2018. we're asking students to choose up provision of the u.s. constitution and create a video of the string why it is important to you. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students grades six through 12. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. $5,000 willize of go to the student or team with the best country. for more information go to our website. studentcam.org >> washington journal is live with your phone calls next. a numberthey consider of bills. including one concerning the recruitment and retention of u.s. secret service agents. coming up in an hour, the supreme court case on gay marriage with elizabeth wydra of and carry superregional.

nicole strong talks about president trump's decision to shrink the size ♪ host: good morning. it is "washington journal." the supreme court and folks today as it hears arguments concerning that colorado bigger that refused to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding. many are lined up outside of the court hopeful to become spectators of the argument. you can hear the arguments on c-span.org. a new survey which looks at the media. take a look at how republicans and democrats and media coverage of president trump. we will present some of those results. we are interested in hearing from you.

here's how you can let us know. you can post thoughts on media coverage of president trump and you can go to our facebook page. that isfind the survey done for republicans and democrats just to present you a little bit of the survey. it says this -- he is a co-author of the study. another author join us on the phone to talk about the results and the findings is from

princeton university. good morning. guest: good to be here. host: we heard from the co-author. what were you looking at when you composited to study? guest: we did a survey of over 2000 americans. we asked many questions about people's views of the press and the trust and media institutions as we could think of, including many questions that had been asked before but other polling organizations so we could compare trends. host: you focused on party. tell us about it. if i was a democrat, what is my view of the media? guest: in general, democrats view the media more positive than for republicans. results isopline almost about 50% of americans have a great deal of confidence

in the media, there's a big partisan gap. about 74% of democrats, say they haveers, a lot of confidence in the media and for republicans, that number is just 19%. host: would you attribute does numbers to? guest: there has been a gap for a long time but that gap has been widening. the most plausible explanation is there are differences in the elite rhetoric concerning the media between leaders in both parties. democrats have tended to be more supportive of the role of free press, not always, but certainly in the past year or two. among republicans, just attacks on the legitimacy of mainstream media institutions for being biased or inaccurate. it has been a pretty prominent

feature for pretty long time. with president trump being more explicit about attacks on the media and individual reporters, that has only taken a long-standing trend and making it even more extreme. host: one of the things you look at is the president statements when he says something along the lines of "the media is the enemy of the american people." what did you learn from that? guest: we would ask respondents if they believe that statement. 31% -- found was that not a majority but a substantial minority -- basically endorsed the statement. among trump supporters, that figure is about twice as high. host: did that surprise you? yeah.

that is a pretty extreme statement. it is troubling to find a substantial number of americans either among trump supporters on general willing to endorse statements like this. on the other hand, i do suspect there is some sort of expressive component to this. if you sort of have some negative feelings about the media and annoyed about the media for some reason saying that journalists are an enemy to the people to pollsters might be one way to express that feeling. it is unclear how many people literally believe that to be true. it certainly is a cause for concern. the -- lowive into knowledge of politics. you build data out of that. what were you looking for lack of cash looking for? -- looking for? guest: this is often surprising

theeople, so basically people with the highest trust and confidence in the press -- and confidence in the press or high knowledge. high knowledge with balkans have the lowest confidence in the -- knowledge republicans have below is confidence of the press. it reinforces this point it might be elite discourse that is driving a lot of these differentials because it is the highest knowledge people, the people who are the most attuned to political messages and are paying the most attention to the debates in the media and are tuning in to the media the most who are picking up on these messages. if you're a high knowledge republican, you're getting a pretty constant medications from both elected official -- constant communications from both elected officials and media personalities that the media is not be trusted.

host: one of the things you do like is where people get their news. you highlight often to post and fox news. -- you highlight huffington post and fox news. guest: they illustrate a pattern which is that partisans tend to over report their use of partisan leaning new sources. this is compared to what we deserve because we're collecting data on the websites people use to inform themselves about news and information online. example, democrats are going to be more willing to tell us that they use the huffington post for news and information that they actually visit according to our behavioral data. republicans are more likely to report using fox news than the actually do. these partisan differentials in visiting huffington post or fox news definitely exist.

even beyond that, there's this desire to affirm yourself is a good democrat or republican. what that means is when we ask people where they go to get their news about politics, we come away with a more skewed picture than there is. surveyhe sponsor of this , practically how republicans and democrats -- and you guess -- andrew guess, thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: those are some of the details of the survey. your response on the reporting of the trump administration, perhaps you want to give your take on what the guests said and how you view media said -- and how you view the administration.

orissa from montana -- marissa from montana. you are up first. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i watch you religiously every morning at 5:00 a.m. i am so grateful. you. you brian and thank but i really want to say, thank you, pedro. what i want to say is without the media, we would literally be sunk. thank goodness for the brave men and women who go out there every day and put their lives on the line to bring us the news. thank you, thank you, thank you. i'm so thankful. look what the media has done for us. without the media, they would've reported the guy at the top of the medical thing, even though he was -- i'm confused.

without the media, thank you. host: did you have such a positive view even in the previous administration? i have beenller: watching the news since i was a kid. before you hang up, the one thing i want to say is we are missing the middle part of the jigsaw puzzle that is going to make everything makes sense that we are missing the middle part, because what is going on is how come the republicans have so much control over putin they can ask them, don't react to these sanctions. oklahoma.a, go ahead. metal seth meyers, i saw him do a parody about president trump it seemed kind of whiny. it went both ways.

truck got the upper hand. -- trump got the upper hand. host: you view those ellis the same way as news outlets? they seem to lean toward the democrats. host: as far as overall, what do you think of the coverage of the white house? caller: i think he is doing a he isob and i don't think handled in a good light. host: what do you think of media coverage? caller: overall? i read the newspaper everyday and he seems to be -- i cannot hear you. host: in maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. think president trump is a

very savvy person when it comes to media. a reality tv personality. he knew how to use the media and from the very beginning he started to paint the media as the enemy. it predates him announcing his presidency. he was persistent with it and he was critical because he had to convince his followers that all the things they write and say about him were not true. if they believed them, they would not support him. the president does so many negative things. his followers never seem to compare the fact that maybe all this bad news we are hearing is because there is so much bad news. news when ittisan

comes to the republicans. .ou have breitbart and fox news while the other 90% of the media , only 80% of that is fair. allones in the middle are boxer with the left, why daca because -- why? because they report the truth. when you're in that box, you cannot be out of it so you keep thinking what i am saying cannot be true. he is in maryland giving his thoughts on the media coverage. a couple stories to show you. this from cnn. they have audio from the abc news chief talking about the --ry

that is cnn who has that story out of abc news. new jersey, democrats line. caller: hi. i wanted to make a comment that i think this white house has been the best in manipulating the media cycle.

they turn the volume up on certain stories. they want coverage given to and they turn by them down on certain stores. the papers so to follow that. it is to be the news were there to report facts and now i feel the personalities and reporters behind the story and form the -- definitely inform. i subscribe to left-leaning publications and the right-leaning ones as well. all of them have shifted to personality presentation of the facts. it is disturbing to me. host: what degree do you think the president has influenced coverage? caller: through his twitter feed. the press is running after stores, very quick to -- after stories, very quick to publish. it used to be you would wait for the news conference at the white

house to get there. they had more time to get a bigger view. a few minutes passed before they made a comment. it seems just a gives me anxiety to follow it. i don't follow it as much. -- it gives me anxiety to follow it. i don't follow it as much. host: when you don't follow it as closely, you are talking literal, anxiety levels go down. caller: yes. his facts changed so quickly. one of the mass violence issues that happened, it was literally between instagram, twitter and what the news was reporting, the facts were reporting every five minutes. the websites were updating every five minutes. moreo have started being plugged into my local news.

often. nj.com more that is my sphere of influence. i am trying to put more focus their. -- more focus there. the los angeles times highlights hot -- highlights air force one while the president was traveling to utah. this is the headline --

john is next. baltimore, maryland. caller: hello. your last little blip goes right into what i was going to say. you have a story which is a nonstory. a guy -- they didn't want to comment on anything. maybe he didn't have the briefing. but it is a story. that is part of the issue with the news. they are bringing up all the stuff saw the bigger issues get faded out. the treatment of the white house , it is not just the news, it is all the entertainment.

oncehese places that were never political now are. everywhere is anti-trump, anti-trump. the news cycle itself is more commentary been the straight news reporting. when people say that the white house is talking to the people as an entertainment thing, that is what they have to do. it is all entertainment. the last caller talking about how they have to take a step back from things, she is spot on. just look at the big picture. there is too many details going in. that being said, sometimes if you step back to far, you get the story that they want you to hear. that is john in maryland. quite a -- on twitter, michael says --

you can make comments on twitter, facebook page. you can comment on this topic on that as well. let's go to florida. will your next from augusta in florida on our independent line. host: caller: -- caller: i would like to say the news media is doing a fantastic job overall. i don't think our president nor our public generally understands the real function of news, to help us uncover. also commentary is important. some of us don't have the wherewithal in terms of experience and knowledge base to know or understand. we have the ultimate authority

to reject or to accept what is being said. we are not puppets that are just being influenced without any power to critically ferret out what is really happening. i hope the media gains courage and strength from all of this backlash and continues to do the job that they do serve so importantly in a democratic society. oft: do you think the media media coverage is the same for this president? caller: yes, the problem is this president is so different from anybody else we have ever had. the news media has no choice. for the longest they try to stop saying he is lying. that's personalities were even saying can we really say that the president lied.

now, because his behavior has been so grievous that the attention to him is necessary, wildse if we let him run the way he is trying to do, what purpose will the media serve? other than just to report in the sense of playback? i don't want a playback media. i want immediate think it's in there and ask questions and challenges and helps us to form a broad picture of what is happening in our nature -- in our nation. host: one of the things that stemmed from the president's trip to utah, traveling with orrin hatch who is featured in a picture in the "washington times."

mitt romney himself commenting over the president's endorsement of roy moore, in the alabama senate race. this is mitt romney's tweet. that tweet garnered a response from roy moore himself, saying --

to al in upper marlboro, maryland. caller: thanks for the opportunity to allowing me to speak. with regard to the news, this started during the nominations for the republican party for president trump. blocked media has sometainment news, and blocks were true journalism and research reporting, but the low hanging fruit is so available that all of a sudden, all of .his information is flooding us however, the information we are being flooded with, it was .bvious the right is being perceived as coming back to defensive positions. cnn.ched msnbc, fox news,

if you want to watch a good news channel, you need to watch one american news. one american news is the one that gives the best coverage of the news. and not necessarily an entertainment program. it is pretty obvious comment even c-span is doing the same thing with regards to jumping on board. trump burped today. i remember on the campaign trail where he said something like hell and everybody said, i don't know if i will my children watching this. is this the type of news coverage that the news can come up with? where is the investigative reporting? i'm not saying that some of it is not going on? you wake up everyday and is always these little sensational little tidbits and the tidbits that are presented in such a accusatory attacking way on president trump.

the republicans get a line in all they do is have a sense of responses. host: let's go to burke, virginia. caller: let me establish politically where am it i did not vote for trump. i wrote in john kasich. i thought trump and clinton were awful people. my wife and i listen to npr and have historically listened to npr. my comment is, in pr appeals to maybe a broader base than fox or msnbc. you cast a wider net with the npr audience. since the election though, i have noticed just a real bias against trump and the administration by npr. i wait for bbc to come on around 10:00 in the morning

so i can get a little more accurate, unbiased view of the world. that is saying something coming from bbc. pedro.mple i would use, npr has become an inside the beltway reporting source now. i do business in asia, so i look forward to mature, detailed reporting on what is going on in asia. npr doesn't do much of that anymore unless it is a pinpoint thing like the icbm launch. they are not reporting on south america, on africa at all except maybe if it is the zimbabwe situation. asia, they are not looking at the broader foreign policy picture. we consume our news for fun, like the news junkie but we also do it to be informed and good citizens. and thoughtful taxpayers and

informed forwarders -- informed voters. virginia, is burke, giving comment on media coverage of president trump. now that the house and senate voted on tax bill is starting to come -- started to compile those bills with the announcement of conferees. with a face in a story in the washington post including they must decide whether to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% in 2018 as the house bill stipulates our use the senate bills date of 2019. they must also decide -- it is the washington post story,

and announcing yesterday from the leaders in the house on who those conferees will be. this is from paul ryan from the ways and means committee. the conference chair will be kevin brady. devin nunes of california, diane black of tennessee, kristi noem of south dakota. when it comes to nancy pelosi, from the house ways and means committee, richard neal of massachusetts will be a part of the deal. tony from texas. you are next up. independent line. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i really love c-span. trump is so divisive that there is only one way to cover him. you can watch cnn and you can watch fox or jump around, but the only way to do it is c-span. you guys are the only want that if you can in -- and do this in hd, you would run the market on everybody. host: we are in hd in some markets. provider if cable you want to ask more questions about that. it is outside the supreme court today, they focus on it much all day in light of the case featuring that bakery out of colorado. the case of the cake being created for a same-sex marriage. people lining up for that. for several days in order to get in on the arguments. that will take place later this

morning, later on our program we will discuss it. as of the supreme court does, they release audio of the arguments. we will take that in an era that for you on friday on our main network. lb at 8:00 in the evening. -- that will be at 8:00 in the evening. c-span.org, we will provide all the information there. we will show you periodically through the morning the people who are blind up -- who have lined up to get a front row seat for these oral arguments. the media coverage of the white house, fall city, washington. hello. pedro, the previous color, he hit the nail on the head. c-span is the only station that you can get information. i have been watching, have been

on the floor of the house for 15 years since i've been retired and i can tell you this, corporate media is using trump as a spokesman's for the house of representatives is doing. if media is not telling the people with the house is doing and the corporate media is covering up what they are doing. say --n twitter, they from bob in tennessee, kingswood, texas, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. with the exception of maybe the

.ast caller your vet republicans and democrats now talking the last 45 callers -- four or five callers and most of them tend to agree that the media is biased. pedro, i think a sizable part of the country that is conservative is extremely disappointed and frustrated with media coverage, not just of trump but of conservatives. it is a clear war on any kind of a conservative position the media takes. a good example is on the tax. cbs talking, nbc, about the middle class is not going to receive a tax cut. yet they don't say that happens in 2027. they will tell the story and they will omit certain key pieces of information. that is critical.

conservatives listen to this day after day where they say that is not the full truth. why is the media not presenting the full truth. abc on sunday morning didn't talk about brian ross. they didn't talk about brian ross and how the affected the market forge appoints. guess 400 points. that is clear bias. conservatives have to deal with it. those are my thoughts. host: from massachusetts, we hear next from norman. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a journalist. say -- i strongly disagree that the media is the enemy. however, they have been doing a terrible job throughout these -- foro presidents

saying that the democrats on the left and the republicans on the right, they are both on the far right. the democrats and the media with this mccarthyism attacking trump over russians because it is about his opinion that russians are involved, that is attacking him from the right. not from the left. host: what publication do you work for yucca -- do you work for? caller: i am retired. i'll work with small newspapers. how i would do things blogrently, i was doing a if using go, -- i blog a few years ago. what i would do differently is

cover both sides and point out -- for instance, the killing of osama bin laden, that was legally and by definition a lynching. lynching was considered bad before, so it democrats are saying this was a great lynching. host: thank you. this up in court outside, we were telling you people are lined up and getting ready to go. they have begun the process of letting people into the court. a pretty long line as you can see. not everybody in that line may make it but they are starting the process. we will be talking about that in 20 minutes time. the washington times, one of the stores they feature takes a look at the cost of investigation, must like the one being conducted by robert mueller. some estimates for 5 million or

so but it breaks on the cost of previous investigations, saying it was an investigation against president clinton which ranks as the priciest investigation on record costing taxpayers $73 million, involving the work of more than one at a 70 workers -- more than 170 workers. one of the things that were featured saying it is rental space for the cost of conducting these investigations. an investigation previously. it ended without criminal charges. there's evidence to support

charges of a political interference. your have to go -- you are going to have to go to the question times website. -- to the washington times website. here's the headline. andrew noble, the author of that story. detroit, michigan. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. greetings from motown. cup -- likeng up a to bring up a couple of things regarding the media's coverage of president trump. i think it is and the media's fault because much of what is written about president trump, he brought it upon himself with osha'sogant, breaded thin-skinned persona. he seems always act like a petulant seven-year-old.

-- the archie bunkers that call on the republican line, the angry white guys who call always complain about president trump being put upon and demonized. where would these same -- these were the same white guys who were trashing barack obama throughout his entire presidency the balls to got complain about president trump being demonized. i am sure barack obama has something to say about that given that there were lots and lots of white people who hate his guts. what peoplegist of are saying. host: that is jerry from detroit. also out of michigan reporting from reuters, john conyers, the longest serving member of the house of representatives will announce tuesday he doesn't plan to run for reelection according

to u.s. media. from hawaii, this is john, republican line. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i think the news media is very biased against president

trump. there are several reasons. twitter,em is he is on and he doesn't need the news media. he can talk directly to the american people. is, during then 2016 elections, they were pushing that hillary was ahead. msnbc, fox news. a blind man could see the crowds that hillary was not. the days of walter cronkite, huntley and david brinkley and the old days are over with. it is gone. the news media is basically cowboy. box news -- fox news, yet five

people sitting around and they are talking about the situations that are going on in the day. that is not news. that is personal comment. show.that is an opinion do you think there is a difference? caller: yes, i do. for example, when you watch the state of the union and the president is up there and he is speaking, even with obama, then they come back after he speaks -- we are going to go on a commercial break and we are going to tell you what he said. my god, i just seen what he said. i don't need these news anchors to tell me what i just seen on tv. in the unitedople

states, and i am talking about the millennials, they can't even walk and chew gum. you've got to have somebody tell them how to think. another thing, you take these people from hollywood. why in the world are people looking up to these people that is from hollywood when they can't even make a cup of coffee without a director telling them how to do it? host: that is john from hawaii. paul manafort is back in the news saying that the former campaign chairman for president trump ignored a judgment order not to attempt to influence a media. -- influence the media.

dan,massachusetts, here's independent line. caller: thank you for having me on. i've got three points, and i think they are very good points. is, i kind of equate what is going on with the news -- it is like drive-through fast food. maybe in the past, you can go up to the drive-through and you get the actual investigative journalists would give you. now, everybody so busy with their families, to jobs with the husband and wife and going crazy

, we are flying through the drive-through and we are getting this craft that is coming out of the media. that is coming out of the media. it is an obligation to go beyond that. you've got to do your homework. you need to look into things. host: how do you do that? caller: it is a good thing we have the internet. if all this shenanigans that have been going on since 2000 lately in our faces -- if the internet was in around to look said,hings like reagan trust but verify. you test what if on.aller: have me host: what do you think?

what have you learned from internet? i can't do that in a short answer but what i can tell you -- i can give you a good example. i was a color the couple of months ago and you had a professor of politics on. i asked him a question, if he was familiar with a act test with a certain act. this is what he said. this act that was slipped in to the 2012 national defense authorization act basically armed our governments to propagandize its citizens within the borders of the united states using the media and our tax money. here is a professor of politics, very highly regarded, wasn't aware of it. isn't it very curious.

host: got to move on. thanks for calling. tim in wisconsin. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to talk about the media coverage on north korea. kim jong-un is unstable at best. he is pointing a nuclear weapon at our allies and at us. the president calls him little fat man. when somebody's holding a weapon on you, the last thing you do is spit in the face. i think this president needs to do a news conference, instead of just tweeting. he needs to answer some questions. thank you. host: in the subsection of the washington times, reporting from carlos nuñez saying warplanes took to the skies above the korean peninsula yesterday and a massive show of force --

that is the washington times. the washington post on its lead story talking about another act of the supreme court. that action will be a part of our discussion coming up in 15 minutes or so about today's case

taking a look at free expression and same-sex marriage in light of the context of a marriage or wedding in colorado. that will be the folks today at the court as you can see people lined up getting ready and starting to go in to hopefully get a seat to take a look at those oral arguments. we will talk about that and our 8:00 our. -- 8:00 hour. you can go to our website as c-span.org for more information on that. every punk in line. hello -- a republican line. hello. caller: you may remember last week's big story was tillerson is going to be forced out of his job and that was going to be happening this week. it didn't happen. the story had been percolating all through the year. there had been all these reports from anonymous sources. there was reports that john kelly wants to quit and the

education secretary wanted to quit. it didn't happen. i'm a journalist and i hate to say it but the president is right. the mainstream media is the enemy of the people, because they are not treating fake news. they are creating fiction. it sounds good. they claim anonymous sources say cannot verify anything that is being said it all this coverage is designed to delegitimize the presidency. there was the vanity fair story that the first lady is so -- first lady supposedly hated living in the white house. host: who do you work for? caller: i work for several financial publications and i worked for the united nations. i covered presidents of campaigns in the past. this is not new. i was covering the 1992 campaign.

i watch how the media railroaded paul tsongas as he was going for the democratic nomination. pulse on this did not sound like him or fund he had a better platform than bill clinton. involved,g directly how do you change the process? how do you make it more balanced? caller: there is nothing wrong with the mainstream media that cannot be fixed with a blowtorch. get rid of these psychotic liberals. bring in real journalists and go back to the mission of objective journalism, not subjective, not partisanship, not sticking your commentary in it i stopped watching morning news because it is not news, it is just commentary. host: you are very opinionated yourself. caller: i'm a financial

reporter. if i put my opinion in my writing, i would be fired. maybe the mainstream media should take a tip from the trade media. just cover the news. host: that is fill from connecticut. we'll go next to james. independent line. caller: i listened to that last color. everything he said is wrong. hello? understand why -- i don't understand why when you say something but trump, it is all wrong. thesethat on tv and call four players who are put only black, he called their mama butcithces.

where is she from? where issue from? host: donald in texas. democrats line. caller: hello. i am listening. sometime i have to laugh at these people when they call in. the one before that was a republican. he called in talking about the journalists. he is a journalist. i'm listing at least two people calling in, both of them sounding crazy. one republican, he is whining about people insinuating. what did he think he just done? that let you know he is a republican. this country is so crazy. sometimes a city or the tv and i am watching you and i look at your expression.

i know this man was to pull his hair all out of his head. listening to some of this crap. such from their opinion, your opinion of the media coverage of the president? do,er: all of the media to ask the question. question. -- ask the if you don't answer the question, you keep repeating, say, sir, that is not what i asked you. i asked you this and that. if they don't answer the question, count off. host: the front page of usa today takes a look at issues concerning gun sales. this is the headline. kevin johnson writing the story saying -- ask line -- writing the story saying --

this story goes on from there. you can find it on the website for usa today. from north carolina, jeff is on our republican line. caller: this is jeff. i'm good to say for things. everybody should just admit we have illegal aliens in this country and they do vote. not one single illegal immigrant voted for trump.

if you can be honest, that is a fact. they did vote for hillary in the millions. host: i am talking about media coverage of the president. caller: the media didn't cover it. are you still there? if the media doesn't cover the facts that illegal votes in the mediated democrat, the carried obama's water for eight years. they never reported false claims are questionable decisions. they in lockstep followed him. c-span, the question you pose were never pose for the obama administration. c-span aspect of the msnbc mantle because truthfully they have lost so many viewers. the last comment is this, obama

's eight years has done more damage to america and thank god the american people are going to ignore you and all of these lying media outlets. goodbye. host: from new hampshire, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say will quick that in terms of the media coverage of donald trump, i do think it is too much time given to donald trump. given to the presidency in general. the u.s.le who know government knows that congress is what really matters. the media should spend a lot more time getting into the substance of what is going on in congress than following the everyday happenings of donald trump. also, i just want to say that government corruption is a huge issue that is not talked about nearly enough by the media.

especially the fact that we no longer have a representative government and you have a lot of people who will come on your show talking about how the left is no longer the left, but the fact of the matter is we don't have a representative government at all. that truly needs to be discussed. host: the covers of congress, what you think as far as the current ask of congress? what should media be paying attention to? caller: the actual process. halls, discussing legislation. the media needs to show that these representatives are not trying to do anything for the american people. they need to show what is going on a set of just showing what is most popular in what is happening in the media. i understand that gets ratings, but we as americans need to know the details and the substance of

what is happening in congress. we do not in our working days have the time to find. we simply don't. host: got to go to baltimore, maryland. democrats line. caller: isis want to say that the media cover up whatever -- i just want to say what the media does whatever they want. trump does whatever he wants. one story you may true is when he talked about how he grabbed women in the legs without their permission. -- some womename came forward with a story. they were dismissed. they covered the story for couple of months. you haven't heard anything else about it. you have everything else with these politicians and actors and everyone else that is being accused of sexual harassment, and they are losing their jobs.

when is president trump going to lose his job from what he did? it wasn't right. host: ian, oceanside, new york. caller: fake fake news -- loretta lynch and bill clinton on the runway. fake news is definitely the worst thing in the world. herbert ran the world newspaper -- maybe the greatest journalist ever, and that is my grandmother's uncle. journalism fell far from the standard it used to be. when you have these brian ross' , and you see the way it perpetuates on tv shows -- thank hadthey stopped it and he to retract it. it would have been on all the

sunday shows. as dumb as a stump. she thought black friday was a bad thing. it is a good thing when you go in the black. how many people watched the retraction. they should have to retract that story all week long. fake news is another thing -- character assassination -- judge roy moore -- a lot of people spoke on his the half. nobody -- on his behalf. nobody -- one station showed it, .an no one spoke to character witnesses. no one let those people be heard. by not showing that on the news when everyone is assassinating his character. last call from this topic.

we will continue to show you pictures from the supreme court, as that case on a bigger in colorado asked to create a kick for a same-sex wedding. two lawyers will join us. straubeele will talk about the president's actions concerning national monument. those conversations and more, coming up when "washington journal" continues. ♪ studentcam

competition is underway, and students are busy at work, sharing their experience with us through twitter. it is not too late to enter. the deadline is january 18, 2018. we asking students to choose a provision of the u.s. constitution, creating a video illustrating why it is important to you. the competition is open to all middle school and high school students. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. willrand prize of $5,000 go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> by the time i came back to the district, or shortly

thereafter, both of my uncles were sent to prison -- they were committed to -- one of them, sexual assault, the other armed robbery. the part of my childhood i can hermber, it was my mother, two sisters, and my cousins in the house on 13th street. "q&a,"ay night on tiffany right talks about growing up in washington, d.c., enter time as a clerk for supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. >> i think the pool the justices are looking at is pretty small. if you went to a good small -- good school, you have some people willing to speak up for you. one of the small number of george's that -- judges that seek clerk's to the court -- for a person of color to get into that pool, there are so many

obstacles to that. it becomes a real problem, and i think it hurts because the perspective of diverse law clerk is so importants -- clerks is so important. every one of my cases i felt that i saw something because my life experience that somebody else did not see. at 8:00 p.m.ay eastern on c-span. journal"ngton continues. the supreme court is where arguments will be heard about that case out of colorado for a religious baker asked to bake a same-sexa safe -- wedding. that takes place today. we will show you audio of that later this week. two guests joining us to talk about that details of the case and the importance, carrie severino, the chief policy director. elizabeth wydra of the

constitutional accountability center --to both of you, thanks for joining on. guest: ms. carrie severino, can you explain the context of the case from the point of the baker? he was a baker in colorado, and he started as an artist. cakes a lot of different he thinks he cannot make for with the reasons, devil on it for halloween, happy divorce cakes. he had a same-sex wedding come in, and he said i'm happy to make other kinds of kicks, -- cakes, but i can't do that because i do not believe in my expression.

now he has had to drop 40% of his business because he cannot make any wedding cake whatsoever. guest: let me get -- host: let me get the perspective of the couple from elizabeth wydra. guest: obviously the legal points, and also from their perspective. motherthe gentlemen's wrote the op-ed. it is your wedding, you are coming in to get a beautiful cake, and you get turned away because of who you are -- something that is intrinsic to your very being, the person you love. it should be a happy occasion, and instead you are met with this discrimination. points are you someone entering the public, commercial marketplace, to have to make yourself open to all consumers. we have these nondiscrimination laws that have been in place most effectively since the end of the civil war that say you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, in colorado, sexual orientation.

while the colorado law allows bakers not to put certain words on a cake, like putting a devil on it, but you have to apply that to everyone -- you cannot say i will make a cake with a double on it -- i will not make a cake with a devil on it for what people, but i will -- four african-americans, but i will for white people. we have had the supreme court reject first amendment claims on the basis of religion. it a new packaging by mixing it with this artistic expression idea. if you wanted to not be in the public square and be an artist where he could choose his customers in the private setting, that is fine, but once you start a degree that is open to the public, you need to abide

by generally applicable laws that says you cannot choose their customer -- your customers based on the color of their skin, who they love, religion, etc. host: what about the public consumption argument? guest: it would be a different thing if they were rejecting them because of who they were. this is only to do with the message on the cake. if they want any other kind of cake, he would have been happy to make it. it was simply this message. if a straight couple came in and said i want a cake that celebrate same-sex marriages, he would not have offered that as well. host: in your perspective, what do the judges have to consider here? guest: one cake is going to be if this cake is truly expressive. some cakes are not expressive. , that is costco

probably different. think of ace of cakes level artistry. the other question is is is something he sincerely believes. another issue is the colorado commission seems to have a double standard where they said you don't have to make an anotheranti-semitic case or an anti-muslim message, or a kit that is opposed to same-sex marriage, but you do have to make one that celebrates same-sex marriage. that is a real problem. you could've had a broader coalition that would say we have to have an even playing field and not get into the deeper issues. host: same question to you. what is salient for the judges? guest: the judges will be looking at the long-standing line of precedent going back to the 1968 case of a barbecue restaurant that want to discriminate against septa in -- that customers, wanted to discriminate against

african-american customers, and they said no. four barbecue lovers -- the artistry that goes into making barbecue sauce is certainly expressive. the idea that we have seen these claims before -- claims they could not serve interracial couples. rries the same argument ca was making pit when you put into interracial couple context, it falls apart. it is not allowed under supreme court precedent and it is not constitutional. the judges will be looking at that long line of precedence that says you cannot get a license to discriminate by raising the first amendment. we do, however, have a course that is sympathetic, as we should be, too sincerely held religious beliefs and how they -- two sincerely held religious beliefs. at the same time, our founders had respect for and vigils right

to believe whatever he or she , but inheart or church the public square, you meet others as equal americans on equal terms. host: let's invite you to the conversation. host: you can also post thoughts on our twitter feed. justices -- double to the point that all the judges have to consider this, what has anthony kennedy said about same-sex marriage and the idea of free expression. guest: justice kennedy, and frankly the so-called court has been strong and free speech and first amendment issues. that is one issue why we find out after orontes. it might be a 5-4 nail-biter. a 9-0ht be something like case.

there is recognition on the court, and kennedy is first among them, that we have to respect everyone's beliefs, even the ones we profoundly disagree with. that is going to be a real question -- if this is viewed in the lens of justice, and first-amendment case, that bodes well and you might see more than just justice kennedy coming on board. host: the kennedy influence. guest: absolute. people will be looking at justice kennedy to see how he falls on this case. famous for his rulings that supported marriage equality, gay rights. the way that he views the contours of those rights, do you have the right to get married as a same-sex couple, but get discriminated against in your daily life, i think he was very careful in his opinion on marriage equality to say that people will continue to debate this in their personal lives and their churches, and i think that

we will probably see him try to draw that line by saying yes, certainly, go out and protest, preach against this, but when you are acting as a public business, you have to treat everyone equally, and that includes same-sex couples. it is something where we will see a lot of testing of the slippery slope, especially with this idea of artistic expression -- if we're going to have that be the litmus test, that opens up the door to a whole host of other types of dissemination. if you say i put artistic expression in the way that i cut hair, which is fabulous, it is my artistic expression -- can i say i don't want to say -- serve african-americans, women? once you get into the realm of artistic expression is a reason why you get a right to discriminate, it raises a lot of albums. host: are those the long-term effects at uc? is there a limit -- that you see? limiting standard?

guest: there are concepts that you think yeah, is that expressive -- nude dancing, burning your draft card -- the court's job is to draw the lines. just because it is a hard decision, it does not mean it is the right line. the archaic decorators that would -- there are some cake decorators that would fall into the line of artistic expression. i think jack phillips is an easy case because he is uniquely committed to the artistry of his work. host: again, outside of the supreme court, many people are gathered. people are waiting in line for days to hear the case, including protesters and supporters alike. that is the topic of this discussion for this 45 minutes with our guests, elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center and carrie severino of the judicial crisis network. the first call comes from maria

in atlanta, georgia, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to get a quick comment and a question. from a religious aspect, when you go to the bible, god says love all, so i don't discriminate. why should i have to give up my religious belief to settle them? you can debate it anyway you want. almost -- homosexuality is a sin. i don't discriminate against them, but if i believe in this and i own a bigger -- bakery, that is my belief. that is all i have to say. host: news --ms. wydra. guest: that may be your belief, and the constitution protects your validity -- ability to have that belief. the supreme court accepted marriage equality, it did not say everyone has to change their

opinions about gay and lesbians couples gay and lesbian couples. i happen to not think it is a sin and follow the principles that god says love everyone equally. what the constitution does not allow you to do is take the personal belief and use that to discriminate in the public marketplace. if you have the personal belief, you are fully protected. you can express it in church, at protests, debate your family, on facebook, twitter, but you cannot use it to discriminate when you are in a business that is open to the marketplace. .ost: ms. severino guest: that is an argument we hear a lot, but one that the court rejected in hobby lobby. people can have their beliefs, but once you go to the market system you have to go by the public orthodoxy. that is not something the supreme court accepted. our founders understood freedom

of expression does not mean the freedom to do everything you want with your doors closed or in your church or synagogue at a service. it means you can actually live by those beliefs, and that is why so many relays expression cases don't have to do with what you do what your house of worship, but how you live your life. that is what is at stake here. duane is next. mississippi. caller: this is a slippery slope. i am thinking if you are a baker, and you do not want to make cakes -- this particular cake baker, you have to use them and you cannot use another cake baker? if you work in a hospital and you don't want to do abortions, will the law change and make a doctor perform an abortion? were we going with this? ms. severino?

guest: there are people trying to eliminate these boards across the board. there are practically speaking, a lot of other bakers that are happy to, excited about making cakes at this wedding. in this case they were able to designednbow-flagged cake. i think it was even donated. there are lots of different bakers. the same thing is coming into play decidedly in the health care sphere. we have to have the flexibility to have a society that appreciates religious beliefs. we are a large and varied culture. there are going to be a lot of other people that are willing to perform -- whether it is the abortion, make the cake, or other things. you don't have to force or it.andeer someone to do host: isn't that a craft in itself? guest: it. i don't think they would --ly free speech activist

free speech. is there an exemption for religious conscious. that is more of a court, free exercise claim. many states do have, and i think all should have conscious exemptions for all people -- doctors, nurses, health care providers, to not have to produce paid in something they view intrinsically immoral. to have to participate in something they view intrinsically immoral. -- ms.. ms. wydra wydra? guest: that is not the way equal rights works. we did not tell people it is ok this lunch counter is segregated. go to the one that serves people of color. all people are created equally echoes back to the declaration of independence proclamation. all men and i would add women are created equal.

create aan attempt to new claim, but it is the same claim the supreme court rejected in 1968 when the owner of the barbecue change came and said my religious beliefs prohibit me from serving african-americans and interracial couples and the supreme court rejected that, and they rightly did. they have, over and over, in the context of businesses in the public's fear, choosing the public sphere, choosing their cut -- public sphere, choosing their customers. when it comes to whether or not public businesses can choose customers on race, gender, and in this case sexual orientation, it is clear that you may not do that. host: minnesota. independent line. john. hi, there. caller: quickly back to your last session when you stated media coverage. host: only because we are the

topic we are in, can you direct a question to the guests? your show, but it is too bad c-span has started to become liberal. host: we will leave it there. barbara. michigan. the public in line. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine. go ahead. caller: two questions -- if the baker had said i reserve the right to reject any pretense that i find vulgar, would he have gotten away with that if he , ass homosexuality vulgar opposed to using swear words, or something like that. the second question is i am roman catholic. homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin. in the catholic view, it is having sex outside of marriage, and since the catholic church does not recognize gay marriage,

then having sex is what is the sin. it is not only the people committing the sin, but people who, if you allow it to happen, if you help it to happen, you are also committing a sin. host: we will leave it there and let our guests respond. ms. wydra do you want to start? things,here are other sex before marriage and heterosexual couples -- will the baker said i will not make a birthday cake for someone living with their partner and not mary -- would you ask what they do in their bedrooms? this is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. the idea to refuse customers based on no shoes, no shirt, no service -- that is one thing, but the laws are clear you cannot is committed against customers based on race, religion, creed, national origin, and here, sexual orientation.

it is different in that instance. there is provision seen the law provisionyou can -- in the law that says you can refuse to carry out certain messages, like swear words, the devil, or whatever, but that applies to everyone. if he wanted to say i will not , you know, that says gay marriage forever, i will -- that is that says a beautiful cake without that message and i will make it for everyone, because message limitations have to apply to everyone. host: mr. phillips has an op-ed in says this -- guest: to be honest, we have in the factsahead -- he did not even get further enough to know what they wanted

on the cake. it is not as if they came to him and necessarily said -- they could have asked for -- who knows what they would have asked for. it could have been a regular, beautiful cake, and no one would to a same-sexing couple, except for the fact that they told him they were in love with each other and they were going to get married. it is not in the clear what kick they would have wanted because they did not get to go that far. there are other instances where he refused a lesbian couple that wanted to get cupcakes. ms. severino. guest: i want to point out some of the fallacy. to serveot in refusing the based on who they are. if he would say i am not going to serve any same-sex couple. pat is not what he is saint he says i'm going to make a cake that celebrates a same-sex wedding -- saying. he says i'm not going to make a

cake that celebrates a same-sex wedding. think of the expression if your parents that i am not attending your wedding -- it is sending a message. it is celebrating it. they do not have to have a cake that says same-sex marriage forever for it to be expressive, but i do think this is a very different thing from not refusing everyone. he is happy to sell as many -- many kind of cakes. he does refuse to make cakes that have come for the upcoming a bachelorette party theme or something. couple in question is heading into the supreme court. ms. severino, go ahead. he refuses other types of messages. it is about this issue of the message, and a wedding cake is sending a message of celebrating the message. host: ms. wydra comedy want to respond?

--ms. wydra, do you want to respond? guest: you could say the same thing for interracial couples. you can say i will serve white people, black people, but not make something for interracial couple. those arguments are exactly the ise, and implicit in that discriminating against gay as just isnot as bad interracial couples. , is that whatrino is at stake? guest: i do not think so. interracial marriage context is something that is a very different approach of the whole point of the 14th amendment -- legal detection cause was providing equality amongst the races. guest: i'm sorry, the 14th amendment specifically considered narrowing it to racial equality, and instead

chose the sweeping words that talk about persons and equality, and specifically wanted to take it outside of just the race card. guest: we have a long running debate about that. guest: read the draft letter. guest: this is a different thing. he is happy to make any type of cake. as justice kennedy pointed out, this is a topic where there is a lot of room for religious discussion and debate, and it was not intended to create a national thought police making genuine agrees with what the supreme court held in the case. host: one more view of the couple standing outside of the supreme court. friday,leased on available on c-span. our guests, you talk about. that bridge, louisiana. chris is next. caller: i think we too often view this whole discussion of religious freedom through the lens of a christian.

a lot of people think america is we have an nation -- separation of church and state pit we looking at the lens of christianity, of one thing or another been a sin, and i have to be able to express my religious freedom, but if i am an atheist baker or a jewish baker, and i do not want to express my -- i do not want to have to celebrate a catholic wedding or do a wedding cake that has the face of jesus on it, do i have that freedom as well? host: ms. severino? guest: i would say absolutely. a muslim baker does not want to imagescake with certain on because it violates their faith. that is one of the beautiful things about america, we can be and let -- live and let live society. somebody also be happy to make the cake, but you should not be

forced to violate the police. host: again, yes, -- host: ms. wydra? guest: yes, it can be the case you can decide not to put certain symbols on your cake, but that has to be applied to every customer that walks through your door. you cannot say i'll make a beautiful cake with pink flowers on it, but if i know it is going to be used for a baptism, i won't make it, but i will make the same cake for someone who is using it for a birthday. you cannot make those distinctions based on religious, , sexual orientation, or gender. you are certainly not required -- the colorado law at issue here allows for bakers and other prayers of goods to say we will not have a certain usage that we are going to -- purveyors of goods to say we will not have a

certain message. if you do not want to make a baptism cake, a cake with a cross on it, you will say i will not make a cross cake for muslims, for catholics, because i find it offensive as an atheist, but you cannot say i am going to only give -- the a cake baker for people of this particular race or gender. host: do you want to respond? guest: the perlis would be i will make baptism -- the parallels would be i will make a baptism k, but not for a bar mitzvah. jewishmake weddings for weddings or holidays, i think people should be free to do that. enough country that we can allow people to express their religious freedoms in the way they live their life, including in their business. guest: do we have said we cannot

do that when religious believes say you discriminate against -- you cannot discriminate against people of color. host: does it matter that the colorado state law already is in play, and what this turn into a state rights issue on some levels? guest: there is always push back but it is anh, easy case it is a constitutional question. that overrides the state's law. there's not a question the first amendment would override what has happened. host: ms. wydra. guest: the constitution is supreme, that is why we have enshrined our most fundamental values, including that of equality. host: victor. columbia, maryland. independent line. caller: good morning. we keep ringing up the barbecue case, and what i find interesting is that in the case of a barbecue restaurant, the

product is ready, on a shelf, and the person is determining who they are selling to, and they are clearly discriminating. someoneake situation, comes in and tells a person it is not what you have available, we want you to make this particular product. i think there is a difference there. i think it is a slippery slope. i am jewish, and i do not want koshery showing up to my restaurant and telling me that we want to eat pork and if we do not serve them pork, we're discriminating against them. we can only force people to do so many things. there,e will leave it and since you brought up the barbecue case, we will start there.

guest: summit was making the ox tocue, it was not just b his last point, yeah, and kosher deli can say i will not serve pork, but it cannot say i will not serve pork to the jewish people that come to the door, but not to someone that is a muslim that walks through my door. you have the ability to decide what products you are going to put forth, but you cannot provide that product in a discriminatory fashion. you have to give the same service to all when it comes to these fundamental attributes of people, dignity, liberty, and equality, and that includes race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. that is the point. i do not think the distinction between house and in time you when youbarbecue sauce sell it was the most important part of the case.

the point was you do not get a license to discriminate when you are in the public market square. the supreme court has said that over and over with respect to women being partners, with respect to interracial partners. when it comes to university admissions. i think the point is not so much the type of craft as the willingness to be in the public market square and treat all citizens, all comers equally on these important grounds. host: carrie severino. point is-- victor's correct -- if the cake was on the shelf, and we would say i will give it to you or to you, that is a different case. what he does when he is designing these cakes is since down with a couple, talk to them, finds out about their interest. this is like those that have watched "cake boss," or "ace of

cakes." for the peopleed in front of him. it is an expression of his own artistry. the design of the place has an easel, a pallet. he views this as art. it is a different thing than taking the barbecue that has been handcrafted with love, yes, but handcrafted for everyone, and saying i'm not going to give you yours. this is about a specific cake for a specific event. host: the aclu's david cole wrote an opinion about the case. this, saying the constitution does not guarantee a right to choose employees, customers, without restraints of the state. host: how does that apply in this matter? guest: the question of is this expression will be key in this case. it would be different if he is

running a grocery store and said you cannot have broccoli at your wedding dinner. that is a different thing. that is not what is going on. custom, designed item. this is an artistic question. this is not i do not want to do business with you. that is not what we have seen here or any worlds. the only road questions we come to -- anywhere else. the only real questions we come to people doing something that is core to the wedding. photographers, the cake bakers -- this is an expression of their selves, their own art. host: indiana. public in line. stephanie, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a quick question -- if the two men go to the supreme court and they win the case, what is to say -- what is going

to happen when a person goes into a jewish bakery and they want to have a swastika put on the cake for a birthday party -- what will happen in that situation? guest: the baker in that case would be entirely entitled to not make a cake with a swastika on it. , colorado law. with the baker would not be able to do is say i am not going to serve you because you are a white couple. they can say i will not put the swastika on the cake, but they would not make a swastika cake for a white couple, an interracial couple, or a copper -- couple of color. that is the key distinguish -- distinguishing factor. the idea that there is an easel in the bakery and it is wrapped up in expression is clever packaging for a claim to discriminate different than we have seen before, but if we allowed that exception to nondiscrimination laws, it would

really swallow the ideas of nondiscrimination laws, because you can package almost anything as expressive intent. like i said, the hairdresser. maybe you are making this movie, smoothie,y you -- the and the way you make it is the best ever -- there are other ways to claim artistic endeavor. some of the crafts i get from my barista are masterpieces. when you come into the public square, you cannot choose your customers. as justice o'connor said based on your desire to not interact with women or people of color, or gay people. host: ms. severino. guest: as elizabeth points out, the colorado commission said you did not have to make the swastika cake, and that is great.

they said there is a list of people -- cakes you can choose not to make. that involves the government picking and choosing which message they want to go. that is not how the first amendment works. question on hard the borderline, what is art, what is not, but you would agree there are some things that if they are painting a portrait, that sounds like art, but someone who is making the smoothie, maybe not. courts are tasked with drawing these hard lines. we cannot point out to a extreme example someone who is shining shoes is not a true artist, so everyone is not an artist. that is not fair either. we have to look at the specific case. bb is an artistic cake designer. maybe some people would not fall into the category. there is aink conflation in that argument between content and customer.

what we have been talking about -- a lot of the protections under the colorado law in particular have to do with the context that content of what is on the cake, but what is --ferent -- the contact content of what is on the cake, or what is different is choosing your customer. is true, there are certain types of cakes that have a message the colorado civil rights commission has said he do not have to provide if that is again, youou, but, cannot say i will not give you this cake because of who you are, not because of what you asked me to put on it. the claim here is not that the couple asked the baker to make the cake that had the design on it or writing that was offensive on it. his claim was i do not want to make the cake because you are a gay couple getting married and i

do not believe same-sex marriages of you that should be celebrated. that is different. susie, poughkeepsie, new york. caller: i would like to think elizabeth wydra for being so eloquent and clear. guest: thank you. caller: sure. i also want to say that i hear the fundamentalist christian right talk about faith and religious freedom, and what is really happening is just hate. they are hiding behind a religion to promote hate and discrimination. discrimination is very clear. creativity is very clear. i can walk into a place of business and said i am gay -- say i am gay, straight, and myriad of ethnicity, and i

expect as an american to receive the same exact equal goods and services from the shop owner, and that is clearly not what is happening here. christianabout the right in able to choose what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to put on a cake for the public. host: we will leave it there. ms. severino. guest: i understand your concern, but having met jack phillips, this is not a cake -- case about hate. a parallel case, the orleans flowers case. a florist -- the plaintiff in -- he was going to her for nine years. she considered him a close friend. she knew he was gay, but when he asked for flowers for his wedding, she said let me sit down and why i can do that, but i'm happy

to make customers -- flowers for you. he was a weekly customer. this is not someone he hated. she could not in conjunction with their believe celebrate an event she believed to be wrong. we can love someone and still think they are doing something wrong. to assume someone like jack phillips is a hateful person is truly unfair to him. this is someone that wants to in what he is doing. host: ms. wydra guest: --ms. wydra. guest: the good thing about generally applicable nondiscrimination laws is it does not matter what is in the person's heart or not. i do not know what is in the baker's heart. he sounds like a lovely person, but that is neither here nor there. no matter what your internal beliefs are, when it comes to your public-facing business, you have to treat all customers equally, whether you support

them in terms of your political beliefs -- what if there are some people that are like i am with her, the hillary shirts, and you have to treat them equally? someoneame way you find annoying, you still have to give them your service. most importantly, our nondiscrimination laws say you have to treat everyone that comes to you equally, and not discriminate against them on the basis of these important, protected characteristics like race, gender, creed, sexual orientation. i have no reason to impugn the calendar -- character of these folks i do not want to provide flowers or cakes, but the fact is they have to, whether they are a good person or not. host: there is a piece in "washington post" writing about this case and he says this

host: what do you think about that? you could've made the same argument when he retired about desegregating schools, lunch counters, public accommodation the civil rights era. people did make the argument after the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. that is why it took us so long to get where we are with respect to racial justice and integration. simply the idea of we will get there someday when it gets cut -- comes to constitutional rights and equality, that is not an argument the supreme court consider. you do not tell them just wait a little bit. i do think having these conversations, talking with

neighbors, communities, getting to know, as the florist did, this gay man and hearing about his loving relationship with his partner, i think these things will change people's minds over time. we have seen that a lot, rapidly in the last decade or so. .ost: ms. severino guest: the same thing applies to people of faith -- everyone except one of faith is a big it or a hater. guest: i don't believe that. guest: but it goes this argument that if they do not believe the same thing, it does not mean they are hating people or have a discriminatory approach to life. this is a different type of issue. the civil rights era was a unique event in our country -- the history of racism is a very intentionng, and the with our constitution from day one and finally rectified with

the 14th amendment, thank god. i'm happy to see that. this is a different thing. can people live out their religious belief, again, doing the same thing founders would have said is totally within rights.s the people at pass the 14th amendments said it is -- would have said it is totally within someone's rights to say i'm going to live as i believe in my business as well. it is not about rejecting individuals. it is entirely about the message. i think we are in agreement that you cannot reject someone because of who they are walking through the door. host: independent line. hello, robert. caller: can you hear me? host:. you're on with our guests go ahead. caller: my question is, being an independent, and i live in a progressive city -- my views independent,rom republican of this issue, or this issue. what is the gay community going

to do when the supreme court votes against them? guest: first of all, i do not think the supreme court is going to vote against them. i think that the rights of the gay couple will be vindicated in this case, but i think that gay americans, and frankly all americans should be paying attention to what the supreme , whether theg courts are protecting their civil rights or not. everyone should be paying attention. on the left side of the spectrum have not been it as engaged with the supreme court as conservatives and evangelicals have, but i would encourage progressive friends to be more engaged with the court. if the court does rule against this couple, which i don't think they will, but if they do, think we will see more high profile

lobbying and focus on the courts in our system. that is important. every issue that we care about -- no matter which side you're on, makes its way eventually through the court. , play botheverino sides -- if they decide for the baker or the couple? guest: if they decide for the couple, you will see a swath of people blocked out of not being part of the wedding industry, which is a shame. that is not what the country was designed to be like. vice versa, i would hope if they rule for the baker, that the intention of using the strong arm of the state to come to the same conclusions that you have, which it seems like the colorado civil rights commission wants to do, we would have a discussion. this is the best way to solve the issue. goes to a point that points that justice ginsburg has made on issues like right -- roe v.

wade. when supreme court takes an issue out of the debate, that solidifies the sides, rather people like the caller who say let's have a discussion about it. we'll have to be on one side all the time. let's allowed for the public debate. that is what the first amendment is there to protect. host: i will ask both of you this -- is this a test for president trump's first nominee neil gorsuch. guest: he is had lots of tests already. i think will be exciting to hear his arguments today. he sat on the hobby lobby case and the little sisters of the poor case. statutory cases -- we might get some perspective on his views of the first amendment itself. host: ms. wydra. guest: when candidate donald trump was putting together his list of supreme court potential justices, he said he intended to pick someone, who among, other

things,-- among other would be friendly to even? -- evangelical christians. we not know if there was a conversation on these things, but given that neil gorsuch was the result of his promise to pick someone from a to evangelicals, people will be looking closely to see whether or not justice neil gorsuch will be independent, and follow precedent and constitutional law, or whether he will just be a rubber stamp for the trump administration's position, and i will say it is unusual that the trump administration came in on the side, because generally federal government does not support carving out exemptions to generally applicable not his termination laws, but they did in this case. host: the constitutional accountability center website is u.s.constitution.org. ms. wydra, a little bit about your organization.

guest: we are a nonprofit think promise ofted to the the u.s. constitution. we litigate in the court, and also work on judicial nominations to ensure that those that are on our federal bench are going to enforce our constitutional guarantees of equality and justice. guest: the judicial crisis's website,- network judicialnetwork.com. guest: also a nonprofit organization advocating that justices stick to the text of the constitution and they original understanding. positionknow what his on same-sex marriages. i know the church he went in colorado was supportive of it, but that should not matter. that is what we want to defend in judicial nominations and to advocate for in general. host: mrs. kyle in vienna, virginia.

republican -- this is kyle in vienna, virginia. republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. we talk a lot on the show about topics that conflate an issue that i think is at the core, but i think it has been missed the conversation. let me say the business owner is ridiculous for not making the cake, but i am worried about living in a country that has the ability to compel me to work, not regardless of religion or with a couple's thing is. i am nervous of living in a country where the government regulate something where i have to provide my labor. if you were to extract out all the distractions of the gay couple, the religious aspect all that stuff, and distill it down to can the government come to me and say you have to work, i do

not like that. i think a better resolution for ,he gay community would be to instead of taking these things to court, simply vote with your dollars and make noise. in the 1960's these rules were needed. in our society today, if someone refuses service and that gets out, let people vote with their dollars. host: ms. severino, do you want to start? guest: yeah, i think exactly the idea of being forced to do a particular job, that is something our founders would have been shocked at, most americans would be shocked at for most of our history. it is not something the constitution requires. we live in a unique time with social media, the internet, all of these things -- it is not hard to find it with the policies of individual business are. that is why most businesses say

i do not want to take a side on these issues at all. they say let's not even take a position on contentious issues. some people feel for moral reasons they must stand up in certain cases, and that is an issue that will fall on both sides of the political spectrum. ms. --ms. wydra. guest: the government cannot compel you to work. if government can compel you you open a business that is open to the public to not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics. this is not really about you must be a baker. this is about, if you're going to have a bakeshop that is open to the public, you must treat all your customers equally on these important grounds like race, sexual orientation, and gender. guest: not our main topic today, but while you are both here, i want to ask about another decision from the court about enforcing the present's travel ban. what is it mean on the

30,000-foot level, ms. wydra? guest: the litigation over the travel ban continues. my organization represents members of congress think the travel ban is religious his commission and unconstitutional. those cases are ongoing. the supreme court said while those appeals are going on -- i guess we are on 3.0 travel ban -- can go into affect. that is a big blow, i think, for the family members of people bringing the case who are trying to ensure their safety and reunite with their families. hopeful that the litigation, as it proceeds, and we have arguments this week in the lower courts of appeals that will be hearing it, and the supreme court noted they wanted those courts to resolve the merits of the issue quickly. i'm hopeful that by the time you get to the full merits resolution, there will be a decision the ban is

discriminatory and can be blocked. .ost: severino -- ms. severino guest: i think this is another bigguest: win for the trump administration. they are conflating their views of president trump with what is actually in the text of this order. the supreme court has now on multiple occasions said that is not the standard we are looking at. they have not had the final resolution, but i do think this is a sign that when it does get to the supreme court, and it certainly will, they will look at and see, is this order itself -- take apart your views of donald trump -- is the order itself legal making sure we have extra scrutiny to people from countries that have been shown to have a history of problems with validation and terrorism. host: back to the topic at hand, new york. democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm hoping that your guest can speak to the johnsons act that

is looked to be repealed and has been talked into the house reform bill. if i'm correct, if a person is espousing political views from the pulpit, the johnson act -- if it is repealed, that particular church can receive donations, as a nonprofit, even if someone is espousing political views from the pulpit. i will hang up and listen to your guest. thank you. guest: i think i was on this show for an hour talking about the johnson act months ago. look that up. the idea is we have tax-exempt organizations like mine, -- i do like carrie's not know. and with churches, you can talk about the idea -- i

values,ut progressive and you can talk about ideas, but you cannot advocate for a particular candidate. the idea is given the tax-exempt activities that using the public goods in a way that advocating for a particular candidate is more like a campaign. have treated it -- previously made the decision that while certainly folks can stand up at the pulpit on sunday and say we should treat immigrants with love and respect, we should embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and i.r.s. has never actually used

this because there is a huge of the constitutionality of the act puticularly because it does a muzzle on religious organizations, again, if all stripes, for not being able to speak what the logical beliefs is.their a lot of people have been bringing test cases, because the i.r.s. will lose in court and the i.r.s. will not it.h scaring religious leaders across the country, some take it more others.than others say, preach what our dare on teaches and we you, the i.r.s. won't take that dare, they know real with theional problems issue. i don't think it will have a a or effect, it hasn't had big effect practically speaking today in how churches, no one however, it is good to have the law consistent with have actice, which is you religious right to preach from the pulpit, including one that

on political issues before the country. ost: final thought on today's case? guest: i am hopeful to see how he supreme court rules, larger majority than five recognizes is religious freedom fundamental issue. fundamental s issue. whether i agree with the case, run his right to business with his deepest held convictions. claim of ackaged the -- discriminate rejected time again since the civil rights era. the court will yes, we have ct, incredibly sounding source freedom and igious free expression and free association, but like it has cases involving context of race, you can't use personal marketplacehe public

to choose your customers when it comes to important we carry with us as part of our identity and orientation. host: the president of the constitutional accountability the chief counsel and policy director of judicial crisis network. the conversation today. coming up, we'll talk to e&e noelle straub about president trump's decision yesterday to scale back national monuments in utah and the long-term implications. we'll have that conversation when we return. >> wednesday morning, live in tallahassee, florida, for the 50 capitals the tour. florida state representative and speaker of the house richard corkryn will be our guest on sta. ngton journal"

>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's companies and n is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> c-span student cam video documentary competition is underway. the country across are busy at work and sharing their experience with us through twitter. it's not too late to enter, the deadline is january 18th, 2018. we're asking students to choose a provision of the u.s. onstitution and create a video illustrating why it is important to you. our competition is open to all and high school

students, grades 6-12. prizes will be awarded. the grand prize of $5000 will go the student or team with the best overall spree. our ore information, go to website, studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is noelle e&e news, she serves as natural resources editor. good morning. morning.ood host: i'll show a picture from the salt lake tribune. of president trump at a signing, what took place here? to t: president trump flew salt lake city yesterday on day trip and reduced size of two both in monuments, southern utah. he took about two million acres them, so the national esceoente national

onument, biggest reduction in history. so pretty big deal. was the justification of the trump administration for doing this? guest: president trump said administrations had overreached and federal bureaucrats in washington, d.c. the rights ing over of westerners who should have more local input and it was the monuments were just too big. he said they needed to be protect the der to actual areas that needed protection. host: previous administration, obama administration, what was the decision to expand the time?nts at guest: president clinton expanded one and president obama other one. one was just last year, both antiquities the act of 1906, a law that allows unilaterally protect areas of cultural or scientific

significance, so both president these ared obama said areas that have cultural meaning native american tribes, who live there, they have pecial scientific qualities, especially archaeological qualities, they decided to create them as national monuments. host: when the previous president applied antiquities act, how much did they apply versus other presidents in the past? act has been used by presidents of both parties throughout history. obama used it the most, he did create the most presidents uments, of both parties have used it. president teddy roosevelt signed law, he was the first one to use it and it has been used ever since. continue on with our conversation about this act yesterday concerning the the act by president trump. if you want to ask our guest questions about the decision and implication, it is 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8000 for democrats and independents, 202-748-8002. we have found from president at the utah ay state capitol, just before signing the decision, here is a explanation from yesterday. pres. trump: the families and of utah know and love this land the best and you best how to take care of your land. to protect it. and you know best how to for many, is land many generations to come. your timeless bond with the outdoors should not be replaced of regulators, thousands and thousands of miles your land don't know and truly they don't care for you do.d like [applause]

res. trump: from now on, that won't matter, i've come to you to take a very historic action, overreach anderal estore the rights of this land to your citizens. [applause] several lle straub, times he said you know how to manage and take care of the the you? is guest: mostly local residents who live in the area. lands, they deral are owned by all americans. depends on your point of view, you think they should be managed by the federal government as national monument, people should have input on how their neighborhood should be managed, is how they it. at host: for those in utah, who are main supporters of this decision? guest: entire utah delegation, senators, icans, congressmen, the utah governor, ome local counsel, all supported it.

people who don't support it, groups, many local native american tribes, outdoor ndustry recreation folks all oppose it strongly. host: the salt lake tribune has who -story about those reacted to it, five american indian tribes mad over shrinking of bears ears, they claim they declared war on us. there will beeah, a lawsuit filed by five tribes, anning together to file a lawsuit, called navaho nation v blatantly s pretty the tribes feel like the federal government and sovereign tribes dispute over the issue. host: as part of the issue at large, what about the natural within the lands? was that a major concern of rolling back to give people the natural resource? guest: yeah, so in the proclamation, it says grazing allowed, mining, gas use, pment, even atv all-terrain vehicle, people can

se motorized vehicles on the lands again. efinitely a big flash point in the controversy. host: our first call is from tulsa, oklahoma, democrat's line. with noelle straub of e&e news, david, go ahead. caller: yes. i oppose president trump's actions yesterday. i think that the native american far, far e here far, people of the united states of america, europeans who west in the name of manifest destiny. is an abuse ofis power once again and disrespect native american tribes. and i think there's going to be artifacts from native american tribes that will be the name of mining.

straub.oelle guest: you pretty much summed up the arguments of the five tribes strongly against this action. they do believe that there artifacts are at risk, ancestral objects, damaged, destroyed. on the other hand, the supporters of president trump's say that these lands are going to remain federal lands, they will not be off, not be made private, they will be managed differently. of depends on your point view, whether you think there should be more protection or more allowed for other uses. maryland, virginia is on the line for republicans. hi. caller: hi. are you? the only comment i have is, it country is this still stealing land, as i see it, from the first americans and that in fact, just for oiling investments and oil

investments, to pull back land sacred for most native americans or first americans, is st-- travesty of justice. oil man is about investments and he's killing this country. serviceelle straub, the tells us when it comes to federal land ownership, 61% of the federalnging to government, combination of 11 4.2 ern states, almost half of other states and 24% total of u.s., why so much land owned by government? guest: well, it comes down to history. some of these lands were not to be settled. arid.are mountainous, very the homesteading act was in place, these places couldn't be were given to railroads, a variety of reasons, inhabited and remain federal land. host: a lot of land in the west, s that anything of significance? guest: absolutely.

almost all public lands are west f the mississippi river, this is a big, big issue out west. washington, to the dc versus western split over the issue. trump kept saying bureaucrats are controlling the lands and so there is definitely cultural divide between the western and eastern. holland host: because of yesterday's states be uld other enboldened, then, for more it?rol of guest: secretary ryan zeinke made recommendations back in the summer to president trump, which ational monuments might be shrunk and protections taken away. they came down to hofl a dozen,so yesterday the two in utah that they shrunk. there is still possibly two more, one that straddles border of california and oregon and one two out in d then

the pacific ocean, the monuments reduced in size. host: this is cliff in ohio, independent line. good morning. i would like people to actually in the dictionary native and before it was america, there indigenous people here, that makes all of us from england and other parts foreigners. foreigners voting gainst foreigners and i would like also for people to look in look up the y and word conserve, conserve. apply to thes that action of yesterday, caller? caller: these people have no take away land and i look up the em to word welfare, too. host: hold on, hold on, who are you people, who are referring to?

caller: english. pilgrims.rs, the host: okay. noelle straub, anything from that? that is an issue that will be decided in the courts. the five american indian tribes taking this, filed a lawsuit probably today, this is they will argue out in court and probably be played out for years to come before a final decision. host: michael in morris, illinois, independent line. caller: good morning. just as a disclaimer, i voted for trump and he's never ceased disappoint me, but my question is basically this. are federal lands and people like myself from the ois, we're one of states that contribute more to he federal government than we get back. all the projects we fund, we people are living set -- re, i'm getting up set

say, we all own this equally, everybody should ave a say in what is done with these particular lands, that is really the crux of my comment. guest: you make a good point, these are federal lands, owned equally.ericans i guess the question centers on who should manage them and how local input there should be. these will remain federal lands, create a council that will have input bears ears input over how the lands are managed, so people differ in their views on who be on the council, mostly all people, people from over the country? yeah, depends on whether you you there or not and what think of how federal lands

should be managed. host: what is likelihood native be on the ill council? guest: there is legislation in congress that is going to a co-management scheme, so tribes will say how theyw some are managed. host: lauren up next, baltimore, democrat's line. caller: hi, hello. i love c-span, thank you, caller.me i spend money going to national the when i can and monuments are national parks in the making. a canyon was proclaimed monument by teddy roosevelt, usingan tick wittys act to it uranium mining. i watched the speech yesterday, talking about the monument to thepeople access back land. the truth is, right now they have access, you can hunt, graze cattle, people can hike and

bike. these places are an economic powerhouse in and of themselves. plus billion economy out of them. it is important people realize and work to keep the places in tact. here is more on the chopping block. there is 27 in total, these are just the first two. concerned about this and the onuments and i love to hear your guest speak on the issue. host: noelle straub, could you alk about the economic aspect and expand on that? guest: absolutely. the outdoor industry recreation, recreation industry is very, issue.nvolved in the several big companies have changed the front page of their today. yesterday and one says, president trump is stealing our land. so, yeah, the recreation in arms about this, upset because they do make goot of money off people who and buy hiking equipment,

etcetera.fishing, on the other side, people say -- say, well, the main economic driver of this land mining, grazing, more extractive industries. you tension between the two. host: can they coexist? guest: good question. yes. these lands are made for multiple use, if they are depending on how they are managed. put in national monuments, then that is definitely more the usesve, so more of would not be allowed. host: did the utah representative on the state indicate how they plan to use the new access of land now this president made decision? yesterday, ays from new mining claims will be allowed, they will start considering oil and gas leasing, so that will all move forward quickly. e&e noelle straub from news joining us, natural resources editor.

tell us about e&e news and what it? guest: it's fantastic publication that covers issues.mental and energy subscription-based, we are all online, information you can't anywhere else. we cover every energy and environmental issue in depth, so have interest in the fields, it is incredibly useful resource. any response from clinton or obama about this decision? don't president obama, i know about yesterday, in the past, he's been defensive of created and forceful that he did have public consider this d in great detail. yes, he's been very defensive of actions. host: let's hear from sweeney in ofington, georgia, democrat's line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. straub, i will direct this question to you. trump, president,

commander-in-chief, it appears types of nly situations he wants to get tearing down. if the people that were affected have got s created freedom of speech, had enough time to say this is harming us, us, this is ing harming us, but he seems to want his way of when something is going okay, okay, take off the chopping block today. be commander-in-chief, has nothing to do with democrat, republican, independent, this ruthless and my vote is for impeachment. want to have your opinion tear-down thing going through my mind, he wants to have own what others created. i thank you for listening to my

question. unprecedented an move, for sure. took two million acres out of that al monument status, has never been done before -- i haved say other presidents taken some lands out of monument total, all entire presidents, a quarter of what president trump did. is unprecedented and this will be challenged in court. 0 environmental groups banded together to file one lawsuit, there is the five american indian tribes who are filing a then there is several state attorneys general that have threatened to file lawsuits, maybe three different lawsuits, so remains to be seen the president has the legal authority to do this or not. host: several tweets came out after this decision. secretary thinking himself, tweet, today we restored land management in utah, thank you, mr. president. from utah senator mike

lee, saying president trump did utah a great favor by rolling back land use utah.ictions in southern another tweet from senator democrats on the energy committee, including center on polluting public land with mineing and drilling, annot turn the economy of the past into hope for the future. any response to congressional reaction? yeah, the congressional reactions came almost entirely lines. democrats opposed to it. republicans supportive. notve to say reactions were particularly surprising, this is sort of expecting what came out. new jersey, independent line, steve is next. caller: yes, good morning. on the history and how we got here, that you all started talking about a ago.te i was born out west, i don't think a lot of people on the deeplynderstand just how this goes. eally my understanding is what we're dealing with is kind of in

150-year-old tates injustice. some western states were created under the lincoln administration to help him get re-elected war.ng the civil they were created with very as a number of people and result, they were -- there are certain provisions under which were created that makes them almost, makes them states.class your chart you put up a minute ago understates the issue, it 11 western states, 46% of the land federally controlled. states like utah and nevada, 80%. is up to and that was a part of the creation of the states by lincoln. state of the onstitutions actually contain subjegation clauses the states would be subject to federal government. no other state constitution in

this country contain that and in bears it out rt that why would 46% of the states lands be controlled as opposed to 4.2% of states.er host: got you. caller, thank you for the input. to t: a lot of it goes back geography, there is western states, a lot, like i said, of them are areas federal land are arrid, dry, mountainous, they suitable necessarily for farming or ranching the way the the mississippi were settled. eah, a lot fewer residents out there and so they remain federal lands. al, on the as, democrat's line. hi, al. outer: yes, i want to point diktiveness of our

president. he had this thing with the jackson and ndrew navaho talkers and using as a slur because the native american casinos competed with his casinos, he's on record these indians don't look like indians to me. and he's also doing the same n.f.l. for his failed endeavor into -- applies to that, yesterday, can you connect the dots, please? caller: oh, he's just saying, i am not going to have sympathy or native american, i'm going to do what i want to do, our laws make us weak, they don't make us strong. he wants to get credit for what hurts, down and who he that is his -- that is what him.ss is to host: thanks, al. uest: to be fair, not all native americans agree on this issue, either.

there is a divide amongst the tribes. some navaho, there is county commissioner who is on stage he ding behind trump when signed the proclamation, he's navaho. americans some native who definitely support president trump's actions. he majority don't, the five tribes are suing, but it is probably not fair to say he take any native americ americans into account, he supporters.had some host: from michigan, joe is next, democrat's line. hi, joe. caller: good morning. i want to point out good luck to the native americans on any based on ny of this, the u.s. government's history with treaties. how about aty, zero, a couple zeros were upheld by the united states government indian tribes? lakotahsu and the bad land, the government said, you can have this land, nobody else it, the bad lands, nothing

there, cuhave it as parts of fortunately ion. cold was discovered and we know the lacotasu and lastsd lands, this treaty until friday, lasts forever or friday, whichever comes first. you. guest: yeah, the five tribes uing were the five who petitions the government to crea -- president obama decided to create it in large art because the five tribes pushed hard for it. they are upset and angry and drespected. in court will play out and we'll see what happens. host: cindy, go ahead. caller: hi. a question that obama -- obama? rump made it sound like he was returning the lands to the so they could take care

of it themselves, how are the gas companies nd going to take care of those and if they're going in drilling them all up? sounds like that is the only doing it is -- host: thanks, caller. the lands will remain mining when there is and drilling, the government will oversee it before the lands leased. the government will have oversight of these extractive have ries, but they will more of a chance to go on the lands. tom, call from illinois, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. curious, ma'am, is it it is be overturned and stated in law, if congress overturns it, we get control of democrats, control of the house,

the oval office, so on and so that possible? take my answer offline? yes.t: the answer is congress has entire power to do it wants with public lands, create protection, take them away, congress has full power. legal question is whether the president has the power. the president has the power to monuments, but explicitly did not say president would have power of national get rid monument, that is a legal question. congress can do what it likes land.the host: could congress change the antiquities act all together? guest: it is, there is a republican, chairman of the house natural resources bishop, has ob legislation that would reform the antiquities act, that will for vote, hot debate in congress. host: noelle straub covers as natural l issues

resources editor for e&e news joining us. eenews.net, is the website, if the site.o see open phones until 10:00, republicans.for 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002. we'll take those when we come back. >> by the time i came back to the district or shortly uncles were sent to prison, they were convicted of, one of them sexual assault other, armed robbery. so for the part of my childhood was my an remember, it mother, two sisters, my cousins in and my the house on 13th street. q&a,nday night on c-span's tiffany wright at law office of

wilmur hale talks about growing p in washington, d.c. and working for sonia sotomayor. >> the pull the justices are is really small, if you are a viable candidate, you went to a really great school, impressive tty people willing to speak up for you in the form of letters.ation ou clerked for one judge that routinely feed clerks to the court. for a person of color, particularly african american or latino, to get in the pool, so that, it cles to becomes a real problem and i because the s perspective of diverse wall clerks is so important. of my clerkship, there was a case i felt like i saw something that because of my experience that someone else didn't see. eastern unday night, 8 on c-span.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: a lot of activity outside he supreme court this morning as the justices consider the baker and t colorado the same-sex couple, which you heard in our previous segment. a lot of people representing, give me a sense what is going on outside here. a few seconds of that. host: you can comment on that case or anything you heard on this program or other things in as well, in open phones. forntil 10:00, 202-748-8001 republica

202-748-8000 for democrats, and independents, 202-748-8002. indiana, tinsville, starting us off. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. two points, i became interested and burros and them, they are on federal land. my question, what happened yesterday and i voted for trump, i will not make that mistake again. we not subsidizing mining and gas companies in large by giving ociations this two million acres opening up to them? taxpayer from indiana, we pay nevada, in utah and are we not subsidizing groups of to use the land supposed to belong to people in the united states and what will to wild horses and

burroughs, will they be extracted? host: sounds like you don't why, rt that, tell us concern about wild horses or nature and the environment overall? nature by defense of dr. benjamin wicker out of writes about this. we have stewardship of the land take care of environment. bears ear and the other onuments are beautiful places, we spend a lot of time going to london and paris and people west and about the the beautiful places out there and the animals also are part of environment to be protected and he wild horses burroughs had been made talking s, we're not about small ranchers, we're talking about mega-ranchers. interesting beef arrangement was made in china and now suddenly the lands are up to grazing.

sudden, as ned as a taxpayer, that is not what is best for the land. parts of utah are dust because of grazing and liabilities we mining and gas. host: hear from brad in two wisconsin, independent line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this land thing reminds me kind of what happened, there was a gentleman from michigan, what happened in the upper lot of aof michigan, a land that the state owned, said keep anymore and it got sold to the federal government. you see signs all there, now you cannot go in the woods anymore. camps that were in families for decades, you cannot go in and hunt anymore. trout streams and stuff, you hunt anymore, so

i don't know how this land out if it is going to be the same as what happened in the peninsula of michigan, how will it be different out there? happened with the pipeline in nebraska, the big there.ut and the indians were worried -- the more power, i that are indians and they have stickers on the saying, trust cars our federal government, just i an indian. host: thank you for calling, wisconsin.vers, fl michael flynn, this is from the new york times" this morning, saying leading democrat on the september foreign relations questioned whether high-ranking official had been

deceptive about her knowledge of discussions between michael flynn and former russian ambassador. mcfarland served on the transitional team before ecoming national security advisor. in july she was questioned by corey booker, democrat of new jersey, whether she spoke to mr. lynn about contact with the russian ambassador to washington before mr. trump took office. issues or are of events described above, mrs. in e-mail aid, exchange indicates that mrs. aware of december 29th phone call between mr. kissliak, mr. intercepted by american intelligence. "new york times." also in "new york times" in op co-author op ed by

john yu, at university of visiting scholar at american enterprise institute law professor at uba, prosecute the president, impeach him. writing posed this morning saying if the facts rose to mr. of obstruction, in trump's case, most legal scholars agree prosecutors a not bring charges against sitting president. uty to take care of laws he executed, which authority to oversee all federal law enforcement. impeded valid investigation, congress should turn to impeachment, which removal of president for high crimes and misdemeanors. alexander hamilton explained misdeed, offenses that prosecute seed from misconduct of public men or some or violation of public trust, such offensives may with which peculiar propriety be

as relate political chiefly to injury to society itself. ope of that available on the ed section of the "new york times" this morning, to read for yourself. arkansas, here is linda, democrat's line. caller: yes. i want to talk about the way the man from the -- and the way they oil and the everything. host: okay, go ahead. talk -- es, i want to host: we got that part, go ahead with your statement or comment. okay.: and then they run oil up there upstate to where it is leaking. much thing is why doing so stuff that -- [indiscernible] -- backing him, that is all i want

to say. host: illinois is next, robert, line.ican caller: yes, sir, i am originally from the great state of alabama, okay. and i am disgusted at the possibility of roy moore getting elected. his guy is from etowa county, i'm from muck county, next door, this guy wasn't qualified to be judge, yet somehow there is a lot of people believing his people and a lot of like me, do not, we actually very is -- he's not a credible candidate and the -- and this lot better country deserves a lot better. disappointed in mr. trump for wanting to endorse this guy. he wasn't qualified to be a judge and also i got something to say about the one trillion dollar bank bail-out of the companiesalso the oil nd also general motors, it was a bipartisan bill. barack obama and george bush

backed it. the american people comprehend thank you. host: that is robert in illinois. has backed roy oore, the rnc backed roy moore and steve bannon backing roy moore. here to join us in that iscussion and other things -- mr. gattis, good morning. guest: good morning, how are you doing today? host: well, thank you. start with steve bannon, the role he will play in roy moore's campaign? has --well, steve bannon he initially jumped on the roy ende bandwagon right at the of the republican primary september, right before roy moore defeated luther points to win the g.o.p. nomination. be in ve bannon will alabama tonight, down near having n south alabama, a rally along with roy moore.

all throughout the general election campaign, steve breitbart news has been a front, so to speak for the roy moore campaign. they sort of been a voice for that. it's given clout and presteej bannon's to -- washington andhe elsewhere across the country han it does in alabama n. alabama, roy moore has been a years and ame for 20 so i don't really know what in e bannon can tell people alabama about roy moore that know.on't already host: mr. gattis, with rnc, they extend support for roy moore sdchlt that change what

happens on the ground there in alabama? guest: well, the rnc will infuse a lot of money into roy moore's as well as a pro-trump super pact, promises to spend in than a million dollars the past week. now that is going to buy you a lot of t.v. ads and a lot of ads and i suspect a lot of billboards and whatever else can find to get the message out. it also takes, you know, takes to get wheels in motion, too. i wonder if it is almost too get that late to message out? i think more than anything, with onboard and president trump giving his full endorsement yesterday, people now on the fence or undecided, gives them a little bit of olor or permission to support roy moore when maybe they were

first to do that in the place. ost: the president having -- outside campaign some way influence what happens in the alabama senate race also? well, i think it's trumpating that president would decide to go to pensacola, which is just about as close to you can get without being in alabama. i think it is 20 or 25 miles border, it is also very much in the center of media market, which s one of the largest in alabama. i'm fascinated a little bit by the semantics, staying out of alabama, but trying to be in alabama, trying to influence that senate race. that's what he chose to do and i don't know if it goes back to the fact that trump came to alabama in september and held a for luther ly

strange, five days before luther roynge lost by 10 points to moore. maybe he didn't want to risk optics hose types of honing him again. host: mr. gattis, what does current polling suggest about race and talk about the polling process in alabama and how much credence do you put it? guest: well, the standard line pretty e been saying to much everyone, as far as all the polls, put as much stock into you want to. and on the flip side, you can you want tle stock as to. the polling honestly has been the y sort of all over place. there seems to be a little bit consistency here in the last week to 10 days that roy ahead by threely oints, five points, maybe six points, but in a lot of polls, the difference within the margin so you can essentially

call up high. like every other lecture, it is boring to talk about, it ill come down to turnout, who can get their supporters to go to the polls in december, two before christmas, who can get supporters out there in the greatest number? mr. gattis, when it comes to accusations against roy the "washington post," new evidence being suggested by an accuser, does overall to the voters there? think it does. polling, back to before accusations came out, it's been just shy of a month considered a lam dunk victory for roy moore and he republicans when he was polling 10 points ahead of democrat doug jones and now a polls have the race within the margin of error. surge of giving energy to democrats that they

see a wounded republican think they can take this seat. so, yes, it matters a lot. affected the race a lot. n the flip side, i don't know if it's affected the race maybe as much as people may have hought when the allegations first came out. of know, there was a school thought roy moore might not make it to election day. the polls show he didn't have a mall lead, but he's still leading and backing president trump and that would seem to be or two at least, so the allegations are out there ugly for roy moore, fatally r they haven't wounded his campaign. dpatgastis of al.com. find writing and analysis he spoke about this morning. your time, thanks for this morning.

guest: thanks, good to talk to you. jan, jan in go to new jersey, independent line, thanks for holding, back on open phones, go ahead. just : the gentleman you had on, just the point of my call, anyone who calls christian and votes for roy moore or voted for both a rump, is hypocrite and massagenist. coupleis talking about a things about the tax bill. promising to bring all jobs back, but this latest jobs thatshows of all have been lost in this country, went to overseas competitors and offshoring. remaining, not remaining, there has been 88% of the job have been lost to automation, no one is talking about that. jobs they are promising are

not coming back, there is also a second point in the tax bill that no one has really looked at is really striking to the ion rights and laying ground work for banning abortion outright. enshrining the two words, nborn child, into the federal tax code. that is open, that is one can of worms. host: jan in new jersey, elana, ale, arizona, hello. caller: hi, i'm sorry, i'm taken people stening to these talk and the previous lady, jan, calling anybody a hypocrite because that's -- i lot of them re a out there. but my thing is, i was listening the land use stuff, specifically utah. those kind ofthat

arguments should be left up to he state, if not maria cantwell, from washington, i happen to be a former washington sounds like we just have mostly a lot of environmentalists. lot of native american friends, both here, in arizona washington, and the native americans are generally care of and they have a lot of benefits and us taxpayers are supporting that, so i just get a little upset and i notice, too, most of your allers are democrats or independents and i think i'm only the second republican tis a had on this morning little bit frustrating because i watch you a lot and you used to balanced and and it seems really less leaning lately. republicans all morning long, actually call on various segments we do. pennsylvania next, independent line. barry, hello.

morning.ey, good yes, like to relate a story the loosening of restrictions on federal lands. -- it made me think of traveled ears ago, i out to rich land, utah, just las vegas, southern border, with independent oil michigan.rom light sweet crude 8000 feet down. and they were very happy because was a big fine for the small il company and so it comes out of the ground like kerosene and and fuel. and that stretching roughly from hat point in southern utah up to canada and it will be just as

ig as the oil that is found in saudi arabia or the area that is what he felt. will see oil wells countryside in that area. i think that is, in my mind, otivation to try to loosen the restrictions. thanks. is : on our open phones, it 202-748-8001. democrats.00 for 202-748-8002 for independents. "wall street journal" takes a look at a story about the trump lity of administration announcing future tatus of jerusalem, where the capital will be located there. this is a conversation with leaders, story saying foreign ministers of jordan and called rex tillerson to warn about danger of such announcement. palestinian leaders warned any declaration on jerusalem that israelis would

undermine president trump's ttempt to relaunch peace talks and a phone call monday with the french president who voiced mr. trump's move from tel aviv to jerusalem. jerusalem should a evolved between israelis palestinian office 6789 the two leaders discussed the path of peace and made no mention of his concerns. independent line, hi there. caller: hi. call.you for taking my i would like to comment on the edia, the -- and personally i listen to or hear the -- and also the newshour, i like that. newshour had he park long segment on utah

it was they show so riptions and kind of -- on and i hope not going to go away. think that this -- and also i, news [indiscernible] -- france and nd from -- and i find it very to see how other ews organizations that are far away from us, how they also -- host: okay. elsa, thank you. curtis in alabama, republican line. caller: good morning. morning. caller: i would like to congratulate the previous caller, not the previous the one -- the lady on the

line earlier to point out the fact the federal in fact take s really good care of the people landwe stole the land, our from. i've driven through new mexico have seen some of the shacks or huts would be a better way to them, that these people relegated to. they are provided access to plenty of alcohol. think most americans realize what a great job we're doing in keeping them down. you.k host: the "wall street journal" this morning takes a look at potential changes that could who work in restaurants saying servers and other workers who receive tips required to share money with nontipped colleagues under undoes regulation that

obama era rule restaurant has fought. it is a win for restaurant owners because the pooled tip not the business itself, will provide part of compensation for staffers who interact with customers. would mean by sharing gra tuity waiters bring home less tip income. the rule, subject to public would likely have greatest impact on the restaurant industry, but could casinos, hotels and other establishments. mark from oregon, republican go ahead. caller: yeah, the problem with the lying media. democrat -- you want to control going on in rural areas, how would you like it if controlled what you did in your big cities? what you people don't realize, jobs away from people, destroying people's prosperity. that land that barack obama put

it's good for is grazing and for, you know, for that is all it is good for. you people need to quit lying in media and realize there is a whole bunch of people in america love donald trump. donald trump is going to go down as one of the greatest presidents ever. okay. tommy in oklahoma, democrat's line. he house of representatives just about to come in, go ahead. caller: yes, about the indian of ation, they had billions dollars in a trust fund for the indians for years and years and tribes were not taken care of and the people could not access that money that was theirs, we have not taken care of the indian people, they have of themselves, thank heaven they got some casinos, but the deal is, i believe and should believe, too, that money, there is money in the government that was theirs and