issues in the fbi probe of hillary clinton's e-mails. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning, it's october 31 2016. it's halloween but more importantly for those on the campaign trail it's now eight days until election day. it's also been three days since f.b.i. director james comey informed congress agents uncovered new emails that may be related to the bureau's probe of hillary clinton's private server. it up ended coach of the campaign and become a central talking point for donald trump and sparked criticism of comey from many democrats. morning on the washington journal we want to know if it's impacted your vote. has the f.b.i. email review made a difference to you as you

prepare to head to the poll this is week. give us a call this morning. if you're a republican, 202-748- 8001. democrats, 202-748-8000, independents 202-748-8002. catch up with us at social media. at facebook it's facebook.com/c-span. a very good morning to you. a few headlines to begin our program this morning. talking about how this latest email ment 6 clinton seeks to regain footing after email storm narrows. poll, advantage. "the new york times" in their 10 questions with this latest controversy, asks what this

could mean for hillary clinton on the campaign trail. they note the short answer is it's not clear yet and polling on weekends can be unreliable so it may be a few days before the effect of the development may be fully assessed. what is evident is a campaign that's largely been a referendum on mr. trump particularly since the first debate is now not so clear cut. the email development will certainly matter but the question is just how much. 20 million people have already voted and millions more have already determined who they support. the country was already politically polarized before this election. the opinions are overly cemented about the two household name nominees. early on you can be reliable. this is "the washington post" abc poll that just came out this morning. the majority of those polled over the weekend, a majority of all likely voters in that poll say they're unmoved by the

f.b.i.'s announcement friday it may review additional emails from clinton's time as secretary of state. just more than six in 10 voters say the news will make no difference in their vote while just more than three in 10 makes them less likely to support hillary clinton. 2% say they're more likely to back her as a result. you can see the chart there. the story noting the issue may do more to voters with a preference to clinton than swing voters. roughly 2/3 of those who say the issue makes them less likely to support clinton are republicans or republican leaning independents while 17% lean democratic and 9% lean towards either party. we want to hear your views this morning on the washington journal. what do you think? has it changed your vote at all. jim is up first, franklin georgia, a republican. jim, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i love your show. this reinforced my opinion on

this whole deal with mrs. clinton. over 30 years we've had nothing but clinton scandal whitewater boze law firm boze law firm and we can go through a litany of things with hillary rodham clinton. and guess what? there are roads in west virginia not as quick as she is. but donald trump has been crucified the last 18 months and was a media darling until then until he won the primary election. all i got to say is this i can't wait to burn the roads up on november 8 voting date. host: cornell up next. line for democrats. water works, new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning, john. i have to disagree with the republican caller. the fact of the matter is it there was a smoking gun there, they would have brought it out.

it's interesting a few days before the election they come out with something with no smoking gun and keep stirring up the hornet's nest. the fact of the matter is that coming out did not give donald trump the qualifications to hold office. secretary clinton has been put secretary of state the senator and actually the only person qualified that is running to hold the office, even the independent candidates, when you ask them the tough questions, half the time they don't know what's going on. the reason why donald trump is the dom knee he bullied himself into that position by calling ted cruz a liar, calling little marco rubio, talking about megyn kelly's menstrual cycle.

he's not qualified to be president on anything else. host: this hasn't changed your vote? caller: no way, nope. host: east lake, ohio, go ahead. caller: i don't know if i'm going to vote. traditionally in the past few years i had a tendency to vote republican. i'm real liberal in my thinking but i have a tendency to vote republican on national elections. i don't really know if i'm going to vote. no way i'm going to vote for mrs. clinton because i'm not interested in the policies. i think it's more about taking money off our pocket than helping businesses. i really wanted to tell the american people, if we all want to protest we need to really write our own name in as president. if you're not happy with these people, write your own name in. can you imagine the news if just a million people wrote their own name in for

president? that would really be a good protest vote. host: before you go you said you're really liberal but tend to vote republican in presidential elections. why? caller: because i don't think the federal government should really create a lot of welfare policies. i think it has to be on the local level. hillary drove it in in one of the debates. trusm has been really disrespectful to her. what he did at that dinner last week, oh my god, that was horrible. he should never have talked that way about her. he went on to talk about she got a lot things done but when i analyzed it, it was all on money that takes it out of our pocket and all on welfare. the democrats have the tendency to have these lofty degrees and seem to know what's good for

the little peeps and i can't stand that. they just have to go. host:alen in ohio staying on the independent line. paul dallas, texas. is this email probe and what came out impacted your vote? caller: how are you doing? host: doing well, paul. caller: my comment is they're making a mountain out of a mole hill. i think mr. comey is trying to cover his tail for what he did last summer. i think he's trying to make us think he's doing his due diligence and that kind of stuff. if people want to get things changed, and i definitely do, i think the biggest thing is vote for the down ticket offices. the senate and the house. if we want to get things changed in washington, we need to change the house and the senate. not the president. the president doesn't have that much power. not as much as you might think. host: you think all this attention again on the emails and hillary clinton as opposed to --

caller: it's not going to change my mind. i don't think it will change a whole lot of people's minds. a lot of people have already voted. he did this last friday and for some states the polls have been open two or three weeks. host: it seems like you're correct, not too many people saying this will change their mind on our polls. let's start with kurt, never have voted for a democrat for any office and never will. elizabeth below that says nope, no way on this earth i would vote for her anyway. caroline green says no, i was voting for trump. i knew hillary was a criminal by her actions. another one says hillary clinton will still be our next president and doesn't change his vote. susan says not one bit, i'm still voting for the only qualified candidate. rafael says not in the least this will change his vote because there's nothing there. hugo says emails or no emails, i never had any intention of

voting for hillary. jeff says nothing will come of the hail mary to try to save the republicans. that's just a taste of some of the comments on facebook. facebook.com/c-span if you want to join the conversation or head over to twitter@c-spanwj is where the conversation happens. bilking says in terms of whether it will change his vote, not at all. it made me are mo of a clinton supporter and believe the whole thing was planned by comey and the g.o.p. which another response, comey was a fine outstanding public servant a few months ago according to the democrats. i want to hear your thoughts this morning. you can engage with us over twitter or over email on facebook or give us a call like carolyn did for our line for democrats. carolyn is in dublin georgia. good morning. go ahead, carolyn. caller: yes, i'm still voting for hillary clinton no matter what she has done.

she's apolicy guised and that's all she -- apologized and eas that's all she can do. what else do you want from her? host: let's go to howie. good morning. caller: thank you. yeah, you know, she's been around politics her whole life. the democrats are always trying to fool people, just like president obama fooled us april 8, 2009 when he established the office of health reform. i mean man that was a shout out for doctors against pharmaceuticals. both candidates, i do have a comment. now, hillary clinton if there's anything i know personally about her, i'd like to hear from the black college roommate from her early days. and trump, you know, his father is very controversial but i guess he's not donald trump. and i hear this racist stuff. didn't he appear on a ice cube rap album in 1997?

i just want to say this, because it seems like one party is getting paid all by the rich people and the other party is making all the rich people crazy. the next president better stand side by side with the american people and stop facing us or else the facts will come towards you. we know what's going on. thank you. host: herbert is up next in camilla, georgia. democrat. good morning. herbert: good morning. i mean, they come up with these emails so many things to destroy this woman here and then they come up with wikileaks and the russian organization coming in to interfere with our national security by bringing information. next thing you know, they'll have them saying people will come and pit country against country. we shouldn't even allow this. every time you look around it is a republican investigating and spending millions and they've not passed the infrastructure haw or anything to keep them allowing doing these things.

the republican party needs to stop doing this here. govern if you're going to be governor and we prepared for you $174,000 to go every year where people are paid $7.25 and here we let the republicans -- it's obstruction. me and my friend right now, i said come on, staff and i tell them, i say the man is 70 years old, i'm 65 years old, i know when i see racism as i can see it, man. a lot of times -- a lot of those people who voted, they think trump is the white hope because they want these privileges back again and will make the country great again and take the country back. this is a dog whistle that's saying they want these privileges back against other nationalities. i love everybody. until we start acting like a christian nation and stop letting this pessimistic foolishness, our united states

of america, man. we need to stop this foolishness. host: herbert in cammilya georgia. herbert mentioned russia, russia also brought up by senate minority leader harry reid in his letter he released yesterday directed to james comey and he writes in that letter, your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over the other. party over the other. the double standard established by your action is clear, he writes in my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community has become clear you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between donald trump, his top advisors and the russian government, a foreign interest openly hostile to the united states which trump praises at every opportunity. the public has a right to know this information, he writes. i wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. there's no danger to the american interest from

releasing it and yet you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information and closes his letter by saying the clear double standards established by your actions strongly suggest your highly selective approach to publicizing information along with your timing was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group. under harry reid yesterday. two other reactions from members of congress without statements or comments on twitter, this is congressman steve cohen, a democrat from tennessee, a member of the judiciary committee and writes in light of the recent comments by f.b.i. director comey regarding hillary clinton emails, i call on him to resign and a link to his full statement. then there's congressman jeff duncan, a member of the homeland security committee, he wrote on twitter yesterday, he's a republican from south carolina, if you don't want the f.b.i. involved in elections, don't nominate someone who is being investigated by the f.b.i. line for republicans nathaniel

is up next. caller: hello. i'm a colin powell republican. and he would have been a great candidate if you wanted change. he would have been superb. but he has all of the background and the sophistication and etc. the only person i compare on the republican ticket, my ticket is hillary clinton and she's republican. she has the ability and has the history. the problem is that women are not respected in our country yet. they are still trying to break the glass ceiling and men are still throwing plexiglas on top of the breakage. they're doing everything they cannot to make it equal. if she were equal she would win like colin powell would have won. i ask everybody, just stop dealing with it on a level of being a republican or democrat. let's deal with who is best equipped, who can make it

happen. don't be a gilani politician. he couldn't win on his own, now he's going through donald trump. he never was good at all. host: when it comes to the email controversy and concerns about republicans about how she handled classified emails, what do you say to them when you talk about who is best equipped. she's shown she's careless with sensitive information, how do you respond to that? caller: it's easy. the bottom line is this what information has donald trump ever had to have to be able to secure the interests of the united states of america that he could be journaled on. not a dad gone thing. she has nothing to compare to the physical ti education of this lady. she made a mistake. technology is moving quickly and will continue to move quickly and if you're not being told constantly that hold it wait, you can't make the left, you have to make a right why?

because we have satellites. he has never been graded on that level. he's only graded because he has a nice family, because he has good businesses but he can't show what he can do to protect the interests of the united states of america. he's never been vetted or tested on that level. and he will make a lot of mistakes. trust me he will. host: tony up next. independent. none of our callers said this will change their opinion one way or the other. will it make an impact for you when you head to vote? caller: yeah already, because i can't understand what he has do an said. [inaudible] this has completely moved by vote for hillary. and i know the bombshell is that in missouri you watch out for the senate seat because

he's going democrat and the government will be democratic, too. thank you. host: missouri, one of those closely watched senate races, the re-election effort by roy blunt there in missouri. jason candor is the democratic senate candidate challenging him there. democrats, if hillary clinton wins the presidency, democrats would pick up four seats to take over the senate. if donald trump wins the presidency, democrats would need five seats to take over the senate. caller: i'm a latino voter. and the misinformation that's been spread, the hatred from

donald trump's campaign. there's no smoking gun with the f.b.i. letter. it's simply a letter saying it's an ongoing investigation and it didn't imply she's wrong or that she's broken the law. however, there's a lot of assumptions out there as a result of more campaign rhetoric. let's look at the facts and not look at assumptions. host: to your point, jeremiah, trying to put out the latest information that news outlets have been able to find out about this investigation in friday from "the washington post" noting the f.b.i. has obtained a warrant to search the emails found on the computer used by the former congressman anthony weiner and may contain evidence related to the email server and it was obtained in new york as the investigators have possession of the laptop and the important facts uncovered in the weiner investigation are 650,000 and reflect many emails not relevant to the clinton

investigation. however, others said it included a significant amount of correspondence associated with clinton and her top aide huma abedin. and whether the emails included classified information, that process could be cumbersome and drag on after the election. sandy is in eerie, pennsylvania, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling because the emails obviously anything going back to undermine -- here's the thing. america is being told by mr. trump we have major issues. he was not a politician. and he didn't become corrupt. not that he would. the movement has been towards

corruption and getting away scot-free. this country and even when he talks about votes, not just emails but voters when obama stood there on b.e.t. and they had a picture of him in one corner and the sunshine coming down as if he was christ and said the second coming and went through emotional african and black and -- host: where are you going with this? let's talk about the impact of the emails. caller: right. this started a movement to appeal to not the brains and the mind and the needs of our government. and hillary is doing the same thing with her campaign and when she was in -- regarding benghazi and on the hot seat it

was the idea of who cares. who cares she screamed when she became frustrated? who cares about benghazi at the hearing? if it was any of her family, she would be doing the same thing. would she be yelling who cares? in other words, clinton has gotten away whether it's emails or anything instead of what's good for this country. and that's how they're approaching her campaign through emotions. she made statements like we all in life not knowing if we'd be in charge of something or responsible for something. people are spending too much time on pettiness and instead of seeing what the democratic party is turning into progressive liberals. host: you mentioned what donald trump is saying. here's what he was saying yesterday over emails. three tweets about this topic

from him yesterday. he says, we're meeting in many of the polls. many were taken before the criminal investigation announcement on friday. great in the states. he says hillary and the democrats loved and praised f.b.i. director james comey a few days ago. the original evidence was overwhelming and should not have been delayed. and wow, he writes, twitter google and facebook are burying the f.b.i. criminal investigation of clinton. very dishonest media. three of the tweets from donald trump from yesterday morning. myra is in philadelphia, pennsylvania. democrat. 0 go ahead. caller: hi, my name is myra. i was going to vote for donald trump but now that they're doing this dirty thing to mrs. clinton, i'm going to vote for mrs. clinton. as far as i'm concerned, i think donald trump is a narcissist. i think that our senate should be investigated and half the people in there. what they're doing is a disgrace. thank you.

host: before you go, you think donald trump is a narcissist but you were going to vote for him before this. why were you going to vote for him? caller: i watch everything going on and my opinion of him before i was going to vote for him but now it is. i think he's a narcissist. they want the journals and want to stack the court. host: did that opinion change on friday with the esks mail announcement? caller: there's nothing there. first of all, what's it got to do with her [her aide is getting a divorce, what's it got to do with her? host: the f.b.i. looking to find that out in their investigation of those emails. certainly something the clinton camp would like to have more information about before the election on november 8.

the investigation is expected to take a while and may not be until after the election. dan is in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. my first thing is that i wasn't going to vote on anybody. as far as president, no. after the emails and going through it, still i have come to a decision that hillary is the best choice. my biggest reason is that everything donald trump says has to be translated by surrogates and you know, if you really follow along and they say he said this but this is what he meant. when you're dealing with foreign policy and foreign governments, you don't have that luxury for someone to say this is not what you meant. that's the danger. last thing i want to say, hopefully those out there are

that the republican party, we just saw the destruction of the republican party. and i say the biggest reason is their own fault for roughly six years, they have become a do nothing congress. and so that's why you ended up with donald trump because the republicans want change and i'm not going to blame the democrats for it. i'm going to blame them for what it is. they want to move forward. if you want to move forward, think about both houses because that's really where legislation actually starts, not just for the process. host: from maryland to the west coast to washington. laura is waiting, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling to say that the email situation actually confirmed my choice to vote for mr. trump and the main reason

for that is people are trained -- people aren't aware the man makes out 37,000 paychecks a month to people all over the u.s. and all over the world and has built an incredible business. she has good character and a great heart. i don't see racism. she has had awards from several black people and stuff. the democrats haven't been good to minorities. they promised them a lot but they haven't been good to him at all. they deserve better than that and so does america. this agenda the democrats have gone into with all this writing and violence and hate, man, it's just awful. we need a man up there that knows how to lead. we need a leader that has answers and can put them into action.

we need our economy. we need our country safe again. we need to tackle the islamic care riss him problem. and yet we don't get anything like that from the democrats. you get a lot of words. senseless, useless words. and there is a mountain of evidence against mrs. clinton regarding the crimes that she has committed. and nothing has happened because of the corruption of this administration, you know. and that's what the american people are seeing. and it's sad. our nation is torn apart. i want us to come together. but we aren't going to be able to do that if we have a government in there telling us how to act and what we're going to make each month and where we're going to work and how much we're going to work for and all this other stuff. it's none of their business. i want to be my own person, thank you. that's all i have to say. host: laura in washington. the last two attorneys general

with op-eds, one in "the washington post" and one in the "wall street journal." here's eric holder, the attorney general from 2009-2015 in "the washington post." he writes, i'm deeply concerned about f.b.i. director james comey's decision to write a vague letter to congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public and political interest. the decision was incorrect and violated long standard justice department policies and traditions. and it encountered the guidance i put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. the department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. indeed except in exceptional circumstances the department won't acknowledge the existence of an investigation. the department has a policy of not taking necessary action close to election day that might influence an election outcome. these rules have been followed during republican and democratic administrations. mr. comey broke with these democratic principles.

if you want to read more it's in the "washington post" posted late last night. in the wall street op-ed michael mukazie was the attorney general in 2007-2009 and the headline on his op-ed, with the f.b.i. director's unworthy choice. he notes the f.b.i. is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury or to issue grand jury subpoenas and that authority lies with the justice department headed by the attorney general who serves as a certificate of appointment and recites during the pleasure of the president of the united states for the time being. he writes regardless what is in the newly discovered emails the justice department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence and because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges that means no charges will be brought. michael mukasey if you want to read that "wall street journal" this morning. lucy, greenville tennessee, a

democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm going to answer your question. it doesn't bother me a bit. 2 this is all nonsense and we know. anyone who is a democrat and watching her career the last 30 years knows it's crap. they've been after this couple for i don't know how long. for the lady that just called in a minute ago, god bless her. it's not corruption in the white house, it's in congress. it's the republicans not cooperating and causing all the problems. and this little bit that just happened has been done on purpose. i watched this morning on cnn, this guy that called in earlier said exactly what i'm thinking.

you need a translator for this man. he says one thing and we got to have five people defining what he has said. i don't understand this country anymore. common sense has gone out the window. if they want a dictator for our president, well then, they better vote for trump because they're going to lose everything. host: all right. both of the vice-presidential candidates were on the sunday shows yesterday here's tim kaine this week calling director comey's letter to congress an unprecedented move. tim: this is an unprecedented move as your folks were describing earlier because it happens close to an election which is in violation of a normal justice department protocol and involves talking about an ongoing investigation which also violates the protocol and we know now

director comey doesn't know the director comey doesn't know the content of these emails and don't know whether it's two or from hillary at all. this is a distraction and we're focused on winning the race the next nine days talking about the kind of president hillary clinton will be and contrasting her vision and dark and dangerous vision of dnled trump. >> what do we know about the emails, a close source to the investigation told me this morning this was anthony weiner's computer and not her computer and the first he heard about these emails was on friday when the news broke. what has she told the campaign, what do you think is there? tim: listen, i'm not going to speculate because the f.b.i. director doesn't know. he had to issue a second letter internally within the f.b.i. to frankly back up because the first letter create sod many misimpressions. but i think it's now pretty clear the f.b.i. director doesn't know that there is anything these could be duplicates of what is analyzed and don't have anything to do with hillary clinton. we can't speculate about it and why we're asking the f.b.i.

director, you violated these two protocols, if you put out a letter and had to do a second letter to backtrack you owe the public full information and that's what hillary wants and the american public deserves. [video clip ending] host: the republican presidential nominee mike pence was on fox news and talked about director comey's letter. [video clip] mike: we comment the f.b.i. on their work for congress. if there was new, pertinent information sufficient to reopen the investigation they would inform congress of that fact and move forward. this is clearly a very serious matter and we respect the institution of the f.b.i. and are confident they'll handle this in a professional and timely way. >> but f.b.i. officials note that they're just starting to look at these emails and don't know whether any of them are classified and don't even know whether they may be duplicates

of emails they've already seen in the investigation. so shouldn't you and mr. trump be cautious in talking about how significant this is? hunter: i think we have been cautious. but the simple fact is that the decision by the f.b.i. this summer was incomprehensible to millions of americans. the director of the f.b.i. literally called a press conference in which he chronicled one violation of the law after the other and then announced that he was not going to pursue charges or recommend charges against hillary clinton in this case. two days later he literally undercut that decision by going before the congress and saying in so many ways that hillary clinton had misrepresented the facts. you remember that famous dialogue between trey gowdy and the director of the f.b.i. where he said that hillary clinton said that nothing

classified was on her emails. was that true? the director said it was not true. she'd never sent classified emails, that was not true. i think what we already know here is troubling to the american people and convincing millions of americans hillary clinton is just a risky choice in this election. host: plenty of headlines this morning focused on james comey. here's one from the financial times, the f.b.i. had attacked the clinton email probe is the headline with a picture of james comey at that press conference from this past summer. then the front page of the daily news this morning, following james comey f.b.i.'s mad bomber. news says reckless comey must go. on the front page of "the daily news." then to the editorial section of "the wall street journal," comey and clinton agonist is the headline on the lead editorial, hillary's campaign tries to turn st. james into ken starr if you want to read

that from the editorial board. michael is in maine, an independent. michael, good morning. michael: good morning. caller: this is my first time calling in. it's a great program and takes a while to get through. but what made me so upset this morning was listening to a nice black man talking about colin powell who was in front of the united nations selling the american people the lie and the world that iraq had weapons of mass destruction and $6 trillion millions of lives later, we realized it was all based on lies. now, colin powell was used as a black man, i believe, just as hillary is being used to be the first woman president. i was fooled by all this. i voted for barack obama twice but i have seen how corrupt the system is and i do give donald trump credit for exposing it. you know what, he also saved us from another bush which would have been world war 3. you know, people --

host: used by who, michael? used by who? caller: the system that wants to give us the first black president and the first woman president as a ruse. i don't have anything against blacks or women. i voted for barack obama twice. i'm not a racist. i don't see any evidence trump is a racist. that's another ruse to try to turn people off against him. host: i am wondering who is in charge of the system? caller: excuse me? host: i'm wondering who is in charge of the system. you say they're being used by the system. caller: i believe there's a dark government 5 puts people like clinton and gives us clintons and bushes continually and causes call kinds of attacks on the american people so we can be led like sheep into oblivion. and why i want after all this, i didn't like donald trump, i've been a democrat all my life but i do believe that he's

the only one that can save us at this point. this country has gone so far down this orwellian place to hear that nice black man talking about colin powell for president, the man who got us in that horrible war that cost so many lives and was all based on lies. host: i got your point, michael. from south carolina, democrat. go ahead. caller: you are speaking to south carolina? host: yes, ma'am. caller: ok, i'm sorry. thank for you taking my call. host: go ahead. hope you're having a nice day in lexington. caller: yes. i just wanted to say that i have already voted for hillary clinton. and if i hadn't none of this new email talk will change my mind. and i feel like the head of the f.b.i. had already made his decision. and so why is he coming out now

changing the tune and making another decision. i mean, you can't keep going through this and trying to investigate somebody. how long is this going to happen? for the next two years or the next five years? you know, he already made a decision. it should be done with it. the next thing is i don't understand these people who voted for donald trump. host: the first part of your comment, you said he made a decision he should be done with it. what if new information arises, though, the concern among the f.b.i. is that there may be something in these new emails they didn't get to look at in that original investigation. there might be new evidence. is it ok for him to go back and take a look at this information? caller: no. no. because if he did his job correctly and thoroughly, the first time, you know, if he missed something, that's on him.

ok. no reopening things that had been closed. that's the way i feel. and the next thing is these people who voted for donald trump, i just don't understand what they see in this man. and that they have listened to all the reports how he done bankrupt half the companies that he has started and then you talk about what a great businessman he is. yes, he's a great businessman with the persona, making people think that he's all that. but, you know, i have listened to reports. and this man has not been such a good businessman. host: in south carolina. speaking of the f.b.i., a bit of different news about the f.b.i. this morning. this from the pages of the washington post, the general services administration which is handling the development of

a new f.b.i. headquarters that it was delaying selecting a location and a builder until march. this effort to find a new headquarters building for the f.b.i. has been ongoing. the story notes that funding remains a persistent concern because construction is likely to cost upward of $2 billion in his final fiscal 2017 budget, president obama sought $1.4 billion in appropriations for the project, if approved by congress, that money would be added to the $390 million already set aside for the project. and one other story to note for you this morning, as we said, eight days away from election day, "the wall street journal" with the story says deathing the security of voting systems. the story noting hackers have scanned the election systems of 20 states u.s. officials have said and now close to 40 states are working with the department of homeland security to try to protect their election systems from digital tampering. as part of that effort, d.h.s. is running the own scans of

internet linked systems looking for digital doors that hackers might be able to open. through these reviews roughly 20 states had their elections scanned by outside groups in a way akin to casing out a site for a robbery. d.h.s. officials discovered a range of computer security tools are being used by states and some need to update their software or add new protections but haven't, quote, found any catastrophic weakness according to the d.h.s. official interviewed for that story. and one last story to note a photo collage from "the new york times" this morning of the various halloween costumes that have to do with this election cycle, including revelers in new york portraying anthony weiner and huma abedin and the photo in a new york subway station, a woman dressed as hillary clinton's emails.

later in our program we'll be showing a few interviews on this halloween day from the congressional cemetery here in washington, d.c. but i want to get in just a couple more calls in this segment. larry in bethlehem, pennsylvania an independent. go ahead. caller: i'm calling to tell you i'm voting for trump but voting against pat toomey, my senator and charlie bent, my crongsal representative because they both failed to try to hold down spending. they went along with every spending bill over the last few years and they never stood up and tried to do the right thing for the people of pennsylvania. and toomey went so far as to even vote against the second amendment to keep arms and i'm voting against toomey and charlie dent. i want people to know that. host: off our main topic but the issues you care about, are you voting for katie mcginnity,

then, for senate? caller: no, i'm seeing if someone else is running as an independent. because i seen the c-span debate the other night and mcginnity is even worse than toomey on the second amendment. i was going to vote for her until i seen the c-span program the other night. i seen that saturday or sunday had a rerun of the debate between her and toomey and i watched it. host: gives me a chance to promo our debate coverage. you can check out all the debates we've shown on c-span on our website c-span.org. let me get in robert in romeoville illinois. robert, go ahead. caller: yes, i'm going to vote for trump because of hillary's email scandals. but one more important thing i'd like to say is that she was -- hillary was on "the view" several months ago and she said -- she was asked, what about

me i don't believe in partial-birth abortion even up to the ninth month. and hillary said, oh, i believe in a woman's right to choose in all cases. and you know, the church forgives women that commit an abortion, you know, if they go to a priest and ask. but i think partial-birth abortion even up to the last day and she believes in that and i think, you know i call her killary because of her belief in partial-birth abortion. host: wild hold off on the abortion debate for another day. that will do it for this segment of "the washington journal." up next on our program jim pinkerton, fox news contributor and contributing editor at the american conservative will be here to discuss the latest news of the 2016 cycle including this f.b.i. probe and later, john hudak of the brookings institute will be here to talk about marijuanaa legalization

ballot measures that will be voted on in five states next week. first as we said today is halloween and an effort to get into the spirit of the day we paid a visit to the historical congressional cemetery located in washington, d.c. to learn about its connections to congress. >> tell us about the congressional angle to the cemetery? >> we actually have that name picked because we have about 160 congressman and their families interred here in the cemetery. >> congress has no day to dayakivity? >> we're congressional cemetery in namesake only and formed in 1807 by christchurch. >> tell us about the grounds you have here. how much space do you have and how many people do you have here? >> we're still an active cemetery and have plots for sale. we're covering 35 acres in the heart of capitol hill and have nearly 69,000 people buried here. >> as far as your upkeep and maintenance, what's it like and our tax dollars involved in it at all? >> they are not. we've been run by a nonprofit historical cemetery since 1876.

to mow the grass here costs $100,000 a year. overall we have about a million dollar operating budget annually. >> and as part of meeting that budget do you have very avant-garde things to help raise fund. can you tell us about those? >> we do. we take it to the fine line and do 5-k races and movie nights in the cemeteries and have evening tours where we have costumed actors and actresses portraying some of our permanent residents telling the story of their ultimate demise. >> when you take that approach, what's been the reaction of people and i'm sure it's mixed? >> it's mixed but by far very positive. they realize we need to raise this money. it gets our word out there we are an active cemetery and really gets people to enjoy what is really their central park here on capitol hill. >> and i suppose being in washington, d.c. it does serve as a sense of rich history of course, for the district of columbia. can you tell us about that. >> it does. we have everybody interred here from rich and famous to just

normal store keepers that operated on capitol hill. it really represents the entire history of washington, d.c. and in some cases the nation. host: jim pinkerton joins us and has served on republican presidential campaign going to the 1980's. i want to first get your reaction to this email investigation, the announcement on friday as somebody who served as a veteran campaign strategist. let's talk about it from that perspective. what do you think it means for the next eight days? guest: frankly, my first reaction to the email story on friday, 11 days before the election was the flashback to one of those other campaigns that i worked on which was the 1992 bush campaign the re-election campaign where just a few days before the 1992

election, former reagan defense secretary caspar weinberger was indicted by the lawrence walsh, the quote unquote independent counsel investigating the iran contra business and i think many observers believed that that last minute we we -- we called the last hit of weinberger broke bush's momentum and therefore any chance he had to win the presidency. so i was amused to see hillary clinton, they're saying it's so terrible what they're doing to me even back in 1992 as the wife of bill clinton, saying oh, well weinberger is just getting what he deserves and the process should work and so on. so, you know, who can assess the underlying merits of the case at this point? but the proximity to elections made me think back to that earlier time.

host: can we assess whether you think it's a vials of the hatch act, senator reid talking about concerns that violates the hatch act of political -- of government officials politicking and influencing elections? guest: it would seem to me the real story appears to be that the f.b.i. agents in the field offices in new york and three or four other cities around the country are saying look, we've got to do this. this is not being done right. so director comey, as i under it, was responding to incredible upward pressure from the career staff at the f.b.i., which is sort of the opposite of the hatch act. it wasn't comey getting a phone call from r.n.c. chairman and saying ok, what do you want me to do? it was his own staff saying look, this is a serious issue, we found 650,000 emails according to reports on anthony

weiner's computer. and some of them have state department water marks so we've got to study this. host: the clinton camp says they want more information released before election day. does donald trump's camp want this? do they want more information coming out on this? guest: i don't think the clinton campaign wants more information coming out. i think if they did they could have huma abedin and pagliano, they could have press conferences today and come on your show and say here's what i learned, here's what i did. i think they're bluffing. i think they're saying we want more information because they're confident that they won't be more information. host: does james comey have a responsibility to put out more information considering that unprecedented press conference from back in july when he provided so much information at that time about the investigation? guest: i guess he thought he did. look, the f.b.i. director is in a difficult spot.

because back in july when he said there's -- i'm not going to quote this right but in general he said there's no criminal violation violation here, nothing prosecuteable, i don't think. the republicans said you're a dish rag for the clintons and now he's saying maybe there is more to investigate, the democrats are clobbering him. this is the old joke about coming to washington is like coming to the nfl. first time you're tackled in the nfl, the football league, they look at you and say ok, kid, welcome to the nfl. welcome to washington, director comey. he's a big boy and been around for a while. he knows or he knew that when he seemed to take the clintons off the hook in july he would be clobbered by the republicans and when he seemed to put the clintons back on the hook in october, he'd get clobbered by the democrats. that's actually why we have f.b.i. directors with a 10-year term. for the most part, except for exception of reasons they can't

be fired though i admit harry reid would love to walk over and -- host: there are some democrats calling for him to step down as well. let me go to the phone lines. if you want to talk to jim pinkerton, fox news contributor, he's a contributing editor and american conservative magazine, 202-748-2000. if you're supporting a third party candidate, 202-748-8002. if you're undecided, 202-748-8003. and as viewers are calling in, we ask this question at the beginning whether this email investigation has changed people's opinion on the election. do you think it cause much movement? we didn't get too many callers or comments on facebook or twitter of people saying it was influencing. people seem to be already made their decisions. guest: i think between 5% and 14% have already voted so whatever happens with them is moot.

you know, i could come here and i've been in washington since 1980 so i can swing around conventional wisdom hopefully with the best of them. if there's one thing this election has taught us, you know, as the famous hollywood screen writer william goldman who won two oscars and kind of knew his stuff said mr. goldman, what have you learned in hollywood in your four decade in tinsel town? he said, quote, nobody knows anything. so it's important to learn things so if callers call in and real people call and say look, i don't care about the emails or do care about the emails, whichever it is, it does mean something. but as the philosopher immanuel kahn, the actual proof is impossible. we'll know in nine days. host: let's see what a few of our callers have to say. fernando up first, a donald trump supporter. good morning.

caller: good morning. i am a reagan democrat and i changed and will tell you why. first of all if i had done just a minor thing that hillary did, i would have been locked up a long time ago at first until this is preferences. the public preferences for mrs. clinton and protection and she's having so many people pulling for her. the reason i call -- i came from my previous democrat voting all the time for 15 years since i became a citizen in this country is because when i saw that commercial, or that advertisement about how mr. trump disparaged women and things like that in the commercial, in that advertisement children were

used there and then to portray or get this done, then my children were there and then they were asking me what is this? that style of -- that is child abuse. to do that to grown up girls women, like not children. and then what i am -- host: a couple points. i want to get jim pinkerton to weigh in on. he was talking about the most effective ad for him so far, being the ad for children watching donald trump's statements and some of the more controversial things that he said. guest: again, it's valuable to hear what people have to say. this ad affected me. of all the -- it's interesting he's citing tv ads because so much is happening now on digital. look character is important to

people. so the character of donald trump, when the character of hillary clinton are front and center in this race. and you know, the cliche about congress, would you vote for a member of congress because you're a republican or democrat or you believe in this issue or that but in the oval office it really is the quality of character and ethics and honesty of a person. host: what is the most important argument if you're advising donald trump for him to make the next eight days on this email issue? the caller bringing up the idea of laws applying equally no matter who you are? that's something that was important to fernando. guest: i think it's exactly right. the wrap on the clintons the last 25 years has been that they've been getting away with things that other people would be in jail for. i mean, the prisons today are full of military officers, government employees who have violated some little aspect of

email. there's a case of some army officer in afghanistan who heard about some table ambush coming up against other troops in the field and he sent an email on his gmail account and they court-martialed him for it. he was trying to do the right thing and save lives and did it outside of channels and not through the military email. host: host: e-mails about this yesterday. one pointed out director james comey and another one talking about the polls and where they are leading in the polls before the announcement friday. guest: the second one about the

media coverage, i think the public, for better or worse the public is on to the fact that the media are clearly on the democratic side and it has led to the success of fox and the american conservative and bright art and other conservative outlets because a big chunk of the country assumes that they are hearing the dnc line. people tend to tune out. people know what they know in their got and they will not let the media persuades the otherwise and i think that's where we are in this country. host: this is the latest issue of the american conservative. guest: i wrote a piece on a

hypothetical donald trump foreign policy and what the elements might be. the heart of the story, if you think about who donald trump is in his professional life, he is a deal maker. whereas we now have a foreign policy that is dedicated on the accumulated weight of decades of precedent and ideas and procedures and so on to the point where if you were to ask secretary of state john kerry or somebody else in the state department, what are your priorities? they would say democracy women's rights, girls empowerment, co2, human rights. they would have a hundred hangs that they think are important in the minds of the accumulated era

craddock up swell from the department. if you have 100 priorities it effectively says you have no priorities. you see fullest list -- you see foolishness like john kerry saying in the middle of the syrian war let's have elections. you don't have elections in the middle of a war. in 1863, you did not have that and the civil war. this is the benefit of having lived in this town is that you see if you are a cabinet secretary and you open a your inbox -- these agencies want me to do something. it all makes sense at some level

but it makes you look like a pull. they are saying everybody's agenda and you're not articulating anything that is capable of happening. to me, donald trump would say you have to deal with china and russia as great powers. you cannot give them lectures on human rights. we've got objectives in syria and iran and other things. how do we make a deal? host: let's get some more calls in. st. petersburg florida, a hillary clinton supporter. caller: i support hillary. people in america don't care about e-mails. james comey should have taken

care of the business all at one time. donald trump is not that to lead this country. he raped a 13-year-old girl and no one talks about that. host: that's not something i have heard about. she said james comey should have taken care of business all at one time back in july. he said he had concluded there was nothing -- he was not going to recommend charges. then this happened friday is a concern. guest: it's entirely possible. this is the richest story of inside baseball legal procedure anyone can imagine since iran-contra and watergate. it's possible that the judiciary

committee and the appropriation committees got to james comey and said you are making a fool of yourself. he drew pressure from the democrats and from loretto loretta lynch. it's entirely possible that when he made the statement he made in july that the republicans said you did not do this right. host: let's go to bob in springfield, virginia, good morning. caller: people in third parties or who supported bernie are watching this the last couple of days. there are three things that other us. first of all, james comey was ok in july when he said what he said but now it seems the democrats are throwing him under the bus.

the second thing is it looks like whatever proof that the russians are involved with the e-mails, those of us trying to be objective say it is the content of the e-mails, is what they actually say that is of concern. it's like pulling teeth to get those things in the light of day. i think the number one issue right now is the idea that people seem to be calling for more information. the people who seem to have control over this information are the people from whom the information originated, the democratic side of the occasion -- equation. guest: he's right, the information is still sitting there. it's unbelievably tempting to any reporter or wikileaks for

the russians, who knows -- hacking is the story of our lives. you tell every hacker in a foreign country or working in their parents garage, there are anthony weiner e-mails, go after them so who knows what will happen us to tomorrow? host: hillary supporter, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am totally upset because of the new e-mails without saying what's on them all stop just say what's on them. also i would sincerely like to know who mr. trump owes his money to on financing like a new post office, etc.

and what has been found out about his so-called foundation that has been put on hold. show us his taxes and we would know if there is anything else involved. guest: i think the clinton foundation and the trump foundation are being closely scrutinized. you look at the front page of the newspapers, it's hard to find room or any other paper as to where the foundations are. the foundations would be a rigor story. -- a bigger story. they are being overshadowed. it's hard to speak of media norm in a time when more wikileaks

could come. these things are getting lost in the shuffle. a clinton foundation official wrote a 12 page memo explaining how the clinton foundation and bill clinton worked. in normal times, that would have been a story right there. it got overwhelmed by everything else. host: let's show our viewers some of the papers from around the country.

i want to ask you about the obamacare premium hikes and how much you think they might have an impact on the election? guest: it's more personal. if your obamacare premium went up, that's real money that almost all people -- i wonder whether the obamacare issue is baked into the cake. people want to see it repealed and some say they like it. everyone kind of knew this was a government program that would cost more than originally advertised.

on the other hand, people say they need help sought not sure that one will move the needle. it was totally out of left field. there could be other surprises happening in the next eight days. host: more affordable care act stories tomorrow as that enrollment starts. springfield, west virginia is next supporting a third-party candidate will stop caller: good morning i'd like to make a couple of comments. you mentioned wikileaks. that was not hacked from russia. that comes from the nsa and they have the men under arrest right now. they are keeping that secret. host: how do you know that? caller: i am a former member of the armed forces. during the clinton

administration, senator byrd and a former mother does member of the joint chiefs of staff asked me to keep an eye on things. the people staffing the nsa are not looking for a terrorist. they are watching political opponents and targeting them. it's the same with supreme court justices. it's why the health care law passed. as far as hillary clinton, she stole government property when she took those e-mails and destroyed them and then she lied to congress a national tv. i want to know why she is not being arrested now. martha stewart went to jail for that will stop they will not arrest or for that. when federal agents step foot on my property, do i have a right to resist?

guest: what you hear in that call is anger. that's what an enormous number of people feel, maybe a majority. donald trump has to do what he has to do but the thing making him competitive in this race is the anger people feel. in oregon, these ranchers who got in a tulsa with the government, i wrote a couple of stories about that. it was about what the government was doing on behalf of big companies trying to take land away from ranchers and armor so they can use it for wind power plants.

it led to these complications and a man being killed. that phenomenon is mostly ignored by the media and it's happening in real places like oregon or west virginia. people are angry. he alluded to hillary clinton possibly being arrested and that was another major departure in this election. i have never heard one presidential candidate say to another as donald trump said in a debate that you would be in jail. many people think that way. he can argue about whether it's good for civil democracy or so on but it is reflective -- host: do you think it's good for civil democracy? guest: no, but it's real. the civil war was not good for civil democracy but it had to be taught -- fought.

the union had to win and become the united states of america but in 1861 when the south was seceding from the union, you cannot pretend it was not happening. you had to suppress the rebellion. host: do these kind of attacks against the political opponents have to happen in today's politics? if so, why? guest: some people say is like a schoolyard fight. other people say if we are in a situation where a good chunk of the people say this is highly politicized, i think house republicans have made a good case.

if that level of abuse is being standardized and normalize, then you need dramatic action. host: how much of it is caused by a political news cycle that constantly has to be bad and you have to constantly win the day in the headlines? guest: to me, that's a tactic that depends on what the news is. the reality of cable news and twitter and instagram and whatever else did not force lois lerner to decide to run her own chapter inside the irs. it did not order acorn to say we will turn federally funded lower education into a thing. i think it's a different

phenomenon. the extreme politicization is a disturbing trend that calls for dramatic reform. i think the issue of the news cycle is something to think about. there will be plenty of columbia journalism conferences about it that it's a separate phenomenon. host: we want to get your comments. new albany, indiana is next donald trump supporter. caller: hi, i am quite an independent and have been all my life will stop i'm in my late 50's. i have decided to support donald trump this election.

the reason is because i am trying to watch it will stop it's tempting because of all the propaganda on television to become overly emotional and a lot of people succumb to what i would call tribal thinking. this is not a football game. you're not pulling for the democrats or the republicans you are caring about the issues and i would like to see more people thinking independently independent of race, of gender of party. a good example of that is the outrage over the revelation of all of these e-mails being discovered. it people were really interested in getting to the truth, they would not be concerned about the politics behind it. it's just plain of fact that all of these e-mails were discovered which changes the dynamic of the

investigation where evidence was destroyed and manipulated by the woman under investigation and her political cronies and the people supporting her. that seems to have been just ignored. especially by the democratic party. guest: i hear the caller saying we should vote independent of gender, of race and to pick up on the civics point again, she is right. the only salvation of a democracy is it people are willing to vote against their own interests as would be determined. if democracy just becomes voter blocs and those votes are

guaranteed, that's not a democracy. that's a prelude to civil war. host: go back to 1984, 1988, campaigns you advised on. what work did appealing to different voter blocs work? guest: you have to be realistic. there is always some of that but ronald reagan back in 1980 one over huge chunks of democrats and independents and normally would be voting democratic. he won over on the issue of change. that was a change election and it worked happily for the

candidate. in 1992, it was a change candidate election against my candidate. 1988 was not a change election will stop 2008 was a change election. mike huckabee not get the republican nomination and lost to john mccain who lost to barack obama because barack obama was a change candidate. john mccain has his virtues that was easy to pin as more of a bush or e3 which the country did not want. host: does it always come down to change elections or keep things going elections? guest: yes, that's as good as you can do. every day in your life you say is this something that you want to do?

there was a book written years ago that said there is exit loyalty. you can leave something or emigrate or be loyal to it or complain about it. we can sit here and say i will quit my job o stay at my job or yellow my boss. caller: [indiscernible] we need to change the political lines in this country. [indiscernible] this president has appointed many republicans [indiscernible] host: he was talking about this

e-mail controversy might impact appointments in the future, that it might make the next president less likely to a point somebody from the other party to any position. guest: in the vetting process in campaigns and transitional offices and other hiring venues, it's routine. given what we have learned about private e-mail accounts, and not only that like hillary's but the former director of the epa and millions of others for all we know, you will have to not only ask but then verify to all of these jobseekers and would be appointees and cabinet secretaries that whoever wins, did you use private e-mail and can we see it? host: what about reaching out to

somebody who is not necessarily in your party? maybe they would be qualified but they would be disqualified because of their political affiliations. guest: whoever the next president is will have to face the challenge of unifying the country in some way. whether my party wins or loses i hope the next president says yes, we have to do that. even though the vetting process will have to get more thorough, i hope we can find some way to bring in the best people of the other party to work together. host: a hillary clinton supporter in stevensville, michigan, good morning. caller: with republicans its

abortion and guns but why do they cut all the programs that help the women keep their children and don't have an abortion and why are they all connect did? -- connected? he sounds like larry flynt of hustler. guest: i heard the first part about pregnancies. host: let's stay on the first question. it was about essential programs that republicans have advocated for. guest: caring for a child is a sacred mission and important not only to the individual but the nation. i admire greatly crisis

pregnancy centers where groups say to a pregnant mother, don't have the abortion and we will help you get through this. i think that is to be applauded and i think that's the only answer to the abortion issue, to make sure if you carry the child to term, you will not suffer unduly. host: what about social programs for that child for the rest of their childhood with concerns about cuts it will impact that child later? guest: we don't want anybody to starve. however, there are others who say you have to have a plan for the child by the time he or she becomes an adult to join the

workforce and the productive mainstream. there is an article in the new york times today about a metal basket making factory in baltimore that is hiring substantially ex-cons, felons, troubled people but they are making $20 per hour. good jobs and good wages and the kind of rough work that rough people can do. even 100 years ago when they immigrated they were doing this kind of work. do we have enough of those kind of entry-level jobs that do not require substantial education and they looked the other way on criminal backgrounds? the best social program which is a quote from ronald reagan is a job. that's not to dismiss health care and other programs.

at the end of the chute where society is not responsible for you after the age of 18, there has to be a plan for jobs. i was an advocate for it disability in conservation. if you cannot get a job, we will get you a job all stop that was in the reagan era. you are doing something productive and organizing your life. it makes you live longer. the civilian conservation corps cap the bodies of our young men together who would fight in world war ii 10 years later. host: a donald trump supporter, go ahead. caller: i've a few things to discuss. i am a trump supporter.

i was listening to the lady from south carolina talk about the e-mails with hillary clinton. if the fbi missed some things, that's on the f dei. would this woman say the same thing if her child got killed in the fbi was investigating something and they said this guy did not do it and they later found out that the guy really did do it? she would say the fbi missed it and would want to bring it back up. the second thing about obama and hillary for donald trump to get an office, we need a change in america will. we need a person who is down to earth and not a politician. the republicans want to lower

the taxes and democrats want higher taxes. if you lower taxes, you make the economy grow. if you raise the taxes, and puts a stop on everything. guest: yes, the parties have inverted. the republicans used to be the party of the rich of the democrats were the party of the poor. now that has kind of slipped. you can look at a map of the 2016 electoral college and compare it to the 1896 election. it's a completevflip. it's an interesting phenomenon and makes political science fun to see how things change. host: there will be many books written about this election. jim pinkerton has written his own book. you can check out his work at the american conservative and thank you for your time. up next, we will be joined by

john hudak from brookings and talk about the marijuana ballot measures. later we will discuss the leaguer -- the legal issues in the fbi probe of the hillary clinton e-mails. let's look at the congressional cemetery with a new interview from the president of that ceremony. >> we are at another part of the congressional cemetery, tell us about it but mark >> the public vault was funded in 1832 and built to be a temporary receiving vault for members of congress who died in office. >> aside for members of congress, other famous people have spent time in this vault. >> over the years there has been 6000 people who have cycled through the public vault

including three presidents, john quincy adams, zachary taylor, and william henry harrison. >> can you tell us about taking a look at the life of dolly madison connected to this vault? >> she died and her son was an alcoholic and could not afford to bury her. she spent nearly four years in the public vault. >> then what happened? >> she was distantly related to another family who had a family vault across the street. she moved over there for an additional six years. >> dealing with the public vault, i suspect what happens there, stories of a spooky nature seem to be connected. >> definitely, it's creepy when you are in the cemetery. when you are here at night, it's extremely dark and you get the sense there are 69,000 souls in your midst. >> any personal stories of you

spending time here? >> we have some odd noises in the gatehouse and things fall off the shelf in the basement. >> i suspect people at this time of your particularly come out because of that. >> october is our busiest month of the year we do a lot of events including evening tours. >> "washington journal" continues. host: john hudak is with the brookings institution. marijuana legalization advocates say this could be a tipping point on election day when the legalization ballot measures will be on the ballot in five states. how likely are they to pass and what could it mean if they are? guest: the initiatives are difficult to pass even though support for it nationally is around 60% for medical marijuana.

when you start messaging on this and have an opposition campaign, if you get the right people in the right numbers out to vote, anyone of these initiatives can fail. anyone who thinks that california is a sure thing, they are kidding themselves. if several of them pass, it will mean a significant increase in the size of the legal market and a change in public policy for a number of americans. host: we talked about this last week with their viewers about the ballot measures. there was confusion about legalization versus the criminalization. -- de-criminalization. >> guest: de-criminalization means instead of being caught with small amounts of marijuana and being booked into prison, you are issued the equivalent of

a speeding ticket or a parking ticket. you pay that fine and you don't go through the normal retinal justice process that you would in states that have not passed measures. legalization is where the state begins to regulate these reduction processes and sale of marijuana so that you have no interaction with the justice system whatsoever. host: legalization is on the ballot in five states. this is a map from the boston globe about where those states are where marijuana is already legal and where the ballot measures are happening. california nevada, arizona maine, and massachusetts and already legal in colorado oregon, washington and the district of columbia. can you talk about where the department of justice is and where the state governments are in terms of trying to figure out

the regulation process? guest: colorado and washington were the first to legalize in 2012. as the first two states legalized, people were holding their breath because they'd did not know how the justice department would react. we have a federal law on the books called the controlled substance act which says federally, marijuana is illegal in all circumstances, no questions asked. the justice department has duct taped a policy fix and said as long as the state regulates marijuana -- it has to reform their laws then regulate the product. as long as the operators don't engage in certain that acts like selling to children or engaging with drug cartels or other things, the federal government will choose not to enforce the law in those jurisdictions. it allows states to move forward with these measures. host: we want to hear from our

callers. you can start calling in now. as far as taxes, has it caught up with the legalization efforts in those states? guest: there is no tax policy the federal level now. in terms of being taxed for a product, that is done at the state level. those tax revenue dollars are going to things like school construction and mental health and addiction services, law enforcement programs. because marijuana is illegal

federally, these operator still have to pay federal income taxes but they are not entitled to any of the business tax benefits any other business in the united states is entitled to. this lack of federal policy and specifically federal tax policy means marijuana operators of the federal government piles of tax money every year but they also get none of the benefits the system usually affords businesses. host: what are some of the benefits? guest: washington, d.c. is unique because we don't have a regulated market here. they blocked the district to set up a regulated system. that does exist on medical marijuana. if a business invests in itself it invests in research and development, those are typically tax write-offs on your federal business taxes. that is not allowed for a

marijuana business. that creates serious tax burdens for this industry and these companies. host: these are the phone numbers -- 4 other states are having ballot measures related to medical marijuana. 25 states already have medical marijuana programs. the federal government controls the supply of marijuana for research for those programs. explain why that is. guest: under our system, we are creating federal policy around drugs. it tries to comply with our treaty obligations and specifically the main drug treaty called a single convention. it requires that member nations

of which the united states is one horse -- strictly control the marijuana use in research will stop the federal government has set up a production facility at the university of mississippi that supplies all researchers in the united states with research grade marijuana. it has since relaxed the requirement that they are only one source but until the policies carried out, the only research grade marijuana you can get at the moment. host: a couple of comments from twitter -- guest: the data are early on what's happening in the criminal justice system.

in colorado and washington marijuana arrest have plummeted for simple possession and sale. arrests still exist. the numbers of arrests are dropping. it's important to remember that most basic marijuana arrests in this country do not result in prison time. some do but most do not. the impact on prison population might not be significant but the impact on the individual actually being arrested and having a criminal record or trying to apply for a job later will have a significant impact. host: california's up first on the line for democrats. caller: i am 28 years old and i have multiple sclerosis and glaucoma. those of the only two conditions proven to be helped with the use of marijuana. if i go to florida, they will not let me use it even though

it's posted be legal for me to go there. it really affect my health but i cannot do this. for multiple sclerosis, the drug they give you for the spasms are not as effective in the marijuana -- as marijuana. people like hillary clinton want to lock me up for it. guest: the first issue is that a lot of parents -- a lot of people that use marijuana is not just access to the product that they swear by having their pity then if it's put their ability to bring that where they go. if you have a prescription pharmaceutical for anything else and you live in california and you want to travel to florida, you can bring your prescription with you on a plane or in your car. with medical marijuana because

of federal policy, you cannot. as soon as you leave your state, you are breaking federal law. also state laws in many cases. the intrastate access issue is one that the marijuana reform community is very tirelessly arguing needs to be addressed by the congress. the second thing about the presidential candidates in this race, one of the most fascinating parts of election 2016 has been the change in rhetoric on marijuana. hillary clinton and donald trump have both argued that they support reforming medical marijuana laws. if you look back one or two elections ago, that's a pretty dramatic change compared to previous presidential candidates. it suggests that while you may be in a difficult position now the future may change and may have more reforms. host: louisiana, a republican go ahead. caller: how are you doing?

i want to comment about that i have had three soldier surgeries and have chronic -- three shoulder surgeries and chronic pain. if medical marijuana is legal in louisiana, are there certain laws that will never what type of illness or pain that you have ? will that determine if you qualify to get it? guest: each state that passes medical marijuana reform has a list of qualifying conditions. qualifying conditions are the ailment or diseases you can have that qualify you to access this market and get this product. the previous caller noted having

multiple sclerosis and glaucoma which are common qualifying conditions across states. you are talking about chronic pain. some states have provisions were if you have chronic pain, you can get access to marijuana. other states are hesitant to include that as a qualifying condition for fear it could be abused in the same way that opioid prescriptions are abused. several states and the district of columbia, chronic ailments or pain give you access but it depends how louisiana makes the law and crafts legislation to understand whether that would be a qualifying condition. host: louisiana does not have medical marijuana and it's not on the ballot measure. the red in this map are the states where marijuana is not legal and there is no medical marijuana law.

the yellow is where there are medical marijuana laws and the green where it's legal. five states could turn green on this map on election day. massachusetts, maine, nevada arizona, california. scott is in new york, an independent, go ahead. caller: good morning i have been an advocate for legal medical marijuana since 1998. we should be running our vehicles off of marijuana fuel. it was the first diesel fuel. these plants could purify the polluted air we have with all the man-made industrial pollution out there. we have 50 years of oil left.

i am 53 years old so we will no longer have oil for our children. this plant has more energy in it than any other plant. we could be running fuel marijuana fuel in our diesel motors. host: we got your point. guest: he brings up a good point and there is a camp movement in this country -- hemp movement that want to use it for a diverse number of purse -- of purposes. there is hemp oil that can be used for lenin, paper, a variety of things. in my new book, i profile those uses over time. it's interesting when you look back at the virginia colonies where the production of hemp was

required by the british crown and many early american farmers were producing hemp in significant amounts including george washington and thomas jefferson because it is such a diverse product and has so many uses in society. host: from twitter -- what are your thoughts on what legalization will do to illegal sales? guest: this is one of the key points on this issue. currently, black market marijuana exists everywhere. it's easy to access and anyone who thinks it is not an euro neighborhood is fooling themselves. when you set up a legal system that people want to access and feel comfortable with and people appreciate the products they are getting from it, it has to displace part of the black market.

legalization will not get rid of the legal marijuana entirely but it will certainly make inroads if it is regulated properly and if the state is producing at or manufacturers are producing it to the quality standards of the consumer and as long as the price is competitive with the black market. host: rns, virginia is next, a democrat, good morning. caller: it sounds like the previous caller has touched on what i had to say. i am wondering about the medical community involvement and whether their hands are tied or is the government picking on this. i want to know about where the medical community stands and what their opinions are in how far they want to take this? guest: the medical community

tends to be a more conservative institution which for decades has been trained and raised to believe that marijuana is illegal, harmful, addicting and bad. that is not true universally in the medical community but it is what has been taught medical school for some time so changing that culture within the medical community will take time. it has been a slow process. what you see is more interest among doctors in reading more research on this. there is a real worry among doctors and managed care facilities and hospitals about with the implications would be if they begin to recommend marijuana for patients. that has led many to avoid it entirely. it's important to remember that no doctor in the united states can prescribe marijuana. it is a controlled substance and it is a and. -- it is banned.

bacon argued that their patient may get their putative value from it. that exist because of laws that affect doctors. host: you talk about marijuana eating a schedule one substance. what does it take to reschedule something like marijuana? guest: either congress must pass a law that says it is under a different schedule which seems easy but congress passing laws is not easy. or there is an administrative process that begins at the department of justice and it does a review as does the fda. they make recommendations to the attorney general and the attorney general can decide whether or not to reschedule the drug or keep the drug where it is. there was a recent petition ruled on by the attorney general in august.

she opted to keep marijuana as a schedule one substance. host: it would have to go through three different agencies and signed up by the white house? guest: they would certainly sign off on something as political as this. even if the attorney general said tomorrow that we will reschedule marrow -- reschedule marijuana, that would begin standard regulatory process. this takes time and involves the white house and public notice and comment. it's not a quick process even if they want to do it. host: we talked about this several times. park ridge, illinois republican, good morning. caller: good morning, i appreciate your position but i cannot agree with you speaking from a retired law enforcement side. i'm concerned about public safety. when you have people going into

dens that are smoking and they get behind the wheel. in chicago, we have three major hispanic gangs that are fighting for the drug turf. i understand was going on as far as drug addiction between teens. there are submarines loaded with veils of this stuff and planes dropping it over our country and we have to corral this. you present a good case i appreciate. that for medical use fine. but you cannot just walk out and get into your car and drive on the highway after you smoke a joint. i have arrest a lot of people. i have seen people get addicted. it's a gateway drug i'm sorry to say. you've got a tough fight on your hands but i appreciate your position, thank you. guest: thank you for your call. i am not an advocate.

i do policy research on this. what the policy research shows is exactly what you're talking about. in places where the drug is illegal, you have people who are committing crime, doing bad things and legalization does not cause that. that already exists in chicago and among the community of people who you have arrested. what legalization does is try to regulate any legal market in ways that can corral public behavior. that is the goal of the reform community. whether it works or not perhaps the jury is still out what some would argue it is not. what we know is that absolute prohibition creates things like driving under the influence of marijuana, encourages drug cartels and many other things that you are worried about.

one thing i have to correct you on is the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. that has been proven absolutely false. the gateway effect of marijuana is not chemical or biological and has nothing to do with the plant. it has to do with the black market stuff when an individual is going to a drug dealer to access marijuana, he is also being exposed to other harder drugs. drug dealers have a very interesting and useful and hard bargaining way to drive someone away from marijuana where they have a lower profit margin toward something more addictive and much harder with a higher profit margin. that is a social effect which is the gateway effect, not the drug itself. if you start selling marijuana off the streets but in dispensaries, that should resolve that gateway effect. that myth is perpetuated in this

country. host: here's an ad running in massachusetts about the marijuana legalization effort. it is question for in massachusetts and this is an ad from one of the groups opposing legalization. >> question for would allow thousands of pot shops and marijuana operators throughout massachusetts in neighborhoods like yours, shops that sell pot edibles that look like candy and high potency marijuana. in pro pod states, it incidence of single car accidents are up and more pot shops than mcdonald's and starbucks combined. higher potency, dangerous drivers, it's the reason health professionals are urging to vote no on question for. guest: it's the first time i have seen the ad but it touches on a lot of the issues that opponents of marijuana legalization are concerned about. it's about where the marijuana

dispensaries are located and how many of them there are and the types of products they produce. i can tell you that in every one of the initiatives we have currently on the ballot, there are local zoning provisions to determine how many shops there are, where they are located, what a are located next to. they try to move them away from schools and churches and parks and playgrounds. there is another effort within the movement to change the types of edible products that can be sold so they don't have as much appeal to children. this is a concern. people don't want marijuana to look like candy or look like something that's appealing to kids. i think the ad showed an open storefront which in most cases is illegal because everything is blocked off.

even if you leave something out on a table in your home, that's a concern people have. heart of that is consumer education and part is regulation. host: there is an ad from a different group supporting question for. guest: all my training >> is to do everything to cure patients but our current marijuana law is changing. doctors and patients are afraid to bring up all treatment options for fear of breaking the law. yes on 4 means we can regulate tax, and legalize marijuana to help people with pain avoid opiates. the current system is not working. it's why doctors and patients agree that it's time to vote yes on 4.

who have conditions that they want to use marijuana for but the state says does not qualify. generally question four is about recreational marijuana, it's not about granting access to patients. this is a doctor who feels there still is a medical need for this, but most patients, most residents of massachusetts are thinking about this in different ways. host: ohio is next, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, my opinion is that marijuana should not be -- it should be legal like chocolate chip cookies they don't have

any position on it. me and my wife have smoked it for years, we raised two people successfully, sent them to catholic schools one is a policemen. the other policeman who called up, shu not smoke or drink when you get behind the wheel. marijuana can make you more atentative to driving. the policeman is wrong, it depends on the person. a lot of scare statistics i don't buy. i respect or recognize lawos marijuana. i don't care if they are legal or illegal, we don't care we doll what we want to do. guest: allen has a position that some americans believe in, as well, and that is that the government has no business regulating marijuana, that it is a plant as one of the previous callers said, god has given us a lot of plants we regulate, but that is certainly a perspective that exists. most americans, however, who are

comfortable with marijuana legalization or are willing to give legalization a shot want to heavily regulate it. the caller discusses wanting it not regulated in the same way chocolate chip cookies are. reality is chocolate chip cookies are heavily regulated when you think about the wheat and dare that he go into making those, the food safety standards that exist in the production of it. so it is important to that most consumer goods, any consumer good, is regulated in the united states. marijuana tebd tends to be heavier. host: wesley a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: question for you. i have a son, i'm a divorced family between my ex-wife and i she is married. both her and her husband smoke marijuana regularly. they are big advocates on marijuana. she is a nurse, in fact, i think

that is wrong, as well. jeopardizing her job. beside that, the most important thing is the fact that i have a 12-year-old son with her. we have issues with custody, she's in charge of him now. you know, the way the courts view it, we just went to court and they didn't care one bit in the district of columbia about marijuana use or whatever. she states it is for her back and in fact dc has changed, they just use it for recreational use. she claim its is for stress. the bottom line is, my son is being very heavily affected by it it. i want to know what kind of regulations might come out of this in the future, we're in a position where he -- i found he had a marijuana sponge bob on

his playstation four. this is real, it is affecting children. i'm all for letting them have recreational marijuana but i believe that around children, it is a whole other ballgame. host: got your point. john mcardle. guest: it would be inappropriate to comment on specific custody case. there are broader policy implications discussed in the call that they should have thought about. one is whether a custody dispute can result in an action that negatively affects a medical marijuana user just by virtue of them using medical marijuana. a lot of states have argued and have passed regulations or is part of their reform provisions that protect parents who also happen to be medical marijuana users from the state come nothing and taking their children. in a state where marijuana is illegal, the state can do that.

that protection, though snot absolute. if a child's welfare is in danger because of the use of medical marijuana in the same way it would be for alcohol or for opioids or any other type of prescription pharmaceutical, the state has the right to go in and enforce laws that protect child welfare. i think the caller's point is one that is obviously emotionally important to him, but it is important not to conflat two things and that is simply the use of marijuana for medical value. and the endangerment of child welfare. those two things can be very different and very distinct, even though surely there are situations in which marijuana being used in a home does create situations that can be dangerous for children. it is not true of every medical marijuana user. host: go to nick in new york, montrose, new york, an independent.

nick, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. my comment, i guess i have something of a comment, to your comment about the issue of marijuana generally, also about the laws related to medical marijuana, but it seems to me that there's two stigmas attached to marijuana, especially medical marijuana and one of them being cultural, one being economic, culturally speaking, you know, we have alcohol, which is of course a drug that everybody in this country tends to partake in. and if you want to talk about family issues and issues related to that, obviously alcohol plays a huge role in that. of course it is legal. also very importantly, the issue

related to pharmaceutical companies and how -- maybe, you know your guest may want to touch on this, but there's been a lot of information and studies came out about opioid abuse, as well as the overuse and overprescription of opioids for painkillers. and you know, just seems very clear that this is a vote situation where have you pharmaceutical companies that would prefer doctors to prescribe these type of drugs. i'd just like to maybe just from personal experience, when i was younger, i had like many other people, my wisdom teeth taken out and what was i prescribed? oxycontin, or derivative of that, heroin synthetic.

that is what all my other friends got. what does it do? a lot of people start selling it in the schools. that is just what is happening. guest: so i'll touch on nick's first point in particular about the cultural issues that surround marijuana legalization and i've written in my back tracing this path of cultural indoctrination in this country about what marijuana is and it creates these -- this misinformation about how often marijuana becomes a substance abuse disorder, how often this is viewed as a gateway drug and part of this has to do with the government's messaging over decades about this drug. the problem for the government is most people who use the drug or experience it in some way don't have experiences that match what the government has been saying and so that creates

this odd situation of disinformation for the average voter. it makes people more curious, makes people think about reform in a more serious way. that cultural pressure exists in the public it exists in the medical community, in law enforcement, in a variety of areas. what is most interesting, the change in public issue over the past 20 years. support for marijuana legalization nationally is about 60%. in the 1980s, that was under 20%. there are cultural biases that exist against marijuana, there are a large number of people in this country who are pushing back against that, up against those cultural norms and looking for something different out of the system and from this product. host: for more visual learners, here is a chart of the pew research poll og support for legalizing marijuana going back

to 1969 when the -- 84% of the population opposed it and 12% supported it. you can see how that's changed over the years to today, a few comments from twitter as we've been having this conversation. fsr says, is there nothing more going on in this country than pot talk. direction and indirection. penelope says marijuana is not a gateway drug. drunks break up families. steve says anti-legalization forces or prohibitionist who criminalized booze a century ago. busy body system what he calls them. karen says this election season has been a mind-altering experience. william is in bernsville, minnesota, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i just have a quick commentary. i really believe that the whole marijuana is rather minute in relation to all the very

important things that we have to decide as a country in the next year or two. the marijuana movement for legalization of this plant is basically out of the liberal reactionary activist genre of people. it is a small group of peep and he will they are basically of no importance at all. medical marijuana, i can see where it maybe has some place in prescription medicine, but recreational marijuana, no that's ridikilous. i would like to ask this gentleman, have you ever had to show up at work with a co-worker that has bingeod marijuana all weekend? their clothes stink, their eyes are yellow as marbles and they absolutely can't function. you know, cat and he will buffalo have grazed on wild marijuana for centuries, but they don't have to drive buses they don't drive car necessary traffic, they can chill out. when you have a bunch of people that are doped up on

recreational marijuana it is quite a nuisance, it is a very unnecessary thing. guest: sure. william, i've got to correct a few things from the call. i agree with you that this issue is one that is minor compared to some of the major issues facing this nation right now. but here is reality. this is an issue being voted on in nine states this year, this is a policy that for medical marijuana, for instance, $200 million americans live in states that have medical marijuana programs. this is real public policy and something that people do care about, that affects their lives that people are talking about. i think the idea that this is the liberal activistic left driving this really emerges from a total misinformation and lack of understanding about this movement and who supports it. liberals certainly do, but if

you look around, there are liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, some of the most conservative members of congress join hands with the most liberal to push reform. so while i think the caller has an idea in his mind that every marijuana user is behaving in an inappropriate way and it emerges from one small segment of the economy, i think if you look out at colorado and washington that have legalized marijuana with support of about 55% of the vote, other states have legalized with higher percentages of the vote, it really put intoes perspective how diverse the coalition is that ends up supporting marijuana reform. host: marijuana ballot initiate in nine states, five states legalization ballot initiative, in california prop 64, the front page of the inland valley daily bulletin talking about prop 64.

in arizona tis proposition 205, nevada, question two, maine question one. massachusetts, it is question four. we're talking about it for a couple more minutes. john? westchester, pennsylvania, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is relative loo most of the drug enforcement officers i've ever heard mention talking about drugs say that marijuana is a stepping stone to the hard drugs. and we don't need that. and the ama says that the hospital problems associated with marijuana are 10 times worse than tobacco and we're going broke paying for people in the hospital that had tobacco in

their lives and they are causing many health problems and we don't need 10 times more with marijuana. host: john mcardle -- john hudak, the last minute. guest: drug enforcement officers argue the gateway effect. drug enforcement officers are not scientists or sociologists, but people who rely on government language to make their point. as i said earlier in the program, marijuana is proven not to be a gateway effect because of anything about the plant. your latter point on marijuana causing 10 times as many serious health effects as tobacco, no idea where the data are from i never heard them and i study the issue everyday. the point is that i think a lot of people look at this issue and weigh the sxoft benefits. i think a lot of people have not seen many benefits from drug prohibition and willing to think

about what other systems could be put in place where the benefits are better than they are under prohibition and cost can be managed. host: the book, if you want to read behind the data "marijuana: a short history," john hudak is the author, senior fellow in government study at the brookings institution. if you follow him on twitter, at john hudak, appreciate you coming by. guest: thanks for having me. host: up next, stephen vladeck, constitutional law professor at university of texas school of law. we will discuss the issues in the f.b.i. probe of hillary clinton's e-mails o. this halloween conclude look at congressional cemetery here in washington, d.c. by learning about some of the more well known people buried there including presidential candidate. >> paul williams with historic, you have 68,000 permanent members here. tell us about the famous ones, well-known ones. >> probably most famous is j.

edgar hoover director of the f.b.i. and john phillips sousa, who wrote "stars and stripes forever," and -- >> i suppose people want to see those people first. >> they do. >> you have other people here, somebody with a background, can you tell us about her? >> mary hall, the famous bordello owner a high-class one near the u.s. capitol building conveneiently located, she died in 1984, with an estate worth a million dollars. >> what is the reaction? >> it is intrigueing that she is buried here along with congressmen and famous people and tap tol -- capitol hill resident. >> a resident here has a similar background. >> absolutely. velva anne lockwood in the congressional cemetery, first woman to run for president under a major party ticket, equal

rights party in 1884. she garnered 5000 votes in a year when women couldn't vote themselves. >> when people find out this story, how do they resnakt >> they are pretty intrigued, they have never heard of the individual before. we like to get her story out. she was a historic groundbreaker and a woman of much intrigue. >> as far as her story is concerned, when people come here, i know you have special events and highlight the stories, including hers. >> we do. we have evening tours at night kouft automaticed actress portrays velva and gives the story to the visitors. do you have to be famous to be buried here? >> you just have to be dead. >> "washington journal" continues. host: stephen vladeck, university of texas school law, specializes in constitutional law joins us too look at legal issues that play in the f.b.i. investigation of hillary

clinton's e-mails and professor consider whering f.b.i. director james comb comey left this, how surprised were you on friday when you read about the letter to congress? guest: sure. frankly, john, i was flabbergasted. i think it is very unusual step for the f.b.i. director to send a letter like that at any point in any investigation. for director comey to send a letter like that so close to the election, a letter that doesn't say that much, he hadn't looked at the e-mailss confiscated from abedin and anthony weiner's devices is unprecedentd and raises serious questions about the f.b.i. director's judgment. there was no smoking gun why did he do it? host: considering how much he talked about what was in the investigation, what they found in the july press conference, do you think that he needs to explain more before election day? guest: i think it would probably

help if he explained more before election day. there are a lot of questions his friday letter raised, but did not answer. does he have any reason to believe there is anything in the new trove of e-mailss that changes his analysis from july? does he have any reason to believe the content of the e-mails most of which are not actually involving secretary clinton are relevant to the election? how could he have known that on friday before he had access to the e-mails? i think there is more explaining to be done and i think that is because of director comey's actions. i think he has created this awkward and really unprecedented situation. host: so reports of upward of 650,000 possible e-mailss go through that may or may not relate to the original investigation, likely this will take longer than the next eight days. do you think regardless of who is elected president on november

8, there will be a push to wrap this up before the next president is sworn in? >> i think the f.b.i. gallon as quickly as it can, if for no other reason than comey's public statement, they have to. wholly unrelated to the timing of the next inauguration, i suspect we'll see some movement on this investigation in weeks, not months, because i think director comey has put the bureau in a tight and difficult position here. host: so let's talk about it with hypothetical. hillary clinton elected on election day, who defends hillary clinton if this investigation goes past the election, past her swearing in? what is the relationship between the f.b.i. and the justice department if she is elected the next president of the united states as the investigation continue? guest: sure. i think very interesting and fraught political dynamic. f.b.i. director serves at the pleasure of the president.

there is -- engage nothing misconduct. bill clinton fired bill session necessary 1993. i think the real question is, if somehow despite everything we've heard so far, despite everything director comey has said, despite the outward appearance fthere is incriminating piece of evidence in the e-mails that suggest secretary clinton broke the law and again, there has been no idea of that to date, frankly the real remedy would be the one the constitution prescribes, impeachment. we would see calls on capitol hill from members of the house and senate to proceed in that direction. but john, we're nowhere near that. the critical point to understand about jim comey's letter on friday trevealed nothing about secretary clinton either way. it revealed there were new e-mails, most of which have nothing to do with secretary

clinton, he believes are relevant to an investigation that remains ongoing. we are a long, long way away from any suggestion that now there is going to be a smoking gun, some kind of incriminating statement that the f.b.i. had not previously found, but shows up in e-mails on who abedin and anthony weiner's social devices. host: we are 40 minutes away from the end of the program. stephen vladeck is with the university of texas school of law, specialize necessary constitutional law and a guest on this program in the past. here to take your questions and comments. democrats, it's 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. stephen vladeck, let's begin on that line for independents. kirk in springfield, massachusetts. good morning. caller: how you doing, gentlemen? hope you are having a good day. like everybody says, thank you to c-span. my problem with this whole

investigation is there seems to be a smoke screen and it is very political and i'm disturbed and a bit concerned about the future of our republic, when one looks at the two candidates running for office, mr. trump seems to be under criminal charges not criminal charges, civil charge necessary suits we never hear about and all this smoke around secretary clinton and none seems to have any fire attached. i'm concerned about the political nature of it. i would like tou address that. thank you very much and have a good day. host: professor. guest: sure. kirk. thank you for the question. the politics are distressing and complicated there is a reason why federal statute called the hatch act which make its illegal for federal employees like director comey to take steps that could influence or affect the outcome of an election, if that is their purpose. i don't know that we know enough to say that is director comey's

purpose or goal, but given the amount of skrut nee paid to secretary clinton's e-mailss, given wikileaks' efforts to publicize the e-mails they have been able to obtain from russian hackers, it is rather telling that there has been no concrete evidence of any crime on secretary clinton's part. i'm serified if the government looks at my e-mails, that much scrutiny and no fire, i think it is a really telling conclusion. as far as mr. trump, we know pretty well just how much legal trouble he's in. i think the real question is as between those ads and unlitigated cases and secretary clinton's investigation that has gone nowhere, should either push voter necessary one direction or the other? i can't answer that for you. host: since you bring it up and harry reid brought this up yesterday, let's talk about hatch act violations and how one proves a hatch act violation and

what the penalty could be if that is proved? guest: sure. hatch act was enacted in 1939, actually after there were fairly substantial reports that members of the roosevelt administration helped congressional candidates get elected in 1938 mid-term election. the idea is twofold. on one hand, prevents most federal employees from directly engage nothing campaign activities, especially when they are on the job. federal employees can't wear candidate t-shirts to the office in most case. there is more general prohibition. any official conduct with the purpose of influencing or affecting the result of an election, and i think the real question that director comey's actions raise is whether his conduct throughout this process his unusual july comments,

testifying before congress shortly therefore and his friday letter to congress, come close to prohibition. the problem, john, for the hatch act to be violated, it would have to be comey's influence to affect the -- only comey knows what his purpose was. there has been some -- george bush administration from 2005-2007, given absence of good reason for sending that letter on friday, perhaps we might infer this kind of wrongful purpose from director comey's actions. the hatch act is not a criminal statute, the worst possible penalty for violating it is -- it is there for a reason traises a hard question about when and under what circumstances senior government officials like jim comey should be making statements like this so close to an election. host: in the history of the match act, how many violations

have been successfully prosecuted, handful or happen every cycle? guest: i wouldn't say every cycle, but numerous cases, probably dozens, hundred or couple hundred, reality, john, we don't know about most of the hatch act cases relatively technical violation by relatively low level government employees. rare you have a senior government official and director of the f.b.i. at that making such a public and potentially election altering statement so close to the election. part because i think folks in those positions tend to understand the care and the skepticism with which they should approach such statements and john, part of it is because every federal agency or most, issue internal guidelines, reminding employees in the run-up to an election about avoiding the appearance of the hatch act violation. indeed pretty good case here, if director comey doesn't violate

the hatch act, run the guideline issued by sally yates in march, which went to all justice employees. host: eric holder bringing up those in the op ed, that is getting attention today. barbara, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering if indeed there are criminal violations, why is the f.b.i. not investigating colin powell, he used public server, g-mail for e-mails and all e-mails had been deleted and are not retrievable. so why is hillary clinton being persecuted for this and not powell? thank you. host: professor. guest: yes, barbara, worth separating two different issues. first is use of nongovernmental e-mail server by secretary clinton, which as you suggest, we also know colin powell used.

condoleeza rice used this type of setup. i don't think it is illegal tmay be inconsistent with federal record laws, those are modest penalties, not criminal statute. the issue in secretary clinton's case and the reason her critics have been making so much out of this affair is the extent to which in her private e-mails server may have been communicating about classified information and there are specific prohibition on the wrongful disclosure, unauth rised exposure or transmission of classified information, that is where i think the hillary clinton e-mail affair has taken on a bit of life to itself. but barbara, the larger point is the one you suggest off the top. we've had months, if not years, of discussion of the e-mails, we've seen so many of them ha thorough investigation by the f.b.i. including director comey,

who i think we can agree is hardly a shill for the clinton camp. and it turned up nothing to date. did second clinton act in a way that was unwise? absolutely d. she act in a way that was unprecedent? ed probably not d. she act in a way that was 'll legal? so far, no evidence according to the f.b.i. that law enforcement, that she did so. i think the nuance helps us to see why secretary clinton's situation is different and why the end of the day we're still in a place where at most this is a misuse of documents, much in the same way the end of the george george -- misapplied records rules, deleted tens of thousands of e-mails under legal obligation to hold on to. this is not new. if there is a twist here it is whether secretary clinton violated the laws pertaining to classified information.

so far, no indication that she did. host: woodbridge virginia is next, brian is an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you. you did a really good job of clarifying the factual legality of the situation much more than all the major corporate media, i commend you for that. then this thing about hillary guilty of espionage there is really no criminal activity or prosecution levels. it is really kind of political thing because nobody other than hillary was hurt by that nobody lost their lives. her reputation is for good decision-making when handling confident cral information is damaged and i'm pretty sure she learned from that. compare that to bush lying to go to war and torturing people. a lot of people lost their lives or were damaged by that and the republicans or the senators and

congress refuse to prosecute him and treat him like a hero. we are still trying to clean up that mess. it's like going to surgery with a person who has a mortal wound and they're paying attention to the pimple on their face or the makeover. you know, it's just obviously political when you compare it to that light. host: stephen vladeck. guest: brian is right tis all political n. fairness to more responsible secretary critics, the concern about using private e-mail serve ser not just bad judgment, it is concern private e-mail server is more vulnerable to intrusion and hacking by anyone but especially by foreign governments and there is heightened risk perhaps that classified information discussed on private server could fall into the wrong hands and be used to detriment of national security.

john, two critical responses to that, the first is again, no evidence, according to the f.b.i., secretary clinton was engaged in wrongful and illegal discussion of classified information on her private server. second, more important point there is every indication the same hackers, the same fiber intruders have been successful in breaching our official e-mail networks and our government networks. it is not at all clear that if the real objection is to the increased vulnerability of e-mail on private server if it holds water given how many prominent hacks of official government databases and e-mail accounts we've seen over the last couple years. host: what is your opinion of wikileaks and hahas been coming out from wikileaks? guest: it is funny. wikileaks has seen its reputation change over the last six to eight months. two or three years ago, a lot of

people looked at wikileaks as radical, but neutral organization designed to expose to the public all kinds of government information that was previously secret. it now seems pretty clear -- hillary clinton from being elected. i have concerns when any mostly foreign organization or any foreign government russia, tries to play an active role in our electoral process. it suggests maybe have an agenda. i think that is a real sobering thought for folks at the polls. host: san diego, california is next. joe is a republican. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. how you doing this morning? my question is, if hillary clinton had told the truth about her e-mails in the beginning, i don't think this would be up for discussion right now, you know what i mean?

i'm for donald trump. protect the americans here, the true american people in the united states. and my big thing is hillary clinton supported brainwashed by her and she's not going to do anything for this country. i'm a black man and i support donald trump 100%. that is all i have to say. host: stephen vladeck on disclosure by the clinton camp and timeline of the disclosure and how it impacted this investigation? guest: yeah. i think if secretary clinton had it all to do over again, the initial reaction to the story, the initial response to the entire entire -- i think it is now clear ironically thanks to e-mails from wikileaks that the clinton campaign was not ready

for just how big of an issue this snowballed into and just how big of a deal it was, especially to the extent it reinforced many critics, fair or unfair characterize iegz of her and objections to her. i will say in response to the last caller fwe're measuring the candidates based upon their general inclination to tell the truth, i don't think it is a close call. i don't think it captures out in favor of the what the last caller is supporting. i do think it is worth revisiting how this could have played out differently if secretary clinton had been much more apol gettic from the get go. i suspect that is something everyone in the campaign has come to regret. host: keith, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to follow-up on what your guest is speaking. i don't know if he knows the hatch act and i don't know if the president is a federal

employee f. any federal employee had an e-mail that was bad for the country, they would be fired if they just wrote an off-colored one and hillary clinton hid her e-mails and lied about it. it is hard to follow that. yes, it is hard to follow a democrat who will believe in her, what she said because she lied from the get-go and people's lives are at stake. thank you. host: stephen vladeck, did you want to respond? guest: i think this is worth stressing, i don't think it is open and shut like the caller suggests. the reality is government employees communicate over e-mail all the time about things perhaps they are not supposed to. government employees routinely make mistakes or errors when discussing information that may or may not be sensitive or classified. part of the problem is not with the malicious intent of government employees tis with

the labyrinthine and backward system we have today for classification of national security information. everyone in washington and folks who study the issue around the country would agree we have a massive overclassification problem and one symptom of overclassification is government employees from the level of cabinet secretary, to line officer, struggle to figure out what they can and cannot communicate about on particular networks. the secretary clinton make mistake? no question she did. she admitted she did. but i think folks should think carefully and think with more nuance about how hard it is for folks in her position who spend their day going back and forth between classified discussion and unclassified discussion who have obligation to act with this passion as expediently as they can to remember their eyes, doting i's and crossing the t's.

which system, which e-mail situation. it is telling one of the other central charges against clinton is she didn't react quickly to the situation in benghazi there seems to be attention between the two things. we want our cabinet secretaries to act quickly, be unfettered by procedural constraint, do what is in the best interest of the country, but when they make a mistake, they are untrustworthy liars, that is a double standard. we have to be careful before we cast aspersions when we haven't been there ourselves. host: 15 minutes left with stephen vladeck. he is with university of texas school of law, previously worked at american university here in d.c. forks cussing on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security. earlier in the program, we gave a hypothetical. here is another one for you f. hillary clinton is elected in this investigation is ongoing, could president obama issue a

pardon about anything that might come from this investigation before she then is sworn in? guest: i think he could. the pardon power in the constitution is pretty absolute. i think that would excullpate her from criminal liability. pardon would not necessarily block congress if it really wanted to from going after impeachment power. it is impervious to pardons, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. we have the possibility that a congress disposed against president clinton would try to impeach her. we have a pretty good lesson from the bill clinton administration about the difficulty of impeaching a president for reasons that smack of political -- as opposed to significant legal malfeesance. once again, john, we are so far from any indication that secretary clinton did anything more than careful that i think

not even necessarily to think about hypothetical just because it is so hard to fathom how we get from here to there. host: nancy is waiting, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my question is, could you elaborate a little bit more about a hatch act? i read what harry reid had put out, letting the f.b.i. director know he may have violated it. what would the possible ramifications be for him? i hate to use the expression, but it looks like a witch hunt to me and i appreciate i will take your reply off air. thank you. host: stephen vladeck. guest: well, just to be clear on the hatch act. the hatch act is administrative military regime, most of the consequence someone like director comey could face is termination. it is worth remembering director comey, unlike 99% of federal

employee system at will employee serves as the pleasure of the president. without the hatch act, the president can fire the f.b.i. director at any time and legally for any reason. so in this case i think senator reid all right is more than trying to provoke an investigation into comey than expressing displeasure with someone as prominent as the f.b.i. director taking a public and potentially prominent step so close to an election that could be read as being for one candidate and against another and john most importantly, without any real reason for doing so, without having a reason to think that the development of discovering new e-mails might somehow materially alter the outcome of the investigation of secretary clinton. i will say i don't think it is fair to point to the f.b.i. and the justice department and accuse them of being engaged in

a witch hunt. if there is a witch hunt, i continuing is coming from secretary clinton's critics, who tried to make this into the issue that makes her unelectable. it is telling that even comey doesn't see a smoking gun there despied what he thinks on the subject. host: some are calling for comey to step down. comment from the judiciary committee nlight of recent comments by director comey regarding hillary clinton e-mail, i call on him to resign and a link to the statement for -- and reason for doing so. gene in pipe creek, texas, a republican good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, jean. caller: i have a question. considering the nature and sensitivity of the letter, why wasn't the f.b.i. letter classified or confidential since they weren't -- they weren't notifying congress of evidence

of anything? and secondly, if i recall the first page of the letter, the addressees were only republican. what is going on there? guest: so i mean the letter was sent to the chairs of the relevant congressional committees because republicans control the house and senate at the moment, just happen to be republican. that was just a matter of protocol. the question about the letter and why it wasn't classified is a good one. i don't think anything classifies the letter, no national security information in it. certainly i think the director comey meant for the letter to be confidential but the only one leak from the top was inevitable the second the letter was sent to capitol hill. someone on the hill, especially someone predisposed to the clinton campaign would leak it, that is how quickly it came out on friday f. anything treinforcess director comey's bad judgment and indeed, john,

we learned over the weekend he sent this letter over the objection of a number of his colleagues in both the justice department and the f.b.i. it is not like there weren't folks telling him this was going to happen and go down this way. i suspect if he were here director comey would say, well, the public would be just as outrage federal they found out after the election that this development had happened two weeks beforehand and i had obligation, he would say to turn these materials over and to identify to congress the existence of these materials as soon as i was aware of them. the problem, john, it is dilemma from the f.b.i. director perspective, but one that ought to go in favor of saying nothing unless there is some compelling reason to actually put matters on the public record o. friday, at the point he had not accessed the e-mails, he had no reason to think the e-mails were from or

two secretary clinton or had information relevant to the election. the scale should have tipped in favor of sitting on his hands and we're seeing consequences of his decision to the contrary. host: director comey giving more explanation to the timing of this to those inside the f.b.i. here is front page leak story from the "washington post" today. f.b.i. agents investigating hillary clinton's use of private e-mail server while secretary of state knew that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to the case. they waited weeks before discussing with the director. the director comey was informed of the development thursday and sent a letter to legislators the next day, letting them know he thought the team should take "appropriate steps designed to allow investigators to review the e-mails," we'll certainly look for more information as it unfolds about the timing of this and what comes from the investigation. but 10 minutes left in today's

program, get to as many calls as we can. dena dena, in fayetville, north carolina. dena, you with us? go to james in marysville washington. good morning. caller: good morning, guys. i just have one opinion and a question. my opinion is i'd rather have my server out back in the woods than on some gigantic golden needle pile calling .gov. my question is who in the state department decides what is classifyd and how it is classified? i thought it would be the secretary of state decide what was classified and what was not? i'll take you off air. thank you for your time. host: stephen vladeck, classification issue. guest: sure. i think james is on to something here. the secretary of state, secretary clinton, is the top

official in the state department when it comes to classification decisions, she does have what is called original classification authority. i think there is a meaningful difference between a cabinet official who at least in theory has the ability to declooszifiy or classify relevant information and say a staffer, who does not have the same authority. it is worth stressing f. it turns out to be true, secretary clinton was routinely discussing incredibly sensitive classified information that she knew to be classified, you know on private network, one that she may have come to suspect was subject to being breached, i think this would be a different conversation but it is worth stressing where we are today and what we know. we know there were e-mailos her private serve they're include classified information, not nearly enough toefdz system secretary clinton was knowingly

discuss discussing it in a matter designed to hard the subvert him to security procedure for the same documents. again, that goes back to the larger point, these day its is not exactly obvious this kind of information is safer on the state department public network than on a private server kept in secretary clinton's backyard. that is not to condone her conduct, i think it is still something if we had it to do all over again she shouldn't have done. this is not as open and shut as clinton's critics hint it to be. host: question on the hatch act from twitter. what about the president campaigning for hillary clinton on taxpayer's dime? what about the hatch act there? guest: hatch act does not apply to everybody equally. senior government officials are allowed to help campaign for political candidate. indeed, congress amended the

hatch act in 2012 to relax some of the constraints on the participation by senior government official necessary campaign. the reason for doing that, it was a myth to think that senior officials like the president didn't have a -- if you are handicapping some of the senior surrogates to the person running for office, indeed if the president himself or herself is running for re-election it would be odd if the hatch act was disempowered them from campaigning. so the hatch act has exceptions, designed to allow for what congress thought was reasonable conduct by the president, by senior government officials, but has no exception for this. for the f.b.i. director, in a criminal case or potentially criminal case, to make this

statement close to the lkdz, is the exact kind of conduct that the hatch act at least in part was designed to dissuade. the purpose of the act is not to prevent folks from helping their candidate, helping preferred candidate when not wearing their government hat, it is too prevent government officials from doing things that could in fact bear on the outcome of the election and in some regard putting a thumb on the scale in a way that will affect how individual members of the public vote. host: john, in santa paula, california, a republican. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i would like to say i watch the comey hearings and took away a couple things that haven't been mentioned a lot in the news. one of them is that like your guest says, she doesn't have a pattern of having a lot of top secret stuff but she did have stuff under her server. that was a clear violation,

although it wasn't big. comey said at that meeting that the statute itself, which was only three or four sentences long and 92 years old, had only one precedent set against it in the 92 years. so the law itself wouldn't holdup and it would appear it was a witch hunt. back in july he said in order to avoid it looking like a political witch hunt, he would let it go. he also said back then hillary clinton would not get any type of clearance status in the f.b.i. with what she's done. now let's go back to today what happened is that hillary told the f.b.i. she gave them everything and now it comes out 650,000 more e-mails, so comey has no choice. this is not a political witch hunt. comey has no choice but to open it up and look at 650,000. if you go back to comey's hearing, he did address he did

not want this to be a political witch hunt. thanks very much. host: c-span.org, if you want to rewatch the comey hearing. stephen vladeck, go ahead. guest: i think two really important things to clarify in the caller's last comments. i don't think anyone suggested, including director comey, that it was clear secretary clinton violated espionage act by keeping a couple e-mails that may have contained classified information on her server. one of the most common misconceptions about espionage it is not generally illegal to discuss classified information in forum in which you are not supposed to. espionage act is not category categorical. it is full of holes, overlapping. i think folks need to be careful before thinking that, you know, because it was classified it must be illegal. that is not how the law works. on the point about hillary clinton turning over e-mails be

clear, the e-mails at the heart of director comey's letter from friday are e-mailos huma abedin and anthony weiner's private electronic devices, not e-mail necessary secretary clinton's possession not e-mails she had ability to turn over any more so than she had the ability to turn over e-mails on my lap tlt top or yours. we have to be caringful about allowing political prejudices to color how we evaluate the facts here. the facts are that secretary clinton did indeed have some e-mails on a private serve they're contained classified information, the director of the f.b.i. concluded there was not enough based on that practice to conclude she violated espionage act. it is a convoluted and imperfect statute statute. the latest development last week was not director comey reopening the investigation, it was director comey acknowledging that the 650,000 e-mails on other people's devices might, i

want to underscore might, be relevant to the investigation. it seems to me until and unless there is some reason to believe that these new e-mails, which were not in second clinton's position, somehow changed the bottom line, i think it was irresponsible for director comey to go out on a limb and make the statement. john, look no further than news cycle and public reaction since friday for proof of that. this is all anyone is talking about and the purpose of the hatch act is to prevent one government employee from taking over the news cycle like this in a run up to the election. hillary clinton versus donald trump, this is not how the f.b.i. is supposed to run operations, not how the f.b.i. is supposed to do business it is a bad precedent no matter what happenos november 8 and in the hillary clinton investigation. host: note for viewers, he will hear from hillary clinton and donald trump today at 6:15 live here on c-span.

we'll be carrying hillary clinton's campaign rally in cincinnati ohio. at noon today, we'll carry donald trump's campaign rally in grand rapids michigan. rand nehilton head, south carolina. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my question, i guess you answered on the hatch act, i didn't realize there were exceptions to it. for the president and vice president i guess that includes members, because i watched the committee hearings a lot. one of the ladies up there had a hillary pen on it. i guess that is excused, also? and the next question is, if you can answer this, is the democratic party picking up the tab for the federal employees that travel with her and campaign for her? is the democratic party picking thaup nickel? host: stephen vladeck. guest: in order, the hatch act

is directed at executive branch employees, folks who are both in the executive branch not congress, congress is not bound by the match hakt -- hatch act. it would be funny if it was they couldn't campaign for themselves. directed at folks using government money to support particular candidates. we have folks going out on the campaign trail and who support secretary clinton who are not president or vice president just regular live government employees, not supposed to be using government money to sponsor that. we often see folks take temporary leave of absence from government job and say the last two months, six weeks before an election to avoid the hatch act. during that time, the general assumption is yes, salary, travel expenses are either covered out of pocket or covered by the campaign or the democratic or republican national committee. this is not new. i don't think this is any big scandal in the election cycle,

this is how the system works. both democrats and republicans understand this is how the system works. what is new, not the involvement of the folks in campaigns, it is the statement of someone with the authority and seniority of the f.b.i. director, so close to an election that really at the end of the day full of fur and he signifying nothing other than new e-mails that may or may not be relevant to this ongoing story. host: stephen vladeck, teaches law at university of texas, school of law. follow him on twitter at steve under score stephen vladeck. thank you for your time on "washington journal." guest: thanks, great to be with you. host: that will do it for the program today. we'll see you back here tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern, 4 a.m. pacific, in the meantime, have a great monday.

we will have live coverage of his remarks at 11 eastern this morning. at new we will take you to grand rapids michigan where the republican presidential candidate is holding a rally. the first of a couple of campaign stops trump is making in michigan today. hillary clinton campaigning in ohio today. she will be in cincinnati starting at 6:15 eastern. new york times reporting that hillary clinton has established a slim edge in several swing states. at least