author talks about immigration with his book, "go back to where you came from." watch our live coverage of the 10th annual tucson festival of books on c-span two's c-span,today on washington journal is next. at noon, the heritage foundation looks at the proposed tariffs on .teel and aluminum and 3:00 p.m., a group of young chicago residents discussed gun violence in their community at an event hosted by the brookings institution. the authorn an hour, of "gatekeepers," his look at whitele and impact of house chief of staff in the modern era. vaughan jessica

discusses the justice department suing california over immigration law. and then at 9:30, patrick tucker on russian interference in u.s. elections. [laughter] ♪ -- good morning everyone, it is friday, march 9. welcome to the washington journal. we will begin with your thoughts on this week in washington. the president signed proclamations yesterday to raise tariffs of steel and aluminum imports, and later in the day accepted a request for talks with the north korean leader. meanwhile, he continued his listening sessions at the white house. while congress and the president to do about guns,

florida moves to prevent mass shootings like the one we saw in parkland. what are your thoughts on the debate and action taking place in washington this week? (202) 748-8000.guest: republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also join the conversation on @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. start dialing in, we want to get your thoughts on what is going on in washington, whether it is tariffs, a meeting with the north korean leader, or other issues. here's what the president had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> we are finally taking action to correct this long overdue problem, it is a travesty. today, i'm defending america's national security by placing tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminum.

we will have a 25% tariff on foreign steel and a 10% tariff on foreign aluminum. when the product comes across our borders, it is a process called dumping, and they dumped more than at any time, on any ,ation, anywhere in the world and it drove our plans out of business, it drove our factories out of business, and we want to see a lot of still coming into our country, but we want it to be fair -- steel coming into our country, but we wanted to be fair and our workers to be protected, and our humvees to be protected. we will not place any new tax on product made in the usa -- our companies to be protected. we will not place any new tax on products made in the usa. if you want to pay no tax, bring your company to the usa.

host: the wall street journal front page -- new tariffs on scare top u.s. allies. as president trump ratcheted up rhetorical pressure on china, the u.s. largest trading partner, he and veiled metal industry trading protections that were considerably softer than opponents had feared a week ago. the president has said initially that no countries would be exempt from the 10% aluminum tariff for the 25% steel tariff, but on thursday, he suggested that a number of countries could ultimately be spared. this follows complaints from allies, u.s. businesses, members of congress and his own republican party, and members of his own administration. president trump made clear that he is determined to balance -- continue his campaign promise of rebalancing what he says is a

global trading system that does not serve the u.s. well. china and 2016, nearly 50%. followed by japan, india, then the united states. russia, south korea, germany, turkey, and brazil. the sheriff u.s. steel imports steel -- share of u.s. imports, 60%, followed by canada, mexico, germany, taiwan, india. what are your thoughts on this week in washington? what we heard from the president. roger in virginia, democrat. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm from hurley. miner.disabled coal i think this is just another ruse to change the subject from russia and and the interference

-- and the interference in our election. the polls were not wrong in 2016. another thing i have is when is somebody going to ask donald trump when is he going to bring his businesses back from china and help them create manufacturing in this country? host: zach in providence, rhode island, a republican. good morning. caller: hi, good morning to you. brethren,my german ok? ok, thank you. the reason why i am calling -- i know this is kind of funny that -- ok, we are talking about the tariffs so far and we have not talked much about north korea. this is a very interesting development, because we have had problems with that country since

and -- 's, i'm sorry, are you saying something? host: and we are talking about that this morning. caller: the point i wanted to make is if he sticks to the denuclearization, which i believe he will, they are going to have to come up with a decision. secondly, i believe they are doing this because i saw on a program yesterday they are low on funds, north korea. .he sanctions are working but the thing about trump's i have never seen a man that age with that kind of physical stamina [inaudible] to keep working, working, working working. i think he gets that from his father. that is how german people go, we work hard. zach, you said it looks like the sanctions are working against north korea.

later on today, c-span is covering a discussion here in washington on sanctions and how the u.s. uses them with experts who have been doing this for many years, in and out of different administration's, talking about how u.s. economic sanctions are working. had to our website, , if you andrg others are interested in this tool. atlanta, georgia, independent. iller: there are two issues want to talk about quickly. the first issue one man wanted to bring up about germany. -- whyyou do a show on don't you do a show on trump's ancestry, like you did on obama and going back to kenya? germany,y was not from east germany, which is also connected to russia. that is why trump loves russia so much and putin.

and kim jong-un has realized trump is a fool, he is ignorant, he knows nothing about what he is doing, he is weak. he is trying to get the topic off of russia. putin asked this man -- why would he not say anything about putin and russia, he will not protect our country and needs to be impeached. kim jong-un has realized that ignorant,mp is unintelligent, and a white supremacist president. do a show on his ancestry and the ku klux klan. host: let's begin with the tweet on's possible talks in north korea. "for the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned. the world is watching and waiting. the u.s.se hope, but

is ready to go hard in either direction." then you had yesterday in africa, the secretary of state rex tillerson, who talked to the president yesterday. he is on a tour of that co ntinent. when asked about the possible talks, here is what the secretary of state had to say. [video clip] >> potentially positive signals about from north korea korean dialogue with south korea. we maintain very, very close communication with president moon of the republic of korea. they are keeping us well informed of their meetings, and the content of those meetings and the nature of those meetings. we are providing this information as well. in terms of direct talks with the united states and the u.s. negotiations, we are a long way m negotiations, if you want to be realistic about it.

the first step -- and i have said this before -- is to have talks, some kind of talks about talks. i do not know yet until we are , witho meet ourselves representatives of north korea, whether the conditions are right to even begin thinking about negotiations. host: secretary of state making those comments yesterday in africa, saying we are a long way off. there need to be talks about talks. and the president finds out that a south korean official is at the white house, he asks to speak to him, and a south korean official, the national security director then makes the announcement to reporters last night at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. [video clip] >> president trump said in our meeting, the north korean leader kim jong-un said he is committed

to denuclearization. kim pledged that north korea will refrain from any more nuclear missile test. he understands that the joint military exercises are between the republic of korea and the united states, and must continue. a desireen expressed to me president trump as soon as possible. president trump officiated the meeting and said he would meet to discuss by may denuclearization. the republic of korea with the united states, japan, and our many partners around the world remain fully and resolutely committed to the complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula.

along with president trump, we are optimistic about committing a diplomatic solution and a peaceful resolution. the republic of korea, the united states, and our partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of pressure willthe continue until this is met with concrete actions. host: a picture of the new york post, donald does it again. surprise talks with north korea. then tweeted out that kim jong-un talked about denuclearization, but the south korean representative, not just a freeze. also known as of the thing -- also noperiod missile testing my north korea during this period of time.

this could happen as early as may. we are talking about the president's decision to meet with the north korean leader, and other issues on the table. paul in appleton, wisconsin, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i think donald is probably probably scared that we are to talks. but i will tell you what -- if i was his chief of staff, he would have an 80% approval rating right now. i would have smashed his twitter him, kept him behind the scenes, pop up month-to-month here and there. he is overexposed. that is why people hate him. tweeting -- heop would stop tweeting and stick his head out once a month here and there, vb anonymous

president, he would have an 80% approval rating right now. we are going to talk about the role of the chief of staff coming up on the washington journal. the author of the book " is going to be our guest, and we will ask him about taking away the president's phone, because he sat down with reince priebus, the president's first chief of staff, four months after reince priebus resigned from that post. we will talk to chris whipple about his interview with mr. riebusus and how -- mr. p and how mr. kelly is doing. mara, a republican. this week in washington -- go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm calling to endorse president trump's tariff on steel and aluminum, long-overdue. they are going to work. we have a surging economy. this sends a message to foreign

exporters of steel and aluminum that you cannot dump your product in our country anymore. that revives our steel industry and we will make the best deal in the world. it will be used to build the wall. in 10 years from now, mexico for the to take credit host: wall. god bless donald trump. -- the wall. god bless donald trump. yes. he promised to defend the working men and women of this country. he will help us -- god bless him. host: what if this were to spark a trade war, and workers in the united states were to get hit? you would have to pay more for products. that is what republicans who disagree with the president argue could happen. caller: we are already in a trade war and we are losing it. we are getting crummy products shipped to us from mexico and canada and china, and we have stuck those products in places

like walmart and target, and now we will make our own. they will be better products and we will be paying comparable prices for them and taking home the paychecks. god bless donald trump. let's take a look at marketwatch. they put this graphic together. here are the states most .mpacted by steel tariffs it says some 6 million jobs are at risk to protect 139,000 positions. who has the biggest share of steel and aluminum imports -- number one, missouri, number two, louisiana, followed by connecticut, maryland, arkansas, iowa, west virginia, alabama, ohio, and north dakota. those are the states with the biggest share of steel-aluminum imports. steve, independent. hello. caller: hi, i have two quick comments. one is on the tariffs.

i am not a tariff person, per e, but living in st. louis and my wife, her whole family, going back generations were steelworkers at granite city steel, just across the river. if you would have seen, for those people who are not affected by this, who have not had family members laid off, people lose their homes, little children, it has been devastating. they employ 2200 people. they went down to 100. they are starting to hire people back on the belief and the hope that this terrible help. -- tariff will help. i'm looking at the families of the people. is huge.o, this remember, north korea came to us. eg to get withb

north korea. the man is a leader. unorthodox, aim buffoon, whatever you want, but whatever he has done, he has brought north korea to the table. hopefully something will happen, i do not have any high hopes on it, but they are playing into trump's hands. it is called the art of the deal. thank you. here is the president's proclamation on steel and aluminum tariffs, it got a response from china yesterday. here is a bit of chinese tv's broadcast and reaction to the president's move. [video clip] >> china is the world's biggest steelmaker and has been seen largely as the target of these tariffs, even though chinese steel accounts for but a fraction of u.s. imports. on thursday, beijing warned it would make a justified and necessary response.

as the world's two largest economies, china's in america's deeply interwoven. we hope both sides can sit down calmly and find a solution through equal and constructive dialogue. on the chinesen broadcast. in the washington post, this front-page story says that republicanled by senator jeff flake, will be moving a bill to negate the president's move. trade partners planned retaliation on the president's decision to raise tariffs on aluminum and steel. that is part of our conversation this morning, as well as the president's moves on to north other domestic issues being debated in washington. out that the -- agatha, new york, democrat. caller: good morning. i want to say one thing first about the teachers. i do not know if they are going to do that about teachers

getting guns to go to school and teach the kids. if they give the teachers guns to go in school with them, why don't you give them to the mothers that take care of those kids? the teachers take care of our children eight hours a day. .he mothers go to work when they come home, the kids go to sleep, they do their homework, you do not see them until the end of the week. so i don't want the teachers to get guns in school. put security, like that boy just walked in the school. who was there to protect the kids? nobody. they know about these things. anyway, i want to say about the america -- the 2% gets from china when they bring things to america. the chinese charge 25%.

that is wrong. trump, i agree with him. think you arei referring to the steel exports in the united states and china, making up 2% of that. the biggest steel exporters to the united states are canada, south korea, and mexico. the headline in the washington if trumps morning, tariffs get, mexico and canada tied to negotiate. he brushed aside objections in his own party, sparing canada and mexico temporarily while the u.s. pushes for a more favorable free-trade deal all they are negotiating nafta. stephen in texas, a republican. good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning. trumpst appreciative of putting america first. since world war ii, we have been

giving the rest of the world to rebuild it and allow others eventually to take advantage of us. now he is trying to write the field and right -- right the field and right the ship, but my concern is we have a lot of people in this country who do not understand and do not remember how the united states being strong bailed this world out in world war ii and has been doing it ever since. are too many, essentially, ignorant people in this country, and my concern is we will end up with another obama eventually and people like that will end up destroying this country. if tariffs are a good thing china and other countries want to dump on this country, that is not right. host: but we only import 2% of steel from china. you have to, but

start someplace and make a stand someplace, and we cannot go to china and other countries when a war starts and say we need steel, your steel to build our airplanes and our ships and submarines and infrastructure. we need to be doing that ourselves with a solid fundamental steel industry, and we have lost that and we cannot take care of ourselves without the fundamental industry needed to support both our military and our commercial environment, whether it be bridges, airplanes,cars, aircraft carriers, etc., etc. andave to right the ship understand that close to 100 million people lost their lives through world war ii and world war i, and we can't let the world dictate the circumstances

that drive us into another war. we have to have peace through strength and bring the world along with us. we have to have the confidence to understand that we are doing the right thing and that trump is doing the right thing. host: so steven, the wall street journal editorial board disagrees. donald trump's decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs and the resignation of chief economic advisor gary cohn this week marked a dangerous moment in this presidency. is this when his administration that has pursued surprisingly sensible economic policies veered into the herbert hoover ditch? ronald reagan also agreed to targeted restraints on imports of cars and other goods, but when congress considered more , therous trait resections giver issued a warning. some of us are member the 1930's, when the most destructive trade bill in

history, the smooth-holly -hawley fact -- smoot tariff act, health plan the nation and the world into a decade of oppression and despair. there islittle -- little dispute that this made the downturn worse. were 5.9rts, which billion in 1929, fell to $2.1 billion over the next three years. deflation took hold. the economic historian charles kindleberger judged that the group cause with a lack of global leader to repel narrow economic nationalism. ed in winchester, virginia, independent. the morning to you. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i am calling -- it has been three weeks since the latest massacre in this country in a the school, and once again enthusiasm for doing something

about combat style weapons has waned. our president, donald j. trump, had his listening session with the members of the house and the senate, and they danced around the office and came up with a lot of what would have been good ideas. donald trump performed exactly the way winlock year ordered him rre ordered lapie him to. i'm opposed to the ar-15. i think it is a weapon that needs to be taken out of our civilian population. unfortunately, our week, spineless men that are in the spineless men that are in the capital refused to do anything about this type of weapon or any kind of combat weapon our civilian population carries. this needs to happen before another occurs, because now we are just holding our breaths for the next one.

i'm still waiting to see donald trump -- and maybe i missed it -- put out a ban on bump stocks. "i'mieve his words were going to write that up myself." host: and attorney general jeff sessions said the announcement is coming soon on that as well. caller: this is what puzzles me. if we know this device can turn any ar into an automatic weapon and can bring held to a convert concert like stephen paddock did, why do we have to keep dancing around this? attorney general, obama, everybody blames somebody else. just ban this and stop production of it? you can still buy this device online. that does not make sense. again -- i will stand by this -- we have weak politicians. they are afraid, shaking in their boots afraid of wayne lapierre.

he is the enemy of this country. host: i just wanted to share the front page of the washington times to you, because you are echoing a story that is there. states rushed past congress to take action on guns. multiple bipartisan bills sit idle on capitol hill. house leaders have scheduled a conduct riskk to and safety assessments in schools, but it falls short of what many americans had demanded. some states like oregon and --rida have a college these a rarity for the nra -- to feed. thanks to parkland's kids, florida lawmakers have, for once, stopped kowtowing to the gun rights group. less than a month after the february 14 massacre at florida high school, florida onmakers approved a measure

gun control for the first time in 20 years. it would close loopholes allowing gun purchases without completing background checks, and establishing a red flag process to remove guns from those seen as a danger. the bill was sent to governor rick scott, but he has not indicated whether he will sign the measure. as he gears up to challenge senator bill nelson, mr. scott is feeling the same pressure that was brought to bear on the legislature. senator marco rubio and bill nelson,- senator bill held a news conference wednesday to talk about a resolution, where they want to encourage states to have gun violence restraining orders. if someone feels someone is a threat, they can get law enforcement to ban them from purchasing guns or take their guns away. at this news conference, mr. rubio was asked why states are moving and congress is not. [video clip] you watch c-span, you will

know. it is the nature of the place, number one, and we do not move as fast as the florida legislature can do. congress, with 500 something members, represents a diverse country. as a result, there are people in different parts of the country who have different views on these issues. some are very strong in one direction, others are strong in the other. those often play out in our own conferences at times. everyone in the florida legislature represents florida or part of florida. there are only two of us to represent florida in the u.s. senate and the house, the numbers are a little different. and the processes are different. rules, everything takes longer, you will see the house move on school violence acts, which has a lot of the same components to the federal equivalent of what the states are doing, but not all parts of it. the federal processes are designed differently. that is the best answer i can give you. it moves a lot slower than a 60 day session in the florida legislature.

host: senator marco rubio this week, talking about how slowly the senate moves and the process, different structures set up in washington versus other states. a dozen or more other states have moved on gun policy. the president yesterday holding a listening session at the white house with videogame executives and gop legislators. one person in the meeting said it was a lively discussion, held talks with gop executives and videogame industry executives. an announcement on that could be coming soon as well. historicy, tariffs, a meeting -- possibly -- with the leader of north korea are all on the table this morning as we talk about this week in washington. let's hear from david, new york, a democrat. go ahead.

caller: yes, good morning. mym calling to express exhilaration's of the possible prospect of talk with north korea, which if, genuinely ed, -- which is ultimately pursued -- which is genuinely pursuit could lead to reunification of korea. as would also lead to democracy, stability, economic redevelopment and prosperity that has been developed for years in the south korean part of the peninsula. we have to make sure that the guarantor is china, backed up by russia to ensure that afford to go forward that it is everlasting. this will save us a tremendous amount of capital and financial consideration that we have put in that peninsula.

a caller talked about the last why just war -- righteous war good the u.s. provided leadership, that was the second world war. if we have gotten involved in any wars of adventure, it has lead to loss of human lives as well as billions and billions of dollars on our end, such as the past 20 years in the middle east. after korea, that would be another model of critical engagement and really integrating them back into the region. it is the will and resolve of the 80 million iranians that would ultimately really be the most major factor on the table to finally achieve their sovereignty, dignified status in the family of the nations, and economic progress and freedom and democracy that they deserve. host: david, why do you think

north korea now would be willing to talk to the u.s. president, or why do you think president trump should sit down with the north korean leader? this is something no sitting u.s. president has agreed to do. multitude of are a reasons. first and foremost, even as a democrat, i cannot help but say that the outlandish and somewhat family eccentric -- flamboyantly eccentric stature of president trump plays a decisive role here. perhaps increasingly, in reality, the most effective capitalist in the whole world, and that has resulted in not necessarily providing the same level of political and economic might they provided to north korea as a proxy on their southern border. so that has faded away. north korea has a lot of internal social economic and political issues --

politicalmic and issues that they could capitalize on for some time, but not any longer. no matter how much they try to keep that cozily isolated in the north korean flotilla -- completely isolated in the north korean peninsula, everyone knows how prosperous the south koreans are. on our end, protectionism and isolationism is not the way to go. critical engagement, using our technological, political, educational might is really the model we have to propagate and use as a pretext of driving our diplomacy. host: i will leave it there. here is the latest from the secretary of state, rex tillerson, who is visiting countries in africa this week. nbc news tweeted out "we have been saying for some time that we are open for talks." here is what the secretary of state had to say. [video clip] talks with north korea versus

negotiations -- this is something i think people continue to struggle with the difference. we have been saying for some time that we are hoping to talk. president trump has said that for some time that he was hoping to talk, and will be willingly meeting with kim jong-un, if conditions were right, and i think in the president's judgment, that time is right now. we know there have been a lot of discussions, and you have been reading it as well. contactalso been having back and forth with them, as you are all aware, for some time. this is the most forward leaning report we have had in terms of 's not just willingness, but desire for

talks. what changed was his posture and a very genetic way that in all honesty was it -- very dramatic way that in all honesty came as a bit of a surprise to us as well. a long history is what the wall street journal describes this morning. april 1994, former president jimmy carter visits north korea, meets the leader during nuclear of 1994,, and october the u.s. and north korea reach a deal for pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors. in 2000, north korea vice marshal visited the united states and issued a joint communique to improve relations. october of 2000, madeleine albright visits pyongyang and meets with kim jong-il, kim jong-un's father. august 29, former president bill clinton visits north korea to bring back to detained u.s. journalists.

carter --0, jeremy jimmy carter visits north korea to achieve -- retrieve a detained american. november 2014, director of national intelligence james clapper visits pyongyang to retrieve a detained american man letteriver a from president obama. so president trump would be the first sitting u.s. president to meet with the north korea leader . how this all came about is in the new york times this morning, and they write that mr. trump -- asked if mr. chung, who made the announcement from the driveway of the white house, asked mr. chung to tell him about his meeting with mr. kim. when mr. chung says that the north korean leader had expressed his desire to meet debtmr. trump, the present president immediately said he would do it and directed mr. chung to announce -- to

announce it in the white house press corps. mr. chung said he first needed approval from mr. moon, who granted it in a phone call. then, dazed white house officials were discussing whether mr. trump would invite mr. kim to come to the united dates. that seemed entirely likely, according to senior officials, americanrth korean -- officials doubt the north korean leader would accept that. south korean officials have first been made this by telephone this week, but mr. kim's offer of a leader to meeting accelerated, if not upended the administration's plans. sean in hawaii, independent. we are talking about this week in washington. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. that this meeting is a show, two years

things are stable, china gets both marks -- good marks on both of their countries. [inaudible] worst, nothing will come of it. you will see it exposed, and nothing will come of it. china is sitting back and watching this chess game play out, and their expansionism into the pacific general arena -- which is happening as we speak anyway -- will go on either way. it was his goal values for both countries, nothing else. values were both countries, nothing else. host: george, a republican. hello to you. caller: hi, how is everyone doing? in on theo call economics of the world.

i am looking at how trump is playing fairly. he has trumped racism by increasing employment for black people. in reality, statistics shows today, that you are only making half as much money today as white people if you are black. we are expected to keep up. i do not see anything changing, and [inaudible] structures stay the same. to my friends, they are talking about upward mobility, progress, making half as much money, we can't even afford to replace anything that is broken. we have to go to the government

for subsidized housing, subsidize everything just to keep up. and health care is totally out of the picture, so i do not see anything that is positive in any of his economic changes that he is making. host: ok, all right. pat in jacksonville, florida, independent. what do you think? good morning. couple of things. first of all, i agree with some of the people when you talk about the president of the .weets -- president's tweets he did not have to put any tariffs on any steel. all he needed to do was talk to the people who owned the steel plants, get that together. it is based on demand. you would not have to buy anything from anybody if we did what we needed to do. a few years ago, i was in canada for a conference. in their newspaper, they were expecting for the united is to actually have infrastructure built in. they make the mammals --

manholes for our country. why are we not making the manholes for our country? secondly, we buy too much stuff including myself. i buy dresses that are made in the united states so i do not closet full of china dresses or dresses made by people like his daughter. and about korea -- we need to stay out of it. i think the south koreans and north koreans need to make their own pact. go, ilet the sanctions think the people there will eventually rise up against north fact iand as a matter of think the hardship they would eventually feel will make them go up against their leader. i think he needs to stop bullying people and stop

that thecrazy stuff world actually sees. firstthis week was the primary of the 2018 midterm elections. next week there will be a special election for pennsylvania's 18th district. the new york times has a front-page story -- gop opens .allet to hold a fading seat never has so much money been spent so quickly on a political race with so little meeting than on the house special election here. two republicans, the republic -- to republicans, the public relations debacle that would come with a loss this tuesday is a price they cannot bear. nevermind that this southwest pennsylvania seat, which envelopes suburban pittsburgh and hugs the west virginia border -- will most likely cease to exist by the november election or that the man occupying it will be shopping for new constituents.

vice president mike pence has played a visit, and the democrats are playing as well. on tuesday, former vice president joe biden without a union carpenter's training center gladhanding supporters of conor lamb. mr. lamb, a marine veteran and former federal prosecutor, if he defeats his opponent in a district that the present carried by 20 points, alarm bells will be audible across the country. the democrats will have shown that they can reach the republican hold on the white voters who helped deliver mr. trump to the presidency. on the price tag for this race so far, mr. lamb has raised $4 million, much of it online from out-of-state progressives. campaign hass largely been underwritten by outside groups, while republican $9.7nce groups spent million as of late february,

democratic groups had put in only $849,000. this is what the vice president had to say to voters in this district -- saturday, 10:00 p.m. eastern time. followed by that, the president will be, as the new york times reports, in the area as well, campaigning for the republican. you can watch that at 10:40 p.m. eastern time, this saturday on c-span, www.c-span.org, or you can listen with the free c-span radio app. back to our conversation about this week in washington. david, in texas. republican. caller: i would like to correct the perception of the 2.5% you talked about in china steel. that is a correct number for the amount we directly import, but the only question trump took yesterday when he stuck his head in to talk about an announcement from south korea was somebody yelling about transshipment. we get a lot more chinese deal that due -- steel than

to transshipment. they create more skilled in the world needs and causes the world market to be at a much lower -- steel than the world needs and causes the world market to be at a much lower price, which is why we cannot compete, and it is brought into our country from other countries, and a lot of it is probably taken into mexico where they built so many car parts. it was taken to michigan, one of the big issues about that. smooth-holly -- hawley, that was in the 1930's? the world was a completely different place then. we were a third-rate power. as far as military power, we were a fifth rate power. economically, we were in a depression and not controlling any economies. we are 22% of the worlds --sumption at this point world's consumption at this point, by far the strongest

military power, the only global military power, a completely different position of being able to make agreements and cause people to come to our side. since world war ii, we have given it all away. some of you mentioned about wars , world war ii was the last one that made any difference. he did throw some other stuff in about korea. of course, the korean war -- even though we did not "win it," by the time the u.s. stepped in there was only a thumbnail worth of south korea left on the present peninsula -- pusan peninsula. we got our guys from japan, but hundreds of them died because we had inferior weapons because it we dialed back after world war ii, even at that point. it has only been since the korean war since we got our head down at about not going rabbit hole and letting our military power going to nothing again, even though it was headed in that direction lately. and before we get about right, wasorget about kuwait, that

the last victory where we went up against something like that. smoot-hawley. money.raise this is about creating a fair trading environment. the lowest energy cost of any developed country. factories like steel require less labor than they used to take. china makes 12 times the steel that we make. we only have two aluminum smelter's left. it is a military thing as well, and my head is going to explode. thing, a fellow mentioned racism, has to bring the racism in. blacks are going to make less than anybody else because the dropout rate. the out the dropout rate in major cities. i did a study on this years ago. it is mindnumbing. you can't have 60% of a

population dropped out of high school. this is between ninth-grade and 12 great. you cannot have that many kids dropping out of high school. one million to the year dropping out of high school. the white rate is 37%, the black rate, especially in urban areas when i looked at this and all these different cities, 66 percent -- 66%. host: david, i have to leave it there so i can get some other voices. this article is about dean heller, considered one of the most vulnerable republicans up for reelection. the endangered gop senator who thinks justice kennedy could save him. in his audio exclusive to politico, the senator says that if justice kennedy were to resign this summer, that would mobilize the republican base and get voters out and could save him and his reelection bid in nevada. let's go to desmond in fort wayne, indiana. caller: hi greta, thank you.

my comment was that i think what is going on here right now is .ore red meat to the base it is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. already he is starting to backpedal on the tariff issue. i would not be surprised if some kind of delay or postponement with kim jong-un would probably happen next. really, what is going on here is a distraction from the utter and complete chaos, and scandal ridden pennsylvania avenue right now. how many of his top advisers have resigned? how many have been charged with crimes? host: 43%, from the washington post. caller: that is incredible. everybody likes to demonize barack obama on the right, but here we have a clinton moment for a republican president who, quite frankly, it is amazing the

silence from the religious right over this as well. and complete hypocrisy to the highest level, and really what it is is showing of thatowing out particular part of the constituency. it is just showing that people are up for sale and no matter what the facts are, the diehard -er's that back trump no matter what are going to lose very, very big. and i hate to pointed out to them, because i love people, but it will come as a huge shock, like when barack obama got his reelection. they are going to get their comeuppance, and i'm excited to see it because we get the leaders that we deserve in this country, and i understand there are a lot of folks out there that are upset, so they threw a

hand grenade into washington dc. now we are seeing the aftermath of that. thate seeing a presidency is so diametrically opposed on the sanctity of the office -- my goodness. he makes me miss george w. bush, for goodness sakes. and one more comment. host: sure. ofler: the shortsightedness that last caller, talking about the military this and military that. i have plenty of family in the military. the people in this country who talk that way are so in fantasyland. we have had almost 20 years of continuous warfare and deployment. , theolks in the military listed personnel, the backbone, they are being completely ground down. was nota that obama

funding the military or taking care of the military -- it is ludicrous. presidency, we spent billions and billions of dollars on an entire brand -- brand-new aircraft carrier fleet. what is going on with the military, they are not superman. they are incredible people, but they are not comic book heroes. host: desmond, you and others might be interested in the pentagon and how they spend their money, and for the first time ever the pentagon is undergoing an audit. we had a hearing about this this week, where in 2017 they launched their first-ever ever audit to figure out where the money is going. i encourage you and others to go to our website, www.c-span.org, and listen to that hearing. desmond started off with comments about turnover at the white house, u.s. economic residing thisohn

week. 43% of top staffers have left their jobs and the trump white house, and it is probably not going to be over. news, russian officials try to think the romney picks state.retary of they called it than "a two headed snake" and a "globalist spreading conditions to block mr. romney's appointment to top positions of diplomatic jobs. this is according to reviews of now deleted social media posts that were tied to the kremlin. the results of this story -- democrats push were 700 million to guard election -- four $700 million to guard election -- for $700 million to guard elections. they want this amount added for election security added to a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that congress must pass by march 23 to keep the government

open. stateould improve election systems, but that money would not be in the hands of states in time for the 2018 elections, but lawmakers are hoping it could be in place for -- 20200 election election. speaking of that omnibus bill, march 23 is the deadline next week for congress to pass that. washington times had the headline -- house minority theer nancy pelosi, dreamers will not be forced into that spending bill. could sour the debate before the deadline. she said funding for planned parenthood and other issues, any other take negotiation. new york times, president obama is said to be in talks with netflix to produce shows. the former president is an advanced -- in advance negotiations to produce a series of high-profile shows that will

give him a global platform under his departure from the white house. under terms of a proposed deal that is not yet final, netflix would pay mr. obama and his wife for exclusive content that would available on the streaming service, which has nearly 118 million subscribers. president trump will be traveling to california next week. the usa today notes that travel is taking him mostly to his second home. the president is traveling to time thea, the longest president has waited to be the most populous state. that in usa today. also a note from u.s. senator john mccain, teaming up with angelina jolie to write this piece in the new york times op-ed pages. rohingya.ust save the they have a picture of a working zynga --ee -- a boy

who sustainedee burns when her house and myanmar was set ablaze. tom, post falls, idaho, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. a good week for the american people, a rough week for the establishment politicians. sending thedea of message to the rest of the world that you will no longer be able to rip off the american taxpayer with bad trade deals. i do not know that this particular tariff will make that big of a difference, but it definitely sends a message that we are no longer going to allow the american worker to be abused by corporate interests so they can ship jobs overseas where they do not have to worry about the environment and where they can work people 12, 16 hours a day. i am grateful for that. the talks with north korea, i would not put too much open to it. the north koreans, traditionally

stall -- they traditionally stall and they run out of money. they asked for talks, they promise denuclearization, etc. and etc.. a planet trump, take full of cash and bribe people so that he can say he got a deal, just like mr. obama did in iran. if korea actually makes movements, great. i would not put a lot of hope into it. host: let me hear from wrecks, walnut -- rex, walnut cove north carolina -- code, north carolina. caller: i hate all of these school shootings and such, but blaming the nra is plain wrong. the obama promise program, and the folks following the fbi and the police department down there, the sheriff's department and everything, they had 60 some

warnings and the fbi had to warnings -- two warnings, and [inaudible] they imply that there and thought it was good enough to take the you've just got to use a little common sense. they're are talking about these dangerous weapons and stuff. and could've took a shotgun done more damage than what he did with that ar. it's not the guns doing it. it's crazy people. host: switching topics after the short break. we will talk about chiefs of staff with author chris bookle, talking about his "gatekeepers." later on, jessica vaughan joins us to talk about the trump administration's lawsuit against california over its immigration laws. we will be right back. ♪

studentcamyear's competition, we asked students to choose a provision of the u.s. constitution and create a video illustrating why it's important. students competed for the chance to win cash prizes and we received 2985 entries from 46 states. the first prize winner for the high school east category goes montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland for " no trespassing: seeking justice for native women. " the first prize winners of her high school central category are from whitefish bay high school for "wisconsin votes count." the first prize winners for high school west are from capital high school in boise, idaho for "prison reform."

the first prize winner for the middle school east category is inm eastern middle school silver spring, maryland for "survival of the veiled face: the constitutionality of abortion." the special citation for theivity goes to documentary "be true to the constitution." we are happy to announce our grand prize winners from dallas anagrams high school in "grimes grimes, iowa for the documentary "old enough to fight, old enough to vote." >> we received videos for almost 6000 students and we only had one grand prize. [applause] with this year's topic, it

was just such an open-ended question and we really had some time to focus. when i looked online and got the contact information for the person who authored the 26th amendment, i thought we had to do this. we have to get in contact with the person. we sent some emails and start a ed filming and then everything fell into place. >> it was pretty difficult. 26 different amendments that we looked at and evaluated and there's lots of controversy going on right now in the public so we talked about what is affecting us heading into college next year. were6th amendment -- we able to get in contact with some important people in iowa and we got to work as soon as we could. >> the top 22 winning entries will air on c-span and april. and you can watch every studentcam documentary online at

studentcam.org. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. .ost: and we are back to joining us is chris whipple, author of "gatekeepers: how the white house chief of staff defined every presidency." your book is out in paperback with a new chapter talking to the president's first chief of staff, reince priebus, and steve bannon. what did you learn? know, it's been the most dysfunctional white house in modern history, but it turns out it was a wild ride then we even imagined from the outside. when i sat down with reince priebus for the first time, he said off the record and the later i persuaded him to put it he said, "take- everything you heard and multiply it by 50." that will give you an idea of

what it was like during the first six months of the trump white house. the chapter begins with a phone call from president trump to his chief of staff a little after 6:00 a.m. on january 21. trump was livid, furious about the picture of his inauguration compared to obama's in "the washington post," demanding that previous fix it. he thought to himself, do i want to go to war with the president on day one? six months kind of for reince priebus. host: how did reince priebus prepare for the job? guest: well, you know, that's a good question. one of the things he did as he was invited to the white house by denis mcdonough, the outgoing white house chief of staff in december 2016. excuse me. 10 former white house chiefs

came to the white house and gathered around the table to give him their best advice. agreedl told him and all that he needed to be empowered to be effective as white house chief. of course, donald had no intention of empowering him as we found out. most of those chiefs came away feeling not very optimistic about his chances, feeling he had not prepared seriously. one former white house chief put it rather unkindly. he said rights previous had the attitude of a personal aide and cruise director. host: what did he mean by that? guest: he meant that reince priebus did not do any serious perforation for the job of white house chief of staff. it's an enormously important job and requires an extraordinary skill set. it requires a kind of infrastructure of deputy chiefs

and things that you have to know in order to run the white house well. in this former chiefs opinion, priebus had not done any of that preparation. priebus would argue that donald trump was a unique president. donald trump is who he is and he was going to run the white house like the 26th floor of trump tower. he was not going to empower anyone in the traditional way as white house chief. host: at that lunch with the former chief when rights previous was given advice -- reince priebus was given advice come he was also paid a visit by barack obama. what did the president tell him? guest: barack obama walked in the middle of this meeting. everybody stood up and he greeted them. obama looked up at his former chiefs who were all there. and said,to priebus you know, everyone of these guys told me things that pissed me

off. they weren't always right and sometimes i was right. that's the most important thing that a chief of staff can do. tell a president not what he wants to hear but needs to hear. i hope you will do that for president trump he said. and then he departed. over the next six months, i'm afraid that priebus did not really distinguish himself at speaking hard truce to donald trump. earlier said if i was donald trump's chief of staff i would've smashed his phone. i would've prevented him from tweeting. if that were to happen, the president's approval rating would be 80%. i don't know about that, but it is true that almost any chief of staff you talk to would tell you that tweeting has been destructive. keeping theway of administration off message come

of, off balance. in priebus's defense come he tried to take away trump's phone from him and even conspired with the secret service to take a phone away from him. turns out trump had another one. they had family interventions. lania tried to get him to give up his phone. he stopped tweeting for a few days and then went right back at it. it may be mission impossible to take away donald trump's twitter account. host: reince priebus was the chief of staff. the former chief told them you need to be number one. what was his relationship like with steve bannon? guest: you know, interestingly steve bannon and priebus got along pretty well. there are always factions as we now know within the white house. there's always introducing conflict. this one has really been like

" game of thrones." what happened is that the ivanka trump and jared kushner were troubled by steve bannon. they were not happy with him and wanted to push them out reportedly. bannon that priebus and formed a kind of alliance. i think they liked each other and i think they worked reasonably well together. host: what about the structure that was set up with steve bannon in that position and reince priebus as chief of staff? guest: it was really unworkable and it was really a kind of troika were maybe a three headed beast. you had reince priebus as chief of staff in title but not the authority really. you had steve bannon as the particle strategist and then jared kushner, who was family. authority was really divided

among three of them. one of the things i learned from my book is that every president finds out often the hard way that you cannot govern effectively without empowering a chief of staff as first among equals to execute your agenda and most important to tell you what you don't want to hear. donald trump failed to do that during the first six months and he paid the price. history is littered with the wreckage of presidencies that did not get it that you have to do that in order to govern effectively. jimmy carter took 2.5 years to appear about. bill clinton took a year and a half before empowering leon panetta to get the job done. it was a non-workable structure and it was the most dysfunctional white house in modern history. host: chris whipple here to attac take your questions and comments about the role of chief

of staff in the white house. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also join us on twitter or go to facebook.com/c-span. want to take your questions on your thoughts about the current chief of staff and the role of chiefs of staff inside the white house. wasre we get to calls, what reince priebus's demise? how was he treated at the end? know, he wasyou really subjected to a lot of ritual humiliation as you may recall during this for six months. -- those first six months. donald trump seems to be able to sense weakness and take it manage of it. there was that famous incident where he was reportedly asked to come in and swat a

fly. he was not treated with the but most respect and his end came very abruptly. priebus submitted his resignation after anthony scaramucci, the short-lived communications director, insulted him. basically accused him of leaking confidential information. when i was accused of a felony, i basically said i've had it. he went to donald trump and said he was resigning. he hoped it would be a graceful , as, but shortly thereafter air force one sat on the tarmac at andrews air force base and rain, you may recall that donald trump tweeted that reince priebus was out in general john kelly was in. host: ian in oceanside, new york. you up first. caller: i would like to touch on

general john kelly sitting there. he still carries 63% or maybe even more. we're going to sit down with north korea. if it doesn't work out, at least it's a first step. general kelly when asked questions from the press, he said you people dedicate your question straight. general kelly said this guy is right on point and doing fine. now 62% of the conservative things he push for within his first year, even with the fbi the militarized just like barack did with the blm going after people like cliven bundy and the irs, which cliven bundy was let go and the irs had to pay out, weaponize everything. we are learning everything now and everything's saying don't tweet. tweeting is new technology. guest: is this a question or a speech by the way? caller: question or a speech?

i'mld the spring call that a united states marine coast guard captain. host: general kelly said to the press he is doing fine. look, this is been the most dysfunctional white house in modern history. for a year it has been a broken white house that has been unable to do anything right. first of all, he was unable to pass legislation. he couldn't issue executive orders that were enforceable. they were blocked in the courts as you know. they cannot prioritize the president's agenda. nobody knows what it is. they can't get anybody on the same page. the only way tax reform got through was keeping donald trump 100 miles away from it. i think that by any measure, this white house has been the most dysfunctional, least accomplished in modern history. donald trump is not the first president to come in to office full of hubris, thinking he had

all the answers. most presidents get over that. most presidents figure out that there's a difference between campaigning, demonizing, and divided, and governing. donald trump still has a figure that out and i'm afraid general kelly has reinforced all of his worst partisan instincts. i think a lot of people expected more from general kelly frankly. host: larry in petersburg, illinois, independent. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. whipple. makei would just like to a comment. it seems that you are looking at this from a negative point of view and i would just like to let you know that people out here -- i know it's turned flyover states -- we elected president trump because we knew he would be different.

we overlook some of his things that we might consider negative, but we're looking at results. and today is a very historic moment if you look at what happened yesterday. we have got a long way to go on this, but there's another point of view on this. host: are you referring to tariffs or that he's going to meet with -- caller: i think the terrorists is going to be worked out in a good way, but this is with north korea. it's a historic moment. host: let's take that point. guest: we will see about that. if you read my book -- i don't know if you have read my book, but if you do, i think you will see that i tried to be very evenhanded and an honest chronicler of how chiefs of staff have performed over history, whether they are republicans or democrats. i would cite james a baker the third, a republican, as a gold

standard among white house chiefs. leon panetta was perhaps a close second in terms of effectiveness. what i'm talking about here is not whether you like donald trump or not. i'm looking at results and i'm looking at the white house chief and his ability to perform and deliver. , ii were for donald trump would be disappointed and sometimes furious about the fact that this white house has been so dysfunctional and so unable to deliver any results. i think the reality is by any measure, if you look at the record of this white house over the first year, it really was unable to get anything accomplished unless you consider ripping up executive orders and abolishing regulations and getting a justice on the supreme court. if you consider that great governance, so be it, but i

think by every other measure, this white house has really been a failure. host: mr. whipple, what made james baker and leon panetta the gold standard? guys: well, these are two -- jim baker to begin with was a guy who was as smooth as silk texas lawyer who is comfortable and his own skin. he was confident and not only new capitol hill and how deliver votes, but he understood the white house. at the end of the day, he was a guy who could walk into the oval office, close the door, and tell ronald reagan what he didn't want to hear. same thing with leon panetta and bill clinton. that's the most important thing a chief can do. to give you a quick example, reagan was determined right out of the gate to tackle social security reform. arounder, who had been the block and was politically savvy, told him, listen. social security reform is the third rail of american politics.

you touch it and you will be electrocuted. let's try something else. reagan pivoted to tax cuts and the economy. and the rest is history. there would have been no reagan revolution without somebody like jim baker being able to speak archers to ronald reagan. -- hard truths to ronald reagan. i see no evidence that that is happening in this white house and quite frankly john kelly is out of his depth politically. host: how do they run the white house on a daily basis versus how it's being run now? guest: well, you know, in a functioning white house that's firing on every cylinder, everything flows from an empowered white house chief of staff who executes the president's agenda. you cannot overestimate how important the job is. he's not only famously the gatekeeper who creates time and space for the president to think. he's also the honest broker of information who makes sure that every decision is teed up with

accurate information on every side and will also make sure that only the toughest decisions get into the oval office. he is in charge of key medications and making sure that -- communication and making sure that everyone is on the same page. he's a so-called heatshield taking all the flak aimed at the present. executed person who the president's agenda and the person who tells them what he does not want to hear. and a functioning white house, that translates into results. host: david your next in las vegas, a democrat. i feel that the chief of staff is just like the president. they will be flip-flopping on every issue. to me, it don't make sense. host: what do you mean, david? thing, well, for one daca. tosident trump was ready

, but the chief of staff had a talk with him and trump changed his mind. host: got your point. guest: this is part of my point about john kelly and it's been one of his real weaknesses. it seems to me that he has failed by even the very narrow definition of the job, his own definition of it, which was not to manage the president but to make the west wing trains run on time. we have seen the trains off the track with rob porter and security clearances and all the chaos, but more importantly to point, iur caller's really think that john kelly has reinforced donald trump's worst partisan instincts. and the remarks about daca were a perfect example of that. another example is when john kelly walked up to the podium and the white house

press briefing room and told a false story about representative wilson. partisanshipind of that you don't really want to see from your white house chief. house chief is supposed to be the honest broker and supposed to be above the political fray. he is supposed to be the person who executes the president's agenda. even really partisan characters like dick cheney and rahm emanuel, when they were white house chiefs, they were honest brokers. they were not people who threw their weight around ideologically in that role. tot: chris whipple, i want show your viewers and get reaction from the president during a news conference earlier this week asked about personal changes at the white house. this is how he responded. [video clip] >> the white house has tremendous energy, tremendous spirit. it's a great place to be working. many people want every single job. be don't want may

to work for trump, but believe me, everyone wants to work in the white house. they all want a piece of that oval office. they want a piece of the west terms of itly in looks great on the resume, but it's a great place to work. it's got tremendous energy. it's tough. i like conflict. i like having two people with different points of view and i certainly have that. and then i make a decision. i like watching it and i like seeing it and i think it's the best way to go. i like different points of view, but the white house has tremendous energy and sherman's talent. there will be people -- i'm not going to be specific, but the change. sometimes they want to go out and do something else. but they all want to be in the white house. i have a choice of anybody. i can take any position in the white house and i will have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position. everybody wants to be there. and they love this white house because we have energy like really before. -- rarely before.

host: what do you make of the president there? guest: you have to agree with what you said about energy. there's a lot of energy and averting belding -- and a in a burning building or a nuclear meltdown. this white house is in a freefall and we have never seen anything like this chaos and dysfunction. the trouble is that the only model that trump knows is the 26th floor of trump tower. you cannot run the white house that way you run a manhattan family real estate firm with people coming and going and nobody empowered and no chain of command. as i said before, history is littered with the wreckage of presidencies that did not understand that. donald trump has not figured this out. until he does, he will not be able to govern effectively. let's take an example. jimmy carter and ronald reagan. jimmy carter was arguably the smartest person elected in the 20th century, trained as a

nuclear engineer. ronald reagan, not so much, right? but reagan understood something that jimmy carter never grasped and that john donald trump -- donald trump has yet to grasp. an outsider president above all needs a consummate insider like jim baker, who was the chief of staff that reagan had, who knows capitol hill but also is comfortable telling the president hard truths. until donald trump figures that out, he will not be able to govern effectively in my view. host: "the washington post trumpline that turnover breaks records. jack in arizona, you are next. caller: first of all, thanks for taking my call. i would like to methodically make a few comments before i asked mr. whipple, your guest, a question. let's look at what he said about

number 1 -- he has been there one year, meaning president trump. mr. whipple went all negative on saying what his coupl accomplishments are -- getting rid of regulations and executive orders. it is great for all the people, which is about 35 states red on the map that i saw voted for him. going to thelican supreme court and also the executive orders that you said obama signed, they were all bad. he changed all the regulations and the economy is great. the stock market is the highest it has been. he got rid of isis. just all these other accomplishments. if you consider those negative a quarter -- according to obama, it's obvious that you like. you said somebody coming from the 26th floor. ,e've had that for years

comparing 26th floor of politicians. people don't want that. we want somebody to run this likery the very, very much it needs to be a business. otherwise, look at obama. put $10 trillion to the debt. host: i'm going to take your point. his evidence is the economy. guest: first of all, i don't disagree with you that donald trump has eliminated a lot of regulations and he has certainly got -- he is certainly change the judiciary and put a supreme court justice on the court. i'm not arguing with that. so i'm not sure what you mean by my going all negative. i'm not talking about donald trump ideology and whether i like it or not. he islking about how

served by his white house chief of staff. if i were a donald trump voter, i would be frustrated that he has not been able to get more done. obama was criticized by republicans and presumably by you for governing by executive order. that's really the only thing that trump has been able to do. he has not been able to pass legislation. the only bill that has gone through of any consequence was tax reform and only because he stayed 100 miles away from it. so legislatively, this white house has been the least accomplished in modern history. if you look at bill clinton's first term or even jimmy carter's first term, there's not even any comparison. they vastly outperformed this white house. if i were a trump supporter, i would be looking at the white house and i would be looking at the chief of staff and asking

myself, why isn't he delivering more? host: chris whipple, you write in this new chapter of your book based on interviews with rice priebus andreince steve bannon about the repeal and replace effort of the afford will care act -- affordable health care act. when john mccain voted no, what was steve bannon's reaction? guest: that's a good question. i don't specifically know what steve bannon's reaction was. i do know that bannon felt at that moment that it was probably the last row for reince priebus. that is what he told me. would argue priebus there was no way to really see mccain's thumbs down coming ahead of time and that that was a surprise. it was a kind of tipping point according to bannon for donald trump, losing his confidence in priebus.

look, a white house chief of staff has to be able to deliver on capitol hill. you have to be able to count votes. jim baker under ronald reagan had something called the legislative strategy group. he had a small group of really smart, savvy operators who could count votes and they never went out there unless they knew they could deliver. the trouble with this white house is that it has just been broken. one of the things it has not been able to do is count votes on capitol hill. host: neil and silver spring, maryland, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i like to guess the comment on the role of stephen miller in this. how does he relate to reince priebus? , how does he relate to general kelly? is he on the side of jared

kushner and ivanka? how does that all play out? host: chris whipple? guest: that's a very good question. frankly i'm not an expert on stephen miller and i did not talk extensively about him with priebus or with bannon for that matter. priebus is obviously a hard-line ideologues. -- donald trump seems to have a soft spot for him. he has been influential among the ideologues in this white house. i think that would put him really up against the more a trumpe faction of ivank and jared kushner and gary cohn, who is on his way out at this point. ishink that is where he among the factions in the white

house, but i think he still has donald trump's respect. host: mike is in texas, republican. caller: good morning. i want you to know that if 500 americans could name who rob porter was before that scandal broke, i will mow your lawn with hand clippers. we didn't even know who he was. guest: i'm sure you're right. caller: he is of no instrumental value. he might be a talented guy, but nobody knows who he was. regarding daca for example, it may not get solved, but the reason it won't get solved is that democrats do not want it to be solved. democrats require victims in order for them to win reelection. the dreamers are there to find victims. they are going to be victims of donald trump. that will be the way it's couched going into the election. it will not happen because democrats want let it happen. solving problems is not what

democrats what to do -- want to do because they require the voters to be dependent on democrats, dependent on them. dreamers would not be dependent on them if they get citizenship or the pathway to it. host: herger point. let me make a question out of his commentary, chris whipple. the president has said and , chucks before cameras nancy, referring to charles schumer and nancy plessy and pelosi inl -- nancy the oval office meeting, i can work with you. let's do this. where is the role of the chief of staff to make bipartisan deals and how important is that? guest: the role of the chief of staff is critical. it's absolutely essential. reagan were jim baker was able to call up tip

o'neill and have him come over and they would drink whiskey in the residence with ronald reagan and get stuff done. they would achieve compromises. some people may say that the is a lost art and it will never happen. i don't believe that. i'm more optimistic than that. i think it really capable white house chief can help the president govern. donald trump has not learned that there's a difference between campaigning and governing. he knows how to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to divide and demonize and disrupt. that is not governing. that is campaigning. john kelly has really doubled down on all those partisan and stings. -- partisan instincts. this is not "the art of the deal." almost everything this president touches turns to dust.

it's not even clear what he's for and what he's against. if you listen to what he said about gun control and about tariffs, there is no consistency. he says one thing one day in the opposite the next. it's the chief of staff's job to help the president figure out how to get beyond campaigning and getting real results. host: previous chiefs of staff have had to deal with family and roles as advisors to the president. if so, how? guest: it's never easy and it's always a delicate issue. i go back to james baker under reagan. you had nancy reagan, who was famously described as the "personnel director" and that white house. she had to sign off on every senior appointment. family,mike beaver, not but he was like a son to ronald reagan. they were very powerful in the

reagan white house. james baker was politically savvy enough to realize that he needed to form an alliance with them. when the hard right ideologues came after baker, who was considered the pragmatist, he prevailed because he had those alliances with nancy and others. it requires a deft political touch, which i don't think john kelly has. in fact, i don't there's anybody in the west link at this point -- west wing at this point with any real political savvy. host: virginia, democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of comments and a quick question. jack earlier said that the white house needs to be run like a business. mr. whipple you said earlier that general kelly was wishy-washy on issues. down on said he doubles all of trump's partisan

instincts. i never said he was wishy-washy. caller: i believe you characterized him as saying one thing and then another thing and then contradicting himself. guest: i don't think donald trump knows what he believes in. host: your point? caller: my question is with the pentagon. is there any comment on the audit of the fed that has been introduced as an amendment by senator paul? guest: i've no opinion on that. host: we will move on. kalamazoo, michigan, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. that he's busy knocking trump and i'm glad a lot of people have been knocking trump. if you think trump is bad, compare him to clinton. before clinton was in office six months, he had bombed baghdad,

the capital of iraq. in 1998, december 16, i believe it is pretty after it was all over, there was no way of knowing that it happened. after that date, there were no inspections in iraq, never until bush got in and it took a while for bush to give in. here's the question. if clinton had forced saddam hussein to follow the cease-fire in kuwait, would bush ever have ,otten the vote from the senate from the house, from the un's to go to war in iraq? host: we believe that question out there for mr. whipple. guest: i'm not here to talk about bill clinton and saddam hussein. i will tell you since you are talking about the use of force -- i will tell you something both reince priebus and steve

bannon told me in the new chapter of the paperback out now , which you might find surprising. bannon whati asked would surprise me? tell me something i don't know about donald trump. bannon said to me that trump is the farthest thing from the mad bomber. he is a guy that you never met someone who is more judicious about the use of force. , butan believe that or not reince priebus told me the same thing, which i just found interesting. i think we are a long way from knowing the answer to that, but i just found it interesting that each of them mentioned that independently. host: you said that reince priebus was one of the more challenging interviews you have ever done. why is that? reince was extremely

nervous and cautious. i think he still respects donald trump and he still wishes him well. he did not want to say anything that would jeopardize trump's agenda. he did not want to say anything that would reflect badly on him. he was very cautious. we began off the record and frankly we had two long sessions that were completely off the record and then went through a painstaking process of getting things on the record. in that sense it was a very challenging process. host: does he still have a relationship with the president? do they talk? guest: they do. i think they talk pretty regularly. modernas a phone that is -- not monitored by john kelly. lewandowski, his former campaign manager, quite a lot. he calls priebus regularly for

political advice. i do not think he has anybody in the west link at the moment -- in the west wing at the moment with political savvy. he does not have a david axelrod, karl rove, or political strategist in the white house. i think you like to call people like priebus and get his advice. host: we will hear from john in wisconsin, independent. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: chris, i don't understand where you get your information from, but you are right on the head, ok? you know donald trump like i know donald trump. believe me, i have experienced working for state service for four years. -- 40 years. this guy is not going to accomplish anything because he does not have a clue on how it's done. it used to be that people who worked with state services moved up and then they went to the

higher tier of government. today it's anybody. it doesn't depend on what experience they have or don't have. you are right on the money. host: mr. whipple, what do you think? guest: let me just say that one of the things that is not just donald trump -- one of the things that i've learned in researching this book is that you know how in hollywood they say, nobody knows anything. in washington, nobody learns anything. donald trump is not the first president to come in to office thinking that he was the smartest guy in the room and had all the answers. it has taken him longer than most presidents to figure out, if you ever figures out, that you have to do certain things to be able to govern effectively. it has happened with some other presidents. it took jimmy carter 2.5 years to appoint a white house chief and really empower one to get

anything done. it took bill clinton a year and a half to empower leon panetta to advance his agenda. whop is not the only guy comes in thinking he can run the places where -- the place his way. the result has been the least accomplished white house in modern history so far. host: let's end with this quote from the peace in your book that is featured in an excerpt in "vanity fair." " trump is a man that fears nothing and no one and there's absolutely nothing he is intimidated by and that's very rare and politics. politics aren people who have sort of an approval addiction. now granted, president trump does, too, but healing to whether one storm after the next to get to an end result that most people are not willing to weather. he does not mind the craziness, the drama, or the difficulty, as long as an end goal is in sight.

he will endure it." guest: the craziness in drama is no way to get to the end result. the other day that reince priebus set on some network to try to look beyond the craziness and the turmoil look at the results. the trouble is craziness and drama rarely if ever gets you results. the wayhistory shows you get results is by empowering a white house chief to really exited your agenda. you have to be able to do more than just demonize and divide and disrupt. if your definition of governance is to be a human wrecking ball, then that is what we have got right now, but donald trump has failed to learn the lesson that ronald reagan learned, which is that you have to be able to govern and not just campaign. "gatekeepers: --

how the white house chief of staff defined every presidency." thank you for the conversation. appreciate it. guest: thanks for having me. host: when we come back, jessica vaughan will be joining us from the center of immigration studies to talk about the trumpet measures of lawsuit -- trump administration's lawsuit against california and then we will talk about russian interference in our elections with defense one's patrick tucker. ♪ c-span's thet, weekly, takes you behind the headlines, one significant new story shipping washington and around the country. you'll hear from policy makers and experts providing background context. you can find it on the c-span radio app, itunes, and google

play, and online anytime at c-span.org. this weekend on book tv, live coverage from the 10th annual tucson festival of books, featuring author discussions and the recall and segments from the university of arizona, starting saturday afternoon eastern. with columnist edward luce, who talks about politics in his book "the retreat of western liberalism." and a discussion about the trump administration with journalist david kay johnson, author of "it's even worse than you think: what the trump and attrition is doing to america." astronaut john kelly talks about his year in space. our live coverage continues at 1:00 p.m. eastern with the topic of women in the military, featuring liza mundy in her book : the untold story of

the american women codebreakers of world war ii." and then a discussion of the republican party with craig shirley and his book, "citizen wt." and then an author talks about immigration with his book "the back to where you came from: the backlash against immigration and the fate of western democracy." watch our live coverage of the 10th annual tucson festival of books on book tv. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back. joining us this morning from massachusetts is jessica vaughan, the policy studies director from the center of immigration studies. what is your group and what is your stance on immigration? guest: we are research institute that studies the effect of immigration on american society and we study immigration policy and demographics and labor reallyand fiscal cost,

the whole waterfront of immigration policy from the standpoint of the national interest in trying to promote policies that work for our country and for americans rather than for special interests. host: what does that mean then? are you conservative, libertarian? how would you define it? guest: the immigration issue does not really fall into the usual ideological categories. we are nonpartisan's and we have conservatives and liberals on our staff. is is tomotivation find an immigration policy that works for the country and our research has shown that immigration levels right now are too high, too skewed toward immigrants that are going to struggle to be self-sufficient in the country and also too much illegality. we think that there is a need for more immigration enforcement. host: what is a sanctuary city

ewd how does your group vi those cities and the impact of it in this country? guest: effectuate city is one that has a policy or ordinance or it can be a state or county, any jurisdiction that has a policy or practice that undermines the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws. specifically deliberately tried to make it more difficult for the federal enforcement agencies to get custody of deportable individuals, usually criminals, and otherwise interfere with their ability to do their job. theseare about 300 of jurisdictions across the country that we found through our research, most notably the state of california, which has adopted some policies that went into effect in january. the legislature passed three laws and the governor signed

them that go further than any other part of the country has gone before. sanctuaries have been around since the 1980's, but have never trying tofar and deliberately disrupt the work of the federal government. host: the attorney general has responded by saying this week the justice department of the u.s. would sue the state of california over these laws. what are these laws? guest: there are three of them. one of them would prohibit law enforcement agencies from cooperating fully with immigrations and customs enforcement and the border patrol. the other prohibits employers from cooperating with ice in doing work site operations to go after illegal employers and illegal workers. regulate one tries to of iceide oversight detention of criminal aliens

that happens within california. so three laws that the u.s. is going after california four. what is the basis for this? is there president here for the u.s. government to sue a state over this issue? guest: there definitely is. there are a number of cases that have been decided and there is some existing federal laws that give the trump administration some very solid legal footing on which to bring this lawsuit. recent example is the lawsuit against the state of arizona that was decided by the supreme court in 2012. the state of arizona pass some laws that wanted to allow the assist the federal government enforcing immigration laws and make sure that they were enforced very rigorously in arizona. the supreme court ruled that

states can only go so far. with thenot interfere way the federal government wants to enforce immigration laws because the constitution gives the federal government authority and responsibility over immigration laws so that there will be a uniform immigration law across the entire country. they said that arizona's went too far in a number of ways. case that washer raised in 1996 when congress passed a law that said no state or local government can prohibit its officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities. the city of new york, which have a sanctuary policy at that time, sued over that law congress passed and they ultimately lost in the supreme court also. i think there are some very strong president here. host: what is the supremacy clause? guest: the supremacy clause establishes that federal laws are superior.

in other words, they trump state and local laws. again, immigration in particular is one in which there is an obvious need for the federal government to be the controlling authority. host: i want to invite our viewers to call in and give us their questions and comments on this issue. the u.s. government suing the state of california over its immigration laws. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .n independents, (202) 748-8002 you can go to twitter and facebook as well. before we get to your calls, let's listen to the attorney general on the california laws. here he is. [video clip] >> california is in the business of public safety. we are not in the business of deportations. forlieve it's a low blow the trump administration to deny our men and women who wear the

badge the funding they need to usp us all safe bicolor sing -- by color sing us to try to do what they want to do. that is not a good public safety technique to try to coerce to do what they want to do. california we don't confuse cion with -- coerc cooperation. we will continue to stand up with our police and sheriffs, who has been threatened by the trust administration, and the policies we have enacted to increase trust in our communities and that our officers and sheriffs are sworn to protect. we intend to make sure public one for lawb

enforcement california. we respect the federal government's right to take on immigration enforcement. host: does the california attorney general. -- that was the california attorney general. your response? guest: this has been the primary argument used on both the left and the rifght with the federal government issue here. they said the 10th amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from commandeering state and local resources to do its work. but that's not really what's happening with immigration enforcement. that argument was rejected in this 1996 lawsuit that i mentioned before that new york city brought. the federal government is not forcing local governments to do something on its behalf. and they are seeking is what the federal law requires is that state and local governments cannot prohibit police officers

or local government officials were in the case of california private employers from cooperating with the fed in a lawful manner. the government is also saying that california cannot substitute its judgment or implement an immigration policy that is different than the federal government has in that very importantly here they cannot single out immigration authorities for noncooperation policies when they wouldn't dream of interfering with the u.s. marshals or another state government or the fbi or the dea. they are really singling out immigration authorities for noncooperation because they disagree with the federal government's enforcement of this law, which is a very important law to many americans. it's not an obsolete law that doesn't deserve to be enforced. it projects job opportunities

and public safety and so on. they are seeking to enjoin this law. they were the three laws of california. it's especially because the attorney general who we just heard from has threatened employers and law enforcement agencies with prosecution if they cooperate with ice or with the border patrol. this is a very difficult situation for california employers. if they are notified by ice that they want to inspect their payroll records for illegal workers, many of them would cooperate willingly with that, but the california government is saying no, you can't. they are in a position where they either have to violate federal law or violate state law. california sheriffs are in the same position. that is why they have opposed the california law. they want to cooperate with ice, but they are not allowed to do

so. -- where policies result sanctuary policies result in the release of criminals. the policy for enforcement is that a small fraction of the legal population or other noncitizens causing problems in the community or committing crimes. that is their target for enforcement. law enforcement agencies in california know that and they want to be able to work together. they know it's important for law enforcement agencies to work together. so that's why they oppose the california legislation and don't want to be in this difficult situation of being caught between these two responsibilities of potentially being prosecuted by their own attorney general versus lawfully cooperating with immigration authorities. host: we will go to louisville, kentucky. rob is joining us. you are first. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i think sessions is not going far enough. he's going to have to try jerry brown for treason. once you convict him of that, because jerry brown is breaking the law try him for treason. once you convict him, no money fine, no jail time. you have to cut the cancer out of the body or the body dies. host: let's move on. guest: there is no doubt there are many american citizens, criminals especially, that it would be -- many people think would be better off in another place, but we have a lot of different kinds of people in our country, and that's what makes our country great. what i.c.e. is trying to do is go after those criminals who are not citizens because we can remove them from our communities and prevent them from disrupting

our communities and committing more crimes and more harm in our communities. those are the ones that i.c.e. is going after. i think the department of justice has a good strategy here. sessions wants to establish these principles and i am sure this is going to go all the way up to the supreme court, and that will go a long way in addressing the proliferation of sanctuary policies across the country because once these principles are established and decided through our federal courts, that will be a road map for dealing with all of the other sanctuary policies that are causing problems. host: let's listen to the governor, his reaction to the attorney general's announcement this week. [video clip] >> this is completely unprecedented for the chief law enforcement of the united states to come out here and engage in a political stunt, make wild accusations, many of which are based on outright lies.

that's unusual, particularly a fellow coming from alabama talking to us about secession and protecting human and civil rights. i do think this is pure red meat for the base, and i would assume, but this is pure speculation, that jeff thinks that donald will be happier with him and i am sure donald will be tweeting his joy at this particular performance. but it's not about law enforcement. it's not about justice, and it really demeans the office to which he has been appointed. host: let's take unprecedented and based on lies. guest: no, the impact of sanctuary policies is real in california. we have seen too many cases where criminal aliens who had already been convicted of serious crimes, felons, violent

crimes, who had been arrested by local authorities, that i.c.e. discovered through fingerprint sharing that takes place through a program called secure communities, that issued a notice to these law enforcement agencies that they wanted to take custody of them. the local agencies ignored that, released these people back to the streets, and they unfortunately went on to commit horrific crimes in which people have literally been killed because of sanctuary policies because these criminal aliens were on the street. that's a problem. there have been 10,000 criminals, deportable criminals, that i.c.e. has identified that sanctuary policies have released who have gone on to commit additional crimes, and these are needless crimes, needless victims. i estimate that about 5,000 of them are probably in california, and so there is a real potential for harm to the community that is caused by these sanctuary policies.

they're not fake. they're adopted for public safety reasons. that's why the government has to step in, not just to preserve its authority but to prevent these kinds of things from happening. host: steven in charlotte, north carolina, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have some serious concerns about all this. for one thing, my main concern, of course, is the white house. i am very unhappy with the white house and their chaos and everything. i think we have a horrible president, but nevertheless that's beside the point. i don't hate him. he has done some good things, but my whole point is why is it that every time there is an illegal alien, as it's referred to, in this country being blamed for every single little thing that happens in crime, when just as many americans who are legal citizens in this country commit

just as horrific crimes as well? now, i will say this. i do agree with tightening up the borders. i do agree with getting rid of the ms-13 and the violent people, but you will find that most of these people that have come here, like the daca recipients, they are good people. they are hard-working people. they are decent people. host: ok, let's get a response. guest: that's what i have found through my research is that immigrants, legal immigrants, are neither more nor less likely to commit crimes than anyone else. that's what my research has found, and again that's why it's important to emphasize that i.c.e. is primarily going after that small fraction of people who are in the country illegally, who are committing crimes. that's what this is about. there are priorities for deportation, but it also has to be acknowledged that allowing

illegal employment causes a lot of problems as well. it denies job opportunities for americans and these turn out to be those americans who for whatever reason haven't had the benefit of a lot of education, and so are in direct competition for scarce jobs that they are qualified for, that they need to support their families, and so that's why it's important to go after illegal employment as well. it's often exploitatitive for the illegal worker. hat needs to be shut down. so i.c.e. is the agency that does that, and they need the ability to go to employers and check paperwork and make sure that u.s. workers and legal immigrants are not being dypassed by employers who are illegally -- bypassed by mployers who are illegally

hiring aliens. that's what keeps them making money, that as long as people think they can come here to work illegally and get away with it, they're going to keep trying. we cannot allow that as a country. so that's why immigration laws need to be enforced, why i.c.e. needs the ability to do its job, and why the state cannot substitute its judgment for the federal government's in this area of the law. host: david in florida, a republican. caller: yes, i wanted to ask if local or state officials can be held criminally responsible if they illegally harbor illegal immigrants that i.c.e. is looking for and they don't turn them over. can they be held criminally responsible? guest: that's a good question. yes, federal law says that no one may harbor or shield an

illegal alien from detection by the feds, and there is a provision in the law for that, and i think in certain situations, there are officials who should be held to task for that. when you have a situation like the mayor of oakland, who basically tips off the entire community that i.c.e. is going to be doing an operation in her area, allowing criminal aliens to go back into the woodwork so they don't get discovered by i.c.e., that -- a lot of people believe that was a criminal act. when a sheriff, you know, knowingly allows a criminal alien to be released, that has been the subject of a lawfully issued detainer that was issued on the basis of fingerprints, where it's clear this person should be subject to removal and they let them go anyway and that person commits a horrible crime, they should be held responsible for that and we may see some of those types of prosecutions.

the department of justice is looking into a possible ofsecution against the mayor oakland. host: jim, an independent. hi, jim. guest: you say i.c.e. only goes after the criminals. there was a case of this man, he came here when he was 10 years old. he has been here 30 years. he was very mar -- he was married, had children. i.c.e. picked him up and deported him. to me, that man was as american as me, you, and many americans. daca people, they're good --ricans, and congress host: he is saying it's not criminals i.c.e. is going after. guest: what i said was that i.c.e.'s priority is the criminals, but in addition, there are people in this country

who have been deported before, maybe multiple times, who keep coming back or people who have had their day in immigration court and an immigration judge has found that there is no basis for them to be able to stay here, that they don't qualify for a green card and that they need to go home. these are legitimate targets for ice also. it represents only a small fraction of what i.c.e. is doing. but this is important to preserve the integrity of our legal immigration system. it's not fair to let people just stay here. most illegal immigrants are fine people, but our immigration law as set by congress doesn't say that anyone who is a hard worker or nice person or has been here for a certain amount of time gets to stay. we have to -- if an immigration judge says you don't qualify to stay here, then that order has to be enforced or the millions of legal immigrants who are

waiting for their turn to come here through our legal immigration system, who are sponsored by relatives or by employers, it's not fair to just be enforce the rules on them. there need to be a system with some integrity, that's predictable, and that's going to be enforced so that we can have a legal immigration system that everyone has confidence in. host: let's go to a democrat in georgia. guest: good morning. i have a couple of questions and i will try to be very brief. i was wondering through your research, can you tell me approximately how many illegal immigrants are in the united states that did not cross from the southern borders, probably came into l.a.x., j.f.k., atlanta? do you have any idea on that? guest: we do. it's hard to estimate, but there are a number of reliable estimates out there.

it appears that about 40% of the people who are illegally residing in the country, about 12 million people, about 40% of them, maybe slightly more now, came in on a visa and did not orb or a visa waiver and -- did not -- or a visa waiver and did not leave when their time was up. it's a sizable percentage of the population. that's one reason we have to do more with work site enforcement. so if there is no possibility for them to get a job and stay here, then they will not have any incentive to overstay their visa. that also needs to be a part of enforcement. that's the kind of immigration that the wall is not going to stop. host: your second question? caller: i support overhaul of immigration, but it can't just

be one sector of people coming in through the southern borders because when we hear in all the political banter and research, we talk about the southern border, and we know there are a lot more people here illegally than just those who come across from the southern border. host: so we will leave it there. let me go to edward in new jersey, a republican. edward, your question or comment? caller: i wanted to know if this was a way to go after the legalized marijuana states and whatnot? eiture and guest: there may be some relevance because those are federal laws, and one of the points that the department of justice is making is that a state cannot substitute its laws for those of the federal government in certain areas of

the law. i am not an expert in drawing law or asset forfeiture, but there may be some crossover of these principles. we will have to see how it plays out. host: bill in illinois, an independent, you are on the air. caller: good morning, c-span. i am 67 years old. i always voted democrat, but i voted for donald trump because the way the democratic party protected -- and their main platform was protect illegal immigrants. when i heard chelsea clinton give a speech saying her mother would grant medical benefits for illegals under the affordable care act, but my main statement is that the one way the government could stop this is if they publish the names of the people they're looking for, that i.c.e. is looking for, the criminals, and if they commit a crime, the residents of

california would have the right to sue the state for not letting those criminals be apprehended. host: jessica vaughan. guest: that's an interesting point. that's something that's been frustrating for the families of people who were harmed by criminal aliens who were released by sanctuary policies, that they seem to have had no redress or ability to sue. for example, on the family of a woman killed by someone released by the sanctuary policy, tried suing and has not succeeded. there is a bill now before ongress that was introduced by two representatives from the house judiciary committee that would provide a right of private action by people harmed in certain situations, very serious situations where it can be determined it was because of a

sanctuary policy, and that's part of a larger bill that may -- that we hope will get consideration in the house very soon. so we will see what happens with that. host: elizabeth in massachusetts, dming. guest: good morning. thank you for taking my call. on "democracy now" this morning, there was a clip showing border patrol agents carrying away a mother -- she looked to be in her 30's -- carrying her away from her daughters who were crying and screaming and throwing her into a border patrol vehicle and said that she was a criminal because she crossed the border illegally. now, it seems to me that there has got to be a better way to deal with someone like her and this happens all the time. there was a gentleman a few calls back that talked about a man who had to leave his family, who were also crying.

people like you make the excuse or the justification that that's the law. congress makes no effort to overhaul the immigration system to avoid this kind of tearing up of families. i think it's a nation that is supposed to be christian. this is about the most un-christian thing that could be done and i blame the president and everybody else that supports him and his horrible behavior. host: miss vaughan. guest: i am sure that was hard to watch. i don't know the circumstances of that or what the border patrol's reason was for handling that case the way it did. sometimes there are people, smugglers, who are bringing in children who are not their own, and you know, the real problem here is that when we fail to enforce our immigration laws, which have an important

function, as i describe, then there is an incentive for people to try to cross the border illegally. they're going to keep doing it as long as they think that they can get a job here, that they can live here without any problem, and that's why people keep turning over their life savings to these criminal smuggling organizations that put them in danger to cross the border illegally. that's why i think it's wrong for us to incentivize that kind of behavior by not enforcing our laws. this influx at the southern border right now from central america, with a lot of families and people accepteding their ds -- sending their kids unaccompanied into the united states because they're heard there is going to be amnesty for young people or because they've heard they will be released and allowed to join friends and family who have come illegally before, to wait for an

immigration hearing that will take place years in the future. these are dysfunctional parts of our immigration system that need to be corrected so that people will not make that dangerous choice and that we can have a more orderly system of immigration and not have this constant pressure at the southern border. i think that is a moral obligation that we have as a nation, to send that message that our laws are going to be enforced, they're going to be be enforced humanely, but don't go to the trouble of trying to come here illegally, because you will be sent home. host: a republican from california, you are next. guest: good morning. thank you. you touched on this earlier. what happens in california doesn't necessarily stay in california. these criminals, illegal

immigrants, aren't necessarily going to stay in california. they're going to filter out into he rest of the country, and so that's why the federal government has to have the authority to make and enforce our immigration laws. host: john, i apologize. i thought you were done. guest: yes, that's a good point, and that's why the constitution and our founders gave authority over immigration policy to the federal government, not to allow each individual state to come up with their own policies, and that's why this case is so important to clarify that states cannot nullify federal law or substitute their judgment, that there is a national -- he is right. if someone is released in california, they can go to nevada, arizona, wherever, make their way to the east coast. that's why border security at the southern border or the

northern border is important to people in iowa and georgia as well. this affects all of us as a country, and it's appropriate to have a federal immigration policy that, by the way, congress decides, not the president. host: james, washington, independent. guest: good morning, greta. i would like to have a definition of harboring. she keeps saying harboring and switching it with another word. i would like to ask another question. whatever happened to the 10th amendment to the constitution for the united states? host: ok and the 10th amendment. guest: under immigration law, harboring is shielding someone from detection by federal immigration authorities, and that is a crime, and that can be maybe paying for someone's smuggling fee and putting them

up on your property and employing them. that's a form of harboring, or it could be taking someone out the side door of the courthouse when you know that i.c.e. is there to arrest them and that they're waiting to carry out their lawful responsibility. so it can take different forms, and i would not be surprised if in the next few years, we see this further defined by cases that come up in federal court. as far as the commandeering argument goes, the 10th amendment concern that you raised, obviously that's a legitimate question and going to be discussed as part of this case. but it has been established that simply asking for cooperation and asking that local police or other officials not be prohibited from communicating with immigration authorities, that's not really commandeering. what the federal government wants is not to force police or

other officials to do their work. they just want them to cooperate with i.c.e. and the border patrol as they would with any other law enforcement agency in the country or world and not obstruct the feds from doing their legitimate jobs that americans want to see enforced and that has an important purpose. it's been found in the courts that this is unlikely to be a situation of commandeering. they may impose consequences on jurisdictions that don't comply. for example, they're seeking to withhold federal law enforcement grants from sanctuaries, but that's not exactly commandeering. it's not coercing, and i think there is good case law to back up the administration's position on that. host: beth is watching in illinois, democrat. good morning. your question or comment? guest: hi, i want to make a comment for everybody listening. the center for immigration

studies is not a nonpartisan group. i doubt you would find any democrats or independents who believe in this, and also it was identified -- and i was just looking up the research, though i haven't come to a decision yet, but it was identified by the southern poverty law center as a hate group, and if you look at some of their headlines, you know, with all due respect to your speaker, i don't believe that the headlines are based on facts. host: let's get a response. guest: i think my colleagues who are democrats and board members who are democrats would probably take objection to her characterization of us. we certainly are -- your audience can look into it. the southern poverty law center was once a reputable organization that did some important work, but

unfortunately they've veered off into trying to blackball organizations that disagree with eir point of view and really smear my organization and others as hate groups, which is really unfortunate because it distracts from the real groups that do exist in our society who are hateful and carry out a hateful agenda. but our agenda is not based on hate. it's based on concern for those americans and legal immigrants who are harmed by illegal immigration, on the need to have a good immigration policy that benefits our country and benefits immigrants and makes us a strong country, and that our current laws are not doing that. people are genuinely harmed when we fail to enforce immigration laws or have a legal immigration system that doesn't work for our

country. that's what motivates us, not hate for any particular group. it's really important to make sure that people understand that while there may be negative consequences to immigration, that immigrants deserve to be treated with respect. they are people and we can enforce the rules of our immigration system without violating anyone's civil rights or demeaning them as people. host: one last call, mark from florida, independent. caller: hi. i am an independent, very left-leaning independent, and i have a big interest in immigration because my wife is an immigrant who recently got her green card. it's ironic that the woman before me called your guest on exactly the same thing i was calling about, and to be quite

honest, i think she started her presentation to you with a lie when you asked her what direction does your group come from and she said we're nonpartisan. the center for immigration studies basically -- it's nonpartisan in the fact that they are not hooked up to -- in the open with any political towards t it is geared cutting down on immigration. host: jessica vaughan, where can viewers go on your website to find your studies and take his last point. you are for cutting down immigrants. guest: immigration, not immigrants. verything is on our website at cis.org. i hope people will go there for information. we would like people to look at all of our work. we are proud of it.

but it is not animated by hate or dislike of immigrants. is motivated by a desire, really a need, to have an immigration policy that benefits our country, not special interests, benefits americans, and so that we can have -- admit immigrants who will be self-sufficient and contributing to our country and making it great, but that the levels of immigration that we have now are too high and causing distortions in the labor market, causing americans to be displaced from opportunities or see their wages depressed, that too much of it is happening unlawfully and this is causing problems. it can be a risk to national security to not know who is coming and going. these are all the reasons why we need to get better control of our immigration policy and we do

think that the numbers of legal immigrants need to be reduced primarily by reigning in chain migration a little bit and emphasizing skills that immigrants bring from all over the world to contribute to our country. host: jessica vaughan, thank you very much for your time. policy studies director for the center for immigration studies. guest: glad to be with you. thank you. host: before we move on, we want to share with you the latest job numbers, the bureau of labor statistics out with february's unemployment rate. 4.1%, 313,000 jobs added, a high number here for the month of february. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will get an update on russian efforts to interfere in elections. we will talk with defense one's patrick tucker.

>> sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv's american artifacts, political cartoonist herbert block, his career spanned 72 years, covering presidents from herbert hoover to george w. bush. see the largest collection of his work housed at the library of congress. >> one of the missions is to dock umingt the creativity and intelligence of the american people and preserve it for future generations. >> i think it's a mark of a free society that we can gather opinions with which we do not agree and collect them and preserve them for future generations. there are a lot of countries in the world where nobody would dare to do that, and here we are steps from the u.s. capitol and we have a variety of opinions anda variety of cartoonists he is a great example of one of

the artists that we have collected. >> watch american artifacts sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> monday we will explore the 1886 case where a san francisco city ordinance discriminated against a chauns lawn -- chinese laundromat owner, which established equal protection applies to immigrants as well as citizens. examine this case and the high court's ruling with a professor of asian american studies at columbia university. harlan founder of the

institute. watch it at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. order your copy of the companion book. t's available for $8.95 at c-span.org/landmarkcases. there is a link on our website to the national constitution center's interactive onstitution. >> "washington journal" continues. host: patrick tucker, technology editor for defense one, to talk about russian interference. mr. tucker, how did russia use technology to interfere in the 2016 election? guest: great question. we are still learning the full parameters of this activity which a lot of intelligence heads say is ongoing. but the 2016 effort is two

pronged. we mix russian activity together in like a big meddling stew. there are aspects that are illegal and there are aspects that are sort of -- we would have a lot of pause about it, but they're less illegal. in 2016 we know that the d.n.c., democratic national committee, system that its was exfiltrating data. this comes from two sources that have been linked to the russian government. they had on their servers for a long time malware from the g.r.u. and more recently in the spring, they had additional -- suffered an additional attack from the f.s.b. so what is sort of strange about that is you had two russian services that were working at cross purposes because they weren't communicating. what was happening was folks at the d.n.c. were getting emails from people that looked like

they were trusted. it wasn't like hi, i am a nigerian prince. these were documents and pieces of email that were very specifically tailored using intelligence to gain the attention and the trust of the recipients to encourage them to click a link where upon this malwear would enter their system and it's very pornts because it's also very characteristic of this particular brand of malware which has attacked the joint chiefs of staff civilian email system in august, the year before. that's how i first began to know about them. so there is actually a long lineage and a lot of intelligence about what this stuff is as it was discovered in that environment on d.n.c. servers in the spring of 2016. you get to the public revelation of that in the summer of 2016 by

a private cybersecurity company that said there's been two different intruders in the d.n.c. system and we are going to lay out the forensic case for who they are. there is zero controversy about this. for all of us that have been following these actors, we recognize them immediately. then you get to this move by the russian government to take this exfiltrated data, release it to wikileaks, a third party, and begin to use that as a means to influence the election. on the other side, you have use of american social media platforms to create and disseminate this information. so on one hand, you have theft of actual information, which is against international norms and laws. on the other hand, you have the creation of fake identities, fake personas on u.s. social media platforms in order to create confusion and isinformation and also amplify

the pro-kremlin agenda. that's 2016. host: what about -- before you go on to what it's looking like for 2018, what about state election systems and the report of attempts to hack into those systems? guest: that's a good point. when we talk about the d.n.c. stuff and also the social media stuff, we can talk about that in terms of things that actually had some sort of effect. information was stolen. it was publicly released. mission objective achieved. personas were created. they did push false information on social media platforms. when we talk about attempts by russian actors to infiltrate voting rolls, that's something that d.h.s. has acknowledged for nonts now and they probably did succeed in accessing voter rolls and possibly stealing information. there is yet to be any outcome

we can trace to that. e haven't seen any use of data that might have been gleaned from state voter rolls in practice yet. there is consensus from d.h.s. and other members of the intelligence community that russian actors did attempt to and in some cases gain access to state voting rolls. it's different from voting machines. this is where this whole question of how do you hack an election comes into play. voting machines, even those that are electronic, are not connected to the internet. they are vulnerable if you have physical access to them, if you are able to break into the warehouse where they are kept, you can easily disrupt the way they work. but because they're not connected to the internet, it's difficult to imagine that agents located within russia could have somehow manipulated the behavior of those specific voting machines.

that's not to say that there shouldn't be some public concern about making these systems more secure and really evaluating whether or not they could be. it's also not to say that we shouldn't have more investigation into the possibility that maybe, however unlikely, there was some physical contact with these machines. there is no evidence to suggest that at this point. host: democrats are pushing for more money to guard elections, trying to attach a bipartisan bill to authorize $386 million in federal grants to improve state election systems. what are your comments this morning about how russia used technology to interfere and the threat that they could do it the next time around? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. so patrick tucker, what are people concerned about for the midterm elections? guest: there is a lot of insecurity about personal information that might be voter

databases that are under state control. so helping different states because it's really a state responsibility to better guard that information, to better understand the moment that it's infiltrated, if there is a breach, as opposed to after action reporting. that's a big concern. physical security, voting machines is something folks are looking at. there is this side question of misinformation that's amplified on social media and other online platforms to create sort of like a cognitive effect, to change people's opinion. the government has a clear mandate to try and tackle, security at voting rolls, it's clearly within state government's jobs to secure and they can rely on d.h.s. which they might want to do, to better understand their security and environment as it relates to that voting data, the personal

data related to voters. cognitive warfare is this different thing. we don't have hard legislation that says exactly how we are supposed to tackle this. but there is a tremendous amount of urgency. if you watch testimony on capitol hill between the senate armed services, senate intelligence committee and other lawmakers, and you watch them talk to intelligence heads, you see a lot of urgency for there to be a policy and intelligence heads will look back at them and they'll say i am sorry, what we do is provide intelligence mostly to you. so the job of creating policy falls to you and we can provide you with advice on how to do that but don't look to us to create change absent a policy. host: john in georgia, republican. hi, john. guest: good morning. host: good morning. one proven state

where the machines were actually hacked and the votes were changed? does your organization -- and i don't know if you are an independent on nonprofit, but i would like to know if you can tell me -- host: we heard the question, john. guest: no, we don't have evidence that physical voting machines in any state or jurisdiction were hacked to change the actual results from that machine. that's not something that has happened. we are a for-profit organization, a news website. having said that, like i said, you do have security concerns around those machines. a lot of different folks have shown -- security professionals have demonstrated how easy it is to hack these machines if you have physical access. the physical access thing remains key, but that's still

something that we rely on states to do, like actually physically secure these things. we also rely on them to do after-action investigation and really certify that incidents haven't happened. just because there hasn't been evidence to suggest it has happened doesn't mean an investigation would be out of the ordinary or would be incorrect. it seems like something you would want to do especially as you gear up to 2018 as you prepare to advance the left of security, which i think we can agree it is the job of state election boards and the department of homeland security to actually do. host: rachel in tennessee, independent. guest: i wanted to comment, we have 100% proof that the primary was rigged against bernie sanders, but we still do not have proof of so-called russian meddling. what i have seen as a citizen that's disturbing is this sort of attack under the guise of

somehow foreign adversaries promoting all kinds of groups, whether it be environmental groups, black lives matter, jill stein, any anti-war groups, and what i am seeing is it's being used to scare the public that we are under attack when the discontent is due to our own government's policies and we need to fix ourselves instead of scapegoating a nonexistent foreign adversary. guest: you are under attack. this country is under attack. i don't know how to put that any more plainly. go and watch the heads of the .b.i., the director of intelligence, michael rogers, head of the n.s.a. and watch the new head of the n.s.a. go to the

hill who will testify and say we anticipate continued activity from adversarial states to create destabilization and spread misinformation. you don't have to believe me. you should believe department heads who were appointed by republican and democratic administrations. you shouldn't necessarily be scared about it, but i think creating awareness is part of my job in the media, part of the job of intelligence heads when they testify on this and part of the job of lawmakers. let's not be ignorant about it. the thing we should keep in mind about this activity is that vladimir putin is not a republican or a democrat. there was activity aimed to create and foment discord as it related to people across the political spectrum. this is very much true. you can go to facebook, you can go to twitter. you might have received a notice like this from twitter if you accidentally, unwittingly spread

or participated in the spread of false information from russian-controlled entities operating out of st. petersburg. facebook sent notices to folks saying you might have shared content or seen content that was from a foreign adversarial source. twitter has basically alerted folks, you may have at some point interacted with an account that was operated under a false persona that was out of st. petersburg. that's the social media companies, very reluctantly, i might add, admitting a huge problem that affected the way they delivered content to their users around the world. they weren't excited to do this. the question of whether or not you deserve to be informed, i think, yes, you do deserve to be informed about an active campaign targeting the united states that is ongoing.

i understand you may disagree, but it's still my job. host: what are the social media companies doing, facebook, twitter, about the next election? what policies have they put in place, and what are they hoping the government doesn't make them do? guest: so they've been responding to a lot of pressure, public pressure and some lawmaker pressure, senator warner from virginia has a bill to make political content on social media, particularly facebook, work more like political advertising on tv, different levels of scrutiny you can apply to it. facebook has been a little bit better on this, i would have to say. they began very late but did eventually inform users that had accidentally, again, accidentally -- the user is i think rather blameless, but they did take the step of informing users who accidentally shared,

spread or interacted with misinformation from a kremlin sponsored source and they informed them about the specific content and that's key. for 2018 they have taken the step involving the a.p. in sort of vetting information that comes across the site in terms of sort of -- the story didn't take off and go viral. they've taken the step of de-emphasizing the news and story you see close to the top of your feed as you go on to facebook, so now you are more likely to see stuff shared by friends and family. this has not been great for them in terms of time on site and expandsing the user -- expanding the user base. they have a team that is looking at this because it is a big problem for them. you are going to see some friction with lawmakers about whether or not they're doing enough and i think you'll see friction with users.

twitter, i think, you can say is more politely managed. it's a much smaller group of people that watch this stuff. they've taken the step, again late, of informing users specifically whether or not they interacted with this content. but they haven't taken a ton of additional steps except for very recently purging accounts that they knew to be primarily just software animated accounts that were linked to the russian government. again, why it takes until 2018 to do that is a question a lot of people will be asking going forward. host: james in virginia beach, democrat. guest: please listen for a minute. what you are saying is not true. you are going on trump's talking points. the general public will understand. the cable box is not hooked up to the internet. ou do not run the box. the company can control that. it is a wireless modem in it.

you have to go to the software companies and hardware companies in china and russia that makes these. they can be manipulated. that's why the voting machines -- they can be hacked. during the tabulation of these votes, this is how russia knew what counted and what state. all you have to do is go into milwaukee county, 50,000 votes that was bought. hillary clinton -- what you are saying is not true. also, you cannot say absolute that there was no voting change. you do not know that because there is no paper trail to prove that. am i right or wrong, sir? thank you. guest: i am actually not saying that i know with absolute certainty there was no changing of votes. there was no evidence. i think greater scrutiny on this is in the interest of the country.

i agree, i cover insecurities in software and hardware all day, and you are right, there's a ton. it's not to say there is a lot of evidence to suggest changing of actual votes. but just because you haven't seen evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. if that's your point, i think i agree. but you also get a sense from the passion on both sides of this that this was an effective campaign in order to politicize something that should not be political. the attack of the country. it's a new form of attack. it doesn't rise to the level of violent warfare but it's not like peace either. this is an actual activity that remains ongoing and it has this effect of creating a very politicized state. a lot of extreme feelings on both sides and it separates people from a consensus of facts. -- you an do that, then are a russian information officer, you've had a great day. let's all understand that the central thing we should be talking about is did this

happen? yes. is it ongoing? yes. what do we do about it? host: from texas, a republican. guest: good morning. great topic. i think nobody should interfere in anybody's elections worldwide. anything we can do to protect ours is great. but you hear all these stories that america spends our taxpayer dollars to interfere in elections like in israel and other countries like that. you can't call the goose one thing and not do it yourself. host: let's take your point. patrick tucker. guest: right, so i think that what about doesn't work for me as a way to understand my job creating news content for the public and not a way that i think of myself as a citizen and what i want for election security. i take your point that at various points in united states history, there is evidence to suggest that this country's foreign policy was not helpful or in line with our stated ideals of creating a more

democratic world. i feel like though we have to move that to a side discussion because it's used to kind of -- it's a useful means of distracting ourselves from the problem at hand and our civic duty to defend ourselves from aggressive activity from a hostile foreign agent. we are not the moral equivalent of vladimir putin. this country is not. to the extent that in the arab spring instance, for example, we tried to further democratic goals perhaps by undermining certain autocratic regimes, you can have an after-action report to look at whether or not the planning that went into that or lack of planning was the best way to do that. but the goal was furthering the democratic process in creating availability and opportunity for people around the world to participate in democratic elections. that's different from what vladimir putin is trying to do.

he is trying to first distance ourselves from our allies, create discontinuity in the united states, create discord, undermine a common sense of civic purpose and the reason for that, it's multifaceted but largely it has to do with the fact he looks better if counter to that, the united states and the west looks terrible in contrast. so this is very much i think part of the goal for this. we are not the moral equivalent. host: chris in tennessee, independent. guest: i think russia has probably been interfering in our election since the revolution. as far as the hacking into the d.n.c. computers and all that stuff, i think that if i had to make an educated guess, i think it was probably the inside job from the packs standi boys and until the f.b.i. seizes those

computers, i don't think you are ever going to get to the bottom of that one, and i don't think the f.b.i. wanted to seize the computers because they probably knew the answer already. host: patrick tucker, what do we know about how these russian intelligence services were able to put this -- you explained a emails looked like they had specific information. who clicked on them? guest: we are getting some transparency into a variety of different people in the d.n.c. that clicked on them. we understand the signature because it was employed against other u.s. targets, joint chiefs of staff's ability, nonchassfide email, state department, colin powell, john mccain. host: they all clicked on -- guest: exact same group targeted all of those different targets. it is a nonpartisan group. this question of whether or not

the -- there's something fundamentally flawed about this investigation or the conclusions of the intelligence community because the f.b.i. did not physically examine the servers at the d.n.c. is to me completely irrelevant. since crowd strike's initial public reporting, the office of the director of national intelligence has put out more evidence and recently subpoenaed the investigatories offices released more information. we can sense this grow stronger all of the time and it's somewhat distant from the question of whether or not the f.b.i. had to physically examine the servers in order to understand clearly the pedigree, if you will, of the actual messages that were sent to the d.n.c. and were clicked on and spread within the d.n.c. and by john podesta. the trail, it's very transparent.

it's not something that will manifestly change when you actually physically examine the servers. more importantly, that initial piece of evidence has since been corroborated over and over again by new pieces of evidence that have since been made public, bolstered by human intelligence, real interviews, that's coming out at this point not just in statements and reports from the intelligence community but actual indictment. that's how strong this stuff is. now the discussion amongst the intelligence community is how much of the tactics, procedures, they can reveal in indictments in order to get indictment. that's how secure they are in this. when you see every intelligence head chief, including those appointed by donald trump, speak with one mind on this, with complete anonymity, that has to be compelling. ost: gary is watching, a

republican. o ahead, gary. sorry, saul, houston, texas, republican. guest: hi, i am actually independent. i just wanted to bring up what another caller actually brought up a few calls ago, about the fact that the united states has been caught red-handed so many times interfering with -- excuse me, with elections. now, i understand we need to preserve our own democratic process and everything else. i highly am for that, but at the same time you can't dismiss the fact that so many examples of us in the past doing it. i understand with the arab spring, trying to bring democracy to the people, but that's none of our business. it hasn't been our business. when anyone interferes with us, it's a thing of they're trying to destroy our democracy. but when we do it, we are just trying to help. host: you said we are not the

moral equivalent of russia and vladimir putin. why are lawmakers saying about what russia did in the 2016 election, how do they classify it? there's always this discussion. it's not war, it's not peace either. so when is an attack seen as war? guest: this is a very good question. i also think to clarify, we might be the moral equivalent of russia, not the equivalent of putin. so the big problem that i think a lot of folks -- that lawmakers are having is trying to understand what their role is going forward in terms of fighting disinformation and i take the caller's point. there are lots of instances in history where suggesting the united states didn't live up to its ideals. for lawmakers they're charged with protecting u.s. elections

going forward. so in terms of whether or not this rises to the level of war, we have approached some consensus from intelligence chiefs about what should be done. what they suggest is a whole of government response, and that means that we need to, number one, call out this behavior as unacceptable. that's step one, to acknowledge that it happened, not hide in the sand from it, to say this is what occurred and it is unacceptable and invoke a whole of government response that might include some sort of counterhack or things like this, might include economic pressure, diplomatic pressure. this is how you get the obama era sanctions that they put in place in 2016 which the trump administration has so far refused to enforce, much to the mystery and chagrin of bipartisan lawmakers and to the extent that they can actually express this under testimony, they can reveal this, they think to the confusion of the

intelligence heads. in terms of what they feel like is our job as a response, there is a lot of crosstalk about this. there needs to be a coherent policy that's something that the entire government can get behind but you need economic pressure, diplomatic pressure and you need to show you have technical capabilities to respond to attacks or events like that in the question of how to regulate social media networks, that would possibly fall under regulatory purview, but that is somebody with later. host: for viewers want to try to follow along as this story continues to develop, go to defenseone.com, you can follow after turner there, also on twitter @defenseone. thank you very much for the conversation. appreciate it.

that does it for today's "washington journal." thank you all for watching. enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: it is two weeks until the next congressional budget deadline, but no legislative work on capitol hill today. the u.s. house will meet in about half an hour for a short pro forma session. we will take you there live at 10:30 on c-span. our live coverage today includes discussion on president trump's just announced terrace on steel -- just announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and the impact it might have on jobs and the economy from the heritage foundation at noon. white house press secretary sarah sanders has scheduled a

press briefing. she is expected to talk about the latest jobs report, keeping the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.1%, and three questions starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. that will be live when it gets underway on c-span. of youngt, a group chicago residents discuss gun violence in their community, moderated by former u.s. education secretary and chicago schools chief, hosted by the brookings institution here in washington. that is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. tv am akend on book live coverage from the 10th annual tucson festival of books, featuring author discussions and viewer call-in segments from the university of arizona. starting saturday at noon --tern come with columnist eastern, with a columnist, on his book "the

retreat of western liberalism." author david johnston on the trump administration. than scott kelly on his book "endurance." on sunday, a discussion about women in the military and the book "code girls, the untold story of the american women cold breakers -- women codebreakers of world war ii." newt, the making of an american conservative." "go back to where you came from, backlash against immigration and