thank you. >> thank you. announcer: here is some of what we are covering wednesday on the c-span networks. at 11:00 a.m., president trump visits the state department for a ceremonial swearing-in of secretary of state mike pompeo. at 6:00 p.m., heritage foundation question of what is conservativism. in about one hour, we talked to npr justice correspondent kerry

johnson about the justice department and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. democratic party chair david pepper and the look at the state of journalism with investigative report will -- reporter sheryl atkinson. ♪ good morning. it is wednesday, may 2, 2018. a3-hour washington journal ahead for you today. we will talk about rod rosenstein's work as deputy attorney general, the upcoming primaries in ohio, and the upcoming debate over media fairness and reporting. we begin today with a topic that has been the subject of multiple federal court cases and a question that comes up more and -- wen college campuses are asking, should college athletes be paid? join the conversation this morning. you can call in on special phone

lines. for college athletes and coaches, (202) 748-8000. for parents of college athletes, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. .n twitter it is @cspanwj on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good wednesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. you're the public policy connection to this question we are talking about this morning. last year, the justice department filed criminal charges against 10 individuals for bribery in college basketball recruiting. those charges and that debates bonds the creation by the ncaa of a special commission. it was headed by former secretary of state condoleezza rice to look into this problem and proposed solutions. they presented their findings yesterday in the aspen institute

in washington, d.c.. those findings were debated and we will show you some of the debate that happened yesterday. here is the inside higher education story about what happened at the aspen institute yesterday. inconsistencies in ncaa rules systems ofal athletes being compensated for their name, image, and likeliness were debated yesterday at the aspen institute event, featuring the association's critics and representatives from member institutions. the division in opinions was clear yesterday. speakers tied to the ncaa, like the athletic director and former basketball coach and conference commissioners of various schools were cautious in embracing a opposition, either opposing it outright or cautioning that details would need to be worked out before it was tried. many athletes would shatter the amateur models which the ncaa

clings. they said granting athletes control would benefit both parties, because it would bring in more money and be fairer. we will go through that story a little more, but we want to show you some of the clips from that event. this includes former georgetown basketball coach john thompson as well as a coach from clemson university talking about the andem of scholarships defending merval you for student athletes. here is what they had to say. [video clip] think it is time to have this discussion to figure out what the future looks like, but i also think in a certain line of thinking, you are placing no value on education. georgetown university -- the president will be mad if i get these numbers wrong -- a scholarship could be $72,000. the course of four years, $290,000? that is real money.

we are devaluing education and saying well, that is not mean you're not getting anything. you are getting an education, kids to place no value on education at all when we say that means nothing. that means a lot. could a select few get more knowing -- doing this? into name, image, and likeness? i think we should, which is why we are having discourse here. $290,000nnot just say is nothing, because they are getting not. that is tangible, real, and means something. tuitionhat is just the being paid to georgetown. that is not the cost of the other benefits that they receive from conditioning, medical care, academic advising, how they travel, where they travel, and life experiences that go along with that. it does have a multiplier for

the student athletes. host: should college athletes be paid? that is our question for the first segment of the washington journal today. we mentioned some of the legal challenges in several court cases around this issue. sports illustrated last month highlighted a few of those cases. u.s.at story, a right district court judge claudia wilson has rolled the ncaa will stand trial in her oakland courtroom this december for a system of capping athletic scholarships. that system is part of the ncaa's larger network of rules found under the umbrella of amateur is in. thisthe chickens case in the -- that the jenkins case is a long way from the finish line, but four years ago, the ncaa system of amateurism was brought to a class-action lawsuit. men's on whether

basketball players should be compensated for the use of their names, image, and likeness. judge wilkins and later three judges on the u.s. court of appeals concluded that the ncaa and it's nearly 1300 members violated antitrust law by unlawfully conspiring to prevent players from negotiating the monetary values of their names, images, and likeness. it was a landmark decision. for the first time, and the aa amateurism-- ncaa rules were found to violate federal antitrust laws. nigel hayes is one of the parties in one of those court cases, and was also at yesterday's discussion of the aspen institute -- ask the aspen institute. he talked about the idea of ncaa players being paid and what it meant for athletes like him. [video clip] >> by being allowed to make , i think of your nil

that helps college as a whole. if you like to talk about the competitive in balance of being able to accept money from different entities or different companies that want to sponsor you. had amson, they tremendous quarterback that won a national title. so they have all of this power. the majority of their summer, or most of their sponsorships -- if we were allowed to make money off of our names, image, and likeness, and they said you know, you are the top 10 recruit in the country, we will give you this amount if you come here in accordance with your scholarship, i think that would help. some sin does not even do that -- clemson does not even do that for the kids. i do not even need to give you extra to incentivize you to come. a smaller one does that, the kid has that much more to think about. i can make that much more while looking at my education? i can take care of my family that is in need?

i think that definitely shapes the balance that we have, because now you start to see -- more ofse more these more highly recruited kids going to smaller schools. bet: should college athletes paid? that is our question. if you are a college athlete or coach, (202) 748-8000. parents of athletes, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. maria is up first, in atlanta. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: how are you? caller: absolutely they should get paid. these coaches make millions off of these guys. at the end of the day, if it was not for them you would never have a team. they should get paid, absolutely. host: jerry in washington, go ahead. caller: yes or. at one time i was a college athlete. i have a child that is getting ready to be a college athlete. i think this conversation is

racially polarized because most in the big-money sports are mass cabal and football, and they are minority dominated. they exclude the funds because they understand that when you come into these communities, the people are just happy to get their children that school. host: what would being paid as a college athlete mean for your child? >> for my child is different, i have a degree, so i have an excitable amount of money. i know that there are other kids that play sports with them whose family's struggle to meet the basic things, like food and clothing. those are necessities and things students will need. a lot of times, people do not understand it because i said it is racially polarized. most of these are minority kids. nobody wants to -- they say well, you are getting paid for school but do not understand the amount of money these kids are drawing in. aey do not understand that

coach usually has three strings of income -- a contracts, another contract, and is working contract. and then usually a tb job on the side and all caps of stuff like that. this surprise you react to the paul on racial divide on this issue, according to the university of massachusetts lowell, it was reported last fall by the washington post. or than half of black americans, 54%, support paying college athletes based on the revenue they generate. the poll finds among white americans, 31% support paying athletes all 59% are opposed. his panics are split more evenly. 41% say athletes should be paid, while 47% say scholarships are adequate. caller: i lived it and i knew it and i knew the world that we live in. a lot of times, people look at and look at it like a poor ghetto kid is getting

education, so be happy. they also do not understand the amount of money these kids are bringing in. and i'm not saying all white people, because there are a lot of white people that are aware of what is going on and are fighting over the rest -- fighting like the rest of us, but they do need to be paid. host: in terms of money, that higher education story focuses on some of the revenue generated. this among the power five conferences in the ncaa. that is the wealthiest and most influential conferences. they increased from $570 million in revenue in 2005 to $2.1 billion in 2015. salaries for coaches have not leveled off in that time. steve spurrier was the top earner among head football coaches in 2001, with $2.1 million annually as his salary. in 2017, the university of alabama's makes save and -- nick over $11 million.

caller: good morning. i am happy this conversation has been happening for a long time. i'm 74 years old, and for years i have observed what was a very unfair system. when you consider the players who bring in the money and the people who generate the income for these coaches and universities, it is just unspeakable that they are not paid. when you look at proportionality , that alone should tell you that they should be paid. sure, they get scholarships and that is very worthwhile, but look at the other students who receive scholarships. look at the students who come to universities free of charge somese of contributions person has made to the universities. when you look at what is fair in a bubble, i do not think anyone can see otherwise. of course, i do not think it has anything to do with a rasul situation,- racial except for black people who have experiences that are able to observe it more keenly. if you have never been

victimized, you have never been a victim. i'm not saying anything racial, but generally speaking, white folk have been doing quite well. sometimes they do not the other folks problems. this is not something i like to equate to athletes, because this is a very horrible situation. recall how long ago it was when we were putting young black kids in prison for a long time because of marijuana use. and when people were addicted to drugs, they would be put in prison. it is sad to see that so many white kids are being victimized by drugs now, and i don't wish that on anybody. all of a sudden, it is a national problem. if these kids were predominately white kids bringing in that money, working hard, and sacrificing their bodies and study time and other things just bring the money to the university, i think if they were predominately white kids for the past 30 years, it would have been no question if they would have been paid. i do not think why people are biased, but i think they see

things through a different lens than black people. host: john in chicago, good morning. caller: i just want to say one thing. absolutely not. i live in chicago. i had an opportunity to go to university of chicago or benedictine university. these guys get scholarships. top court, which a lot of people do not even know what that is. the contribution to that country is much, much more. i came over there and see making jordan back then $30 million, and these physicists making $1 million. they make a lot more contributions. they have scholarships, that's it. these handouts have to stop. inc. you. in it isin writes moot. universities can never pay what sports team pro can. these kids will not risk injury by going to college. they can do that later. rick said the current system of

the ncaa has always been a joke. the only people involved with this multibillion-dollar compensated are the players who generated. the system is designed to keep the money in the hands of coaches, administrators, etc.. jody, my nephew and niece earned their scholarships through paidtball, where they for their sport skills to go to college and earn a diploma. both graduated and are not playing sports now. in effort to assault the crisis of accountability in -- solve the crisis of accountability in basketball, condoleezza rice released calls for tougher and transparency by apparel companies, and an end to the nba's one and done rule. the panel did not recommend that athletes be paid, staunchly affirming the values and an indication

for the 98 .8% of college basketball players who do not go on to nba careers. while it is called for a fresh look at whether athletes should be able to earn money from the marketing of their name, image, or likeness, the panel noted that the ncaa should not, and in fact, could not, act until the courts resolve this issue be a pending legal cases. andy schwartz was also on that panel yesterday at the aspen institute, a partner in a sports consulting company. he talks about antitrust and the ncaa's control over athletes. [video clip] >> in general, the real problem with the ncaa is not any but itlar rule it makes, the fact it controls 100% of the market. there are 130 fds schools, and they are all commonly making .greements the easiest way to avoid anti-

trust problems is not to make a one-size-fits-all rule. and we suggested that each conference make its own role. depending on the sport, you would have one doesn't competitive conferences that could balance off whatever needs there are for keeping a lid on things that people feel like well, if this get out of hand, we can't have that. at the same time, there is competition. if it is too restrictive or the rules, they will start to lose talent to the big 12 and things like that. the simplest way is not to have a blanket rule, but rather to say in units of one or 20 schools, go make some rules. to watch thatant entire event at the aspen institute in washington yesterday, you can do that at c-span.org. having this conversation in our first segment of the washington journal. should college athletes be paid?

are a748-8000 if you college athlete or coach. if you are a parent of an athlete, (202) 748-8001 is the number. all others, (202) 748-8002. give us a call this morning. barney did in braden's in, florida. good morning. caller: yes. i think his college athletes i haveget paid, because known friends who go to college, have went to college, and the scholarship did not even cover enough for their food. they ended up getting in trouble. that is ridiculous. is all what itp sums up to be. they have to get back and forth to school, transportation, and all of this other stuff. low income parents can't afford car payments to get their kid back and forth from school. they don't put that.

and then you have the coaches riding around in their own personal jets? that is modern-day slavery, man. host: barney in florida. here are some of the ameteurism requirements from the ncaa. this is from their website. ncaa athletes are not allowed contracts with professional teams. a are not allowed to have salaries were participating in athletics, they are not allowed to have prize money above actual and necessary expenses. they are not allowed to play with professionals or have tryouts, practice, or competition with professional teams. they are not allowed benefits from an agent or perspective -- prospective agents, and they cannot delay their full-time college in roman to participate in organized sports competitions -- enrollment to participate in organized sports competitions and come back. and the ncaa has their oninition of ameteurism

their website. amateur competition is a bedrock principle of college athletics and the ncaa. maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which a -- acquiring a quality education is the first priority. in the collegiate model escorts, men and women competing on the field or court our students first, athlete second. the ncaa membership has adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students priority remain on obtaining a quality educational experience. our numbers again, (202) 748-8000 if you are an athlete or coach. (202) 748-8001 if you are the parent of an athlete, all others, (202) 748-8002. what you understand are talking about, the parents, college, and being paid everything, and i was watching the news. it has been quoted by a journalist that donald trump will be impeached and will not

be our president. host: that is richard in massachusetts. certainly the investigation that is ongoing, the mueller probe is a topic we will be talking about today. we will actually spend our second -- at 8:00, the second hour of the washington journal about some of the issues surrounding rod rosenstein, who is overseeing the mueller investigation. on that issue, the lead story in today's washington post noting that in a tense meeting in early march, with social council robert mueller, president trump's lawyers insisted that he to talk to federal investigators probing interference in the 2016 campaign, but mueller responded he had another option of president trump declined. he could issue a subpoena for the president to appear before a grand jury, according to four people familiar with that encounter. this is the first time all or has mentioned a subpoena to trump's legal team.

more on that at 8:00. justicebe joined by reporter carrie johnson from npr from 8:00 to 8:30. ifthe meantime, asking you you think college athletes should be paid, especially we want to hear from current or former college athletes. (202) 748-8000 is that number. parents of athletes, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. lawrence is in st. paul, minnesota. a parent. go ahead. caller: before i start, i have watched you since you started there, and i just want to commend you because each year gets better and better. it's a pleasure to listen to you. on the ncaa issue, if i were a division ii or division iii now had to pay my athletes, i would essentially assemble my board of trustees,

ask the simple question, what is our mission? and then disassemble all the intercollegiate athletic programs. my point is i do not necessarily have a solution, but this is a far ranging question that is broader than college basketball and college football. it impacts a lot of noncompetitive sports and essentially, any type of payment would impact. thank you for the opportunity. host: lawrence, you are thinking the future of the college sports agenda -- of college sports in general is at stake in this debate? saying a pro or an, i think this itself is game changer. and it might need to be a game changer at this point. host: thanks for the call from

minnesota. michael in brooklyn, new york. all others. go ahead. caller: hello, good morning. i disagree with athletes being paid in college. simply for the fact that honestly, as i listen to a lot of the comments, nobody is ever satisfied. once you start paying athletes, then you are going to have the discrepancy of what's at please -- which athletes should be paid more, the top athlete versus the last athlete on the bench. i think you are going down a slippery slope. host: if you more tweets. donna writes and yes, sports players are extremely overpaid. give teachers more. bobby writes in so long as anyone is pay for college athletics, the athletes should also be paid. however, no one and no school should profit from the work of unpaid athletes. schools certainly profit from from various sports

companies, and yesterday at the aspen institute, this idea of conflicting sponsorships was brought up, if athletes are able to get their own sponsorships. here is that debate. [video clip] watson, whoish on won a national championship, he is in college and says i want to sign with under armour, and i want to wear under armour products? what does that look like? >> that is a problem. i really believe that because there is that whole other end of the educational spectrum on this, with the scholarship and the coaching and the strength training and the sports medicine that is funded through a lot of those sponsorships. downu were going to run this rocky road, you would need --have some type of contract that is probably the wrong word -- but some kind of conditions with your student athletes that whereese are the areas

the university has that right with these types of -- whether it is apparel, shoes, soft drinks, etc., this is our domain here. and this debate is certainly falling in the public policy domain amid a federal investigation last year, ongoing federal court cases. we are talking about it this morning in the first segment of the washington journal. if you are a student athletes, (202) 748-8000. coaches can also call on that line. parents of athletes, c-span.org -- (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. bill and maryland, a parent. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have enjoyed the show for the past 10 years or so. on the current topic, i wanted to say that my son, he plays football for the bering university -- university of

maryland. we are normally from mississippi, so we came appear to support him. topic, i think the boys and girls playing sports for the spools -- schools, they don't need a whole lot of money because they arty have the scholarships. i do believe they should get a little something. i think if you start putting all of these big dollars into these athletes, it is going to take away from the reason that they are actually there, which is to go to school. my boy did not make the professionals, but he had his doctorate. that will help them get ahead in life. host: before you go, what is a little something? what do you think will be fair? caller: look at it like any other job. the cost of living is based off of different areas, what does it cost to get the fundamental basics? food, clothing, think about nature.

i think that should be taken into consideration. these kids do not need much. there likes wars and putting their bodies on the line, but that is the choice. and they are doing it so they can get a degree. but i do not think these boys and girls need millions and hundreds of thousands of dollars, but just looking at the cost of living in the area and go for that. your son played football, was food included as part of his scholarship or was that something you had to pay for out-of-pocket? caller: no, it wasn't. that is the whole reason we moved up here from mississippi. we came up to support him in case he needed anything. and we know that most people aren't in a position to do that. if you can, you do what you have to do for your children. for the call. mike in laurel, maryland. good morning -- we lost mike. new jersey, go ahead. caller: hi, hello.

host: go ahead. hi.er: i just want to say that i think the athletes in college sports should be paid, because all of the universities make money off of their jerseys, they make off of everything that these athletes do, even when it comes to television rights and commercials and everybody wants orsee that top quarterback the top basketball player that is in the game. i do not see why they should not get a portion of that money. host: are you a former college athlete? caller: absolutely. host: were you on scholarship? caller: no, no. is that relevant? host: no, i just want to hear your story. did you see a difference between how non-scholarship players were able to live their lives in college and what they were able

to do versus the scholarship players? caller: not a problem. it is the scholarship, right? i do not know the price of the scholarship, but i can guarantee that the college is making 50 times more or 100 times more percent then what that scholarship is worth. i would say the scholarship is worth -- give me an amount. john thompson in the clip we showed estimated at around $290,000 over the course of four years? i think we lost him. mike in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i agree with the caller two calls back. i believe the students should receive some type of stipend. what these colleges do is they

monopolize on the students because they benefit not only from the sale of jerseys and things like that, but these students are a walking endorsement. they do go to the pros, that endorsement becomes greater for a larger audience. the students are held to a higher expectation, where they really cannot behave as a normal college kid would, where you have another student who might receive a scholarship for academics, and academic scholarship, and they would not necessarily have to compensate andschool for any proceeds games from the sales of their ideas or anything intellectual or physical that they may create and sell to the public, whereas the colored kids, this is their craft, and the craft does not begin at the college level, it begins earlier ron. it is marketed to the college. the college monopolizes on these

kids and will not let them endorse themselves in different ways, and all endorsements are funneled and funded the school. back to theded school. also playingbate out in college newspapers. here are a couple of recent op-ed from college students. thepinion writer at university of -- virginia tech university, i apologize. he wrote in a recent piece about this term, modern-day slavery, that has been applied to college athletes. suchys using that term, claims are ludicrous to say the least. he says i do it knowledge that the ncaa is a greedy organization that attempts to control every single aspect of ranting their athletes, even threatening eligibility to students for starting their own youtube channels or water bottle

businesses. with that, he writes that paying college athletes is a very bad idea. giving students a salary is neither an achievable or logical solution to this problem. reality, most colleges lose money on their athletic programs. there are only a few programs that make substantial profits off there a flight programs. what examples is the university of texas at austin. a few reasons for its financial success are lucrative tv contracts, wealthy boosters, and other types of sponsorships. this should not be viewed as common. many universities can barely fund their football programs as is, yet people demand them to pay their players six-figure salaries. common misconceptions are what lead people to make false accusations and sallow arguments -- shallow arguments for paying student athletes. one paper what the point you to is the hawkeye, the independent newspaper of the university of

louisiana monroe. a student writer writes i believe athletes should be paid, but they should not be paid so much that they start living lavishly. college athletes on average spend 40 hours of their time a week for caring for sports and physicals. this is equivalent to a full-time job, plus they also need to attend their classes regularly and mid assignments on time. the pressure to succeed in both school and athletics and the overwhelming and hard to manage. be overwhelming and hard to manage. while money is needed for this, that lies the problem. many athletes might not be able to have a personal life. that can ultimately result in a lack of motivation, which ends up affecting their athletics. many athletes coming from low income families cannot depend on their parents for extra money needed to live. those are just two of the op-ed's recently from college newspapers. thisnt to hear from you morning. should college athletes be paid? phone lines for parents and

athletes, andnt all numbers. we will put the numbers on the screen for you. garland, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. if you begin to pay individual college athletes, are you not producing individual professional teams that are owned by the specific universities? for example, duke university should not be able to play the celtics. host: thanks for the call. pamela in brooklyn, a parent. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. i was just listening to all of the callers, and all of the points are really valid, but i noticed that from time to time, there are multiple universities that draw in such huge crowds for specific athletes and to show student and school support, and all the money that the

schools make is not going to the individual athletes. maybe there can be some give and take, they can meet in the middle and maybe get some of the athletes incentives, like vehicles or opportunities for them to maybe -- like some callers mentioned, not get a lot of money but a stipend of some sort. in this day and age, the game is transforming and changing in such a way where there are a lot of advertisements and sponsors that may want to have the have them be representatives. why should they not be able to themt in some way to help in their future? they played hard. sometimes they get hurt, really, right now at this stage, they are working hard for their future. the money may help them in the long run in ways that a lot of times it may not be considered. terms oft is fair in

the site then you are talking about? are you talking minimum wage? are you talking something to the equivalent of the cost of their scholarship, and extra tens of thousands of dollars? something along that line. i think that is reasonable and comfortable for both the student and the school. talking high payouts where there are agents involved, but those athletes, they travel, they play hard, they make sure that their studies are not being sacrificed. they are drawing in thousands and thousands of fans to these games. i think we have to start looking at it in terms of what they are bringing to the table and what they are getting from the table. thanks for the call. tracy writes in we need to realize there is more than football and basketball. with this apply to minor sports as well?

woody wright as a solution, give colleges the ticket sales. spread the merchandise money evenly between the athletes. problem solved. orville in indiana, good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing? i think a lot of the athletes should be paid. these coaches, i cannot believe their contract in the millions of bucks. i do not believe any coaches worth $1 million a year. i am and larry bird country, and i go to the grocery store, and larry birdrs, when -- there were players that were going to try and figure out how they were going to get money to eat for the rest of the week. you guys are playing for the national championship and you are worried about food for the week? i think a lot of players should be paid. thesecoaches, a lot of coaches are making millions and i do not think any coaches worth

$1 million a year. sometimes i feel like our economy is built on greed. host: before you go, you say $1 million a year. an, in 2011, $11 million with his compensation. it is obscene that these guys get paid that much money. some of the players are worried about food for the week. needs to be addressed, and each college is different. colleges like kentucky, louisville, duke, and kansas probably have more money. but the kids that are not on scholarship, they need some help. think that should apply not just for the football and basketball players, but some of the minor sports as well? field hockey players and swimmers? yeah, yeah. these colleges are making a bunch of money. all these big colleges are making a bunch of money, and i

think these players that are struggling, they need help. thank you for the call this morning. we are talking about this idea of paying college athletes. it is certainly the focus of several federal court cases making their way through the system. here is some other news on other some that wereg filed recently, including yesterday. 18 states yesterday sue president trump's administration over its push to consider greenhouse gas emission rules for the nation's auto fleet, overhing a legal battle one of president barack obama's most significant efforts to address i'm a change. epa administrator scott pruitt said in april he would revisit obama era rules, which aim to raise efficiency requirements to about 50 miles per gallon by 2025. pruett's agency says the standards are based on outdated information and suggests the current standards might be too

stringent. thein california, this says curb toxictates will air pollution, announcing that the suit was fired in the u.s. court of appeals in the d.c. circuit judge at -- circuit. inthe opening another front the battle over immigration policy, texas and six other states to the federal government yesterday -- sued the federal government yesterday to end the daca program. the lawsuit asserts the obama administration overstepped its authority when it created the daca program, which allows individuals who are brought to the united dates illegally as children to remain in the country without congressional approval. it calls on the united states totrict court of texas rescind and cancel all daca

permits inexistent because they are unlawful. so certainly two court cases that we will likely be following here on the washington journal. back to your calls about this issue of paying college athletes. as we said, high profile court cases, and eating one in u.s. district court expended -- expected in december on this issue. surely in bellevue, michigan. go ahead. are you with us? hello? -- caller: hello? hello? host: go ahead with your comment or question. my question is i do not -- my comment is i do not believe that athletes should be paid in college. the reason why is because the normal person, to pay for college education, if the

athletes start getting paid, the to gof tuition is going up so high that the normal person cannot afford to go to college and get an education. the first priority is education. not athletes. host: do you think they will hike tuition rates for everyone else to pay for the athletes? caller: pardon? host: do you think they will hike duration rates for everyone else to pay for athletes? caller: the normal cost of education right now for a four-year term is higher than of the normallary person. the people that are going to college right now are there on either scholarships or usually a that can afford to send their child to college,

or they must go and seek assistance in order to pay for their college education. once these athletes start getting paid, there goes the cost of tuition, up even higher than it is now. studentthe average cannot afford to go to college. the number one priority is education. host: thank you for the call. california, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call this morning. caller: go ahead. -- host: go ahead. let's look at it like this. say it is c-span, 12 and three. say this is the college level of journalism and anchoring and all that other things. let's say that anyone who works where you work, another c-span affiliate, you all come to work and do your best, but you are not getting paid, because you

are amateurs. you should not get paid. that would not last too long. paid,hletes should get and it should come out of the very pockets of where the coaches are getting paid and others to benefit off of all of those college teams. those are billions of dollars that are being held at those colleges from those athletes. as a black man and a black modern-dayis modelin slavery. the slave master was even debating should we have clothing on them? sacks, and black had thread that they stole

out of the house and they had sacks that they put the taelor sachsen. host: sean, should college athletes be paid? caller: good morning. i think we could pay college athletes, and it would be helpful to think about this in terms of how we pay graduate students. when i was a phd student, in addition to tuition, i was paid a site and to teach courses. you can pay gratitude in pennies to teach these large enrollment into directory courses. the university made a lot of money paying graduate students a stipend to teach these classes. that we coulde create some kind of system to pay student athletes like we do graduate student workers in various departments. host: do you think that should include beyond football and basketball? all athletes, whether it is field hockey, swimming, or soccer? caller: that is a tough one,

because then he will have to make value judgments about certain sport. universities are cutting baseball and other sorts of sports that do not generate as much revenue. that will be a tough decision. perhaps you can make it some proportion of the revenue generated or something like that , but a system like how we pay graduate students a stipend to teach courses could be a helpful it is think about it. , shouldn'ter tweet paying athletes or not be up to each individual college? virginia, a parent of an athlete. go ahead. how's it going? thanks for c-span and thanks for having me. my kids are getting ready to be at the age to go to college, and i do not see the value in them being paid to play sports when they get there. school, i wino and i got the g.i. bill because i served my country -- i went

and i got the g.i. bill because i served my country, and i do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars i helped my school to bring in by being a wounded veteran, but for them talking about what the school can contribute -- if we are talking about paying athletes, we should talk about paying the scientists and minority groups that we are using to bring money to that school. i think it is a slippery slope, and the value of the education that these athletes are getting is worth way more than what they could be making monetarily, because if they go on to the pros, they learn how to work with the coaches and the different administration level, and i think there is more to it than a paycheck. i think they should get some sort of stipend, because you have to be able to eat. i can't pay for both my kids to go to college like this. it would be nice if they get

some scholarship money and things like that, but i think this really start a slippery slope that we do not want to start going down. what sports do your kids play, and is there scholarship money available at the schools they are looking at? caller: my son plays football, if he does not decide to go to the naval academy, i think there is money there. my daughter is not much into the sports thing, so -- she is more dance and theater. i do not know what the money is like there, but potentially there could be some money for my son. the call.k you for david in detroit, also a parent. caller: good morning. not only am i a parent, but i am a professor at the university here. i look at how we run our program. son is on the wrestling team.

to those events, you pay $10, $15 to come in and watch the event. is on lookingcus at -- it is a humongous conversation about the dollar amount. you could pay these students a minimum wage for the hours that they have to do. normally, my son is in the gym. if it has to do with the sport of the outcome of the events, they should be paid. words, you have to travel, you have to prepare, you have to do all the things that they do. you can pay them a minimum wage across the board. student-athletes are scholar athletes. they have to study and prepare and be conditions.

be conditioned. and by the way, let's talk about the scholarship aspect. in most schools, not across the board, but in most schools, if that student is injured and he or she can no longer perform in that discipline, a take that scholarship away and give it to someone else. particularschool in that does honor it, and that is notre dame. if you get hurt playing an event at notre dame, they allow you to keep your scholarship. most schools don't. they say go to financial aid and make sure your financial aid is in order for you to stay at school. other than that, we thank you for your effort and your commitment to the school, but we can no longer financially support you. again, i think that a minimum wage would be appropriate. host: thank you for the call. more of your calls in just a second, on this question of

whether college athletes should be paid. we also want to note, we spent plenty of time talking about what is happening at the top of the veterans affairs administration. a new story from the washington examiner on who president trump is looking to to heavy menstruation. he will meet with jeff miller, a top contender to lead the veteran affairs agency. the former republican congressman from florida has been discussed as a potential to ousted v.a. secretary david shulkin given his experience on the house panel, and likelihood that he would avoid major controversy during a confirmation process. miller served eight terms in congress before retiring in 2017 . he also served as an informal adviser to then canada trump on veterans issues during the 2016 election.

back to your calls. a few minutes left to continue this discussion on whether college athletes should be paid. robert in arlington, virginia, right across the river. go ahead. caller: hi. i basically think there are a couple of ways for them to do, and station. one should be a minimum stipend, .nd -- compensation one should be a minimum stipend, and one should be something like a retirement payment that could be started after they leave college, or something along those lines. host: explain why the second one? why do you think that would be good? caller: the second one recognizes the reality that they are generating millions and millions of dollars. that is one reason. depending on what sport they are actually playing, some of these athletes actually have injuries that will occur later on in life. go through a lot of turmoil during the actual years that they spend being an athlete. it is a combination of the fact,

recognizing the fact that there is an impact to their body and that they are generating millions of dollars. what the annuity payment should be is something that should be discussed, but i believe that would be a fair way of doing it. plus, it would also prevent them from living a completely different standard in college, from being a college student, which a lot of people don't want. most people would prefer that they maintain a college student standard. at the same time, 10 years after they leave college or 20 years after they leave college, it would be a fair way to compensate them without nature ofthe amateur the sport. host: robert, thanks for the call. richard in tennessee, a parent. are you there? go ahead. caller: yes sir. i am a parent of a graduated volleyball player from private

school in tennessee. she basically had to give her scholarship because she was in a premed program and found it too difficult to do the two things. the question i have, we are talking about the large d1 schools that have large programs. the vast majority of the schools are smaller colleges that do not bring in that kind of money. how with the college, but that kind of money to pay for their athletes? come up with that kind of money to pay their athletes? host: our caller in maryland. caller: i agree with the whole stipend portion, but the previous caller was discussing how he got paid for his phd, teaching classes -- that is acceptable. as far as playing sports in

college, that is a choice you are making. it is a choice that might not be appropriate for -- if it is a choice that is not appropriate for your financial situation, the school should not pick up the slack. i also view it as -- it is almost like an internship, right? the people that are playing that are anticipating going into professional sports, those generally are the people playing at d1 schools. this is like an internship for them. if you start paying college athletes -- if you start paying athletes in college, it is then going to trickle down to high school, and you say oh, we should give high school students a stipend if they attend -- intend on playing sports, because you can also get injured in high school when you are playing sports, and that should not be something the school is having to pay for. additionally, the larger

programs that are generating this kind of money, that money is going back into the school to offer scholarships to help pay for the other sports programs that are not bringing in money, absolutely do not think that money should be going to the athletes. this notion of modern-day me, becausebsurd to again, this is a choice. these people can walk away. if they feel like they need to be getting paid for some reason and they don't like cap -- that the school is not paying them, they can walk away. from kareems a view abdul-jabbar. 'ss piece in the guardian about his experience at ucla. he said playing basketball at ucla was a 70's week job involving intense practice, learning new plays, and traveling around the country.

earnedorts millions of dollars for the university, but i was generally too poor to do anything but study, practice, and play. the little spending money i managed to scrape together was on summer jobs. it was frustrating to win championship after championship every year and then go to my buy am to count change to burger. what made it even worse was that students with academic scholarships were allowed to work jobs during the school year will we were driven into. and if we were injured seriously playh that we could not anymore, our scholarships were revoked. aswere only a fallible -- valuable as our ability to toast the ball and lift that score. stephanie, good morning. caller: as stated by kareem abdul-jabbar, the difference between the athletic scholarships and the academic scholarships is that the

athletes are required to spend extra, additional amounts of time for the sport. i believe it is not rocket science. generatedthat is using their name or images or etc., they should get a , legally. from no one should be able to benefit off of someone else's image and name. it is not rocket science. if the coaches are given millions of dollars off of someone else, that is modern-day slavery. thank you. stephanie is our last caller in this first segment of the washington journal. stick around. up next, and the our justice correspondent terry johnson joins us to discuss -- carrie johnson joins us to discuss deputy rod rosenstein and the criticism he faces at the justice department. later, ohio democratic party ther david pepper discusses

buckeye state's upcoming primaries and his penchant for little thriller novels. stay tuned. ♪ >> sunday on q&a, robert courson on his book "rocket men." >> it was impossible to disregard it after a few minutes talking to them. that is mostly what they wanted to talk about it. they could not have pulled this wives.hout their it was the most courageous space mission nasa had run. it looks like near certain death

. it was done very quickly. these men needed wives at home who were supportive, but did not reveal to their husbands how much they were suffering and terrified they were. night. sunday >> live sunday morning, america in turmoil. we look at the impact of the vietnam war. student marches and acts of civil disobedience on american streets dominated headlines. joining us to talk, doug stanton of the odyssey of echo company, the tet offensive, and the epic battle to survive the vietnam war.

watch 1968 america in turmoil live sunday at 8:30 eastern on c-span's washington journal, and american history tv on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: carrie johnson back at our desk after rob rosenstein appeared at a long day event at the news em. he was tightlipped about most aspects overseeing the mueller investigation but he did comment at length that some members of congress have drawn up articles of impeachment for rob rosenstein. explain who is behind that effort and why they are looking to impeach him. guest: the effort is centered on the house freedom caucus, the conservative faction led by mark meadows. they have issued this against rob rosenstein for not sharing

information and submitting to proper oversight. democrats say this is a subterfuge to defang robert mueller's investigation into russian interference in the election. host: explain the process for impeachment. is it the same as the president? guest: it is in a tense process. it would move into the full house, and if it gets beyond they are, to impeach somebody would require a vote of two thirds of the members of the senate. most analysts believe there is no chance this will happen. it is an irritant to him, if not more. his comments reflect the passion with which he is feeling this effort. host: here are the comments from yesterday when asked about those articles of impeachment. >> i don't know who wrote it.

we make mistakes. that is not to say we are flawless. if we can operate, accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence. we need to prove our case in court. we have to affix our signature to the charging document. there is a lot of talk about pfizer applications. many people seem not to a pfizer what application is. it is a warrant, like a search warrant. affidavit signed by a career law enforcement officer who swears the information is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. outt is wrong, if you find there is anything incorrect, that person is going to face consequences.

sometimes there are innocent errors. if not, you can face prosecution. that is the way we operate. i do not have anything to say about documents like that that nobody had the courage to put their name on. there have been people who have making threats privately and publicly against me for some time. they should understand the department of justice is not going to be extorted. any kind of threats are not going to affect the way we do our job. host: that last part on extortion, the one that made the headlines yesterday, here is today's paper from the washington times. how did you take that? guest: this is a remarkable self-defense by the deputy attorney general. rod rosenstein has made a lot of

concessions to republicans in congress this year. he is a registered republican. of the federalist society. he has been under siege for months by conservative republicans. he has said we are not going to give you everything that you want. we need to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations. we have standards that you are not using against me when you try to impeach me. this is a remarkable stand by rosenstein. one that mark meadows tweeted, maybe he should quit or leave office if he views us as trying to extort him. i don't see a sign of that happening voluntarily. as long asyour m --

he is on the job rosenstein says he is only going to get rid of bob mueller for a good cause. he has seen no such cause. been productive and fruitful. mueller has charged 19 people and entities so far. the prospect of a sit down between the special counsel and the sitting president of the united states. that is why you are seeing the pressure in the heat turned up now. us.: carrie johnson with if you have calls or questions, phone lines are open. as folks are calling again, the new york times story on the list of questions robert mueller wants to ask president trump, getting a lot of attention. what was your take away?

questions not all the they might have for the president of the united states. teamt mueller and his don't leak. this came from someone close to the president. the question is why is it coming out now? the president has been trying to the press- harangue for weeks. >> what did you take from his tweets yesterday about this list of questions? guest: the president seems to there ishe questions no evidence of collusion. if you look at the questions, many deal with context between people in russia during the campaign. the president also tweeted you can't charge somebody with

obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime. that is not true. scooter libb the was convicted of obstruction. here is the president from today. there is no obstruction of justice. knows negotiations going on over nuclear war, going on with china over trade deficits. negotiations on nafta and more. witchhunt. guest: people close to him have been telling him for nearly a year this investigation and whether any americans on the trump camp cooperated with that has been taking up a lot of his time and energy. he is angry he is not able to devote to domestic changes he

wants to make in terms of domestic policy. it is taking up a lot of headspace for him. he does not understand why this is taking so long. this mueller investigation is moving really fast. it doesn't feel that way when you are under investigation. >> historically how long has one ?f these investigations taken guest: that old model expired in the 1980's. i talked with historians who , written booksis on the watergate special counsel. they say the mueller team is moving at an historic clip along with the best special prosecutors in history. and jeffhe president sessions say this isn't moving fast enough, by historical

patterns it is moving quickly. host: william is up first in atlanta. caller: a comment regarding the questions that have been in the papers from the mueller organization about what they want to ask the president. we have leaks within the mueller team itself. is that a concern to america? guest: the new york times has not disclosed to gave it those materials, but the story have appeared on air saying the president's lawyers wrote down those questions and they were provided by someone not part of donald trump's legal team. i take issue with the premise of your question. that appears to be a leak from someone close to president trump not the justice department. brenda, one for democrats.

mr. long: i wanted to say -- caller: this is the first time i heard broad rosenstein address anything going on. i am very impressed by his , andty, his intelligence the seriousness with which he took his oath of office. as far as donald trump claiming this is a witchhunt, the only witchhunt that was conducted was conducted by donald trump himself when he hired private investigators to go to hawaii to investigate president obama. i'm still waiting to be amazed by all the information is private investigators or finding out about obama. i would be willing to bet the private investigators are still waiting to be paid. after listening

to road rosenstein -- rod rosenstein that this is going in the right direction and conducted but the most dignity, rodmost law-abiding -- rosenstein has taken his oath of office extremely seriously. host: got your point. guest: for many americans this was the first time they saw him speak. he is a familiar figure in the justice department. he has been working there almost 30 years. he is a career guy. he is by the book. that is why his remarks were remarkable in terms of a self-defense. against what he views as improper incursions. host: he was generally tightlipped but did get questions on it from reporters

and members of the public yesterday. here is one of those interactions. >> i am wondering what your mindset is on whether a sitting president can be indicted. if not, why not? >> that was to questions. this is not a press conference. i'm not going to answer this in the context of current matters. you should not draw any inference. the department of justice has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted. i don't have anything more to say about it. somebody in the department reached a legal conclusion. that is what it is. guest: this has been occupying a lot of my time and energy over

the last 69 months. the justice department internal unit called the office of legal counsel has a couple of times opined a sitting president may not be charged with a crime. that applies during the president's term in office. one might seal the indictment after he or she leaves office. is not clear the extent to which a president can be subpoenaed. there are -- there is some case law from the nixon error that seems to suggest a balancing 'sst between the president power, and the need and right and no word argue in favor of the criminal investigators. that could be a question coming down the pike. -- the pipe. host: remind us of the history. issued all clinton was

grand jury subpoena. he entered into voluntary negotiations with ken starr and appeared voluntarily. he was recorded in the white house. the tv feed was the into the grand jury. host: lines for democrats. republicans. springfield, illinois. good morning. >> good morning. what kerryus as to might want to say about the fact donaldring the campaign from theuested hillary'so hack emails, and that it happened not too long afterwards. your thoughts would be

appreciated. guest: one of the things that we have not yet seen from the special counsel team is any charges related to the hacking of hillary clinton, the dnc emails, or any other emails. we know there has been an issue of interest. we are waiting to see what they produce on that. thatdition to the fact donald trump basically invited the russians to find hillary clinton's emails and release them, people close to donald stone, tweetedr that hillary clinton's campaign chairman john podesta might be ready to have his time in the barrel. we are not clear and the public about whether anything untoward or, no wrongdoing occurred. we know investigators are

looking at that and that is one of the places i am eager to see them go or not go. who is looking into how the department handled its investigation of hillary clinton female server? an excellents question. sometime in the next few weeks the justice department's independent inspector general who has worked for democrats and republicans is preparing to release a blockbuster report that examines actions by the justice department and the fbi in 2016 including the hillary clinton a mill investigation, maygations rudy giuliani have communications with the fbi information,eaking and a host of other things including whether james comey was right to speak so much and so often about hillary clinton. the: for viewers who read

story about andrew mccabe, what is his status? he was subject to some of these investigations. guest: he is currently being assessed. there has been a referral of alleged false statements that he made to investigators investigating statements about talking authorizing other people to talk to the wall street journal. no word on whether he will be charged. andrew mccabe has launched a legal defense fund and is defending himself against these allegations. 5 good morning. -- host: good morning. everybodywas curious, ,hat the president has fired these are all republicans. many of them he selected himself. i wonder if anyone finds that curious?

does anybody understand that? he is going on with these twitter rants. people he selected. president has a complicated relationship with the justice department and the fbi. it, to james comey tell hear sally yates tell it, the president has wanted to exert control over the justice department. the president has talked publicly about being frustrated about his inability to get the justice department and fbi to do certain things. is what yourkable said. these are his own appointees. like rod rosenstein to be resisting him. his sometimes quietly, sometimes publicly. trying to exert their law

enforcement responsibilities from people who appointed them of their own political party. the obamar during years was actually held in contempt of congress. eric holder was a democrat and the congress was controlled by republicans. here we have republicans fighting their own. host: 10 minutes left with carrie johnson. if you want to join the line forion, democrats. go ahead. in my speaking with carrie johnson? she seems quite experienced. i would like from her an explanation as to why these ago stop overrated's on americans are being perpetrated by mueller

and his jackbooted thugs. it is disgusting. he didn't sacrifice his life for this kind of bs. guest: there are two rights to which you may be referring. one was a search of paul year in in july of last the early morning hours while he and his wife were in their apartment. that search warrant was approved by a federal magistrate judge and went through a number of layers inside the justice department for approval. it wasn't as if the prosecutors just decided to do this on his own. often their news to be a showing you don't trust the individual to produce documents.

there is fear of destruction of evidence, some illegality underlying this. you may be referring to the rate cohen in new york. that was not conducted by the special counsel team. that was done by the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of new york. that was approved in the prosecutors office in new york by people at doj headquarters. finally approved by rod rosenstein. signed off on by a federal judge. undergo are things that legal process. very stringent legal process. they are not doing things on their own with no review. host: matt, and independent. good morning. caller: don't they realize that people love -- behind donald trump, if they keep this up it is going to lead to a civil war

in this country. thank you. john.we will go to john is a republican pour it -- republican. caller: what happened to servers. she has already broken the law with this classified materials that she deleted. why are they looking at her? why is it taking so long? atst: they did already look hillary clinton for two years in connection with her email server. james comey, who has been on a book extravaganza, it is hard to miss him. he writes with great description in his book about the investigation. he concluded that she was careless that the government had only prosecuted one person in 99

years under similar criminal mislednd that person investigators, lied to them. when hillary clinton sat down in 2016 thereew is no evidence of criminal intent, no line, and that is why she wasn't charged with a crime. host: i wonder your thoughts on if a special counsel be appointed to investigate the clinton foundation and curry clinton's emails guest:. some are pressing for that -- guest: some are pressing for that. bob goodlatte sent another email about the clinton foundation investigation. all along there are a few ways in which the white house or allies of the white house could disrupt the broker robert mueller. ,etting rid of jeff sessions who could control the probe. another is trying to fire rod

rosenstein, and the third is to appoint another special counsel to jam up the current special counsel. that is unlikely for now but certain republicans are not going to let up. host: why do you think it is unlikely? guest: the standards for pointing special counselor are stringent. there has to be a showing there is some sense the current doj leadership or u.s. attorney's office can't handle these matters on their own. jeff sessions, who has been amenable to complaints about these things has appointed a u.s. attorney to look into these matters. generaldoj inspector can look into these matters also. there are investigations into some of those things. for now the doj brass says there is no need to appoint someone from outside to look. host: matthew, republican.

caller: good morning. a couple of things. i would like to preface, donald trump is not a republican. i don't know what he is as far as political party. as far as the investigations. they should continue with robert mueller. they should leave mr. rosenstein alone. they should quit spending money investigatingney hillary clinton. i wish they would quit with this and get on with the job of governing the country. that is all i've got to say. thanks. is interesting. i got in the mail from the top democrat on the house judiciary committee from new york who said all of these attempts by the

house freedom caucus and others putam up the investigation rod rosenstein on the hot seat, we are still talking about hillary clinton and it is in the middle of 2018. the election is actually over. can't we do something else? maybe change some policies can help some crime victims or do some other things. there is an effort to change the subject among some of them. i just happened to come across c-span yesterday for the first time, i am embarrassed to say. i was impressed by the clear thinking and information that came out of rod rosenstein. go ahead. we can hear you. ifler: i just want to say listening to these two people

-- they make a lot of sense and i hope that people will believe and support their judgment. found your way to c-span. hope you stick around. anything you want to pick up on? rod rosenstein did himself a service with everyone perhaps the president. difficult balance he has been trying to walk. the justice department was asked whether the deputy attorney general meant to criticize the white house for issuing threats against him. the doj was quick to say no, just some members of congress. not want toin does further irritate the president who has the power to get rid of him. watch thatu want to event you can do it at c-span.org.

we appreciate the time. guest: thank you. next, david pepper joins us to discuss the buckeye state primaries and his work pending political thriller novels. and then we're joined by cheryl yl attkisson.har >> monday, a case on capital punishment. greg76 troy leon challenged his death sentence. others were four considered by the court. the supreme court ruled against him but established guidelines for states wishing to oppose the death penalty. , one of the discuss nation's top capital punishment

legal scholars. she has argued against the death penalty and a number of cases. she was a former clerk of thurgood marshall. and the legal director of the criminal justice legal foundation advocating in favor of capital punishment. he has written norm -- numerous briefs. watch landmark cases monday on c-span. join the conversation. follow us at c-span. we have resources on our website for background on each case. a link to the national constitution center's interaction of -- interactive constitution, and landmark cases. >> c-span. where history unfolds daily.

in 1979 c-span was created as a public service. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: less than a week to go before primary day in ohio. we're joined by david pepper. fact, we get to political let's talk political fiction. david pepper, who is jack sharp? -- checkeck sharp is sharp is a fictional character, i wrote this a couple of years ago. he discovers a plot that a russian oligarch would try to rick and american election. uncovering aalist,

dark plot. with the recent story. the thriller that predicted the russia scandal. it reads like a users guide. a russian around scheme to flip an election and put republicans in power by depressing votes in the midwest. harassment, systematic coverups in congress abound. you say you wrote this before the election. how did you come up with the idea? guest: i came up with the idea years ago. i am a very frustrated political server when it comes to gerrymandering. that was the origins of the book. i wanted to talk about how gerrymandering creates dysfunction. weak motorsed on security systems.

i wrote the story for about five years. i did not intend for it to predict what happened. the reality is we do have vulnerabilities in our democratic system. foreign powers could take advantage of it. book, theginal people's house and the wing man, joining us this morning. you talk about the integrity of voting machines. can't ohio voters trust the voting machines? >> we have more security than other states. the states that are purely electronic voting, no audit functions are the most worrisome. every state has some work to do. no doubt given what happened they were poking around trying to breach systems.

that is something our leaders need to be serious about. one point to book makes, elections are run at a local level. small counties. cost of thesethe elections. are going to upgrade the security of the systems come in there is major help an investment that those counties can't afford. that is part of the point. i think that the state and federal leaders need to step up to make sure across all counties in the state and country these local communities have the things they need. if we are going to come together

to protect our elections from foreign interference. host: do they come together at the end of the people's house to change the integrity? guest: i will say this. people told me after they read my book, they said your ending is unrealistic. comese they actually do together. i thought of course they would. in the real world they have not. after a lot of drama, when it becomes clear something bad happened, congress crosses party lines and tries to solve the problem. it is sad to say in my fiction they do a better job than in real life. >> david pepper joining us this morning. with us until 9:00.

david pepper, as folks are coming in, primary day is less than a week away. ohio is a focus in presidential elections. state republicans hold 11 out of 16 house seats in the state. republicans have been in power for most of recent decades. his ohio a purple state? guest: we will know this november. we have a peculiar pattern just like the country. we usually see the party who has the white house goes on to struggle winning our state. 1988republicans won big in , and a 68, that is when democrats won governors offices here.

ohio is a close state. you take nothing for granted. we actually feel pretty good .bout the energy our primary has been relatively positive. a verycans are in serious civil war in their primary. millions being spent attacking each other. can repeat the history in the past ohio will be competitive and potentially blue this november. you don't take anything for granted until votes come in. host: republicans have controlled governorships for four years. donald trump won the state by eight points in 2016. of those congressional seats republicans currently control how many are you looking to put in play in the fall? it is actually 12. they have 12 out of 16.

ohio is saddled with the worst unit just gerrymandering in the history of our state. candidates who have outhustled their opponents for the last year. a number of our seats including a special election in august, we have good candidates around the state with stepped up, high-caliber, from cincinnati to northeast ohio. isnor won the district that worse by the numbers in the districts where we have good candidates. if we do everything that i think we are going to surprise people even in districts that have not been competitive. we have a number of bread to blue districts here. the prognosticators are moving our districts closer and closer. we feel very good. candidatesith good who were on message in it starts

with good grassroots energy pushing these issues against these republican congress people who don't even do town hall meetings. they voted against health care. they voted for this tax scam. they won't even bother to do a town hall. people on the ground have been out protesting, demanding town hall meetings for more than a year. our is going to help serve good candidates running. , his groupn gonzales has ranked 70 different house seats as being in play in the fall. only one ohio district is on that list. that is ohio 12. the special election you referred to. that is in the likely republican category. do you take issue with their rankings? guest: honestly, i don't care much about rankings.

we have good candidates on the ground. the republican so he isd about a democrat, sending mailers trying to get a no name of opponent of this person elected. he is clearly worried. the different prognosticators only count for so much. we have a group of republican congress people who have not had to fight for an election in a wild. most are overconfident and flat-footed now. that is how you win elections. host: let's chat with a few callers, especially callers from ohio. democrats, republicans, jane is

in newark, ohio. caller: good morning. i have a question. ticket straight democrat in 2016. -- i have gotten is money donald trump money. i get those in the mail all the time. junk,olds and all that which i throw away. how come? i voted democrat why my getting republicans? guest: good question. first of all, the caller should know she is referring partly -- in ohio you have a huge battle taking place between the john kasich wing which is getting small, and the trump warning. that is playing out at the

statehouse. it is playing out at the governors office. they are wasting money. it soundly they are wasting money sending you mail. my advice is don't tell them that. have them keep sending that mail. hopefully you will do the same in 18. one of the things we are excited about, we have a candidate in every district in ohio. every state house district. every state senate. every single congressional district. counties, they all will have a candidate to vote for. that is something that has not happened in years. it reflects a lot of energy so many people are stepping up even in districts that are badly gerrymandered to say people deserve a choice. when you have that kind of

corruption they should have a chance to bring new leadership to the statehouse. cordray there a weighing on the democrat side? caller: i would say that. fierce on the republican side. if you were to watch the republican primary right now, you have an attorney general running. to both be running against john kasich. millions of dollars being spent on television are saying the other works with john kasich and they are more like trump. it is a split. it looks like everyone is running to tromp away from medicaid expansion. i do think you'll find people in ohio saying it is that fears. there are certainly disagreements.

i don't think they are as divisive. the republican candidate is going to actually be winning with very little to no momentum. i think they are dropping in the polls because it is the talk of ohio right now, how nasty it has become. , they havecan party not had one debate. we have had debates around this state. we did not endorse. our view was it is up to the voters. is, this is a cause of that. there is has gotten more nasty. it is chaos at this point. host: an article from the new york times focusing on the democratic gubernatorial primary.

left versus left is the headline they put on it. jaclyn is in cola hide desk a lot -- jaclyn, go ahead. concern, we are putting too much time into this russian issue and collusion. not enough being in our counties. i believe, we are all caught up in what did trump say, what was the tweet of the hour, in fact the russians and people who have high technical skills can manipulate and maneuver our elections. no matter how hard we work, to put our candidates and office, we may not be able to do that because our voting machines can be compromised.

it can be compromised. i would like for exposure for that to be happening more than the exposure we are doing to trump and collusion. thank you for a really excellent comment. i will address two things. it is ironic i wrote these books. those were my side hobby. i do agree with you that when we officeund the state for our focus should be on issues that matter most to people, voters who have not made up their mind yet. health care, making it affordable, accessible. standing up against efforts to get rid of health care. we should be focused on fixing public schools in ohio which have struggled thanks to this

charter school experience. we have a huge amount of student debt. we lead the nation with student debt. our candidates are best served not getting distracted by the , even the every day mueller investigation. our candidates are best served focusing on the issues that really matter. sharad brown is a great example. a senator who does not get distracted. every day he is focused on pensions, wages, trying to do things on trade. point same time to your come even though it should not be part of our message we should be focused across party lines on protecting our elections. making sure we do not leave ourselves vulnerable. , itof the unfortunate parts has made us unable to solve something everybody should agree

on. we should make sure systems are strong. our side,candidate on it is a central part of her message so we don't worry about this. the candidates for office from governor to senator to statehouse, i think their focus should be on bread and butter in ohio, health care, wages, jobs. state, it is the holding people back. i think that is the winning message. stand up to trump or others when isy are doing something that not appropriate. don't get baited into only talking about that. get back to the core issues every day people are worried about at their kitchen table. host: dan, independent from ohio. caller: morning.

i want to know what he feels about with the democratic movement to ban guns in the state. isff like that in my area important. the self-defense issue and such. i wanted to know what his dependent -- his opinion was. host: how do you feel? caller: i am against it. i am now advocate for self-defense and the right to protect myself. guest: thank you. i was there the other day. i drove past the hall of fame. all due respect, i think dan overstated the views on the democratic side. we have a primary. each candidate has put forward a package reform on gun violence. idle think anyone is saying take most of the guns away. some candidates support and assault weapons ban. others don't.

they are trying to push for things like banning bump stocks, background checks, and other things at the statehouse. i want to give john kasich credit. in the last couple months he has come forward at the statehouse and try to work across party lines. he has put a commonsense package on gun violence that is not about taking people's guns away but a bunch of good ideas on how to make progress. here is an option i think if we take up a partisan timeout. as candidates are showing there is a lot of overlap. there are a lot of things to do to make our communities safer and our overall country safer from gun violence. host: wayne, independent. caller: why do the democrats

want socialism? host: did you get the question? guest: i did. some may. i certainly do not. -- theydemocrats believe in the free market economy. were are ways to make sure give everyone a shot. caller: good morning. you have mentioned sharad brown. asked the cause of illegal immigration. weeks contacting his office once a week to get an answer. he would answer

that question. i had to remind him they work for me. get itlso told i could answered someplace else. i said i want to know that he knows. portman answered me in 11 months. gibbs is my representative. i personally spoke to him. that is why i am independent. ari and going for the person who puts american citizens first. host: where do you live again? he mentioned bob gibbs. his opponent. created team rubicon.

he has run against bob gibbs. his entire mantra of his campaign is country over party. he is one of these congressmen who has not had a single town hall meeting in his district the last couple of years. with independence, we can agree when you are in the body that is called the people's house you should not be afraid to meet with the people. gentleman who got an answer. hisn't speak to interactions. people are quite conservative who will vote for sharad brown. his office responded quickly to

social security. that is something he really prioritizes. recordhe cook political -- report says his race is in their wrapup of race ratings around the map. live for democrats. caller: he is going to be fine. president obama -- to the democratic chair. speak up, democrats. know theump, you

democratic leader, what you need to say, this is the message. with a dealing pathological liar. we are americans. i am concerned about social security. speak to the power. health care is working. obamacare, yes, it is working. republicans are trying to take away everything. do not be like those republicans in congress. they are not speaking truth to power. host: david pepper? guest: thank you. i hope you will visit and help campaign. in ohio the thing i say about the report you mentioned, you can't take any election for granted. to make sure we are working for him until the last day.

she captured the spirit of a lot of activists that i think will ensure we have a high turnout. people are upset by what they are saying in washington. they are worried about issues like health care. it is important we reach out. we need to win back voters. in addition to working with our , atcrats who are energized to same time we need communicate with people who may not have voted with us, who are in the air like some of the colors are and make sure they are saying we're the ones fighting for them. is saying they will get rid of medicaid expansion. be energized.e to i certainly am. we need to reach out to people

seeare not with us yet and that at the end of the day democrats are fighting for them on their wages and student debt more than republicans who now are an example, running so far to the right, in the core planks plan,ir platform, their underwater when it comes to what most voters would want to see. if democrats take back the house you think nancy pelosi should be the next speaker? thet: i will leave that to candidates running. in ohio, among our 16 candidates, some who would say yes and others who had said they would not support her. to the house.t , they looked at the various targets of

advertising noting nancy pelosi adsbeen the target of 9700 run on the republican side. her --ath mentioning democrats mentioning her 272 times. it shows you how bankrupt they are of ideas. they will go to town hall meetings. they spend millions trying to sell this tax scam which is not benefiting them. .atch the race the conor lamb race. when that did not work the final couple weeks they started bringing up nancy pelosi. donald trump can't stop talking about hillary clinton. they have nothing to sell. few promises have been kept.

they are unpopular. washington ist in terrible. fail,ll the sales pitches they go back to nancy pelosi. i think it is a sign they have nothing to say. it did not work and conor lamb's race. it is not going to work in ohio. it is the same thing i said about our candidates. our candidates should be focused on delivering real results for people on issues they care about

>> hillary clinton brought up in cycle, eights this democratic ads, former president up 18,90 ma brought ads. about 4000 democratic time for a couple calls with david pepper. doing they will lose that. that is a bankrupt strategy, they are trying to bring up instead of talking about issues. host: lancaster, oklahoma, brad waiting, a democrat. go ahead. hi, david. i'm against gerrymandering and citizens united. i can't believe you wrote the "people's house," because russia and e -- congress. i think healthcare and education

minimum wage. host: david pepper. guest: thank you. address that, he is calling from lancaster. i'm make a book recommendation my own. read "glass house," if you are in ohio, in america, if you want understand what is happening in our country. "glass house" is about lan caster, ohio, what happens when a great small town runs up forces some bigger economically and how much towns like lancaster have struggled. i appreciate what the caller said, i hope people will vote on the e one, which is ballot this coming tuesday, which will make a big progress in gerrymandering. lancaster, ohio, is one of these towns that has really major employees basically shut down. something democrats and on, thecans should focus economic agenda for small and

mid-size town necessary ohio, lancaster, port smith, places that used to have large manufacturers that no longer do. think one thing lost in all the polarization in washington, here has been no economic plan for these places. one reason, if you look at a lace like ohio, this is why i think we'll do well this year. many parts of ohio, it is as if ended.ession never the opioid crisis is holding them back, their kids are coming back, t parents are saying to kids, you else, not somewhere enough opportunity here. i think it is on our next governor and on washington to out how do we do the kind of infrastructure investment, opportunities, job training so towns like lancaster have a chance in 21st economy. that is something the current politics, this is why people are rustrateed with politics and one reason donald trump did win. we are not addressing some undamental issues in communities like lancaster,

ohio. host: one or more quick calls. waushington, d.c., independent, go ahead. aller: i wanted to call and thank the guest for talking about gerrymandering tis really important issue. gerrymander suggest only possible because we use winner-take-all districts there is proportionally representation nd ohio was once a leader on this, including cincinnati and cleveland, both elected their with proportional representation and a bill in ongress to do it with all states with multi winner rank choice voting. i wonder if the guest is with that or has thoughts on it? guest: i'm familiar with it, i you, right now my focus is ending gerrymandering. wrote a novel, i wanted people to think about it insiders.e political gerrymander suggest poison to a olitical system, it means politicians don't feel

accountable, republicans and democrats should be against. incentivizing polarization because last thing you want to do is lose your next primary, the only way you'll lose your office. my main priority before we get and things i ps think are more complicated for have a chance in ohio to end gerrymander thanksgiving may. state house a he year ago. it is issue one on the ballot next tuesday. supreme court also steps sxup does the same thing. there is so many issues we care little progress being made in washington. not too be too simplistic, but a comes back to gerrymandering in a system that invent vising divided and not working together. the other big issue came up in a prior call. structural problem in politics exploding more and more every year, see nothing money. dark and the ability of dark money now through not just super packs, but nonprofits to flow

into states like ours, no one paying for what, it is happen nothing governor's races. f we can clean up gerrymandering, right before us to solve, we can do that now and money.rogress on dark at least through things like disclosure, let alone amending overturning citizens united, i think those two structural a lot to clean up a broken political system. host: david pepper, chairman of democratic party, he's also author of "people's house," "the wingman," joining us from cincinnati, ohio. e appreciate your time this morning. we'll talk to you again down the road. guest: thanks for having me, with you.e host: up next on "washington journal," we'll be joined for a politicsn on media and by sharyl attkisson, host of sinclair's full measure.

>> live sunday morning on 1968, america in turmoil, we look at impact of the vietnam war at home. the war was fought in the vietnam, student marches and acts of civil isobedience dominated u.s. headlines, joining us to talk about that time are doug of echo "oedly company," the 19 68 ted ffensive and epic battle to survive the vietnam war, and novek, with ken burns "10 part documentary, war," watch 1968: merica in turmoil sunday 8:30 eastern on "washington journal" and on american history t.v. on

secretary of state3. >> monday, on landmark cases, a punishment, greg v. georgia, in 1976, troy leon convicted armed robber and murderer challenged his death sentence. is case and four other capital punishment cases were considered by the court. the supreme court ruled against established stricter guidelines for states wishes to impose the death penalty. to discuss this case, capital nker, top punishment legal scholar and professor at harvard. against the death cases and a number of ent shriger, from the legal foundation advocating in favor f capital punishment, written briefs and death penalty cases before the supreme court. monday at 9rk cases

eastern on c-span and join the conversation. landmark cases and follow us at c-span. our e have resources on website for background on each ase cht the "landmark cases" companion book, link to the national constitution center and podcast at es c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> "washington journal" continues. now, l attkisson joins us host of "full measure," author of two "new york times" best-sellers and yurnlist. attended white house corspontent's dinner? guest: almost all of them since came to d.c., may have missed one or two somewhere in there. uncomfortable, it is first one was uncomfortable. i think it was a clinton event

you think of clinton, he was invited as onored guest and yet i believe at that same dinner, journalist investigated him well was awarded an award. it was embarrassing. social situation, clinton had to general'sand shook the hand for investigating clinton. the comedians are never particularly funny, usually cringe worthy, but ana honor when your organization asks you ask you to ey represent, so you don't usually that.o to host: in light of criticism this year's event received, do you is worth continuing to do? guest: that is for other people to decide. situation, a rd charitable event that probably value if it can be imagined in a way for a lot of eople is less awkward and confrontational to guests we invite. it is a difficult situation. "new york baker,

times" journalist, tweeted out after saturday's event. advanced the we cause of journalist at the event saturday, would you agree? the entertainment and never watched the replay, i only saw excerpts. know, again, it's cringe-worthy performance, where sit in their seats next to the guest they invite and next to the people be honoraryposed to guests and jump cringe, not sure serves.pose that host: reaction from president trump, one tweet after the event in part, fake news was alive and well and beautifully represented on saturday night. how do you define the term "fake news," and -- it, in my on't define book, i gave two definitions i've been able to discern, the was invented by the left around september of when phrase first came up. people think it has been around hasn't, i er and it

researched this. and research by google, alphabet eric schmidt, a hillary upporter, came up with the notion. the notion at first was fake promoted by conservative online. false information trying to sway presenting things that are untrue. then along came donald trump co-opted the phrase, right wing came up with their definition, main-stream to be media when it makes reporting sloppy, biassed errors that is fake news. sides, one said says something is false, the other mistake you make because you are bias or report false information because you basic ike me, two definitions. host: sharyl attkisson with us in the last segment of "washington journal." join in the conversation, democrats, 202-748-8000.

republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. for somebody who never watched it, how sure" what is do you pick topic? guest: i try to be news worthy of the the main points news, my contention is that what week e on the news all is -- tends to be repeat of what you already heard. new, hashed ething over and pundits come on and give talking points and not much new light is shed in my view. there used to be, i think news broader topics, there was five or six years ago, not the same two or three or or five, thousands of things to cover. e cover stories that are heavier. cbs news, whistleblowers, government accountability, and abuse, national security f. we cover something on point with the news, we to be giving you value value-add, viewpoints you re not commonly getting or

information that hopefully you haven't heard elsewhere. host: what are you covering this week? guest: doing a story on asbestos, i think most people robably think asbestos was banned in the united states and it was never banned. in fact, there was a move to do it's been banned in many countries, but never fully banned in the united states. what we discovered, people are living in houses today that are whereas cularly old, products in the houses and in the construction materials are containing g used, asbestos and it presents continuing health hazards, there is not a lot being done about it. people discover this after they uy a house and have to pay $50,000 to gut it and take everything out. "full measure"ion shown on sinclair station, what the video of anchors reading national promotion script? lot abouth, i wrote a that, that was just sort of silly. cnn, worked at cbs, pbs,

local news, we always have promos written and given to us. promos, me dos joint when i was in local news, written by the network on their campaign. is not uncommon. when you edit them altogether, to look strange, you could do that every friday, when promote or the other sunday shows go on local affiliates and promote what is coming up on shows.unday we say the same thing over and over about our upcoming show, it by one city at a time and you could edit that together, i suppose and make it look weird. is part of propaganda campaign, editing together and sinclair, as it tribune to purchase stations. ompetitors try to controversialize sinclair and stot the merger. host: how much guidance on what you put on air and what you can

cover? guest: none. host: how does that relationship work? guest: it was part of the deal. when i left cbs, i didn't want to go into another place where i felt unhappy with news coverage i was being asked to do or felt unfairly es are being shaped. host: did you feel that way at cbs? guest: yes, yes. way, a lot feel that of my friends at other national news organizations, industry has changed a lot in that respect. there are great reporters stories andonderful having harder time getting original reporting on. easy hits for are narratives that maybe come out come "new york times" or off associated press, they don't want reporters typically digging stories and giving them, what i try to do, my for alty, not much market that. hollands what is an example of you happening at cbs before left? guest: this is push me, pull you. they would assign a story and

i do.hat somewhere along the way, something would happen and it would get stopped. for example, they assigned me to cover the boeing dream liner fires. as part of the investigation, i uncovered what i thought was amazing information with the help of my two producers with a whistleblower, with video that occurred during development of dreamliner battery. i had a former head transportation official say that smoking gun, of a what we had had found and the whistleblower tried to bring to light. a terrific story, the producers loved it, i loved it, up es in dc loved it, went the line and never aired. you don't always know why a blocked this didn't used to happen and now routinely fall almost n to a every time. host: how far up the line do you think it got? up to the the way show producers in new york. again, we don't always know unless someone tells you reasons dropped or g gets

killed, they don't say it is no good or we're not going to run it. time for it today, maybe next week or next month. host: for folks who don't layers of the onion when it comes to the producers that are involved in up with these news pieces, can you describe how it as at cbs and how it is at "full measure." guest: at cbs, it changed, it layer. be very thin i would give my ideas directly washe executive producer, i doing investigative reporting, we didn't want ideas going through committee. host: executive producer is head of the program? guest: head of the program, yes, kaplan and before that, jim murphy. reat luck with that, they wanted original storyos any topic. so there wasn't a huge filter. did go in between once i wrote a script that went to my over, also it ook went to senior producer in washington, d.c. and then it executive the

producer or senior producer that i read it to. fairly concise process. the last few years at cbs, when it came to hanged, be that the idea process, i wasn't really sure how to get an pitched, you guild through different channels and they usually didn't want the ideas. they gave you an idea and you got a script pproved, it would go through senior producer in washington and then to new york to some the rs or a senior and to executive producer and then the anchor, perhaps, and somewhere long the way, it would be changed or morph ed, or have questions or wouldn't like what said in it or wished somebody said something else and it wouldn't air. how many producers at "full measure," is -- probably three, one when i started, we've vastly expanded, it is a small team. works with me a lot and two others do other functions on the show and work ith the contributing

correspondents we v. host: sharyl attkisson here to answer questions. is up first in battle rouge, louisiana. democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. guest's comment on the definition or how she described the republican definition of news. she said that what they -- the describe it is they ake exception to mistakes that aren't corrected. i don't see that. i'm concerned, what trump defines as fake news and is anything that denigrates them or points out something they agree with. trump will call something fake need do isl reporter look at a statement he makes one day and contradicts the next and

reporting of that fake news. i don't see that fake news that is reporting what a person said. host: sharyl attkisson. guest: both sides differ on definition, divide here. i understand the viewpoint, i didn't mean to make it so simple, there are variations of what people think are fake news. before, no supreme dictionary authority that gets means.de what fake news i tried to describe best i could what i heard from both sides as try to verbalize what they consider fake news. which book? guest: "the smear." go : mary, a republican, ahead. caller: marilyn, actually. mrs. sharyl attkisson, thank you your extraordinary work. i would like to know what thing politics investigations and things you're looking at, you're following are the most

important. thank you very much. uest: i've never been a particularly politically focused reporter, most of my work is not topics, but itical i do think the what is go og intel agencies, i continuing is a crisis, not just based on .i., but sources i have that have worked nd work in the intelligence agencies, there is a crisis go og what bad actors have done, past year or two years, but over time in using urveillance and intelligence capabilities against people, enemies ts, political and others, where it shouldn't be used that, perhaps in a some cases, i in think that is a huge story. i have some people now, a going over the government intrusion of my computers, instead of apologizes at forensics and apologizeing and getting to the bottom of it.

the trump is fighting my lawsuit as much as obama fought the using taxpayer funds to drag it out and just keep it which again, is another piece of this intelligence ommunity scandal that i think exists today. host: what were you concerned was taken from your computer? guest: not that they necessarily took anything, there is evidence they did filtrate information, they can get information from cbs' computers, as well, my personal computers. forensics l from the they were looking to see what i was doing. topics that ring could impact political, i guess, had political implications, they wanted to know what i was about to work on, perhaps who was the ing from inside government because i typically se a lot of inside sources, including at time obama administration sources and democrats that work in federal

they were conducting war on whistleblowers, well known now. to see whichwanted on tleblowers were speaking controversial topics. host: do you think the case has you ed sources talking to about the topic? guest: it has in some specific people speak to me now, i feel obligation to remind them that we are probably monitored, that is still the status of things. most of them say they felt they monitored and well aware of this. we find other ways to feel they or understand it could be -- better to assume you are being than to wonder whether you are occasionally. that is the posture i'm taking. what are you seeking from the government, some sort of compensation? uest: have you to seek compensation in type of laurt we filed, yes, monetary penalties, but d what i think should happen is especially in light of our

forensic exams and the evidence we presented in court, judge regarded well enough denied repeat attempts to case, jt has told them this case is not going away. i think the justice department step in based on what they see and apologize and start criminal investigation and promise to get to the bottom of who committed the crime. you think the case would be treated differently administration? guest: always hope. persistent bureaucracy, what people refer to as deep state. hen clinton was in office and there was log jam of freedom of nformation, and when federal agencies wouldn't speak and bush came in, i remember thinking change.re going to the personnel, people don't know bureaucrats but stay sometimes from administration to administration.

changed. when obama promised new transparency, there was hope change.ng would very little changed, most said things got worse. road enoughown this times to realize bowerock rase who is inegardless of the white house. i was hopeful there would be ome difference, not terribly surprised there hasn't been. host: florida, dave, independent, go ahead. caller: sure. want to say that i thoroughly enjoy watching your program there wereand i wish more programming like yours on television, as there may have been 20 or 30 years ago. you.: thank caller: one thing of interest to issue abouthe whole whoo the deep state and the orruption and possible orruption even into the department of justice, it concerns me or has concerned me mueller has referred

ohen to the southern district new york for some crimes. he has beento that, a g after may nnhattan manafortwas tied to john work.ta, doing similar i have not heard anything about referrals being made to or go after tony potential legal actions over the years. so i wanted to see how you might about it and whether or not you might take the time to maybe do a segment on your program about that? host: thanks for the question. guest: john podesta stepped down when the news was coming out, we didn't hear much after that. i updated a little on the story legalon foreign lobbying,

lobbying, and how they hire embers of both parties to have tremendous influence in this country, russia, ukraine, of nations.p hard with the mueller investigation, i don't have me what urces telling is going on inside the mueller investigation. i think it is difficult to he nd-guess what evidence does and doesn't have and that is something i typically avoid unless i had some special inside information. pretty there has been a tight-lid david baldacci on the are, of what his querys the scope of what he's doing, despite leaks that have come out to be picky as to what i dig into and make it be add hing i can actually something to. host: you wouldn't be willing to stay whether you think he's overstepped his investigative -- guest: i can't say. i have non i have and

reason to think he's anything honest actor investigating the president. i see from the questions leaked, questions are correct, may be, may not be, he apparently looking at things for as neutral observer, i'm not a lawyer, would appear there conflicts of interest. lead me to question why he himself.cused number one, terms of his own employment. president trump consider firing he, himself, i think that of a argument that he's not disinterested party in hat discussion and number two, if he is investigating as questions indicate, the terms of fireing and circumstances surrounding it, long-time -- is a friend and colleague of his. if he's dig intoing that, doing so froms of conflict of interest point raises questions. know enough about what

he's doing inside to make that judgment for sure. democrat, na, paul, good morning. caller: good morning. must say, i son, i have not seen your program, but as a em to impress me thoughtful and insightful person. thought i would ask you a simple question. hat is your definition of "mainstream media." question.y good i don't think i have one, i haven't thought about deciding it myself. if you ask me to identify mainstream media organizations, worked, name places i've nn, pbs, cbs, i wonder if fox news, consider itself outside of the mainstream hasn't become respect, or in some outside the mainstream? i don't know. ost: what about sinclair and full measure? guest: good question, i would my programi raise on

are outside the current mainstream, but would have been omfortably inside the mainstream five or six years ago, i guess that is for other and no supreme dictionary to say what that is u up haven't tried to come with a definition. impetus for the change five or six years ago? guest: well it started occurring noticed big hat, i shift as president obama was leaving office and we were new campaign. shift was happening over time multi escribe it as billion dollar industry of groups, pr tical firms, crisis management, ebsites and others that exist to shape our opinions on behalf of political and corporate interests. not done a good job of keeping separate from the interests, instead of interests learned to co-op and use us in way that transform the

what we see on television everyday, short way of saying what i wrote a whole trying to describe. host: phone numbers to join the conversation this morning with democrats, sson, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. leesburg, virginia. independent, go ahead. caller: hi. to be getting ms more and more divided from a partisan standpoint and people feel, i guess, both in congress and in the news there is also a separation, what do you see as the solution and do you think this is something can pull back from? guest: it's a tough problem and did i like to say and i touch on this in my book, maybe something that i'll be thinking future.ven more in the i believe that these interests that i described have worked call ard to create what i artificial reality on social media, on the internet, on the

in politics. more t i mean we look divided and feel more divided, if you shut off the internet and middle go around in america, where i find myself a lot, spending a lot of time. way, they n't that aren't racially divided, working by side at side work, living, marrying, you of , really an amazing lack discord for the most part in this country considering the we put up from many different places. hat story is not told, instead we tell and interests that have interest in making sure when you and online you feel divided they want to divide further and want to marginalize you if you opinion to make you feel like you are an outlier when you may not be. may be minority opinion, they make you feel as though you thinks that one who way and there is something wrong with you. host: can you give me an example

an issue you see that happening in? guest: however you feel about he washington redskins name, research from a couple years ago, i haven't updated it, i don't know the status today. watching the news, i would have said, wow, the world is pretty the name st using redskins, it is an offensive name to native americans and away with.one but surveys actually show the 80%, ajority of people, did not find it offensive, native g american americans who were surveyed, opposite of impression you got when you looked online. taking a position on whether that should be the name or not, i'm simply saying created l reality online. host: what was end goal for creating that part of reality? guest: i didn't dig into what groups were pushing to change it. sometimes they are organized campaigns with financial disclosed,that aren't you can't guess until you poke around and see it and stocked by

interest of people who feel that is the goal, you start political oraybe a financial motivation, bring a feel that way o and turn into a grass-roots effort, combination of both. not sure who was behind pushing that or which different groups were behind pushing that. to kathleen, georgia, bill, independent, go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. read both your books and i enjoy your show. i'm independent on a lot of i'm curious your opinion on the utility of the cost benefit ratio bottom line 24-hour news in a for profit news world? of eems like there is a lot value in creating and -- when crisis tis useful, otherwise, it is about clicks and viewers. guest: it is true, i'm not sure how you change that and i'm not that is the biggest problem. a lot of people talk about the as well tive of news,

as conflicts that occur because of the advertisers that advertise on news. i will tell you that sometimes deep fixed that were when i was working at cbs and of, of my aware friends are storys that would have brought in viewers. making decisions contrary to viewer interest and financial interest in terms of viewership got me realizing there is something bigger at play than looking for clicks and numbers, going on in the news industry. host: do you think they don't want those particular viewers have been brought in? guest: i don't think that is part of the calculus. calculus on some stories is not how many viewers will watch. we know certain stories they killing were bring nothing viewers. it is more there is influence a political level that happens outside the view of news, the he pressures are to report a certain way. don't like to name the

old colleagues, what were stories about, who are people in? would have been brought guest: one of them, besides the oeing story, there were other commercial stories that had to do with certain corporations and ntities, but a lot of stories my producers and i would sit round and wonder what it was they wouldn't like about this particular story. in now we had to anticipate advance whose toes we were stepping on. surprising, i spent more money, i didn't cover oney, but traveling and of coerring school lunch fraud story about alleged00 eye guess school lunch the programs taking, giving bribes the aking bribes to be marketer for various school lunches, which explained a lot there was thought bad food at schools across america, despite the fact the companies are paid well. there was a criminal case going, i believe new york attorney time, and the

everybody loved that story and were pressing, when can you have you have it? i was writing the script, i got it.word we are on how soon can you have it to, we don't want it. and i just tie yourself in knots wondering what it was about this topic or story. we never knew, but i googled, i at at the computer and googled school lunchs and michelle obama's name came up with the school lunch initiative. figure out can based on other things happening at the time, there was someone's part that would be a negative story obamas or school lunc lunch -- host: john, ohio, line for independents, go ahead. john, first off, you're great at it. attkisson, i follow your show and the question i've a piece maybe last

year it was on a gentleman that switzerland bank 19,000 secret bank accounts and d.o.j. went after him and put him in prison. i.r.s. later went after 3500 19,000.bottom of the i'm curious, who was the top the 19,000 and we need their names and they need brought to justice. do you think our d.o.j. is crooked? thank you, i'll take my answer off air. i appreciate you very much. thanks, john. host: one of my favorite stories bout a whistleblower that worked at a swiss bank and blew the whistle on thousands of money in hiding their swiss banks. deal was made with hillary who intervened and who not put those people in prison nd in fact not to have the

swiss bank turn over at the had to turn nly ov prominent americans. was prous cu er for having -- hiding of the money and the same time applied osecuted, he for whistleblower award with the i.r.s. and received maybe $35 i.r.s., rom the something like that, maybe more. at the same time he's in prison, d.o.j., he gets highest whistleblower award. those names today, as far as i withheld, i couldn't get when i did the story from the justice department, answers got to decide why certain names weren't released over should be public in nature, but never those. to see

host: the d.o.j., did you see rosenstein? guest: i did not. host: one issue he touched on in with roesz, how he deals the media. he talked about his daughter sking him about what she sees in the news. here is a bit from that event. >> i'm wondering what your mindset is on whether a sitting president can be indicted, if not? why if not, any consideration being given to changing department policy? okay, that was two questions. [laughter] not a press conference. so i'm not going to answer in any current f shouldn't draw any inference about it. the department of justice has in the past when the issue arose, apined that sitting president cannot be indicted. there has been speculation in about this, i don't have anymore to say about it. somebody ssue arose,

in the department reached legal conclusion and that is what it is. rosenstein speaking with the media members there indictments yesterday. how do you think he's done in media ationship with the nd the many questions that rob rosenstein gets about the mueller investigation? observed the ot man or relationships, my only couldon, i don't think he answer it, i would ask questions about his sign-off of wiretaps an american citizen, who has never been charged with dossier, based on the parts unverified, which iolates, according to the f.b.i., its own procedures. i don't think he could answer. rosenstein is rob about his daughter and dealing with the media. my daughter wrote for the school newspaper, gee, some

inocuous issue. is try to avoid talking about issues. innocuous issue, i told her it wasn't true, i knew this wasn't true. said, but dad, if it isn't true, how can they put it in the newspaper? was taught in her high school journalism class that you sources.iable, credible unfortunately, here is the reality, i don't think most mislead are trying to people, the problem is, they are hostage to their sources. leaking? i'm not leaking. the people who are leaking are people who have some personal reason to get their side of the story out. sometimes when you see leaks, relate to , that matters we're investigating, recognize it not to be, unlikely leak from law enforcement because it is wrong in a ignificant or subtle way, a mistake we wouldn't make. what do you do if you are a what is iguring out source. advice i give my kids, when you read a story, first thing you

look to see if there is a named source. if not, be skeptical. false, means it is you should be skeptical. you don't have a named source, you can't corroborate it yourself. have to evaluate what you know about the source and whether he or she is credible. my important thing i tell kids, read broadly because if you read broughtly, you do a certain sense of what is and isn't right. o that is best advice i can give you. host: sharyl attkisson, what do advice? that guest: spot on with that. i agree with everything he said. him,ld add, not pointed at like the news media, the department of justice has been making serious mistakes, department of justice employees have bye-bye found and are under improper tion for leaks. the department of justice has personnel that put built se information, false cases against suspects, so yes, you have to be wary of in the news ou get media. oesn't mean it is false, but

you need to read diversely, read wide variety of publications and sources and probably not believe hardly anything you see. host: marsha, up next in florida, line for democrats. good morning. morning, thank you for taking my call. sharyl attkisson, i'm not all with your -- what program you're on, but i to hear would like more from you. lieu of on is, in everybody seeming to go to their station for r information that confirms the howthey feel, i'm wondering you would feel about bringing doctrine that never should have been blown up and look at it has led to, besides not getting fair reporting. guest: i'm sorry, i'm not a student of the doctrine and i the add anything to

conversation. what she said about people seeking what they want to seeking news now, organizations that tell them what they want to hear, so true. i think she and would agree, that even people or fox to watch msnbc or cnn, or another conservative they still would like to have a place they could go and getting l they are maybe, they would like to have a place they could go and watch outlets and watch a place that is just down the iddle or if it is not down the middle, if it actually pinpoints somebody at fault in some case, they know feel like it is because that is where the facts really led, not because organizations, reporter was trying to make you think a certain way. huge market is a for that, i'm not sure how we bring it back, our program, if area, watch your replays at fullmeasure.news.

we do that reporting every week. you will hear from democrats and but licans on our program, most of our reporting is nonpolitical in nature on topics you don't hear about. ost: to tallahassee florida, james, independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. try to talk with you, i keep up with your show all the time. i missed the one about mris, out about that. guest: it is online, very important story. caller: yeah, yeah. had two questions for you. one was are you ever going to do cost analysis of what legal actually cost tax paying citizens of the united states because there is no government our money. in every sense of the word, do that ink that the powers be will actually, you get away with printing that on television and take my answer offline and i appreciate you very much.

you. guest: uh-huh. you asked what is editorial sinclair compared to cbs, hardened executive producer and i have h at cbs another producer i worked with t cnn many years ago, were bringing somebody from abc in a couple weeks and another from al jazera. my own stories and run by my executive producer, ho has never said no, that i can think of. he has ideas from time to time, i do the pieces, run them by they require legal review on subject we may get legally attacked for, a fairness issue, i run them by our ethics/legal department, which i well, cbs, as voluntarily, wasn't required process, that is that. i don't know how management, the first they know story, when they see a piece promoted on the air and input int, haven't had

changing my story or trying to shape what is in them or who we or what we do. host: what is the mri story? amazing e mri story is story that for sometime has been scientists the dive that is used in mris, contrast call it, they used to say you expel it through your in your kidneys very fast. that is not the case for a lot you sick and can make tis toxic. people didn't know why they were repeat mris and come to light there are serious illnesses that could occur. first the f.d.a. insisted it as with people who had kidney problems and now acknowledge today is people that sometimes have no kidney problems and are illnesses. it has been banned in europe and japan, but not in the united u.s. had a ough the meeting, which they decided to ut new warnings out and some

patient pamphlets out, the wheels are turning slowly on that and americans, by and large, i think this should be front page news everywhere. with ny people have mris contrast dye. not to scare you off, but some others, you r than should know that. some dyes more necessary or less to use dye. this information is almost impossible to find on the f.d.a. news.e and not on the host: oakland, california, eddie, a republican, go ahead. edie.r: my name is host: edie, go ahead. forer: i have two questions sharyl attkisson. sharyl attkisson, you strike me but very successful person, the problem that i have with you right now is that most of your is you don't ple know who is killing your stories or why they are killing your one i and the second have is, the cost for you is not out why are they doing that to you, politically or

orporately and why are you aving that expose those people for using american citizen to -- private citizen. they are doing that to you, that is illegal. you is something that should not use -- go for the killing and find out why are people corrupt. thank you. host: thanks for the call. guest: probably does sound like don't know who is killing my stories and i don't know why it is happening and we've talked specifics. my first book "stone walled" had it.il in if people are interested to you more, get that book, can get it for next to nothing on amazon, i'm sure a couple dollars. instances i did know, some instance i was told by other sources. to put together through patterns what i suspected was i pening and part of what book on, wasn't just

cbs, it was happening all over. bert, ortland, oregon, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. complain e want to about the media, i think you hould ask them where are they they just - because if watch t.v. and listen to the radio, they are not very informed. get all my news by reading and more much better, insightful. guest: i can see that. the better, more, especially if you read diverse set of publications. i met at my kid's college tell me some website tis called left-right, has to do with -- will show articles from viewpoint and same story covered side by side from right viewpoint. she said that let her understand the differences. they didn't say who was right,

she could make out what was going on by reading left-wing ublication and then a right-wing publication, i thought that was a clever idea. left with minutes sharyl attkisson, if you want to join in. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. debra, maryland, line for republicans. go ahead. sharyl, good morning, thanks for taking my call everyone. you sound so interesting. familiar with you, but i will absolutely seek out your and try to stay tuned with you, you sound like ou really are closer to the middle than almost anyone out there i'm encountering. middle o have that information to that end, i want to mention, i feel like oam, one american news does a fairly good job on trying to stay of straightand kind in the middle line. i'm not sure, i sort of go to outlets,one of the many

i find the left and the right, do lean too lly much in their own direction and it is so obviously biassed. ask you two specific questions. just a side comment for c-span. guys ld be great if you would do less just with the left.the post is clearly but sharyl -- host: when you say left, what do you mean? caller: "washington post" is a left-leaning newspaper. be great when you do that, you also add more right-leaning or if there is one middle, but you do so much quoting from the post and titles the post is but left and we all know it. host: debra, can i explain for a second. we've got the washington times, the "wall street journal," the new york times," the "washington post," "u.s.a. today," those are just some of to and get e go physically and show you articles from. f course we look online, as

well. the reason we look to those is those are newspapers that most being delivered to members of congress up here, that is what members of congress day-to-day on a basis. along with showing stories we members ofw you what congress are reading. good : interesting, explanation, thank you for that. i sometimes feel i'm hearing post than others, i hear a smattering of others. thank you for that clarification. i want to ask two quick questions and take my answer off the air. you read the book do you feel truly an rod rosenstein is unbiassed figure in the process given the pictures with the relationship he that seems to be evident that he's had with hillary, do you he is an that unbiassed person in the

equation? guest: i did not read "clinton cache," and i don't know enough rob rosenstein to say, other than like mueller, i think a has an area where there is conflict in the investigation and that is his signing of the wiretap carter paige, intricattily involved in part of the counter of point to the investigation. i don't know enough about what is to make awho he judgment as to his place in things. host: jay, independent, go ahead. caller: yes. i didn't see the first part of this show, i don't know what you all discussed. haryl attkisson, i'm a little bit familiar with from the past had a seemed like she decent reputation. i am curious as to why she her reputation down the toilet by associating sean lf with people like hannity and some of the other crew on fox news. hannity is basically

.v. version of alex jones with the types of just nut job conspiracy theories he comes up a regular basis from -- host: got your point, jay. promotingl, i have in my book or when i'm asked to be msnbc,grams, i've been on hayes show, s occasionally on sean's show to the book or other matters. i try to politely be on programs that offer platform for care about in a way that is true to whatever i'm without making a lot of comments about what it is they do. ertainly when i go on all the shows, it doesn't imply endorsement for everything the eople say on the left or right or any other program i'm on, i'm simply a guest. i don't think it is throwing my down the toilet. if it is, so be. host: the caller mentioned alex

jones, would you go on his program? about i don't know enough alex jones, i don't think i've been asked to go on the program. think people are disappointed breadth, 't have wide but i am hyperfocus og issues i dig into and i don't read on a day, i will not go through the "washington post" and new york times and may not read news articles today, i'm working on a story for "full measure" for weekend. i'm not in the general mix of things, hard to comment. lawrence, massachusetts, james is a democrat. good morning. good morning. would like to ask a couple of questions, i am not concerned with fake newss as i am with omitted news. will give you the hearings rosenstein.th chuck grassley asked if he thought there were improprietys

the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails and he made a statement he thought they myriad of improprieties during that investigation and i any kind that once in of mainstream media news and i'd to ask about what she see censuring of the news on the internet, they remove where you correspond with people and have disagreements and talk, the comment section. call. thanks for the guest: he's put his finger on something i've written about. news, e leave out of the what we self-censure is as in, tant as what we put he's right about that. the internet, i'm starting to speak out about this. totally concern when third parties, whether government, olitical figures or private corporations insert themselves in as fact checkers of what should be and shouldn't be. yes, there is a lot of misinformation and junk online we're better off

in that environment than one that is shaped by people, or not invited who continue to want to shape create al -- artificially online because they may use it for purposes you use itith today, but may tomorrow to keep you from getting information about mri safety, they decide that is not or controversial. so i think we're better off curators, rather than inviting people in. information our curated and want people to tell you what to think and believe, that type sign up for of service, i don't think it should be imposed by government or third parties. host: sharyl attkisson, host of find it sure" you can on twitter. find sharyl attkisson on twitter at sharyl attkisson. your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. the that will do it for "washington journal" today, we'll be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern,

pacific, in the meantime, have a great wednesday. >> on c-span this week on prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a conversation with clarence thomas and stephen breyer. >> we have a criteria. dideria is almost always, the lower courts come to different conclusions on the same question of federal law? eastern, a at 8:00

look at how the criminal justice system handles people suffering from mental illness. >> since 1980, the number of people going to jail has tripled and sentences have increased by 166%. as you peel back the onion and try to figure out what the heck has happened -- what you will find as most of this is due to untreated mental illness and substance use disorders. >> this week in primetime on c-span. sunday on q&a, author and former esquire contributing editor, on his new book, rocket man about the 1968 apollo mission to the moon. >> i never realized until i began to talk to the astronauts what a major role the wives. played it was impossible to disregarded. all three of them believed without their wives, they could not have pulled this off.

apollo 8 was the most daring mission nasa had run. it looked too many people like certain death to go on this thing -- rush to the launchpad, done very quickly and everything was for the first time. these men needed wives who were absolutely supportive and who did not reveal to their husbands just how much they were suffering, just how terrified they really were. >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. up next, remarks from dr. priscilla chan who discusses the initiative, ag company she and her husband they spoke ceo mark zuckerberg founded. the foundation support scientific research and education. the george w. bush presidential center in dallas held the event. >>