filmmaker len projecthose most recent with ken burns was pbs' "the vietnam war." live thursday on the c-span networks at 11:00 a.m., the american enterprise institute hosts a forum on the 2018 farm bill. at 4:00 p.m., nasa engineers nexta briefing on the mission to mars. alantic 5 a.m. on c-span2, panel with prescription drug experts. and at noon, discussions on the air and nuclear agreement. announcer: coming up, the asylum process in the united states.

at 5 a.m., our guest is joseph takovsky, looking at keys figures who shaped the u.s. constitution. and [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] host: good morning. it's thursday, may 3, 2018. we begin this morning with former new york mayor and current trump lawyer rudy giuliani acknowledging on fox news last night that the president reimbursed attorney michael cohen for the $130,000 payment that he made to stormy daniels before the 2016 election. cohen said he made the payment on his own and with his own rounds keep daniels from going public from allegations of a previous affair with then businessman donald trump. now giuliani's comments raise questions about how much president trump knew about the deal with daniels.

we're getting your reaction. give us a call. phone lines are open. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. ndependents, 202-748-8002. host: and a very good thursday morning with you. you can start calling in now as we discuss this topic for the first segment of the "washington journal" today. we start by showing you part of that interview on fox news last night with former new york mayor rudy giuliani. >> isn't that closer to the mandate and michael cohen? >> wheres mueller on that, sir? >> having something to do with paying stormy daniels woman $130,000? i mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. that money was not campaign money. sorry, i'm giving you a fact now

that you don't know. it's not campaign money. >> they fund it through a law firm. and the president repaid it. there's no campaign finance law. >> zero for the president -- >> shawn everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. i wasn't. i knew how much money donald trump put into that campaign. i said $130,000? he's going to do a couple of checks for $130,000. i said that's how he's repaying it. with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for michael. >> but did you know the president didn't know about this? i believe that's what michael said. >> he didn't know about the specifics of it. but he did know about the general arrangement that eiffel

would take care of things like -- michael would take care of things like this. host: here is the "new york times" front page lead story on this this morning. they write that the statement last night from mr. giuliani appear to contradict the president who had said he had no knowledge to keep quiet before the election. asked specifically last month by reporters whether he knew about the payment, mr. trump said no. and then he was asked do you know where he got the money to make the payment. i don'ttrump responded, know.

host: last night after this interview on fox news saying giuliani's reveal that trump repaid cohen $130,000 for hush money to distance renders the repeated didn'ts from the president and his press ecretary false and untrue. president trump retweeted and he writes mr. cohen, an attorney received a monthly retainer not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign from which he entered into through reimbursement known as a non-disclosure agreement or n.d.a. these agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. in this case, it is in full force in effect and will be used in arbitration for damages against ms. clifford daniels. an issue that has come up

from the beginning when the details of this payment came out, but especially more so now that the president has repaid his personal attorney. we'll get to some of those questions. but we also want to hear your thoughts this morning, your reaction on the "washington journal." democrats, 202-748-8000, i-n-t's, s, $130,000,

202-748-8002. we'll start in plano, texas. matt, go ahead.

southerners, bro, they still hypocrites. i can't stand them, man. thank you. host: to guy in washington crossing, pennsylvania. line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yeah, this division from the last three

callers who called in, you know, this is a from the last three callers who called in, you know, this is a president who was picked by the people and it was

colluded with the russians. we saw that when he shouted out. if the russians had anything on hillary, please release it.

he wanted it. then little don went and he got the information from wikileaks and all of the others and this has been nothing but a sham for ouramerican people.for the onek republicans who set it and let this continue to go on when they know our laws have been broken -- we have lost focus. as a russia -- this is about russia. this is about who colluded with russia. it had nothing to do with stormy daniels. we need to get off of that. i reporters need to report. i believe you guys helped him that two to where he is. there were things that were out there. you do not cover those things. --t of those things, even i

,- see how cowardly we are we cannot run our own country. it is a shame. having i stay. cohen was not the only news. he offered new rationale -- rudy giuliani offered new rationale for why he fired -- why the president fired james comey. here's more about it. clip] >> all of the people involved we're going to have to decide, probably falls more on us because he's on the government side whether the president should grant an interview.

it's real simple. and american people can follow this along with me. are they objective? are they? well, right now, a lot of things point in the direction of they made up their mind that comey's telling the truth and not the president. so when you look at those questions about what does the president think what, does the president feel, what does the president really desire, those are all questions intended to trap him in some way in contradicting and in fact, a very, very solid explanation of what happened. he fired comey because comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation. he's entitled to that. hillary clinton got that. and he couldn't get that. fired him and then he said i'm free of this guy. host: taking fired him your cal "washington journal" with that

fox news interview. the president already been tweeting about that interview this morning. went to hear what you think. lewis is waiting in brick, new jersey, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i just want to say that this whole thing is a sham because for a year and a half, they try to tie the president of the united states with this russian collusion and there's nothing wrong with collusion. it depends on how you use it. so now they're going after this guy, using this prostitute and making her a big superstar by saying that president trump paid her somehow with money from the campaign. had nothing to do with it. he wasn't president went he had the relationship with this girl. host: look, what do you mean when you say there's nothing with collusion, it's just how ou use it?

they say it's influence on theaway we voted. because with -- without the and trying to influence our elections, most of the people in this country are pretty smart. whatever -- whoever they wanted to vote for, whether it be for clinton or trump, their minds were already made up before they heard about this russian trying to overturn our government. host: that's lewis in new jersey. a reminder to turn your television volume down when you call in so we can have the conversation and everybody can hear you clearly after few

comments on twitter as we've been having this conversation this morning. myelin writes i predicted giuliani wouldn't last long. looks like i'm going right again. field brooks say who the president had sex with before, during or after he serves should be none of our business and was so until the republicans made such a huge deal of who bill clinton was having sex with before and during his presidency. you cannot put that genie back in the bottle. james, collins, mississippi, go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. host: good morning, sir. caller: i just want to say, i want to say -- until host: yes, sir. go ahead. caller: i want to say i remember when president donald j. trump was running for president and i remember him making a lot of campaign speeches. and he brung up a story about a snake that would -- a lady found a snake and the snake was dead or frozen or something and the

lady took the snake home and she nourished the snake. she brung the snake back to life and when the snake got warm and got his mind back, he bit the woman. and the woman looked at him and said why did you bite me? i took care of you. i did all these things. and the snake looked at her and said you know i was a snake when you brought me into your house. and i'm saying on both sides of this. somewhere, this is going to come out and we're going to find out who the true snake is. right now, we got democrats and republicans arguing against each other. but look at here. the truth would set you free. no lie is going to stand, i don't care how much money you put in it. i don't care how much you say you're doing good work. when you bill your kingdom up on lies, the foundation is weak.

now it's going to either be the republicans are goi obtain the house or the senate or it's going to be the democrats, but somewhere down the line, things are going to have to happen because you can do good things to work out with bad things. and this is the thing with me. somewhere down the line, that snake is going to rebuild is and you know what -- itself. people don't mind if it takes it takes eight or 10 years to destroy him. but he told that story about that snake. host: put a fine point on it for us. who do you think the snake is? caller: i think the snake is the people that support the snake. if you don't -- if you don't look at -- if you don't do your research, if you look at the media, why all of a sudden, all the media is all the media is bad except for the ones that support them? look at fox news. fox news support donald trump, so they say. but fox news is not a news

media. it says it's a republican. cnn is saying that they are non-bias. so, you know, when you say fake news, fake news, fake news, you now what -- for a fact that if this would have been president barack obama, if this would have been a woman president and she had dated a porn star man or did something five or 10 years ago, if you -- if she was the president and she used this type of -- my thing is vulgar language. when you're the president of the united states of america, you've got to have character. you got to have not only the gift of bringing your country back, but you also have to have dignity. host: that's james in mississippi this morning. raymond is in southfield, michigan, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes, me and my friends, e have a new name for this

president. his name is called spanky. and the reason for that is this. when the porn star was on msnbc and cnn -- host: raymond, i think people know the detail of that interview. so bring us to today. caller: say it again, please. host: bring us to today. caller: yeah. she made remarks of what that -- she had done with him. host: raymond, got your point. don't need to know how you came up with your nickname. george this bernie, california, line for republicans. george go ahead. caller: yeah, hi. as a barry goldwater conservative, i am aghast at what our party has turned into.

can you imagine eisenhower or reagan or george h.w. bush staying the things that this man says? number one. number two is everybody's complaining about how long this investigation's taking. well, i remember 25 years ago when we spent $50 million and three years of ken for's time figuring out whether or not bill clinton had sex with an intern. and that's my comment. host: rudy giuliani paying his comments on fox news last night. he's a relatively new member of president trump's legal team, though not the newest. here's a story from the "wall street journal" today. top lawyer representing mr. trump in the investigation said on wednesday that he was stepping down after working during the past year to bring the investigation into a speedy closing by turning more than 20,000 documents requested by robert mueller and being opened mr. trump ect of

being interviewed by vestigators -- host: queen this needle point. go ahead. caller: some people there on the show have vision. they know the big picture. and it seems a lot of other people call in because they want

to keep up trump or they want their little minute of staple. but black people don't know why they call themselves black in this country. they don't want donald trump because donald trump is not in their stolen country. this man is the most healthiest president on earth like his doctor said. he's got a beautiful head of hair, he's got the most beautiful children on earth. he's got a i.q. that is like ion tine, as far as business and helping people is concerned. and we who love donald trump, who grew up and know, we know what type of woman donald trump wants. and that prostitute is not. period. end of system. the big system, don't want donald trump because donald trump is not in the world omination.

that's for people to get the finger from. and so, they need to leave donald trump alone and let this man and his beautiful children continue to help the human race because the world love donald trump. host: queen, as an independent, did you vote for donald trump in 2016? caller: that's the obviously person when i decided to vote that i vote for. and unless his children take over in the next generation, i won't be voting for anybody unless i won myself. host: so you would only vote for donald trump or his children? caller: i'm smart enough and intelligent to know that this is a good man and so is his hildren.

caller: why don't you run? i will pray for you. and you know what? donald trump, yes, he likes porn stars because his wife is a nude model. now, first, john, i would like to say of the caller patrick, i believe you to be a liar. you are not a democrat, but a republican. now, john, we have a liar and chief. i suspect that he is really selling out america for his own rofit. he is a very dangerous man. this is not about stormy daniels but it's about a lying president who he is a very is a con man. he's bully. he is a very nasty and disrespectful person. thank you, john.

host: john is in pennsylvania, a line for republicans. john, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. this payment to stormy daniels was made in 2016 to silence her. but what never came out was what amount he paid to spend the night with this porn star and why that is important is in 2016 when this happened, donald trump still owned the trump marina in atlantic city. he was in bankruptcy proceedings then. and he was able to go to bankruptcy proceedings, keep his yacht, keep his helicopter, keep

his jets and apparently, he could even go out and afford to have these porn stars and pay for these porn stars, but he could not pay for the people that built his casino. them people were never paid because he went there and insisted that he was broke. if he was broke, he could not afford to spend the night with a porn star. then if he wanted porn star, why did he not -- casinos in atlantic city, the trump skeensos were known for the prostitutes. why didn't he go to his own casinos and get his prostitutes? host: why are we continuing to focus on that, like other callers have said? caller: i think honesty matters. look, i was in the military and

i also worked at a nuclear power plant. so i had security crisis. how do you give security clearances to somebody that frequents these porn stars when they have to be paying them? i mean, how could he get any kind of security clearance? i had a pretty high security clearance. what does the f.b.i. do when they go to give to check his background and see if he deserves to know the secrets of he united states of america? i don't see how the f.b.i. can give him a security clearance when they know he's lying, when they know he's subject to black ale. thank you for taking my call. host: to continue the

conversation with you before you go, but he was elected president by the people of the united tates. caller: he was not elected by the majority of the people in the united states. hillary clinton got three million more votes than he did. he was elected by to the electoral college and i'm not saying they're going to change that but the majority of people in america did not vote for donald trump. and i mean, we should be clear about that. thank you for taking my call. host: thanks for chatting. don is in sacramento, california. democrat. go ahead. caller: hey, john. oh, john, yep, here we go again. i don't know what's going on with my black people because they're calling up and all of a suddenings going to do something. donald trump ain't got nothing to do with no black people. only people why y'all getting jobs is because he putting all them mexicans out of town. as soon as he get rid of them,

he's coming after your ass. so if you don't watch out, donald trump is going to be having all of y'all's -- and it ain't going to be fog but white folks if he had his way. and you black folks, you better look out. host: got your point, don. charles is an independent. go ahead. caller: all right. this was a man i was watching his rallies and he's saying things that are completely unrealistic, incredible things, like and they're just cheering

and they just think that this is a great savior. i'm just wondering why american, americans don't ever say hey, wait a minute. what is this? what is he saying? this is so tribal. donald trump even said it himself. i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody in the face and nobody would care. and he's right. and this is where the problems are with our country is we're not calling balls and strikes on anybody. it's just about tribalism and hey, my guy's the greatest in the world. i don't care what he does. and i hear this from my republican friends and i'm like are you insane? i mean, look at the lawsuits and look at what this guy has done. just into his past for half an hour and it's just incredible.

host: it's after 7:30 on the east coast. we're spending our first segment on the "washington journal" today talking about rudy giuliani's statements on fox news last night, including the revelation that the stormy daniels payment was to -- by michael cohen, the president's lawyer was reimbursed by the president. you can join the conversation. and i also want to keep you updated by the other news. two stories to point you towards. one, cambridge analytica, a political consult si that worked for the trump campaign had come under attack for its use of personal facebook data and other elections announced wednesday that it would cease operations and declare bankruptcy in the united states and in britain. the firm said it had lost clients because of revelations in marge that it improperly

obtained the information of illions of facebook quasers -- host: that story from "the washington post" today. from the "washington times." some of the images from that scene in georgia. puerto ricans flying an air national guard into retirement in arizona crashed on to a highway in georgia yesterday. and authorities puerto ricans s were no survivors the plane crashed into state highway 21 moments after taking off from savannah hilton head international airport, and

sending a orange and black fireball into the sky. you can see some of the debris filled -- field in this picture. the story noting at the the debris field stretched 600 feet in diameter. back to your calls this morning. keith is in warren, massachusetts, a republican. keith, go ahead. caller: good morning, john. thank you, c-span. i'm sure since donald trump's been going through his brand and business all these years, he's had hundreds of these non-disclosures and stuff. it's just common place. but $130,000, he probably didn't really know what was going on. i give him more credit for that. she's not -- that's not a good-looking woman. he wouldn't be with a woman like that. she's not even good-looking. host: keith, one tweet that we have gotten on this topic that i want to ask you about. matthew where is in that although the president's

supporters don't seem to care about his lying and extramarital affairs what lies do they care about? caller: what lies do they care about? it's kind of hard to say. he's going all different directions. but he's getting attacked from different directions and doing with a he's doing at the same time. that's probably one confused guy sometimes. he stays up a lot. he works his butt off. i think he's doing a lot of good. i really think if they would lay off a little bit, he would do good things for this country. i wish he would have the chance, at least once since he's been the office. host: is that confusion that you mentioned, does that concern you for the president? caller: yeah, it bothers me. the democrats are really being bad, actors, entertainers, comedians. he has not been -- i can think

of one day when you have talks with north korea coming up saying oh, it has nothing to do with him. obama started that. the guy gets nothing. he's trying to make some head ay here. we would have done cool things in this country and we would be a lot further along than we are now. to be able to beat up a president as bad as he is and still getting stuff done, it's unbelievable. just leave him alone a little bit. host: james, miami, florida, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hey! wow. you know what bernie sanders would say if he would say stormy daniels, we could talk about something important than stormy. that's with a democrats should be doing. and i keep hearing the wonderful hillary clinton win by three million votes. yeah, that's like 2%. but 50% of the eligible voters

did not even bother to vote because both candidates were terrible. so if we came up with some better candidates and if the media would stop trying to tear everybody apart and kanye, they're taking him out of comtex. he's talking about slavery of the thought -- host: james, we'll hold up on the kanye conversation. we'll focus on the public policy issues here today. there's plenty to focus on. you mentioned what bernie sanders had said. showed some tweets from democratic members of congress already jumping on rudy giuliani's comments. what do you think democratic members of congress should be focusing on today? we lost a caller. and awade is an independent this morning. thank you. caller: thank you for this time. first of all, we're all in the big mistake with stormy daniels payment and reimbursed. donald trump, this is all a

setup of what's going to be happening on may 16 or 15. they're going to bring the american embassy to occupy palestine and jerusalem. this is going to be a -- they want donald trump out of office by the end of this term. so vice president pence will take over. host: who is they,wad? caller: who's they? th are the designist english, jew asks the designist english -- i mean the russian christian jews. host: all right. mona is in ellicott city, maryland. line for republicans. go ahead, mona. caller: still talking about this latest payment to this woman, trump would not touch her with a 10-foot pole. people are really gullible if you only believe he would only

pay her $130,000 if he really did something with her. what people talk about is v.a. veteran care. we care about jobs coming back. we care about fair trade. we do not care about this. thank you. host: jimmy, clarksburg, west virginia, democrat. go ahead. caller: hey, john, how's it going? host: going well. caller: i just want to thank giuliani. i think he's really helped the democrats out a lot by his statement. and i think we're going to take back the house, maybe even the senate and we'll get trump impeached, get him out of there. the guy's from pennsylvania who said he's a democrats. democrats don't talk about the deep state. that's it. fox news watcher. and i got a question. what has 100 feet and no teeth? do you know?

host: go for it, jimmy. don't make me great it. -- regret it. caller: the front row of the trump rally. host: all right. apologize for that. we will go to ken, line for ndependents. caller: two things that never change. whole premium entitled their opinions and beliefs, two things never change and that's integrity and character. and in listening to some of the callers this morning, especially this gentleman from massachusetts, you asked them questions which he deflected and deferred on and i just wonder how this guy and others who is of his ill think that this man walks on water and is in fastball, how they can look at themselves in the mirror. and i try to look at people from all sides, and i don't care whether they're a republican.

i voted republican. i voted democrat. but if a person's character and their integrity are in question, i cannot blindly support that person. and how they think this is good on the world stage to have a perpetual, habitual liar in the white house, i truly, i truly don't understand how he has gone. to support. it's almost like the pied piper to me. and i think these people are going to be led to slaughter. thank you, john. have a good day. host: that's ken in clinton, maryland. keeping you updated on other stories including the ongoing back and forth about what to do with the iran nuclear deal. reuters reporting yesterday that president trump has all but decided to withdraw from the 2015 iran nuclear deal accord by may 12 but exactly how he will

do so remains unclear to white house officials and a source family with the administration said on -- familiar with the administration said there's a chance that they report president trump might keep the united states in the international pact under iran agreed to return for sanctions relief in part because of aligns maintenance with france and to save face with the french president. a decision by trump to end u.s. sanctions relief could trigger a backlash by iran which could resume its nuclear arms program -- iran's foreign minister said the islamic republic will not negotiate or add to the nuclear deal. president trump must decide by may 12 whether or not to renew waivers suspended by u.s. sanctions in iran. that's the deadline that's

coming up. back to your calls as we continue to discuss rudy giuliani's statements on fox news last night that the president had repaid his lawyer had reimbursed his lawyer for payments made to stormy daniels. the timing of rudy giuliani's statements is one of the topics that the "associated press" brings up in their write-up about his comments yesterday. giuliani's insistence that the money had nothing to do with the campaign is complicated, they write, by the fact that daniels' silence was secured days before presidential election and as trump then was dealing with the fallout from the "access hollywood" tape in which he bragged about sexually assault women. the payment was personal, said an expert in election law at the university of california irvine, there would be no campaign finance violations but giuliani's arguments that the payment --

host: one other topic that the "associated press" brings up. they asked why giuliani decided to go there in the interview wasn't immediately clear what giuliani sought to gain with the admission, they write. eisen, one of the individuals that they interviewed, norm eisen who served as an ethics lawyer the obama white house suggested it might have had something to do with the fact that cohen is under criminal investigation in new york. f.b.i. agents raided his home and office several weeks ago, seeking records about the non-disclosure agreement -- i want to hear your thoughts this morning as we take this topic on in the first segment of the "washington journal." shirley has been waiting in mansfield, ohio, a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning, and

thank you so much for c-span. mayor giuliani look like a clown last night with the statements that he was making. and sean hannity jumped on board to try to help him out. i am 68 years old and i have common sense. this man is covering for the president of the united states and no one believes this. i don't care if his supporters calls in and says they believe him. i do not believe them. and another thing. melania trump, my heart goes out to her. nobody mentions her with all this mess that this president has gotten himself in. the first lady of the united states, no one ever mentions her. and i pray for her on a daily basis. thank you. host: shirley, rudy giuliani's comments about the stormy daniels payments certainly not the only thing he talked about, it's a pretty wide ranging interview with sean hannity on

fobs. among the other topics he address was the special counsel robert mueller's investigation from president trump. here is more. >> they issued a subpoena, that will be unprecedented in the sense that it's pretty clear that a president can't be subpoenaed to a criminal proceeding about him. why is that? and fortunately or maybe unfortunately, we have the real-life circumstance going on that the founding fathers thought about. which is a president can not be distracted by a criminal investigation. you can always pruitt him after. they can get him when he leaves the white house. if mueller said to him tomorrow, bring him in two hours. no questions that you don't want. and we're pretty much ready to clear him. i could not go to the president of the united states and say take two days off to get ready for that and screw the whole thing with north korea.

how can any american do that? he's our president. he is going to negotiate, i believe, a non-nuclear situation on the korean peninsula! >> all right. >> are you going to interfere with that? that's why the founding fathers created this immunity from prosecution and subpoena. now, if it's a civil case, clinton submitted because it was a civil case. a why not written answers to proffer which ronald reagan did? because they said no to that. >> so then one of them -- so the president says that? >> at this point, i'm not sure i would give them written answers because tear going to contradict him. host: taking your calls this morning after that interview by rudy giuliani on fox news last night. jack, line for republicans. go ahead.

caller: i want to correct one caller about what was 100 long and no teeth. it's 50 feet long and -- host: jack, we're going to skip the jokes about other americans. so we'll go to david in grand rapids, michigan. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: so if giuliani is admitting that they paid back the $130,000, isn't that like an like why would he even say that on air? i don't get the direction that they're trying to bring trump as far as, you know, trying to make him look innocent in the eyes of the public. well, they're not doing a very good job. and then real quick, that subpoena thing. nobody's above the law. giuliani's talking about this immunity thing or whatever from prosecution while he's in office. i've never heard of that.

john, if you have some sort of piece of paper or something you can put on you screen to prove that he's tell the truth, i would greatly appreciate that. because nobody as an american citizen should be above the law. thank you. host: actually, david, that sounds like a good topic for an upcoming segment on the "washington journal" on immunity laws and how they apply. here's story from today's "washington post" on president trump's escalating, they describe it, clash with the justice department over the mueller probe. they write the standoff went the justice department and g.o.p. lawmakers escalated wednesday as president trump waited into the controversy over the demands to release a highly sensitive document outlining who and what is being investigated by special counsel robert mueller.

host: time for a few more of your calls as we take up the topic of rudy giuliani's interview yesterday on fox news. stanley is in florida, line for independents. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing all right. caller: i just want to warn you. i didn't want to talk about this, but this is his justice department. he's going after. that's his people that he put in there. first of all, i wanted to say about the stormy daniels.

how will this look at the debate if they act her -- like he did on hillary clinton when he brought up bill clinton's people that she didn't have nothing to do it into the debate-some and there's like six lawsuits on him. don't forget that playgirl he was going out with, playboy model that the enquirer paid off. and there's another lawsuit on him when a contestant on "the apprentice" that's coming out and he's got a lawsuit in washington against his hotel from all the other hotels because he's taking all the business away and all tease people from other countries coming in here and renting rooms to get clint -- get to see him. this is ridiculous. he's not supposed to own that hotel. and as far as the tax cut, tear going to go broke because i just heard on a stock channel that they particularly -- in regulation in two years because of this tax cut.

we're going to go broke and they're going to come after social security. hold on, because your kids are going to lose your social securities. host: to robert in athens, alabama, line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i am so glad to have -- to be able to talk to c-span this morning. but stormy daniels, that's, i hope they get it. but the most important thing that i'm worried about are the -- are the things that this guy, that regulations that he's people aring, the things that keep our water and air clean. -- the interfering with the our investigators. any time somebody does that, he's trying to tear down the institution of our government. and all of us should be concerned about that. he has a fascist mentality and i

really thank you for listening to me this morning and thank you. host: robert, you mentioned clean air and water. the e.p.a. administrator scott pruitt, a lot of attention in the wake of revelations about his spending and actions since taking over at the e.p.a. the editorial board of "the washington post" with their lead editorial today. send the swamp monster packing. it adds the litany of ethical failing by the e.p.a. chief. pruitt crammed a lifetime of -- and if you want to read that, that's the editorial board of "the washington post." timmy, riverside, california, an independent go. ahead. caller: yes.

first of all, my opinion, we shouldn't even be giving this prostitute any time on tv here. and another thing, president trump is doing an excellent job. trump, if he can hear me, keep doing what you're doing and keep your eyes on god and don't listen to these people out here. just stay focused and alongs we in whine what god wants, this country is going to be just right. host: that's timmy this morning. one other story i want to make you aware of, just a couple of minutes left in this segment of the "washington journal." this story focusing to the korean peninsula. so much attention there lately. but north korea has really three u.s. citizens who have been held prisoner by the communist leadership. citing a south korean activist who lobbies for the release of detainees. the release which had not been confirmed would meet one of president trump's conditions

before the president would meet with the leader. the three citizens were freed from a labor camp and given health care and ideological indoctrination in pyongyang. the detainee who is remained in north korea but would be handed over prior to or during the summitt had been accused of hostile acts. washington and pyongyang are known to be in talks over their possible retate pay ituation. that's going to do it for this first segment of the "washington journal" today. but actually, no. virginia's waiting in langhorne, virginia. line for republicans. thanks for sticking around. caller: yes. can i talk now? host: yes, ma'am. caller: well, i think donald trump despite all the vitriol against him, the man is doing a wonderful job. and i don't think you'll ever

ee a benghazi -- host: got your point, virginia. you're going a little in and out there. i appreciate all the calls this first segment of the "washington journal." up the calls for this first segment. chenll be joined by greg to talk about the process for seeking asylum in the united states. greg chen from the american immigration lawyers association. ♪ >> sunday morning, we look at the impact of the vietnam war at home. while it was fought in the jungles of vietnam, student of disobedience dominated headlines. we will talk about the turbulent .ime

and a filmmaker whose most recent project was a 10-part documentary, the vietnam war. watch 1968: america in turmoil "washingtonhost journal." on c-span this week in prime eastern, how p.m. the criminal justice system handles people suffering from mental illness. >> since the 1980's, and a number of people going to jail has tripled and sentences have increased by 166%. when you peel the onion and you try to figure out what happened, what you will find is most of it is due to untreated mental illness and substance use disorders.

>> for nearly 20 years, "in-depth" has featured the best-known fiction writers for life conversations. we arear's special, featuring best selling fiction writers for in-depth fiction addition. for thriller fiction fallen." "the intother novels are " ," the finisher. we will be taking phone calls, tweets, and facebook messages. david sunday on

book tv on c-span 2. "washington journal." continues. host: we are joined by a discussion on the asylum process and the backlog facing immigration court. the americanh it immigration lawyers association. explain what the association is and how it is funded. guest: the american immigration lawyers association is the national bar association of the united states with 15,000 immigration lawyer and professor members with chapters across the country. we represent businesses and families seeking to have employees or family members come to the united states. we also have members that represent asylum-seekers who are seeking protection in the united states. paid?how are those folks

is a pro bono representation? guest: we have many members doing pro bono work, meaning they take no or low fee to represent someone based on if that person can pay. of course, lawyers are practicing lawyers, so many are paid by whatever business or family that is hiring them. mentioned asylum-seekers. president trump has been expressing concern about the caravan moving through mexico towards the united states. we found out they made it to the border. 150-200 of them. dozens are crossing to start the asylum process. why are they being allowed in after the expressions of concern from the president? guest: the president did say he was not going to allow in the people in the country. it by hiseen correct

administration, because it would be contrary to u.s. and international treaties, the refugee convention in particular, to bar people coming to our borders seeking asylum. this goes back decades in american history. even our founding fathers dedicated the united states to welcoming refugees at our shores or borders. people arriving at ports of entry are doing so in a highly regularized or organized way, which is good for them and our country. when you are coming from central america to mexico, the dangers these families are facing -- and havew our members historically represented many of these types of people coming from countries with the most dangerous conditions. gangs the government cannot androl, high levels of rape domestic violence these families are facing.

as they leave their homes and come north they often traveling groups to seek reduction. when they -- seek pe protection. when they reach of the border, they need the opportunity to seek asylum. tijuanae camp outside near the california border where there are two to 300 inside the caravan camped out to possibly enter the united states, do we have to let in anybody that claims they are seeking asylum? guest: anyone who claims seeking asylum that they would like protection in the united states, screeningntitled to a process. that is prescribed by law. the united states has one of the best legal systems worldwide. what our laws require is that the person first be screened by an asylum officer. that is a threshold screening. if you demonstrate a credible fear of persecution, meaning it

is likely you might be persecuted if you are sent back, you will go before a judge. the judge will determine if you are entitled to asylum. host: is it a matter of saying the right buzzwords or do you have to have proof of the threats you face? guest: there has been a lot of commentary about what is the actual standard applied. obtaining asylum is difficult. that theve made claims folks in the caravan are going to game the system, that they have been coached. that is why we have an officer that is trained to identify fraud or if the person poses a dangerous threat to the country, that they are screened out. that is why there is a second layer where they go before a judge and there will be a trial lawyer representing the government that will test the ca. a tragedy urrt system is that our immigration court

system has ls of broken problems. one is that we do not guarantee someone the right to have represent lawyer, them if the person can't pay for lawyer.n you might have a family coming here with the young child who may not speak any english who probably don't have any idea that there is a term called asylum. many americans probably don't even know the technical definition. to go before an officer or a judge and say this is what the law entitles me to is almost impossible. that is why our system should guarantee people should have lawyers, but it doesn't do that yet. host: talking about the process of asylum coming to the united .tates talking with greg chen republicans, (202) 748-8001.

.ndependents, (202) 748-8002 democrats (202) 748-8000. a special line for those who may have received asylum, (202) 748-8003. explain what rights that those who cross the border illegally have if they are picked up by authorities and go before a court. guest: if someone appears that a port of entry, that is different than crossing illegally. is presenting itself at a quarter of entry and that is an important distinction to recognize. host: they get different rights than the others? guest: not different rights, but the processing is different. if they say i would like to seek asylum, they are going to be identified as such, then screened and interviewed by an asylum officer before going before a judge. if you cross without being

screened, and you identified by border patrol officer, what would happen is they would ask questions initially. if you say you would like to seek asylum, they will take you through the same process. they will apprehend you and take you to a border station, and then you would be scheduled for the interview. one thing that is important to recognize, most people in the united states assume this person will get to go before a judge and have their case heard. that is out should work, but border patrol officers have a great deal of authority to remove someone from the country, deport them, if they pick them up without ever having gone before judge. the problem is that the border patrol officers are not trained the same way that judges are to look at the facts of the case. the vast majority of cases, it is only one out of five coming

into our borders that get to go before a judge. 4/5 aret majority removed before they get the opportunity to have a fair day in court. most host: americans would be troubled by that. under fearell-fo of persecution. with they can seek asylum on when it comes to a well-founded fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group, or opinion. guest: well-founded fear of persecution is legal jargon that has been developed through many years of courts in our country reviewing laws passed by congress to determine if you come into our country and are seeking asylum, or if you are a syria, not even at

our borders, we'll have people interviewing in that country saying if we return you to your country, it is likely that you a form ofience persecution under those five categories you mentioned. a person who is explaining to an his/her lifer situation, the asylum officer or judge has to be thinking is the standard met? that is what they need to have credible information or evidence to prove their case. host: we have heard of backlogs in immigration courts. how much of that is asylum-seekers seekers, and how much is other categories? guest: i don't know the exact percentage of how many cases hearthe immigration courts asylum cases.

currently there is a backlog of cases that is 650,000, almost 700,000, cases waiting to be heard. cases, where someone is removed before the country, they don't even get to go before a judge. they can be not only asylum, it can be another form of release. there are a lot of different categories. people here as family members, as an employee for a company that accidentally stayed longer than they should. they could go before an immigration judge. as we talk about the asylum process in the united states. jim, line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. wondering, we do so much for dictators and other countries that abuse their

people, and we have our neighbors to the south of us, all of this brutality with the gangs in mexico and south , whyca, i don't understand don't we help these people out instead of having them escape to the united states for asylum? why don't we remove some of these dictators that are causing problems in other countries? these are our neighbors. is an excellent question. the issue of addressing what we ofer to as the root causes the problems that people are facing is one that the u.s. government has dedicated for innate to. it is on the -- has dedicated foreign aid to. it is on the order of being dedicated to mexico, honduras, el salvador, and guatemala.

it spreads out over several years. it is a substantial amount of money. it is true that we could be doing more to address what is, at this point, a systemic failure of those governments to protect their own people. , and i've heard experts testify, that a woman might be facing domestic violence from gang members in her village and they go to the police, but prosecutors don't have the resources to make sure --t that person who might be that the perpetrators of terrible crimes cannot perpetrate another crime. we need solutions on both sides of the border. as we provide aid, we want to make sure that we are a country that remains true to the most fundamental american values. we will welcome those that are seeking aid and fleeing from the violence that the listener was talking about.

they can seekat fair process when they get to the united states, to seek humanitarian protection. we can talk about the challenges in our system. i will mention a few. the persecution of asylum-seekers and the separation of asylum-seekers as families are three of the biggest problems that we need to fix. , jeffthe attorney general sessions, announcing he was deploying dozens of prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the u.s.-mexico border to help with the problem. here are some of what he said. [video clip] sessions: we are announcing we are adding to the border to process entries to our border. moving 18 immigration

judges to the border. these are supervisory judges that do not have existing able tos and will be function full-time on moving the cases. it will be a 50% increase in the number of immigration judges handling the asylum claims. we will not let this country be overwhelmed. people are not going to caravan or stampede our border. we need legality and integrity in the system. people should wait their turn. they should ask to apply lawfully. we are sending a message worldwide, do not come illegally. make your claim to enter in the lawful way and wait your turn. host: your reaction to the announcement? guest: he talked about the deployment of judges to the border region and the deployment of u.s. attorneys to do persecutions. the main concern that i have

about the second component is that the persecution of will convene u.s. and national law. it for bids penalizing asylum-seekers when they come to our country. you are fleeing from the kinds that havec dangers been described. your family is seeking refuge in the united states. their presenting themselves at a port of entry saying i would like to seek asylum. we are to process them and screen them to make sure they are eligible for the protection. then we say at the same time we will prosecute you for illegally entering the country. our law provides special provisions for silent seekers with the idea that if you fled terrible conditions, civil war or other types of conflict, you

may not have had time to go to the u.s. consulate to get a visa or did the necessary papers to prove your situation. many people do come to the united states first and seek asylum later. our law provides we will not penalize them for entering in the -- not entering in the usual methods, but they still have the seek asylum. prosecuting them at the same time they are seeking asylum, something that the united states this administration and previous administrations, is contravening our obligations under u.s. and international law . our nonprofit organization has done a great report explaining why the law is violated when you prosecute asylum-seekers. on the court issue, it is important that there are enough judges to process the cases.

i don't know if the attorney general is deploying the judges just a handle these extra cases or a general concern. the fact is this caravan with 150 people is significant, but it is not that large for our system to accommodate given that you look at the port in southern california where people are arriving, 20,000 people walk across the border every day. a few hundred is a small drop in the bucket. we have 20,000 border control agents in the southwest region of the country to patrol the border. this is something that we can accommodate and process properly. and a lot of calls. alabama, line for independents. caller: you are my favorite host. my concern, you were talking about the judges they are sending, look at the cost of what this is costing the

american people. it is probably cheaper to build the wall. what i don't understand is that they traveled 4000 miles, or whatever, 2000 miles. they come through mexico, why don't they stay in mexico? there are a lot of good places around the coastline in mexico that are good places, holiday places, where they can get a job or seek employment. issues brought2 up by the person who asked the question. the spending of money and how we allocate that. the amount of money spent on judges is about $350 million per year. it might be $400 million. wall by comparison,

the president was asking for --ding between $25 billion and some estimates are to build $80border wall would be billion or $90 billion total. $400 million to tens of billions of dollars, it is comparatively apples and oranges. if you look at the money we're spending on enforcement activities of customs and border enforcement and ice, it is exceeding $20 billion. the amount of money that we spend on judges and the courts have been underfunded. lee under resourcing of the court is one of the reasons that thesourts don't operate way that most americans want the .ourt to operate

lawyer represented by a who can explain your situation and the law. we have a backlog of 700,000 cases in front of the courts now. that is where resources should be dedicated at this point. host: go ahead. full, it is my understanding that asylum seekers come to the south that arecountries obligated to accept the first offer of amnesty from any country that they come through. as to why they came all the way to the u.s. of these gentlemen's organizations? your response please. guest: i am the director of government relations for the american immigration lawyers association, the private car association in the united states immigration lawyers with law professor members.

members across the country. people coming primarily from central america, why they cannot seek asylum in other countries, many do. they are seeking asylum in south mexico.or in if they want to come to the united states and have not received an opportunity for protection in another country, they can, and should, come to the united states. we have the same guarantee in ws. if they come here, they will havethe ability to seek asylum or relief under our laws. host: for radio listeners, it is la.org. you are up next. caller: it is an honor to talk to you, sir.

how can i say it? i would like to answer first of all the lady from alabama. most of the asylum-seekers, those from mexico who are so-called economic migrants is all they is, more times than i would like to count from my -- do anyte gentiles of us americans know what it is to beor our teenagers enticed into joining drug selling gangs? that is part of inner-city life, but being murdered or threatened with murder if we jump -- if we don't join, how many u.s. teenagers see that as the only way to earn a living for their families? they're faced with this deadly choice and threats of murder and and almosty state every small town in mexico.

i would like to see washington do more to not only help fight also thegangs, but cartel in colombia in the 1970's and provide more jobs and help with child sponsorship charities. provide more local jobs and local educational opportunities, such as the coffee, tea, and cocoa growing opportunities. thesestion, i hear all of they come over here, get naturalized citizens, the way our ancestors done did. too many of us don't know that the united states didn't have laws until 1924. to ask theus

immigration officer will ask our applicant arcane questions about u.s. constitution's amendment and the person has to answer each one correctly or the person will not receive citizenship. we give us the actual facts of how the naturalization process is done? guest: there was a lot in that question. what i will focus on is when someone seeks asylum we have where youw in statute meet a certain standard. we talked about the well-founded fear persecution, the legal standard they have to meet to prove that if they go back to their country they will have a likelihood of suffering persecution. the problem with our current system raising people coming to ports of entry is that asylum-seekers are commonly detained when they first enter

the united states. if you face detention and feel deprived of your liberty and are in a jail cell it makes it harder to meet that standard in the united states. asylum-seekers are entitled to request release to someone that they know in the community rather than being detained. what we have seen is the likelihood these people will be held in detention has increased. that is wrong and will make it harder for these people to get a fair shot. a related aspect, young people where they willfully too -- will many are fleeing with their families. we are seeing families arrived in the united states. our association filed a complaint to the u.s. government where a family, mother and father with two children ages one and five were held in detention.

they were separated. the father came in with his son, a five-year-old son, and they were separated. incredible problem is you are already in a foreign country. you fled through terrible conditions. you have your 5-year-old and you are separated from your parents? that practice should be ended. but we know that the government is doing it to deter other people from coming. they are using it to send a signal that we don't want you to come to the united states. at is wrong and will viate by countryion to prove asylum s of nationality by fiscal 2016. from mexico's asylum-seekers represented 5.2% of those granted that year. honduras 7.1%. el salvador, a .6%.

ofna is the largest with 36% the requests granted. why china? people are fleeing china because of the concerns of the repressive regime. a large country so we are historically seeing large people coming from china seeking asylum. the reason we are seeing higher rates, the smaller central have higherntries levels than mexico is we are seeing increasing people coming from the smaller central american countries because of the uncontrollable levels of violence. when you hear experts talk about the kinds of domestic and gang violence people are facing, it is horrific. it is on the scale of civil war in some of the countries.

if you look at statistics, some of the countries, the cities have the highest murder rates and targeting of gender violence and rape of women. those are the kinds of things that they are out there claims when they come to the united states. texas, a republican, go ahead. caller: i was calling to make a statement. people seeking asylum from their country because they say it is dangerous, the war, the fighting. we had that during the civil rights movement when we were seeking rights for our people. we didn't run to another nation. we stood and fought for it with water hoses and dogs being put on children. stay in your country and fight for your rights. fight for your rights, don't run.

then they say they are escaping gangs, they are bringing them to the united states. they are bringing what they are escaping from here to start in the united states. guest: i think one of the most important issues the caller was talking about was the civil rights movement, people fighting for their rights. many organizations are working for institutional building in their countries. the united states is providing some aid to help rebuild those countries. the rights you are talking about, those are things that are guaranteed to people coming to our country. asylum-seekers and anyone entering ports of entry have the right to a fair process. those are due processes guaranteed under our constitution. that is why it is important these people are not detained or prosecuted when they want to

seek asylum and protection in our country. that is an important point to mention. host: line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am on board with the person from texas. to beblem is i don't want known as someone who doesn't have a heart. i do, more than you know, especially for animals who cannot defend themselves. the woman from texas is right. you should fight for rights in your own country. we are allowing them to have free access to a judicial system in america. so many people here need a judicial system. citizens. you bring up problems that people have in other countries. what about our country? i understand you want to help weple, but we are not gods, cannot help everyone. it is not a free-for-all. even in the judicial system, you

say they haven't gotten the right grants. then when they come in they get a place to live, eat, and sleep that they feel safe. we don't feel safe in our own country. it is true. guest: my only reaction is that the people coming to our country right now don't receive the kind of fair day in court you are referring to. four out of five people who come to our country who cross the border illegally don't get -- cross the border toally don't get the chance come before judge. if you get the chance to come before a judge, our legal system for immigration purposes is unlike what americans are used to. most people see lawn order and tevisihows -- see "law and order" that they will have a

lawyer appointed if they can't afford one. that is for civil procedures. if you are seeking asylum you might have to face our legal system, which is incredibly complex, and may not have anyone represent you unless you can pay for your attorney. our silent walls are very complicated. laws are very complicated. we certainly want to make sure that people who go into other forms of the legal system have fair process as well. host: last call, oregon. go for it. comment is 50st years ago we took in over one million refugees from cuba who within five years received citizenship. they left cuba in boats and

landed in florida and a process that took less than five years. i know that we have embassies in larger cities around the world, or we used to. why can't we set up temporary embassy situations at order entries before they cross the border where people can get the initial processing, the paperwork, that are seeking asylum. walls don't work. the great wall of china didn't work. the berlin wall didn't work. walls don't work to keep people out that really want to come in. wall: the building of the and the postprocessing. on the walls don't work comment, it has not been shown that a higher wall or concrete wall will be effective or make good use of american taxpayer dollars. there are other forms, like

putting money in the courts, that are more cost-effective and would make sense. funding, system needs greater independence, and .rocedures set up the creation of an independent article one quart, independent of the department of justice and better funded. so that it has better procedures. the other piece about processing, what i'm talking about is we have embassies in almost all of the countries we are talking about. people can go to the embassies and seek protection. the challenge is processing the number of people that would go to the embassies if that was the only way. if people are waiting to long they feel they should come directly to the border. that is a dangerous journey. the distinction of the caravan and the people that come here

alone, those are extremely dangerous circumstances. i'm glad that people are coming in a more organized way so they don't face the same dangers. we need processes in the united states and other countries as well. with americann immigration lawyers association. we appreciate your time. phones.en any public policy you want to talk about. the lines are on your screen. you can start calling now. we will be right back. ♪ weekend, the c-span cities tour takes you to tyler, texas with the help of our cable partners. we will explore the literary

scene and history. saturday on book tv, discussing a book about the life of the former texas lieutenant governor bill ratliff. >> everything he did in the senate was problem-solving mode. how do we fix this for texans? had we make this better? he did that without ideology getting in the way, without partisanship getting in the way. that made him greatly loved in austin. he was hands down both parties, a person that you could work with. >> revisit with the former engineer for that tyler district texas department of transportation and father of the adopt a highway program. 1984, we took a trip to south dakota for a highway meeting and i had to give a speech to a civic club.

a portion of that i said i challenge you to adopt a highway to get rid of litter. speech.ust a part of my i did not expect anyone to do anything. the more i thought about that, that might be something we could try. smith countyhe historical society to hear about the history of race at robert e lee high school. >> the school board, all white, decided to name the school robert e lee high school. the white community would say this is just to honor our past and history. tyler has a history connecting us to the confederacy. for the black community, this was seen as a thumb in their eye and a gesture of defiance. >> watch the tour of tyler,

texas saturday on c-span2's book tv. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the top of the hour we will be joined by the author of the constitution ." there will be a pro forma session at 9:45. and the c-span capital's tour stops in cheyenne, wyoming. we will be joined by the governor of the cowboy state for a discussion that was previously recorded. from now until 9:00, it is open the washington

journal. any public policy issue you want to talk about, we can do that now. phone lines, we will put them on the screen. independent, go ahead. for taking myyou call. post-world war ii i had 15 family members fight for this country. , mya vet, my wife is a vet son is the last one. i'm tired of it. the immigration thing, i wish our government would find everyone of these lawyers and sue the pants out of them to put them out of business. we cannot handle the rest of the world's problems. we should stay within our hemisphere, south america to on problems.ork they are afraid of their country. like the woman said, they have to stay in place just like we

send our citizens all over the world to straighten out these problems. the caravan and asylum seekers the caravan the focus of stories today. we showed you pictures from "the new york times." rivera, 31, with her two children. and here is more pictures from the campsite just across the u.s.-mexico border. "the new york times" editorial board focuses on the caravan. works, butlaw president trump would rather not admit it to stir bigotry. brian, massachusetts, republican. caller: thanks for letting me ask a couple of questions. i noticed that a lot of callers don't turn their

television down. you still let them speak and give their opinion. the second thing, is the national rifle association is having a convention this week and the president will be speaking. i wonder why you don't have it on your program. thanks for answering those questions. host: we will work on the scheduling information for that to let you know when it is being aired and what is happening with that address as we go to d wayne in south dakota. aller: i wanted to make comment about the coverage of the correspondents dinner. i thought c-span had more class. i could not believe that you reran that with michelle wolf's filthy mouth. host: are you saying we shouldn't aerate in the future? person ist when a

using that kind of language. i have grandkids. they shouldn't listen to a filthy mouth like that. the democrat of policies, but that was ridiculous. host: did you watch the correspondents dinner with your grandkids? scott, her most a california, republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like for there to be more transparency when it comes especially in california. it raised my eyebrows when the voters were teed off at governor brown for spending all of the money allocated for roads and bridges on a gas tax. --ers are upset and want it

they want their money back. they want their money to go where it was supposed to go when they voted it to go. if the money is supposed to go to roads and bridges, that is what the voters vote for, that is what it should be for. not hidden earmark spending politicians have in their back pocket. it is not fair to voters. host: how are the roads and bridges in her most of each? -- at hermosa beach? caller: i went over to delmar, a wealthy area, and the roads were torn up due to the weather. ares one thing to say you going to repair the roads and bridges with the gas tax, and it is another to already know in the back of your mind and earmark that money for special

interests. host: joel in north carolina. joel, are you with us? caller: yes. good morning, and thank you for the opportunity. with respect for the full benefits of citizenship in this country, people should have to give some form of public service if they want full benefits from social security and other things. they should give one year of public service as a way of solving the daca problem. people who want citizenship that way should give public service for an extended period of time. host: circling back to the first color's question -- caller's

question, c-span will cover the nra leadership forum tomorrow. the airing time is still to be determined. that was the event the first caller was referring to. check back later today to get exact details on the airing time. roberta, in san diego, california. first, i think it is a crying shame that we are not more honest in this country. i've been here since 1958. san diego when the crystal methamphetamine problem started and grew. eventually, all across the country. the gangs started in california. major problems of immigration issues started in california. still, we have people that a nor and deny the problems.

the gentleman that was talking about lawyers, let me tell you, when you have young women that the issue of with their children and cannot afford a lawyer, they don't get a lawyer. we are giving the immigrants a free lawyer. i'm frustrated by the fact we have immigration lawyers. he never told us to f -- who funded them. i would bet most of these people went to school on taxpayer dollars, loans from us, so they focus on protecting everyone else. i don't take that lightly. haveve people who do not civil rights in this country. we don't talk about it. you don't have civil rights in this country if you are not a

than white. even in california, they have groups within the assembly that speak about men and women of ,olor, boys and men of color etc.. when i ask them, why are we , i thought it was african-americans. they went down every ethnic group except for white people in california. i said, what are we doing? we should be more concerned about a person's economic situation and if they have food on the table then whether or not they are hispanic, asian -- they gave me a full list. it was everyone but white people. caller: i am concerned -- i am

concerned about the -- we are breaking up. i will try it again. concerned about the constant attacks on the fbi, the justice department, our ultimate law enforcement. they are bias even though they are republicans. on the other hand, the local law have killed how many people? how many people have law enforcement killed this year in this country compared to the 23 officers killed? them all heroes. had we get back to trusting our justice system?

thank you. host: patrick is in the bronx, independents. what is on your mind? caller: thanks for c-span. hi. that you guys focus on trump's scandals. as twisted as these may be, they are easier to follow than our witht and ridiculous show saudi arabia, a blockade of qat ar, the humanitarian crisis in yemen and myanmar. you wonder why it is going so i noticed. think about it. best to coverr

domestic foreign policy, bills moving through congress. we try to do it. we do it every morning for three hours on "washington journal." line for democrats. caller: i'm calling about a story that democracy now covered for 2 days that i have not seen in this country about a double kabul whereing in 10 journalists were killed in the second bombing as they rushed to the scene. another journalist was gunned down the same day and killed. why hasn'tring, that been covered in this country? it was on democracy now. do you know about it? host: i've seen stories in u.s. newspapers on that.

you are saying you would like to see more coverage, or you just haven't seen any coverage? caller: i haven't seen any coverage on tv. ok? host: what are your thoughts about the safety of journalists around the country as we show you the story from abc news up earlier about it. do you think things are getting worse for journalists around the world? caller: they are certainly not getting better with trump demoralizing the state. i worry about freedom of speech as far as they are concerned. i know that journalism is not the way that it was when i was growing up. i was the editor of our college newspaper. i took many journalism classes. it was differentiated between opinions and the actual news.

opinionsnow it is more than actual news. i worry about that and what the president -- slandering the free press. i do worry. host: we talked about this last week. a new report from reporters without borders on world of breast freedom -- world oppressed freedom. this map, those with the least freedom are in the darker colors. the united states dropping 2 spots on this list. reporters without borders putting out that list every year since 2002. we are just behind romania and south korea and taiwan. just ahead of italy, belize, and botswana.

line for republicans, go ahead. caller: good morning, john/ host: good morning. caller: i want to comment about your previous guest the lawyer. he was ignorant or wanted to hide details. he has an agenda. that was clear. he didn't bother to mention, no one has said anything this whoing, about the caravans they are funded by and how they get here. no one mentioned that. they didn't mention how many of the people do get in, they release them, and the majority never show back up to the court date. i also wonder if he has ever read our constitution. what makes him think that illegal aliens have a right to an attorney?

i don't know if he has read the constitution. i think that gentleman has an agenda. i wish she would have a guest -- i wish you would have a guest coming from an opposing view. i know that your program tries to be very fair. it is known that 90% of the journalists in this country are from the left. i wish your program would look a little bit harder for truly an opposing side. just because you use the newspapers, the majority lean left and i'm not sure you are presenting both sides of the story even though i love your program. keep watching, i promise you will find someone with an opposing view of our previous guest down the road as we discussed these issues. with talked about them before

with roundtable discussions with that group and others on the immigration issue and the asylum issue. interested in the constitution, stick with us. we will be joined by joseph tartakovsky to talk about his new book. kate in michigan. line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have an opposing view to the previous caller. are you there? .ost: yes, ma'am what is your opposing view? caller: i felt compelled to call on behalf of the immigrants who are sitting in jails and prisons indefinitely. they are women, children, families divided. i wonder what kind of country we are that we would do this to sight,wit any end in

no due process. it is heartbreaking to me. that is all i wanted to say. republicans, you are of next. -- up next. caller: the house and the senate spend such a little time in again thisey are out week. i can't find out why they are out this week. i would appreciate an answer to that, please. host: state and district work periods this week, though they are coming in for a brief pro forma session and a half hour. we will go there as part of our gavel to gavel coverage that we are committed to. now we'll do it for this segment of open phones. next, we will be joined by joseph tartakovsky author of "lives of the constitution."

we will be right back. ♪ >> monday on landmark cases. . case on capital punishment in 1976 troy leon gregg challenged his death sentence. other capital punishment cases were considered. the supreme court established stricter guidelines for states wishing to impose the death penalty. nation's top capital punishment legal scholars and a professor at harvard law school has argued against the death penalty in a number of cases before the court. she was also a former clerk of thurgood marshall. the legal director of the criminal justice legal foundation advocating in favor .f capital punishment

watch landmark cases monday at nine eastern and join the conversation. backgroundsites for on each case. >> sunday on q&a author and former esquire contributing editor on his new book rocket man about the 1968 apollo eight mission to the moon. >> i never realized just what a wjor role be wife's -- the ives played. all three of them believed without their wives they really couldn't have pulled this off.

it looked too many people like near certain death on this. it was done very quickly and everything was for the first time. these men needed wives at home who were absolutely supportive alsowho did not reveal to their husbands just how much they were suffering and just how terrified they really re >> q&a sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. washington journal continues. tartakovsky joins us to talk about his book, the lives of the constitution. he is former deputy solicitor general for nevada. currently constitutional law fellow at the claremont institute. what is the claremont institute? >> it is a think tank based in california that has its mission

of restoring the founding principles to american life. a lot of books written about the constitution. why did you feel the need to write another one? >> most books on the constitutions are a series of recitations of the big court cases or a discussion of interpretation. i wanted to approach it in a different way. i picked 10 people. themid portraits of followed them through their adventures in life to see what they teach us about our american constitutional life in a larger way. this is sort of the way plutarch approached greece and rome. tell the stories of these people and the lessons they teach us about how we as a country have gotten through our constitutional challenges over the 230 years we have been living under this written charter. host: what was your criteria in

picking these 10 individuals? >> i wanted to tell the less known stories. people who may be known but misunderstood like alexander hamilton or woodrow wilson. people that did or said extraordinary things. stephen field, robert jackson. but who has been largely lost to american consciousness. host: is how was alexander hamilton misunderstood? we havete the musical not sufficiently recognize how important he was. you can divide all of the american constitutional history into the hamilton and jefferson histories. we continue to quote jefferson but follow hamilton. take a state of the union speech in a matter what president gives it. he will be talking about a robust foreign trade, careful stewardship of the economy, how intimidating our military is.

these are all hamiltons preoccupations and some of these things were jefferson's nightmares like a standing army or excessive foreign trade. we live under a hamiltonian constitution. he still has a great deal to teach us. a lot of which is in the book. host: explain that a little bit more. a hamiltonian constitution. >> hamilton had a vision of the american constitution is a broad flexible charter of liberty. that would create a strong central government and be vigorous and effective. this was very much not the view of not only his enemies but many of his friends. they had a view of the constitution as dumping to be read strictly, narrowly, fearfully. he was a man who believed in a latitude of constitutional interpretation

that is still striking. joseph tartakovsky joining us from san francisco this morning to talk about the constitution and his book focusing on the lives of the constitution. 10 exceptional minds that shaped america's supreme law. if you want to join the conversation, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002. your book into builders, fighters, dreamers and restorers. the other builder besides alexander hamilton is james wilson. who is he? >> he is the most important founding father that no one has heard of. he is one of six men who signed both the declaration and the constitution. madison the key figure at the constitutional

convention. he frames the architecture of it and he was the most important figure in the ratification fight. he gave a speech that became the single most cited document in ensuring ratification and he wrote a book that is like the federalist papers but is just as good. it does something a little bit different. it explains the philosophical basis of the american regime. every american should read this. he has just been lost to history. we are very indebted to him and he is a brilliant thinker. and ia brilliant man tried to do my part to bring a little attention to him. too muchyou think attention is given to the figures we usually talk about in the development of the constitution? madison, marshall? is that part of the reason for doing this? >> i think they should all get attention. marshall and medicine are

fundamental but james wilson in his day was just as fundamental and he said things that these other gentlemen didn't say. james wilson was almost unique among the founding fathers in believing both in the vigorous central government and popular control whereas most other people was either one or the other. governmentstrong because you feared the mob or you feared the government at so you wanted strong control. he was opposed to a bill of rights and his reasons for doing so were very interesting. rightsenumerate all the that you have against government we would come to think of those rights as the exclusive enumeration of those rights and that's very much where we have arrived. if you want to challenge government action you have to bring it under one of the first eight provisions of the bill of rights. his way of thinking of things is illuminating today.

he said that we could only truly be free under government. that's a very jarring and paradoxical thought. the idea was that in a state of nature you don't feel free when there's no police to protect you when you are the glass shatter downstairs in the middle of the night. host: plenty more of the lives of the constitution to get through. the washington journal of joseph. there will be a brief pro forma session we will be going to at 9:30 this morning. joseph tartakovsky here to take your calls and talk about the constitution. until then, joe is up first. a republican. go ahead. basically question is how the second amendment came roughly 14 and a half years

after the declaration of independence. signers and writers of the declaration were also involved in the constitution and didn't the right to bear arms actually exist under the declaration? the constitution just confirms that right as they call it the right to bear arms and not a right to bear arms? where there any writers from the that also wrote were were involved in the constitution? host: joseph tartakovsky. >> there were a handful of people who were in office at the time of the declaration that also were involved in the drafting and ratification. maybe in the first congress that produced the bill of rights. james wilson is one of them. he wasn't in congress. he was on the court or the supreme court held that the second amendment protects an individual's natural right to keep and bear arms. the bill of rights doesn't give us these rights.

the biggest misconception i think with the second amendment is that it has actually not been the obstacle could to gun control. policy positions in the early days of the constitution, the second amendment and the supreme court has said only protects the right to keep and bear arms in your home for self-defense and so the vast majority -- it has not been the case that gun-control laws have been passed and then been struck down by courts under the second amendment. the failure there has been one of votes and not a constitutional impediment. host: gerald in new york on the line for republicans. go ahead. thatr: i just want to say -- i'm not a republican. i'm not a democrat. i'm an independent.

i'm a native american. is justas wondering part of the constitution deal with immigrants? host: just part of the constitution deal with immigrants is the question. >> yes. in article one, section nine. congress is given the power to oversee immigration and naturalization which was sort of the term of the day so congress has power to decide who comes in and who doesn't. this was a big issue for them. one of the things that declaration faults george the third four was making it hard for people to come to this country and it was a much debated issue. james wilson actually was big on bringing people to this country and he was sort of an early real estate developer and he had this advancement where they would build houses and plant orchards and farms so that people could

come over and have a ready-made home to move into without risk of starving first. host: not one of the lives section of your book but the introduction of your book you write the constitution runs on patriotism, good sense, decency, compromise and a love of order. every generation of americans must return again to the constitution, apply it to their distinct predicament and pass it on intact to the next generation. that is the great and unending drama of american life. is this generation doing that? >> i think it is. i find that despite the alarm about americans knowing history people do care. here we are doing a show and people are calling and asking questions about the constitution. i get the sense that people in america really do find -- do cherish the constitution and they believe in it and they feel it has given us something good

and has seen us through so many adventures and episodes and dangers. we are now in our third century under the constitution. no other people on earth have lived under a written constitution as long as us. there must be something there. keeps us going. i think americans do like to think and talk about it. host: bob is an independent in texas. caller: i'm so excited. i just ordered your book. i have two questions. about ida b wells. how many pages in your book do you have about her and her founding of the naacp and if she was forced out? adamscond one was john writing the massachusetts constitution. isn't he really sort of the architect instead of madison? wasn't madison just a note taker? host: thanks for the call. >> thanks for buying the book.

john wrote the massachusetts constitution which was a of ourl forerunner constitution but he wasn't about involved in the u.s. constitution because he was abroad in europe and he wasn't actually at the convention. ida b wells i have about 20 .ages on her this is a black woman born a slave in mississippi in 1861 and she fought for years against lynching and for women's rights. she tells the story as dramatically as any american how ordinary americans, nonlawyers can interpret the constitution and make arguments about the constitution and persuade their fellow americans of those arguments in ways that eventually get written into our constitutional interpretations. host: how did she do that? she was an anti-lynching

crusader. she was involved in going to jails where black men had been arrested. getting their side of the story. adding affidavits from them. she did that in a famous case in 1919 that eventually got to supreme court. the facts were so bad things like an execution date had been set for six black men but nobody has bothered to set a trial date. that the supreme court in 1923 in the case called moore versus dempsey made its first humanitarian intervention into the charade of southern justice for its black residents. intervened to stop an execution. it had never done that before and she was instrumental to making that happen. and then for suffrage. what we know is the 19th amendment that you can't abridge the right to vote on the basis of sex was first introduced in congress in 1878 so for 42 years

it never made it out of congress. reason it finally prevailed in 1920 is women like ida b , mostlyd many others female activists, convinced americans of the justice of their cause and led to profound constitutional change. it's extraordinary how it was done. loretta is waiting period democrat. good morning. michael. go ahead. i want to say something about the constitution. minutes ago somebody in your audience called and asked why don't you cover current issues around the world such as yemen and you cut him off. you said we only cover domestic issues. the problem is --

host: i didn't say that at all. we cover foreign issues. we cover domestic issues. we try to cover as much as we can. right now we are talking about the u.s. constitution and we don't have a lot of time with joseph tartakovsky. so what's your question? you -- my problem is only because of the allegation that syrians use chemical so why don't you assign a program about yemen being destroyed by helping saudi's? we will continue talking about the constitution with joseph tartakovsky. david. go ahead. you opened this conversation talking about jefferson and hamilton and i was just curious and you mentioned the name founding fathers. one of the issues i've got with the slaves in the south of being they had to give

them a call to each slave as 3/5 of a man so they wouldn't add up to too many people for their districts or states. i want to know how did jefferson and hamilton vote on that issue. i know it was a compromise and on that issue about lack people being 3/5 of a man. on the issue of race hamilton's stock is going up and jefferson's is going down precisely because of the issue of race. hamilton was very good for his time on race. in the revolutionary war he called for a black battalion which we didn't do in this country until the civil war. he said if you let black americans fight they will prove that the white american sense of their inferiority is just the stuff of prejudice. he never owned slaves. jefferson on the other hand was quite bad on this.

he called hamilton a monarchist but he was essentially the kingdomof a little where he ruled over these slaves. abouta book the other day hamilton getting attacked for promoting child labor. jefferson used child labor. black child labor and said some pretty creepy things about it. so hamilton was very good. he seemed to have been mostly free of racial prejudice for his time and partly this was because he grew up on an island where he saw sugarcane plantations and how viciously the blacks were mistreated. about 10 minutes left with joseph tartakovsky before the house pro forma session. you can keep calling in. tartakovsky, i want to ask you about an interview you did in which he discussed how --

you discussed how people ask you questions about what did the founding fathers think about any certain subject. the mostw is interesting thing about what we call the founding fathers is how much they fought among themselves. once the constitution took effect they were at each other's throats about everything. immigration and free speech and the size of government. so this notion of founding fathers, the way we use it as a group of -- band of brothers hearty comradeship is not the case. what's more interesting is to try to approach the issues with their intensity and their spirit. disagreements are the sort of blueprint for all subsequent constitutional fight. i think on almost every issue to start a sentence the founding fathers believed will get you into trouble because you will

find that hamilton and medicine -- madison or madison avenue one phase of his life and another phase of his life disagreed on any particular question. host: robert. independent. go ahead. martin i agree with bill that the constitution is pretty arthritic and we could use a new constitution that reflected the changes that have taken place in the last 230 years. what do you think? >> we are now nine generations into the constitution. we have pretty strong and free and prosperous country so my sense is that it has served us well. to change the mechanism is at hand. we have amended the constitution 25 or so times. it is always available. it turns out that americans aren't that interested in altering the fundamental law that often because it seems like something we ought not to touch or tinker with.

we formally amended and of course the constitution allows for new interpretations over the years ended does get updated. for instance under the fourth amendment which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures by the government it was the law for the first 230 or so years that if she got arrested the police could go through anything in your pockets. the question came to the court a few years ago in a case called riley. what about smartphones? can the police access your smartphones without a warrant? and they said no because on your smart there is as much personal financial medical information, records of conversation as the police could find an entire search through your house. seemed to me in example of how our constitution is being updated in response to new technology. you write in your book, so far as i can tell only the constitutions third amendment

which outlaws the practice of quartering redcoats remains untouched by time. do you consider the constitution a living document? >> it depends on what you mean. that's a very fraught term. if you mean that the eventuallyn will come to reflect changes in commerce, politics, culture, technology, that is just a fact. it has done that. clause means something different in an age where every village is self-sufficient and in a time where we are interconnected by railways and planes and the internet. this is something that john marshall and madison himself said. do you mean in the sense that it is the job of the judges to do the updating then i started dissent. i think the people can adopt new views that come to be reflected in the laws but it's not the judges to take the lead in doing this and actually to have that happen is a dangerous thing. jackson, tennessee.

independent. go ahead. theer: how do we square united states with the bill of rights that we have more people incarcerated than any other country in the world? how the supreme court gets so much stuff wrong factually? >> well the incarceration is i think more a policy debate that constitutional debate in the sense that the bill of rights provides for a number of protections for criminal defendants. i do think there is a relation sense we have adopted evermore criminal protections which is -- making trials fewer and sense fewer. 90% of criminal defendants plead guilty instead of trying the case and i think it's interesting to explore the extent to which this has put pressure on prosecutors to get ands instead of trials this is partly related to the incarceration problem. i think they are mostly separate.

left in thisinutes segment. i did want to ask you why you picked antonin scalia. because scalia for 25 years he saw the alarm at what was the constitutional is asian of ever greater americans -- ever greater areas of american life. the court was saying the constitution is conclusive on issues related to welfare, ,risons, free speech, religion national security and this is politics isf your something to be mindful of because to constitutionalize something is to judicial eyes it. it is to say that it is no longer in the democratic realm. it is no longer for people to decide. that it is final and the judges will say what it is and what it isn't and it has been a growing trend in this country can do

something for all americans to watch carefully. host: the house coming in soon here. in wanda if we can get in chattanooga, tennessee. democrat. i was thinking when you were speaking on one man standing alone trying to confirm that over time certain laws can cause people to become enslaved in the mind. it sounds like this man was born before his time. words will be looked at 10 to 20 years later as him being a messenger. be careful, people. you could be headed to the ultimate loss which will be freedom of the mind. do you concur? partly thesort of spirit of my book to say that sometimes people say things -- that's not a comment on mr. west

in particular. people say things that are not heard in their time but that become very interesting much later on. they look prophetic. i tried to pick people who in many ways did that. weresaid things that ignored in her own tape -- day. host: go ahead. was curious to how the constitutional right to roe v. wade is not important now in or white has been fought or why the government is not caring about that right now. is an interesting example of some of the things i'm talking about. it says there is a constitutional right to an abortion. what's interesting about roe v. wade is that for the most part americans defer to the supreme court here they say if the court has said this and that must he what the constitution says.

a large number of americans have not accepted roe v. wade. they say we do not believe this is what the constitution says. the court itself actually more wadess overruled roe v. straightly speaking in the casey .ecision that's an interesting example of how americans continue to fight over constitutional meaning despite what the courts and the judges say the constitution means. you go, 10e we let people that you focused on. the lives that shaped the constitution. is there anyone you regret leaving out? >> lots of people. i wish it could have been a hundred people but i had to write it in my lifetime. an interesting guy who claims to have met oath john quincy adams -- both john quincy adams and alter his.

he lived incredibly long life. that downaps more on the road. we appreciate your time talking about the lives of the constitution. joseph tartakovsky joining us from san francisco this morning. thanks so much. the house coming in for a brief pro forma session this morning. we now take you live to the floor.