networks. at 10:00 a.m., the senate judiciary committee works on a bill to protect the independence of independent investigations and special counsel's. discussionge of a of congressional oversight and the fbi. live coverage of the senate at 10:00 a.m.. they are scheduled to debate the nomination of the nasa administrator. a senate armed services hearing with testimony from the secretary of the navy, the chief of naval operations, and the commandant of the marine corps. talkbout a half-hour, we to a senator about the u.s. military mission in syria. then the hill's white house correspondent on the trump administration's russia policy. and if states can collect sales tax on internet commerce.

our guest is jessica melugin. congressman adam smith, a ranking member on the house armed services committee, on u.s. dollar terry involvement in host: it is the "washington journal," for april 19. the house judiciary committee plans to subpoena be just department to turn over memos written by former fbi director james comey. with president trump in a key democrat on the committee telling that an attempt to undercut the investigation by robert mueller. mini, the senate judiciary plans to meet and pass a bill out of that committee that would protect special counsel bob mueller in the event that he is -- which mcconnell says he will not bring the bill to the senate

floor. we want to ask your thoughts on this legislative attempt by democrats and republicans to offer protection to the special counsel, robert mueller, and his investigation. if you think the legislative attempt should be done and you supported, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose the effort, call 202-748-8001. if you want to post on our facebook page, facebook.com /c-span. "the hill" wrote about this effort yesterday on its website. it is expected to have the votes to clear the judiciary committee, but it faces and climb,climbed -- uphill much less passing the more conservative house.

host: four senators outside this effort. cory booker of new jersey, senator coombs of delaware, lindsey graham of south carolina. a we are others as well as are interested in hearing what you think of it, if it is a worthy one. you approve if this. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it.

are outward appearances that mr. mueller has never been in greater peril. the president continues to e.eth secretary insisted that the president has the power to dismiss the special counsel. the similar argued that it would be futile because the president would veto it. host: mitch mcconnell being

interviewed earlier this week on fox news, particularly asked about this legislative effort and what he would do about it. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> there is a move afoot by some about thelleagues president's removing mueller. >> i do not think the president is going to do that. as a practical matter, why would he sign it? a so you do not think it is good idea and something the president would entertain or should entertain? >> i don't think he should fire mueller, and i do not think he is going to. this is a piece of legislation that is not necessary. >> none of your colleagues say it should be in there. >> but i am the one who decides what we will take to the floor. that is my job as majority leader. we will not take this to the floor of the senate. >> would you be shocked if he

did fire him? >> yes. i don't think he should and i don't think he will. host: if you support this effort, providing legislative protection for the special counsel, 202-748-8000. -8001 if you support it -- if you oppose it. , good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. . support this legislation i think this is the most important investigation sense the revolutionary war. what frightens me the most is being in the kill zone. the fact that we have russians -- russia has declared war on the united states. we are worried about north korea. russia has the bombs and they have threatened to new us up and down the east coast.

they have had their nuclear power plants, -- they have plants,ur nuclear power our electrical grids, our financial institutions. they started that stuff back in georgia during the russian /georgian war in 2008. -- expanddo you think your thoughts on the legislative effort. why do you think that protection is needed, and why should congress be the one to make that decision? caller: because congress is supposedly a neat will and separate branch of government. they have as much power as -- an equal and separate branch of government. they have as much power as the executive branch. int: let's go to john california, who opposes the effort. you are next up. caller: hi. i am watching you on the tv,

first time on c-span. host: what are your thoughts on the effort? caller: i am opposed to the republicans that supports this bill. i consider them to be a little bit too progressive. host: why do you oppose it? expand on that. caller: they claim to be republicans, but they are too much progressive. host: what is progressive about this effort? caller: it is like the salem witch trials. tony, good morning, a supporter of this effort. man, i really love c-span. i wish i could get it on my hd. know, i am a republican. this is totally perfect. let's figure out who the real republicans are. and i hate to call it the tea party, but it may be the tea party.

they should go 100 20. zero. to host: what do you mean by that? caller: i think part of being an american is, you know, well, i am texan. you know that. is doing acan party good job right now with taking their establishment guys and saying we are going to give it 100% to the end of this, but we are not going to run again. let's let the americans figure this one out. host: but particularly to the support of this legislation, why do you support this effort particularly? number one, i think it is a bunch of republican conservatives doing the investigation. so it is not a witchhunt. host: that is tony giving us his

thoughts this morning. richard on twitter says the itsident fired comey -- sounds like obstruction of justice to me because of the russia thing. it is the proper course of action. i am not sure if legislation is needed. mayben agree with jim, disagree with jim on his thoughts or any of the other thoughts this morning on the phone line. if you support this effort projecting the special counsel from being fired, it is 202-7 48-8000. senator chris coons of delaware -- he is sponsoring that bill. he talks about leader mcconnell's remarks and wrapped up his thoughts on this legislative effort. here is what he had to say. a wide range of republican leaders in the senate agreed that for president trump to fire bob mueller or interfere with

his investigation would be a terrible idea. chairman grassley has called it politically suicidal. it wouldraham has said be effectively the end of the trump presidency, and i believe leader mcconnell has shed -- has said the president should not do that. those statements i agree with. i do not know from where leader mcconnell gets his confidence that president trump will not take action to interfere with his investigation. tweeted ornt has spoken directly or indirectly in ways that i think and threaten the investigation led by special counsel mueller. i'm focused on getting to a markup in the judiciary committee next thursday and that we are in a place to get past the judiciary committee. my hope is leader mcconnell is correct that we do not see a threat to mueller's investigation by the president, but the reality here is that there are stronger signals that the president has acted in an

untraditional, unwise way. he may do the same against bob mueller, and it would be wise for us to take it up and consider it. next fromill hear andre in maryland, a supporter of this effort. tell us why. caller: i support the effort because everybody knows that mueller is an upstanding guy, decorated u.s. marine. this needs to be put to rest. to find out what happens in this effort to undergoing -- to undermine our government. support mueller, and paul ryan and mitch mcconnell need to get a spine. these guys are spineless. they are for party over country a national security. host: nbc news talked about

speaker paul ryan in a story on april 15. it said speaker ryan said he did not believe there was any need to bring up a bill to protect the special counsel. "i do not think the president is going to fire mueller are at first of all, i do not think he should be fired. i do not think they are contemplating this. conversations about this. it is not in the president's interest to do this. no one is above the rule of law system. chris in florida, who opposes this effort. good morning. caller: the only reason i oppose the effort is because it is kind of kabuki theater. in other words, they have to get a majority to override his veto. he would veto if it went up there, and it is just kabuki theater.

the people that want this bill to happen, congress has a lot to do in the first place. the questions they should be asking themselves is what is going to happen. what if he does fire mueller? do you think the fbi will stop investigating? no. it is kind of a moot point. anybody who says they want this to happen, they are not asking themselves questions about what happens when it does happen. if it does happen, it is better for their side. it is a waste of time for congress to discuss these things because they are not going to do with -- they are not going to do anything with it. for people who want this to happen, you should be opposed to having this happen and ask your punishment to do other things that are important. if he does fire him, then they get what they want. to say is that we need congress to focus on the points they can take care of instead of focusing on "kabuki

theater." host: the editor of the wall street journal this morning, the robertnt should not fire mueller, but a bill shielding him is unconstitutional.

host: velma in alabama, a supporter of this effort. caller: good morning. i was in support of it because i believe if they do not get it, he might fire him, and as the gentleman just said, the fbi would probably take it up. is downgrading the fbi agency. so i feel as though, yes, he should have that protection. not only that, when they went over there in syria, they did not have no fatalities. but we feel like the american people, he warned russia that they they were -- that they were coming, so they cleaned out everything. we did not see any chemicals, no people were dead or anything. ervin in north carolina,

opposing this effort. caller: i highly oppose this effort. mueller should have been fired by trump, along with the deputy director of the boj. -- of the doj. lasts been over the 18-plus months, and this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. the firingu say should remain with the executive branch, under the president's power. caller: absolutely. with some valuable, incremental results. we are not sure how much money he spent. clarksburg, is in west virginia. he supports this effort. caller: you cannot sue the congress like you can somebody that does not do their job.

if you hire someone to do carpentry work for you, you expect them to get the job done. but congress never uses the constitution right. they used it to get an unlawful supreme court person in there. his wife works for the administration directly. he should have to step aside when this is being decided. our government was never meant to be decided by one person. either way, democrat or republican, no one person should have that much power. we did not decide to have a king. we need to put this president in check and take care and get to the bottom of this russian thing because i truly believe that this president has more concerns about russia than the united states. host: robert mueller is the topic of a recent poll, opinions of him. those conclusions about american

proportion growing of americans have an unfavorable opinion of the special counsel. late march, up from 20% of americans, up from 20% in late march, have an unfavorable view of mueller. 32% of americans have a favorable view of mueller, little changed from the 30% -- the 33% he received in late march. host: linda, good morning, from milford, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i support it, totally.

there is just too much that has happened that points to something i think more serious , you know, like what they are looking for with mueller. i actually believe he does act like a mob boss. and i think that if we let it go, we are going to find out this guy is a criminal. he has done damage to our country. i really do think he should not be in office. host: let's go to jeff. jeff opposes this effort. he is in nebraska. good morning. caller: pedro, how many times are we going to go through this crap? , "the washington

says" somebody on cnn mueller is going to get fired, and all the press, everybody gets wound up, then it goes away, then we do it again, then we do it again. now we are doing it again. it is getting old. why doesn't mueller go over to the democratic side and look at all the information that we know we have, that the russians played a part in? host: this effort by republicans and democrats to shield robert mueller -- should he be fired? talk specifically about why you oppose that. caller: he should not be fired. trump has said how many times he is not going to be fired. how many times does he have to say it? efforts toegislative protect him -- what do you think specifically about that? caller: i think it is a bad idea.

what if there is another special counsel under a republican? do you think the democrats do not want the power for their democratic time -- there democratic president to fire the special counsel? that is the president's prerogative. host: that is just. the president did speak out from florida. he continues his meetings with japanese prime minister shinzo abe. he had things to say about the mueller probe and what is going on with it. here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] pres. trump: that there was no collusion. there was no collusion with russia fight the democrats, or as i call them, the instruction it's because they truly are obstructionists. we are getting tremendous amounts of paper. hoax createdly a

largely by the democrats as a way of softening a blow of a loss, which frankly they should not have had. it is easy for them to have an advantage in the electoral college. this is what it is and where it came from. you look at the kind of money that was paid. probably some went to russia. you look at that stuff -- you look at podesta. having money that came from russia. the dnc server was never gotten by the fbi. the fbi takes what they want. they would not get the server. this is a hoax. nobody has ever been more transparent than i have been shocked at our lawyers. be totally transparent. i believe we have given them 1.4 million pages of documents, if you can believe this.

and they have not used -- and have not used presidential powers or privilege. we are hopefully coming to the end. ours a very bad thing for country, but there has been no code lujan. they will not -- there has been no collusion. they will not find any collusion. it does not exist. the two gentlemen have been saying i am going to get rid of them for the last three months, four months, five months, and they are still here. we want to get the investigation done with, put it behind us. [end video clip] you want to see that meeting with the president and the statements he made on that and other topics, you can go to our website at c-span.org. consuelo, from chicago, hi. caller: let me issue a correction. i do support the effort.

i thought i was on the opposing line. i do support the legislation because it is necessary to measures and steps being taken to find out exactly what went on between trump's campaign,- trump's russia, and the people who do his dirty work. trump is at large in our governmental community, and it is frightening to see that what just like he did those airstrikes without approval, he violates the rule of law, he has been under disregard for our ernstitution -- he has an utt disregard for our constitution.

he says one thing and does something else. host: is the effort still worth it? if it goes nowhere in the senate, in the house, and then the president would not signed it himself. even if this legislative effort gets out of committee, the president would not sign it and there is no guarantee the house would go along with it. aller: but i think it is well-established understanding that the investigation would continue, whether he signs legislation or not. it is going to move forward. bob mueller, i have great -- andnce in him and his out, exactly what donald trump has been up to. to bob, whogo opposes this effort. he is in kingswood, texas. ro.ler: good morning, ped

it is time. it has been going on two years now. it is time the american public gets some kind of the just of what is happening. as far as the legislation goes, right now the way the constitution is written, it gives the president executive power. congress cannot take that away. there is the separation of powers. it is important to our liberty and freedom. had hillary clinton one bank the election, there would be a special counsel investigating her. the american people would be tired of it. ,on't you think it is time pedro? it is time. host: there are other stories about inquiries. bob goodlatte is preparing to issue a subpoena to turn over jim comey's memos that he leaked

detailing interactions with president trump. the ranking democrat on the committee said bob goodlatte notified of him -- notified him of the plans yesterday. host: if you go to "the washington post," they are reporting that two of the president must top legislative aides met with the attorney general to press him about documents involving law enforcement officials involved in the russia probe

host: let's hear from chris, glen bernie, maryland, a supporter of this effort. caller: hi, pedro. i feel like we are looking at this in too much of a good guy/bad guy narrative. russias a history of infiltration in the fbi itself. we remember robert hanssen and so forth. this,k the purpose of even though it may not get signed by the president, is to keep this in the headlines, to face the public that it does matter which individual is in charge. we do not want to fall into the fbi is going to continue as normal if this man is taken out. host: a cia director headed to north korea into discussions with kim jong-un about talks with the united states.

craig caplan reports on his twitter feed this morning that the senate foreign relations committee will vote on the pompeo to of director be secretary of state. that will occur on monday. david in flint, michigan, a supporter of this effort. caller: good morning. i support it. i think we should -- i think mueller is an earnest person and he is really a republican. it is not like he is a democrat trying to get rid of a republican. i think the president is going to eventually get rid of .osenstein and mueller you have the majority party controlling both houses, the house and the senate. i do not think they are going to do nothing. they know he is probably into hoots with russia, but as long as he can get their programs together and get rid of social security and all the programs for the poor people in this country, which i support.

and i am a working man, i am not poor, but i still support the poor. they are doing that, they are going to keep them in their bank. host: we are asking your thoughts on this legislative effort to protect the special counsel, robert mueller. if you want to keep on calling, we will pick that up in a bit. we have the opportunity for brief discussions also with members of congress. joining us now, senator mike s, a member of the armed services committee. good morning to you, sir. guest: good morning, sir. host: let's start with syria. where do you fall particularly about discussions about a new a umf? we have had a chance to look at that and we are trying to modernize it, trying to

recognize that we have different organizations that we are involved with right now. aumf would identify any new countries in which we would pursue american -- we would pursue terrorists in. i think there are some very good things, but the suggestion -- that are suggested in the aumf. when we willre have the opportunity to vote on it, but there is bipartisan support for updating the particular aumf, which is now 14 years old. bet: some say there would limitations on what the president could do in this case, particularly acting nimbly. disagree with

that. it is one of the things i think both sides cannot do, tying a president's hands from responding quickly. but they would recognize congress' role for declaring a war, for the president to act in a timely fashion, giving notice what his intentions are. thus the reason for having a notification to congress quickly after moving into a new location. doingk that balance is fairly well in the discussions we are having at this point. host: the administration is discussing possible pullout in syria of the u.s.'s actions. are those contradicting messages? contradictingmuch messages, but the president has said he never wants to telegraph and that we should be basing our decisions to leave syria -- we have about 2000 individuals

working right now on fighting terrorists in syria. before we start talking about telling people where and we are going to leave, but space that on conditions on the ground rather than a specific timeframe. it does not help the troops on the ground if we have a particular date because the troops on the other side take advantage of that if they know they can hide until you are leaving, then they come back out. we are talking about leaking our decisions, that gives the -- about not to leaking our decisions, that gives the military time to move. host: what are your impressions about the military on the ground? should troops stay or be pulled out? place where is a there is basically chaos. you have a civil war going on for years, you have this safe haven there in which the islamic

state has found a haven for a period of time. in that regard, we are having success. overall success in going after islamic state. we have a number of partners around the world helping us with that process. it is a joint effort. that part is being successful. messyria itself is a real because you have all the different factions. you have iran in the middle of they like thed idea of having a location where they have an advantage of trying to get in and take advantage of the civil war that is their bank. in doing so -- that is there. basewant to have a nibble -- a naval base, they want a

government entity in place. i really think they will take whoever is there as long as they can take that warm water port. that is what is important to russia. that is creating some chaos because right now there are other people who would like to see -- host: so troops should stay because of stability factors? guest: troops need to stay there because we need to take out isis to begin with. that is one mission. there is a difference in terms of the most recent attack that we have provided to our missile attacks from a kevin neal -- from a chemical weapons facility , entirely different discussion attackingumf for terrorist sites. different issues. making sure that any other rogue nations understand that if you use chemical weapons, we will

come in and that will be considered an attack on civilized society. it will be considered a violation of international treaties, and we will respond accordingly. the united kingdom and france offering support in this effort. would you like to see more international support? guest: no question about it. , and the countries fact that they supported, -- they support it, lends credibility. the fact thatide, iran is supporting aside, the fact that assad is clearly using chemical weapons on his own people. ist is clearly a fact that putting these allies together. host: because you brought up russia, there has been back and forth between the administration and the u.n. ambassador rice

sanctions in russia. what did you make of not only that exchange, but particularly what nikki haley said about what is being done? laded on thehaley line saying, do not -- host: as far as additional sanctions against russia, where do you stand on that? actor.russia is a bad they are not our friend. i think the russian people want the respect of the rest of the world. they do not understand that mr. putin still acts in many ways as a tough guy, as a member of the kgb would act. he believes in acting as a position -- from a position of strength but shows very little regard to where we are trying to have free trade, open trade. we did not want to get back into an arms race, but he has to

forward and created that once again. host: we have been talking with folks about the special investigation by robert mueller, the legislative effort to protect him. what do you think about this fight, this effort by republicans and democrats, to offer that protection? with: i shared my thoughts one of the sponsors and said i disagreed with trying to do this type of protective measure at this time. asis looked at improperly the legislative branch telling the executive branch we are going to tell you how to do your job. the president under our constitution has the authority, but he would also take responsibility should he try to fire mr. mueller. from my perspective, i would president should not fire him. i think the president will use appropriate judgment in this case, but i do not think we should be telling him how to do his job.

i do not think that is the way you handle it in this particular case. thehave to respect president's authority, but at least offer to trump that he will have sound judgment. but if he does not, there could be repercussions that could be pretty serious. host: i know you do not want to tell leader mcconnell how to do his job, pointing he says -- but when he says that discussion will not reach the floor of the senate, how do you respond? peoplei share with other that i will not support their program at this time. i understand how i would feel if a legislative body tried to tell me how to do my job based on what i thought my constitutional abilities were. i suspect the president would feel the same way. host: do you get the sense that amongst republicans widespread there is support for this effort? guest: not at this time. there is a group that wants to make it clear that it would be a

mistake, and i respect their point of view on it. it is in the best interest of the country that this investigation is over, that it is done thoroughly, but in a timely process. i am just of the opinion that we still have to respect the constitutional authority of the president to make that decision, accept the has to consequences if he fails to use good judgment. ist: the supreme court hearing a case this week taking a look at internet sales tax. where do you stand on this issue? guest: sales taxes are collected by states, a primary source of income for the states. the more items you can tax, the lower your rates can be.

when you have brick-and-mortar stores on main streets having to collect sales taxes in the different states, and if you are sailing sessions if you're selling over the and in a because you are outside the state, with a court decision versus north dakota, they said until congress acts you cannot pass those sales coming into the states as a sales tax, but you can still use it as a use tax. what the states have been doing for at least the lax -- the last 12 years now since i was governor, they are saying we should be able to put together a plan in which we can tax the items that someone in my state has bought from someone through the internet out of state. has said howers can we keep track of all the different tax rates from all the different counties and communities? that is the reason why the state got together and created the streamlined sales tax plan.

set up a single software package in which a seller has free software that determines what the rate is, and if they use it, they are protected from audit coming from those different states. i think we are getting there. it is a necessary item if we are going to be continuing to use sales taxes as a way to fund state and local -- host: senator mike rounds joining us on c-span. thank you, sir, for your time. for those of you who have been waiting patiently and want to give your input on the legislative effort to protect special counsel robert mueller, our previous guest talked a little bit about it. we at appreciate you being patient with us. us yourant to give thoughts, it is 202-748-8000 if you support this effort, 202-748-8001 if you oppose it.

joe from westminster maryland says he opposes the effort. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: first, if i could add one comment, it was refreshing to hear senator rounds disagree with president trump and not just tell the party line -- not just toe to the pay line. it is refreshing to hear senator rounds disagree with president trump on defeating isis. mueller,rd to mr. people need to be patient. they forget that there have ,lready been three guilty pleas multiple indictments. there is an ongoing criminal case against mr. manafort. people need to just sit back and be patient, and if nothing comes

out of it, then the prosecutors will have to pay the consequences. gratification.nt you have to sit back and be patient and look at all that has been accomplished, with all the indictments, all the guilty pleas. let it take its course. host: on the support line from los angeles. rosa, go ahead please. caller: i support mr. mueller 300,000%. i trust him and i trust his record. yes, he needs protection because we have seen the back and forth with this president. my feelingssad in about this president because i grew up during kennedy, and we knew his whole cabinet. has not even think this man a cabinet. i see people flying like birds, in and out. ist is going on

embarrassing. this is the united states of america. while he is constantly talking about other people and being so rude and crude two women and what have you, i think he has forgotten where he is. let's go to charles in charlotte, north carolina, who opposes this effort. i think mueller and his team ought to stay in their lane. donald trump was an entrepreneur for years. we are talking about his relationships back in 2006, and we are to drag all this stuff -- every president, we are setting a precedent where we are going to go after somebody finding some little sliver to investigate, and then uncover everything they have ever done. in the a is this man presidential -- we have a businessman in the presidential office.

trump,ys liked donald and now we are trying to rip him up because he has a background. and he does. it is pretty colorful, but you should not use the premise of collusion to go after him. we have news channels that are going after things in 2006, 2003. it is ridiculous. unlimitedjust have an , total, any kind of unlimited time to investigate every single thing he has ever done? i do not agree. host: the subject of a follow-up story in "the wall street journal," donald trump talking to another lawyer saying mr. trump sought advice from j goldberg, who represented him in the 1990's, cautioning the mr.ident not to trust cohen.

host: denville, new jersey, legislative efforts being debated and voted on today, possibly, protecting robert mueller from being fired by the president. you support this effort. go ahead. caller: i absolutely support this effort. to go back to the stories we are talking about, this lawyer is talking about whether michael: willflip -- michael cohen

flip on the president. flip on the president unless there was something to flip on? 'sst: so robert mueller investigation, protection for him -- what do you think? of the mueller investigation is not just to determine whether the russians colluded with the trump campaign, it is to determine why . this is what investigators and prosecutors want to know in -- criminalal kreis case, the motive for the activity. i think legislators, congressmen and senators, ought to be on record whether or not they support protecting mueller or not. .hat is another data point people who want to shut down this investigation before mueller has reached a conclusion to what happened in 2016 are

trying to protect the president and are hiding something. host: off twitter -- host: in "the new york times," taking a look at tokyo's reaction to the meeting that is taking place in florida between the japanese prime minister and the president. this dealing with issues of trade and north korea. yesterday, exchange donald trump spoke about negotiations with north korea, the pending meeting that might take place. here is some of that. [video clip] we have never -- been trump: we have never in a position like this with that regime, whether it is

father, grandfather, or son. i hope to have a successful meeting. if we do not think it will be successful, we will not have it. thatthink it is a meeting is not going to be fruitful, we are not going to go. there meeting when i am is not fruitful, i will respectfully leave the meeting and we will continue to do what we are doing. but something will happen. flexibleways remaining and will remain flexible here. from goodyear, arizona, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not trust robert mueller. i have been reading about him others pals when he did clients that he had four people who went to prison and two of

them were innocent. they got out and got tons of money. .verything that is going on donald trump is the president of the united states. we voted for him, we care for him and his family. he is going to succeed all the way. he will succeed. but mueller, if he does not get this done, he should pay all of our tax money back. that is what i want. rose,we hear next from from new jersey. rose, from new jersey? go ahead. like i said from the beginning, if you go to your -- i know because i grew up and it was the same thing.

you take off everything on your way and do your own thing. this nation better wake up. that call in his favor, they do not even know what europe is, what africa is, what anything is. we are looking like a banana republic. you are going after your president. pull you back to the discussion at hand, robert mueller, and why you think special protection is needed. it is needed because this man does not stop at anything. you have to protect the fbi. no matter if you like it or not, when you are in trouble, they are the ones there. host: let's go to willie in texas, and opposer of this effort. caller: good morning. you can sense how this is going. the folks who support this bill

have no idea of the simple fact that the u.s. constitution clearly prevents this from happening. senator rounds said it perfectly. and the people who support this bill have no understanding, and they do not even mention the constitution. the bottom line is they just hate trump. here ishappened to see unfortunately that is basically how this investigation is going. nonetheless, even the fact that it is going all over the place, the president has expressed no will, no plan to fire mueller. you had a caller earlier who said it. every three months it comes up and he goes away, and it comes up again because somebody has leaked it, and it goes away. i oppose it only because the constitution prevents it. david, clearwater beach,

florida, also opposing this effort. caller: thank you for c-span. there is no patience left for director mueller. he looks very smug. i will take my answer off the air. host: david, are you still there? a couple more minutes to give you the opportunity to give your thoughts on this issue. the senate judiciary committee, if you go to c-span.org, you can get more information about this hearing, particularly this hearing that will take place on c-span, "rules for firing a special prosecutor." you can watchhere it, on c-span.org is where you can monitor it, as well as our c-span radio app. not only can you see the president's statements from yesterday, the legislators that

talked about this over the next couple of days. there is a lot of information for your edification. you can do that at c-span.org. jim is next. he is an washington, d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. theuld just like to say, caller who called about the scope of the investigation going on with the president, i just do not think we need to get involved in such a big investigation of the president. what they are doing now is trying to stop him from putting forth his policies because they just do not like them. i do not think it is fair. whatever he does, they do not like. do you support or oppose this legislative effort? yes, i support it. host: because? because y? -- because why?

caller: i just feel that they need to be more understanding of what is going on. and notthe big picture just isolated incidents. we should be looking up the bigger issues that should be solved, like the deficit, hunger, things like this. host: that is jim and washington, d.c. of spending are coming up, dick bove and he says when it comes to a spending cut the budget director, mick mulvaney, said with new spending cuts proposals, mitch mcconnell appears cool on trying to roll back parts of the recent $1.3 trillion spending bill.

host: amil is in fort lauderdale, florida. he opposes this effort. caller: thank you for taking my call. i oppose it and i think we are at a standstill because trump cannot fire mueller. congress will go after him and try to impeach him. wiretap,ll call, his

they were reading his emails. who were checking everybody people talked to. mueller cannot stop a cousin of he does, then the real investigation -- mueller cannot stop, because if he does, then the real investigation will start. the only way to stop this madness is with the constitution will take power away from these freeloading representatives. host: a supporter of this effort, from chicago. caller: yes, i do support protecting mueller from being fired. actually, i had contacted the two -- our representative here. shereached out to me and responded back. donald trump has said for a long time that there is nothing to hide, there is no collusion. if that is the case, a lot of

people from his campaign have already been indicted. some of them have pled guilty. we should protect mueller to where he cannot be fired. if there is nothing there, let it play out. we already know as americans, that the russians did interfere with the 2016 election. we need to find out the reason why, and if they had help from americans. host: speaking with senator duckworth, jennifer havel: writing -- host: nancy in georgia, final

call on this topic. go ahead. caller: i am calling about attorney general sessions' testimony about the special counsel in the house judiciary committee on november 14. host: start with why you oppose the legislative effort. caller: we do not have a special -- that is what jeff sessions testified to under oath. host: you oppose protection legislatively. besides that, why did you oppose that? caller: because i think we should follow the justice department and their handbook, which is not being followed. it is not the person that is the process here. host: nancy from georgia.

last call on the topic. we will change topic slightly to talk with "the hill's" white house correspondent jordan fabian, talking about the rift and russia sanctions related topics with nikki haley and the trump white house. and the supreme court is deciding whether to impose sales taxes on internet purchases. you heard our previous guest talk about it. we will take a closer look at what that means with jessica melugin of the competitive enterprise institute. those conversations coming up when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> this weekend, c-span's cities tour takes you to asheville, north carolina to explore the literary theme and history.

saturday, we visit the boyhood novelist thomas wolf. >> it is a biographical fiction, and there are over 200 characters we can connect to people thomas wolf new as a boy. secrets, which you should not do in a small southern town. inn where inside the at scottt gatsby" fitzgerald state. >> he came to asheville looking for a place to recover, to rest. he wanted to write again, but he needed something to write about. he were to find stories and the people that were staying here. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m.

eastern on american history tv, we tour the largest home in built by the vanderbilt family during the gilded age. >> a home with over 33 bedrooms for guest and family, 65 fireplaces, a master staircase, architectural beauty surrounding the home. >> and we will visit the late pastor billy graham's asheville religious retreat, the cold. -- cove. our cableth affiliates as we explore america. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is jordan fabian. he is with "the hill." he serves as the white house correspondents are good morning. guest: good morning. words between the white

house and the u.n. ambassador nikki haley this week -- could you remind viewers and set the stage about what this was about? guest: this first point on into the open when nikki haley went on the sunday shows and announced the trump administration would impose new sanctions on russia related to the chemical attack on syria. the problem was that was not fully decided yet. the white house came out and walked back haley's comments for her, saying this is not happening, and then you have the new economic advisor saying nikki haley was confused when she came out and said that. she pushed back on that hard saying "with all due respect, i don't get confused." revealsay, this really a lot of the internal drama, politically armed policy

and personality that is playing out between nikki haley and president trump's team. host: what does it suggest about the current state of policy? examplet is the latest of how nikki haley and donald trump don't see eye to eye on the issue of russia. nikki haley at the u.n. has been a hawkish voice on russia going after them for their support for syrian leader bashar al-assad, presence in ukraine, and their meddling in the 2016 election. president trump has been more muted on that front. is nikki haley seen as a loose cannon when it comes to this type of policy? guest: some people in the white house see her that way, seeing her as try to use her perch in the u.n. to advance her political career. she is getting attention for what she is saying on russia. -- some people

suspect she is taking the stance on russia, going further than the president, in order to further her own career. host: your story this morning -- i will just read the headline -- fuels -- t was a risinghaley star. she earned a lot of credit for how she handled the racially motivated killing in charleston, south carolina. she took down the confederate flag. she is rumored to want to run for president one day. people think that, again, she is using this position to advance her political career, and it might be in league with some people in the trump administration, including the vice president, to try to team up as a presidential ticket one day. host: where do you get that kind

of sense and who is that coming from? the trumprces within world, people in the west wing and outside allies of the president are speculating this could be the case. there are people in the white house that push back on this hard saying it could not be further from the truth -- that the vice president and nikki haley are not teaming up. look, again, even the slightest hint this might be the case might anger president trump because he does not like when his subordinates get out in front and raise their profile and what he views as at his expense. host: this is what people are telling? you guest: i can tell you over the course of my reporting i began the story by asking the simple question of what is going on between nikki haley and the white house, and sources of mine brought this idea up unprompted. it wasn't even on my radar until i started reporting out the story. that shows you, again, the

degree of infighting within the white house, that a simple question about what is going on with the policy difference can turn into a full, circular firing squad on politics that reveals the resentments of jealousy that exists within the administration. " jordan fabian's joined us. questions, to ask now is your chance to do so. host: have we seen response from the ambassador since her initial tweet about not being confused? hashing followed up with anything on this front? guest: she has to she was at the u.n. and a reporter asked how her relationship was with the president, and she just smiled and said "it is perfect," and walked into the chamber. the notable part is we have not heard anything from president trump or the white house since this situation blew up.

that is unusual. when the president is attacked, he loves to get back. in this instance, he hasn't. host: when it comes to new sanctions, is that now off the table or is it pending? guest: i think it is pending. the president was asked about this at his press conference with the prime minister of japan and i'm paraphrasing here, he said we have the sanctions ready and we will impose them when we want to impose them -- not now, but maybe at some point in the future when something happens in syria or otherwise. host: when nikki haley makes these speeches at the u.n., talking about these policymakers, is she your own chief advisor? how much guidance does she get from the white house when she makes these statements? guest: nikki haley secured a promise from president trump that she could speak her own mind at the u.n. and she said president trump gave her a promise. a lot of times she is pushing

her own message. that is not to say she is not clearing it with the white house or even the president. she talked to the white house and the president quite frequently about what she is saying. she is the one driving her message. if she was taking directions solely from president trump, i don't think you would hear her saying the things she said about vladimir putin and russia. host: to what level or degree does the addition of john bolton increase actions at the united nations considering he served in that role in the previous -- in previous administrations? guest: it'll be extended watch. wincing john bolton remote people on the security council his ownfort to bring in team. the u.n. ambassador haley senate-confront position. that is not something he could willy-nilly do. it could be friction between john bolton and nikki haley. they do see eye to eye on russia, but if john bolton sees his mission as to enforce president trump's mission, that

could lead to friction. host: besides the phone lines, you can also make comments on our twitter feed. jordan fabian join us. you can see his writing at the h ill.com. mike is in south carolina, line for democrats. you are on with jordan fabian go ahead. caller: yes, just a quick comment. right, nikki haley was not a staunch supporter of trump when he was running. the lieutenant governor, , was.er trump aligned himself with mcmaster. nikki haley and rex tillerson, sort of, saw eye to eye on the russian issue, again, if i remember right. so it doesn't surprise me that nikki and trump would be at,

sort of, odds on where to go with it. nikki was notme, a tremendous fan of a whole bunch of the republicans here in south carolina when she was in office. so, i find it interesting when they keep saying she have this strong -- she was a strong, political, kind of person on the scene when, candidly, most folks in south carolina didn't see her that way. host: ok, mike. thanks. guest: one person you mentioned there, rex tillerson -- just in reference there. when he was secretary of state, he was overshadowed by haley a lot. that was one of the main complaints, she was surpassing him, more outspoken, and yes,

they were aligned on russia. interesting to bring that up because when i was talking to my sources they brought up the whole tension with tillerson to say nikki haley is someone just trying to seek attention, and they brought up that example. host: from john in ohio. cleveland. independent line. caller: good morning. i am not a psychic or conspiracy theorist. i been watching c-span from the beginning. you might want to look at other senate like the 98-2 passing against russia. what happen? he is always walk in back. sometimes he is not only short sighted walking back, he changes his mind like the wind. number two, can you tell me why russia did not attack -- they have the most modern things to defend the u.s. bonds. he did not. -- bombs. he did not.

saying i wouldn't be surprised if president trump called putin and said don't worry about it, thank you for not shooting our thing. he is a chicken. for almost a year he is not made a move against russia. guest: john in cleveland, -- host: john in cleveland, to our. let's start with the statement that the president is always walking back policy when it comes to russia. guest: this is what national security experts point to -- the sanctions is a great one. the president and his administration are often at odds when it comes to russia. what they say is that is pretty mixed messages for the united states and when he noticed a stress it is something to punish russia, for example, kicking out diplomats, the president is seeking -- singing a different tune when it comes to let mayor goodman or russian election in us -- when it comes to vladimir

putin or russian election interference. many people would like the u.s. , butesent a unified front when the president has his own message, that is undermined. that is something we will keep seeing again and again. host: you talked about the nation -- nature of the relationship. with the president and nikki haley. what about her and larry kudlow? guest: that is something to watch also. he is a new face in the administration. the president knows him. members of the staff do not necessarily. nikki haley is often new york, in new york,is off so she is not around. this could be another one to watch. host: here is linda in detroit, michigan. democrats line. caller: yes, i would like to say the young lady, the ambassador to russia is a classy lady --

she is very educated. she makes the president look like he just came out of kindergarten. thank you very much. have a good morning. caller points to something i saw in reporting out the story -- many people in the were upset with how nikki haley handled this, but outside of the white house she is getting a lot of praise for how she handled the situation. we have nothing a lot of people that have been attacked by trump, people in his administration, stand up to him. nikki haley is really one of the people who has done that and done it vocally. i think people who want strong female leaders really saw her as an example of how they should comport themselves when they are attacked by the president. host: this is done in chesapeake, virginia. a line for republicans. caller: yes, how are you doing today? host: go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. wass wondering --putin

supposed to get rid of this chemical gas and obama said we are to let russia take care of this chemical gas, and we didn't keep up with that to make sure he did get rid of this gas and destroy it. now, obama allow this to happen. isn't this light on his hands? that is my question -- blood on his hands? that is my question. guest:guest: i think the issue is more nuanced than that. the agreement he was talking about was brokered by john kerry, and the russians did help syria get rid of a lot of those chemical weapons, but the problem is they did not shut down the capacity to manufacture more chemical weapons. over the years they manufactured more sarin gas, chlorine gas, and that is the weapons stockpiles they have been using to carry out these attacks. the missile strikes the president launched -- that when after the manufacturing capacity.

the idea was they could hopefully disable that and limit chemical attacks in the future. host: on the national security front, jordan fabian, even on the vice president's side there was action as far as one of his national security advisers. tell us what happened and paint that into the larger picture. guest: that is the rumored alliance between the vice president and nikki haley, and one thing that started the is the vice president's office hired nikki haley's deputy, a man named john lerner, to serve as national security adviser to the vice president. this is a guy who had a relationship with the vice president's chief of staff. i know it is a tangled web here. he is a political poster. and the vice president's chief of staff also comes from the world of politics. people are thinking they are creating a team here of pence and haley loyalists to get a team together to run as a presidential ticket whether it

is in 2020 or beyond that. we don't know. that is what started a lot of these rumors. guest: so, is he still -- host: so, is he still employed by the vice president? guest: no. that is important to message -- mentioned. the president caught wind of this, and he also read that john lerner helped to write some anti-trump adds. that angered him and he spiked the appointment. that, again, pushed all of this internal drama to the surface. host: from oregon. independent line for our guest. this is jason. you are on with jordan fabian. caller: thank you, pedro, for taking my call. i have been an admired viewer of this program for a long time. thank you for taking my call. thank you, guest. i forget your name, but thank you forming of the possibility of a vice president pence and nikki haley connection.

it is an interesting idea -- giving president trump's legal situation, it is good to have some foresight into a potentiality. pence andesident ambassador haley are a good combination to at least transition for the next two years, i think that would be ideal. how do they feel about the tpp -- all the different crises we have around the world? hear anyeing stood to further reports the guest has on that. thank you for taking my call again. i think the caller brings up an interesting point. i want to say in the course of my reporting i do not think a pence-haley matchup is imminent or even likely, but i would say that if you look at people in haleys universe, nikki and mike pence have traditional republican views on a lot of issues, so their matchup could

make sense on paper. they do ci thank you on foreign policy -- they do see eye to eye on foreign-policy issues. they have similar views on free trade if you look at their past statements. again, these are two more traditional republicans, some people the party might look to as standardbearers after the trump era is over. host: that was jason in oregon. this is baltimore, maryland. caller: hi. my question is when we went into iraq, my wife and i both agreed we saw this -- a column of older 30 semi trailers -- of over 30 semi trailers going from iraq to syria. i am sure they were not delivering gasoline. miraculously, we saw them never again. they were removed, and unless i am mistaken, and i am 90 years

old plus, we used to say that weapons of mass destruction was bacterial and, chemical, and it seems to me they meet the criteria of being weapons of mass destruction. now, what is happening now is being put down because it is just chemical weapons and does not require the world to be offended. host: ok, caller. thanks. guest: i do not have any reporting on whether syria has sourced chemical weapons from iraq, but the reality is they have a large stockpile of chemical weapons and bashar al-assad has not been shy of using them against his own citizens. that is that we so it is military strikes, something the u.s., the u.k., france and

allies want to stop. whether they want to go farther than that and intervene in the civil war to stop it -- it does not appear they want to do that, but they have drawn a redline in weapons use. the president and north korea, the possibility of walking away -- can you talk about where they stand on these talks? guest: they appear to be advance. the president confirmed mike pompeo went to north korea to meet with kim jong-un. a is a significant step. a u.s. official to meet with the north korean leader. the talks are underway. president said five locations are under consideration. at this point it appears it is not issues about policies that are the impediment. it is logistics -- where can the north korean leader travel to to a neutral location to meet with

the president? on thete shows you it is topic it shows you these talks are on track. the president is unprintable. he said if north korea -- unpredictable. he said if north korea launches another missile tests, he could walk away. host: why go through the process of the opens himself up to walking away? guest: a meeting like this requires a lot of planning, so they have to go through that, and the president is a guy that likes to be unpredictable and off balance. he believes that helped him gain leverage in negotiations, but many people in the administration and other countries believe it is something that hurts the president because they believe they cannot take him at his word. this i want to ask about legislative effort in the house when it comes to robert mueller. what is the president's response to all this, this effort by some republicans even to offer robert mueller shielding from being fired? guest: the white house is not

put out an official statement on this bill, whether it would be vetoed, but i can tell you the president is not supported. he says he should have the ability to hire or fire anyone he wants. robert mueller does work under the justice department. there are regulations that regulate his hiring, but he believes that he should be restricted by congress in doing what he wants. host: let's go to georgia. democrats line. jim. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. hello, c-span. i was just interesting -- listening to your guest, and that pence-haley combination is intriguing. i would like to get off topic for a moment, and my question to --r guest is in light of the north korea and the effort and the time they have put into nuclear development, how can the united states realistically expect to go to the bargaining

table and expect north korea to do nuclear us --d nuclear eyes? guest: i think that is the million-dollar question in these negotiations. how can you take the north koreans at their word number one, and that also assure that they are doing it? remember that north korea is one of the more isolated countries in the world -- it is not like weapons inspectors are just walking around checking out what is going on. that is one of the number one sticking points in this negotiation. deo, if they do agree to -nuclearize, what will north korea ask for in return. in the past they said we would like sources -- forces to leave south korea. guest: also if -- host: also if north korea and south korea come to terms on their own, does that change the discussion point as far as the

nuclear program? thet: absolutely because u.s. would not necessarily be a party to the peace agreement. the south koreans could be making concessions in north korea u.s. is not necessarily signed off on and that could diminish the president's leverage at the negotiating table with kim jong-un. host: maryland. nicholas is next on the republican line. caller: just a question for the guest -- what you think is motivating the president to walk back the administration's policy with russia? guest: well, it is a complicated question, but in this specific sanctions, the president, i think, was disturbed about the headlines he got when he expelled 60 diplomats from russia after the poisoning of the russian double agent in the u.k.. he -- although he appeared to be informed about what the policy was, didn't want to be seen as going further than all of the

other countries in expelling the russian diplomats. of course, again, he maintained he still has a chance to form a relationship with vladimir putin to improve u.s.-russia relations. i think he sees anything that goes further than that as far as really punishing russia hard as hurting that goal. that is at odds with people in his own administration, but that is the way he sees it. -- t: host: with all the things going on, the president meeting with the japanese prime minister. how does this play into larger negotiations in the house? guest: the japanese are very concerned about talks with kim jong-un. the u.s. is responsible for japan's national security if japan does not have a full, standing army. that is the u.s.'s brown. they are worried if this -- realm. they are worried if this deal

happens, they will not be protected. they are concerned with trade. of course there is differences over the transpacific partnership trade agreement, which the u.s. backed out of last year. japan is still in it. they are one of the countries pushing that deal forward, and of course the u.s. is unwilling to join that deal at this point. a lot of differences -- a lot of topics to discuss. justificationthe of the white house having these meetings at mar-a-lago? guest: the president views mar-a-lago, even though it is a private property, as the "southern white house," and he views it as a great place to host foreign leaders, and he wanted to play golf with shinto lobby. -- shenzhen -- shinto have a. if you look, the weather is not so great here in washington. host: jordan fabian, who covers

the white house for "the hill." thanks a lot. guest: thank you. host: we will go to open phones implement :00 a.m. -- until 9:00 a.m. host: we will be right back. ♪ >> we have another person on the speech and it involves student protests. it was the vietnam war and students come to school wearing black armbands to punish and protest the war, and the question is can they be suspended by the des moines school district for their armbands? they say this violates their 7-2dom of speech and in a justice opinion the court says students cannot be punished for

their passive expression of opinion. it can hire you -- hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. >> this one is personal for me. i think i do what i do in part because my parents brought me to philadelphia when i was 11 years old and i went to independence hall, and that made a tremendous impact on me. then, three years later, four years later, i am in high chool, and i am -- i write an op-ed for the school newspaper that the principal sensors, and my teachers stood by me and they told me to read this case called .inker-des moines it is all about the free speech rights of students. i read it, and it really inspired me, and i think it changed my life. >> we have been given a powerful

personal story, but these cases do suggest students have fewer first amendment rights than adults, and justice thomas expressed in a provocative opinion as an original matter students have no first amendment rights at all. is tinker direct, or as justice thomas correct? >> it is true that the supreme court has been chipping back in a couple of decisions. there are greater estrogens that have been upheld on the to quorum of student speech and whether it is offensive. if something all curse within a curricular -- it's something occurs within a curricular context, it becomes school speech and it is easier to relegate -- regulate. i disagree with that, too. but the basic principle that kids are persons and are possessed with free-speech rights is a vital and correct principle. >> watch "landmark

cases" live monday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to comment on open phones and make your thoughts on twitter, it is that c-spanwj.@ "the new york times taking a look at federal investigators as they look at the southwest plane incident from earlier this week that cost the death of one. -- caused the death of one. after thestory saying fatal accident several airlines including southwest, korean air, and westjet airlines say they plan to inspect the --

host: brian in woodbridge, virginia. independent line. first up on these open phones. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry i missed your guest. i had a question for him. i've been doing research on the trade bills and stuff, and most of the discussion is about speculating about why the united states dropped out of the trade deal. all the trade information i have seen as they are evening the plainfield between the nations --playing field between the nations.

it is a fair trade deal. the way our corporations handle it is they, kind of, ms. handle it. general motors has 12 manufacturing plants in china. i am not sure how many they have here in the united states, but they dismantle them all to move to china and mexico. it is, kind of, like selling cows to raise milk money. member takes a your family treasure takes it to a neighbors house and the neighbor starts misusing the family treasure -- who will you blame? host: let's hear from rego park, new york. , cracked line. caller: -- democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro and everyone. the subject of an investigator the investigator in this country.

that goes on when there are dictators -- if someone is trying to investigate you for a crime and you try to fire the police. the question doesn't make any sense. people should get out of the camp, and regain their credibility when it comes to questions. take care. host: bradley. international falls, minnesota. republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. i have a quick comment and then i have a question for you, and that would be what you think after the midterm happens and republicans control the house and the senate again, please c-span going to continue down the same road as playing the dump the trump card? what is c-span going to do than? host: we don't play that card. caller: well, you kind of do. hold the phone -- if you look at most of your programming and

your guests, it is all against trump and in most cases against trump. host: i think we evenly handle it. you said you have another comment. go ahead. caller: that was my comment in a sense of what is c-span going to do after, you know, trump, or the republicans control the house and the senate? i you going to continue down the same road you have been going. that is all i have to ask. host: again, we don't do that, and again should that happen, we would cover the house, the senate, the way we always do in a balance, and fairway. ruth. good morning. caller: good morning. regarding the investigation, i think that following the money might be what mueller is doing. president did not want to

let us see his income tax with, and there has been always deals going back and forth around the world, but especially between russia and, you know, trump, and there is other countries -- properties exchanging, money laundering, possibly. so, i think that is why it seems like it is going wider. the danger to national security someat is that if there is kind of financial compromise on president trump from outside of the country that could be brought to bear on him, that hissure would affect ability to make rational

decisions. host: ok. got you. a story this morning -- as of this morning about the president's personal lawyer -- michael:. .- michael cohen this is from "politico."

host: bloomington, indiana. missy. you are next. caller: yes, i wanted to make a,. keep -- a comment. keep your eyes open. metals and johnson are going after rosenstein to have him fired by president trump, and everybody knows president trump lies. i don't know why anybody believes anything that comes out of his mouth. host: you mean meadows and congressman jim jordan. it was reported in the "washington times" this morning. caller: yes. keep your eyes open. he is getting ready to do this. alabama is next.

camp hill. bob. the public in line. caller: there used to be -- republican line. caller: there used to be a time agencye law-enforcement in this country would arrest a mob organization. and that clinton outfit -- host: bob, are you still there? caller: yes, i was saying there was a time in the country where the law-enforcement agents in this country would arrest a mob organization, and the clinton organization is a terrible thing that has been perpetrated on this country. this woman took money from russians, and they are trying to frame up president trump for russia and everything. you look at it -- man, these folks, they said we're going to get an insurance policy against this man if he becomes president. this is a sham and it should be

shut down. it is just outrageous that these was corrupt like this. it is a shame. host: debbie is next. flint, michigan. democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i've one request and one quick comment. thatquest is can you ask carl icahn to come on and explain why he dumped $31 million worth of steel company stock three days before trump announced his steel and aluminum tariffs? i would like to question that guy, get him on, give me 30 day so i get a call in to him i would appreciate it. my comment is you have a guy named mark calling and every week out of florida. i talked to your girls about it. he sounds like someone living in his mother's basement. maybe uses the home phone, the cell phone, his girlfriend's

phone, but my message to mark is your opinion is no more valid than anyone else is and as long as the rest of us have to only call once every 30 days, so should he. i now have a number i can call and i don't have to get through on the phone line to report this guy and i will be reporting him. debbie brings up the fact that -- for those of you that might be new viewers of the program -- we don't put a lot of rules on the phone segments, we do do this, once every 30 days, if you could hold off from calling on that front, that gives other people like debbie who follow the rules time to come in and make a comment. twitter, follow us on facebook as well. debbie, thank you. terry on the republican line. he is in minnesota. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. host: hi. caller: i would been to differ with you about fair and balanced. that is a major problem for us right now.

there is no news outlet that anybody could truly trust not to be biased. they have all been caught at different times being deceptive, lying -- whether it is through direct lies or through misinterpretations or small lies, or always giving their personal opinion, or this is about to happen, might happen, could happen -- it really makes for a frustrating situation for the country when you don't have any barometer of what is true. you have to weed through all the lies, all the time. everybody likes to say trump. this problem has been going on longer than that. look at this very program. you break people down to republicans, democrats, independents, call and let's have a good fight, and argued. when you look at the announcers -- should we have a line underneath you, democrat, republican? the easiestes us way of access as far as

political leanings and what they bring to the program and comments. i don't know of any other way of doing that. caller: that is my two cents. you have a good day. host: i appreciate it. terry, are you still there --? caller: yes, i am. host: when you watch the program because we divide the lines, do you learn anything from people that call in on various lines that don't represent your own position? caller: you know, pedro, sometimes i do, here's the problem with it -- if you are living a life it is hard to weed through all the different sources. i watch cnn, i watch fox, you guys, c-span, and you do have interesting guests on and i do get new stuff. i also get -- you bring in the politicians, and that is obviously a real problem for the country. they come in and say the same thing -- the other guy is all that, we are all good. they deny any common ground or

any common sense things. maybe i am wrong. i would like to hear one politician come out there and say maybe my position is not right. they don't. they entrench. it is a funny thing -- you can have guys making $100,000 a year and all and dubbing multimillion dollars. they must have great investment guys. we have a corruption problem. host: terri is in minnesota. thank you for calling in for your comments. i would add that legislators from congress and the white house, if they are available, and members of the federal government, when we started the network that was the original intent, to bring those people in front of the cameras, and have you as an audience be able to ask them questions and question them on various topics. that is the intent of this network. thank you for calling. mike in wall, new jersey. democrats line. high. caller: hello. i cannot believe i'm using my 30 days on this, to call only to

defend c-span. it is an amazing program. i am a democrat, odyssey, calling on a line -- obviously, calling on a line, and one of the guys further back was saying you are biased. that is the silliest thing i am heard. i will watch your program as a democrat that will in all honestly please me, and i cheer, and i watch the program and have people that will have me yelling at the television set. your program is effective in doing exactly what it is doing unbiased report and a fair report of what is going on a different issues all across the spectrum and i thank you for it. host: from "wall street journal this morning," a follow-up story taken a look at inspections in syria after the chemical attacks that were reported in the follow-up investigation of that. same the u.n. team that was there was attacked with small duma.ire in

host: from california, this is tony in claremont. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i want to chime in on discussion about c-span being unbiased. i just discovered this show may be a year ago and i started watching it religiously and i recorded. it is the only show i can watch that i don't really get fired up about -- i mean i get fired up

about it, but it is a fair show. the caller talked about how you are biased, the minnesota guy -- it is ridiculous. i am agreeing with your caller couple of callers back that said c-span gives fair and balanced reporting and everyone has a chance to chime in on their opinions. way our country is going to ever, kind of, get together, is if we listen to the other side, and i listen to republicans calling in. i am a democrat. i listen to their argument, and it helps me to understand their point of view, and if i don't agree with it, that is fine. --isten to it and i say wow a lot of people calling from the south have these opinions about guns, or whatever. i don't have -- one thing you don't have the ability to do is to show the percentage of people

calling in on each line so, it seems, that maybe one people are calling in with a specific opinion that you are biased, but you are giving equal time -- you have three different lines. you are doing it the best possible way you can do it, i love your show, and i appreciate the ability to call in and thank you for the ability -- allowing me to do that. host: tony in claremont. this is on our independent line. zach from mississippi. caller: i want to tell america it is about time it paid its do. this is nothing against israel or any other country -- instead of sending $33 billion to israel, it needs to pay the african-americans. they built this country, the white house, the building behind you. for white americans to have 18 20 times what an afghan american has, how can you say you got rid of slavery? if one person has $20 and i have

one dollar, i will eventually have to go work for him. your government policy for hundreds of years designed to keep africans down. you allow immigrants to come here and take our wealth, wealth we have built with the souls and blood of our ancestors. we love this country. we have no other place to go. immigrants can go home, wherever they want to go, but we cannot assimilate because of our black skin and the racism applied from the u.s. government. host: that is zach in mississippi. rebecca reporting on twitter that a judge will decide whether to dismiss a felony charge against eric greitens as the governor's political woes are deepening. npr following up with a story saying it is the missouri governor facing one charge one vision of piracy as well as

assault and blackmail and could be charged the separate felony for campaign practices when he ran for office. caller: -- host: dorothy is next in oregon. hello. caller: hi, pedro. it is nice to be able to talk to you again. i have a comment and a question. that it would seem to me -- i don't understand how through the election of donald trump, how the news media takes

no responsibility for putting him in office. pedro, it seems to me he got in office not only through russia, but also the american news media, and i'm not calling two, you know, start no assault on -- i watch at i lot of the news stations because i like to get married opinions, as much as i can on air. what i have come to realize and what bothers me is that most of the news reporters are young, white people who have been isolated from poor people, and that is ok -- that is fine. this is america. you could do that. and if you have a good education, you just have a good education, but when you have no 30%, 40%to about 20%,

of americans that are brown and look different from you, how can you report the news. you don't have any expense, any exposure. msnbc, and katy tour is sitting there, talking --ut donald trump same there talking about destroying black america. they are sitting there laughing. there not being cruel. they're just insensitive to it. host: dorothy in oregon. republican line. doug in pittsburgh. caller: great show. two are for taking my call. i want to make a quick comment. people have talked about the c-span balance. i think you guys do a good job trying to do that. a good litmus you want to look at is maybe how your callers call in and perceive it. majority of the republican callers do not see your show or station as balance

whereas most of the democrats think it is great. that alone should tell you something. i think everything will network , cnn,bias to it -- fox msnbc all say they are fair and balanced, but it is obvious they are not. i think that is true for c-span, to. host: georgia. independent line. beasley. caller: fewer for taking my call. i want to say i am in support for the legislative push to protect bob mueller. i don't think it really matters. and regardless of whether we it is aboutagree, the outcome. it is about treason. and that will be revealed.

there is a bigger picture here. about callersl --ling in, we are no longer all we are doing is fanning the flames for the second american civil war. host: mary. bardstown, kentucky. republican line. caller: yes, sir. i voted for president trump. journal,"shington c-span, and pedro, thanks for taking my call, darling. i am 64. are you there? host: i am here. go ahead. caller: did you get every thing i already said? host: i did, thank you. keep going. bible'sit says in the -- the bible that you pray for your leader.

if there are people that don't like trump, they are supposed to pray for them. if we want to get back to a godly country, that is what they need to do. host: ok. have you always prayed for presidents? leaders.es, all our you are supposed to. host: even the ones you disagree with. caller: yes, sir. host: ok, mary. i am curious, when you pray for the president, what specifically are you praying for? for his guidance, -- and for god to bless them during his presidency. host: and you extend the two presidents you do not agree with? caller: i have to. host: two are for calling. st. paul, minnesota. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i would like to make one comment. if this investigation is a hoax, and if trump is innocent like he says he is, why is he trying to stop it? and innocent man would not try to stop it, and that is my comment. host: ok. that is ken. a couple of stories when it comes to congress, the race for the texas senate is one of the things coming up. say that thew poll race between beto o'rourke and ted cruz is competitive.

host: "usa today" looks at what is going on when it comes to republican leadership positions, saying numbers of the freedom kevin willing to back mccarthy should he run for the leadership position say they would like to support mccarthy for speaker to endorse a strong conservative for a top leadership position in the next congress. that could help sway freedom caucus members to support mccarthy's participated bid to become the next speaker. two -- twording to speakers. since the house is formally out, they go into things known as pro forma sessions. no activity being done. they go through the process of gaveling in and at least opening with a prayer and rudimentary procedures. again, no official action being

done, but because our mission at c-span is it goes to the house regardless of when they come in, we should take you to it. it should be a sort -- short session. after that, we will come back and have another guest join us. we will prepare to go into this pro forma session from the house of representatives.