caregiving talks about the caregivers act. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the discussion on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal journal" is. ♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, february 10, 2018. topping the headlines on today's "washington journal" is president donald trump's decision not to declassify a congressional memo regarding claims by the republican counterparts. white house counsel don mcgann said president trump directly subjected his apartment to work with members of the house intelligence committee to review and redact the document so it can be released. he declassify the gop-authored memo.

democrats decry president trump's decision to block the immediate release of the democratic memo as "politically motivated." today, we are asking your thoughts on president trump's decision not to release the memo immediately. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. and independents can call (202) 748-8002. and onal media @cspanwj facebook at facebook.com/cspan. more on the president's decision to delay the release of the memo from the "washington post" today -- "president trump will not immediately release the democratic memo refuting claims itshe fbi abused surveillance authority" --

host: which he said game support for his claim that the russian , that the fbi was politically motivated. johnng us by phone is bennett, the white house reporter at cq roll call. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. the result of this

decision five the president to delay and review this memo as opposed to declassify what he did the republican memo? guest: i think the biggest thing out of what was yet another wild night of the trump presidency is that president trump and his team had decided to come at least for now, block the release of the democratic memo, it is now that you have democratic leaders like nafta glows using the word "cover up," like nancyf dance -- pelosi using the word "cover up," they kind of dance around some of his actions and tweets and things he has said, but last night, pelosi put out a pretty blistering statement, and she used the term "cover up," and that escalates this now to what had been very partisan. this is now -- who knows where we go from here?

this really puts the 2018 midterm elections coming up in november, they were high-stakes, and now they are extremely high. if the democrats were able to take the house of representatives, for instance, speaker pelosi, if she keeps using words like "cover up," and the president keeps doing things like he did last night, we could be looking at impeachment proceedings. host: wow. talk a little bit about this memo. how does it rebut the claims by that there were political motivations behind the surveillance of former donald trump campaign aide carter page? guest: we don't know a ton about the democratic memo. by pointt goes point through the republican memo that was released last friday, and it

attempts to show how chairman and his staff come in the words of democrats to maturing to information and presented information without supporting proof, without other information, without other contexts. they go point by point through from what id have been able to pick up, it is a point by point rebuttal trying to put things in context that were in the republican memo, but there are -- you know, you get the sense from ranking member adam schiff, the top democrat on the committee, that there were some parts of his memo, sources and methods, there were some national security information. he expected the white house to release his memo but with sections blocked out, what are known as reactions, to protect intelligence sources, to protect national security information.

the did not expect president to come at least for now, keep that classified and not release it. little about what this means for the house intelligence community in particular. we have seen the leaders of either party of this sort of battling recently. mean for thet ultimate decision that this committee draws as it continues to investigate russian meddling? guest: an interesting part of last night was the white house's decision to return the democratic memo and the letter from don mcgann explaining the decision to chairman nunes and not breakin ranking schiff, so that goes , i covered this for

a decade, and the armed services committee, even as the partisanship and the obama era those bad and so heated, men still worked across party lines and try to function without -- as much politics out of it as possible. it is a political process. but that has really slipped away on most of those committees, increasingly, and especially the house intelligence committee. right, schiff and nunez, i remember them standing at a microphone at some point last year, and by all accounts, they do not really even speak at this point. we had democratic members of the house intelligence committee question whether whatever they come up with at the end of their russian probe is even credible. there have been talks that we are going to get two reports out

of the house intelligence committee, one from the republican side, one from the democratic side, you know, former officials and even lawmakers that i talked to, for that reason, those folks say, as far as the congressional russia investigations go, that most stock is going to have to be in the senate intelligence committee report once they finish their investigation and put out a report. chairman warner, a republican, and the vice chairman, senator warner, the top democrat on the committee, they have tried to work across party lines, and they want to put out a single document, free of politics, the facts justut as they found. so, yes, the house intelligence committee is kind of an chaos right now. right, john bennett, white house correspondent for cq roll call, thanks for calling in today. guest: thank you. more from the

tweet that john reference from house minority leader nancy pelosi, she tweeted last night "this move by donald trump confirmed what we have all known for weeks, that his decision to release the nunes memo was a blatantly political move made without concern for national security. the hypocrisy is on full display. what does the president have to hide?" she goes on to say that "the u.s. intel community has concluded that the russians andrfered in our election plan to do so again. america's national security is under attack. why won't the president put our country before his personal and political interests?"we are getting your thoughts on the president 's decision to stave off from releasing the democratic memo. jenna is going from washington very early. good morning, janet. republicansink the

are persuading trump to live like there is no tomorrow. are leaving a very big deal for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. they are doing not what is the most important, which is our climate. explode -- who was the vice president for clinton? do youet me ask you -- have concerned that the president might not be using the same standards and using -- releasing the democratic memo the same way he immediately classify the memo by republicans? caller: he has gone entirely against what the democrats want. he is trying to make them vote for what the republicans want and what they are persuading him to want, and if they don't do

morehey want to hire republican senators so we will get what we want, and he is forcing the democrats -- when you vote, you vote for what you think is bright. vote for what he wants, or shut it down. they did not get their votes in less they voted for what they did not want. host: ok. arnold is calling in on a republican line from new jersey. what is your thought about the president's decision not to release the democratic memo immediately. caller: good morning. good morning to you, kimberly. i have two points to make. my first point is, on thursday night, i saw you on the "11th hour" on msnbc with brian williams, and i was shocked that

c-span is allowing one of its broadcasters to appear on a partisan network. brian lambing why would have given away the independence and nonpartisanship of c-span to allow you to do that. host: arnold, do you have thoughts on the democratic memo? caller: i do have thoughts come in my thoughts are this -- the more time that passes, the more leakage will occur, and so releasing the information in its entirety is important promptly. piecemealt and delay, leakage will occur more frequently, and eventually come it will drag it out. it is like slow water torture. arnold, these are the most that were created by lawmakers and sent to the white house for

the purpose of being released if the president chose to do so. these are not leaks. what do you think about the difference in approach that the president took an releasing, deciding to hold off on the memo, as opposed to releasing the republican one immediately? caller: i think it is very shrewd on the president's part because what he is doing is increasing, overtime, the intensity of suspense regarding this. making it an issue that is dragged out rather than the install and over with quickly. it is dragging it out like torture, is what it is, so the president is very shrewd in taking this approach. eventually, the entire thing will get out, but time will drag occur, and leakage will from those people who have knowledge of the contents of the middle. -- the memo. host: all right, little bit more

about the process from "the post" this morning. it says "the process has been largely the same with the democratic rebuttal as with the gop memo." host: we have brian who is on the line from illinois on our independent line. brian, what do you think of the president's decision not to immediately release the democratic memo? caller: first off, good morning. obviously, the president has something to hide. dear he wants one version of the story to get out. let's keep in mind, i believe

the senate intelligence committee is holding hearings on this also, if i'm not mistaken. the information is going to get out, and i think the president has some very, very bad things that he wants to keep hidden. the republican party has been playing with fire by embracing donald trump, and i believe they are going to get burned, and they are going to regret that decision dramatically. host: let me ask you this -- the justice department, according to the other memo, has expressed concerns about releasing this classified document. does that change your view at all that this should be released, even though the justice department officials have expressed concerns about it? trump'swell, it is justice department, number one, is a trump sympathizer that might be making this statement. the republicans did this first. they were the ones who released

their version of a memo. the memo that he republicans released was information put together by devin nunes, a very slanted document that only told a certain percentage of the story but not the complete story, because they wanted to protect donald trump. it is as plain as day. they did not want any other versions of the story out there in the public, but i am sure robert mueller is going to find out a lot about donald trump, and whether there is a formal hearing or not, this information is going to get out, and the republican party is going to get burned badly. host: all right, brenda is calling in from houston on our democrat line. good morning. kim.r: good morning, i tell you what, if you finally leave c-span, i will be leaving, too, after 39 years. this is rich, isn't it? release aoing to

republican memo that he thought would exonerate him, and he is now refusing to release the democratic memo, which provides the truth, i am sure. what rational thinking person still thinks trump is innocent? who thinks he is innocent still? this is not the behavior of a person who has nothing to hide. amocrats, listen up, this is kremlin-appointed president. this should be our mantra now. call it every day, this is what appointedemlin president. thank you. host: all right, the "washington examiner" has some reaction from the chairman of the house intelligence committee. "it is no supplies" advised trump to block

release of democratic memo. host: lucy is on our republican mclean,ling from virginia, and if i push the button right, lucy, that i can talk to you. good morning. caller: good morning. i notice they are trying to develop a big controversy over what appears to be kind of an unfair treatment by donald trump to the democratic memo, but trey gowdy this past week anticipated that in beingg

savvy and cunning, the democrats quickly loaded up their memo with very obvious classified material, and, you know, more or less make it not possible to release it as quickly as trump had released the republican memo. as you recall, the republican one is described as being very clean, in other words, not at all having obvious classified material in it. being heldt it is up. i am sure donald trump wants to release it, but there was obviously a lot of classified material in it, and so i think the best thing to do is give it time and let them scrub all the stuff they need. stop jumping on trump.

he is trying to do the right thing. it is just awful the way people are just constantly demonizing him. ll should remember, this is our president. it does not do us as a country any good to just constantly tried to destroy him. you know, i mean, if you just listen to cnn and msnbc, they just salivate over every possible thing. it is really a shame. i wish people would just stop listening to this very partisan media that just wants to destroy president trump. host: ok, conning is on the line, calling from our democratic line from chicago. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. notice you are on msnbc with commentary, and i have always been very impressed with your analytical view. getting to the subject at hand, i want to say what some of the newspapers have already reported is that no one should be surprised at donald trump's position in not revealing the democratic position on this memo. we must not forget that last bannon, the x a to donald trump, came out and said -- e x-aide to donald trump, came out and said there would be the destruction of the administrative state. this is part and parcel to that, like you said, slanted information, and not allow the

truth, the full truth to come out. , for himself, he has destroyed himself. he has destroyed himself, and every time he opens his mouth, it is nothing but lies. , i am sure,iff is livid over this blockage of that memo, and he is not surprised, as well as the other house intel members. i am also sure that robert mueller has a lot of damning information against donald trump, including but not limited to donald trump's income tax return, and donald trump knows it vis his attorneys. donald trump is behaving and performing like a caged animal

that wants to be freed from this russian probe. he is using anybody and andybody vis-à-vis nunes paul ryan, and they forget that when donald trump is through using people, he discards them like used kleenex. host: ok, let's take a look at the reaction from the ranking intelligence house .ommittee, adam schiff he tweets "after ignoring urging of fbi and doj not to release memo because it omits facts, potus now expresses concerns over sharing precisely those facts with public and six to send it back to the same majority that produce the flawed with."emo to begin reaction from ranking member adam schiff to the president of the memo. we are getting your thoughts on

that now. again, republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. reaction from another democrat says the president's decision would be obstruction of justice. senator richard blumenthal, saysrat of connecticut, the president's declining of -- senatorthe richard blumenthal accused president trump of obstructing justice by declined to release the democratic response to the gop surveillance memo. host: on our independent line from scottsdale, arizona, jack, what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my

call. i would like to point out i am only going to reveal tax, and you probably won't get another call like this. the previous woman that called fewer trump and such and so forth, i appreciate that, just about everything she said is true, then the following one going on was the typical liberal trump hader, so let's go back a year. -- hater, so let's go back a year. trump said he was getting his phones tapped. that was over a year ago. all the to look at facts here. are all these people with all these different attacks come is that all fake? guywoman, the mccabe retiring, these are not big things. this started years ago, ok, years ago. everything started, and the day before obama resigned, if you

ed all the agencies, he release it as an executive , to release information against all agencies. the facts are clear here. there is no democratic memo. you just have to look at all the facts and the truth. that is it. there is no other side, whether republican, democrat. these are just all facts. the bottom line that is going to happen with all of this is very simple. it is going to prove that from the very beginning, we can go back 21 years, ok, to the clintons. this all started about power and kept going and going and going, and now it is all playing catch-up with itself, it is all going to come out. and i am sad to say this, but all the people in america, especially liberals, are going to be very disappointed.

host: all right, alan is calling on our fort lauderdale republican line. what do you think of the president's decision? lastr: i agree with the guy that was on third we have a problem, it is not with the trump administration. it is with the democratic party, with the clintons, obama, john podesta, debbie wasserman everyz, james comey -- one of these people has been putting stuff together because they wanted hillary clinton to win. she did not win! so now they have a big old plate of crowe in front of them that they have to eat. they are starving, and they are about to die because they did not want to eat that crowe. . you have got to understand -- this had nothing to do with russia, ok. if you look back to the evidence, and when i see is a big old puzzle.

all of these pieces in a box that i am looking at right now with all of the stuff going on, i am trying to put these uses together, -- pieces together, and what i am putting together is a picture of the democratic party making of the dossier against trump so that they have a bucket of chum to throw out to the fishes everyone's in a while. this is the media involved in it, too. if you think there is anybody on this on cnn, msnbc, the democratic party, the obama administration, then your mind is completely flipped out. host: all right, let's take a look at what fox news reporter possible nextbout steps. "the house intelligence committee could override trust toision on democratic memo

this could lead to a secret session on the house floor. only six such secret sessions in u.s. history. first was in 1835 on indian tribes. 2018,as on march ironically enough on pfizer." -- on fisa." carrie is calling in on our democratic line from bismarck, north dakota. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat, and i've been watching since the inauguration, and all i want to say is i believe that the democratic memo should be seen by all of the united states and since and dreamers. that with this partisan republican government they areation, that not representing the whole united states. they are only representing the

republicans, ok. personally, i voted, i would like to see both sides. thank you very much. host: robert is on our line on the independent line from huntsville, alabama. what do you think about the president's decision not to release the democratic memo? caller: i think it was a trap. -- he knew there was thatng in the first memo was secretive or secret information of the united states. he said there was, but now he purposely put it in the , so presidento trump would be forced not to release it, and then he could claim what he is claiming now. thisdent trump won

election, but the democrats are refusing, the liberals are refusing to believe that he won the election, and they are doing everything they can to get him out of there. there is so much anti-trump -- there is more anti-trumpe hate than there is american love. they are going anti-american just to get rid of trump. obama was destroying this country from the inside out and from the top down. between him and hillary, they did more damage to this country , any ofler's, mussolini them combined. obama ande more, hillary was the worst team, they were worse than bonnie and clyde against the united states. host: all right.

in some related headlines from the "washington times," obama and clinton officials will be the next target of the surveillance abuse claims. it says "house intelligence committee chairman targets and next surveillance abuses" -- congressional republicans acknowledge the democrats' rebuttal contains so

much sensitive material that president trump would be accused of making omissions, which he is excited to do. george h.w.dent bush apparently took a swipe at the partisan bickering. don is calling in on our republican line. what do you think of the president's decision. ? don, are you there? we will move to levi on the republican line in north carolina. thoughts?e your caller: how are you doing this morning? give me a half a minute here. let me say this. can you hear me? guest: you are on, levi, go ahead. caller: let me say this.

uh. i am a democrat. i called on the republican line. i am sorry about that. let me say the republicans call in talking about democrats hate the president. hate obama? they i mean, if nobody can't get together and figure out what is going on here, what i can't understand is everybody on trump's side is a russian or what? i mean, it is just mind-boggling to me how people think this president can do no wrong. host: ok, we're going to go to bridge who is calling on the

internet line from jacksonville, florida. good morning, rich. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it is amazing to me, watching this white house and what is going on, over the last year, the of people on the daily basis for this administration, and this is just another of the continuing saga of it. when trump took office, he released classified information to the russians in the oval office, and today he is touting he will not release this information because of security concerns. itjust, you know, it is like is his story, he is going to tell it any way he wants, but it just does not make sense. every time he says he is going to release it, and he is not going to release it, you know, it is like what he is going to do is what he does at the time. whatever he says, i cannot trust it, and this is just a continuing of that.

that is what i see. host: is there a concern that classified information, classified documents should be released at all? i mean, the justice department expressed concerns about both of these documents being released. aller: if it was security concern, why would you release it? why would we pick and choose the method is a security concern, what would we release one and not the other? if it is good for me, that is what we will release, and that is what it tells me, it is not show me, if this presidency was talking about transparency, it is just more modest to throw in the water, if you ask me. that is the way i see it. if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it is probably a duck. from rob is on the line mount vernon, new york on the democratic line.

what do you think? caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i have read the dossier online, i have read the transcripts from the house, i have read the transcripts from the senate, and i do not see why the americans do not see the plain truth in front of their eyes. i called c-span and i commented that i felt like america has stepped through the looking glass like "alice in wonderland." e have entered interference in our elections, which is ta to an act of war. is colluding, the word conspiring to take our government down from within using a foreign power that we -- for decades -- decades! had fought against come across the globe. the fact of the matter is, in this country, we no longer have a democracy, and we no longer have a republic.

the representatives of our country are not actually representing us. furthermore, c-span, i used to love watching c-span in the mornings. i used to love it. now it has become nothing but a litany of republican conspiracy theories. it is absolutely ridiculous. i cannot watch it for more than five minutes at a time before someone across the country calls in and says hillary clinton is guilty of molesting aliens from mars. it is ridiculous. it has to stop. people have to together information from trusted news sources and not fox news and not rupert murdoch's empire of conspiracy theories and lies. host: ok. in other headlines, the "new york times" reports that president trump's chief of staff is under fire and considering a resignation. john kelly, the white house chief of staff, told officials in the west wing on friday that he is willing to step down over his handling of allegations of

porter abuse against rob , the staff secretary who resigned in disgrace this week over the accusations, according to two officials aware of the discussions. host: let's take a look at what president trump said yesterday about the decision of rob porter to resign. [video clip] reporter: what are your thoughts on mr. porter? pres. trump: we wish him well. he worked hard. we found out about it, and i was surprised. but we wish them well. it is obviously a tough time for him.

he did a very good job when he was in the white house, and we ,ope he has a wonderful career and hopefully he will have a great career ahead of him, but it was very sad when we heard about it, and certainly he is also very sad. now, he also, as you probably know, we think he is innocent, and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he is innocent. so you will have to talk to him about that, but we absolutely wish him well. he did a very good job while he was at the white house. host: john is on the republican line from california. good morning, john. caller: good morning. i want to lay something out here for you guys. to anybody given a thought this very real scenario that this memo was written by the ensure that the white house would not release it , or if they would release it, it would have to be heavily redacted, so they could point

and cry that -- look, they are picking on us for democrats? here is your proof. adam schiff is on record wanting to impeach trump. he hates trump. russian call from to pranksters who said they had naked pictures of president trump, and he got on the phone himself and talk to them personally. this guy was willing to collude with russians to get naked pictures of president trump. these people will stoop to anything to hurt our president. way -- thesethis guys are supposedly in the intelligence committee. theosedly they have intelligence to know if they are releasing something that would have to be heavily redacted or if they were releasing it to a hostile president, why would they release something that would be heavily redacted? unless they wanted it heavily redacted or refused. host: all right, wayne is on our

independent line from michigan. what do you think? onler: there are two points the spirit one of the democrats are going to mess themselves up on the whole thing, and two, i would have withheld the memo also because it is obviously a trap. also, i would like to point out that in my hometown here, they are reopening a closed factory this year. they are taking interviews right now, this year. 38,000 people. they had three factories close down in the last 20 years or so. byy are opening them up one one, and i believe that is courtesy of the new wave in washington, so the democrats are going to mess themselves up on this whole thing. host: in other headlines from fox news this morning, it says

another white house aide has resigned amid domestic abuse allegations. the white house speechwriter, david sorenson, is resigning amidst a sex abuse investigation." host: shirley is on our democratic line from scranton, pennsylvania. what do you think about the president's decision not to release the democratic memo yesterday? caller: good morning, kim.

i think it should be released. as far as the fbi and the justice department, maybe going to redact some of it, which is fine, but remember, nunes, when he put his out, it was just his narrative, and he did not even write it. aides that wrote it. my fellowelieve americans go with this and think it is ok. it is a he said, she said. i think we need to deal with the facts. he said from the very beginning from the summer, 2016, that he is trying to make the white house the western kremlin, and sure enough, he said oh, i covered of comey -- got rid of comey so i do not have to worry about the russian things anymore. can't we read between the lines? i did find something

interesting, he was the editor in chief of a paper in moscow, and it said trump was attracted to people in russia as opposed to the american political establishment. the quote was "we have to create turbulence inside of america itself. a country upset on turbulence also upset on itself, and the russian hands are free." they even asked sanctions in congress, and he will not sign it. he said the ones that are in place are ok. that does not make sense to me. host: all right. mike is calling in on our independent line from virginia. what do you think? caller: hey, how are you? host: good morning. caller: good morning. i have a little bit of a different slant on this. i do not see why anyone in this country can speak intelligently about this memo when we don't

have the slightest idea, not the slightest idea, what is in it. we don't know. so how can we have an opinion partisan or bipartisan opinion come in other words, the democrats want to see it, the republicans don't want to see it or vice versa. i mean, we do not know what is in the darn thing, so why ask -- question until i think it will leak, i think it will leak, and i also agree with some of the people who are calling and saying hey, the thing is so classified that all you would get is a reduction. that is all you would get. not get any information from the memo because they would all have to be redacted. that do you think classified documents, classified memos like this out of intelligence communities in congress should be released at

all? the justice department did not want either one of these released. classifiedthink no -- no classified. i had a top-secret clearance, and i am telling you, no classified material should be given to the public. none. host: all right. flint,is calling in from michigan on our democratic line. good morning, debbie. caller: good morning, kim. love to see you here. in regard to the memo, this is not just another -- this is just another thing, shiny object, look over here so i can continue to raid your country. that is what trump is doing. did you hang up on me? host: i did not, debbie. go ahead. caller: i am sorry. he is giving these oligarchs and

trump trying to move their money into shell corporations an hide the facts that what they are doing here. the guy from new york who called in december of 2016, i remember that call, and i was like yes, will you tell them? the russians have infiltrated the system, and these people are not going to believe it until you have got russian tanks rolling down our street. come on, people, wake up. i am so disappointed with these s, calling caller in, saying "oh, i don't see anything." how can you not see anything? host: the "wall street journal" is reporting that the panic guanas weighing more troops in asia, a plan to send heavily armed versatile marine corp expeditionary units to east asia, some deployments in the middle east as it repositions forces in response

to growing chinese influences, military officials said. move would be among the first tangible steps by the trump administration to expand the u.s. military presence in asia after announcing its national defense strategy last month. host: ron is calling in from virginia on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: what do you think about the democratic memo? caller: i am going to be perfectly honest with you, just like another gentleman spoke about. we do not know what is in it. in fact, i don't think we should worry about it, because if notident trump wants to

release it, he is the president of the united states, and i think we should all start remembering one thing -- we elected him. let him do his job. but you know, there is a lot of people who love to throw out conspiracies here and there. in the navy over 20 years, and the biggest thing thatreally gets me is people are so silly, they think we should not be out there. they have got another thing coming. i mean, you know, i hear all people saying well, you know, we are going to have them in our back door. guess what, america? we have got immigrants here in this country that are not documented. you know what, everybody keeps thinking about these immigrants from mexico and all these other places. good god, almighty, has anybody ever figured they don't want to

gain citizenship because they are getting free rides. like that,to say it but it is the honest to god truth. they have been here for x number of years. why in the world haven't they submitted for their citizenship? i want to keep the discussion about the intelligence memos. do you see a difference in the approach that president trump took with respect to the gop memo as opposed to the democratic one? the gop won he declassified right away, even though the fbi and justice department expressed their opposition to that? caller: i don't, you know, and i will tell you this much -- in that democratic memo that you guys want to really push the issue on, there is stuff there that would probably embarrass us .s a nation, you know

and president trump, as he took office, he should have came in outwhite house, throwed everybody, "i have got my own people," but he didn't. that was his mistake. he should have cleaned house. host: brian is calling in from our independent line from missouri. what do you think? caller: first of all, kimberly. i think you are doing a great job. it is another example of obstruction of justice. my comment is to the millennials. you will not go out and vote. the democracy you have is not a given. you have to participate in this democracy. we have enemies of our state, sponsored by republicans and the russians, that are trying to take down this democracy.

republicans calling in this morning is not the ratio of the country. democratic side. now, i do not like the democrats in a lot of ways, but i'm telling you, they are running a $1 trillion deficit, and they criticized obama, which i really do not agree with him on a lot of stuff, but it is going to collapse. consulting is going to collapse, and we are going to go to war. you millennials, you had better go out and vote because if you lose youru will democracy. there are people who are trying to take this over. i want to thank you, kimberly, and i want to thank you, c-span. host: a possible cyberattack took place of the winter olympics in south korea. during the opening ceremony of the 2018 winter olympics in south korea prompted officials

to investigate the possibility of a cyberattack. organizers noticed a suspicious "ign "new york times, reported, technical issues affected some of their non- critical systems friday night. according to south korea's news agencies, internet telecoms were disrupted, and some said they could not print. never the less, the supposedly eventid not disrupt the or jeopardize the safety of the athletes or other attendees. westis calling in from virginia on our democratic line. gary, what do you think about the president's decision on the democratic memo. ? caller: i can tell you one thing, young lady, it was not a shock. now, withis going on

nunes talking about he is going to go with five more releases and everything else, if the president was smart, he would shut him down. you just can't keep going and going and going and saying that everybody is against him, you know. there is nothing there. if there was something there, it would be fine. i worked for the air force for years and years. i had top-secret clearance and that. i worked through the russian era , and there are a lot of things that should be redacted, yes, but all they have got to do is just lock out what they need to do. you need to read the whole thing in context or just get one of the judges -- you do not have to get specific with names, nothing

, just, this is how things are done, this is how we go over them, and it is ok. that is all we have to do. you have a good day, young lady. host: ok, patrick on our republican line from arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. the document i think should not becausesed, primarily it is classified. normally i do not know about the other classified documents. i did not read it. i was opposed to that being released also. my big problem with our president is his spending. in his next few months in office, he will probably go close to a half billion dollars on his security. he diverted money out of the

defense department -- or had it diverted -- in order to keep the trump tower security office open , and then they were even did funds. of lack of his $3.5 million trip -- each trip -- to mar-a-lago is expensive. think isimportant is i his children, they went on a trip to, i think, aspen. any went on, i think about $80,000 trip. host: alright, i want to keep the discussion about the intelligence memo. you said that you don't think it should be released. i know you said you don't think they are in it, but what do you think the reason is the president took different approaches here? caller: i think probably that is

the game they play. you are taking the american of one thing off and moving it to another item, and it will be a while before that is done, and by the time it is done, it will be through, and things that need to get done will not get done because of the games he plays. he is a flimflam man. host: julius calling from atlanta on our independent line. what do you think? caller: i think it definitely should be released. hisonald trump can release version of a certain situation, i think the democrats should have the right to release their information -- their version of the information. another thing -- it bothers me so much when i hear people say that donald trump was elected. he was selected, he was not elected, you know what i am saying, by some powerful people.

right, john is calling in from trenton, new jersey on the democratic line. what do you think about the memo? caller: first of all, i want to thank you for having me on the show, and thanks to c-span for letting me have freedom of speech here. that being said, i am a vietnam veteran, and i did not appreciate what my fellow vet said about the daca workers. i know a few of them in the united states army, and they are just as much citizens now, to me, that anybody is. now the memo, ok, there are two sides to the coin. if you do not show heads or tails in the kickoff of the football game, there is no truth to be shown. time to make their their point.

the president should notmake suppress the truth. he is suppressing the truth because he has a yellow stain in the back of his spine, and he is afraid that something is in that memo that is going to show him and the republican congress what they are. i want to thank you for having me on your show. have a good day. host: coming up, we will have a discussion about the challenging diplomatic effort at the olympics and in the united states, with author nicholas k. lev.r -- nicholas kravel -- we will beine right back.

afterwords,ght on she is interviewed by author and journalist toray. >> as we created black lives matter, we knew we have to get people on board. we have to interrupt what people try to co-opt black lives matter, so we spent a significant part of the first year co-opting not to say our lives matter, not to use it to say other communities matter, but to focus on black people, and to be ok and the allies and be solidarity test in solidarity with black people. then we took it to the world. on sunday atrwords

9:00 p.m. eastern on booktv. >> sunday on c-span's q1 day, new york times staff photographer doug mills talks about the photos he took while covering president trump. >> he enjoys having us around. constant despite his comments about fake news and the media and so forth, i really feel he enjoys having us around because it helps drive his message. it helps drive the news of the day, which he can do every day and does every day. having us around really allows him to do that. >> q and a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. weekend, the c-span cities tour takes you to lynchburg, virginia. with the help of our comcast

cable partners we will explore lynchburg's rich literary scene. atch next weekend beginning 5:00 p.m. eastern on booktv on c-span2. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. journal"ngton continues. host: joining us is nicolas , the executive director of the diplomatic economy and author. he is here to talk about the potential diplomatic outcome from the u.s. olympics as they are being held now in south korea. thank you for joining us. guest: good to be here. host: remind our viewers with the washington international diplomatic academy is. guest: it is a fairly new organization. our main mission is to train

diplomats from around the world. it is an entirely skills-based training program. we also have courses for the private sector, for business executives in global governed affairs who deal with foreign governments and the u.s. government. we have courses for u.s. state and local officials. summer, we will have a summer academy for graduate and undergraduate students who pursue or would like to pursue careers in diplomacy. host: i would like to get into the diplomatic challenges or opportunities that the olympics presents. i want to start off with a "washington post" piece -- vice president pence's olympic goal is to rebuff north korea's charm offensive. by the time he arrived at the olympic winter games on friday evening, he had already toward l,e memorial insole -- is seou

gazing up at the mangled steel underbelly of a south korean naval vessel, destroyed when a north korean torpedo tour through it in 2010. he already met privately with north korean defectors, quietly nodding and support and shaking his head in sadness. decorations, private murmurings, and scripted visits have been aimed at combating north korea's shiny propaganda with gritty talk of his own. talk a little bit more about this diplomacy that is going on in south korea as the games go on. guest: i think there is an opportunity now at the olympics for diplomacy that could not have taken place elsewhere at any other time. korea difficult for south and the international olympics committee to make this happen, to have north korea join the games. they paid for their expenses.

ed qualification requirements to get them in. the vice president has a thelenging task because united states does not have diplomatic relations with north korea. no american official wants to be seen as appeasing north korea in is --y, because if it with its human rights record and deploying nuclear missiles. diplomacy is the only realistic way out of the current standoff. so i hope that if not the vice president, someone on the american side, probably career diplomats, will take the opportunity and meet with someone in the north korean delegation to the olympics,

maybe not the highest members, but someone, and start some sort of conversation. ultimately, this will be resolved by talking, not by firing missiles or fire and fury. host: you say this will not be solved by fire and fury. guest: we hope. host: is there a real opportunity here to improve relations with north korea, given the fact that there has been very heightened rhetoric on both sides? is that even a possibility here? guest: the state of relations is hopes the only direction they can go from here is up. i think what is happening as we speak in south korea, the olympics, is a great opening for both sides. extend,seen kim jong-il if not his entire hand, a be a

finger or two -- maybe a finger or two, to south korea. onre is significant desire the part of the new president from south korea to engage with the north. i hope that without appearing as if they were -- there were any wage between the united states and south korea, which north korea clearly wants, the united states and south korea can work together on a strategy not just to engage with the north, but to have a clear understanding of what they want. talking for the sake of talking is not entirely helpful. i will say, one of the main problems in the last several decades -- and i as a journalist covered the north korean nuclear and negotiations for more than 10 years -- the main problem we have had is that because we do not have diplomatic relations with north korea, american diplomats and officials do not

know enough about the country, about the people in the country, about officials. they do not have relationships, and diplomacy is about influence. influence, you have to have relationships you have built and cultivated and maintained. no country will come to any negotiation being asked or expected to capitulate preemptively. they have to get something out of any negotiation. host: we are joined by nicholas , author of "america's other army, the u.s. foreign service and 21st century diplomacy." we are talking about diplomacy opportunities brought about by the olympics. publicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002

. i want to ask a little bit about north and south korea. there was a meeting between south korea's president and kim jong-un's sister. there is news this morning that kim jong-un invited the south korean project -- president for talks in the north. this is the first major development to stem from north korea's participation in the olympics. it was delivered by this sister of the north korean leader, when she and others ate lunch with moon at the presidential palace. talk about the opportunity that this presents. is this something new? guest: it is new, as the leaders of south and north korea have met in more than 10 years. it is quite significant. some reports already indicated the south korean president in effect has already affected --

accepted the invitation. few people expected he would turn it down, the cousin is a significant opportunity. -- because it is a significant act -- opportunity. i hope that before he goes, american diplomats will find a way to make clear what the american position is. by the way, this is another challenge. we do not quite know what the american position is, what american policy is toward north korea at the moment because we have heard different statements from different officials. sometimes we hear, we are ready to talk. no, as thee hear president famously tweeted a couple months ago, the secretary of state is wasting his time trying to find a way to talk to the north koreans. the united states must have a clear, unified policy that it wants to pursue. then that policy, i would think

a great idea would be to convey that to south korea and to the south korean delegation, so when the south korean president goes to pyongyang, he always keeps in mind what the united states wants to get out of it, as the united states is a major player. there are still tens of thousands of american troops in south korea, very close to the strikes down -- demilitarized strikes him. at any point we do not want north korea to drive a wedge between the united states and south korea. host: i want to read a tweet from the vice presidents deputy piece of -- vice president's deputy chief of staff. mike pence did not go to the olympics to make friends at tyrants. he is not there to shake cans and exchange pleasant courtesies with murder a stick haters.

thinking below is exactly the week diplomat approach that has allowed others to take advantage of us in the past. of just that view sort a light -- cast a light over the diplomatic possibilities at the olympics? guest: the first thing that comes to mind is diplomacy is a difficult thing, difficult, some call it game. becauset a profession, it is a very intricate act. i agree, you do not want to be seen as appeasing dictators, absolutely. that country has an abysmal human rights record. it would rather spend money building weapons than feeding its own people. there is no question about that. diplomacy, just meeting with someone does not mean

endorsing what they are doing. and so if you want to prevail in a negotiation, if you want to get anything out of a crisis or situation, a negotiation, you have to sit down with the other side, unless you believe the resort,ion is the last which the military should be the last resort, military force. how can you possibly understand where the other side is coming from if you don't meet with them? the best outcome of a negotiation is when he managed to persuade the other side to do what you want them to do by convincing them that it is in their own interest. and that is probably one of the most big difficulties and diplomacy, because different cultures, different ways of life

-- life in north korea is very difficult -- but you have to understand the history of the culture and the mentality of the people. host: lawrence is on the democratic line from here in washington, d.c. caller: good morning, how are you? thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. host: go ahead. had thei have opportunity to call c-span before, and something that keeps coming to mind with the presidency and we talk about diplomacy now, is that for some roomn the elephant in the as far as i see it is the republicans. but the problem with the elephant in the room is that it no longeris truly -- truly where's the american flag. it, we are on a

with -- theire low course. when -- parallel course. once the president decides that weis his way or no way, that are shutting down the government, we are shutting down diplomacy. host: i just want to give you a chance if you have a question related to north korea and the olympics. caller: why is it that diplomatic community is ignoring the mere fact that the elephant in the room is no longer americans? guest: there is no question that this is a very difficult time for american diplomacy. far american diplomats, the korean foreign service about , and my book in fact talks

it is quite sad that political leaders in this administration and previous administrations have not fully grasped the extent to which diplomacy, professional diplomacy and career diplomats can help the political leaders achieve their goals and implement their policy. there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what diplomacy is, who should practice diplomacy. as we know for decades, we have had people with political connections being appointed to diplomatic posts without any previous experience or qualifications, just because they helped the president get elected or they have other connections. that is the wrong approach. you should have people who know what they are doing. why are generals career military people?

politicalwe have appointees with no experience in those positions? because it is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous for the country because diplomacy is ultimately about national security and the prosperity of the american people. i wanted to mention, earlier you asked me about the diplomatic academy -- academy. we take americans to other countries to show them how american diplomacy works and what it does for the american people. the past andtory, present of american diplomacy and what american diplomats do in other countries affect the lives of those at home. ultimately, because they spend our taxpayers money, every american should know what diplomats do. host: you were talking about the importance of diplomatic efforts and how sometimes it is not always recognized. sometimes there is disagreement, even within this administration.

secretary of state tillerson has repeatedly stressed the need for diplomatic talks with north korea, where is the president has repeatedly said that will not work. what impact do you think that has? guest: the vice president, once he arrived in asia, he was in japan before south korea, he did say that both he and the president are interested in talking. right, to my earlier point, that we hear different things at different times. the secretary of state's job is to pursue diplomacy. there is no way around it, and that is why that person is the chief u.s. diplomat. ourissue has been that career diplomats, the foreign service and civil service at the state department in washington, have felt underappreciated, if

not unappreciated in the past year because it just doesn't seem that the secretary of state and other members of the appreciate,on quite not just diplomacy, but engaging with other countries in ways that is mutually beneficial. and so, in the america first approach, some have interpreted just do everything that is best for us without caring what is good for other countries. it sounds fine. everybody wants his or her country to be number one, except in diplomacy because we deal with other countries and other vital organizations, or bilateral diplomatic relations. you have to consider the other

side. you can still come out victorious and if you are professional enough, you will find a way while considering the other country and its needs. democracy,if it is a we have to respect our allies in europe and asia. they have their own public opinion and voters, so those governments have to think about that. have to respect that while pursuing ways to come out ahead. host: john is on the independent line from new jersey. caller: good morning. a quick question -- the north and south koreas seem to be getting together themselves. the sister is over there now. aey have high-level talks very important person from north korea scheduled. the president of south korea seems very interested. what happens against the north and the south create their own peace treaty, north korea

disarms its arsenal of artillery pointed at seoul, will the united states do you think respect the decisions of the two korean people, or will we try to screw that kind of situation up for our own reasons? guest: well, if the united states is smart, it will make sure that american diplomats are there every step of the way while this is happening. todon't want the situation be presented with the fact and not be able to do anything. in doing these negotiations, the u.s. has to be present. me.acy is fine with we do not have to announce everything publicly. diplomacy is more effective behind closed doors until there is something to announce.

you are right, we do not want to just be spectators. it is a very difficult issue, because there is no peace treaty. the war ended in 1953 with the truce. there never was a formal peace treaty. that has come up several times during the george w. bush of --istration when condi rice administration when condi rice and others were negotiating with north korea. that is the possible carrot dangled as an incentive for north korea to abandon their nuclear programs. it never came to it. the united states being reluctant to go there, and it is also ultimately something the united nations would and should be involved in. i am not sure that this administration would consider this, given the current

situation, but at some point it is very likely that that issue will come up again. host: keith is on our republican line from petersburg, virginia. caller: good morning. said he wasump going to clean the swamp, and in order to clean the swamp he had to get in it and he is stuck in it. he is like a puppet i do not see no kind of way that he can negotiate with the president of north korea. ,hat we need is somebody that because we do not want war with them. we are a peaceful country. he is looking at trump like, this man crazy. he don't trust us. we need someone that is able to talk to him, just like i said, dennis rodman, he is not into

politics but he can convey the message that we do not want war, we want peace. it is something that he can possibly convey to their president, because the republicans, i don't think they want to do that. host: let me put that point to .icolas there is somebody if president trump cannot ease a leader in terms of diplomatic efforts. ken rex tillerson do it? -- can rex tillerson do it or someone else? guest: at one point if you recall, the president did not rule out meeting with kim jong-un. the administration has been all over the place, and i do not criticize lightly. i have never been in government, so not having any experience in

the difficulty, i know about it because of my work as a journalist and author and now with the diplomatic academy, but i have not been in both shoes. at the same time, in terms of policy, you cannot carry out diplomacy if there is no policy to implement. we just don't know what his mood will be tomorrow, next week, or next month about meeting. if meeting with some north koreans is an option, i would try to send an american diplomat with that south american delegation going to pyeongchang, even if it is a lower-level diplomat, just to have eyes and ears rather than hear secondhand accounts from people in those meetings, and start from there. high-level officials like the vice president, secretary of state, they are too visible. to begin something like this, you want to test the waters.

you want to do things behind the scenes. i am hoping that currently, since kim jong-un's sister is in south korea, yes, the vice president does not want to meet with her and that is fine, but i -- will meet has at least one american. these relationships often begin on a very personal level. host: i want to get a couple more calls in. sherry calling from bismarck, north dakota on our democrat line. caller: good morning. thanks, c-span, love your show. , how do youto ask think it is that the cyber attacks happened at the olympics, around the time or during the time or after the time that it was announced that russia was not allowed to be , and because of dirty ways

now they are clean so they are allowed? what do you think about that? guest: the reports about that possible hacking is very fresh and early out, so we don't know where it might have come from and what the motivation behind it might've been. this situation with russia is very interesting and bizarre, because at the opening ceremony they could not come out with the flag of the russian federation. they came out with the olympic flag. russiat athletes from rather than official representatives, because of the doping scandal. by the way, they have not been clear necessarily, just to correct that, there was a court decision that said there was not enough evidence to find all of those who were charged guilty. some of them were found, but not everybody. that does not mean having been

cleared. the international olympic committee disagrees with that decision, so we are not anywhere near the point of having completely absolved the russians from what they were accused of. host: barbara is calling from new york city on the independent line. caller: good morning. a couple of points. would you talk about the situation with victor cha? i understand he will no longer be the ambassador to south korea. secondly, you mentioned that north korea spends money on their military to the detriment of their people. isn't that what the united states does? we have built up this military where we have homeless people on the street in every town, people going to food banks to get food, people without medical care, isn't that what we are doing?

we spend money on the military instead of the people? my suggestion is the opposite of don from d.c. what if north korea offered south korea the nuclear expertise they have so that south korea would not have to be afraid of north korea? yes, they would cut the united states out of the deal, but so what. they the it is time for the united states to get out of everybody's business. host: i want to give nicholas a chance to respond. guest: obviously, you are entitled to make your own comparisons and conclusions about the situation in north korea, compared to this country. -- certainlyinly what you think is not wrong or incorrect. thatld certainly point out the situation in the united states is not anywhere near the one in north korea in terms of

how the people live. if you look at the economy, gdp per capita and so on, the big difference is -- but i get your point that one should have, a government should have their priorities straight and whether you want to spend your resources on this, it is ultimately a decision that the administration has to make, and taking care of your own people is one thing any government should do. end,ld just mention at the that the united states has very, very significant interest in the asia-pacific and it is not realistic to think that it will just leave south korea to hammer out the deal with the north, and just not take some part in it. is theted states dominant power in the asia-pacific.

, chinaeren't, logically would love to become such a power and it obviously is trying to. but this raises the question about what exactly the purpose or the goal of american foreign-policy is? what kind of world does the united states want? so far in this administration, we have not received clear answers to that. they have repudiated some of the policies of the previous administrations, democratic and republican. we are on capitol hill here, across from the rotunda. decades, there was what we called washington consensus. this was the largely bipartisan approach to foreign policy when it came to the u.s.' leadership

role in the world. as part of this america first policy and the talk about the swamp and all that, now it seems this administration doesn't really want to shoulder the burden of being the guarantor of global security. and while there might be merit in arguments supporting that, it to articulate whatever the policy is, whatever type of world, global community, international system this administration thinks would be best for the united states. i think we are still waiting for that. author oflas kralev, "america's other army, u.s. ander -- foreign service" member of the diplomatic academy.

you can find necklace on twitter. thank you -- nicolas on twitter. thank you so much. we will be taking some more of your calls. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, from the west point center for oral history, kenneth carlsen talks about growing up in a military family and service in vietnam. ande go out to this bunker, had an actual viewpoint where you could see what was going on over the combat base. we are watching the rockets coming in. explosions are going off and these women are scared to death.

said, that kind of looks like the fourth of july, and i said, no it doesn't. people are dying when those land. she started crying. >> 4:30 on real america, we are featuring two films, "rebirth of " and the winter olympics in california. >> the united states is causing all kinds of excitement here. they were pregame underdogs and they have upset all predictions. earning them the first gold medal ever won by a u.s. team in hockey. >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, scholars explore the relationships between ronald andan, george w. bush, mikael gorbachev. >> if you look back at 1989 when bush comes in, and bush and

gorbachev in 1990 in 1991, from gorbachev's point of view, bush is not measuring up to what reagan had been. >> watch american history tv every weekend on c-span3. tuesday morning, we are live in little rock, arkansas for the next up on the c-span bus 50 capital store. governor asa hutchinson will be our guest on washington journal starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are taking your calls this segment, finding out what is on your mind. i will take a look at some of the headlines from around the country with front pages provided courtesy of the museum -- newseum. the los angeles times dominated by the olympics. politics are taking center

stage. alsorizona republic talking about a dramatic start to the olympic games with some images there from that. also on the olympics, from cleveland, a colorful start to the games. it focuses on that as the big spending bill, and the spending bill is the focus of the news and observer in charlotte. while some consumers balk, the gop signs off on a bigger deficit. the budget bill was ultimately passed and signed by the president. rich is calling from kansas city on our republican line. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind? caller: i would just like to return to the initial segment about the release of the memos. of course, we can't go back and

do things differently from the start now, but i think it ford've been appropriate both of these memos to be reviewed by the justice department, and have them released simultaneously if at all. beon't deny that there may some gamesmanship afoot with -- witho releasing schiff releasing a memo that could not be released to the public, but without substantial reduction. thatt find it deplorable we talk about comparing the previous administration with , and on the other side,

equally outrageous claims of no one person or party is all good or all bad. i think that this is largely the result of artificial intelligence. and stuffng polling like that to make our decisions for us. binary all that stuff is , and you are either with us or against us. we need to start thinking for ourselves. from eva is calling in california on our democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am concerned as a result of viewing and listening to the opinions of those republicans and democrats on the memo. inm concerned, as a teacher

english classes, if they are good english classes, talk about ideae and they promote the of being tolerant of each person's opinion. and also, i'm just concerned to know what is happening in our areols that those who talking about this issue, i wonder what they were taught in those classes. he does our democratic system requires that we be educated to tolerate different opinions. down either one or the other debate indicates what our education was all about. i really feel there is a need for reviewing what is going on in our schools, what the kids are being taught so as they become adults they are

open-minded and allow everyone to express his opinion. with the president closing down that memo, it is really educating that he had that problem in his schools and maybe they were not emphasized out loud in that society or educational system that he attended. as a young man, you need to understand the system to be a true democracy. host: the washington post reports than number three justice department official is stepping down. rachel brand, the third highest ranking official at the justice department and first woman to serve as associate attorney general plans to step down. a resignation that comes at a moment of intense political scrutiny for the department, including some harsh criticism from president trump.

brand, who has been in her senate confirmed position for only nine months, what have been in line to take over the supervision of special counsel robert mueller's russia investigation if deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the number two official, was fired by trump or recused himself from the matter. brand is leaving the justice department to join walmart. justin is calling on our independent line from flint, michigan. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind? caller: i want to talk about the economy and supposedly our new president taking credit for all the growth and stuff. from what i understand, i googled regulations and stuff like that, that when you deregulate different things, paperwork and all the decisions

and all department heads you have to contact and all the paperwork goes through, it takes upward of over a year to 16 months for anything to really change. so when our president takes credit for all the growth in the economy that was already in progress when he came into office, deregulation, that is what he always brags about, how he deregulated everything obama did. all of that stuff has probably not taken effect until right about now, but the economy has been booming. the state of the union, he took credit for a lot of things, and i researched it and went online, and a lot of the fact checkers did articles about it, and different papers. debunked several situations where he took credit for as being not true.

so, i don't understand why are so rah rah rah about what a great economy that happened since. host: on our republican line from fort lauderdale, florida, kevin. caller: that last caller, he is complaining about trump, but how come hillary clinton and obama are not in jail with rosenstein and mueller? we already know -- she hung up on me. host: no, i didn't. certain that very obama was spying on trump. why isn't he in jail? andybody wants to put trump over one year, they have no proof whatsoever. we have so much proof out of the

democrats, of them cheating, lying, and stealing. why aren't they in jail and why isn't anybody in the mainstream media talking about it? i have to go to talk radio. these dumb democrats that call up your show are so clueless. they want to talk about a school to go to so people can get along better. the problem is, the liberals have been taking over our school forever. host: john is calling from decatur, illinois on our democratic line. caller: i think mr. trump and arod wereter, what if j to give her a black eye? i think they would be talking real good. host: so you disagree with the president praising rob porter for his work at the white house? are you still there? caller: yes, i am here. host: go ahead.

caller: i want to know how he would feel if somebody were to smack his daughter around, give her a black eye. would he still take up for the guy or would he show his real colors? have a good day. host: the hill is reporting a former attorney for george w. bush is calling the president's decision not to release the democratic memo a massive strategic miscalculation. the former lawyer on friday criticized president trump's decision to block the release of a memo drafted by democrats in the house intelligence committee. the pastffer, who in served as senior counsel to the house intelligence committee and also as a former law clerk for supreme court justice neil gorsuch, that trumps move was "a massive strategic miscalculation." failure toouse's

declassify the house intelligence committee memo indicates a massive strategic calculation, according to politico. edith is calling from greenwood, arkansas on our democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the memo. the fbi andgainst released the memo. now he finds some reason not to release the democrat memo. my opinion, he don't want the truth out. this is not there. we need to know both sides of the story. trumpo-t, what i callb supporting trump, i have to wonder are they

russian connected? they don't sound like they live in america. i am 82 years old and i know back in the day when i was growing up, someone might trump came around would have never saw the light of day. this man is a liar. we see him lie. i am not stupid. i don't have to go by what somebody else say. i use my own common sense judgment and my opinion, trump is a liar and a criminal. in my opinion, he conspired with russia against hillary. anybody can say what they want to say. he did it. mueller is going to prove who he really is. all these trump-bots that think trump is so nice, trump is not nice. in histealing us blind

way behind the scenes. they better wake up and smell the roses, because he is destroying our democracy. he is putting this country in danger. he is a criminal. host: wayne is on our republican line from schenectady, new york. good morning. caller: i think it is crazy, is what the democrats, they are holding the american people , we arewhen they say for the military and things like that. ands almost like pelosi maxine waters and people like , theymr. davis from texas get up there and talk like they are not american. it would make you think like california is separate from the rest of the country. the stuff that comes out of there is outrageous.

i say one thing about the memo, it is great that they are actually doing something about checking the real truth. i think there is a lot that the democrats do not want to know about hillary. it is a disgrace to our country. host: the wall street journal is reporting that the gop is probing allegations that reached asistopher steele republicans on capitol hill are proving salacious allegations against donald trump that were compiled by a man who passed his research to an associate. the notes are purportedly drawn from interviews with russian contacts, as well as others. the memoranda make a number of unverified claims about mr.

trump's business ties to moscow and sexual history. in document, written september and october of 2016, was reviewed by the wall street journal. claims similar in nature, although not identical, to those contained in the dossier compiled by christopher steele. he was being paid through intermediaries by the democratic party and mrs. clinton's democratic campaign. mr. trump repeatedly died nine -- repeatedly denied the allegations in the dossier. lee is on the independent line from auburndale, florida. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a comment that i believe that brainwashing works, it has a lot of the republicans that call into you are the same people that believe mexico was going to pay for this wall, and believe

-- i believe donald trump is a liar. that is all i have to say. host: mary is calling on our democratic line from fort washington, maryland. caller: amen to that last caller and previous democrat callers. when i hear republicans talk, it sounds like i switched over to fox. this man is hurting them also. this is not a situation where you are a democrat or a republican. open your eyes and say, are you a human being and a country that is supposed to have civil rights? as far as the memo, let him go ahead and say no to releasing it , because i want to see this particular thing called a president go down in handcuffs, is i want him to be charged with obstruction of justice. if he doesn't release that memo, that is the route he will be going on. the white house is a mess. it needs to be rescued.

anyway we can get this thing out of office, i'm going for it. i think you look good on msnbc and any network you choose to go on and talk for us. host: chuck is calling from aurora, colorado on our republican line. caller: i have a solution for the statute problem down south -- statue problem down south. i don't think they have enough. the thing is, they only have half the statues. they do not have any statues of john brown or frederick douglass or sojourner truth or harriet beecher stowe, abraham lincoln. i think atlanta and savannah and columbia, south carolina should all have statues of them. benjamin butler should be the biggest statue in new orleans. i think all these people need more statues, and let everybody know what really happened.

we don't ever want to forget what happened, so let's do all the statues down there. host: cnn is reporting that dozens of trump administration officials still lack full security clearance. house officials and administration and political appointees are still operating without full security clearances, including jared kushner and until recently, rob porter. according to a source familiar with the situation, the white house claims the backlog of interim security clearance is a procedural consequence of a process carried out by the fbi and the white house office of security, which can take time to complete. several sources, including intelligence officials who have served in previous administrations describe the backyard -- backlog is unusual, and make clear the process should have been cleated after

-- completed. host: russell is on. caller: i just want to float an idea i have had since the election. mores just become more and sort of relevant. fearump's complete lack of of confronting the fbi, of antagonizing them, challenging them, and i was thinking how when the two candidates elected before the election, two primary victors, they are briefed on vital national security issues in case one dies. they both have to be briefed. trump than would have been told all of our most vital secrets, where we compromised, who has what on us. all of the vulnerabilities. i think trump just knows all the

secrets and he is just -- the fbi is compromised probably on a number of levels he is aware of, and he is not afraid of them because he has the dirt on them. it just seems kind of obvious unafraids completely of pushing them to the brink of, you know, completely trashing them. how could he do that unless he was totally confident that he knows stuff that there is no way they want him to let out? it is just a theory of mind. i thought i would throw it out. host: tim is on the independent line from michigan. caller: good morning, kimberly. how are you? host: i am good. how are you? caller: once again, your republican callers are forcing me to waste my long-distance money in defending your

integrity and professionalism, by pointing out that yes, you were on msnbc. yes, you get more radiant every week. do not leave the journal. do not go like jeff did, because we need him here again too. please remind these republicans who think you are some crazy liberal biased moderator, you also worked at the boston herald , one of the most republican rags in the country. i would love to have ran into you at the cornerstone before they tore it down. now that i have had to waste my time defending your honor and professionalism, i would like to get to my point. his real name is drumph. he is as phony as his name. they changed it when his grandfather got here, the trump. so can republicans and democrats and independents please refer to

him by his real name? one other thing, i would really obamao see barack hussein , who was not afraid to use his real name, and who was actually really elected by the popular vote, i wish obama would come out of the woodwork and say, hey, donny boy, here is my college transcripts, here is my birth certificate, here is my tax returns. now, let's see yours. wast that guy if he got a d dancing on air. kimberly, you are doing a wonderful job and i just love you. don't go anywhere. by the way, you could do the nation a service. appear on fox news and try to infuse some region and logic into fox viewers. always a pleasure. host: matalin is on our republican line from ridgely, west virginia.

what is on your mind? caller: what is on my mind? , if he had an brain it would be dangerous. when obama was in office, you did not see republicans out roaming the streets and tearing up things. they acted like americans. these people that has been on there this morning, if i could hate like they hate our president, i don't think there is much help for those people. i feel sorry for them. day, they will my lord and with

forgive sins than tearing us down. they need a good revival in their heart. they need a good revival in their hearts. thank you. host: joe is on the independents find calling from pennsylvania. caller: how you doing? back people need to pull and look at some of what is happening or what is not happening. i know everybody calls in, one republican and one democrat. but if you look at the bigger picture of it all, we should all be may be helping each other and not calling each other names. like republican and democrat, that is like my team, your team. build your team, ignore everything my team does.

we have to stop doing that. we have to come together. [coughing] i think a good topic would be, where do you get your news from? i think that would be a great beic everybody could say may i am thinking wrong. that is nothat guy spewing facts, that is spewing opinions and hate. we all have to come back to earth and look around. you are my neighbor. i love you because you are an american. we are americans and we need to work for each other together. we've got to take our personal opinions out of it and start over somehow, someway. host: ok. next, hedge funds play an important role on wall street. bloomberg news or order zachary mider -- reporter zachary mider.

president trump recently signed legislation that directly affects about 44 million caregivers in the united states. we will learn the details from the president of the national alliance for caregiving, grace whiting. "newsmakers" interviewed the chairman of the house group trying to win back control of the house. the talks with reporters about the role of the economy and the republican tax plan. [video clip] we need to admit the economy is strong today. i think the economy continues to build on success over seven years. we will continue to reach out and talk to the american people. under republican leadership, their decisions any policy they are advocating is hurting middle-class families. they are not helping middle-class families. republicans say they are going to put them first, but their

actions are hurting those families. republicans took us further into debt. now they will go after medicare, medicaid, social security, safety nets for seniors. republicans are not doing anything to help millennials and addressing concerns they have as well. i think there is a tremendous opportunity for democrats to show we have their backs and republicans don't. >> what is your message to somebody who may have been in thel of the tax bill, 80% who opposed it, and are getting a higher paycheck this year? if democrats control congress, will they lose the tax break? republicans promised they would prioritize middle-class families. they did not. even paul ryan when he was trying to sell the tax cut, he had a chance to put a tweet out that a woman was getting $1.50 more a week. i guess that is something.

but speaker ryan and house republicans do not understand that is not fair. it does not add up. i think from democrats, we need to fix many of the flaws that were in this tax scam. it was not tax reform promised by our republican colleagues. as the split 83% to corporations and the other 13 and change went to the american people? that is not right. democrats can reverse that. middle-class families should be prioritized. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york city is acrid lighter -- zachary mider, a reporter from bloomberg, here to discuss his latest piece looking at the influence of hedge funds on washington. thank you for joining us today.

let's start with the basics. what are hedge funds? fund is a kind of pool of capital that mostly wealthy individuals and institutions like pension funds for insurance companies can invest in. they are likely regulated -- lightly regulated so they can make bets that are more speculative than a traditional mutual fund. hedge funds have exploded in size in the last couple of decades. they are a big part of what wall street does. host: what made you look into the topic of hedge funds for this magazine piece? guest: what we focused on was funds that are so big and can make such a bets on specific stocks or bonds,

they have begun lobbying not about regulation of the hedge fund industry but lobbying to help specific bets pay off. for instance, you might buy some bonds that are very cheap right now and push for policies that would make those bonds more valuable in washington. host: talk a little bit about that. place forlimits in what these hedge funds managers and lobbyists can do in washington? it sounds like you are suggesting they are gaming the system. guest: traditionally when we think about how money buys influence in washington, a lot of people think of donating to candidates or parties and then getting them to adopt policies hiring a lobbyist, a former member of congress, to lobby his former colleagues to

get what you want. but what we focused on here is much more subtle where hedge funds are infusing the washington ecosystem with ideas that percolate up to the congressmen. a houseed on a hearing, subcommittee hearing in 2014, where this kind of decorated statesman, jim glassman, gave a talk about building prosperity in latin america. it turns out, he was actually working for a company affiliated with a public affairs firm that was lobbying for a lot of the causes he endorsed at the time. host: we are talking with zachary mider, he is a reporter with bloomberg news. we are talking about a recent piece he wrote looking at the influence of hedge funds in washington, d.c.

can call one number, democrats, and independents. excerptan from your magazine piece hitting on the point you have been making. it says over the past two decades, hedge funds have grown explosively with a collective $3.4 trillion under management. host: explain more specifically how this is happening, how the influence in washington is making a difference in the bottom-line's of these funds.

guest: one of the examples i wrote about in this piece was the argentine debt situation. this is not an issue a ton of americans have strong feelings about. but hedge funds that purchased defaulted debt of argentina had a huge interest in influencing policymakers in argentina and the united states and even argentinatry to force into a more favorable settlement with these debtholders. you saw over a decade tens of millions of dollars pumped through the washington ecosystem, not just in terms of lobbying but in terms of funding nonprofits that would produce studies favorable to the debt holders. working with people like jim

glassman, prominent public intellectuals advocating for the same thing. funding groups that would buy ads that would not disclose their connection to the hedge funds. all these different things to mostly affect american policymakers to try to have them put pressure on argentina to come to a more favorable resolution of this outcome. it ended up working out great for the hedge funds, the main fund that invested in this debt made more than $2 billion in e, helpedom this trad by a lot of things including big successes in court. but it is important this all happened in the context where there was all kind of allies speaking up for the argentine bondholders, these hedge funds who were kind of behind the scenes coordinating with or receiving funding from the hedge

funds. host: you brought up a couple of times james glassman, a familiar face on c-span to viewers. you can go to c-span.org to search for his appearances here. , there is a graphic that accompanies your piece. he said if you need a friend in washington, don't get a dog. get james glassman. you point out that the influence of members of these group are writing op-ed pieces in favor of a certain policy. talk about how that works. guest: that graphic shows how over a long time, glassman's public advocacy lined up perfectly with the hedge fund clients of this particular

public affairs consulting firm. we trace, sometimes through corporate records, how he worked for a series of entities which were essentially front groups for dci, this public affairs consulting firm. at the same time he is testifying before congress and about the puerto rico debt situation, he is working for a consulting firm that is basically a kind of alter ego of dci, which is working for a hedge fund that owns debt in puerto rico and is pushing for a very specific outcome that would benefit that hedge fund. host: donna is on the independent line from oklahoma. good morning, donna. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment. you had a gentleman earlier speaking about how he figured if

donald trump's dr. was getting beat up, -- daughter was getting beat up, he would be real opposed to that. i think that is the smartest man i have heard on tv recently. host: we are talking about hedge funds now. do you have a question for zachary mider? caller: no. i just wanted to make the comment i think donald trump was probably raised to be a liar, cheat, and thief. host: we are going to move on to frank. you are on with zachary mider. guest: i want to commend what you are doing. i think it is a great service to adjustntry to a dress -- something that has been undermining -- adjust something that has been undermining the country for the last 15 years i guess. of the problem is the large banks that control a good portion of the hedge funds.

it is not just individual fund managers or investors. it is the large banks that put these chop shops together. the truth of the matter is concerning executive emergency, executive order, signed in december by the president, a lot of these things fall under the rico act and racketeering. i think if you look at the underlying political situation, it is really a danger to our economy. host: go ahead, zachary. guest: that is an interesting point you brought out of that. the big banks. obviously, the banks have been major lobbyists and deeply

involved in trying to influence policy in washington as long as there have been banks. part of what we tried to bring newin this piece is what is about the hedge fund influence because corporations like big banks or big telecom companies or big tobacco companies, or anyone else, they have been doing the same kind of stuff for decades. but their interests are relatively stable over time. what you see when hedge funds get in the game to benefit a particular investment is much more temporary. hedge funds might make one investment today and sell it tomorrow. they might have the opposite interest in washington if they decide to go short. we are used to corporations trying to influence washington in this way. more subtleeven

approach to lobbying where the interests only last as long as the hedge fund happens to on this particular investment. host: i want to read another excerpt from your piece. host: is there any way to track this to get an idea of how widespread this might be? is there any way to regulate it? is it covered by lobbying rules?

guest: that is a great question. obviously, if you are a registered lobbyist, you have to who you are lobbying for and how much you are paid. but if you are a corporation or a hedge fund and give a donation to a nonprofit and that nonprofit advocates for policies favorable to you, that is really like a dark area where that is not have to be any disclosure. we only find out about it when reporters dig around like i did or whistleblowers blow the whistle about what they perceive as improper activity. one interesting area where you could imagine the government could be more aggressive is that oftentimes, these donations to nonprofits are charitable. you can take a tax deduction for them. it would be very interesting to find out if a corporation or

hedge fund is making a donation that is essentially payment for lobbying services, whether that should be required to be registered under the lobbying and if they take a text is deduction,ax whether that should be allowed. host: we have joe on the line from wisconsin. caller: good morning, zachary. i understand what you're saying about hedge funds. do you think people are going into that because with the daca issue, we are losing so many good employees that may go across the border or two other countries and we may have a real drop inability. wouldn't other countries say we will take your doctors and lawyers and take them into their

countries and be happy? that could really hurt america. i am wondering if that is why these hedge funds are becoming so popular. thank you. right. why have hedge funds gotten so much more important to the financial system in the last 20 years? i think it is a combination of a number of different issues. partly, it was at one point, kind of a new concept that has grown more popular over time. a lot of pension funds, a lot of university endowments and things like that got into the hedge fund business, allocated more money to hedge funds over several decades to a point where now it has become a mainstream thatof investing component any major asset manager is going to think about investing in. in the last couple of years,

there has been a bit of a turn away from that. some of the investors have grown concerned that maybe they are paying too much in fees compared to the returns they are getting. but over a longer time, you see the explosive growth of hedge funds. host: charles is on the independent line from fort charles, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a refreshing subject. this is my conspiracy theory. we have pitted the republicans against the democrats, and it has been for years, just so they could rob us finally -- blindly. it is hard for an independent even to get into the race, and these guys are just dialing for dollars. and now i hear, that there are more lobbyists in d.c. than ever before recorded.

people areclass never going to get a fair shake as long as there's money involved in this system. and the system, the way it is set up now, is completely generated around money. hedge fund managers, big banks, citibank wrote a whole law that nobody read and passed through. is that a democracy? thank you. guest: you raise a really interesting issue which is, how does this concept interact with partisan politics? that is really interesting because what you see is these hedge fund influence campaigns we have written about are mostly not on hot button issues that everyone is talking about like control,bortion or gun issues where millions of americans have strong opinions already.

aske are things that if you about whatongressman their party thinks about it, they might not have a fully developed sense of where the party is. that is where hedge fund money can make a big difference, in trying to shape the party's approach to these relatively obscure issues in ways that benefit the hedge funds. for instance, you saw in the housing finance debate where there is hedge fund money invested in shares of fannie mae and freddie mac, you see an 'ffort to shape both parties platforms in a way that would benefit the investors. on the democratic side, you talk about increasing minority homeownership and the american dream. and on the republican side, you talk about the rule of law and government overreach in the way

the government took over and bailed out these institutions. host: zachary, talk more about these hedge fund influence campaigns work, the tactics they use. is.ain what astroturfing guest: astroturfing is a great term and comes from senator lloyd bentsen, as far as we know, who coined the term in 1985 when he got a stack of letters from constituents about this obscure insurance issue. he suspected there was something behind it that was not just grassroots. he said a fellow from texas can tell the difference between grassroots and astroturf. astroturf generally means generating an illusion of popular support or elite support for an issue where there really is not as much underneath it.

comes to the hedge funds campaigns that we wrote about, the goal is to try to flood the zone with all of these different ideas and people all singing from the same songbook when appearing to be independent -- but appearing to be independent. in the fannie mae campaign, he would find individuals who happen to own a small amount of the shares and march them into a congressman's office and say here is real people in your district advocating for this, even though the whole set up is arranged by hedge fund money. and at the same time, you have intellectuals, people like jim glassman and others and studies usinging the same talking points. if you are a congressman, what is amazing about this is they

often do not even know they are being lobbied. it is very different from a traditional lobbying operation where they sort of know this is the guy from boeing, this is what boeing needs. this is much more subtle. it is harder for policymakers to even fully grasp who is behind it and what their ultimate motivation is. host: stephanie is on our republican line from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. aboutstion is manipulating the stock market. i have a theory like what thatned in the 2007 crash wall street knows how much money is in pension funds, and they know -- they knew that a lot of were going to retire. to me, wall street says these

people are not going to get their own money back, we are going to take it before they can get it. so i think the hedge funds can manipulate the market to go up and down. and i think totally the 2007 crash was a manipulation by the hedge funds. i hope that you could get somebody to write a story about it, and maybe you will. what do you think? that is an interesting theory. certainly, there were also a lot of hedge funds and other investors that lost a lot in 2007 and 2008. there were a few who did very well. but overall, the amount of the value ofts -- invested assets really fell during the financial crisis. i can tell you because i covered it. i was covering wall street and the financial crisis at the time.

there were a lot of people not happy on wall street. people were not celebrating for the most part. you raised an interesting issue. i think it is hard for regular in acans -- to invest hedge fund typically, you need to have millions of dollars. if you are an individual, you have to have millions of dollars of assets before you are allowed to invest in hedge funds. it is an asset class not available to most people. most people do not have investments in hedge funds, so it sounds kind of mysterious and maybe a little sinister. pension, youre a pension fund manager is very likely to be invested in hedge funds. same thing for university endowments, insurance companies. it is kind of part of how the financial system works. host: keith is on our democratic line from mountains berg,

arkansas. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: i am good. you are on with zachary mider. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. hello? host: there is a bit of a delay. go ahead. caller: i am all busted up. me and mamma had a 401(k). when the stock market failed, i cashed it out. do you understand me? i am looking at you. host: go ahead. caller: we got the 401(k) out, and the text me. when i filed income tax, they taxed me. i don't know why, zachary. but sir, let me see. i do not know why they taxed me twice and the millionaires say

they do not want to be taxed twice and they do not want to pay taxes on the income they inherit. nothing. inherit host: zachary, we will give you a few seconds to address that. guest: he raises a totally interesting issue which is the taxation of hedge funds and private equity firms which we tax reform bill that came through congress, a lot of discussion about whether we should change the way we tax private equity and hedge funds. president trump campaigned saying he would change that. the final version of the bill did not change it much at all. mider, a reporter for bloomberg news, and author of the piece in "business week" looking at the influence of hedge funds in washington. you can find it at businessweek.com and you can

find him on twitter. thank you for joining us today. coming up, the president of the national alliance for caregiving will be here. grace whiting will discuss a new law directly affecting 44 million caregivers in the united states. we will be right back. >> we are live with all the coverage of the symposium of historians exploring the bible and the founding of america. speakers include the baylor , american professor university public affairs

professor and author of "reading the bible with the founding fathers," and the vanderbilt university divinity professor, author of "the bible and the american revolution." watch live this morning starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. -- cspan3. c-span's history series "landmark cases" returns this month with a look at 12 new supreme court cases. historians and experts join us to discuss the constitutional issues and personal stories behind the significant supreme court decisions. help you follow all 12 cases, .e have a companion guide the book costs eight dollars 95 -- a dollars $.95 plus shipping

and handling -- $8.95 plus shipping and handling. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is grace whiting. she the president and c.e.o. of the national alliance for caregiving. she is here to discuss the raise family caregivers act which was recently signed by president what it means for the approximately 44 million caregivers in the united states. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. i am happy to be here. explain for our audience exactly what is the national alliance for caregiving and how you are funded. guest: we are a national

nonprofit organization. we are a coalition of 60 different companies. we have federal agencies, not for profits, and public corporations. we research innovation and advocacy across the lifespan. we are funded from government grants as well as corporate grants and contracts. host: who qualifies as a caregiver? guest: when we say caregiver, we mean unpaid family caregiver. think of somebody carrying for somebody with dementia or caring for their spouse with cancer or their child with a rare disease. the family care act specifically notes they are chained for someone they have a specific relationship with that could also include friends. host: 44 million in the united states. talk a little bit about the raise family caregivers act and exactly what they do for these 44 million folks that is

different from what happened before. guest: 44 million, that is across the lifespan. think people with disabilities as well as older adults. the rays act creates a national strategy for caregiving. this is something we have seen in other nations where the country has said this is a major issue for society, let's come up with a solution. the act does that by creating an up with council to come solutions for caregivers and examine what is already available. host: we are joined by grace whiting, president and c.e.o. of the national alliance for caregiving. she is here to talk about the raise family caregivers act and what it means for the 44 million caregivers it impacts very we have special lines for this conversation.

if you are a caregiver yourself, you can call this number. all others can call this number. needt to talk about the being addressed. i will read a little bit from "next avenue." host: the study examines the challenges of family caregivers

needed for the future. there are two things it talks about. one is the impact of the caregivers and the stress they endure, and also dwindling numbers of the population continues to shift. guest: on the impact question, when you look at the language of the bill, it looking at different sectors of caregiving. sometimes we think of it as just a family issue, but caregiving impacts the workplace. you might need accommodation to provide care. with certain conditions, your health can get worse if you are caring for someone. it also impacts social relationships. i think this act will pull in great minds from different sectors to identify how to tackle that. to your second question, you are right. we have a workforce issue. get to by the time we midcentury, a quarter of the

population will be over 60. we have to think about technology and other innovative approaches. i think the raise family caregivers act will look at some of those types of solutions. we have a caregiver calling in from port arthur, texas. go ahead. you are on with grace whiting. caller: i was curious. looks at c-span every day, so we really appreciate the programming. my mom had as -- stroke about three years ago. we do have a caregiver that we have hired. however, she only works a certain amount of hours a day. dadr that, my 83-year-old does a lot of the caregiving as well. i am curious to see exactly what how it canm does and

provide help or assistance. guest: i think what you're highlighting is when you think aret family caregiving, you helping out. you may have someone who is paid who is helping out as well as other people who are unpaid, friends, family, volunteers, centers of faith. this bill is a first step. it says as a country we recognize there are 44 million people part of this workforce and that they need support. they cannot provide all the care by themselves all the time. i think we should think of it that way. together andcome send is important to recognize caregivers and look for bipartisan solutions that can help people across the country. host: elise is also a caregiver calling in from rancho mirage, california. good morning.

caller: thank you for the subject this morning. very interesting. my husband has parkinson's disease. as it is progressing, some dementia is starting to kick in. in, the dementia kicked medication his doctors were giving him were making him very lethargic, drooling, falling asleep in his wheelchair. and it was very disturbing. i am his caregiver. i am 26 years younger than he is, so i have the energy. but what i found is if i put some cannabis in his food, it stopped his drooling. it stopped his shaking. it stopped his downfall. homessee that some of the -- we have a lot of progressive,

liberal people in california. what these homes are doing now is giving the patients the cannabis in small doses instead of having 15 people sitting around in wheelchairs passed out because dementia is a very difficult thing to deal with because your spouse or loved one has changed. they get a little crazy, one might say. this calls you down. i know there are homes in southern california giving the cannabis to the elderly people that are either going into dementia or in it full-time. i have found it to be just the most fascinating medicine. and it is not even medicine, it is an herb. guest: she is figuring out what works best for her family. ist: what kind of training

available for caregivers so they can better learn how to care for their family members and loved ones? things the of the advisory body created by this act will look at? guest: i think it is. she raises a critical issue. dementia caregiving is not easy. are not easyitions to manage. there is some training available. there is evidence-based training from a couple of different universities that deal with the discrete parts of caregiving, particularly the mentor caregiving or self-care. in terms of a widely available training source, that is something i think this advisory committee can do, identify how to help caregivers manage medications. six out of 10 caregivers are doing nursing care without prior preparation. nobody has shown them how to do

nursing tasks. recognizechance to the need training to be part of the health care team. host: rene is calling in from tyler, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling for two different reasons. i have a father-in-law who is 94. in onelso deaf and blind eye and can barely see in the other. my sister-in-law is the caregiver and my husband helps. my sister-in-law lives in the house with him. very depressing, she's very depressed a lot of the time. there is not -- i am sick, so my husband cannot go like he should like every other day to help her. , we are in my case

texas. the government is dictating what the doctors can give you for pain. i have been on oxycodone for years now. i am 66. andd a horrible accident meningitis got in my brain in my 30's. i refused to take heavy medication then because i knew there would be a time i really would need it. that time came about four years ago. now they are taking it away from me and they are not offering an attorney to -- an alternative. , if this getsor bad enough, i will be going to hospice. he said you are the 20th person who told me that today. he said my greatest fear is we are going to see a boatload of

suicides. i said i was only teasing about going, but you know, you hurt so bad you cannot stand it. host: i want to give grace a chance to address this issue. guest: it is a really serious question. i appreciate you sharing that. i thank you are highlighting that caregiving can be a really difficult job. it is an unpaid job but a difficult job. sometimes when you're caring for someone, you have your own health care needs. it is important to find a way to take care of yourself. from the 30,000 foot level, we are saying the government needs to recognize people are hurting, they need support, they need training. the act talks about different areas to look at providing support to caregivers. things like the workplace, their own health, and particularly models of care.

patient-centered care and family-centered care. how do we make health care not just about the individual receiving care but the family and friends surrounding that individual? host: this act requires a national strategy to be created. it creates this advisory body. what would you like to see this advisory body do? do you think there needs to be more regulation, increased funding? what recommendations and action would you like to see out of this? guest: i think the first is coming to consensus on the need and solutions for that. when we looked at the data, we looked at the spectrum of caregiving and we found there are about 1/3 of people giving 60 hours a week to provide care. i would say the government ought to start their. we already have a couple of programs for caregivers. there is one called the national family caregivers support program that serves about 700,000 americans, mostly caregivers of older adults and

adults with disabilities. the v.a. has a great program for veterans. both programs are small. i would encourage the government to think about expanding existing programs that are working and what the private sector can do. that is the other piece of this. this is a national plan, not a federal plan. what is the private sector role in helping us care for each other? host: stacy is also a caregiver in mclean, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, america. great topic. you pretty much stole my thunder when you were talking about reintegrating caregivers into the workforce and training them and teaming up with fortune 500 companies so these people can get back into the workforce. my mother is 86 years old. butis not on any medication

what the doctor prescribes her that is necessary. died from a 30-day sample of abilify, so i've seen the side effects and how deadly they are. a lot of the side effects from the drugs can mimic parkinson's, alzheimer's, or schizophrenia even because they are antipsychotic drugs. deadly medications. i am glad one of the callers touched on that. i am a young widow, unfortunately. but my fiancé blessed me with the ability to be able to work for myself and rent out my properties while i take care of my mother. but at the same time, i want to get back into the workforce. i do a little freelance work here and there, but i would like to integrate, but i would also like to go to school. technology, everything is changing. my phone changes every six months.

for those caregivers who want to get back into the workforce, there has to be an opening for the people who want to work, who want to get back into the workforce but have a gap in their resume which makes it difficult for them to jump into the workforce. host: i want to give grace a chance to respond to that. guest: we know that work brings us dignity and satisfaction. we find meaning in work. there is research that shows it extends your longevity. it gets you excited and engaged. i think for caregivers trying to reenter the workforce, you should be encouraged that companies are thinking about this issue. there is a coalition called the respect the caregivers time coalition. it is made up of major employers thinking about how to build caregiver-friendly work places and recognizing we need to retain workers who are caregiving.

i think part of that is approaching businesses that have begun to recognize that it cannot be all work, all the time. we are people doing work and family. in the workplace has to reflect that we value people who have spent that time caring for a family member and the skills are transferable to other things you might want to do. what i read earlier talks also in addition to the influence on the family and the changing demographic, the barriers caregivers face. family caregivers must interact with a wide range of providers and navigate a variety of systems. host: how might the recommendations or actions coming out of the advisory

committee address this systemic issue? you are trying to do that in addition to going to school or having a career on top of that. specific terms of this advisory council, it is hard to say because they are still at the beginning of thinking about what patient and family have considered care really means. in general, the industry is thinking about that. it is one thing to say we are caregiver friendly. there has been movement in the states with the caregiver act which requires hospitals to training forarge the person the hospital. willully, this committee dig into the issue and come up with solutions that work for

federal providers of care as well as state and local communities and other corporate providers of care, whether it is a health insurance company or health system, things like that. host: liz is calling in from mount laurel, new jersey. good morning. caller: i have been a caregiver for both parents combined for about 10 years of my life. i think we need to have a game plan other than when the person becomes aged and can no longer care for all their needs that we , many people end up putting them in a nursing home because providing some care in the home is not covered by medicare. most people do not have insurance for long-term care. is very time-consuming.

a lot of callers are talking about high-tech. home care for most of my parents, it is really low-tech. i would say you have to have a pretty good i.q. to manage all of their needs, to get all of the supplies in the house, to contact all the doctors your patient is seeing, to make sure they are eating right. and there are daily small problems, everything from not being able to eat to not being able to go to the bathroom, every day of caregiving. there will be issues. adjusting thently treatment plan, contacting people for advice. i think the main thing people need is money to be able to keep your loved one at home.

it will be cheaper than what they are paying for nursing homes in the long run, but we never look at things quite that way in this country. grace, is financial assistance a possible outcome from this? guest: i think it is a possible outcome. good point about this most recent comment is we do not have a long-term care system in the united states. a lot of people do not realize it until they need a long-term care system, that there is not one in place. part of this is thinking about if we are going to move to models of care that her home and community-based, we are asking the people that live in that home or community to help care for that person because we do not have a formal system of care. ise act is the next logical step. it is picking that up and also picking up recommendations from

the report you mentioned. in terms of a specific financial stipend, that is something the committee would need to work out. it is difficult to measure the impact of how much we are saving to keep someone out of a nursing home or hospital. we have a caregiver calling from norman, oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. caregiver when my mother was ill. she had a stroke, and i had to take care of her when she came home on hospice. now, she is gone. i am reaching a stage where i am needing care myself. i am thinking it is going to be

years before i go into a nursing home. and i am receiving some help now. but what is going to happen when i need even more care because i do not have family left? what is going to be out there for people such as me? guest: i think that is a great question. who cares for the caregivers? i think that is what is so encouraging about this will that just passed. it is saying we recognize across the aisle that this is an issue we need to take care of, we need to find a way to care for the caregivers. especially as america gets older and family sizes are getting smaller, more people are confronting this. in the national strategy is a lot of communities are thinking about creative ways to tackle this problem. you see older adults that might move in together to help care for each other as well as

community-based programs that are intergenerational. for example, a young person who needs a place to stay while they are going to college lives with an older person who needs help with basic activities around the house. as a society, part of this is being more creative about caregiving. it means we care for each other even if we are not related by marriage or blood. we are all in it together and we are caring together. host: we have a few minutes left. i want to get to more calls. i also want to read you one tweet that has a different approach from some of the calls. host: how would you respond to that? guest: there is nothing more intimate than caring for someone. this is a family, a friend, a personal issue. we are not saying government, please come into my living room

and cook me dinner. i think we are saying we have to recognize it is a family issue that has a huge cost in the aggregate that has a huge impact. we are talking about 44 million people in the united states. we are talking about an economic value of $470 billion. even if caregivers are providing care without charge, it is not sense thatt in the there is a cost to the economy, a cost on their health, a cost to productivity in the workforce. we have to address that as america gets older and as more people become caregivers. host: john is calling from tampa, florida. just a couple of minutes left. go ahead. caller: my wife and i are retired medical professionals. we oversaw the care of many relatives hospitalized and were appalled by the high-frequency of huge screwup's in the which were a threat

and that we had to have the doctors change when they deviated from the standard of care they learned in medical school. there needs to be a network throughout the country to be advocates for the typical that cannot protect themselves and would be unaware of these screwups. guest: caregivers are advocates for loved ones. even when they are not trained in a particular condition, they know the person they are caring for. the strategy is looking at how we empower caregivers to be that are advocates and how we provide support for them for improved care over all. host: we have a caregiver calling from michigan. caller: my goodness. you have my name in your computers. i am a caregiver for my mother. she is 96. she will be 97 on may 17 of this year.

it has been an exceptionally difficult 17 years for me staying here with my mother. in the beginning, i was here just basically taking care of maintenance around the house. a gore,s ago, she had event in one of her eyes -- glaucoma event in one of her eyes. from that point, i have been 100% taking care of her. treating her, washing clothes, taking care of all of her doctors appointments. i have five siblings. three of them have turned against me and accused me of horrendous things. who was notother, really a brother most of my life, but he has seen what the other three have tried to do to me and putting mom into a nursing home which is something she is terrified of. and i don't blame her. i would not want it either.

guest: what you are raising is really challenging. when we say we are going to care for someone, sometimes to death do we part, that is a really intensive, challenging experience. experience and i appreciate you sharing that. when we look at the research, we know that caregivers become isolated. where a agency on aging and a disease specific group like the american cancer society, those type of groups can be very helpful. grace whiting, president and ceo of the national alliance for caregiving. you can find grace on twitter. thank you so much for joining us today. guest: it has been an honor. host: tomorrow, will be joined by the heritage foundation to

discuss the trump administration's economic policy. rampell will be here to discuss the u.s. economic outlook. arzad will be here to discuss the volatility of u.s. markets this week. have a great saturday. ♪ announcer: coming up next, the annual national prayer breakfast in washington, d.c. deputy followed by homeland secretary elaine duke and other officials discug