later, washington times reporter on the cost of the robert mueller special counsel and how it compares to other investigations. washington journal" is next. host: thele with a street journal reporting this morning that president trump looking at putting finishing touches on his plan with infrastructure with reports of direct spending totaling $200 billion. that means the administration is also looking for cuts of the federal budget to offset that spending. looking at the alabama special election tomorrow showing republican roy moore up by almost 4 points over democrat doug jones. there is a new poll by pew

research out that takes a look at the interest that americans have in the special investigation by robert mueller over russia's meddling in the 2016 campaign. we'll show you those results but in our first hour we are interested in learning from you about your interest. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. if you want to post your thoughts. here's the cover of the latest from pew research center. it takes a look at a lot of issues but one of the issues was over questions by the public that they interviewed about their level of interest taking a look at the probe into robert mueller. here's the cover.

you can see that but to show you some of the findings when it comes specially to the russian investigation. when republicans were asked by this 19% of those republicans view the russia special investigation as very important, 71% of democrats viewing it as very important. further it says that 68% of democrats versus 44% of republicans say they're somewhat confident in the level of what's going on currently with the investigation. we'll show you a little more as we go on. people talking about the russian investigation. but in our first hour your level of interest. why or why you're not interested in what's currently going on. be prepared to tell us why.

on the sunday shows yesterday, or over the weekend, several asked about. peter king was in on the recent questioning. he spoke with fox news about that, the russia probe overall. here's a bit from that conversation. >> the worst thing the president can do is to remove mueller not because he's doing such a great job but the president's lawyers are confident this is going in the right direction. i don't want to give the democrats or the media another reason to come up with a phony issue. >> i'm glad you did. i understand what you're saying but congressman, it's getic really old to constantly hear robert mueller call people into his office to interview. come on. donald, jr., all of these interviews and then the media speck lates as if there's this major watergate scandal going on, if there was any collusion it would have been linked a

year ago. >> i was at the interview with donald trump jr. and he answered just about every question. the ones were very precise technical reasons. nobody listening comes out thinking there was any collusion at all. i don't want to give them a chance to talk about another saturday night massacre. if the president's lawyers are confident it's going in that direction it's better to go along with it and get it wrapped up. host: again, that's representative peter king. we'll show you some from adad shiff, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee. but your thoughts. this morning we'll start with al. caller: good morning. this is yet another manipulation of the media. if the media really wanted the truth they would visit

wisconsin and speak to the voters and put a microphone in their face and ask them why they voted for donald trump. i live in a town in massachusetts, this town voted for donald trump in the midst of the bluest of the blue states. there are no russians here. they did not influence us. the media needs to discern these voters. all power and authority comes from the people. host: so as far as your level of interest you seem to indicate you're not interested. tell us why. caller: i'm not interested because the voters are not being interviewed. do you recall one media outlet going to wisconsin? why did you vote for donald trump? why don't you ask me why i voted for donald trump. host: that's the nature of the question. why are you interested? caller: us working people, small businesses, electricians,

contractors, people that go to work every day felt that the country was going in the wrong direction. i don't think donald trump is perfect. but he's doing what needs to be done right now to stop the hemorrhaging that went on in this country for many years. host: so no suspicion over russia, specifically from you as far as you're concerned? caller: i'm not an attorney. host: yes or no? caller: innocent until proven guilty. host: we'll go to jesse from maryland. caller: good morning. i am very interested in mueller probe. t after i heard -- host: go ahead. i'm very interested in

mueller's probe in to russia ore so now after i heard roger -- speaking, rd the guy running in alabama. host: let's go to michigan. of r: i am so tired listening to mr. mueller say the same thing over and over. proving nothing to me. i live in michigan. you know what michigan votes for. we are uaw and proud of it. and we are democrats. and i was a democrat for all the years i worked in michigan.

i am now a republican. i got in to small business. it made pretty good money, and i saw what was going on. we voted for donald trump because it is time for change in washington. can't sit on the back of -- well, i guess you want to put it on us for the rest of our life. we do need some new blood in there. host: but when it comes to the probe on russia what we're asking people about, why are you not interested? caller: i'm not interested because we have spoken. e hasn't shown me one thing. and as the other guy tried to say, let them go to wisconsin and ask them. i think he would get the same thing i'm saying. now, that's a thought. i don't want to say a thought

to you. i know that we all voted and i do not believe for one second that there was a scandal in the whole state of wisconsin and a conspiracy from russia in the whole state of wisconsin. come on. host: ok. you can continue to give us your thoughts.

host: from florida, independent line. caller: good morning. trump played the united states like a real sucker when he jumped out there about the mainstream media. he knew what he had done already. they knew what they were doing already. i can't see how people can see these people sitting next to putin. all these russian connections. he couldn't get no money from the united states.

so where did he go? he went to russia. would he say anything bad about putin if he was financing him? i just can't see how america can get all this information and not believe it. host: what specifically -- so from what you said there, i guess that's what you're centering on when it talks about these possible connections or are there other thing that is you're looking at, too? caller: even before the investigations started. if america didn't believe if the voting machines were hacked they have to be fooling themselves. i would not believe the united states would be this big a suck tore put trump in office. host: your level of interest in robert mueller's special investigation into russia.

caller: i'm very interested in this. i think that we have to know what has gone on, we have to know that there is more to this than we're being told. we're not stupid. even if we are supposed to be stupid. and i can see, because i am kind of involved in this, because i have seen hillary inton selling uranium to russia and she needed a back, somebody to back her up. so that's why i'm interested in this. host: do you think that the administration has acted improperly when it comes to the relations with russia? caller: no, i do not. i believe hillary clinton did, that she was the one that was not right.

and i believe that we need to find out how come she could sell uranium. host: aside from that, why do you believe that the trump administration is clear of this? caller: i don't believe that he s going to put anything on the line for russia. i believe that he is an honest man and whether this democrat thinks so or not, well, i do think he is an honest man. host: st. louis. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm very interested in the russia probe. my thing is you let the process play out and if mueller comes up with nothing he leaves with egg on his face. but there's definitely something there. i mean, i don't hear them saying that i was in touch with

australian's president. i don't hear them talking about -- not even mexico, really. there's something going on. and if it was a mistake or something that they did because they were too green then that's what it would be. but they definitely did something wrong. host: one of the people asked yesterday. talking about the issue on cnn's state of the union. >> so you said earlier this week about the russian investigation, you have to be trying to look away to say there's no evidence of collusion there. as far as the public knows we have seen evidence of russian hacking, we have seen the russians dangling these e-mails before contacts with the trump team or members of the trump team, and we've seen members of the trump team expressing willingness to get dirt on hillary clinton but we haven't seen the actual connection.

we haven't seen actual proof of cooperation and collusion. so what am i missing here? >> you know, you have to look at the pattern and chronology. you have in late april the russians approaching the trump campaign and saying we have stolen the e-mails. you have only weeks later the russians making another approach this time at the highest levels offering dirt on hillary clinton. the campaign on notice that they have e-mails. you then have the message going back from the campaign to the russians basically, we would love to have your help. but we are really disappointed in what you gave us and only days later, announcing he has stolen e-mails. and the russians themselves start publishing the e-mails. we then have trump, jr. in private secret communication with wikileaks. so we have all of stolen e-mail. and the russians themselves start these facts in chronology. you have to believe these were all isolated incidents not

connected to each other, doesn't make sense. can you prove beyond a reasonable zoult will be mueller's question to answer? that the way they were going to deliver the help they offered and the campaign accepted was not by handing the e-mails over but by publishing them? that will be up to mueller and we continue to try to fill in all the missing pieces but we know the russianings offered help, the campaign accepted help. the russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. and that is pret damning. >> host: next, south carolina independent line. these you've got all people, donald trump gets on tv and they believe everything the politicians tell them. my thing is these people know hillary clinton sold

information to the russians. he's not the president. we're talking about donald trump. donald trump did doway did. donald trump is a racist white man. host: to the topic of russia. why do you think mike pence was involved? caller: he's a racist too. ost: joseph in maryland. caller: good morning. i just want to say that my level of interest is extremely low. this has been going on ever since the man stepped into office. they have been trying to review some type of information. they have been pulling every loose end. they have yet to find anything. i don't think it's going to happen. we're the greatest country in

the world. we're capable of doing fantastic and some things that people would say are unachieveable and yet we do it. you're telling me if there's any type of evidence that proves collusion between the president of the united states and a foreign power, and we can't find it, i refuse to believe it. i think it's a whole bunch of huff and puff. the media trying to point the finger one way, the republicans pointing a finger back the other way. i think it's a complete waste of time. host: do you think the recent plea agreement by michael flynn added anything to that? caller: in regards to that, i've read some articles and i understand there's two sides to every story. but from the things that i have read, they said michael flynn was more or less pressured by the f.b.i. to do it. something along the lines with the issue with his son. and as far as i'm concerned,

lying to the f.b.i. is a big deal. at the same time, i can think of several people within the past year that has been accused of lying to the f.b.i. the fact that he came clean, there might be something going on but at the same time there's always foul play. there's always push. there's politics involved. money. it could be anything. i don't look into it that much. host: the previous caller mentioned mike pence.

liz in washington, d.c. caller: i am extremely interested in the mueller investigation.

ntil we know the entire facts, we really can't decide whether there's innocence or guilt. we know from the cold war that the soviets were extremely good at propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and now that they've mastered those trades they really used it well with the advent of technology and all the power behind that. so until we know how they leveraged technology and how voters were influenced by that, we won't know what happened. the media has nothing to do with it. they only reporting what has been released by mueller in that investigation. we've got to have a time line and chronology to put all the pieces together by the day, the month, and the event, and lay it out in a time line to see

for ourselves when the media does lay it out what has been released and those critical events and facts. then we can make a really good assessment of whether there is guilt or innocence. i think it's more important to ask -- host: have you heard anything that convinces you about the status of the investigation or what's i want resting to you? caller: i would say man fort and especially flynn and the other gentleman that was also already been indicted or -- not indicted. there's several a -- certainly a lot of evidence -- there's collusion. the facts are not playing out well fort administration that the time line, the chronology is not playing out well for them. what i would say what voters should ask is if there's no

smoke why doesn't the administration say we're fully cooperating, and lay it out? host: 6 host: mike is next in ohio. caller: good morning. this is a perfect example. both parties have the country divided and torn apart just like the obama administration. let's talk about the facts. 18 months of investigation. if they had anything they would have impeached trump. i voted for trump because i was sick of the old administration and our old got. the problem we have now is these people are looking out for themselves and not for we the people.

we have a department somewhere in that sewer of washington hat pays off people that break the laws, sexual misconduct, or whatever. we have 40 or 50 individuals that were given our tax money to pay off these people. we need to know who these people are, get rid of these corrupt individuals. talk about -- host: james is next in texas. caller: thank you. if i could just a housekeeping comment. if i counted every call in the morning, there would not be equal number of republican, democrat, independents. now, am i interested in the investigation? i'm following it. i was -- i worked for the nsa during the cold war and russia is something that i know very

well, their tactics and what not. they actually would not have been so successful were it not for the democrats and some of the other establishment members in washington. putting some -- just following i don't just -- so going to e's probably be any collusion. i think if there were any collusion it would have been leaked. leaks are pretty easy there in washington. but frankly going to be any collusion. i think if i just think that the democrats are engaged in a bunch of bed wet weathering and it's a path logical thing now. host: that's james in texas. the "wall street journal's" main editorial this morning takes a look at the russian investigation but from a recent interview by the house intelligence committee, head of the f.b.i.,

host: jacksonville, florida. gre. caller: 38 years watching c-span. i always watched it and always enjoyed the commentary. i have a great interest in what's going on with mr. mueller's investigation. but before i share that, i think that probably the media may be partly responsible with what is going on now. gain, the media was so ensconsed with the whole wikileaks hillary clinton e-mails that was the top story. i think the democratic party is partly responsible for mr. trump getting elected. not because people didn't support the democrats but because of some of their policies, including the

immigration, dreamers, lgbt, philosophies. but i also think that we have made a mistake in electing mr. trump. the reason i say that is because he is being compromised by russia. one of your earlier callers was mentioning he could not get any loans from the bank. with roger stone and the persons work on his behalf, they had already began to sow the seeds of getting mr. trump compromised when he decided to run for office for the presidency. so there is some fire and there is some evidence in this thing that mr. trump was compromised and this government has been compromised by mr. mueller's investigation. i think mr. mueller is going to find out in the campaign that they have now to discredit him. it just kind of shows you the level of anxiety that they have regarding mr. trump's investigation.

host: on friday in the washington secrets columns takes a look at the investigation.

host: in california, richard, democrat line. caller: i'm definitely interested in the mueller investigation. how could anybody not be? it's the biggest scandal in u.s. history. a president turning to a foreign nation to help out to hack an election and mislead the american people to get voted. it's huge. host: from following and being interested, what have you learned? caller: there's so many indictments going out. the republicans constantly lying about everything. the whole family just lie after lie after lie. and then the dots being connected. there's field indictments all over. i'm hearing about trump's millions of dollars in foreign the that he owes, that

rico act has been acted against with trump. i mean, it's obvious. this reporter being killed over in malta and it turns out she's released information that implicates evanchinga. come on. how can you not believe all this stuff? how can you not see that everything is being connected here? host: let's go to illinois, republican line. my er: thank you for taking call. i would just like to say that the mueller investigation seems like it's slanted towards the democrats and finding out some of the people are definitely slanted towards the democrats. they need to disbar that and get some people not so predge

dissed toward the democratic side. and what about the russian dose yea? the democrats paid for that? why aren't they investigating hillary clinton and her foundation, her lying to congress and everything else and give the president a chance? host: our independent line. robert. caller: merry christmas, america. we all know that there has been collusion with the russians. hillary clinton played for the dossier your last caller said. the f.b.i. took that she got all her information from the russian government, used that to obtain and illegal fisa wasn't to surveil american citizens in this country. there's your collusion. there's your crime. mueller, rosen steen, they were aware of the deal to sell 20%

of the united states uranium to the russians. they were aware of that. they're trying to cover that up that they had their hands in that. do you think that hillary clinton profitted from the sale 20% of our uranium to the russians? there may be some collusion there. host: so as far as the current investigation, nothing that would implicate this administration? host: nothing at all. if this was an honest investigation, how would he not look into that? why would he not be looking into that? this is nonsense. that's all it is. if this was an honest, truthful investigation, they would be looking into that. 20% of our uranium was sold to the soviet union. back in the younger days, they called that treason. host: ok. off of twitter.

about 9:00, we're going to have our your money segment in which we take a look at the cost of special investigations into the russian election and previous investigations. another viewer.

the candidate roy moore did an interview, talked about the accusers saying things about him during this campaign. >> i did not know them. i had no encounter with them. i never molested anyone. for them to say that, i don't know why they're saying it but it's not true. >> we also have women who were mentioned in the "washington and article, debbie gloria. >> i said i did not know any of the women who have charged me with sexual allegation or molestation. and i did not know any of the

women. when i saw these pictures on the advertisements of my opponent i did not recognize any of those people. i have written cards, graduation cards, i have known families. i have known a lot of people throughout my life. but these allegations are completely false. i did not date underaged women. i did not molest anyone. and so these allegations are false. host: the editorial in today's al.com.

doug jones running several ads. here's that ad. >> i'm doug jones and i approve this message. >> there's a pattern. in a 2014 case involving a man convicted of abusing two underaged girls judge roy moore disagreed. in a 2015 case involving a man who pled guilty to raping an

underaged girl roy moore dissented again. and roy moore was the only supreme court justice who sided with a felon. court documents. real facts. roy moore's disturbing conduct. host: for the last 40 minutes or so we've been talking about the special probe into russia by robert mueller and getting your thoughts. we're intregsed in your houghts. houston, texas. next. aller: thank you so very much. i am trying to see why it is that when the democrats do

something like that with hillary and bill clinton, but with trump and everything that is going on, his son in-law, his son and everybody that rks in his office he fired them. but they're still saying it's nothing wrong. there's something wrong with that picture. u need to really look at this. this is the united states. don't care if you are a republican or democrat. i'm a democrat. if this happened with hillary i ould have wouldn't voted for her. because you are supposed to care about your country. these people are harsh. it shows in that.

how could they stand up there and talk about that and say it's nothing? just because you are a republican you are supposed to be for the united states of america. host: ok. laurel, maryland. republican line. aller: i'm a republican. let me start out explaining why. not to vote on party line but on interest of america, especially financial responsibility. but this election i did not vote for trump. i hear a lot of your callers saying he's an honest man, he's moral. and they aren't true. he's been debunchingd time and again. i do investigatory work for a living. the interesting thing is if there is not a lead then the investigation nowhere.

like a sweater you pull a string and see where it is going. so if there was no evidence then there would be no need for an investigation or the investigation wouldn't lead anywhere. host: do you think there's a lead? caller: i think there are multiple leads in robert mueller's probe. i think finding out the source, the catalyst for the russian collusion is the end goal. but so far i'm certain that he has a lot of evidence. host: give me a specific lead that you find compelling. anything that's come out from the investigation specifically? caller: paul man forth being the campaign manager of donald trump would be at donald trump's direction. so paul mana forth wouldn't have coliuted with the russians without authorization or at

least consent from donald trump. so that right there is an interest. then you have people in donald trump's cabinet, his closest advisers who are also colluding with the russians in that we would be 95 to think that at no time did donald trump know that his closest adviser's were talking to the russians. host: so you don't see him as a higher lead? caller: not in donald trump's office. he selects who is closest to him. when we look at his daughter and son when he takes more advice from them than he does military generals. host: mike, independent line. caller: good morning. i'm very interested in this investigation. i believe it has already been proven just with the meeting ith the russians and trump tower. i don't know why we're supposed

to believe nothing was gained. but they dealt with the russians to find out whether anything was gained or not. 11 minutes into donald trump's presidency, flynn was sending an e-mail that said -- or, that it was good to go to build reactors over in the middle east, and that the russian sanctions would be ripped up. i find it very interesting that when the republicans thought that nothing was going to happen they were all for mueller's investigation being carried out. now that things are being -- coming to light, they want to cut it off. i don't believe that there's any morals at all left in the republicans's -- at all in the country. we have one accused molester,

something for another accused molester. there's no morlingse whatsoever left in the -- host: apologies for that. a couple of stories about comics.

back to calls. caller: good morning. first-time caller. nobody would be surprise ds to find that i am very interested in the investigation because i'm a democrat.

an earlier caller stole my under but i'm a student of history and i'm an old lady. e issue is not whether trump legitimately won the election. he did. for me as a democrat it's not the issue of whether hillary lost and we're crying in our soup. -- ssue is how can russia putin -- an aggressive enemy, invade us? they can't do it militarily. hey do it by disemination. the frightening thing is in ough they now have media

its wake, the disemination of information that -- pitting one institution against another falls fake meadia, -- media. let's get people to distrust the news. host: if that's your interest, what do you expect them to learn? i have again, i believe lived long enough to know that when there's a special nvestigation, it takes time. i expect in the end for them to not just look backwards. i ookspect them to look forward to protect us and our system of

democracy. host: ok. alabama, joe is next. good morning. watching this en for going on about two years now. this is the first time i have ever called in to anything like this and i'm a little nervous but i've been watching this. i retired about two years ago and this is one of my hobbies. i've watched it in -- when it first came out i felt i couldn't wait until 6:00 to turn this program on to listen to what the people said what their views were. now, i think it's just a bunch of garbage. it has gotten down to that. host: why has it gotten to that

specifically? what changed? caller: you want to know the truth? our politicians. our elected officials that sit there. host: before we go too far into that, specifically into the mueller investigation. ller: that hasn't -- i haven't heard anything -- i watch it every morning. i have not heard anything from mueller or from anyone -- i thought the purpose of this investigation was to figure out how russia was interfering in our election. and i understand how -- and they've been doing it. from what i understand, the f.b.i. knew about this a year

before the election, and who did they tell? they knew about it. and i'm pretty sure some certain in people -- in congress knew. host: have you learned anything new about the investigation or at least from the news which has come out from it? it first came out, everybody was hollering from both sides, it was a witch hunt. but i'm beginning to believe that's all it is. every morning. host: let me ask you about the special election. what do you think about what's going on on both sides? caller: are you sure you want my opinion on that?

host: quickly. caller: when it first came out, i figured judge moore, that there could be something to it. my first inkling was just to sit at home and don't vote. but the more that comes out and what really -- and which in the morning i will probably be the first one at the poll and i will be voting for mr. moore. the reason why, there was a news outlet yesterday interviewed one of the girls that accused or was friends of. they said they were 14. i listened to that lady's comments. she said her and the accuser had talked and by listening to that it changed my mind. i don't believe it happened.

host: ok. state college pennsylvania independent line. k caller: good morning. first, i don't even know how to describe it. it's not a real issue for real americans. they're worried about paying their heating bill. they don't care what's going on in washington, d.c. these political witch hunts, it's just crazy. there's no way that people are sitting around preoccupied with something like this when they have real problems. it gives something for cnn and ms nbc to talk about. when barack obama was president then donald trump, before he was president made comments about him not being born in this country. it's just a misdirection for the political party not in power to distract voters. host: we've had people from across the nation saying they're interested.

would you qualify them as real americans and possibly interested? caller: i didn't mean to say that they weren't real americans. i'm just saying that there's people around this country, you don't just sit around and have nothing to do with washington. they're worried about putting food on their table and paying their bills. they don't have time to sit around thinking about what's going on in washington. ost: we'll hear next from lily in missouri. these people how much he president loves them. the tax break -- they started taking money out of our

medicare. we got a raise and they take it back. host: before you go too far. your level of interest into the russian investigation. if he wasn't hiding anything he would not want to ut this off. he's not saying anything because he's said enough already about russia. he wants to cut it off. them to israel and got -- because he wanted us to focus on them. he doesn't want this investigation to go through. i don't russia to pick my president.

host: let's go to joe? michigan. caller: in response to the lady in missouri and thank you for having me on but i think we need to keep our eye on the raugs the ball is collusion. but -- russian collusion. but mueller has a biased interest of obama and the clinton people. it's out of control. if there's anything to look at in the mueller-russia probe, keep your eye on the uranium. the uranium. the uranium. keep your eye on the uranium. where did it go? why did it go to russia? who got paid? come on, american people. host: why is it important? caller: this is a good point. supposed to be set up with the reason that we have a probe like this and a special counsel set up is so

that we can prove to the american people that there is no biased. how do we stack this thing with 100% clinton-obama people? host: why is the uranium important? caller: the important factor is this. they have got our -- they're trying to get us all caught up in a russian probe for an election when they just sold off 20% of the american uranium and it never was supposed to leave the country and it's gone. where did it go? host: brett is next. independent line. aller: good morning. we've heard testimony from johnson talking about russia

and talking about the probe and how russia interfered with our election. find said, the way to out is to have a poll. you would have to ask everybody who voted for donald trump or hillary clinton to find out why. we had a national director of intelligence who lied to this ss or the senate and unvestgation has been going on so long that the american people have no answers to it. wouldn't you like to hear an answer? host: do you think any conclusions or at least definitive answers will come up? caller: not really. everything is so secretive that the american people are apparently are too dumb to

understand it. i was a vietnam vet. i was a radio operater. i did code. i think the american people are smart enough to understand things. it's not so secretive. it's just our senate and congress want to do that. i think it's time for the american people to take control. host: ok.

host: john. go ahead. caller: i'm very interested in this investigation. i think it needs to see where it's going to go. it's important we have popular opinion to affect whether or not we let it complete. i'm changing what i want to talk about because of what other callers have been talking about particularly the uranium issue. i want to go to that for a second and this is why popular opinion shouldn't be able to stop this investigation. everyone is entitled to your opinion but if you're interested in it you need to make an informed opinion. the uranium issue, the russians wanted to buy a controlling interest in a company called uranium one for various reasons primarily financial. if you listen to your callers, the one whose get their news

from right-wing sources, they're under the impression that we sold them our uranium. the uranium cannot leave the united states by law. and you can look up and find out where it is. the russians bought a controlling interest in the company uranium 1. host: only because we're running out of time. about the current probe by mr. mueller. your level of interest? >> i think that we are going to find that the biggest issue is not whether or not there was collusion, although that's a big deal. the long-term issue is whether or not to what extent the russians have been able to infiltrate media, what methods they are using, how do we stop them from doing it in the future on either side, because next time they might have a reason to support the democrats or somebody else. they shouldn't be allowed -- we need to know how they're doing what they're doing and to be able to detect it and stop it. host: republican line in kentucky.

caller: good morning. i agree with the previous gentleman's call, and i'm very interested in the muelleren vestgation. it is -- and i am pleased that the mueller investigation appears to be partisan. that's because that is generally the sunlight that is introduced into the political system that enables this to continue. trump has been elected to tear down the progressive play house hat's in this country. trump was the only candidate ualified to do that.

host: last call on this topic with the alabama special election this week also with congress continuing efforts on tax reform and working on the budget. that and other issues will be the topics of discussion for our two guests.

>> this is the place where grant pened his memoirs in 1885. he was dying of throat cancer and his family was facing serious financial problems. at this point in his life he was a man trying to take care of his family. we get to tell a story here that most people don't know about. madness. e book sheer >> growing up, i thought the person who was addicted to hirn lived under a bridge somewhere

and was pushing a shopping cart around or something like that. but that's not the case. one of the most abused drugs right now on wall street among aders -- and these are elite rofessionals -- are opioids. >> a trip to the race cours. and we'll visit the national historic park. >> the new york city times magazine said that the battles of saratoga were the most important battles ever fought in the entire world in the last 1,000 years because they resulted in the general's surrender. it was the first time ever in world history that a british rmy surrendered.

>> this week two telecommunications advocates talk about net newt ralt and regulating the internet like a public utility. >> number one deregulates broadband. it basically takes broadband oversight out of the f.c.c. entirely and gives it to the federal trade commission which does not have strong tools. number two, it eliminates the rules against internet service providers blocking throttling internet traffic. and allowing for what's called fast lane. charging online providers to get to the consumer faster or with better quality of service. and this is really important. it pree.s or prohibits the

states from protecting consumers and competition with similar rules. >> there are three acts, at least three federal statutes that protect consumers and entrepreneurs here and they're very powerful and they do have teeth. the sherman act, clayton act and federal trade commission act. there are also state protections. what it doesn't do does not prevent state attorneys generals, for instance, from suing internet providers if they harm there sumers. host: watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on -span 2. host: we are taking a look at events this week in washington particularly what lies ahead for the white house and for congress. joining us, two reporters who overs those beats.

thanks for joining us. the "wall street journal" has the picture of the story of the moment it seems. the special election. you were just traveling with the president in pensacola. talk about the white house investment and the strategy that they're making. >> they're going all in. pensacola is about 30 miles away from the alabama border, about an hour drive from mobile, alabama. there was a large presence of people from alabama at this rally. the president actually called out and sabe anybody here from alabama and there was huge cheers in the crowd. we saw roy moore signs. so the president -- they knew what they were doing. the white house tried to say this wasn't a roy moore rally, that this was previously planned but it just so happened it was a few days before the election and of course the president called out in the middle of the rally saying vote

roy moore. he's doing a robo call for roy moore. host: is this because of the story or is this purely a political movement? guest: the official white house line has been these accusations are troubling. however, roy moore has denied them so they sort of sprinkle a, well there's a little doubt around this. and go into the political argument of we can't lose this seat. we can't have a nancy pelosi puppet. we need someone to help advance our agenda. it really is a political argument. and the moral ethical issues ere they say he's denied them. host: alabama senator talking about this election. tell us what does it mean for the republicans as a whole? guest: this will be so defining for the republican party both

here in washington and in alabama. i know from having been on the ground in alabama there is so much interested in this race. even to tment's involvement. i would say he didn't initially back roy moore and a lot of republicans were initially saying well the president is backing the wrong guy because he was backing the incumbent luther strange and now you see the president really realizing that this is a seat he needs to save and that judge moore has this very big following in the state. what it means on capitol hill is a whole different story and that's the republican senators have not necessarily followed the president on this. they are very reluctant to back judge moore and -- host: including richard shelby from alabama. guest: what he said is in line

with what he has been saying. he told a group of us some weeks ago i want to say it was the week they were off back home for thanksgiving that he had voted write-in and that he had voted for a republican. and he wouldn't tell us who that was but he said that he wouldn't vote democrat. he's a republican. which is an interesting side story because of course he was the last elected democrat statewide to congress and then of course switched parties to become a republican. ut he said he could not vote doug jones but could not vote for judge moore. and he was hoping others in alabama would do so. sort of centrist republicans, the business class, the folks in the cities, in the ndustries there in mobile-huntsville, hunts ville- birmingham, they are concerned. they've seen what happened in

north carolina, for example en the state passed a very conservative anti-bathroom law, trance jender law and there was backlash. alabama has struggled with trying to show the rest of the country it's not this sort of what people might consider back water. we're not that and we don't want to be seen as that. but judge moore has an enormous following. guest: i felt they do also feel like there's a bit of backlash from the media. like the intense media coverage of this. and some was telling me, i talked to a friend he said he's more likely to vote for roy moore now who he really detests because he feels unfairly attacked by the mainstream

media, by hollywood. he feels like there's this outside influence and democratic money coming in that makes him say i'm going in the roy moore direction. guest: people don't want to be told what to do. i think the question will be what to do in the senate as you asked, what happens in the senate leader mcconnell was asked last tuesday what's next? and i think there's this growing realization among the senators that if roy moore wins tomorrow, there is not a lot they can do to stop him, and that they would seat him, they may in fact go forward with an ethics committee investigation. but even then, the allegations against judge moore are 30 years ago. it's hard to hold a senator in that process of the ethics committee responsible. guest: i think it's a question for leader mcconnell.

we did ask this last week, if judge moore is elected would he conference with the republican conference? would the other senators allow him -- i don't want to say welcome. but allow him to be in the senate conference for their weekly strategy sessions, political discussions, all of that? or would he be sort of an outsider and not welcomed? host: if you want to ask our guests questions, the numbers are on your screen. does it affect the relations? guest: roy moore snot going to be an automatic yes vote for president trump. roy moore is his own man. he has some controversial ideas that are out of line with even

the president. so maybe on things like tax reform or on the supreme court justice he will fall in line but there are other issues and republicans are not this united map. and roy moore is not a follow he leader kind of guy. i think that's interesting the points. you've been raising about mcconnell. i did reporting early on where i was told that vice president received a call from mcconnell about tax reform and mcconnell floated the idea about removing moore or sessions write-in and mcconnell was exploring that pass but it looked impossible to mount a successful campaign. and actually removing a member who was elected by the people.

they made their choice. they're moving someone from that. i think mcconnell realized that was going to be a sticky situation. guest: leader mcconnell has become a target in this division in the republican party. we see former trump adviser steve bannon has made it sort of the plank of his support of outsider candidates one of the questions is would these senate republican potential primary candidates that bannon may or may not be supporting -- would they back leader mcconnell to be leader again? and we see bannon will be down a get out onight for the vote rally read of the election. so you see this kind of antagenism, this kind of challenge to leader mcconnell

who is not a very -- who has a difficult job trying to hold republicans together in the senate, in congress at a time when republicans are divided over this president. host: we'll start in rhode island. caller: i would like to agree with the woman who said the media was helping roy moore become elected in alabama. it's so left-leaning that they will do anything to stop the trump agenda that the people don't want to hear what they have to say. they want their own vote. the other point is he's been running for office for 40 years. he's been in about 10-12 different elections. not one time has this come up in that 10-12 times. so i want to know why it just so happens that right now

before the big vote comes out that it all comes out now, 40 years later. so i absolutely agree with the people of alabama. if i had a vote just by the way the media is so biased right now against the trump agenda they would do anything to stop it. host: tarbg about that, especially in light of the revelation that came out about the woman with the yearbook and he president reeze sponse. guest: the question is one i've heard a lot about. this is 40 years. the response that's been given to that by others is this is a national stage. you had reporters from the "washington post" going down there and looking into this story. we're also at this moment of harvey weinstein, why now. so it fits into this larger

conversation about what's going on at the national level but it certainly does speak to general mistrust and a sense of mistrust that you can't trust the media. you can't trust what you read in newspapers. and these growing concerns. and the president has certainly grabbed on to those concerns, fanned the flames of them. these are very his most recent rally very heavy on the fake news, on pointing out corrections that the media has had to run recently so they have harnessed those fears and kshes and doubts and tried to exacerbate them. host: alabama, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment that we will be voting for doug jones tomorrow. the reason is because we do not believe that roy moore is really fit to be in the united

states senate and we certainly hope that the people in alabama will open their eyes to the truth and then vote their conscience. host: the caller before, when u say that mr. moore isn't fit, what are you basing that on? caller: well, i'm basing it on his past philosophies. the way he believes, if there had been no accusations made by any of the young women, i would have still felt the same way. but i do believe the young women. i don't believe you get this many accusers to come forward. and i realize it's been a number of years. host: thank you. what about this idea that the accusations have overseeded at least judge moore's political and judicial record? guest: let's remember judge moore had been twice elected

and twice left his position. once removed he was the chief justice of the alabama supreme court. he was removed the first time. he stepped down the second time because he faced potential removal because he believes in a set of beliefs where essentially his faith in god d in sort of christian faith -- some of over the the rulings that have come. for example, on the supreme court he as a chief justice of he alabama supreme court, he declined to enforce the supreme court's decision that he not have a ten commandment display in the courthouse and then subsequently left office because he had -- did not want to have the local clerks there in alabama granting same sex marriage licenses because he

believes that is not part of the constitution, not part of the christian faith. and i think -- back to the earlier sort of cultural divisions here. i think people who have these strong belief systems, many of his supporters in alabama feel that they're under threat by sort of a culture that doesn't value that as much any more. and so to the earlier points about the media they don't sort of see the media as reflecting a lot of their beliefs. that really creates these sort of polarizing positions that people have where they might be willing to overlook some of these other challenges and allegations because they believe in the ultimate belief system that judge moore is sort of espousing. guest: i think that caller makes a good point because i heard this too from individuals that basically said that these allegations, these are from

republicans. the 14-year-old was obviously disturbing but they were equally disturbed by some of his other comments about homosexuality shouldn't be allowed, about how muslims shouldn't be able to serve in congress. there were quotes where he said america was great at a time where families were united even though there was slavery. sort of to say well the slavery thing wasn't great but at least families stuck together. it would be interesting to have seen this in a world that did not have these allegations how would he be doing at this point and how big of an effect are these allegations around the sexual misconduct? host: republican line from alifornia. caller: good morning. you know what? any time gloria alred has her hands in things, something is

up. and i was on fox news october 16. d msnbc on october lawsuit , some filed a recently with gloria alred claiming that donald trump tried to kiss her in a hotel room and -- i just -- i've worked with my cousin -- at my uncle's restaurant at the time and she read the e-mail that was sent to donald trump inviting him to the restaurant because i believe he was in california for the primaries campaigning. but when they told her no, she just lost it. she's spoiled, you don't tell summer no. host: caller, only because it's really specific but it goes to the idea of the attention. at least one senate race that

probably no one paid attention before now everyone is paying attention to. i suppose there's consequences for either way this shakes out particularly for the white house. guest: right. and these senate race that is we had these special elections get under this massive microscope and where you have the white house the and the president and in some cases in very small districts like the georgia race earlier this year. where relatively even small districts where there's massive attention from the president tweeting and weighing in. when we go into 2018 there's still going to be intense pressure but all of these races in 2018 won't have that sort of national microscope that they're under. they won't have that national presidential attention on them like we see. so it will be a different climate. host: so if i'm a democrat it's -- particularly in congress we saw some out there supporting doug jones.

talk about how they're perceiving this whole rate. guest: i think democrats have been very wary of exactly what shannon's saying. they don't want to be seen -- democrats felt like they learn the lesson when karen was able to defeat john despite millions and millions of dollars getting poured in to support the democrats. and what was arguably a potential swing district. you see now democrats really trying to tread thoughtfully into alabama. senate minority leader chuck schumer, you ask him what does he think of doug jones and how much is the party going to be supporting him? he said doug jones is running his own race in alabama. it's a alabama race. well, ok yes and no. there is democratic funding and support. but democrats can't help but look and think alabama, you know, has a seat in play. who would have ever even

thought of that? it's a state that the president won by nearly 30 points. they haven't elected a democrat statewide in 20-something years to congress, to the senate. so i think that does make it a bell weather for these other races to come. what a sea change we are at where you think a year ago or even 15 months ago people were looking at next year's mid term election where you have these democratic senators from conservative states up for reelection. heidi hite camp, joe manch. claire mccaskle in missouri. these are states the president won and these should g hard races for those democratic incumbents. and what are we seeing? they seem to be heading in to next year's election fairly strong. and what is happening on the other side is this division over who are going to be the challengers.

is there going to be a civil war among the republicans who have a bannon-backed challenger or a more establishment-backed challenger? and you're seeing that even down in mississippi the talk of a challenger to senator roger wicker. gosh, that's a very safe republican seat. a very strong senator who now might get a primary. so it's interesting to see how quickly things change and we always think you can look ahead and look at which way things are going to go and the mood shifts. host: there's been talk about al franken. what was the decision? was it a political decision or were there bigger issues at play? guest: i think the nation and capitol hill is just reeling with the sexual misconduct allegations and how to handle them. and we are seeing it just play out in realtime here in so many

different ways. i think democrats saw that they needed to have the high ground on this. they have been harping on the allegations against the president by the accusers of the president, keep bringing those up. they've been pointing to juck moore. and then when you've -- judge moore. then when you've got your own members of congress accused of this behavior there's a bit of a zero tolerance and they felt they had to make that statement. and you saw it with john conyers. >> trent franks. but to the president's accusers. this focuses again the white house on the accusers that came up during the campaign. guest: the u.n. ambassador broke and said these women need to be heard, should be heard. i think naffs a bit of a shift. you would know better covering the white house. host: reaction to that? guest: i have not gotten any reaction because i think that

came a bit later on sunday. we didn't see the president at all on sunday. but the -- the white house strategy and the steve bannon strategy has been deny, dig your heels in, don't back down. al franken, back down, stepped away. roy moore, deny. it wasn't me. didn't do it. he has a chance at winning a senate seat. so al franken will be gone and roy moore will have a senate seat. so fight fight fight, don't back down. after the access hollywood tape, when you had the whole republican establishment ready to dump him saying don't back down. stand your ground. and this election is not about that. we're not voting for the pope. we're voting about jobs, the economy, the future. that's -- you know, bannon's argument was that's what people care about. now are you on the moral high ground.

so to the democrats' point i would say you might have the moral high ground but is that what people want? is that what's going to get people to vote? or do they care about the jobs and taxes and health care? guest: excellent point. will people care? and i don't know. i mean, that's all going to be litigated i think in this next lection. host: terry next, independent line. aller: good morning. the question i have is how do e get rid of this? host: the drug gangs? caller: yes, sir. guest: that's certainly a priority of the president. that's certainly something he's been going after very strongly. he's taken the immigration approach but jeff sessions as

attorney general, it is his life dream going after illegal immigration and drugs. two issues he feels very passionate about. so i think we'll probably see momentum in that direction in a pretty significant way. as long as jeff sessions is an attorney general. host: is that an interest of congress? guest: i think congress is moving in a different direction. of course at the end of the year there could be this issue on what to do with the dreamers, the young immigrants who face deportation under the president's undoing of the daka program. but on the issue of drugs and criminal gangs, i think our seeing in congress movement where folks have been coming together in a bipartisan way with interest over justice reform, criminal justice reform and trying to get away from that 80s, 90s strategy like a war on drugs that then has mandatory minimums for smaller

offenses and has created a bit of a generation behind bars essentially. that legislation i think ebbs and flows in congress. there's support for it. but i don't see it as being a priority right now as something they would get done and especially the president's approach is sort of completely in another direction. but it's i want resting, i would say there's some powerful interests behind justice reform. the groups backed by the coke industries, the coke brothers who are influential players in republican and conservative politics are very interested in this issue. so you never know who gets the president's ear and sort of interject an issue and say sure border security and stopping illegal crossings and all the drug tunls is important. there is a lot of work being done on the border on that. you know, maybe there's something to say about this

other issue and about demand here in the united states. that feeds the drug problem. obviously we have a big drug problem. host: we saw a two-week extension of the budget. democrats wanting to make dreamers a part of the budget. i guess they both willing to play chicken on this topic. guest:ive no idea what's going to happen there. i know the position that the esident is in is that when there was the initial chuck and nancy meeting and this talk about daka, boy, his supporters really -- the suggestion that there would not be funding for the wall or that there would be any form of amnesty for dreamers, that was just beyond acceptable for the president's supters and his base. and sent signal that we will drop you like a hot potato if

we don't get that wall money and if there's amnesty for dreamers. those were nonnegotiable for the base. how do you deal with that versus the democrats are having to work together with people -- not just democrats but moderate republicans -- to reach a deal on that. that's a tough one. guest: i think it is a chicken -- game of chick b now at the end of the year. dreamers these nearly 800,000 young people are at play here. and it is a very difficult situation for all sides. i think that the president, you're right, really backed off of his deal with chuck and nancy. the leaders. at the same time, they are playing incredible hard ball on this issue. because they see this is really the last chance to protect these young people.

congress is set to the -- the spending bill expires on the 22nd. there's talk of trying to get a broader deal together at that point. it probably wouldn't g something on the budget that they could quickly pass so they would then have to punt again to january and then in january really deal with the budget. a number of democrats and centrist republicans have said they won't leave until the -- leave town until the dreamers issue is taken care of. host: illinois is next. susan. caller: i have to disagree with almost everything you guys have said today. i am a democrat but i'm kind of thinking about going toward the middle independent. i know a lot of democrats that are going to turn independent soon. i think you're wrong about alabama from this point on all the races in all the states are going to be exactly like

alabama. there's just too many democratic talking points for people to believe nowadays. people just don't believe it. in new jersey on the east coast or on the west coast. you know, that's pretty easy. but everywhere else, and every other state i just don't see -- i mean, the talking points nowadays are so that well just like today as an example, i heard the comment that roy moore said about slavery days being better and it was a -- it wasn't even about where the talking point -- the talking point of course would try to make him out as a racist. he was just saying before the 50s, around that time the family units and all americans -- cities, towns, didn't matter what color you were -- were different. i never heard anyone call for slavery again. it's ridiculous. but you hear that and people that are voting -- roy moore will win and it will be a

landslide. it's going to be a landslide more so than what you saw with trump and all the other states just because of the lying on the left. the talking points are bad. people are -- don't want dishonesty. when roy moore does win everyone will say it's because of the racist culture. host: thank you very much. a couple of things. does this then see a further embrace by republicans of the president? if roy moore wins, the republicans will say maybe we ought to bring this. guest: i think it will depend on the district. if you're in new jersey or a moderate district. the president is still -- he's an enormous force in the republican party. he has an enormous grassroots

following. is that enough to win every election? in virginia maybe not. but depending on the districts he has a very powerful tool. also in districts, too, where there might be some hesitation about some of his comments. you have the vice president too that you can use. i think they are going to be powerful weapons in 2018 especially to that caller's point too about trust and concern and people don't like where the democratic party is going, there's a lot of things that president trump is saying that could resonate with democratic voters as it did in the last election. host: the idea then she brought up the comments by roy moore on slavery but talk about the president's decision not to speak at that opening of the mississippi civil rights museum. first, why the change? and what does it say for the larger issue that the president did not? guest: he did speak. he did not speak out in public to the open group. he did speak. he gave ten minute remarks to a group of 100 or so people invited inside.

he spent about 30 minutes going through the museum. it was a very quick trip there. we flew about two hours from palm beach, maybe about an hour. we were in there 30, 40 minutes and out back on the plane back to palm beach. but there was -- and we don't know how much was scheduled and how much was a response to criticism and protest from naacp and from john lewis, one of the civil rights icons honored who said he would not go because he felt the president's policies undercut the civil rights movement. so there is that divide. and to the caller, i definitely -- i understand what you mean about the slavery comments being taken out of context to some extent but to african americans, the idea of slavery, you know, it's just so horrific to them that even sort of the way he said even though we had

slavery then -- to them there is no even though. that was the most horrific period of time. it's just one of those sensitivity issues. certainly he's not saying we should have slavery again. it's just a sensitivity issues that voters especially in alabama with a large african american population. guest: the audio is there and you can listen and hear exactly with a judge moore said. it was in the context of a broader discussion. answering someone's question about when was america great? the president said america was great. when was it? and so i think you can hear what he said and make your own decision. i realize it is frustrating as the caller said that to sort of feel that people aren't representing some of these issues the way they need to be represented.

but i also think that we have become so divided in what we read and listen to that it's just incumbent on everyone to reach beyond your sort of comfort zone and listen to different voices out there. host: pennsylvania from our independent line. robert. caller: i would like to ask a question of your guests. if roy moore wins the election and is seated as the senator rom alabama, what would happen if al franken decides to serve out the rest of his term until both are unseated? thank you. guest: well, i don't know that -- how long -- i think franken will be stepping down is what he said, sometime soon in the near future. so i don't know that he will be here. i know there is talk already in minnesota about an appointment to replace him. as we talked about judge moore

i think there's not a lot the senate would do. i think they may launch an ethics committee investigation. but i think it sounds like the leaders believe that they have sort of limited resource and that judge moore, if he were to win tomorrow, would be seated in the senate and would take his seat. and i think again the question is a little bit on to the republican party. they have a caucus, a conference and they meet pretty much every day to sort of go over their planning and strategy. they usually do it over luve. the question then will be how do these other republican senators treat him? do they welcome him into the conference? do they allow him in but kind of give him the cold shoulder? or do they say no? and i think that will be the real test here if he does win what happens. and then what does he do? how does he respond to some of the legislative initiatives?

how does he respond to his colleagues? relationship with the president going forward? implingtsbk to this idea of most -- guest: bk to this idea of we have one president at a time. most presidents back off. most presidents have also historicically been older so more serving at the end of the career. so what obama was going to do has been a question. i know eist been a -- eist been a tough de-- it's been a tough decision. he has someone to hit back at. when he doesn't have a strong democratic enemy he's made an enemy of his own party, his own cabinet. so he is a fighter. he likes to have someone to

punch and punch back with. so bring in obama, it's sort of like, you know, throwing red meat to him. guest: that's a really good point. i would just say i think democrats have tried to keep a little bit of a hand-off this race. of course joe biden was down rallying for doug jones early on. but this could really cut both ways in terms of drawing the president deeper into the fight. and alabama remains a very conservative state. the campaign is really counting on a robust african american voter turnout. and we saw over if weekend that appears to be maybe more lack luster than would be needed for doug jones. i saw one report of needing sort of obama level election turnout. and so i guess that would be maybe of interest to the former president. ut that's really creating -- host: let's go to birmingham,

alabama. republican line. first, i would like to say i have never voted for roy moore in my life. but i have two quick comments. one, all the news outlets from x news to cnn, and so forth, they all talk about eight or nine accusers. there are not eight or nine accusers. ll but two of these women were teenagers who were perfectly of legal age and they dated and actually had nothing bad to say about him. it was with parents' approval. maybe i canny but not unusual. and it certainly wasn't illegal. and i think that kind of misleading reporting leads to the mistrust.

so we're down to two accusers. now, that's horrible. but ms. alred's client first of all has admitted at least partially doctoring the inscription in the yearbook and no one has pointed out the initials da apparently she thinks that means district attorney. that does not mean district attorney. those are the initials of his assistant and was on the stamp that the assistant used to sign documents as her divorce decree and signature's identical. it says roy moore da. why would he put his initials of his assistant on an inscription in the yearbook? that doesn't make sense. i don't know about the inscription but i think that the signature has been doctored. host: thanks, caller.

guest: she raises a point that has been lost in this debate and it does go to sort of these cultural shifts. the legal age was 16 in alabama at that time. the age of consent. so that is part of the story that -- host: north carolina. democrats line. aller: i just want to say that al franken i believe that he just -- he should have stayed and fought. but as soon as i heard him starting to continuously apologize for what he did, even though what he did was not nearly as bad as roy moore, i knew then that eventually he was going to be bowing out and he did. and he is just an example of the democratic party. thai don't know how to fight.

they back down all the time. i am a democrat. but i wish i had another party to go to. they are like -- the democratic party is like the skinny kid on the beach that's always getting sand kicked in his face by the republican bullies. and they are never able to adequately fight back. host: thanks. guest: there is -- obviously in the election we saw a lot of discontent among democrats with the bernie sanders, the divide with the bernie sanders and hillary clinton supporters and some people who refused to vote democrat. that -- the democratic party, they need to figure things out. they need to do some soul searching, to get a message, to get some leaders. is it still barack obama? is it going to be bernie sanders? they have a lot.

host: 2020. guest: absolutely. and i think so much too of who wins in these 2018 races is not just going -- i think sometimes we think we're at a country that we're just divided shirts and skins, democrats and republicans, and that's just how it's going to be. but i think this past election and to your caller's point. i was a democrat, i'm thinking of changing. it's not as we think it is. it comes down to candidates. it comes down to people who are really speaking to and fighting for things that people believe in and candidates who could really motivate and inspire people to vote for them. guest: how many have said already this morning said they are just becoming more independent. i think that's a really good point. i think democrats have been able to sort of go under the radar because republicans of course control congress. they have the majority in the house, the majority in the

senate. and of course the president and the white house and so much attention is on the republican divisions and the inability of republicans to come together to pass obamacare repeal or different aspects of the president's agenda. but the undertold story is the division among democrats and who will be the leader of this party going forward. and what do they stand for? how do they emerge in this new era? >> guest: it was easy for republicans to be united when they had a common enemy, barack obama. as soon as that enemy was gone they all divided. now it's easy for democrats to be united because they have a common enemy in trump. as soon as he's gone we'll still be talking about the same civil war in the democratic party as we are with the republicans. it's a cultural change that we're not a two-party country any more. i don't know if we ever really were but the two-party system the way our country is going and the change that is have happened over the past 40, 50

years in the country -- that system doesn't fit any more. host: even over the weekend you saw the cnc meet and talk about super delegates and redutioning the number to get more involved. not so much the status quo. correct me if i'm wrong. guest: i think that's right. there was an enormous backlash to the super delegates because of the difficult primary last year. i think it's a really accurate point that what is the future of the two parties here as these institutions? we see all these other groups out there doing on the ground campaigning, get out the vote. all the functions that used to be party functions. you know, so many other groups freelancing that now. it does leave a question of what are the role of the parties in a real infrastructure pragmatic way and in a more philosophical way as you raised. so many people seem so dissatisfied with both ends.

and -- host: back to al franken. what is the likelihood he changes his mind? guest: i don't know that i can answer that. you know, i think he gave a very poignant speech on the senate floor the other day where h said he said what he said and it turned on the president but boy i don't know that this party would support him. housm democratic senators, 30 something led by the women calling on him to go, that -- i don't know. never say never but boy -- that's tough. guest: there's not as much as stake with that seat. it's believed a democratic senate will be appointed. it's sort of trading one for another. in alabama there's more at stake there. host: tennessee, independent line. caller: good morning.

this is one of the most important race that is we have ever had. i supported roy moore and president trump and i'll tell you why. the democrat party is the party of progressives, socialists, communists. and i think we have a great push now to go to a socialist-style government. i think this is one of the most important races that you could ever see on tv. that's all i have to say. thank you. guest: that feeling is real. certain numbers of the republican party feel like there is really a socialist, anti-constitutional movement going on in this country. i don't think it's made up, because there's certainly groups out there who would like to see more of what i guess you

would -- some people would define as socialist. some of these activist groups on the left do get portrayed that way and that really creates a real fear. i don't know if i remember hearing that type of concern eight years ago but certainly what that caller says i do hear that now. host: pennsylvania, bill. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it doesn't y moore, matter what he would do. it doesn't matter what disreputable act. he could do it on stage tonight. he could do anything. he would still win tomorrow. thank you. guest: reminds me of president trump, what was it? but i would say the following for judge moore is deep in

alabama. his constituency backs him. now, will they be enough to send him over? will there be enough centrist republicans who go with him? the caller is right. there is that commitment. to the point earlier of people who feel like those issues and that point of view are not eing represented really want that. guest: people in alabama, a heavy republican state. you've been a republican all your life. if you're deeply concerned about abortion, you know, if you're deeply concerned about government controlled health care. you know, you're going to vote for a democrat? if one of the main issues are abortion and pro life issues, you -- people see a bigger issue at stake here. host: the process of tax reform. the president's involvement directly in making sure this

happens? guest: he's been very involved. we've heard that from people on the hill. we hear it from people in the white house. the public doesn't realize how involved he has been. making phone calls, trying to work out deals, whatever he can do. he learned a lot from health care and how that lightning strike approach didn't work. they've taken a longer-term, more messdz methodical. this has been going on since the spring approach. and they've been hands on. host: what has he been willing to give? tax rates, what do you think the level he is willing to give? guest: there is definitely a belief that he will sign anything that comes to his desk. when we say anything, i think it's exaggerating. corporate range, in that range, good for middle class. you've got to be able to make a case. i think at this point there's not tham big deal breakers o --

that many big deal breakers for him. host: walk us through the process to make this happen. what are the manger issues? guest: the conference committee will meet on wednesday. this is the house and the senate -- back up. both the house and senate have a passed tax plans. they follow a very similar framework but there are differences in the details. so they have appointed conferees to meet in a conference committee to hash that out. a lot of work is being done behind the scenes and in consultation. so the committee -- a lot of what's being done won't actually be done there. but there are some key problems and among them is this overriding concern that the bill is too heavily weighted, to the 20% corporate tax cut which is the centerpiece of the plan. but in focusing so heavily on that it does -- the bill does have some rough areas for sort

of the middle class taxpayers that republicans want to make sure benefit from this. so as they try to amend this bill, the problem that republicans are running in to is that of course everything is cost. so if you want to add back some of these deductions that you've done away with or want to lower rates further, you're going to have to come up with ways to pay for it because they've locked themselves in to this framework that will allow no more than 1.5 trillion in debt -- deficit over the next 10 years. so how do you make this work in the confines of that much spending on the tax breaks? so that's what they need to negotiate. that's going to be difficult. there is such a rush to get this done right now. and you see there are concerns that the process is being too expedited and that there is some sloppiness along the way as we saw in the scribbled bill in the senate. the hand writing.

process the imes story about the process overcomes the story about what's actually in the bill. that's a little bit happening right now. but i think republicans are so hungry for a win, they want to get this over the finish line. if anything republicans are about tax pollsy. we'll see -- policy. we'll see if we can get this through. there are these issues. want to repeal the amt, the minimum tax. they do in the house, not in the senate. what do they do with the state and local deductions which hit so many taxpayers in the high income states? how do they resolve some of those differences? they have some work to do. host: indiana, republican line. you are the last call. caller: i would just like to

speak to the hypocracy of the democratic party. against roy moore in alabama. yet they elected teddy kennedy how many times, a woman who murdered his brother's pregnant girlfriend? host: ok. guest: well, people brought up clinton, too. and this idea that the democratic party has a reckoning with itself. you know. but i guess the climate has definitely changed from where we were even two decades ago. so we are in a different climate as paying attention to you, something we haven't been paying attention to because there is so much out there. mind?ng come to guest: there will be a year-end deal and extras get thrown into that, we'll see what happens by the 22nd, if congress is able to finish work, all sorts of other

issues that have to get done, health, what happens with obamacare, partial repeal and the tax bill. lots of loose ends here and congress does this egislative sprint toward the end of the year, it is always a busy time, we're in an era of alliances, things don't always fall the way you lines in ng party congress, it feels like a lot twists and turns in the next 10 to 14 days. host: shannon pettypiece. guest: this is a great exit point for the people at the white house. i served my country for a year, 'm move og to something else, i'll get a job at a law firm or lobbying. people leaving. dena powell, national security left, once the tax bill gets passed, we'll see hange in the group of economic advisors led by gary cohen,

enormous amount of change in staff. steve bannon, political advisor, there will be more, keep an eye on that, we'll a different white house year two. host: shannon pettypiece and thanks for joining us. up, your money segment, take a look at robert mueller's special investigation cost and how that compares to other investigations. us when we joins return. wjoins us when we return. ijoins us when we return. thjoins us when we return. joins us when we return. wjoins us when we return. asjoins us when we return. hjoins us when we return. ijoins us when we return. ngjoins us when we return. joins us when we return. tjoins us when we return. joins us when we return. joins us when we return. tojoins us when we return. n joins us when we return. tijoins us when we return. mjoins us when we return. ejoins us when we return. sjoins us when we return. joins us when we return. " joins us when we return. washington times" joins us when we return.

>> this week on the communicators, two elecommunications advocates, talk about net neutrality and internet like a public utility. > number one, it deregulates broadband, takes broadband versight out of the fcc entirely and gives to the federal trade commission, which tool, that e strong is number one. number two, it eliminates the internet service providers like comcast and at&t internet throttling traffic and allowing for what is called fast lane. in other words, charging online providers to get to the consumer faster or better quality of service and thirdly, this is tpreempts or ant prohibits the state from consumer with similar

rules. > there are three acts, three federal statutes that protect consumers and entrepreneurs, powerful, sherman act, clayton act and federal trade commission act and there are protections. the other pre-empts states from minifcc's and regulate does ic of broadband, it not prevent state attorney generals from suing service rovider fist they harm consumers. there are consumer protection laws at the state level. communicators, tonight 8 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service by america's cable television companies and today by your ou cable or satellite provider. > "washington journal"

continues. host: it is time for your money segment, this week we take a cost of special investigations with our guest andrea noble, who works for the covers the imes, justice department and law enforcement issues for that publication. good morning. we talk about special investigations, but we don't talk about the cost sometimes. from the justice department about the cost, what did we learn? guest: we've learned the cost so which is since robert mueller was appointed, has been million, part of that ould have been money, 3.5 million, money spent as part of the investigation anyhow. parts were attributable to his direct investigation, cost for working with him and so forth. host: as total price tag of $7 illion, how does that compare to other investigations? guest: well, some have gone up $73 million for ken

some around $2 million for short, concise know, igations, you depends obviously how long it goes and how much is involved, pretty broad range looking back over the last two decades or so in terms of how spent.s been host: when it comes to the cost mueller's investigation, they broke it down into categories. go through the categories and get conte. about 1.7 for salary and go thr categories benefits. people work for him and what type of salaries we're talking about? 1.se 7 million include staff, so farpport what we know, what has been on, losed about folks hired we have 17 lawyers, plus mr. mueller. hasn't told ounsel us how many other folks they have brought on, who are acting staff, so take that in context, not knowing exactly

people that is supporting, a portion of being spent on folks who were hired from outside of that is kind , so of the money that you would see eing spent for private salaries, other folks are, coming from within the department of justice. their salaries would have been paid regardless, they are the special counsel other than working on other matters. mueller himself set the salary range? guest: when they hire from the government, sliding scale of government pay, you not see anything wildly outside of what works for the ranked along is experience level of what they have and folks brought back from outside of government had spent some time in government work before. was then another category about $733,000, labeled for

equipment purchases. could you describe what those fall under? guest: we didn't get a breakdown line-by-line items, what is purchased, but items purchased they have to get up and running when they start investigation, they go in and file new equipment, get computers, investigatorspast i had spoken with said there will be a large chunk of money to get ds to be spent your equipment up and running at the beginning. in this have expenses you disclosure that wouldn't necessarily have in the next six months, the next time they have to reveal some expenses. they are just going to be costs.p host: continue about the cost of investigations, about this one and others. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats. democrats.

202-748-8002 for independents. ou can tweet thoughts to at c-spanwj. 362,000 for rent, why is that. find a place to go, find an work out of. previous ecial, special counsel said it is the ent, you are getting pretty pricey place to work that can .dd up quickly in their case, they are in are work d area, they are for the duration, wanted a building, separate authority, they take measures to be outside of walking down the sharing the same breakroom as folks that are employed, working on other things. host: i was about to ask if it

fi philosophical reason. guest: they stay away from that, it is a special counsel, they of pains to be outside obviously they don't want to be in dod headquarters, that is cost of what goes into it, maintaining their own independence. host: source of funding, coming from treasury or other sources? money i mean, it is coming through the justice department, they expect things o happen, there is money that is going to be there and available for these things. at the beginning, special counsel office has to submit ind of what they think their proposed budget might be that, is not what we got with the got just closures, we a listing of the first six months and what they had spent. -- but they disclosed that, so basically every year that the investigation is going to be ongoing, they would have to submit another proposal for the

budget for the coming year. host: if you want to find out, by the way, the justice department did introduce that that breaks down the cost of the investigation by robert mueller so far. to ou want to find that go the justice department website justice.gov, for the breakdown a pdf format. figures, before, but compared to other investigations, the price tag, overall how d, but does this price tag compare to others and why do you think that is? think, so far, we're a couple months in, obviously in rt mueller was appointed may, first disclosures were may through september, so at that have to see ow, we where it is going to go, we're looking at the cost of past we're looking at the whole price tag figure, looking at the whole thing. starting when you are in the middle of the investigation, you don't know how long it is going to go, how is going to go, in order to -- hard to make from the

to make forecasts about where it could go from here, the way i came up with the figure, going through the past government accountability office broke down every six months what it spent in prior investigations. looking through those, the first six months, sometimes it was a month that an open, that waswas obviously a small amount for looking at ths, but the first start-up periods in which they were spending money, seemed like the first six months, second six months started, onen they figure, there would be a spike after that in a lot of them. so it depends how quickly they are going and in mueller's case, we've gotten two guilty pleas, so other indictments, working fairly quickly in terms of getting criminal charges, so goes up from ice here, it could be depending

kind of are going, but looking historically at the other ones thad been maybe a in when you started seeing big rise in the cost. host: the price tag that will up, cost of investigating president clinton in the 'nants, andl price tag at watergate monica lewinski. for : and the $6 million the fisk investigation that preceded that, if you look at how that particular investigation stretched on, you million price tag and other special counsel, independent counsel took igations that also place during the clinton presidency, a number of them. when you look at overall price there, probably above $100 million for all of them ongoing time.e host: let's go to some calls. first call for andrea noble at ashington time system from rockaway park, new york, independent line, nitro, hello,

ahead. caller: good morning. was noticing on the figures you posted up there for the long 257 -- ations, they had 257,000 dollars, i would like to make the point, this is the team, while tom price spent $400,000 by himself on i think that we're getting a good deal. point i would like to ake, i saw criminal penalties manafortand his partner monetary re are fortfittures, paid for what has the entire mueller investigation, that is all i have to say. host: mr. noble? guest: yeah, one thing you don't

get with special counsel figures, you get price tag of how much is spent on this, that s not something you get for completion of entire criminal investigation run by the u.s. attorney's office. have a whole things they want to pursue, you don't get a price tag for how much is spent on the cost. it is unique that we can kind critical, pick apart what is being spent, take issue typically we don't see that in other investigations, so in terms of you mentioned travel cost for the mueller -- stigation travel.223,000 for guest: for travel, but most being spent for folks who were broughter offices, he's on folks who were out of the new york office, u.s. attorney's prosecutors from there, other than having them, you know, transit back and forth

are paying , they temporary relocation costs, so that is the bulk of the travel are , i think only their $3000 spent on travel, the other together in one area themselves. host: do we know mr. mueller's salary? not off hand, it is based on the sliding scale of what are looking at, i believe recall 00,000, i don't the exact range. host: illinois, independent ahead.robert, hi, go caller: good morning. ave been trying to get on for long time. ijust, on this investigation, am so happy it is happening, it long, lot of years hat i can remember when president eisenhower was on and still lot younger and i

t is burned into my brain, he said mark my word, the economies will take over the united states ne day without firing a shot and i can't understand why the enate and congress did not get on this. melanie, in go to california, democrat's line. go ahead. morning.hi, good i want to say, i don't care how much it is going to cost, i eally appreciate that they are doing this for us. i agree with the other guy that i'm worried about that shot not being heard and ired of the republicans coming up against us. to know nt everybody out there, we're going to survive this and we're americans and we're strong and we're going to stay true. what has been the republican reaction to the cost so far? guest: from the get-go, there a question about whether they should be trying to limit

it from the outset, limit the time the investigation on, whether they should try to limit the cost and whether they should introduce legislation to do that. the get-go, idea we should try to curb this. i think some of the pushback if you try tobeen say from the outset, we're going to spend this much money or this time, you can have both charge to drag up the clock who don't want to cooperate, wait until you pass that mark and to walk away if ou're not fully funding an investigation. so you know, there is an idea if plenty of investigations that showed up no evidence of rong-doing thas taken time and money to clear people of charges, not to say with everyone you will get that, in one, we have charges against four folks, so moving

lines, but, you know, there has been criticism this epublicans about is worth or time our money, is this he investigation we should be pursuing. otherare calls to look at issues, pushback of whether or not we should be investigating over hillary back clinton e-mail server and some issues there. so there is, i think, at this point, probably more criticism push to try to go back over over ssues and to go back what was going on in the e-mails ation with her and whether the investigation was done appropriately, that has when thecall recently, f.b.i. director went up before capitol hill, folks were asking having questions about people involved. host: talk about that, let's go republican first, line, adam is next. caller: how you doing?

is great, i want to -- i know the democrats probably think we are not happy about it. think it is great. the fact you are going through clarify whatting is being spent and talking about the subject from like government ethics kind of perspective and matter of fact, i'm a federal employee, i appreciate good governance and good operations, use of taxpayer money. want to really thank you guys for bringing it up and going through the investigative work it has taken to get the info. i don't think people are completely against an i think people don't want the political kind of tory line going this is about trump and advocating trump

message. is that, but it that does happen, especially with the media jumping on the results of the investigation and and such. i think overall, what you did is is ing people realize it being most transparent and rofessional manner from the mueller perspective and all the people he's hired and thank you information. far asdam, any surprises cost listed so far? caller: me, no, i continuing is great. you highlighted travel expenses, i can see these former from d.c., f.b.i. director, people from new york. getting them special -- a lot of people are very smart and probably reached ut and did a call for volunteers, i don't know how they did staffing. as federal ins and i know the outs, they got people who have a lot of experience in lawyers, ive work, credentials, doesn't mean they

practice civil or private law, practice their whole lives. i think it is great. 15on't see anything drastic, person, ut at 150 per they can make way more, probably not making more than that, reasonable and conservative, again, i don't think anything is crazy. host: got you. we thank you. andrea noble, anything you want to take from that? i heard from ng folks talking about the investigation is that there is you hire people who have a lot of government experience, that is where you going to have people coming in and being more frugal about how they spend money. it is when you bring in people who spent a ide, long time in private firms, obviously like the caller made a d, they'll have lot more money than someone working in government. is kind of where some other observers have picked

that is said maybe what has driven up other cost in other special investigations, working in e people government, they are conscious of your working with the taxpayer money. need to be cautious about how you spend it, not to say just you cut corners, are coming from the mind set. host: as far as staff currently there, there are questions by republicans about how many staff previously worked either for the obama and clinton campaign, can ou add context what we're talking about? guest: yes, there are folks once out whome out, we found they were, folks were going thu who is giving donations, who has for what law firm, a ouple who have given donations to democrats in the past, at for one lawyer had worked a law firm that had represented the clintons in the past, as people asking are if these people have donated to

olks in the past, are they biassed, how do we know we'll get a fair shake out of this, ou know -- host: one name that came up was is he?trock, who guest: at this point, he is not on the team anymore. initially, ght on apparently issues came up. so the justice department going or general is through the prior investigations matter, g the clinton kind of going over things happen withing james comey and in the of this, they came across ext messages sent to another person working in the f.b.i., who was part of the mueller team the short period and messages apparently were expressing some sort of bias in support of clinton. apparently this is brought to you know, nd found, mueller had him taken off the team. -- is now y was working for the human resources

mean, he's not part of the counter intelligence unit a part of, rly been so the f.b.i. director was a demotion, is not we're putting you here for now, obviously as soon as this came was moved off of the team. the other f.b.i. agent who had name has been rought us, lisa paircrafts ooh oh -- paige, she was off the team light.this came to host: members of congress concluding representative jordan about mr. strock, and larger issues concerning the play what on, we'll he had to say and get your take on it. strock, selected to be on mueller's team, after mueller's team and removed for some pro-clinton text messages. there are all kinds of people on the team who are

pro-clinton. said contributions obama. clinton or secretary clinton was interviewed, changed term to carelessness, ran the russian investigation, flynn, put on ke mueller's team and kicked off for a text message that is anti-trump. off kicked everybody mueller's team who is anti-trump, i don't think there ould be anybody left there has to be something more here, can't show e text messages that anti-trump bias, there has to be something more. i'm trying to figure out what it is, my hunch is it has something dosier.th the did peter strock produce and to the fiza cation americans y on

associated with the trump campaign? >> i'm not prepared to discuss anything about the pfizer process. we're not talking about what happened in court, we're talking about the application, did peter strock, was he involved in takeing that to court? anything not discuss to do with the fiza court application. do you drea noble, what take from that exchange? focus that has been a big of what republicans have been more, l, wanting to know back and forth about who has been part of the investigation, been doing, what role they played in the other investigations. been a huge point of contention, a lot of people want fiza ow exactly how the surveillance warrants came to e, who propose them, who is behind them, what evidence was used to get them in place so

associated with trump could be surveilled. point for talking republican necessary terms of when they are being critical of the investigation. for mauueller, you don't want apart your ng investigation pause of who you have on it or because of may or may not said, another lawmaker in the hearing said to mueller's came up, he this found out about it, he got him off the team. was in those t was ges, to what end there bias or appearance of bias, if it is just appearance, that is is damaging your integrity to work on this fairly.gation they don't want to have appearance of bias, they want shop, it is not a distraction. host: michigan is next, this is hello. caller: yeah, hi. thank you, andrea noble for

coming on. back to the -- when mueller is head of f.b.i. obama is elected and then we clinton foundation. -- out of that, we resident obama, each though hillary was selected by him, approved by wide margin, we do the position of inspector general at the state department filled for the first history of the .nspector general's position what c-span viewers know, this s a staff of 300 there is no inspector general at the state department under president obama. my gleaning of this, president asked that t been direct question, how in the istory, we know we have the potential for conflict of interest and we may have a

interest, we never had an inspector general at the state department for five years -- okay, thanks. yeah, there was a large gap in time for the state department inspector general, there has been a number of inspector general positions that open and unfilled. obviously that is their entire job, to be the watch dog of that agency they oversee. so there is a lot of information, a lot of insight from having your inspector general. criticism in the past of not having people installed as former inspector general, you that is acting and there has been criticism the either o are acting, they -- their career, they want o go back into the career portion and not have any issues with employment after they step down, after someone is ark pointed formally or they want to position and don't want do anything that would create issue necessary terms of getting

formally appointed to it. i know there has been a lot of, slots that president trump has brought eople up for, nominated folks, i can't recall how many open positions we have, kind of, one person topick nominate for a different rganization, so then you are getting a new i.d. for one, but another.r host: one more call from maryland, democrat's line, ahead.as, go caller: yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on this that mueller is conducting. one investigation under ian, d trump into this russ ian what they did as far as our election. but i mean, when hillary clinton wasn't the president, she was six tigated five to different times, whether

whitewater, her e-mail, all the money spent by investigate t to her and then she was not found guilty for anything. one hey are balking on investigation under donald trump and the possible conclusion or that he had with the russians. host: okay. nicholas. guest: yes, you have investigations the caller mentioned and you don't tag forily have a price those, it is the thing that sets the special counsel nvestigation apart as you are getting dollar figure because separate from everything else, the money out spent on that in a different way than you other investigations. so, again, that sets it apart criticism, asp to well. host: special investigator ueller tipped his hand in the slightest when this will conclude? guest: i don't think we know at going, nt where we are some folks said we are hopeful it would wrap up by the end of

don't think we're anywhere close to that. ost: andrea noble covers justice department for washington times, washingtontimes.com, to find out about the justice department release of information about the cost. justice.gov. thank you. guest: thank you. phones until 10:00. 202-748-8001 for democrats. for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. come take those when we back.

-- story here that most people don't know about. local author and former rosecutor, andrew mckenna shares his book "sheer madness." >> growing up, i thought the was addicted to heroin lived under a bridge somewhere pushing a shopping like round or something that, but that is not the case. one of the most abused drugs on wall street among raders and these are elite professionals, are opiods. 2 p.m., take a trip to course.i ds.race

>> sunday 2 p.m., take a trip to the saratoga race course.ds. >> sunday 2 p.m., take a trip to the saratoga race course. >> the "new york times" magazine battle of saratoga were most important battles ever entire world in the last 1000 years, because surrender.ted in the it was first time ever in world history a british army surrendered. >> watch c-span city tour on book t.v. gs and sunday 2 p.m. on american on c-span 3, the c-span's cities tour working as we ble partners explore america. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you can participate in open phones by putting something twitter feed at c-span facebook, the affiliate out of new york has

update on the bombing explosion earlier today, one person in custody after the sion this morning at port authority in majorimanhatt. bomb detonated in passageway below ground, the uspect is 27 years old, reported to be badly injured, but alive at bellevue hospital. appeared to be wearing low-level explosive device and was to pped of his clothes remove it, according to investigators. this incident prompted responses via tweet from several members f congress, including minority leader of the senate, chuck schumer, thankful for quick first e of new york responder community and the bomb this at the port authority morning. we learn more about what is startling reminder of why see something, say something campaign is important. of new york, grateful or nypd for quickly

apprehending the subject at port authority. ive federal resources to keep us safe. responses from karen maloney, monitoring the situation at port authority, grateful for first responders and their swift response n. open phones go to in washington state, republican line. caller: hi. host: hi. c-span, nice to talk to you. i'm wondering, i'd like to state that hillary clinton was investigated because there was probable cause, okay. never not found innocent , okay. people wanted to know, the people wanted to know what she was up to and they were they obstructed and corrupt completely, that is investigation,der for what was being done. that is not important. me is that rtant to constantly we have the democrats running out, making a bunch of false claims and immediately we

investigations going. getdes the document used to the warrant was unlawful thing, you know. of these good, decent in le, are being trashed the -- in public. armstrong , dave in creek, wisconsin, independent line. caller: hi. pedro. i'm interested to see where the investigation is going and i anywheres nearis being over yet. i would like to ask c-span to this someone on to clarify uranium one issue and hillary clinton's involvement in it it is people just blurt hillary ay, well, clinton sold 20% of uranium to is russians, which absolutely not what happened, it's, you know, you need someone ly put who was involved

and why. it was a business deal, you know. -- you know, i keep hearing this all the time and they is disputing what are saying and it kind of bothers me to hear this all the time. park, florida, carol is next, democrat's line. aller: yes, first time i've gotten through. i have always been a voter since i have election and primarily voted independently, candidate until a friend made me join the democratic party because she needed someone a committee. i will never again, a republican up withhey start coming thumbs that go down for the tax i'm very, very upset

about everything that's going on. thank you for taking my call. diego, rom east san california, mark on the independent line. caller: ladies and gentlemen out please, all you democrat and republicans that have been ticket, folks,ht you are part of the problem. you can have the answer to clean swamp in your own hands and as a veteran who is still trying his time in or service, it is an ongoing crime, can't get anybody to look at it. please listen to this. you want to clean the swamp? democrat or , but republican. the day they gave the dollar the equivalency, freedom of speech, they bought out our parties, were already corrupt, until you vote something else, you're to get your country back, folks. news okay, the st. lucie tribune out of florida, picks up associated the

press about comments made boo the u.s. ambassador nikki haley. ambassador said sunday women who accuse someone of exual misconduct deserve to be heard, even if it involves president donald trump. comfortable feel coming forward and we should be willing to listen to them, she face the nation, t -- access hollywood tape described grabbing women's followed by , accusation of several women of sexual misconduct. sarah huckabee sanders says the lying n. new jersey, this is conrad, democrat's line. caller: good morning. this past weekend, this civil nt had visited rights museum in mississippi, that is quite a disgrace, i'll why. you this president has been trying to undo everything that barack

obama did. barack obama was a very good president, tried to give healthcare to everybody, what president do? tries to undo everything this president has done. eferred to members of the n.f.l. as -- well, son of whatever, i will not use that word on the air, because they knee protesting police brutality, that is why members the knee .l. take before football games is to speak out against the injustice officers being acquitted for taking our lives nd for having this man visit civil rights museum, people like thompson, benny other african americans fighting for nothing more than bystitutional rights enjoyed every other american, this man is trying to reverse all that presence within the hallowed ground of that like is disgrace, somebody inviting somebody from the american nazi party to speak. that is the video from the president's visit, half-hour

shannon learned from pettypiece's piece including private remarks made while he was visiting. can go to the website for more on that. texas, david is next, independent line. hi, david, go ahead. caller: yes, this money that this paying mueller for investigation, i believe we should divert the money from to mueller. save money there because their partisantion is purely and that is where the money should be diverted to, that is all i have to say. thank you. host: rick on twitter, the real donald trump can stop the showing tax by returns have no russian connection. the race, he eve of we have confirmation alabama -- howill have confirmation on alabama really is shortly, tolerance is on display. remarkos twitter, on facebook. on the phone line from onnecticut, john, republican line. hi. john from connecticut?

yes.r: host: you're on, go ahead. on er: like to comment c-span, like to see more color on the show. good to see you. comment on the mueller investigation. this is kind of a little bit slippery. the investigation is all regurgitated information we've a year and all these -- the prosecution and the indictments on the state level, track state had of kept of people that were involved. i have seen nothing that we need to know yet. thanks. host: couple of stories, this "u.s.a. today" about the federal reserve saying that raising rates might be likely, labor department report on consumer price index in november could provide fed additional mmunition for the rate increase, but don't bet on it. inflation was driven higher by surge in gasoline prices. officials say prefer to focus on

reading that excludes volatile food and energy items, later that day appears all, but certain, but with odd, s markets giving 90% feds 30 quarter point bump this year. aul davidson writing for "u.s.a. today". go to pages of the financial times, story looking at how republicans, particularly in new wealthy republicans, are responding to the president's tax proposal or effortos tax saying wall street executives have begun lobbying against provisions in the tax overhaul bill that would hit endanger states, industry by driving out bankers and fund managers. states would cut federal bill by deducting local inserted in the legislation by republican deficit hawks in an effort to hit to u.s. government revenues. "biggest threat from this not primeacy of new york city as financial city of the u.s. and the world," that

ralpsostein of blackrock, it is threat of those who benefit off who choose to live here and will experience 0% or more decline in the after-tax income. up next, bill, mississippi, line.ndent caller: thank you, c-span, i think if everybody in this to c-span, d listen we probably wouldn't have the problems we have now. like to say one thing. in the '80s and told me back then that the republicans want to take all the the middle class and democrats want to give it all away. the 16, when all republicans ran, grover norquist aid, let's not raise the deficit. all of them agreed, let's not raise the deficit, here we are, thing, giving to the rich, taking away from the poor.e class and they doing?

adding to the deficit. good morning, william. caller: pedro, thanks for taking my call. i don't know what to say about system.itical you have had a couple interesting people on there voting independent nd all, how about states, you can't vote independent. it's got to be either republican or democrat. disgrace. a good political system, if you are a democrat or you're a talk things et's out and work it out. o, they can't do anything like that. i ran into one of our great a pizzamen from ohio in joint one day when he was up for re-election and i said something about, why can't we all -- all democrats cans and work together? first thing out of his mouth, well, do you think i'm going to an iranian deal?

nobody said anything about an an ian deal tis just imagination, they think if they the n there, should shut government down, take retirement companiy us. thank you, pedro. host: dave calling on the line.ican caller: i just want to comment bout the social security and medicare, this tax plan is going to hurt, everybody that voted or donald trump, he lie body that, they will get rid of that and try to get rid of social ecurity and medicare and if he doesn't get us in a nuclear war and get us all killed. he will hurt the poor and middle class. i i -- voted for us, donald trump, the middle class, he said he would drain the swamp, he's taken everybody that is good and getting rid of them and putting everybody bad in there. have no healthcare for people

now. t is juridiculous, he promised all this stuff. missouri, richard is next, democrat's line. aller: yeah, i got a letter here from the social security administration telling me how raise we're getting this year and figure it out, they are raising social security little bit and cost our health care care raise it and after we figure out taxes and everything, get $11 more a month, which i figure is me and my wife each have one more hamburger each month is what it amounts is okay, i know if everybody got a lot of money it whole lot, but talking about the cost of the investigations. it cost this year to protect our dictator and his family, weekend trips and so forth, it would be pretty

expensive, too. i'll get off and let you go, maman host: cbs sent out, "let's be attempted was terrorist attack, thank god the perpetrator did not achieve god ate his goal and thank our first responders were there, is bill deblasio. hear next from steve. caller: i want to comment on the interview on "60 minutes" last night. i think it is very irresponsible brown to blame climate ontrol for the fires that are happening in california state. he seems to classify everything think he's very fearful trump will pull all the federal the state of california due to the sanctuary cities. my call. for hearing host: a story this morning with

a picture out of the u.s. in lebanon of flag, sraeli flag being burned in front of that in response to the president's decision to move the capital of im the israel as jerusalem, intent of moving embassy there. lebanon, home to 450,000 refugees was met with cannons fired er by lebanese security forces. issued security message reminding u.s. citizens of need for caution and personal security. beirut is aware there are public protests following the u.s. announcement with regard to status of jerusalem, the embassy said, demonstrations have potential to become violent. f you go to "washington post" this morning, it shows activity in jerusalem itself. and suzanne write nothing jerusalem tuesday, violence has been limited to confrontation between protesters and israeli security

forces, larger demonstrations in the west bank and gaza died out squirmishingthough between security forces reported hepron at the nd north bank. next on the democrat's line. hello. i believe the senate election is embarrassing to our country, of sexual harassment concerning the republican moore, the roy allegations against children is disturbing. is it disturbing? caller: it's disturbing because put an example children and r experiences, as middle schooler, we don't want to see things like that happen. did you first come aware of this election? we speak about news in

history class. host: where do you go to school? caller: -- andrea? i think she's hung up. ext to joe, oklahoma city, oklahoma. democrat's line. caller: hi. taking my uch for call. i've got a few points, i will make them brief, i know other want to get in. to earlier caller that was aying something about our government going to or the people wanting to go socialism, socialism that progressives want is to bring healthcare to all. so if you think socialism is bad, then you probably need to local fire our department and the medicare that people are surviving on now. the roy moore issue, i encourage everybody to listen to first interview after the allegations were made where he hannity's radio program

nd on that program he never denied it. he basically said if he did date were not irls, which of lawful age, he had their mother's permission. handlers and coachers said, you got to deny this thing. he's basically a rat and people handlers and t the maul c -- mal confirmed that he was kicked out. the other thing, everyone that trump is in to drain the swamp, ask yourself why five sachs guys goldman are working there, there are in washington today than ever, why blasio, is s like de running education, is that swamp?draining the host: got to move on. barbara, new york, independent line, go ahead. morning, pedro. i heard that the iraqi that ment has declared isis, there is no more isis in their country, they have been

out of the d swept country altogether. i'm hoping president trump, as commander-in-chief, will bring our troops home in time for christmas. thanks. in north ence ahead.a, clarence, go caller: hi, pedro, my response this morning, i'm a black guy for trump. i want to say to all your black isteners this morning, stop being so anti-republican because years beents over 40 romising black folks they will give them 40 acres and they have never done anything for the black race . this, always ange be the project, always be dependent on government, never race of ufficient as people. not being aen anti-trump, he's the devil. i applaud my black brothers and the rs, stop letting democrat keep you on the slave

plantation as the democratic making you never get ahead in life, i promise, as depending on eep government, never get ahead. host: clarence, in north carolina. caller mentioned, ictory declared over the islamic state to regain control over one-third of the country the terrorist group domination. arefully calibrated statement months after armed forces rested ontrol over urban areas, notably second largest city and hifted focus to mopping up militants who escaped in areas between iraq and syria. the forces fully control iraqi-syrian border and thus can announce end of war against isis " using acronym for or isil. immy is next, jimmy from tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning.

host: you are on, go ahead. a question.ve have a t democrats only with money unless it, wastingspending it or giving it away. "wall street journal" looks at st. joseph health, are talking about combining according to people familiar with the discussion, a of create entity unprecedented reach with 191 ospitals and annual revenue of $44.8 billion based on most ecent fiscal year from the nation's largest pure hospital operator, hca healthcare owns 1sfe 77 which hospitals.

democrat's ndiana, line, you are next on open phones. go ahead. people need to keep their minds open, whether democratsepublican or and think about all the things that re really happening is going on, that this president is doing. bothered things that me was when he was in the oval the russians and in there and no, people to -- ican they weren't in there. why is that? to open their minds and think about it. that is my comment. host: from north dakota, on our independent line, jeffrey, next.e up caller: yes, see, i was just frustrations on this call-in line.

as -- i fight my own battles gettingsenators for not the representation that we all our duly required from senators and our presidents, so i'd like to read this article given to us by our founding fathers, how our to be.ent is supposed argument of declaration is straightforward because individuals equally possesses nature, hts by governments derive stress powers government. of the the purpose of government is to secure fundamental rights and shoulds not rnment be changed for trivial reasons, eople remain right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive. you hear from the american voices of the problems that we face today and i think should american people stand together and declare our we want our way and not their ways.

ost: to mark in lincoln, nebraska, republican line. caller: hi there. hi.: aller: i afford for -- 30 years, almost seven days a week, i am -- only take in about 2 grand a month. i think the reason why all these people are against tax going 20% corporations is they're going to take out a lot of the people don't pay tax. bobad a governor once named kerry and he stole $10 million and thenvings and loan he closed it. to put it in ng the cayman islands. information to the u.s. treasury agent and he

nailed him. never made it out of the lincoln post office. host: okay. morning reports this for women will call congress to investigation, women to demand a probe and share details of the allegations against the president, according release, the conference is being hosted by brave new film, the filming campaign organization that works progressive causes release film about the allegations against president trump in a dozen more than women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against president trump during presidential campaign. right now we take you to an event here in washington, d.c., sponsored by center for strategic and international studies, a discussion taking a the u.s. and pulling out of nafta, we take you to that now.rsation

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]

[indistinct chatter]

>> just got the thumbs up, will begin. thank you for being here this morning. we appreciate you being here early monday morning for this event. .'m a senior advisor three programs worki