbelievable. we have tremendous wealth right under our feet. i will bring our energy companies back. they will be able to come back. they will make money. they will pay off our tremendous budget deficits which are tremendous. but we are putting our energy companies out of business. we have to bring back our workers. you take a look at what is happening to steel and china dumping steel, which is killing

our workers. and our steel companies. we have to guard our energy companies. we have to make it possible. the epa is so restrictive, they are putting our energy companies out of business. all you have to do is go to a great place like west virginia or ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like pennsylvania, and you see what they are doing to the people -- miners and others, in the energy business and it's a disgrace. it's an absolute disgrace. mr. cooper: secretary clinton, two minutes. sec. clinton: well, that was very interesting. first of all, china is illegally dumping steel in the united states and donald is buying it to build his buildings. that is something i fought against as a senator and i would

have a trade prosecutor to make sure we don't get taken advantage of by china, on steel or anything else. you know, because it sounds like you are in the business or are aware of people in the business, you know that we are now for the first time ever energy independent. - we are not dependent on the middle east. but the middle east still controls a lot of the prices. so the price of oil has been way , down and that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? we are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. and, i think that is an important transition. we have got to remain in energy independent. - it gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the middle east. we have enough worries about what goes on over there than having to worry about that. so i have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because i think that is a serious problem.

and i support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because i think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. but i also want to make sure we do not leave people behind. that is why i am the only candidate, from the very beginning of this campaign, who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. because those coal miners and their fathers, and their grandfathers, they dug that callout. a lot of them died, were injured. but they kept the lights on. they powered our factories. i don't want to walk away from them. the price of coal is down worldwide. i hope you will go to hillaryclinton.com and see the

entire policy. martha: we have one more question and it comes from carl becker. question: good evening. i have one more question. regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another? [applause] martha: mr. trump, would you like to go first? sec. clinton: well, i certainly will. because i think that's a very fair and important question. look, i respect his children. his children are incredibly able and devoted, and i think that says a lot about donald. i don't agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but i do respect that, and i think that is something that as a mother and her grandmother, is very important to me. so, i believe that this election

has become in part so conflict oriented, so intense because there's a lot at stake. this is not an ordinary time. this is not an ordinary election. we are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for -- not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world, from the supreme court to energy and so much else -- so there is a lot at stake. it's one of the most consequential elections we have had. and that is why i have tried to put forth specific policies and plans, trying to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is i want to do as president. and that is why i hope people will check on that for themselves so they can see, yes, i have spent 30 years -- actually maybe a little more,

working to help kids and families in and i want to take all that to experience to the white house and to do that every single day. trump: mr. trump: well, i consider her statement about my children a very nice compliment. i don't know if it was meant to be a compliment. i'm very proud of my children. they have been wonderful, wonderful kids. i consider that a compliment. i will say this about hillary. she doesn't quit. she doesn't give up. i respect that. i tell it like it is. she is a fighter. i disagree with much of what she is fighting for. i do disagree with her judgment in many cases, but she does fight hard and she doesn't quit and she doesn't give up and i consider that to be a very good trait. martha: thanks to both of you. [applause] mr. cooper: i want to thank both

of the candidates. we want to thank the university here. this concludes the townhall commission. thank you to everyone who watched. martha: please tune in on october 19 for the final presidential debate that will take place at the university of nevada, las vegas. good night everyone. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> your some of the reaction to the bit -- to the debate from

twitter. this from tim kaine -- note russian who won tonight, donald focused on hillary. hillary focused on the american --ple." mike pence tweeting "congrats to my running mate, donald trump, on a big debate win. proud to stand with you as we make america great again." debate over,new -- " what a disgrace for our great nation." disinvited donald trump to what would have been the first public appearance together on saturday, "the washington post," laying it out in this headline, "paul ryan moaned defender campaign for trump ahead of the election." he did not address whether he would revoke his official endorsement. with a look at a tweet from jake sherman, telling house

republicans that he would focus on keeping the house majority. scott wong also writing about the conference call today, saying that ryan is telling rank and file republicans that they should do whatever they need to do regarding trump to win their own elections. we will hear from a number of those on the campaign trail today, including live coverage of the republican vice presidential nominee, mike pence, in charlotte, north carolina. you can hear his remarks at 1:00. and then hillary clinton will be onre for a campaign rally c-span2. , atr, donald trump himself 3:30 right here on c-span. coverage of the two third-party candidates, special in-depth coverage tomorrow with a live conversation from gary johnson about his position, policies,

and we will take your phone calls. stein, livel tomorrow night starting at eight east -- 8:00 eastern. >> campaign coverage continues tonight at 8:00 eastern. the utah fourth district congressional debate. followed at 10:00 i the arizona u.s. senate contest between john mccain and ann kirkpatrick. it :00, the north carolina gubernatorial debate between pat mccrory and roy cooper. evening, mike and misty snow debate for the u.s. utah state senate. thursday, in the afternoon, the eighth district congressional debate between republicans and democrats in pennsylvania. 7:00, richard burr and deborah

ross debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. friday night at 8:00 eastern, the wisconsin u.s. senate debate between ron johnson and russ feingold. with joe heck:00 and catherine cortez messed up, debating for the nevada u.s. senate. watch the complete coverage on c-span and live on c-span.org. and listen on the c-span radio -- radio app. >> c-span, brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> the supreme court heard oral argument last week in buck versus davis, the texas death penalty case considering whether racial bias played a role in a man receiving the death sentence . his own attorney testified that

being black increased to the probability that he would commit acts of violence in the future. -- question before the court whether an appeals court should have allowed him to challenge the death sentence. >> the next argument is buck versus davis. miss swarns. ms. swarns: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: duane buck was condemned to death after his own court appointed trial attorneys knowingly introduced an expert opinion that he was more likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future because he is black. this evidence encouraged the sentencing jury to make its critical future dangerousness decision which was a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central disputed issue at sentencing based not on the individual facts and circumstances of mr. buck's crime or his life history, but instead based on a false and pernicious group-based stereotype.

justice ginsburg: didn't that expert say, i don't think he's a future -- i don't think he's going to be a future danger? ms. swarns: on cross-examination dr. quijano testified that he did believe that mr. buck was likely to commit future crimes of violence. he said that -- at the prosecutor's questioning that mr. buck was on the low end of the continuum, but that he could not say that mr. buck was not likely to commit criminal acts of violence. but mr. buck was, unquestionable -- justice ginsburg: but more likely than not that he wouldn't. ms. swarns: yes. he was on the low end of the spectrum in terms of the risk of violence. but here this expert's evidence not only prejudiced mr. buck at sentencing, it also put the very integrity of the courts in jeopardy. for that reason, texas acknowledged that its ordinary

interest and finality does not apply. it publicly declared that it would waive its procedural defenses and allow new sentencing hearings in six capital cases, including mr. buck's, that involved the same expert's race as criminal violence opinion. texas conceded error in five cases and then reversed course in mr. buck's case alone. as a result, mr. buck is the only texas prisoner to face execution pursuant to a death sentence that texas itself has acknowledged is compromised by racial bias that undermines confidence in the criminal justice system. chief justice roberts: there's a tension in your -- your briefing over what you're really arguing for. in the question presented, you focus on the fifth circuit standard for a coa in saying they're imposing an improper and unduly burdensome. but most of the briefing, and as you sort of begun today, is really focused on the underlying merits of the case. and you sort of have to make a

choice, don't you, because if we didn't focus on the merits and rule in your favor, we don't get to say too much about the threshold for certificate of appealability. well, if we focus on the certificate of appealability, all we're saying on the merits is there's a substantial showing. so what do you want us to do, on the merits or on the certificate of appealability? ms. swarns: well, in order to determine whether mr. buck was expired -- was entitled to a certificate of appealability, this court and the fifth circuit was required to determine whether or not the district court decision with respect to both the constitutional question and the procedural question would be debatable among jurors. chief justice roberts: right. right. so is that what you want us to say, that because the merits are debatable, he should have gotten a certificate of appealability? or do you want us to say, well, he should have won, and so he obviously should have gotten a certificate of appealability? ms. swarns: we believe that the district court's decision is wrong, and, therefore, mr. buck was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

chief justice roberts: okay. so on the merits -- on the merits then, you just want us to say, oh, reasonable jurists could disagree about whether or not he was unconstitutionally sentenced? ms. swarns: or that the -- that the reasonable jurists would conclude that the district court's decision that mr. buck was not prejudiced was incorrect, and, therefore, mr. buck was -- was entitled to a certificate of appealability. justice kagan: but, for example, last year in a case called welch, the question came up on the certificate of appealability, and we just said, well, of course he should have gotten a certificate of appealability because he's right. and similarly, we did the same thing, oddly enough, in one of the cases here. we did the same thing in trevino. yes, he should have gotten a certificate of appealability because he has the merits on his side.

that's essentially what you would want us to do? ms. swarns: yes. justice kagan: i mean, that does leave on the table -- maybe this is what the chief justice was saying -- this question of whether the fifth circuit is just using the wrong approach and the wrong standards for the certificate of appealability question. ms. swarns: well, in this case the fifth circuit's analysis completely ignored the heart of the case in making its certificate of appealability determination, right? the center of mr. buck's claim has always been the introduction of racial discrimination that undermines the confidence in, not only his own death sentence, but the integrity of the court's as well. in assessing the debatability of the district court's decision, the fifth circuit doesn't engage at all around the central question here about the -- the critical role of race in mr. buck's case, in his sentence, in the integrity of the court's, and ultimately in what texas did in terms of acknowledging the absence of finality in its case. so the fifth circuit's conduct in conducting the certificate of appealability analysis, you know, ignored critical facts in this case. so that -- justice sotomayor: the centers in this case -- ms. swarns: yes. justice sotomayor: -- argue that

the court had improperly denied a coa, and that was their basic position. they didn't really engage the merits; they just engaged the standard of issuance of a coa. we go back to that. are you satisfied if we say they used the wrong standard for denying the coa, or will you only be satisfied if we say you win? ms. swarns: i think that the fifth circuit -- you know, obviously, i would like for this court to say we win and mr. buck is entitled to a new -- a new, fair sentencing hearing. that would obviously be my preference. i think in the posture of this case, this court can and should say that mr. buck is entitled to a certificate of appealability because all of the explanations and justifications that were presented by texas and the district court are incorrect and unsustainable. justice sotomayor: all right. now let's start with the coa issue.

with respect to the coa issue, i read your adversaries who are -- to say martinez, trevino could never constitute an exceptional circumstance to -- to justify the issuance of a coa. basically that's their position, 'cause they weren't made retroactive. ms. swarns: yes. justice sotomayor: so first, what does the retroactivity argument have to do with anything? all right? what does it apply to? and aren't you making martinez and -- and trevino retroactive if we recognize it as an exceptional reason to forgive a procedural default. and then second, there's a circuit split on this question, and you recognize it in your brief.

you have the third circuit using a three-part test that says martinez and trevino, under certain circumstances, can be a reason to find exceptional circumstance. the ninth circuit has a six- or seven- or eight-part test. they never make it simple. and the fifth says never. where do you stand on all these tests? and what's your position with respect to this -- to this retroactivity question? ms. swarns: well, with respect to retroactivity, teague governs new rules of constitutional law that apply at the trial stage. this is just a rule that doesn't -- has no applicability. it squarely arises only in the habeas context, so teague just doesn't apply to martinez and trevino. with respect to its applicability to mr. buck and to -- to mr. buck, this is a

circumstance where if the 60b was properly granted, mr. buck would be back in the same exact position as were the petitioners in martinez and trevino. he would be arguing -- seeking cause to excuse the default of his trial counsel in effectiveness claim in the first petition for habeas corpus relief. justice alito: this is a very -- a very unusual case, and what occurred at the penalty phase of this trial is indefensible. but what concerns me is what the implications of your argument would be for all of the other prisoners who -- let's say they're not even capital cases, but they have -- they want now to raise some kind of ineffective-assistance-of-counse ineffective-assistance-of-counse ineffective-assistance-of-counse claim. that is procedurally defaulted. and they say we should have relief from a prior judgment denying habeas relief. and that -- what would prevent a ruling in your favor in this case from opening the door to the litigation of all of those

issues so that those -- martinez and trevino would effectively be retroactive. ms. swarns: well, i think there are three factors, i think, that makes mr. buck's case unique. ms. swarns: well, i think there are three factors, i think, that makes mr. buck's case unique. first and foremost, it involves an express appeal to racial bias that not only undermined the integrity of his own death sentence, it undermined the integrity of the court's. second, he now faces execution. this is a death penalty case. he now faces execution pursuant to that death sentence that is unquestionably -- and i will agree with you -- indefensible and uncompromised by racial bias. third, there's no question of mr. buck's diligence here. mr. buck has consistently and unrelentingly, you know, pursued relief on his claim. so i think that those factors make mr. buck's case unique from the vast majority -- justice sotomayor: that's the third circuit test, isn't it? ms. swarns: yes. it is. and that makes mr. buck unique from the vast majority of noncapital or other prisoners

who are going to bring these cases to the federal courts. chief justice roberts: so the -- the -- the answer to justice alito is that in our opinion, we should say our interpretation of rule 60b, in case it doesn't apply unless it's a capital case? rule 60b doesn't draw that distinction. ms. swarns: no. i think in terms of the question of the extraordinariness factors, i think this court can and should look to those that we've identified in our brief. first, is there a risk of injustice to the petitioner? here we unquestionably have that. we're facing an execution. chief justice roberts: the risk of injustice, if it was a sentence for 10 years, that's unjust. ms. swarns: absolutely. chief justice roberts: okay. so that doesn't work. ms. swarns: so there are more. chief justice roberts: what else? ms. swarns: there are more. the risk of injustice and impairing the integrity of the judicial system more broadly. the states -- chief justice roberts: i guess the same answer there. if you sentenced to 40 years, that impairs the integrity of the system. i mean, i know that obviously, death is different. ms. swarns: right.

chief justice roberts: but it's hard to factor in why it's different in the context of interpreting particular rules. ms. swarns: you know, i would say additionally, though, here, your honor, particularly unique to mr. buck's case is where we have the state acknowledging that it has no significant finality interest in mr. buck's death sentence. and when you add to that the fact that mr. buck's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is -- is, you know, to be mildly meritorious, you know, you have a group of factors which i think can -- this court should provide guidance around -- justice kennedy: the state did change its mind with respect to mr. buck's case, and i assume they'll tell us that there's a reason for that. it's not just because his defense counsel introduced it, because that -- that was true in some other cases as well. but if -- if we rely on that too much, won't this discourage

prosecutors from offering discretionary concessions? ms. swarns: you know, this is a unique circumstance. i think that -- i don't believe it would discourage prosecutors, because texas doesn't actually disagree with -- and cannot disagree with -- the fundamental problem in this case, which is that it is compromised by racial bias that undermines the integrity of the courts. texas has certainly taken a different position about what it should do about it, but it cannot get away from those -- those core facts that establish that, like no state has an interest in a death sentence that is undermined by racial bias. chief justice roberts: to the -- to the extent it is a unique case, it really doesn't provide a basis for us to say anything at all about how the fifth circuit approaches certificates of appealability, does it? it's a unique case, so this would be an odd platform to issue general rules. but in the brief you say, well,

the fifth circuit grants these in a very small percentage of cases. the other circuits are much higher. but if it is so unique, i don't know how we can use it to articulate general rules. ms. swarns: well, it's certainly an extraordinary case. and i think that because it is so extraordinary, and because the lower courts failed to, you know, acknowledge that and -- and reach that conclusion, that this case sort of underscores the deep need for guidance to the lower courts on the evaluation and assessment and what factors should be considered in determining when 60b is or is not appropriate. chief justice roberts: was it wrong? was it wrong for the court of appeals to conduct the merits inquiry in this case? i mean, they went to considerable length in trying to determine whether or not the claims were valid. was that an error? should they have just said, well, you know, the -- the test is what, substantial -- showing a substantial -- a substantial showing of denial?

they should have just done, you know, kind of a sort of quick-and-dirty peek at the merits and say, yeah, there might be something there. ms. swarns: yes. chief justice roberts: so did they err in looking at it more closely? ms. swarns: certainly this court has made clear time and again the coa analysis is a threshold review of the merits. chief justice roberts: so should our decision be just that, they erred in looking at the merits? they should have just issued a certificate of appealability and sent it back? that's not what you want, is it? ms. swarns: i -- no, no, it's not. again, i believe that this court, because we do have the fifth circuit and the district court going past the threshold analysis and speaking substantively to the merits, this court can and should explain that those reasons that have been offered by those courts are incorrect. and under the coa standard, if this court -- a coa should issue if the district court's decision was debatable or wrong. chief justice roberts: well, but it seems to me we're well beyond a coa should issue. you don't want us to say that. you want us to say that there's been a constitutional violation in this case and the court of appeals was wrong in determining

that there wasn't. ms. swarns: i would like for this court to say that there was a constitutional violation in this case -- justice kagan: ms. swarns, i would have thought that your answer would be that, you know, you think this is so -- such an extraordinary case, and that the fifth circuit got this so wrong, that it's the best proof that there is that the court is -- is approaching the coa inquiry in the wrong way. ms. swarns: right. justice kagan: if they reached the wrong result in this case -- ms. swarns: right. justice kagan: -- it's because they are just not understanding what the coa inquiry is all about. ms. swarns: right. i mean, i agree, absolutely. i mean, just the fact that this court found -- was unable to find these facts and circumstances debatable shows the -- the fact that the fifth circuit is applying the standard incorrectly, for sure. and it goes also to the need for guidance, right, to the fifth circuit not only on the coa point, but again, on the 60(b) point, because there really is a substantial lack of information available to the lower courts with respect to the evaluation of what is or is not extraordinary. chief justice roberts: so what

is the test you -- should we say the fifth circuit should apply in considering whether to issue certificates of appealability? do you have anything to add to the statutory language? ms. swarns: you know, i don't think -- i -- i don't have additional language. i think this court has made quite clear that it's a threshold application. what this case demonstrates is that the fifth circuit has not been, and as this court has noted in previous decisions, that the fifth circuit has not scrupulously adhered to the application of the coa standard, and the data that we provided to this court sort of amplifies and demonstrates that fact. so i think that what you can do is use this court, again, as an example of how far the fifth circuit is out of line from the -- the proper application of the coa standard under these circumstances. justice alito: would it be possible to defend what the fifth circuit did based on the prejudice prong of strickland? there -- there was a lot of

evidence both relating to the offense that was committed and to other conduct by petitioner that would show future dangerousness. it would -- it didn't have to rest exclusively on this bizarre expert testimony, isn't that correct? ms. swarns: there is certainly the -- texas certainly presented evidence of future dangerousness in this case. i think that, however, the heart of those -- that evidence was sort of the facts and circumstances of the instant crime, mr. buck's lack of remorse immediately after he was arrested for the instant crime, and the domestic violence incidents in the prior offenses. this court has recognized that aggravated crimes like this, exactly like the kind we are talking about here, can and do trigger a racialized fear of violence that can yield arbitrary death sentencing decisions. that was your holding in turner v. murray. so the fact that we do face a

case that does have very aggravated facts sort of compounds the risk of prejudice to mr. buck. and what we have here is a circumstance where not only do the terrible facts of the crime trigger that real risk of an arbitrary death-sentencing decision, you have the expert stepping in and compounding that risk and putting it -- putting an expert scientific validity to this pernicious idea that mr. buck would be more likely to commit criminal acts of violence because he's black. so the risk in mr. buck's case is doubled, essentially. in light of -- in light of those facts, in light of the aggravating evidence here, and how dr. quijano's opinion compounded the risk of violence -- justice sotomayor: counselor, i know that there's been a lot of talk about how small the reference to race was with respect to the questioning at trial on both sides, but how much was it a part of the actual report, because that's what the jury asked for? ms. swarns: uh-huh. justice sotomayor: and they

asked for two things, could they consider life without parole? ms. swarns: uh-huh. justice sotomayor: so they were obviously considering mercy. somebody was. ms. swarns: correct. justice sotomayor: i don't know if all of them, but someone wanted to talk about it, that's what they told the judge. can we talk about life without -- life without parole? i don't even know what the answer to that was. i should have checked that -- ms. swarns: uh-huh. justice sotomayor: -- but if you do, you can tell me. ms. swarns: yeah. justice sotomayor: but, number two, they asked for the psychiatric report. ms. swarns: that's correct. justice sotomayor: does that -- not to have the testimony reread, but for the report. so tell me what -- how that changes the calculus, those two things in any way. ms. swarns: sure. so first the issue of life without parole was negotiated in the trial proceedings. it was absolute -- they were not given any information about the feasibility of parole in this case, but as your honor correctly observes --

justice ginsburg: they were told that he would be eligible for parole after, what was it, 40 years? ms. swarns: no, they were not. justice ginsburg: they were not given that information? ms. swarns: if that were true -- no, they were not. they were not given information. in fact, the trial prosecutor fought very hard to make sure that this jury did not receive the information about parole eligibility. it was one of the issues that she was very concerned about making sure was redacted from dr. quijano's report because he, in his report, had a reference to the 45 year parole -- justice sotomayor: how old was mr. buck? how old was mr. buck at the time? ms. swarns: i think he was in his 20's. i am not sure at this moment. so we do know that the jury was considering the possibility of -- of a life sentence, and then we have them asking for the psychiatric report, which contains a sentence that says that mr. buck is, in fact, more likely to commit criminal acts of violence because he's black. that evidence, of course, once you have that report, after the jury had heard it on direct and cross-examination from the witness stand, so ultimately we have a situation where the jury literally -- is literally making

the decision about mr. buck's life and death -- making the future-dangerous decision while they have this imprint in their hands. and we also know, this is a jury that was not able to make a quick decision on sentence. you know, notwithstanding texas's claims that its case in future dangerousness was overwhelming, this jury didn't make a quick decision as you would have expected to see if the case was, in fact, overwhelming. this jury was out for two days on the questions that it was presented with. and so what this shows is at -- during this pivotal time when it was obviously struggling to determine an answer to the question of whether or not mr. buck was or was not likely -- a likely danger it had in its , hands a piece of paper that validated evidence that came from both sides of the aisle in this case. justice ginsburg: do we know what the composition of the jury was in this case? ms. swarns: it's not in the records, your honor. our research that we have -- the

only thing we've been able to confirm on our own is that ten of the jurors were white. i don't know the race of the other two, and it's certainly not in the record. but ultimately i don't think it matters what the race of the jury is. this is evidence of an explicit appeal to racial bias. this is the kind of evidence that courts for over 100 years have said, once it is introduced, even just once, it's impossible to unring the bell. and the -- this is because this -- this evidence in this case spoke to the pivotal question of whether or not mr. buck would be executed. the future dangerousness question in texas was the prerequisite for a death sentence. if this jury did not find a future dangerousness, then mr. buck couldn't be executed. this evidence put the thumb heavily on the -- on the death scale, and particularly as it fit into the evidence in this case. as i said, texas presented three categories of evidence. the crime, the lack of remorse,

and the prior domestic violence, but nothing that texas presented spoke to the question of whether or not mr. buck was likely to commit criminal acts of violence if he was, in fact, sentenced to life in prison. they just didn't present any evidence on that subject. mr. buck, on the other hand, presented dr. lawrence, and dr. lawrence spoke exclusively -- you know, powerfully to the question of whether mr. buck was likely to commit criminal acts of violence if he were in prison, which was the only alternative to a death sentence that the jury was presented with. dr. lawrence -- justice alito: he killed people. you -- you said that the evidence of his dangerousness was limited to those with whom he had a romantic relationship, but he killed at least two people with whom he didn't have a -- he killed two people with whom he did not have a romantic relationship isn't that right? , ms. swarns: no. he killed -- justice alito: his stepsister? ms. swarns: no. she survived. justice alito: i'm sorry. alright. well, he shot her -- ms. swarns: yes, exactly.

and this is all clearly in the context -- absolutely, he did. there's no question about the fact that he shot his -- his sister. and -- but all of that was in this one sequence of events where it arises out of the breakdown of his relationship with his ex-girlfriend. and again, however, dr. lawrence presents evidence that the record is that mr. buck has a positive institutional adjustment history, that when he was previously incarcerated he -- previously incarcerated, he was held in minimum security, and that all of the crimes of violence that took place in the texas department of corrections in the prior year were committed by people who were getting involved, and there was no gang involvement here. so dr. lawrence's testimony highlights the shortcomings or the limitations in texas' case for future dangerousness, right? they say here we do have evidence that -- that goes beyond what texas has presented. and what fills the gap for texas, the only evidence that

texas has that says, he will be dangerous in that context, is dr. quijano's evidence that he has immutable characteristics which establishes that he will be dangerous no matter where he is. and i would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. keller. mr. keller: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we're here today defending the death sentence because petitioner murdered a mother in front of her children. he put a gun to the chest of his stepsister and shot her, and he murdered another man. chief justice roberts: i assume the facts -- i assume the facts in the other saldano cases are similarly heinous, the ones where the state determined that nonetheless that there was a risk that they would be sentenced to death because of their race. and i don't understand -- i understand the procedural differences in this case, but i don't understand why that

ultimate conclusion doesn't apply here as well. in other words, regardless of whether the evidence was admitted by the prosecution or by the defense, it would seem to me that the same concern would be present. mr. keller: there's a key distinction between when a government, a prosecuting authority, is introducing evidence of racist dangerousness. that would be the equivalent of using race as an aggravator. when the defense injects race, although we do not defend defense counsel's actions in injecting race into the proceeding -- justice kennedy: but the prosecutor revisited it, mr. keller, in cross-examination. mr. keller: to put that into context, the prosecutor did not go beyond the scope of direct. the prosecutor saw the expert report for the first time that day and had just reviewed it over the lunch hour. this is a ja154a and 165a. and the prosecutor is walking through all of the various factors that quijano had considered in his testimony, but it did not go beyond what was

elicited on direct. and to highlight an example in contrast, the alba case, in which we did confess error, there, the prosecutor mentioned race four times, and at closing said, quote, "and i went down all the indicators. they didn't want to talk about those indicators, but i did, and i forced the issue. he's male, he's hispanic," etc. that is in volume 28 of the trial -- justice ginsburg: doesn't -- doesn't the fact that petitioner's own counsel introduced this show how abysmal his representation was? i don't know why it should make a difference that the petitioner's counsel introduced this evidence. this evidence, everyone agrees, should not have -- not have come in. and -- and what -- what counsel would put that kind of evidence before a jury? what competent counsel would put that evidence before a jury? mr. keller: and we are not

defending defense counsel's actions. but the nature of that claim is a sixth amendment ineffective assistance claim that the court also reviews for prejudice. in the context of a prosecutor offering the testimony and using it as an aggravator, that would be an equal protection and due process violation. and the nature of the evidence coming in, in that instance , would be significantly highly prejudicial when the state is putting its in primata behind it and using it as an aggravator. justice sotomayor: why does it matter who uses race? i mean, in batson challenges, we don't care if the person exercising a racial challenge is the prosecutor or the defense attorney. we say neither should use race in a negative way against a defendant. so why is it different here? why is it okay or not okay for the prosecutor to introduce the greater likelihood of a person being dangerous on the basis of

race alone? not okay for the prosecutor, but it's less bad for the defense attorney to do it? mr. keller: yeah. to be clear, it's not okay. the issue, though, goes to the level of prejudice. and when defense counsel -- justice sotomayor: well, the level of prejudice is the reasonable possibility that if one juror, because texas uses if one juror does not agree with death, death is not imposed, correct? mr. keller: correct. justice sotomayor: so if one -- is it a reasonable possibility that one juror, even the one who sent the note that says, is it possible to do parole, life without parole, could have been convinced to exercise mercy if race wasn't used -- can you answer that question "absolutely not"? when, in at least one of the saldano cases, a man poured gasoline on a woman and watched

her die, we had a nation that was mortified, shocked, and completely traumatized by watching a pilot burn to death. so why is that crime any less heinous than this one? mr. keller: here, petitioner executed a mother when she was on her knees in front of her children with her daughter jumping on her -- justice sotomayor: i don't say it's not, but why is that heinousness so much greater that no jury could have exercised mercy? no juror. mr. keller: the standard in the standard in the strickland second-prong prejudice analysis is whether there is a substantial likelihood of a different outcome. as juan v. valmontez noted, the state doesn't have to rule out -- justice sotomayor: "reasonable probability" is the actual language, not "substantial." mr. keller: and harrington v. richter said, "the likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just

conceivable." it is 562 u.s. at 111. if i can address the jury deliberation point for a moment, the petitioner is correct the jury deliberated over the course of two days, but this is only for three hours and 13 minutes. this is at record 9 to 99. on the first day, the jury asked for the police reports and the psychology reports. on the second day, the jury asked to see the crime scene video. this is this was ja 210a, record 59 56 and record 33. so insofar as the court were to look at the circumstances of the jury's deliberations -- and i'm not sure that that is necessary for the court to do, but the inference to be drawn is in this cash is in those final 95 -- to be drawn is in those final 95 minutes before the jury returned a verdict to future dangerousness. it was looking at the crime scene video. chief justice roberts: i'm not sure how the quickness of the determination helps you at all, i mean, when one response would be, well, they had this evidence that he was, by virtue of his race, likely to be dangerous, so they didn't spend that much time on it. mr. keller: and the -- and the

argument here is that under these circumstances, when they were focused on the crime scene video, that that would have been what the jury -- justice breyer: we're not in the jury room. we do know that the prosecutor asked the expert witness, is it correct that the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons? and he says, yes. so that seems -- i mean, you can't prove it, that that was the key factor, but it seems like it could have been a substantial factor. and texas, in six cases, says this is totally wrong. and now in this seventh case, you're taking the opposite position. and i have to admit, like what the chief justice seemed, i don't understand the reason. it seems to me it proves the arbitrariness of what's going on. but regardless, the issue here is, is there some good reason why this person shouldn't have been able to reopen his case? i mean, that's the question.

what's the reason? i mean, after all, we later decided these other cases, martinez. his circumstances seem to fit martinez pretty much like a glove. the state certainly doesn't have a strong interest any more than in the other cases, or at least not obvious to me, some kind of reliance. so he has a case where martinez seems to apply. he couldn't -- he was diligent -- diligent, not much -- not too much reliance on the other side, and seems to meet martinez's criteria for hearing the issue. so is that -- why doesn't that make it extraordinary enough to reopen under rule 60(b)? that seems to me the question in the case. mr. keller: for two reasons, and both are controlled by gonzalez v. crosby. the first is that the only changed circumstance in this case since 2006 is the martinez and trevino change in the law. and the second is there was a

lack of diligence in pursuing this claim. an ineffective assistance claim was raised on federal habeas in the district court. the coa was not asked for on that claim. and the ineffective assistance claim also is not even raised in the first 60(b) motion. justice breyer: and all this took place after this court decided martinez and trevino? mr. keller: in the context of the second 60(b) motion. but i -- justice breyer: yeah, i mean, you listed a whole bunch of things in which he could have done. did those take place or not after we decided our case? if some of them did, which? mr. keller: the federal habeas petition asking for a coa and the first 60(b) motion were before martinez. but in gonzalez v. crosby, the court noted that there the petitioner was not pursuing the claim with diligence even before the change in the law. and the court said -- justice kagan: but he did exactly what you would have expected him to do. given that coleman was still on the books, you would have said it would be -- had been improper for him to ask for the relief

that you are now suggesting that he should have asked for. at least, it would have been futile with coleman still on the books. mr. keller: although the same would have been said under existing precedent in gonzalez v. crosby, there that the statue of limitations would have run. and so the essence -- justice kagan: isn't this substantially different than gonzalez? wasn't it important in gonzalez that the nature -- what the nature of the error was? in gonzalez, what the court said, the error is commonplace. people, lawyers misjudge time limits all the time. the one thing we know about this error is that it's not commonplace. even the two people who called the quitano as defense witnesses never themselves raised race as a cause -- as a reason for future dangerousness. only this attorney, who's been disciplined repeatedly for his malfeasance in representing

clients, who, one newspaper said if you want to ensure a death penalty, hire this lawyer -- in that situation, isn't this that rare case that gonzalez talked about? mr. keller: this is certainly an unusual case. and the standard for extraordinary circumstances in this posture, though, is not simply, would an appellate judge in the first instance conclude that, but did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to find extraordinary circumstances when gonzalez v. crosby is on the books? justice breyer: gonzalez v. crosby, to my understanding, involved a change in the aedpa statute of limitations. is that right? mr. keller: correct. justice breyer: as soon as i say those words, i'm confused. [laughter] justice breyer: i mean, there are all kinds of statutes of limitations, and this is one of them that the court said he didn't -- he didn't pursue the change diligently, and besides, it wasn't that big a deal, and not every interpretation of federal statute setting habeas

requirements provides cause for reopening cases long since filed, and the change was not extraordinary, and it was because in part of petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing it. so they have a whole list of reasons there. and as i read those reasons, i don't think one of them applies here. so which one applies here? mr. keller: well, insofar as the extraordinary circumstances analysis under 60(b) has been performed, i believe the fifth circuit was correct in that it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from the judgment. and when the facts of this case obviously have existed for over 20 years, there would be nothing new about raising that claim in a second rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment. and so in that sense, this is even further than gonzalez v. crosby where that was just a 60(b) motion. this is the second 60(b) motion. chief justice roberts: i understand your arguments on the merits, but do they apply equally to the certificate of appealability? i mean, you argue that you should prevail on the merits.

but the question on a certificate of appealability is whether there's been a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right. assuming you haven't already seen the analysis on the merits, and you're looking at this question for the first time before going through this analysis, wouldn't it seem pretty straightforward to say, okay, maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but at least he's made a substantial showing. let's give him a certificate of appealability, and then we'll go through the normal procedures on the merits? mr. keller: it's clearly a harder standard for us under the certificate of appealability standard, but even then, you'd be asking, would reasonable jurists debate whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to find extraordinary circumstances? chief justice roberts: well, that gets tougher and tougher. i mean, you're talking about reasonable jurists debate. okay. that's -- that's a very low threshold. but when you say reasonable jurists debate, whether there's been an abuse of discretion, i mean, abuse of discretion gives a broad range to the district court. and now you're asking, well, is there a reasonable person out

there who could debate that you ought to have deferred to that exercise of discretion? it seems to me, yes, it's a different standard, but it's quite a different standard. and the broader question here is whether the fifth circuit applies the wrong standard on a certificate of appealability, and it seems to me that if you're going to say, particularly when you are reviewing an abuse of discretion standard, that you're going to be able to look at and say, no, no, there's nothing substantial here. mr. keller: and i think this would be a difficult case to infer anything widespread from the fifth circuit's practice. just to put some context into the substantial process that was allowed here, the petitioner filed a 70-page opening brief. the state filed a 37-page response brief, and petitioner filed and moved to file a 35-page reply brief. and so this was also the third time that the fifth circuit had seen this case. chief justice roberts: yeah, i guess my question kind of cuts the other way. i am saying they go through -- yes, and you make the point, there was a substantial amount

of process. there was a long consideration. there was a lot of briefing. i would have thought the purpose of a certificate of appealability would be to make the decision to move forward without all that elaborate process? mr. keller: well, and the fifth circuit on occasion hears oral argument in considering whether to grant a coa in the capital posture insofar as the court would provide or believe that that is not the type of process that should be afforded at the coa stage in concurrence with aedpa -- justice sotomayor: oral argument -- oral argument on whether to grant the coa? mr. keller: yes. the fifth circuit on occasion -- this is page 50 and 51 of our respondent's brief -- will hear oral argument -- justice kagan: mr. keller, you know, some of the statistics that petitioner have pointed us to -- in capital cases, a coa is denied in 60% of fifth circuit cases as compared to 6% of 11th circuit cases, to roughly

-- two roughly similar circuits where coa's are denied in capital cases 10 times more in the fifth circuit. i mean, it does suggest one of these two circuits is doing something wrong. mr. keller: and the court has said that the coa should serve a gatekeeping function. the court has also noted that death is different. and at the same time, the fifth circuit is provided substantial process. now, insofar though as this court were to -- if it were going to conclude in this case that a coa should have issued, it -- any such decision, i think, would be limited to the unique facts of this case. and i don't think there's anything that could be drawn about the fifth circuit's wider practice in denying or granting coas, particularly in the capital posture when substantial process is being afforded. this was not a situation where the fifth circuit is simply ignoring these cases and ignoring these claims. quite the opposite. chief justice roberts: so is your suggestion that they deny more because they've taken up -- taken a more searching look at the merits than the other circuits?

mr. keller: i think it -- insofar as the statistics could be shown that there is, in fact, a different denial and grant rate, i think the level of process that the fifth circuit is receiving and -- and the quantum of argument may be going to those statistics, because the fifth circuit is not simply ignoring these claims. and even here -- justice kagan: but this is the whole point, really. they are not supposed to be doing what you do when you decide an appeal. i mean, they actually don't have jurisdiction to decide the appeal. i mean, they are supposed to be performing a gatekeeping function, not deciding the merits of the case. mr. keller: and i don't think what the fifth circuit did here was decide the merits. it correctly articulated the coa standard, and it examined the 11 facts that petitioner alleged as a basis for ruling on the 60(b) motion. now, five of those were essentially the underlying and effective assistance claim, and if the fifth circuit had -- justice sotomayor: it doesn't say anything to the fifth circuit that three state court

judges, two of their colleagues on the fifth circuit, two justices of this court, have said or found mr. buck's case debatable, because that's the standard. it's debatable. they are, they don't pause and say, you know, people have some basis for an argument here? this is not frivolous. this is a serious question. mr. keller: and the fifth circuit took these arguments seriously. and this is our response -- justice sotomayor: that's not the issue. they are supposed to decide whether to grant the coa or not on whether the questions are serious or not, debatable, not decide the merits. i know it can appear a fine line in some situations, but how do you justify saying that this is not debatable?

mr. keller: here the issue would be, could reasonable jurists debate whether the district court abused its discretion in finding extraordinary circumstances? and so, while the reasonable jurist standard is lower, that's balanced, though, against the more deferential abuse of discretion standard and the heightened extraordinary circumstances standard that this court has noted will rarely be met in the habeas context. in our brief, we present a few examples of courts finding extraordinary circumstances. that would be when counsel wholly abandons a petitioner, or a prison guard actively thwarts a petitioner filing a habeas petition. now, we don't mean to suggest those are the only instances in which that can give rise to -- justice ginsburg: were there -- were there extraordinary circumstances in the other cases? in the other five cases? mr. keller: in the other five cases in which the state confessed error? justice ginsburg: yes. mr. keller: well, there we admit that since the prosecution was the one that was eliciting the race-based testimony, that that

would go to a -- a due process and equal protection violation, and that would be an extraordinary circumstance -- justice kagan: but if you said that that's because those -- that's -- it's more prejudicial when the prosecution introduces this? is that what you said -- mr. keller: yes. justice kagan: -- to justice ginsburg? that -- that's your basic theory? mr. keller: the state was using it as an aggravator. justice kagan: yeah. but -- and -- and that makes it more prejudicial. that's your basic theory? mr. keller: both points. the state -- justice kagan: because i don't -- i guess if there's both points, tell me what the other point is, because i guess i just don't understand that point. but it seems more prejudicial when the defense attorney uses it. i mean, prosecution, you have a jury sitting there, and it realizes the prosecution has an interest in convicting a person and in getting a -- a sentence that the prosecution wants, so everything is discounted a little bit. but when your own -- when the defendant's own lawyer introduces this, the jury is going to say, well, it must be true. even the defendant's lawyer thinks that this is true. so you know, who am i to -- to argue with that?

it seems wildly more prejudicial to me when the defense attorney introduces it. mr. keller: except it's not the case here that quijano was only testifying about race. quijano said that it would be unlikely the petitioner would be a future danger. and so quijano's ultimate conclusion, in multiple other aspects of his testimony, was favorable to petitioner, as petitioner conceded. and so in that circumstance, the prejudice would not be nearly as great as when the state is injecting race into a proceeding. justice alito: i didn't think that your primary argument had to do with the -- the relative prejudice of having it done by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. i thought your argument was that the state of texas feels a certain -- feels a special responsibility when one of its employees engages in this misconduct. and when the -- when the evidence is introduced by the defendant's attorney, it's an ineffective assistance-of-counsel question, and it has to be adjudicated under the strickland test. mr. keller: that's absolutely correct. and then when you look at the aggravating evidence of

executing a mother in front of her children and laughing about it, and saying that the mother, "got what she deserved," and when we put in evidence from ex-girlfriend -- this is a ja127a -- of repeatedly beating her and threatening her with a gun, all of those go to whether there would in fact be prejudice under the sixth amendment, ineffective -- justice kagan: yes. and the legal question here, right, is whether this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which has never been heard by any court, is a strong one? and a strong one including that the ineffective assistance here is likely to be prejudicial, which it seems as though it's -- it's more, it's far more likely to be prejudicial when the defense counsel does it. mr. keller: justice kagan, when the state is the one injecting race into a proceeding, that's using it as an aggravator. and if the court will -- justice kagan: people expect the state to use whatever aggravators it has at hand. now, people don't expect the

state to do something as improper as this, but the people understand that not everything the prosecution says about a defendant, you know, that people -- the jurors should -- should think about those claims seriously because the prosecution has interests of its own. but the defense counsel's interests are supposed to be with the defendant. i'm just repeating myself. if the defense counsel does it, i mean, you know, who is the jury to complain? mr. keller: well, this court, i don't believe, has ever recognized a situation in which a defense counsel's act could give rise to structural error or per se prejudice. and any such rule, i believe, would invite gamesmanship. of course, the prejudice analysis can still be done, but to say that it would be per se prejudicial, i think it would have to be balanced against the aggravating evidence, and in the context of quijano testifying helpfully to petitioner, that there would be an unlikely event of it being a future danger. chief justice roberts: what is

the relationship between the ruling on prejudice with respect to ineffective assistance and the 60(b) analysis? i mean, do you agree that if we disagree with your submission on prejudice under strickland, that your 60(b) analysis kind of falls apart? mr. keller: i -- chief justice roberts: clearly the underlying claim on the merits would be stronger, and -- and it would be a lot more extraordinary under 60(b). mr. keller: it is a factor that could be considered in doing the extraordinary circumstances analysis, because if there were extraordinary circumstances that were going to justify, really, from the judgment, that would be a factor in the totality of the circumstances the court would be that could consider in doing that analysis. if there are no further questions, we'd ask the court to affirm the judgment of the fifth circuit. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. ms. swarns, you have four minutes remaining. ms. swarns: this court has long recognized that the integrity of

the courts requires unceasing events to eradicate racial prejudice from our criminal justice system. that commitment is as urgent today as at any time in our nation's history. duane buck's case requires meaningful federal review of his claim that his trial counsel knowingly introduced an expert opinion that he was more likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future, a certificate of appealability should certainly issue. with respect to -- to texas's arguments, i want to begin by that, first of all, this court in georgia v. mccollum did make clear, as i think justice sotomayor noted, that the equal protection concerns that are implicated by the introduction of race into the criminal justice system absolutely are triggered by defense counsel's conduct. and certainly that was a situation where defense counsel exercised preemptory challenges based on race. and in that circumstance, that was actually an exercise of peremptory challenges intended

to benefit the client, right? they were trying to strategically gain advantage by using a race-based peremptory challenges. here, we have trial counsel making an inexplicable decision to introduce -- a knowing, and inexplicable, decision to introduce race. this is certainly worse and more aggravating for mr. buck. i would also like to just be clear that the prosecution's reliance on dr. quijano's testimony here was real. this wasn't a circumstance where the prosecutor was required to follow up on dr. quijano's opinion and -- and reiterate it on cross-examination, and then go further and argue in closing that the jury should rely on dr. quijano to find mr. buck likely to commit criminal acts of violence, and further argue that the jury should disregard the aspects of dr. quijano's opinion that conflicted with a finding of future dangerousness.

when texas did its -- its review of -- of death row after it conceded error in saldano, it looked through all of the cases on death row to see what else was contaminated by dr. quijano's racist criminal violence opinion. and one of the other cases it looked at and ruled out was the anthony graves case, which demonstrates the options that were available to this prosecutor under these circumstances. in the anthony graves case, dr. quijano was called as a defense witness, just like he was here. in the anthony graves case, the defense elicited dr. quijano's race as criminal violence opinion on direct examination, just as here. but the difference is, in the graves case, the prosecutor did not reiterate it on direct examination, and -- and then in closing, argued that the jury should disregard dr. quijano's opinion. the prosecutor here absolutely capitalized on trial counsel's error. there is just no question about

that. they made a choice that, you know, they could have gone the graves route, but this prosecutor chose to go through the door that was opened by trial counsel and rely on dr. quijano's race as criminal violence opinion. counsel for texas also notes that the last note that the jury sent out was a request to review the crime scene video, which is absolutely true, but it means that the last two notes that this jury looked at -- the two -- two things that they asked for, right, was the expert's report. so we now have the race, and then we have the crime. this is exactly the circumstance that this court addressed in turner. right? you have the facts of the crime that trigger this racialized fear of violence and raised the real risk of an arbitrary death sentencing decision, and then you have the report which compounds that risk because it gives a defense expert scientific imprimatur to that pernicious group-based stereotype. so that is further evidence of

prejudice to mr. buck. last, i would just be clear that when mr. buck litigated his first 60(b) motion, coleman, as -- as texas has acknowledged, stood as an unqualified bar. there was no opportunity, before martinez was announced, for him to argue. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> with the supreme court back in session, we have a special webpage for you to follow the court. you will see the calendar for the term, a list of all current justices and with supreme court video on demand, watch oral arguments and recent c-span appearances by supreme court justices at c-span.org. you can find more road to the white house coverage on c-span, the candidates

including the vice presidential speaking around the country. indiana governor mike pence will be in north carolina, speaking in a few minutes at 1:00 eastern time here on c-span. and the democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton will be in detroit for a campaign rally. we will take that live on c-span 2. and jonathan martin treating an update about the conference call house republicans are holding after paul's -- paul ryan said he would not be supporting or campaigning on behalf of donald trump. he came back to clarify to angry n-endorsingis not u donald trump. you can read more in the new york times. >> 2016 coverage with live debates.

eastern, utah's congressional district race, followed by arizona between john mccain and ann kirkpatrick. on tuesday evening at 7:00, north carolina's governor debate andeen right victory -- these two debate for utah. on thursday, in the afternoon, pennsylvania eight congressional district between brian fitzpatrick and the democrat. and ross debate for north carolina. on friday at the clock eastern, wisconsin u.s. senate debate between ron johnson and democratic senator russ feingold. then the nevada u.s. senate.

watch the campaign coverage on c-span and online and listen on the radio out. app.dio. > we got to hear from viewers. we will talk about that and then go to the gop vice president. in charlotte. host: let's begin with the first one. what did you think of the debate? jimmy, and ime is am the president of the college democrats. i am a chinese major. i watched the debate with the staff in the media center here. it was a night to remember. host: what sticks out in your mind? he was supposed to get any undecided voters left. but he failed to demonstrate himself as a leader.

he was petty, debated with the moderator, and spent his time talking to the moderator while hillary clinton spoke to the audience. she presented herself clearly and precise. were you a hillary clinton supporter going in? caller: yes. host: do you think she answered the question about her speeches to wall street effectively enough to convince young people like yourself who were worried about her relationship with wall street, and that is why she was supporting senator sanders? caller: the idea that hillary clinton has a millennial problem is a misnomer. seeou look around, you can a lot of people support hillary clinton in the background. a little bit of a sore throat.

i think it is a little distraction. russia wants a donald trump policy. like? hat was it this was the fifth time washington university has hosted a debate. what was it like for you? caller: i am grateful we had the privilege to host the debate. never cementing for civic and make -- engagement has never been greater. i have happy to have been a part of it at my senior year here, get involved. i will remember it for the rest of my life. host: thank you for being here. we will get in some more students as we continue throughout "washington journal, having a conversation with all of you. let you know how you think it went last night.

you can tell we are less than a month away from election day. what do you think your candidate did last night? caller: i think she was absolutely calm, cool regardless of the pettiness. she left off some of the issues -- he caught her in the pettiness, basically. she brought a couple of things that was wrong with him. they need to understand he is a businessman. he has shown time and time again he only is interested in mining his pocket. if you can cost him just trust him over a politician, that is the problem. if you have to pick between two untrustworthy type of people, you would rather pick between both of them, we need to understand she has only done what has been asked of her or

has only done what other people have been involved with. it is not just her. kim is a businessman, it is all him. his big economy, everything is on him. that is what people need to understand, he is a business man, not a politician. host: greg supporting third-party candidate in chattanooga, tennessee. you are on the air. caller: i have had a whole , greta.f look at things the way i see it, and the way the american public can really change the paradigm in the way of thinking, he stands for -- trump stands for americanism. that last caller and the college caller, bless your heart, you are indoctrinated. people go to college to learn to hate the united states.

hillary is a globalist, people. kissinger. soros, he is all about americanism. he doesn't have to be the president. he has got funny of money. people have to do this for money. he loves the country. greta: what about his comments with vladimir putin, saying he is a stronger leader than our president? caller: have you watched. ? he has been trying to tell our nato we have been putting up against his border, trying to force him into nuclear war. that is what the new world order is trying to do right now, as we speak. that is nothing a danger. it will kill all of us. greta: greg in tennessee. what do you have? we have third-party supporters. let's wrap up comments as they

are watching the debate. we mentioned. 92 minutes of policy and mudslinging. if you are interested, join the discussion. jill stein, green party during the debate. a real debate would include for supportes to win as 76% calling for the debate to be open to the third-party candidates or the third debate to be open. -- theyted the debates are the least trusted, not a good use of viewers time. and relief from the johnson well , they wrote that there could be a press conference deflecting from his own misogyny trying to

convince us clinton is the worst. we know everything we need to know, and this campaign. we have fallen through the looking glass. they are running on a platform of not being the other. we are uninspiring. you can hear more from jill stein and the libertarian candidate for president gary johnson here on c-span beginning at 8:00 tomorrow. we will be joined by gary johnson from santa fe, new mexico. that will be live on c-span and c-span radio. then we are joined the jill stein at 10:00. she and her running mate will be here in d.c.. greta: new york, undecided. caller: hi, how are you this morning? greta: thank you. aren't apparently people

paying attention during these debates. i thought bill clinton was fair game on what he did to women, but are they understanding what happened? he raped a 12-year-old child, and hillary as an attorney defended her husband and got him off probably by paying the family money so it would go away . i will try to remind the women out there, if you elect hillary clinton, you are returning a pedophile to the white house. the other thing is on the e-mails, this woman was under a subpoena not to destroy evidence before she didn't, -- did it, and i think you know the story. all the people that have worked for her have taken the fifth amendment. you take that when you know you are going to get caught, so you say, i refuse to answer. they all know the fix was in, loretta lynch and bill clinton

met for 39 minutes on the tarmac to make sure all this stuff went down. wake up, you are being lied to again like in the next and -- nixon administration, but it is being done by obama. it is time -- time to change the people in the country. greta: this is from political act. donald trump wrongly said hillary clinton laughed at a 12-year-old rape victim. new mixed up what happened. he offered a confusing matchup was -- matchup of unsavory accusations as he talked about bill clinton with a grain of death claim of hillary clinton's attitude when she discussed her defense of a man rate in 1975. [reading]

he ultimately pleaded guilty, receiving a year in jail and four years provision -- probation. to a 1914red to us, uncoveredcle which audio recordings of clinton. the beacon says they date from 1983 to 1987. she calls it a terrible case and fascinating case for reasons that become clear. she is laughing at several points that doesn't say she was

laughing at the victim as trump claims. this is in political act. our ruling, after she helped a man accused of raping a 12-year-old, -- trump is referring to, they say they rate this claim false. that is politicized for you to read your as we go to the website. stephen in north hampton, pennsylvania. supporting mr. trump. good morning. right: i have been voting out of high school, working in the factory environment since then. what i have been following with the current eventscurrent eventy campaign coming to even local elections, i find that the people who speak out against the democratic party are considered not worthy of any type of opinion. he board in the media zones. and what i'm seeing in america

for the past couple of years since 1980, i've seen a down turn. now, i've watched every presidential debate since then. there's one thing that i picked out that donald trump actually does whenever he speaks. he speaks to the people, not at them. and he doesn't refer to the people who aren't in his ampaign or otherwise deplorable, like clinton clinton did. now, you take that accusation, and you throw that out to the american people. if somebody is calling the american public a deplorable or doesn't agree with them, they are the ones causing the cancerous rumor from their campaign, and it just turns the american people off. what i fear the most in this country is that the people, like myself, with a high school education or even less had been

rown down on to the ground too many times. we see it. we talk about it at our jobs. we talk about it outside the work. now, i just came back from north carolina, and i went through all the states through the delmarva. i have never seen so much support and signs for one candidate since ronald reagan. and i think the american public should wake up to world problems instead of worrying about tapes and crap being thrown up by the media who supports the clinton campaign machine. host: ok. let me move to mississippi. tristan is supporting mr. trump. good morning to you. i understand you're 11? caller: yes, i am. i'm up. host: good morning. did you watch the debate? caller: oh, yes, i watched most of it. host: ok. and why are you supporting mr. trump? caller: because i think we need more jobs over here, because

there aren't that many jobs where i live. 's a small town, and there aren't that many jobs, and some people -- i think he'd bring more jobs because he's also a businessman. so if he can bring more jobs over here, that would be great, because there are some people in certain parts of the united states that don't -- they either don't have a good job or they don't have a job at all. so if he can bring some more jobs over here, then that would be great. host: tristan, so what's it like in your town, in mississippi? caller: it's pretty small. it's pretty small over here. host: and what happened to the obs there? caller: well, there aren't that many businesses over here.

scommoip do you think donald trump's business record, him being a businessman, could help your community? caller: yes, ma'am. scommoip are your parents supporting mr. trump, too? caller: yes. my sister don't like him, don't like him very much. host: she doesn't. so there's a house divided. caller: yes, ma'am. host: well, tristan, thank you for watching our show this morning, and for calling in and sharing your comments with us. we appreciate that. all right, let's get more from john this morning. john, good morning. go ahead. john: good morning, greta. a lot of focus since the release of that tape that has caused so much attention on donald trump's support, specifically among christian conservatives and evangelicals. most prominent christian conservatives who have been supporting trump standing by him, including tony perkins of the family research council. some of the tweets last night

from christian conservatives as well during the debate, here's david brody, a journal west the christian broadcasting network. he said donald trump won the debate overall, focused for 90 minutes, hits major trigger points. clinton on the defensive much of the night. he went on to say it was fascinating that donald trump went in on the defense, but turned the tables on hillary clinton. we still have a race is what he said. one evangelical leader that's making news today is wayne gruden. he's one of the most influential christian conservative backers, and he pulled his support, his endorsement for donald trump on sunday. sheer the column from townhall.com. i'll read the beginning of it for you. there's no morally food presidential candidate in this election. i previously called on donald trump -- called donald trump a good candidate with flaws, and a flawed candidate, but i now regret i did not more strongly condemn his moral character. i cannot commend his emotional character, and i strongly urge

him to withdraw from the election. his vulgar comments in 2005 about his sexual aggression and assault against women were morally evil and revealed pride in conduct that violates god's command that you shall not commit adultery. that's wayne depruden's column making headlines today. scommoip governor pence right now on cnn, telling them that it's absolutely false that he considered dropping out of this race over the weekend. and the conservative newspaper, "the wall street journal" editorial board, trump's last stand. they write this morning that we prefer mr. pence as president, too, they write, but this election isn't about us. it's about the american public and the millions of dollars who put mr. trump on the ballot. republicans would find it very difficult to replace mr. trump at this late stage of the race unless mr. trump agrees to voluntarily recede. on saturday he said there's zero chance i'll quit. if mr. trump can turn his campaign around and won't withdraw, then republicans have

difficult choices. can't be planned for breaking from mr. trump if this is what their consciences demand or if that is the best path to political survival this year. the conservatives this weekend show the trouble mr. trump is in. republicans running for the house and senate will have to mobilize voters with an argument that they need them as a choke hillary clinton. her domestic agenda is to the left of president obama's. a nancy pelosi house would implement it. if this sounds like damage control, that's where the g.o.p. may soon be. lee, you're supporting hillary clinton in brooklyn. you're on the air. good morning. what did you think of the debate? caller: oh, i was surprised that donald kept it together for the whole time. i've been listening to donald trump spout baloney for 30 years here in brooklyn and new york. and i want to tell the american

people, we in new york, we see him as just a total gas bag. he will lie. it's all about ego for him. as far as a moral center, this man has no moral center. it's all about self-promotion. he will step on anybody to get what he wants, because that's what it's about. it's not about -- and as far as im being a businessman, that's a joke. nobody near new york will do business with him, because he breakups his company. you know, he's had -- because he bankruptcies his company. he's had six bankruptcies the last time i checked, and the banks won't even talk to him unless he has a cosigner to anything. because he walks out and he leaves them sitting there with 10 cents. the one time he floated his

company on the stock exchange, the opening the one cost per sh $35. these poor people put their money in there, in their pensions, to this $35 stock, and, you know, donald talked up his stock, was going to go through the roof. well, when it finally closed two years later, it was worth 17 cents per share. now, if you figure from $35 to 17 cents, and that hit all and pension rs funds and said, hey, i'm a businessman, i'm the best, you know, i'm going to do wonders for you, but, you know, we in new york here, there's a reason donald has never been mayor or senator or congressman or governor from new york. host: ok, understood. let me show our viewers what the new york papers have on their front pages this morning. "the daily news" out of new york, "grab a seat, loser" is what they put on their front

page. trump's vile comments take center stage, help hand hillary another debate win is what they believe. and then as we showed you before, "the new york post" there in new york, trump, if i win, i'd lock her up, jail to the chief. town brawl gets vicious. that is the front page of the "new york post" this morning. north carolina, good morning. hi, shari. caller: hi. how are you? host: doing well. what did you think of the debate? you're supporting a third-party candidate. who is it? caller: well, i was. i'm an ex-republican. i voted for reagan, and then clinton, and, of course, bush, and until 9/11, i was a republican. and i'm now independent. and i have been on the line trying to figure out -- i was looking towards johnson, but johnson will get us in trouble. he doesn't know enough about security matters. you know, he just cannot be a

president. 've got to say that i, as an ex-republican, i just am appalled at the fact that it took this pace for people to say something that they've done all along. i don't care if you're a republican, independent, or democrat. we've known for months and months that this man had no moral character. he's gone through one woman after another, and then he has also bankrupt all these businesses and left the middle man hurting. he said last night he was going to take care of the middle class when, if you go online and just look, he's making it even better for the top 1%. he said hillary clinton was going to rob -- just fact check, people. fact check. host: ok, and there's plenty of sites to go to. politifact has a website. "washington post" does fact checking, the "new york times," etc.

you can look at all the claims made last night by each of them and see how the fact checkers who investigate the records, what they say about whether or not those claims are false, true, mostly true, but mislead being, etc., you know the ratings. you can go find them out. let's hear from a trump supporter. alan in atlanta, georgia. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a lifetime republican that will not vote for president in the next election. i'll just leave that section blank. host: so why did you call in on the supporting donald trump line? caller: because i do support some of his ideas, but he's so far over the top that i just cannot in good conscience vote for either candidates as they're both derble. my question is why. the answer, which is never discussed on c-span, is that our problem is that we have primaries.

the primaries are not part of our constitution that originated in the late 19th century. so each party, both the republican and the democratic party, could ditch candidates that they didn't want. few people vote in the pry marches, so they're the ones -- in the primaries, so they're the ones who actually decide who's going to the president, not the general public. if we had all the major candidates on stage for these debates, neither of these two candidates would stand a chance, but we're stuck with them. host: in the primary, who was your candidate? caller: kasich. he's the only one who's sane. i would have voted for ted cruz, but he's turned into a real politician, and he's now being cowered by the republican party. they would not let him run as a republican if he doesn't support trump, so he's backed down and now he's tacitly supporting trump. host: what did you make of governor kasich saying over the weekend that he cannot support him anymore, will not endorse

him, will not voted for him? caller: well, he's like many people who vote republican or democrats. they just won't vote. they'll hold their noses and they'll vote for the least attractive of the two. they'll vote against a candidate. they won't vote for candidates. they'll vote against them. host: the remarks there in georgia. let's get another student from washington university in, go back up there, where spab span man hanging out there. the c-span bus has been there since friday. by the way, this is a private university, and as we said before, fifth time hosting a presidential debate. good morning to you. what did you think of last night's debate? caller: hi. thanks for having me. i'm a graduate student here in chemical engineering, and i'm co-founder and co-director of missouri youth trump, the fficial outreach organization. the atmosphere was absolutely

electric. we are all over the performance. you were in a room with the staffers, telling us some of the names that people know. stick out to you? >> the points that stick out for his talk finitely about bringing back secretary clinton. it has been rough weekend for campaign, i'll be first to admit that. bringing back to clinton was wanted to hear and the pivot we talked wasn't talked in the media. the tape was a giant -- music to our ears. heather on behalf ou working on mr. trump in missouri?

what is the ground game like there? guest: the ground game is strong. we have been knocking on doors, banking, doing social media outreach, the kind of in a traditional campaign. ost: what do you think about get to middle -- down the road moderate, there is americans? what do you think? guest: i can speak a little bit small town, from a very small town, traditionally economy. a union we used to have a lot of factories, a lot of traditional where people are blue-collar dems. gone by inesses have the wasteside, moved to right to businesses or the have simply closed up shop in st. louis. i have talked to a lot of people, obviously i still go

them have lot of switched th allegiances to mr. because they feel something there, sort of an amazing thing. a billionaire from new york that is connecting with people on the ground, people who jobs, people who have had t >> we take you live now to charlotte, north carolina, for remarks by republican vice presidential nominee mike pence. ♪

pence: it is so good for my wife and i to be here with you today. just a few short months ago, i accepted my party's nomination to run and serve as the next vice president of the united states of america. robin knows me well enough to know the introduction i prefer is a little bit shorter. i am a christian, a conservative, and a republican in that order. it's an honor to be here with you. let me encourage you in that vein and to remember our neighbors and friends. fayetteville, lumberton, all across north carolina.

your good governor pat mccoury. the wayu so much for that he and all of you have responded to hurricane matthew. that it has been an interesting few days. but i got to tell you. i joined this campaign in a heartbeat. the winner, we will make america great again. strong.

loving. it takes a big man to know when he's wrong. and have the humility to be transparent and vulnerable. ae fact that i say i'm christian.

what i made of everything. opportunity. and my faith informs me to hold up a godly standard and we are inspired to live godly lives. and we all fall short. we all fall short of the glory of god. there is no one righteous other than the one. as i said last weekend, i don't condone what was said and i spoke out against it. grace.ve in

i have received it and i believe in it. i believe in forgiveness. we are called to forgive as we have been forgiven. and last night, my running mate show the american people within his heart. he showed humility to the american people and he fought to thed turned the focus choice that we face and i am proud to stand with donald trump. i've got to tell you, everybody. just --ction is not it's not just a choice between two people. it's a choice between two futures.

i choose a stronger america at home and abroad. i choose a more prosperous america. i choose in america that stands up for the constitutional principles that made this nation great. with donaldstand trump and every american who believes we can make america great again. because despite all the distractions, this election really is about big things. it truly is. it's about security. . theabout prosperity supreme court in the united states and having the highest standards of integrity in the highest office in the land. questions,t to your let me walk you through those big issues. the dend to get lost in of whatever the media is sauce for vet on any particular day.

we are the issues i believe matter most of the american people. the ones in need you to talk to your neighbors and friends about in the next 29 days. first on the subject of security. ofpite traveling millions miles is our secretary of state, the world is more dangerous today than the day that barack obama and hillary clinton took over our foreign policy. our allies are less secure. our enemies are more emboldened. we will not have former years apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends. it is so important to understand. seven and a half years of barack obama and hillary clinton has weakened america's place in the world and resulted in the middle east virtually spinning apart. the number one priority hillary

clinton expressed was a reset with russia. shortly after she hit that little red button in the press conference, a newly emboldened russia invaded the ukraine and took over crimea. foothold.a it is extreme narrative think of the failure of this administration. they are testing nuclear weapons . history teaches us that weakness arouses people. that theump and i know weakness of the foreign policy, leading from behind, moving red lines. arerise and rule of isis all testament to this truth of history.

it was hillary clinton that initiated the disastrous again -- agreement in orio iran. her running mate was boasting of the agreement. in congress, i worked to pass punishing sanctions on iran. permanently abandoning nuclear ambitions. transferred $150 billion to the iranians only for a delay. and once the agreement comes off, no restrictions will be in place.

it was the deal that resulted in delivering on the day that for americans were released from captivity, $400 million in cash delivered on a pallet is a ransom payment. they will be paying a price. they threaten harm against our people. it was hillary clinton and barack obama who failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement and iraq. pulled all american forces out of the hard-fought gains that literally created a vacuum in which the murderous and organizationrorist isis was able to overrun vast areas that had been hard-won by the american soldier.

there are heroes in our mitts that served in operation iraqi freedom. operation enduring freedom. would anyone who is worn the uniform of the united states of america, would you stand or raise your hand and allow us to thank you for your service to the united states of america? it breaks my heart to think of the hard-fought gains and securitys made to win in iraq by 2009 in the way it was squandered. in the american soldiers called on again to win back what it already had one.

it was hillary clinton and her state department that left americans in harms way and benghazi. fell,ter for americans she told the families of the of an that it was a result filmmaker in florida. i'm going to be with dorothy woods tonight at another stop. when hillary clinton was about what she had said to the families, she told whatenate committee, difference, at this point, does it make? as a proud father of the united states marine, anybody who said that,anybody who did should be disqualified from ever serving as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the united states of america.

i mean it. for the world to be safe, america needs to be strong. we have the smallest number of ships since 1916. downar fighter say we need to 23. the average is 27 years. older than the men and women that we charge to fly them. america to be strong, the world be safe, donald trump will lead on the world stage with american strength. we will restore the arsenal of democracy. we will rent you our allies and we will hunt down and destroy isis and any organization that

threatens our people on our shores. it's probably why more than 160 people have endorsed donald trump to be the next commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the united states. it truly is extraordinary. is security at home and abroad. it has been a challenging time in the life of men and women in our communities, large and small , who protect our families. it's an awful lot of members of the community here with us today. joining me in showing your appreciation for the men and women who serve in law enforcement here in north carolina and all over the united states?

[applause] thank you all. not a promise use the chief law enforcement officer, a president donald trump will stand with the men and women in law enforcement at every level and will give them the resources and the tools they need to protect our families and go home safe to theirs. and we will restore law and order to every city and every community in this nation. and an awful lot of police know that. that is why the largest police officers union in america

endorsed donald trump to be the next president of the united states. it's also about prosperity. i will tell you not because of it. it is the largest since the 1970's. since barack obama became president of the united states -- the september jobs report came out. economy in theul

world produced 150,000 jobs and unemployment ticked up. their answer is more of the same. more taxes, more regulation, more of the war on american energy that is stifling american growth. they tell us it's the best we can do. the patient. it will eventually work its way out. it is the best they can do. when donald trump becomes get this, we will economy moving again and we will put north carolinians back to work. we will put people back to work across the country. we will do what ronald reagan

wanted. small businesses and family farms, we will get rid of the state taxes once and for all and iner business taxes here north carolina so companies in this state can create and grow jobs. donald trump is going to sign a moratorium on any new federal will repeal we every single obama executive order that is stifling jobs. and after years, the war on coal will come to a crashing halt.

we will develop in all of the above energy strategy that will drive a more prosperous american future with low-cost energy for every american. and we will take the advice of hillary clinton's husband. dear what he said the other day? he said obamacare was "the craziest thing in the world." bill clinton finally said something i can agree with. costs are up, coverage is down, you heard hillary clinton. i don't know what she answers that question two. do something about something. will repeal said we obama care, lock, stock, and barrel.

we will start with lowering the cost of health insurance instead of growing the size of government. when donald trump becomes negotiator in chief -- you with me on that? who will have trade deals that work for the american worker. we will drive a hard bargain and renegotiate nafta so it works in the long term for the american economy. we will get our of this multinational deal and hold trading partners accountable. trade needs jobs and it will mean american jobs. for years, we have had fundamental problems.

it is amazing to think after the failed policies, hillary clinton is essentially running on a promise for a third obama term. no aspect of our lives too small for washington dc to want to become involved. there is no provision of the .onstitution let's remind each other of one more important point. while the president will serve a four-year term, that president will likely to find the destiny of the supreme court for the next 40 years. and we better think long and hard about that.

she is just the hit parade legislating from the bench. they will have strict constructionists that will uphold the constitution from the highest court in the land in the tradition of the late and great justice and 10 in scalia -- antonin scalia a. . they will uphold the constitution and interpret it without legislating from the bench. lawthe sake of the rule of and the sake of the constitution. for the sake of the sanctity of life. for the sake of our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. we must decide that the next appointmentsl make

to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. you've got to decide that, north carolina. it is about security at home and abroad. it's about prosperity and the highest court in the land. it's also about having the highest standards of integrity. i was proud of my running mate the media continues to ignore the avalanche of controversies and corruptions coming out of the years of the clintons. particularly when she was secretary of state.

make sure we have this for the neighbors and friends. third ranking constitutional aficial, her family had private foundation that accepted millions of dollars. and in between those two things, she had a private server. when it was found out by the new york times and congress made inquiries, she used high technology and hammers to destroy e-mails and evidence. i'm old enough to remember when the president erased 18 and a half minutes of tape and ran out of town.

hillary clinton erased 18,000 e-mails we're still waiting to hear about. just incredible. that doesn't tell my politics as usual, it sounds like obstruction and the american people are sick and tired of it. they are not having any of it. in the midst of the last several days, there is a lot of attention on other issues. it was the wall street speeches bernie sanders was so interested in. behind closed doors in the turks released late friday.

she told donors that to be successful politically, you have to have both a public and private position. when she was asked about that on television, we got a lecture about abraham lincoln. did you see that? as a member of the party of lincoln, i would prefer of dishonest hillary did not associate herself if honest abe. his another excerpt. speaking to a brazilian bank. this is a next up from her speech. it is a hemisphere, and market with open trade and open borders.

just in case you're trying to interpret everything she said about health care reform last , she gave a speech in canada where she said her goal was to have a health care system like you have here in canada. hillary, we don't want socialized medicine in america. that's what they have in canada. we want medicine and health care that is built on the free market on consumer choice and the ability to choose your doctor that is the american way. for the sake of our security,

the sake of prosperity, the sake of the highest office in the land, the sake of deserving and , we musttruth teller decide here and now in north carolina that hillary clinton will never become president of the united states of america. if has got to the decision. with this, i will close. there are so many things that divide us these days. i will get up and turn on the television with the stick. i'm new to this level. high wire without a net. but i'm honored to be here and i am honored you would come out to see me today. it blesses my heart.

there are so many things. i want to tell you about donald trump and me. there'll always be more that statesus in these united than will ever divide the great people of this nation. i truly believe it. it has a lot to do with faith, god, and the american dream. he was considering a long list of listing wished men and women.

to know the family, i've not only got the boss traveling along with me today -- but where did she go? i also have our daughter charlotte with us. a recent college graduate who has a job. as we got to the trumps, i found out that we shared some things. my grandfather immigrated to this country from ireland when he was my son's age. they both came through ellis island. his dad was a self-made man that built a business with his bare hands. built everything that matters. a family, a business, a good name.

.y dad ran gas stations they said when they started out, they didn't have two nickels to b together but they had more than that when he left us a few years ago. much is given and much will be required. it meant the kid went to manhattan island. started to build the big buildings in the sky, right? for me, it was a calling to public service. ther imagining i could be governor of our state or conceiving the fact i could be standing before you good people today. , other thane often a lot of zeros, we have a lot in common. a lot.

and we both believe in the american dream. because we have lived it. our families lived it. i hope you leave this town hall meeting today and go tell somebody. go tell somebody about the choice we face on security and the economy and prosperity. and the high standards of integrity and public life. i hope you also tell them that you've got to people that are tong to fight every day revive the american dream for every american regardless of race or creed, or color, or gender, or area code, or income. we will fight to bring the american dream back to life for everyone in this nation, so help us god.

it's not just faith in the american dream and the other kind of faith. it is a challenging time in the life of our nation. country in a lot of trouble. and it cannot be met with ordinary effort. i believe this is a time to do all we can. if you are inclined to bow the head and been many, it's a good time to pray for this country. i'm not so much talking about winning and losing. they are called by his name.

they will heal our land. one god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. i encourage you to tell somebody. this is an a choice between two people on a stage last night. i don't know about you in north carolina.

a lot of times, there is not a dime's worth of difference between republican and democrat, right? this is in such a time. we will continue to go downhill toward a weaker world. a week or american economy. and whether we are going to ,top, plantar feet, turn around and march back up the hill. it is a choice between up and down. the american people i know, if we do our work, we will choose

freedom, strength, and make donald trump the next president of the united states of america. let's go get it done, north carolina. thanks, everybody. thanks for letting me get it off my chest. thatestly believe sometimes you got to pay more careful attention to what you already know. i hope the words of shared -- i have shared will align with your lives. it is your turn. the time we have remaining, share with me your first name and be happy to respond to your questions.

what is your first name? >> and rihanna howard. i am from greece. there.uff happening over i am angry because i am 60 years old. but my husband and i, we lost our insurance after so many years. i would like to continue my health and everything. goingo keep myself because i'm afraid of something happens, i will be dead. that's why i am voting for you and mr. trump. you are the best men.

gov. pence: thank you for your kind words. it really is remarkable. the two things you said there i want to amplify. give that a round of applause. the nice lady. yeah. i do. i do. is a reallyreece good -- this administration. this administration really has nearly doubled the national debt. think about that. in the entire history of the united states of america, until 2008, we accumulated roughly half of the current national debt we have now.

years to gety 250 to this level. hillary clinton's plan increases spending by $2 trillion. you are never going to balance the federal budget unless you get the american economy growing again. you can't tax her way back to a growing economy. it is a pathway of turning america into greece. it's a great point. it is -- if you like your doctor, you can keep them. donald trump talked about it last night.

states like indiana has been able to do like innovate in ways that empower people to take greater ownership of their own health care that are struggling at or near the poverty level. the cross state lines, the way you by auto insurance, life insurance, and we will see the cost of health insurance come down and the quality will come up. principles, not the canadian style system hillary advocated in that private speech. i think we've got one right here in the red. >> my name is john ellis. than thetle older lady. 78.5 years old. it, pence: you don't look either. >> hillary clinton has promised

free college education and she wants more illegals at $68,000. i started working at 13, putting in money into social security. a fund that is created 50% by myself and 50% by my employers. was taken fromat and used by the government since 1960. even though this is our money that our government promised to , wern to us at retirement haven't had an increase in five and a half years. jobs forate not only howicans and veterans but about giving us some of our money. i have a printed sheet i would like to remind you of the question if that would be all right.

gov. pence. : absolutely all right. thank you. thanks, john. i think i see the insignia there. thank you for your service in the united states marine corps. a great point. two things that you touched on there that got me thinking. promise yous, i that my first conversation with donald trump, the first time we sat down, he said to me, we are going to support and defend social security and medicare in a trumpet administration. my counterpart in the other , when he wasn't interrupting me, he brought up

something about social security. donald trump's policy is clear. the way you meet the obligations and the way you consider the things you're talking about, you've got to get the economy off of its back. talk about bringing down the national debt. make sure the seniors have the resources that, to your point, you put into social security. you've got to begin to grow this economy. we will do it by getting the american economy growing.

>> my husband and i met you on several occasions. awaited 10 months for an appointment referral from the v.a.. how can we improve this? what will you and mr. trump do? pence: the high point of my day was meeting your courageous husband and you. i am terribly honored. remind me in joining and thinking this incredible family thanking this incredible family for their service one more time? right after the republican

mentioned, we had a lot of veterans stand up including your husband. donald trump has laid out a plan. the minute women that were the uniform and have, in recent years, lost their lives waiting for health care from the v.a.. we will fix the v.a.. i want you to look at that plan. it is changing the philosophy. a lot of people talk about v.a. benefits like it's an entitlement. it's not an entitlement.

v.a. arethrough the part of the ongoing compensation for men and women that wore the uniform of the united states of america. and we have to pay the bill and provide that compensation for those that serve. and we will. it's a mindset. we have world-class health care, change expectations. the last thing is the failsafe. donald trump has made it clear that if veterans cannot receive world class veterans benefits under a trump pence administration, we will make it possible to go across the street and get private welfare. so be ready. big change is coming. how about over here? >> we have time for one more question. >> i'm holding a picture of my family in my hand. the proud mom of nine children.

eight from my womb and one from the inner city of new york. is retired navy. retired dallas police officer. my mom's passed away and from mexico. her family came here legally. we can't afford $1800 a month. that we havecerned seen division that this administration. they respected and i want to know that it is a very tall order. i am an ordained minister saved by grace.

when a look at all the things you have to do, i am committed to praying for you. starte a stand and praying for these men. what will be the first thing that you do in terms of relations of racial divide in our country? and you will get into office. gov. pence: thank you so much. thank you. thank you for sharing your beautiful family, thank you for sharing your witness and thank you for your prayers for me, my family, and the trumps. i really do believe the divisions that we have can be healed in this country when we whentanding tall again and

we are standing on that shared foundation again. you said your father was a police officer. my uncle was a cop in chicago for 25 years. when we are standing on that shared foundation again. for peoplet breaks of other communities. the harsh division that has followed shootings. if there is ever a loss of life, i grieve that. an immediateserves and transparent review of that. enough of those that would seize on these tragic moments to further divide us and demean people that serve and law enforcement. enforecment. cement. we need to come together and build communities. advocating.o stand jobs andamerica where

opportunities and quality education come to every community again. he's most things passionate about his educational choice. donald trump and i believe that parents ought to be able to choose where their children go to school regardless of their income or their area code. public, private, parochial, or homeschool. opening doors for families that find themselves in their kids trapped in failing schools, providing the resources to create prosperity in our streets. ending the flow of illegal drugs in our country tearing apart families in indiana. it can all happen. days.e 29 we have 29 days to make a change. or not.

if you are one of the people that thinks this country is on the right track, if you think america's place in the world is just fine. think our economy is as good as we expected to be these days and their kids have to get used to the fact their future may not be as prosperous as ours , you've got one candidate in the race. i want you to leave here and tell people that if you believe we can be strong again. on the world stage. if you believe we can open doors , if you believe that we can .reate and be standing tall and ift a great future

you believe we can do it all on a foundation. it, weth that underpins leave heree today -- today and tell every neighbor, every friend. we will make america great again. let's get america done. everybody, and god bless you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

road to thelive white house coverage on c-span networks. if you missed any remarks, you can find them to watch any time online in our video library, c-span.org. on a conference call with house members, paul ryan told them he would not defend or campaign with donald trump. and in their own district races, they should do whatever they need to do to win their own elections. donald trump has responded via twitter and rights paul ryan should spend more time on balancing the budget, jobs, and illegal immigration and not waste his time on fighting republican nominee. 240 5 p.m.,ay at

democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton will be in detroit. we will take you live to the campaign rally. who will your from donald trump in pennsylvania today. we will have special in-depth coverage. will be with libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson and take your phone calls. at 9:00, green party nominee jill stein. >> live debates for u.s. house, senate, and governors races. utah's fourth district congressional debate between republican congresswoman meal of and democrat doug owen. the senate contest between john mccain and democratic

congresswoman ann kirkpatrick. on thursday evening, north carolina governor debate between pat mccrory and roy cooper. on wednesday evening, republican senator mike lee and democrat misty snow debate for the utah u.s. senate. theon thursday, pennsylvania eighth district congressional debate between republican ryan fitzpatrick and democrat steve santos zero. -- santosiro. at 8:00 eastern, the wisconsin u.s. senate debate between republican senator ron johnson and former democrat senator russ feingold. it's followed with joe heck and democrat catherine cortez debating for the nevada u.s. senate. once the complete campaign coverage on c-span and online. and listen on the c-span radio app.

>> the highest-ranking republican woman in congress is sondemning mr. trumps remark but doesn't say if she will still vote for him. she offered only a tepid endorsement of candidate trump ahead of the washington state primary. the challenger last week for her seat in the congressional district race. ps publicosted by ks television. cathy mcmorris rodgers has represented eastern washington in congress. the republican is seeking her seventh term. ran for beat joe who congress two years ago. back hoping to unseat the incumbent. hear how each would represent eastern washington. join us for the fifth district congressional debate.

>> good evening and welcome to this ks ps election debate. the candidates running in the fifth district, moderator for tonight's proceedings. the fifth district is washington's second largest district and includes the following counties. stevens, adams, whitman, garfield, and part of walla walla county. rodgers and joe picoult otis. let's meet them. the congresswoman served at the state level for 10 years as a representative of washington's seventh district. he served as chairman.

this is his second run for this office. answers will be limited to one minute. it rebuttal will be limited to 30 seconds. the debate candidates will answer questions from panelists. from the spokesman review, kip hill. anchor whitney ward. and anchor of good morning north west, derek dice. each candidate will have one minute.

i am angry with congress and i hear the frustration. i have tried to turn it into smart solutions. the passage of the able act that provides for tax-free savings accounts for those with disabilities. countert legislation to those that wanted to take away. i directed technology for those that have lost their ability to speak. this legislation underscored a larger problem. why is the federal agency making that decision to begin with? we review, re-think, a lemonade programs currently running on autopilot. my goal is to serve the people and restore the voice in our government. good and thank you for

hosting tonight. i have lived in the eastern washington most of my life. i have been married for 41 years. and i have seven grandchildren. approval rating of only 9%. the american people are fed up with their ineffectiveness and gridlock. we need new representation, better leadership, and elected officials willing to work war than 112 days of the year. the only way to change that is to change congress. i am qualified and willing to take on this challenge. my goal is not to gain political power. my goal is to make congress work for you. tonight, i hope to gain your trust in prove why we need representation in congress.

>> the first question. it might seem in a place to start a congressional debate but a lot of people is focused at the top of the ticket. who are you voting for in the presidential campaign? >> i would vote for hillary clinton and the reasons are obvious. looking at the rhetoric happening today in the election. some of the rhetoric is promoting racism, bigotry, and you look at the misogynistic attitudes and things from one of the candidates and you just wonder why he can generate so much support. hillary clinton has the ability, the background, the experience to lead this country forward.

people have questions about her on trustworthiness but most of that is projected through the media and on tv. the facts ofto see that before i will be changing my mind. >> i will be voting for donald trump because i believe he's going to bring the positive disruption that we need to see, challenging the status quo and bringing genuine accountability. the top-down government knows best approach is that i believe need to be changed.

>> donald trump avoid did -- avoided federal income tax. >> i made it clear that there are things that donald trump has said and done that i don't agree with. i believe in being very transparent. what i see in him is something that can bring the change we need at the top. i see someone that has not proven herself trustworthy. top-down government knows best approach to problem-solving. >> when will have this next question. >> based on your response to that first question, how are you prepared to work under a president if your candidate does not win?

what can be done to and the ? rtisan gridlock >> that is a great question. i lead by example and i am andone that has worked looks for opportunities to work across the aisle. i worked on issues important to eastern washington. whether it is catastrophic itdfires we have been facing will fight both fires. worked on the able act. bipartisan. when it comes to the next president. fundamental issues is representative of government. it is functioning and really, on

behalf of the people, make sure that accountability is in our government. >> is the administration. i respect the office of the president. happens, it is kind of scary thinking about that and looking at that. and how the people of color actually tweeted. i am able to work across the lines. we had many issues.

given congress today and how things have happened, when obama took the oaths of office. immediately after that. that is where the partisanship started. >> you can have 30 seconds for a bottle if you like. i think -- yes. i'm willing to work with whoever is elected president. i will respect the people's decision in that. but i think it is most important the house and the senate. we restore priorities in the legislative process. the spending requiring putting

people back in charge of this government. >> it is kind of interesting to hear that she is willing to work across party lines seeing how she has been reacting the last few years. to reason they're having approve a new bill as far as the usa act is because congress has not been doing their job in the past. there are many programs that affect eastern washington that are in that category. they will be diminished throughout the year. the affordable care act is why we are here.

>> there are 12,000 syrian refugees and will many americans welcomed these men, women, and , it is potential terrorist ties. how should the u.s. act moving forward with these refugees fleeing violence and terrorism? >> we have been a country of open arms. we have always been a country of open arms. states, that is what we're going to do.

>> the situation in syria is really heartbreaking. -- it islook at important that we are helping. that we are helping provide assistance to those that are fleeing. we keep the safety and the security of this country first and foremost. it is our number one responsibility. i was at a security briefing where the fbi director himself told us that he could not verify that the syrian refugees would meet security requirements. that we did not have a vetting process in place. i have supported legislation that calls for a halt to the

syrian refugee program, bring them to america, until we can ensure that they are vetted in a way that will protect this country. >> that is great but we do have a vetting process in place that has been in place. some of the rhetoric going on refusing certain individuals because of their race, religion, or gender sometimes, is something that we need to correct. syrian refugees, many of them are going to be women and children. they want to instill this fear of the american people. the fbi director himself said that it would not be possible to that these refugees at this time

. that we did not have a system in place, and that is why i supported the legislation. temporaryrting facility so that the women and children in need, they are fleeing some terrible conditions and it is heartbreaking to see what has happened. it in aink we can do way that also ensures that we as a country are making the smart decisions that will ensure our safety. from theuestion is representative that will answer this one first. >> to potential gun control legislation, a recent debate that donald trump said he might be open to the idea of restricting gun sales to terrorism watch lists and it is a thing hillary clinton says she supports. if that type of legislation comes up in congress, do you support it? from buyingople guns on terrorism watch lists.

>> it is important to think through smart policies and ensure constitutional rights. the terrorism watch list, the rights of individuals need to be respected at end up on that list. why youry unclear as to end up on that list and it is unclear as to how you get off of that list. , toconstitutional right take someone's constitutional right away without protecting their constitutional -- to take it away without them having their day in court would be wrong. looking at how to ensure that that list is maintained in a way that make sure they are terrorists before taking action. >> i would support that. i'm a gun owner myself. teach six of my seven grandchildren on how to operate,

maintain safety, and to hunt. i the issue here is many of these people have lost their own constitutional rights. we are not taking away their guns per day have lost them themselves. you look at the no-fly people and the felons. they have taken with their own constitutional rights. congress is in. i'm not going to be doing that. i support instituting the ban on the sale of weapons, especially of people who are not authorized to find united states. anare you in favor of assault weapons ban? rep. pakootas: i would be in favor of bringing it back.

>> representative come you can have a 32nd rebuttal if you like. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i too am a gun owner. when it comes to a terror watchlist, think it's important to recognize that a fundamental constitutional right is to ensure your day in court also. we need to make sure we are protecting all of those constitutional rights. rep. pakootas: i agree with that , but as a said we are not the one taking their rights away. >> let's go with whitney with the next question. what do you think is the federal government's role in we haveo ease tension been hearing so many times about police shootings. do think it is a call for more

de-escalation training? and should there be more oversight at the federal level? i think a little less rhetoric about what is going on today and denying access to the united states by certain religious groups. i think something that is a good place to start. you see more and more on the streets. is talkingcandidates about that, but congress is not saying that is ok. they are basically being silent about it. talking about the racist attitudes and deporting millions of undocumented hispanics. congress does have a face there and i think that would be a

great place to start in looking at the amenities. i think some cultural sensitivity would be helpful for a lot of them also. i think a person of color could bring that to congress. >> i want to maybe he ask the question. when we are talking about the federal government's role come at do there is a need for more oversight or training when it comes to police shootings of other people of other races? rep. pakootas: certainly. i think they do. states also have a lot of requirement for doing that also. i support the police officers in the have a tough job in the united states. there's a few that take it to the extreme and i think you are .aying more and more of that

congress does have a role and i -- their attitude displays a lot of that. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: when it comes to racial tensions in the country and how it impacts local law enforcement, i think it is cherish as- we americans to matter where you come from, you have equal protection. shares and to local law enforcement. is they doell me need more training. us takingported action. we have a task force in the house that is led by john lewis who is one of the several rights leaders of our time. he is a congressman out of georgia.

also congressman reichert. and going around the country to look at what is an appropriate federal response so we are providing the support that we should. mr. picone us -- rep. pakootas: allowing more and some of that training would be helpful for them. understanding the people they are working with and knowing the differences between them living on a reservation, you are treated completely different when you come off the reservation. >> representative?

rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i think it's also important to the recognition the city of punk can has received. -- city of spokane has received. i think those are the kinds of approaches that need to be repeated across the country. 1 and\ -- >> next question. affordable like the care act is here to stay. what is each of your plans to improve upon it? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i think it is very important -- i think is debate over health care going to continue.

the promises that were made in the affordable care act are not think seen. thele are not able to keep plan of their choice. you're seeing premiums go up. is ai would like to see repeal of the individual and employer mandate and the regulations on the state and to larger states to have a marketplace so that individuals will have choices for more plans. right now, we are seeing less choice, less plans and costing more. higher premiums. we need the marketplace to be opened up and expanded. i support the affordable care act as it was written originally created i to rinseknew -- need

it to some of the options that were originally and it. -- in it. were taken out when present obama offered -- president obama offered. republicans have taken all those provisions out of the bill. we have the bill that was watered-down and now they really oppose that bill and they've been voting over 60 times to repeal it. we have 20 million americans

that are now insured today. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i support language,ng condition those up to 26 on their parents plans. i've beensue that working on is ensuring we have more fighters right here in eastern washington. i'm excited about the new medical school. we need more doctors. that is going to be an area where i continue to work. rep. pakootas: there's been an effort to repeal this bill many times. after the 60 something odd votes

to repeal it, that has not happened. the affordable care act is a lifesaver for many millions of americans. >> thank you. next question. >>. washington state has one of the highest minimum wages in the country. congress would have the authority to raise the minimum wage. does that need to happen? it certainly does need to happen. if you are working full-time you do not need to live in poverty. historyake a look at -- or how sellers

have increase for certain salaries haveeos increased hugely and if the minimum wage had kept up according to that and the cost of living, minimum wage would be around $22 power. when you think about -- $22 power. power -- $22 per hour. $15 an hour would be right at the limit. do you think businesses in spokane would be able to support per hourer -- $22 minimum wage?

rep. pakootas: no. that people making below did not go in spend their money somewhere else. they spent their money locally. back told bring money these businesses. when itorris-rodgers: comes to raising the federal minimum rage, -- wage, i believe that is left at the local and state level. i think you should be taken into consideration. we need to be focused on job creation. providing opportunity for people to provide better paying jobs. it is way more than a paycheck.

we need more jobs. what you think of the $22 per hour mark? is that too high ? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: that's a decision that needs a maid at the federal level. we could slowly build up to that and make it affordable. they cannot afford sometimes food on the table because of these low wages they are receiving. it is going to increase the economy and local areas. the wayorris-rodgers: you create jobs and more

opportunities is not by making more requirements. we need more training. and hear fromound employers and family businesses and farmers, one issue is the workforce and the training we need for individuals so they can meet the workforce needs. that is the way you get the workforce and create more opportunities and better paying jobs. >> next question. my question has to do with immigration. trump has stated on multiple occasions that he intends to build a wall at the mexican border. have you think the federal government needs to be handling the millions of undocumented

immigrants who are already here from is a co-or elsewhere -- from mexico or elsewhere? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i believe we immigrants who are already here from is a need to fix a broken immigration system. i supported building a wall. i supported legislation years ago to get the building of a fence and making sure that we are safe and secure. i think it begins with border security and we need to make sure that the border is secure. need a worker program. we don't have enough people that are coming to help with agriculture. those who are here undocumented overstayed their visas. we need visa reform. here who are currently undocumented, i think we can set up criteria by which they meet the criteria, they can get in

line. separate pathrt a to citizenship that some have proposed. rep. pakootas: there was a separatecomprehensive reform bo come out of the senate and the house would not allow it on the floor for a vote. in that, it had an ability for undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship and they are bringing out the fear tactics of calling it amnesty which isn't right. many of those our children that are actually citizens of the united states because they were born here. they earned their citizenship

and that is going to split families up. in order to keep those families together is going citizens also. that is going to have a devastating effect on young people. i understand that because i have been taken away from my family. representative? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: the solution has to include border security. i think it's unfortunate that the politics that have been played with this issue. it is going to take republicans and democrats working together on that. to workone who is able across the aisle and find a common ground. just to clarify, does that include a deportation force? been touted by many in

the relevant party? -- republican party? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i have not supported deportation. rep. pakootas: that is something that the candidate has supported . there is a comprehensive .mmigration bill she wouldnent says, support that. moving on to the next question that will be from derek. the governor greenlighted the project to build another casino by the base.

the think there should be additional protection and if so, why? rep. pakootas: i don't believe so. this went through a environmental impact -- and it was fully approved. there's many letters from past generals and colonels that supported the project so there is no concerns where it's at. project and ithe -- the public is not going to be detrimental. sling, -- slowly -- truly -- this is something

that the spokane tribe has a right to do and should not be denied. >> representative? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: as you largest employer in eastern washington. decisions will protect posts current and -- both current and future. the horse said they were neutral and they made a long list of mitigation requirements. my concern -- i support the spokane tribe's effort and i applaud their efforts to create

for theirpportunity citizens. i've stated very clearly that my concerns relate to this particular location. impactncerned about the on current and future missions. many everyday will be flying right over that and i believe that will have a longer term impact. it has beens: stated that the environmental impact has been cleared of all those concerns. some of the concerns out there are not viable. happened,t it hasn't it is written in the record that it has happened. >> representative, 30 seconds?

needmcmorris-rodgers: we to make sure we are making decisions that are going to protect both current and future missions. this particular location i believe is of concern. i would've preferred to see a different site located. fairchild and the leadership of it's aitary right now tanker base. the mission of that base changes through the years and i would hate to see the air force aside they are going to move somewhere theyor other missions wanted to bring to fairchild they are not going to do in fear of complaints filed against them in the future. >> next question. specific to ask a question to you. this has to do with veterans affairs.

i wanted to ask about your draft legislation that you propose this summer. you said you would increase care for veterans. proponents have said there are no promises of quality care. how would you respond to that criticism? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: first of all, i would say it is a draft bill that we are seeking input. my goal is to get the v.a. focused on the veterans. that 20-30 calls per day are having trouble getting care. they are heartbreaking stories. unfortunately, the v.a. too often is not focused on the veteran. as simple as scheduling an appointment. have proposed self scheduling for veterans like many people do in private offices around the country like many people do what he schedule online or on an app.

the draft you are referring to is a larger effort. it is addressing the paltrow -- culture at the v.a. the things they do well, let's continue that. the veterans should also have the option of seeking care in the community, going to a local doctor, going to a local hospital. not being asked to travel to artland or somewhere for hearing exam. >> since this is a candidate specific question we are not going to do a rebuttal. >> it is on veterans affairs. my question is, what expense you have on health care for veterans? rep. pakootas: i'm not a veteran myself. i do have family members.

my father is a korean war that. -- veteran. veterans administration needs to meet the needs of our veterans which it isn't today. they've been concerned about the administration and some of the mismanagement or misallocation of funds. what is been happening is they have been producing services in certain areas because they cannot afford that. -- not complain about or threaten the administration providingatizing or additional services. i think history shows that

privatizing federal government responsibility cost taxpayers even more. >> a rebuttal from both of them on this issue? i havemorris-rodgers: supported record funding for the v.a.. the veterans to budget has more than doubled in the time i have been in congress. dollars,he additional , the v.a. isollars not a system that is focused on the veterans. the simple thing is self scheduling. they won't do. paperwork, they could not get into see the v.a. and he was having heart issues. these are heartbreaking stories. we should not be able to have -- be afraid to conversation.

>> -- rep. pakootas: part of my campaign is i put together a committee and we meet once a month. of theser many concerns and lack of resources being available to our veterans. if her member, the day after the 24 hourction, the emergency services close. you have to have your emergencies between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. we have also been concerned about how those resources are delivered out there. i have a member in the republican era -- she gets on

on, wene and says hang will get someone to help you. that is even more frustrating for our veterans. if our veterans actually do that, they will be more frustrated. need to rapid out of -- rapid up here. your -- rap it up. russian. almost, washington state -- in 2015 lost more than one million acres of wildfires. is said to not being managed properly.

it has devastated communities and left hundreds of people homeless. we have all heard the talk about needing to do more. however, at this point what will it take to actually do more? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: this is a very big issue for eastern washington. the fires are devastating and they have a huge impact on a lot of people. fight of thehe fires as well as the conditions of the force needs to be addressed. right now i'm on the energy conference committee. i addressed legislation that prevent fires moving forward. that legislation passed the house about a year ago. it is now conference committee. i'm working alongside senator

cantwell and i'm hoping we will get legislation that addresses how we fund, fight, and prevent the fires moving forward. if people understood the conditions, they would be outrage. one out of three acres of u.s. bugservice is diseased, infested dying trees. we need to be taking action so we do >> u.s. forest service lands north of the reservation it's usually a con fire.

our timbers are managed properly so you're not going to have those devastating fires. getting back to properly funding the wildfire situation, president obama had requested funds to fight wildfires, not only to fight them but to get in front of them and make sure that we're fully equipped for the emergencies that happened. governor ensley did that too. that money didn't happen for the wildfire situation. >> representative. >> yes, congress did take action a year ago to fully fund the firefighting and what i have -- i'm very excited that right here in eastern washington the cobble national forest which is a million acker forest which i initiated and we finally got approved the a to z project is allowing for longer contracts so

that the private sector can help with the management to get in front of these fires and take action so that we have healthy tree. my goal is that this would be a model that this would be repeated. not just across the northwest but across the country. put it happened is they in the u.s. forest service budget. once that amount is taken out and spent, then they're going to dip into the rest of the forest service budget so that diminishes the amount of management that u.s. forest service can actually do on the properties. so properly funding is going to be in the future. the funding didn't happen before the wildfire season. it happened during the wildfire season. representative? >> you think about the economy in eastern washington what happens on these national forest

is the driver of the economy especially in the northern counties whether it's vogens or 49 degrees north is on the cobble national forest. is way we management is very important. i'm excited about the a to z project. i believe we should be encouraging more of those type of models that allows us to take appropriate action. >> you wanted to answer this one first. >> it remains the life blood of the fifth district. many farmers are frustrated by new regulations passed by the f.d.a. how would you fight to maintain their livelihood and create more jobs in thing a culture industry. >>ing a culture is the number one industry. my family we owned an orchard. i worked alongside my parents

and brothers picking cherries and apricots. and i'm thankful for that experience. we need to protecting a culture, family farms especially and we have great diverse crops here in eastern washington. one of the biggest challenges they face are the top-down regulations coming out of washington, d.c. coming out of federal agencies. it's the number one issue. and i believe that there needs to be more accountability with these regulations that when it comes to what the policy is going to be that should be voted on by the elected representatives. so whether it is e.p.a. regulations or f.d.a. regulations or these other agencies writing regulations, those policy decisions and how we management land, air, water should be elected by the representatives of the people that would can hold accountable. >> these regulations are actually put in place to protect

these very people that she's talking about in certain areas in. speaking to some of the farmers in some of my travels, some of the small farmers are being eaten up by some of the larger farmers. so those regulations are to protect those smaller farmers and how they get their product to market. climate change is a problem for them too. this summer they have lost about 50% of their value in their wheat during the month of july. $1.50el of wheat would be per bushel. after they harvested it that price went down about $1.15. so there's a lot of concerns there and then the regulations are actually in some ways to protect those individuals. as i said family farmers are being gobbled up by the larger

farmers. >> thank you. representative you can have 30 seconds if you like. >> i'm meeting -- just last month i met with the farmers to talk about falling numbers. we're trying to get usda crop insurance to make some changes so they won't be as negatively impacted. but i go back just more fundamentally just who's deciding what the policy is going to be and the rule of law these decisions should be made by the elected representatives rather than the record regulations right now that we see coming out of an administration. this isn't just the -- this isn't just democrats, republican and democrat administrations have been making too many of these decisions by rule. >> mr. pakoota? >> that's interesting to hear the regulation coming out of this democratic administration. i think if you look back in history and see that the

government functions have been growing, just when republicans are in charge either in the white house or in congress, government grows. i don't know why. and many regulations are also written during that period of time. so i believe, you know, -- i would be in support of the representative actually being able to vote on those regulations, putting them in place because you're representing the people of this congressional district where they do not have a voice. >> this is going to be the last question. and we're going to limit your answers to 30 seconds and we're not going to allow rebuttals. you have 30 seconds. >> this is the second time you two have faced off. what if anything is different with this campaign compared to two years ago? >> name recognition has been a great help. in 2014 we had about 250 volunteers. today we have 800.

i would love to have 8,000. 800 volunteers spread out through the whole district. name recognition is basically what a lot of people cast their vote for. and pakoota has been coming from the reservation living in poverty is a name that nobody knows. but today people have known what oe pakoota is and what i can bring to those individuals. >> i think the political climate has just been very different this year. the anger and frustration that i hear as i am having a , town ation with kathy halls, i share that frustration. and i am turning that into ways to be a problem solver and to get results and making sure -- and i believe that i am smarter today about how to get that

done. and that is part of the reason that i'm running for re-election. >> all right. so that will be our last question. time now for closing statements. before the debate we flipped a coin and representative rogers, you'll go first. >> let me say thanks again and thank you for joe to be a part of this. i think it's an important discussion that we've had today. it's my honor to represent this district in congress. it is my goal as i move forward to continue to serve the people of eastern washington, be your oice in the people's house and to restore the people's voice in our government. that's what i believe is most important in our country. u.s.a. y i introduced act that will restore people's voice. i'm also proud of the -- those who serve. my husband's a veteran. i spend a lot of time with our veterans whether it's traveling

veteran round tables or in spokane, walawa, i don't think there's anything more important that they get the care that they need. i'm committed to making sure they have the funding but a structure and a culture that is committed to insuring our veterans are cared for. and i ask for your continued support. >> representative? >> thank you for the spirited debate. and thank you ksps for hosting us. i appreciate your involvement in our government and our democracy. the fifth district needs something that has been lacking for the last two decades, a leader. i promise you that given the opportunity to lead, i will lead and represent your interest in wearbleds, not corporate interest or party interest but your interest. my opponent and i stand in contrast. you have a choice. i'm not wealthy but i do have 30

years of experience in business and understand how government works also. i value cooperation and collaboration. i come from a culture that believes we have the responsibility and the duty to leave this planet in a better shape for our children. it's been too long since we've had a voice in washington, d.c.. you deserve better. god willing that's exactly what will happen november 8th. i humbly ask for your vote and the privilege to represent you and be your voice in washington, d.c. thank you. >> thank you to you both. well, that will do it for tonight's debate coverage. our thanks to the candidates. i want to thank our panel of journalists. the general election is november 8th. ballots can be dropped off in public libraries in spokane. there's an box in downtown spokane. in addition ballots can be

deposited any time at 1033 west gardner but will not be accepted after election day. good night. announcer: our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span for live debates for house, senate races. tonight, utah's fourth district congressional debate between mia love and democrat doug owen. followed at 10:00 by the arizona senate contest between john mccain and democratic congresswoman ann kirkpatrick. on tuesday evening at 7:00 north carolina's governor debate between put a mccrory and representative cooper. and misty snow and mike lee debate for the utah u.s. senate. and then on thursday just afternoon the pennsylvania 8th

district congressional debate between republican brian fitzpatrick and steve santasiro. debra ross and richard debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. on friday night the wisconsin u.s. senate debate between ron johnson and former democrat senator russ feingold and that's followed by joe heck and katherine cortez masto debating ifer the nevada u.s. senate. watch our complete coverage online and listen on the c-span radio app. announcer: we've heard from a number of the nominees in the 2016 race today. early hillary clinton in detroit and mike pence in charlotte, north carolina. coming up in about 15 minutes, donald trump appearing in pennsylvania today. his remarks live at 3:30 eastern time right here on c-span. before the trump campaign rally begins we'll take a look at some

of the calls and comments about last night's debate from "washington journal." thur first good morning to you. what did you think of the debate? where were you last night? caller: sure, good morning. i'm the president of the college democrats here, and i'm a political science and chinese majorment last night i watched the debate with the staff in the media center here. it was certainly a night to remember. host: what sticks out in your mind? >> you know, donald trump had one goal last night. at this late in the game, that was to persuade any remaining undecided voters left. i don't think he was successful in that goal. instead he was incoherent, and he failed to demonstrate his capability as our leader. he was petty. he debated with the moderator instead of hillary clinton, and he spent his time talking to the camera while hillary clinton spent her time talking to the audience members. clinton clinton spoke to the audience, like i said, and she presented her clear and concise policy proposals. host: are you a hillary clinton supporter going into last

night's debate? >> yes. yes, i'm a very sympathetic hillary clinton supporter. host: do you think, though, that she answered the question about her speeches to wall street effectively enough to convince young people like yourself who were worried about her relationship with wall street, and that's why they were supporting senator sanders during the primary? >> well, if you look, nine out of 10 bernie sanders supporters are supporting secretary clinton in this presidential rasmse the idea that hillary clinton has a millennial problem is a bit of a disnoamer. if you look at the campus, i believe you can see a lot of the support for secretary clinton in the background shots. a little bit of a sore throat. you know, i think this is a little distraction. russia wants a donald trump presidency. that's why they hacked the d.n.c., and it's why they're attempting to influence our election. i think we need to focus on what's important here. host: this is the fifth time that washington university has hosted a debate. what was it like for you to be in this environment?

>> you know, i'm really extraordinarily grateful that we've all had this privilege to host this debate. again, it's the fifth time. clearly washington university is doing something right. the opportunity for civic engagement has never been greater, regardless of your party affiliation. i'm really just happy that i was able to be a part of it my senior year here and as involved in politics as i am, it really is something i think i'll remember the rest of my life. host: thank you for being with c-span this morning and sharing your thoughts. >> thank you, greta, very much. host: we'll get in some more students as we continue throughout today's "washington journal," having a conversation with all of you. it's your turn to let washington and the parties and the candidates know how you think it went last night. new bedford, massachusetts, supporting hillary clinton. we are less than a month away from election day. what do you think your candidate did last night? caller: i think that she was absolutely calm, cool, regardless of all the pettiness. i wish she had left off some of

the issues that he caught her a couple of times in the pettiness basically. she brought a couple of things that was wrong with him. i think that the american people need to understand that he's a businessman. he has shown it time and time again that he's only into lining his pocket. and if you think that you can trust a car salesman over a politician, that's the problem. we have to pick between two untruth worthy type of people. but if we're going pick between both of them, then we need to understand that she has only done what has been asked of her . or has only done what other people have been involved with. is it just her? him as a businessman, it's all him. his comment, his everything is on him. and that's what people need to understand, that he's a

businessman. not a politician. host: all right. greg supporting a third-part candidate in chattanooga, tennessee. you're on the air. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i've had a whole change of look at things, greta. e way i see it, and i hope the american public can really change their paradigm, the way of thinking is he stands for -- trump stands for americanism. that last call expert college caller, all i want to say is bless their heart, they're indoctrine ate. that boy has gone to college to learn to hate the united states. hip are you is a globalist, people. please think about it. kissinger, soros, he is all about americanism. he doesn't have to be the president. he's got plenty of mofpblee he's going to have to do this for money. he's doing it because he loves this country. host: what about his comments

about praising vladimir putin and saying that he's a stronger leader than our president? caller: i have to fullly agree with him. think about it. have you watched putin? he's been trying to tell our media that we have been putting nato up against his border, trying to force him into a nuclear war. that's what the new world order is trying to do right now, as we speak. and that's nothing but danger. that's going to kill all of us. host: ok, that's greg's thoughts in tennessee. john, what do you have? john: we have the line this morning for third-party supporters. let's wrap up the comments from the third-party candidates, as they're watching the debate last night, we mentioned evan mcmullen, the independent, he tweeted last night after the debate, 90 minutes of old policies and mudslinging, if you're frustrated, join our discussion with a tweet to his website. the green party candidate with

several tweets, live tweeting last night during the debate, a real debate would include the four candidates on enough ballots to win, as 76% of americans support calling for the debates to be open to the third party candidates, or at least that third party to be open to those third-party candidates. should clinton and trump are the least like or trusted candidates ever, it was not a good use of the viewers' time. and then the release from the johnson well, the libertarian ticket, they wrote last night, when donald trump holds a press conference an hour and a half before the debate begins with the intention of deflecting attention from him by trying to convince us the clintons are worse, we probably know everything we need to know about this campaign. we have fallen through the looking glass thanks to the two candidates who are each running on a platform of not being the other. we are in historically uninspiring territory. you can hear more specifically

from jill stein and the libertarian candidate for president, gary johnson, here on c-span tomorrow starting at 8:00 tomorrow. we're going to be joined by gary johnson from santa fe, new mexico. that's going to be live on c-span and c-span radio. from 9:00 to 10:00, we're going to be joined by jill stein and her running mate. they're going to be from here in our c-span studios in d.c. host: back to calls. tom in ohio, undecided. hi, tom. caller: hey, how are you this morning? thank you for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: well, listen i just want to get this out there because apparently people aren't paying attention during these debates. i thought bill clinton was fair game on what he did to women. but are they understanding what happened? this man raped a 12-year-old child, and hillary, as an attorney, defended her husband and got him off, probably by

paying the family money so it would go away. i'm going to try to remind the women out there, if you elect hillary clinton, you are returning a pedophile to the white house. the other thing is, on the this woman was under subpoena, and i think you know the story, all the people that work for her have taken the fifth amendment, which means you take that when you know you're going to get caught, so you say i refuse to answer. they all know that the fix was in. they all know that loretta lynch and bill clinton met for 39 minutes on a tarmac to make sure all this stuff went down. wake up, america. you're being lied to, just like in the nixon administration, but it's all being done by obama. it's time to change the people that are in power in this country, where america is going

down the tubes. host: tom, i want to you listen. this s from politifacts morning. donald trump said hillary laughed at a 12-year-old rain victim. i think you mixed up the -- mixed what happened. donald trump offered a confusing mash up of unsavory accusations during sunday night's presidential debate as he lumped allegations against bill clinton with a claim about hillary clinton's attitude when she discussed her defense of a man accused of raping a child in 1975. trump asked about his offensive comments while taping a segment of "access hollywood," said if you look at bill clinton, mine are words, his was actions. trump continued on, as you all know, and they say this, the alleged rain of a 12-year-old had nothing to do with bill clinton. trump was suddenly and without explanation shifting gears to hillary clinton's successful defense of the alleged rapist after she was reluctantly assigned to the case. that's the part of trump's

claim. we'll fact check here. and they say at the time clinton, 27, was working at a legal aid clinic. the accused man was specifically asked for a woman to represent him. he ultimately pleaded guilty on unlawful fondling of a minor, receiving a year in jail and four years probation. when we asked about the trump campaign about a allegation, the spokesman referred us to a july 15, 2014 article in the conserve tough washington free beacon, which uncovered all yo recordings of clinton. although it's not clear when the recordings were made, the beacon says they date from 1983 to 1987. in the tape, she calls it a terrible case and a fascinating case for reasons that will become clear. the article notes she can be heard laughing at several points on the point, but it doesn't say she was laughing at the victim as trump claims. politifact. she's seen laughing on two separate occasions, trump is referring to, as we said, the

audiotape. they rate this claim false. so, again, that is politifact for you to read yourself, if you go to their website. steven in northampton, pennsylvania, supporting mr. clinton. hi, steven. caller: good morning. i've been voting since 1980 right out of high school. i've been working in the factory environment since then. what i've been following with current events on every campaign coming into even local elections, i find that the people who speak out against the democratic party are considered not worthy of any type of opinion, across the board in the media zones. and what i'm seeing in america for the past couple of years since 1980, i've seen a down turn. now, i've watched every presidential debate since then. there's one thing that i picked out that donald trump actually does whenever he speaks. he speaks to the people, not at

them. and he doesn't refer to the people who aren't in his ampaign or otherwise deplorable, like clinton clinton did. now, you take that accusation, and you throw that out to the american people. if somebody is calling the american public a deplorable or doesn't agree with them, they are the ones causing the cancerous rumor from their campaign, and it just turns the american people off. what i fear the most in this country is that the people, like myself, with a high school education or even less had been rown down on to the ground too many times. we see it. we talk about it at our jobs. we talk about it outside the work. now, i just came back from north carolina, and i went through all the states through

the delmarva. i have never seen so much support and signs for one candidate since ronald reagan. and i think the american public should wake up to world problems instead of worrying about tapes and crap being thrown up by the media who supports the clinton campaign machine. host: ok. let me move to mississippi. tristan is supporting mr. trump. good morning to you. i understand you're 11? caller: yes, i am. i'm up. host: good morning. did you watch the debate? caller: oh, yes, i watched most of it. host: ok. and why are you supporting mr. trump? caller: because i think we need more jobs over here, because there aren't that many jobs where i live. 's a small town, and there aren't that many jobs, and some people -- i think he'd bring more jobs because he's also a

businessman. so if he can bring more jobs over here, that would be great, because there are some people in certain parts of the united states that don't -- they either don't have a good job or they don't have a job at all. so if he can bring some more jobs over here, then that would be great. host: tristan, so what's it like in your town, in mississippi? caller: it's pretty small. it's pretty small over here. host: and what happened to the obs there? caller: well, there aren't that many businesses over here. scommoip do you think donald trump's business record, him being a businessman, could help your community? caller: yes, ma'am. scommoip are your parents supporting mr. trump, too? caller: yes. my sister don't like him, don't

like him very much. host: she doesn't. so there's a house divided. caller: yes, ma'am. host: well, tristan, thank you for watching our show this morning, and for calling in and sharing your comments with us. we appreciate that. all right, let's get more from john this morning. john, good morning. go ahead. john: good morning, greta. a lot of focus since the release of that tape that has caused so much attention on donald trump's support, specifically among christian conservatives and evangelicals. most prominent christian conservatives who have been supporting trump standing by him, including tony perkins of the family research council. some of the tweets last night from christian conservatives as well during the debate, here's david brody, a journal west the christian broadcasting network. he said donald trump won the debate overall, focused for 90 minutes, hits major trigger points. clinton on the defensive much of the night. he went on to say it was fascinating that donald trump

went in on the defense, but turned the tables on hillary clinton. we still have a race is what he said. one evangelical leader that's making news today is wayne gruden. he's one of the most influential christian conservative backers, and he pulled his support, his endorsement for donald trump on sunday. sheer the column from townhall.com. i'll read the beginning of it for you. there's no morally food presidential candidate in this election. i previously called on donald trump -- called donald trump a good candidate with flaws, and a flawed candidate, but i now regret i did not more strongly condemn his moral character. i cannot commend his emotional character, and i strongly urge him to withdraw from the election. i strongly urge him to withdraw from the election. he goes on to say his older comments about his sexual in were morally evil and --