circuit court of appeals during >> coming up on today's washington journal, a look at the week ahead with bloomberg's anna edgerton and hunter walker from yahoo! news. then charles mandeville from the u.s. geological survey on the kilauea on hawaii. president trump has to capitol hill tomorrow to meet with senate republicans. reportedly on the agenda, the economy and how it plays out in the midterm elections and north korea. this is "washington journal." there is a recent poll looking at how respondents feel about the role of civility in politics. most say that a lack of civil tone in discourse is

a major problem. in the next hour we want you to answer this question, how important is it when it comes to civility in politics? would you want to tell us how important stability is in politics, call us on the line (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents. you can also post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. march 1, a po cannotll -- poll came out talking about the importance of civility. those that agree the nation has a civility problem, 93% of

respondents, the majority of those saying it is a minor problem. republicans say there is a civility problem in the u.s. at 73%. saying there is a civility problem. when it comes to civility and democracy, this is 92% saying it is a problem. 95% being republicans and 96 being democrats. , particularly looking at the president those that were asked that it is very important for the president of the united states to be civil. 68% of republicans think it is important, and 86% of democrats responding to that. when it comes to president trump

, asked if he would be more effective if he would be more civil, only 43% responded to that, 50% of republicans -- democrats saying yes to that. there is a link to this on our website and twitter feed. if you want to give us your thoughts on this topic of civility and politics. it to white house, congressional, or local politics. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you solve this topic layout last week with the white house responding to comments by white house aide kelly sadler to john mccain. when it comes to advisors to the

president, they offered no apology, saying it was in a prepared statement. pra john trump praised john mccain. still no formal response from the present or white house. it was at the white house briefing last friday when sarah sanders was asked several times about the statement. [video clip] >> does the white house not condemn these remarks? >> i am not going to validate a leak out of an internal staff meeting. i am not going to validate a leak one way or another. >> does the president regret

what he said during the campaign about john mccain when he said he was not a war hero? >> i believe the president has spoken about that. i have not talked to him about that. >> if you will not comment on the specific comments, what does the white house believe about senator mccain, and was there a allows anthe top that aide to say he is dying anyway? >> certainly we have respect for all americans. that is what we tried to put forward in everything we do in word and in action. host: other comments were made on the sunday shows yesterday. to the importance of civility in politics, the number is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. john locke saying that it is less important than equal justice. a viewer who identifies as liberty says it is severely important, and if we cannot get back to it, the u.s. will fail. let's go to the phone lines. matt from maryland, independent line. -- up first.irst go ahead. caller: good morning. civility is extremely important, not only in politics but with our fellow human beings. nothing can get done unless you are civil. it is kind of common sense. i have to agree with your reading as well that when people get into leadership positions,

they think they are above the law. they are not held accountable for their actions. that is an important part of it as well. thank you for your time. before you go, talk about this idea of civility in political disagreements and how you think you can settle those disagreements in a civil manner. caller: you talked about john mccain. epitomizes the example of that. this idea that it is my way or no way, nothing gets accomplished. we cannot succeed individually. we succeed together. doing things for yourself is not how things should work. you want to promote goodness through compromising and for the betterment of everyone and not

just yourself. i am not going to do anything for you unless there is something in it for me, that is just wrong. let's go to terry. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is kind of funny that you come up with this now. of jeremiah years wright junior as president. to anybody who has been offended by donald trump, let me just now you an inkling, know exactly how we feel for the last 30 years. the democratic party is not a civil party. are you saying overall that civility is important, not important, to the degree it is important? it is extremely

important. if you watch the republicans, the majority of the time we tried to be civil. look at maxine waters this week. do you actually think she was civil? she has not been civil since president trump was elected. as we were talking about jeremiah wright junior, or should i say obama? let me tell you something, ped ro, i am a poor man. i am disabled. democrats accuse me on a daily basis of being a rich man and that i hate black people. that is all we hear from democrats. let's go to cecile on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i am grateful for c-span and actually not participating in the business of exchanging views

with the moderator. am i still on the line? host: yes. we are on this idea of civility in politics. what do you think? caller: you cannot be civil with people of the same race fighting each other. you can go across the pond, and you had ireland where protestants and catholics. host: we are focusing on politics. what do you think about this idea of civility in political discourse? caller: it is only when there is something to be gained. money is the bottom line. whoever is in position to actually alter how we use our funds is not such a good thing. host: a couple of facebook comments for you. only one side practices it, it

doesn't work. dems walked all over them for years and got nowhere. now we are starting to fight back and take our country back. it is great. the left is not civil. nothing.r way or sad. there are other comments as well. about 100 this morning. walker saying it is everything when it comes to politics. we don't have any healthy parties today. we have two major parties supported by small minorities and both paid off by special interest. there is no will of the people anymore. the larger topic of this idea of the importance of civility when it comes to political discourse. facebook.com/cspan.

ben.lican line, caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine. thanks. caller: i want to start out by saying any comments about john mccain's health is out of line. a few months ago, he was gone kim jong-un rocket man. that is not civil. now he is having a meeting with him in singapore, first time in history. there is a line, but take a look at the white house correspondents dinner. was that civil? absolutely not. she crossed the line completely. host: you reference the upcoming meeting with north korea, saying even a lack of civility, things can get done? caller: exactly. who knows how this meeting might start out?

it could change the world. he started out insulting the guy. host: democrats line. hello. caller: i think before we start pointing fingers from left to right, we both have to stand back and see the technological changes that have contributed to our problems. it is only combated when we realize what has happened to us on both sides. first reagan did away with the fairness doctrine in broadcasting 30 years ago. until then, no controversial statement could be made on federally licensed broadcast stations without the opportunity for an opposing viewpoint not just somewhere on the broadcast spectrum. host: allen, are you still there? if you have a chance, call back in. that is just some of the comments this morning. if you want to get your thoughts on this idea of civility in

politics, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. we want to get your thoughts on the importance of civility in politics and how important is civility in politics? tribune basedagle out of massachusetts, this piece looking at the larger topic of civility and going back previous administrations and talking about this idea. it comes to the proud and passionate members of the resistance have long ago used their superlatives regarding president trump, president trump had it comparatively easy. hitler whene bush he was president, you only get about 50 million hits. this president is comparatively

worse. when it comes to a travel ban on a half-dozen countries, tax cuts, fewer regulations or enforcing existing immigration laws is equal to slaughtering millions of people. he goes on to say that he lies probably more than his processors, but not a whole lot more. , but not a whole lot more. remember, bush lied, people died. will obama lied, and millions of health care plans died. let's go to jim in delaware. republican line. good morning. good morning. it seems like all of these vil they are said by republicans. concerning john mccain, guy has

been dead to me since he ran campaignt presidential 2008. he should just resign. host: what about the importance of civility in political discourse? caller: the way things have been going, the left has not been civil since they started this the riseg business and in chicago in 1968 and the weather underground. extremist been the wing of the democratic party just the way the kkk was the extremist wing of the democratic party. host: independent line from minnesota. we will hear next from jared. to talk toust want all of you americans out there and you want to talk about civility. how do you think you came to this country?

murder, genocide, theft. you are all on stolen native american or original peoples land. to theet's drive back conversation at hand. civility. caller: they are all paid people from the elite. the democratic and republican party are fools. l forive obama a peace meda murdering children. donald trump murders children. host: let's go to illinois, democrats line. carl. caller: good morning. callers, the the other callers. a lot of this has to do with the general concept of political rhetoric is all truth.

people need to grow up and realize it is just rhetoric. where we lose civility is when people believe the rhetoric is actually the reality. i think this really started to bring down when bill clinton and the republicans with newt gingrich as speaker. the republican party continues to go down the path of we just want power. that is all that matters. they don't want to have civility because it gets in the way of their goal to have power. i think the john mccain shows it is all about power. all the stuff they say they stand for, the principles and whatnot, it means nothing. rhetoric has not

been applied to previous administrations, democratic and republican? caller: that is what i am saying . political rhetoric has been used by both sides. you have to be intelligent to realize that in most cases that to generates spoken certain emotions. it is not necessarily the reality of how things really are . people have that confused. i heard what the republicans did. it was the democrats. economicry was in an crisis when obama can. they said they were not going to do anything to help him. that is really bad to me. question their patriotism. i realized that could have just been rhetoric.

years, itfirst four is not rhetoric. what is the goal they want? the goal is they just want to have the power. host: let's go to beverly in pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: hello. i just like to say that the tit-for-tat and the back-and-forth is wrong. i think the truth should prevail, and enough is enough of lying. that is how i feel about it. host: when you say tit-for-tat and back and forth, where do you see that most play out? caller: honestly, i have been watching for a long time. i really don't like -- it has been proven by both sides who is doing this and that. i wish people would come to their senses and say the truth. enough is enough about everyone picking on this one and that one in the world. we are all united.

host: that is beverly in pennsylvania. a couple of people have mentioned the statements made about john mccain. the president talking about civility. john mccain on npr dealing with the idea of civility and politics. here are his own words. [video clip] i woulde i leave, like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. we are citizens of republic made replaced theas, tribal enmities. even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share a heritage and responsibility to embrace it. whether we think of ourselves as right or wrong on the issues of

the day, we go each other respect so long as our character merits respect. for all of the debates that enliven and sometimes to meet our politics, and mutual devotion to the ideals our nation was conceived of are the natural rights of all. asked americans about the political consequences to ending civility. 75% of those say it leads to political gridlock. 60% of those saying it leads to less attention in political debates. deterrent to is a entering public service. ob, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you. i don't think civility is very important. i think the truth is more important. the american people are like to

on a daily basis -- lied to on a daily basis. media you matter what listen to, they all have a narrative. i would like to know the truth of the jfk assassination. ostwald did not kill jfk. host: to the modern day, this idea of delivering truth. if you deliver truth in and uncivil way, that is ok? caller: yes. we need the truth at all costs. how can i make intelligent decisions if we don't have the facts? host: how do you determine the truth from all of that? caller: you have to go by what people do and not what they say. history has a way of repeating itself. we are seeing a lot of these same things play out for the last 50 years since jfk was killed. eisenhower warned us about the

military-industrial complex. they are fully in charge. host: that is rob in new york. let's go to virginia, independent line. john, hello. people tojust wanted understand that you can have civil debate. on a regular basis in my community and with family and friends. the real problem seems to be the media and where people are getting their so-called news. it is more entertainment than news. the news outlets, social media ideologyre presenting rather than his. that is the core issue. people can be civil if they are given, if they receive a lot more truth, as the previous caller said, rather than ideology. host: you said you saw that play

out on the local level. give us an example. caller: the local level is we sit around and watch the debates with friends and family. we sit around and watch some of the news items. we listen to c-span, meet the press, read the newspapers and so forth. npr on ae listened to regular basis until they became the victim status news outlet. you need to search out and find truth and principles and values rather than sit there every day and listen to ideology. host: ok. that is john. this is cecil on twitter saying is it civility or political correctness? speak the truth even if it hurts. push their views on be uncivil. can

in west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think a lot of it has to do with the age of social media and the fact that what i have seen, and i have seen people changing at a noticeable rate go social media. -- because of social media. people will say things to each other online, especially if they are hiding behind anonymity, they will say things that they would never even dream of saying to each other face-to-face. that has a lot to do with it. a lot of that is starting to peoplento the way

interact face-to-face. i wonder if our species is evolved enough to really handle things like the internet and social media. old, andg on 59 years i have seen people change. the way people are communicating, interpersonal communication skills are changing at a noticeable rate because of the internet age. sometimes it gets really dismaying. host: do you think that then permanently changes the nature of political discourse at whatever level? caller: it is not going to go back. i just kind of accept it. when i am online, and i spend a lot of time online, although i do not carry the smartphone, my the name that i

use, but a lot of people will things the name to say and just toss firebombs all over the place because they are hiding behind a computer screen. they are hiding behind the anonymity of a made up screen name. that gives them the opportunity to say things online that they never would even dream of saying to a person. if you are online, and you are having a debate, and it becomes escalated, have you ever seen an opportunity to walk that back to keep a civil discussion going on whatever topic you are talking about? .aller: i do my best like i said, my real name is the screen name i use. when someone is using a made up screen name, i find it is a lot

more difficult to walk back with them. host: let's get your views. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents. anna is in texas. democrats line. caller: good morning. ed civility with the jeremiah wright comment on obama and rocket man and all of these things all over the world. it starts with the head. commentsless civil about each other. i don't care if you don't like a person, you at least give the

person the chance to say their views. whites and black in this country, it is horrible. the civility is not there. our children in school, they take it to school. they don't respect each other anymore. i am 69 years old. i grew up when there was no civility in this country. names,e calling everyone that has to stop if we want civility, but i don't think we do. we don't listen to each other. we don't speak to each other. there are people i work. here toke, i am not harm anybody, but if i say anything about a policy on this president come then you must take trump. i don't. i feel sorry for trump. or obama, they asked, what it

you like obama -- why didn't you like obama? he was doing the best he could. host: that is anna in texas on the line for democrats. if you want to give us your thoughts on the importance of civility in politics, remain on the line. if you are calling, keep calling. the number is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls. about thell us opening of the jerusalem embassy and what got us to this day is stephen farrell of reuters. good morning. guest: good morning. host: talk to us about the events of today. what do we expect to happen? guest: what we expect is that at 4:00 p.m. local time we are going to see a ceremony within

the jerusalem consulate compound belonging to the americans were interim embassy is going to be based. host: who is expected from the trunk administration to be involved in this? dignitaries, a ivanka trump and jared kush ner, the u.s. ambassador, and prime minister benjamin netanyahu and others. it is a high-level delegation, not twice presidential or presidential, but still senior state department, embassy, and family members. host: even amid the opening today, talk about those that are andcted by it in jerusalem

palestinians responding today. guest: this is a very interesting two days. ofay is the 70th anniversary the founding of jerusalem. and today is the day the palestinians mark the loss of villages and towns from their perspective. we are seeing the coming together on one side and protests on the other. gaza has been the focus of protests. dozen palestinians killed, a lot of israeli soldiers on the border trying to prevent what they feel may be a palestinian attempt to get out of gaza and into israel.

we are waiting to see if there will be any sizable border incursions elsewhere. we think there will certainly be protests host:. protests. host: talk about the level of security with this opening. guest: very tight. we have seen security ramped up in the last few days around jerusalem. swept, longve been grass cut, all the things you would expect at a major vip event. gaza is extremely tight. there are israeli sharpshooters along the fence. gaza has been protesting for six weeks. they were building to domination around the day the embassy opens and their own day of mourning tomorrow. today is already the deadliest

day of those protests i believe, and we are not even most of the way through the day yet. it could get considerably worse. host: the associated press saying seven or so have died in the last 24 hours. there is a lot of talk about one of the participants in today's ceremony, a pastor who is expected to make a prayer. could you give us an insight on that and how it lends itself to the opening today? caller: the focus -- guest: the focus here is really on the politics. what -- this is a seminal moment. people are focusing on a few things, but both sides agree this is a major moment. americansee it as the

lending weight to the israeli position that jerusalem is the ancient capital of the jewish people and that putting the american capital here from tel this seems to be supporting the israeli position on that, although they had left room open for negotiations between israeli and palestinians. december the decision to move the capital, the real substance here is political and inlomatic, and of course security terms. violencesee even more today, tomorrow, and the days to come. eventsven after these

are over with, what kind of work will be done at the embassy? the ambassador is going to work from a small series of offices within the compound with a small stock. -- staff. that staff has already them the office.m compound they will have embassy functions . they will look for a larger site. american embassies in difficult parts of the world are , set wellructions away from population centers so no one wants to attack them can get close to them. that does not describe the current site.

it cannot be a long-term embassy. the usuale more of embassy functions move from tel aviv to jerusalem. one day, we will see a large embassy proper build. of reutersen farrell talking about today's events surrounding the opening of the u.s. embassy in jerusalem. guest: thank you. host: back to your calls on the importance of civility in politics. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans(202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 independents. larry in idaho, go ahead. caller: i think civility is incredibly important in politics.

it is especially important because if you are not civil when you are addressing your opponent, you are not considering the millions of people whose viewpoints that opponent is representing him and your disrespecting them. having a lack of civility right now is leading us right now into a civil war. we are being so disrespectful in shoving each other out at such a large degree. host: in florida, kathy is next. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say something about civility in politics. i am in my 60's. i had two sons who went through rotc in their general hospitals schools, andh

before that i took them to d.c. we went to the smithsonian and got in line to look at all of the wonderful stuff at the smithsonian. my 12-year-old son could not land a plane on a destroyer with a tale of for nothing. he almost burst into tears. this was 25 years ago. i said, don't worry about it, you live in america, you can still grow up to be john mccain. a group of veterans took exception with the fact that i said that and pushed their way through the line to tell me i better be respectful about john mccain. i turned and said, listen up, i have six brothers. ine of them served in 'nam the navy, don't tell me.

we can sit and say about civility. nobody says benedict arnold really wanted to feed f oreigners. what we say is he stole our money and start our troops. civility is one thing. family'seard his feeling? yes. was it just a flippant comment? probably. after all, john mccain has worked against the republican party for a long time. host: all right. we will go to our independent line, washington, d.c., tonya. caller: good morning. just stumbled across this station coming from my daughter who is in her senior year of college.

i am very disappointed. the reason we don't have civility is because we lack empathy. we cannot empathize with each other in order to be civil. if you cannot empathize with a person you're having conflict with, then you cannot be civil ,o offer any type of concrete or anything that is going to make a difference in the world. we need to get back to caring about one another. there is only one race that i know of, and that is the human race. we need to respect cultural differences and get back to the empathizing. all of this judgment is the reason we are even having this conversation in 2018. i need to be hopeful that my daughter is going to come out from college into a world where

her opinion is accepted, and her plight is accepted, and people can empathize with one another. need to help everyone, not just one particular party. host: let's go to john in maryland. democrats line. caller: good morning. civility, i understand what the question is. i understand what you are asking. looking at this political system and around the world we have had stability all the time before donald trump got in there. we still have a lack of morality and integrity. we really need is integrity and morality in our politics because we had stability, but we thieves,, hypocrites, people who are power crazy,

people who are more dedicated to the political party then the constitution. their political party than the constitution. what i believe is donald trump knows all these politicians. that is why he can be so forthright. he knows behind closed doors how they talk and what they think and what they say, so he just comes right out with it. now they act surprised. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you are just joining us, we are asking about civility in politics and how important it is. to show you from the upcoming discussion with north korea, the headline this morning, the

ouster of kim jong-un is not on the summit agenda according to mike pompeo, the secretary of state. also had stressed the u.s. would not seek ki'ms ouster. are tosident and kim meet face-to-face. y miketatements b pompeo and john bolton, mike pompeo said the most dangerous part of the nuclear weapons in north korea is the character of the person who holds the controls. cia directors at the time said separate capacity and who might have

intense, and break those two apart. from virginia.nt caller: thank you for having me. civility, the current president has blown it out of the water. he comes from a platform where everyone gives him a pass for what he says. everyone -- s vilifies everyone and anyone. even his own people and past administrations. i think it is wrong to stand on someone's neck just to make yourself a little taller. of johnest proponents -- of civility was john mccain. he had a choice. the lady called obama a muslim.

he had a choice. that could have just been another negative comment against his opponent. he stood up for his upon for what he knew was not true. i think we are losing that type of integrity for what people want as loyalty toward party and not necessarily country. we are standing up for what is true and what is right regardless of if it is your opponent or not. these are not enemies. these are americans. that is my comment. thank you. host: ok. mitt romney coming to john mccain's defense this morning, saying john mccain makes america honor.p.o.w., bound by those who mock such greatness

only humiliate themselves and their silent accomplices. lindsey graham on face the nation also talked about that joke made by the white house aide and the response by the white house. [video clip] >> it was a pretty disgusting thing to say. if it was a joke, it was a terrible joke. i just wish someone from the white house would say that is inappropriate, and that is not who we are. john mccain can be criticized for any political decision he has ever made or both he has -- is ane has cast, but he american hero. it does not hurt you at all to big.he right thing and be >> should the president apologized? >> i will leave that to him. saidmeone in my office

such a thing, i would apologize on behalf of the office. says civility has always been lacking in politics and the media. michael says civility only shows up when it suits someone's need. don.is caller: it is getting way out of hand. people don't hold themselves accountable. if you go to verizon, go overseas, you see the same companies, they are generating these comments. you need to know when to be they don't like it, they can report it. it just escalates.

you need to hold the fcc accountable. you need to hold verizon, yahoo! accountable, all these people make more money because they want to read the articles. virginia,n in republican line. comments about mitt romney who stood up for john mccain. mitt romney lost. john mccain stood up for barack obama. john mccain lost. his anger comes from the republican base. john mccain was a great army sailor. he was great in the military. that doesn't make him a great senator. i love john mccain as a military man. my dad served 32 years in the marine corps. hate john mccain as a senator. john mccain always eludes with the democrats when there is a republican president.

constantly, people like me both to get republican majorities. john mccain is the type of person when i finally give you the white house, senate, and the house him you poke me in the eye. iu vote against everything gave the republican party. john mccain has a long history of this. the bottom line is john mccain was a great military man. he was a lousy republican senator. host: let's go to our republican line, georgia. caller: thank you so much for allowing me to call in. we won't have civility because 80% of the republicans that voted for trump was evangelical. they keep stating this nation was built on christian values. you will note a christian by

their love, not by what they say, but for the love and how they express love for each other and their enemies. clearly, they do not stand for the basic routes of christianity is love. until you get back, he will not stability anywhere. thank you. host: las vegas, nevada, republican line. robert, hello. caller: hello. i do major fundraising for veterans with my foundation now. --oor veternas veterans now. what i'm concerned about is the alarming rate of veterans committee suicide. suicide.iting i am a vietnam veteran.

i am upset. i am disgusted. i would like to go in front of our politicians and say, what are you going to do about it? host: not that it is not an important topic, but this idea of civility of civility inan.or -- politics, what do you think is going on there? caller: civility in politics is a subject i am really not a person to talk to about that. my entire mission right now, 78 years old, and i am very upset about what is happening to our veterans on the streets. host: we are staying to the topic. not that it is not an important topic, veterans and the issues they have to deal with. bill independent line, go ahead.

caller: hello. host: hi. on?er: amm i if you look backwards, bill withon live us -- left us no debt. however you get there doesn't make any difference. just get there. host: this idea that incivility is ok as long as the goal is reached? caller: just get there. i have been very lucky. i am very wealthy by many standards. just get there. host: we will hear from catherine. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for this discussion. i had a statement i was going to make, but i'm going to change it for just one moment.

every day, i read some scripture. today's scripture is love one another as i have loved you. tiedcountry is no longer to that statement from god. i think we need to step back and say love one another as i have loved you. politics, and since we are talking about civility in politics, what do you think about that aside from what you said about the vital? -- bible? caller: civility is who we are. every morning, we get up and watch the news, i'm thinking about john mccain and how he is dying. we should be praying for him. we think about president trump. i'm not a fan for him. i have prayed and fasted for

him. we have to think about who we are as a country, not all of this civil stuff. love one another as i have loved you. if we do that, we will be a very successful country. int: let's hear from ben massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to respond to a couple of things that was stated earlier. the gentleman that talk about mccain being a good soldier but senator, andcan the gentleman you picked up from jerusalem. host: before you start down that road, let's start with the importance of civility in politics. caller: it is politics that is making decisions that affect both of these. host: do you think civility is

important in that decision-making process? caller: if you expect civility, you need morality. whyneed some basis for people, what motivate people to do things. if you can shoot people, if you have the defense of shooting youngsters and people when they come close to the fence, one group is on and the other is not, something needs to be said about that politically, and it has to do with civility, morality. host: ok. we will have to leave it there. apologies for that. baltimore, hello. caller: i am glad you're on this topic. it is the most important topic. what makes our democracy work is our ability to discuss things and have a competition of ideas.

when people go straight to name-calling, our system does not work. it goes way back. it goes back to our hyphenated names of people, african-americans, european americans, we are all americans. host: do you think this is a problem specific to this administration or previous ones? how much incivility did you see in past administrations? caller: i think donald trump is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. it goes way back. it is a problem in our history. we are so hyper partisan that any disagreement gets extremely personal. i am on a street that was redesigned with a bike lane. there was a debate on whether he should be against the curb or

traffic. instead of talking about the bike lane, people are growing racist comments and personal attacks. i ask all of our leaders and every person to try to focus on issues and not attacks. host: in arkansas, surely is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i have enjoyed other people's opinion, iut in my think everybody out there needs to get their dictionaries and look up civil liberty, and then they will know it is our freedom of speech. in politics to keep everything civil, so i hope they will look that up. rley, do you think that happens or not in the current

political climate? caller: i think we have had it. i think we're letting people take over and take it away from us. host: ok. shirl that is the last call on this topic. coming up, we are going to talk about events in the white house and congress this week. two reporters joining us for that discussion. anna hedrick and and hunter edgerton anna and hunter walker to tell us a little more about that. we will have that discussion when "washington journal" continues. ♪

announcer: tonight on "landmark male was twice rejected admission to the university of california davis medical school. he claimed he was passed over in favor of less qualified minority applicants and took the university system to court. the resulting supreme court decision both struck down the university's specific admissions program and upheld affirmative action.

watch "landmark cases" tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, and join the conversation. our hashtag is #landmarkcases. we have resources on our website for background on each case, a link to the national constitution center's interactive constitution, and more at c-span.org/landmarkcases. tonight on "the communicators," former senior adviser to sec chair tom wheeler and former fcc commissioner robert dowell talk about the t-mobile and sprint merger at its possible applications on the communications world. >> i think it is going to help accelerate 5g deployment here in the united states.

the u.s. government regulators have a decision to make, which is, do they want to make a decision that helps accelerate 5g deployment, or are we going to go back to some sort of industrial policy that looks to the rearview mirror rather than the front of a windshield? >> sprint owns virgin mobile and boost mobile, and t-mobile owns metro pcs. those are some of the largest low-cost carriers that low income folks pay for ahead of time. it is not on a monthly basis. if you can buy those three, it is really going to do damage to low income consumers. an answer: watch tonight -- at 8:00r: watch tonight eastern on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. week in both congress and washington. of yahoo! news is

a white house correspondent, and edgerton is an editor for bloomberg. talk a little about about the political the larger issues at place. when they discussed this, they said in part it is for him to talk about recent successes. they were also very excited about the freeing of what we are now calling returnees from north korea, so i figure will be a little but of rallying of the troops going on, but there are a lot of key votes. as of now, the cia director situation is still up in the air. i think you may also be doing a little bit of negotiating and pulling people to get people on his side on a couple of agenda items. the: and the rallying of troops, so to speak, is that because of midterms coming up? are there other factors playing into that? anna: they will definitely be talking about political issues.

thes not as big a deal in senate, but on the house side, house members are definitely wanting to president to stay focused on tax cuts and talk about the economy and how great the republican policy has been for the economy. however, as you know, the president likes to talk about whatever is on his mind. they are also worried he could undo some of these economic gains with some of the trade issues he has been assessing, such as renegotiating nafta or tariffs on china. , that ish that in mind the concern about whether one of those bodies turns over to democratic hands in november. anna: the democrats could take it, and historically it would suggest that democrats would take the house, but there is no guarantee they will be able to pull that off. host: i am sure this is something the white house has to monitor as well and respond to in some way. hunter: we saw president trump get on the road for joe donnelly in indiana last week.

i've heard that vice president pence is going to be an extremely active campaign surrogate. not only does president trump love hitting the road, doing the campaign trail thing, revisiting his 2016 electoral win, but also is the democrats do take both of washouses, and as anna saying, the senate is a little further off of a goal for them, it has real ramifications for the president, especially with all this legal trouble, the special counsel probe. will there be legislation to protect that, and even impeachment? it is never far off from this white house. host: these are the topics we will have, among others, with our guests. if you want to ask questions, you can do so on the phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents. , i want to show you a headline from "the

washington times" this morning. republicans,o ask what is the mood? anna: something we have seen this political cycle is that candidates matter. you see democrats trying to produce people with biographies that will be interesting to the voters and that will speak to most americans. had a lot of retirements this year, and they need to find good candidates to try to replace them. when it comes to finding those candidates, what is the success rate of that? how is leadership getting involved? anna: we have seen with their success rate is, but house speaker paul ryan warned last week that if democrats take the house, they will see even more gridlock, subpoenas. there's a real concern that republicans have to hold onto both houses of congress to protect the president from legal action. host: another headline from "the york times," when it comes to democrat -- from "the new york

times," when it comes to democrats, maybe a little context on that. anna: something the democrat party is trying to work out is going to be different from district to district. the connor lamb model is one to someones one way to go, -- one way to go, someone who appeals to people in the middle. there are other parts of the democratic party in other parts of the country that would push the party to be more progressive. we are definitely going to see those tensions play out, not unlike the republican party in 2010. host: for the president in looking at these and these candidates, can you talk a little bit about some of the messaging and activity? are there people in the white house specifically looking at this, and does he have the staffing to at least contribute in the november elections? hunter: a lot of what the president does is does on it -- is done on a skeleton crew.

a veteran of chris christie's world in new jersey has been running this. what we have seen the president do in recent weeks is step in in the west virginia race come or you have don blankenship, this conservative insurgent aligning himself with trump, but the white house was not interested in what he had to offer. he had his own legal woes, wild ads where he called mitch onconnell "cocaine mitch" some baseless accusations. you try to stem him off because amidst this blue wave, they have been concerned that some of these right-wing candidates would not fly as the dems are pushing towards the center. we will see them keep an eye out for that in the future. you see him keep pointing back to alabama. remember what happened, i told you to vote for luther strange and you voted for roy moore.

we may just see him back other people and not intervene so much. host: questions can be delivered cspanwj.er @ as it stands, today, will there be some type of formal response to the statements made by kelly sadler regarding john mccain? hunter: i think the time for that was probably last week. we were amazed there wasn't one of the top of the briefing. either sending that out over email or litigating it in everything would have tamped down that new cycle in a way that standing by her but also not standing by her, trying to deny a happened, really kept this going a bit. interestingly you have seen meghan mccain say that when she spoke to kelly sadler, she said she would apologize publicly, and that never happened. i think you will see this continuing to do we get it. pains tot to great really not comment on this, and i think the white house is hoping it fizzles out. host: we saw lindsey graham come

out on the senate side in defense of john mccain. will we see more this week in john's defense? hunter: lindsey graham -- anna: lindsey graham is very close to john mccain, so it isn't a surprise you make this type of comment, but this is the kind of thing republicans will push back against in general. they don't want these kind of distractions running into the midterms. they want to keep the conversation focused on policy, the economy, and what has been done for voters. anytime you see this come up will see some initial reaction, but i think republicans are going to want to move past this as quickly as the white house. host: but there is a bit of ailing great issue -- hunter: but there is a bit of a lingering issue because the whole reason we know about this is because of a leak. -- sarahders that is sanders said it is disgusting that this leaked. she was clearly aware that that meeting about leaks would leak. low in the hold, it did. even if this -- low end of a ld, it did.and beho

i think we will see these things continue to leak from white house staffers. host: i imagine more democrats will get in line with that this week. hunter: it is kind of -- anna: it is kind of a human decency thing. john mccain is widely seen as an american hero, even you don -- even if you don't agree with his political views. host: you are on with our guests. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i am going to make a comment, on what was shown in the media as far as the questioning of the cia director nominee. there was a morale of the issue that she was asked, a direct question of whether she was against waterboarding.

whether she thought that was immoral. tools to we need these bring out the truth if it is a necessity or not. just like when harry truman 1945 to use the bomb. is that a morality issue? no. yes, excuse me. it is a morality issue, but it was necessary. and waterboarding was also necessary. when the cia plotted to poison castro, that is a morality thing. it is immoral. was it necessary? yes. host: with some context to the hearing last week and what the -- put some context to the hearing last week and what the caller is referencing. there are more all caps relations that have to be made when you are engaged in war -- moral calculations that have to

be made when you're engaged in war are fighting back against an enemy. i think the conversation on torture should be had on its morality, and before you even begin to talk about whether it is effective. the date on whether or not it is effective shows different things , but i think that is an issue that needs to be strongly denounced, not just for whether or not it should be used as a tool for these intelligence agencies, but also so that the united states can maintain its moral high ground and condemn those actions in other countries when it takes place. host: when it comes to those on the committee that eventually have to decide whether gina haspel goes forward, where do we stand? anna: it is going to be very difficult for her to get the nomination and get confirmed if she doesn't come out strongly against torture. ie doesn't have to come think, specify what counts as torture, but she has to say as an unequivocal moral statement that i am against torture and

will push back against the president of yes me to do it -- if he asks me to do it. suffered at the hands of torture himself and has come out very strongly against torture as an estrogen of war and gina haspel's nomination. -- as an instrument of war and gina haspel's nomination. hunter: i think what is really interesting if you have seen the president on the campaign trail come out very strongly in favor of waterboarding. i remember more than a few rallies where he said we want things even tougher than waterboarding. this isn't an issue where he really would move away from her. i think it is going to be a thorny thing for any other nominee that would come up. even if they don't have haspel 's history, they are going to face this question of this president has said he wants waterboarding. he could be interested in physical interrogation techniques. where do you come down on that? so the question won't go away. host: from illinois on the republican line, we will your

next from jason. quick, you know, real back on the mccain thing, would you agree that the honorable thing would be for him to resign so that he can focus on spending the rest of his time with his family, like i am sure he is doing right now, fighting his brain cancer? i don't know why he's still in there in an elected position. i know if he worked in the private industry, obviously you wouldn't have to get fired or resign or anything like that, but he's an elected official. he should have stepped aside a long time ago is what i am saying. host: that is a good question about to whether he decides to stay or resign. anna: ultimately it is obviously going to be his decision. there are people who come down on both sides of this. i think most people would say it is up to him, and this is a tough time for his family and him personally. i think this decision should be

left up to him, and no one in congress is going to criticize him for what he decides to do. --t: srs voting, he doesn't as far as voting, he doesn't predict in active voting -- he doesn't participate in active voting? not as of now, and we will have to wait to see if he can come back or will have to stay in arizona for treatment. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam vet. i am surprised there wasn't more outrage about the mccain remark. do you think there will be a formal apology coming? kind of walked through this, but particularly the white house reporters like yourself, they will still kind of press this issue as a talk with sarah sanders today or other members of the administration? hunter: i do think it is a lingering story, but the natural time for an apology would have been last week. at this point, the white house is going to be hoping to move away from this. even if it does remain a bit in

the news cycle, there probably is less pressure on them to apologize than there was before. if they dodged all that pressure and didn't want to back down from this, i guess they won't. host: one other topic specifically, we from that, is the bill set to be voted on this week. one of the issues is work requirements. what thehrough president is looking for as far as these work requirements when it comes to the food stamp program. hunter: normally this is a pretty noncontroversial process, vetting the farmv -- sort -- noncontroversial process, vetting the farm bill. what we've heard from the white house is that president trump might veto things. you might want even stricter work requirements than paul ryan. this something he talked about on the campaign trail, where he

said i want to see people work for the government aid. i don't want to see people just living off of assistance. what i think is interesting is it is one of those moments where his populist brand is kind of in contrast with the policies he's advocating for. it is going to be interesting to see that tension play out. host: walk us through specifically what congressional republicans want to see play out from this work will are meant that -- what they want to see from work requirements. anna: most are probably behind itse speaker ryan on instituting work requirements for the snap program and seeing if it can be expanded into other programs as well. it is interesting to see how the house and senate have taken a different approach on this. in the house agriculture committee come of it has to this bill out of committee was just republican votes. on the senate side, they committed to a bipartisan farm bill. you will see different bills moving through each chamber, and it will have to go to conference in order to reconcile those versions.

host: that farm bill was back in april when they were working through the bill. house committee ranking member talked about his thoughts on the process of the policy. here's a little bit of what he had to say. >> this language is so unworkable and out of touch and insulting to the most vulnerable in our country. this bill cuts snap benefits by over $20 billion and reduces or eliminate benefits for nearly 2 million kids, veterans, working families, and other vulnerable adults. it is shameful. this should stop now. stop this markup, and let's get back to a bipartisan process that has been the tradition of this committee. anna: jim mcgovern has been a

big advocate for hunger issues. he's always supported the food stamp program. one thing the democrats have pointed out is that republicans, in adding work requirements, have also added job-training if you aren'tat able to job and still need the benefit, you can enroll in one of these job-training programs. one thing, price of what it out is that republicans are creating this government bureaucracy or adding it in order to account was this policy objective on the other side of getting people into the workforce. hunter: we are also seeing this dovetail interestingly with the jobs guarantee legislation we are seeing people like bernie sanders and cory booker push on the democratic side. it is a large federal bureaucracy that would guarantee people positions, but the differences that is -- the difference is that is not coming

while cutting aid. these fundamentally different approaches to dealing with jobless people in this country are going to be a really interesting backdrop as we go forward. anna: paul ryan echoed that in a press conference last week come aware he said if you can't get a job, we will guarantee you a week, where -- last he said if you can't get a job, we will guarantee you a spot in this program. host: from california, jimmy is next. you are on. go ahead. caller: yeah, can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i want to know if you that, either of them, president trump would benefit hyperbole and crudeness.

host: ok. by the way, turn off your television so we don't get feedback. we were dealing with civility in the last hour. again, we are interested in seeing how this plays out in the white house and congress. anything to offer? anna: it is interesting to see president trump's political brand. on the one hand, this uncouth miss -- uncouthness, some people like that. aree are other people who very disturbed at what is happening in our political process, very disturbed at some of the lies the president has told. you see that kind of working against the president and working to his benefit in other district. candidates will see either trying to emulate that or separate themselves from it. it will be very interesting to see how congressional candidates try to either adopt the

president's style or maintain a more classic statesmanlike demeanor. hunter: i think anna is totally right. base, thek at trump's fact he didn't speak like a traditional politician was one of the biggest things that gave him appeal. but as we saw in the situation with don blankenship, who had these wild ads and referred to himself as being " trumpier than trump," they had to tell their base not to back someone trying to appeal to them as much as they did. host: are we seeing that branding extend to foreign policy, particularly with iran and north korea? are we seeing that rawness play out in making policy? anna: i think on the foreign -- hunter: i think on the foreign policy front, we are seeing very much president trump the reality star and real estate businessman. he always touted himself as the world's greatest dealmaker, the

guy who wrote "the art of the deal." what he said on the foreign policy front is we've had a lot of bad deals. i am ready to negotiate new one for america. certain company's have taken advantage of that -- certain countries have taken advantage of that. kim jong-un, he wants to make a deal. but he pairs that was what he described as maximum pressure. we saw the "fire and fury" rhetoric. we also see on trade the threatening tariffs and backing away from them. foreign policy is a place where we're seeing president trump have his own unique stamp on politics, perhaps because the executive branch has its own control their. anna: i think it makes republicans a little nervous, but is inspiring for some to see maybe we could bring peace to the korean peninsula.

but on the other hand, there's a lot of discomfort and concern about some of the risks the president takes when he does this kind of athlete foreign policy, especially even pulling out of the iran deal. now that it is in place, foreign affairs chairman ed royce in the house says he wanted to enforce it. there's a issue of credibility for the united states of america that i think risks being upset by the president's political whims on foreign policy. host: how do you think congressional members will react this morning when they see the about extending help to china over trade enteric ffsues -- trade and tari issues? anna: you see the president giving orders to his commerce secretary, and that is not the way it is supposed to work. this company zte was found

violating sanctions. it needs to sever the consequences. the president should not unilaterally overturn that in order to aid in his trade negotiations with president xi something. i expect you will see a lot of republicans concerned about that setting a precedent. host: andy president even went so far as to say that -- and the president even went so far as to say that. hunter: you're seeing concerning diplomatic circles. they don't know what they are going to get from one moment to the other. while in some ways it may be extremely protectable, a guy who wants to make a deal with you. if you are she's in pain, -- if you are she's in thing -- if you zxi -- ifin paying -- areare she's i -- if you xinping.

you have seen for a officials come out and say this committee was a security risk, and now as part of his wheeling and dealing, president trump is willing -- you have seen cia officials come out and say this company was a security risk, and now as part of his wheeling and dealing, or than trump is willing to -- anna: the military has prohibited this comedy from selling apparatuses on military bases for it -- this company from selling its apparatuses on military bases for exactly that same reason. we see kind of uncertainty at of the global supply chain and where the united states fits into that, if it is going to be a reliable constant either source or market for global products. host: republican line from georgia, james is next. hello. caller: good morning, and thanks for taking my call.

i just want to talk about a couple of things. first of all, the cia nominee. i think the democrats are really doing her really unjust. when all ofecause this 9/11 stuff happened, nobody said anything. what they were doing with the waterboarding and all of that, you could say it was wrong where we shouldn't be doing it, but we had to do something to get to osama bin laden. when they questioned the lady about her nominee, they want to talk about morals and all of iss, i think all of that just they are weaponize everything. she constantly said there waterboardingy under her watch. when i took that to be was if , allhought it was immoral

that had to do was resign and that would take care of that. just keepss media hacking and hacking and trying to make this story go on and on and on. the comments about john mccain, somebody said earlier in your earlier statement about john mccain was a good soldier. i agree with that. but he has not done well by the republican party because he always wants to nag the republican party. host: thank you. since he brought up the cia director and this idea of weaponize everything that was said during those hearings, what do you think about that? john mccain'sin statement where he encouraged his colleagues to oppose her nomination that he also recognizes she was a patriotic person that had served her country. respected here for that, but was a comfortable with the decisions she had made and that had been made in the cia when she was in a position of leadership. topography and politics is not a

new thing. the fact that the color points out that democrats are pushing back against -- hypocrisy in politics is not a new thing. pointst that the caller out that the democrats are pushing back against this and not say anything at the time is the presidentbut has said he supports not only waterboarding, but even more aggressive tactics. rise to deputy director, and clearly this wasn't hidden from view in that process. anna: right. she is clearly a good leader and has the qualities that have been well respected in the cia, but it is an interesting that the documents that have been released are very favorable of her. there are none that taken a more critical view of her service. i am not sure we are getting a balanced picture of her record. i don't know that we are not. but because we only have the documents the cia has released, that's all the committee has to work with.

i think they are going to try to make that decision and see what would be the best position for the united states going forward. really a faitn't accompli at the moment. we did see around the time of 9/11 that emerge as an approach the government wanted to take. dick cheney as recently as last week was defending that decision. she did follow her orders, she had her supporters at the time, and still does. but there was debate within intelligence agencies on whether this was the right approach. in retrospect, we have seen a lot of juicy details emerge about how there were internal debates about information sharing and torture, and it was -- torture. and i was alluding to this earlier. is questionable and whether or not it was useful in getting to osama bin laden.

at some point it is healthy to have a public debate with the new information we have about whether that was the best idea and whether that is what we should do going forward. host: let's go to maryland, the republican line. this is dave. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i was originally called in on the farm credit piece because with respect to the snap program, living in a very liberal state, being a republican, at least in terms of my professional colleagues i really think there is some bipartisan support for trying to these out a way to wean vulnerable families away from having to rely for heavily on these types of programs. i think when you start to introduce the concept of work up thements or ratchet magnitude of these requirements, i think that is a good thing.

howmately when we look at these programs have in fact been mushrooming over the years, we need to pivot. we need to at least start to explore other ways of motivating , toety to encourage them find themselves a job, so to speak. host: that sounds like the white house's approach to this topic. hunter: yeah. as we were saying earlier, there is a bit of rhetorical common ground we are seeing emerge. democrats are talking about job guarantees. republicans are now talking about job training and moving people into the workforce. 1.i would make as we discuss all one point that i would make as we discuss all of this is that snap, the amount of food you are allowed to buy is really a bare minimum. do we keep programs like that in

place while maybe building up a bureaucracy to get people into the workforce, or do we pull them out and see if we can do both at once? issue,s this a november particularly from these discussions going on with those vulnerable republicans? be fort certainly will some voters, but this is not getting as much attention as some of the other hot button topics such as guns or supreme court justices are some of the other things might be single issue voters about. 1.i would make is that house speaker paul ryan has made the point that you should measure -- one pointf the i would make is that house speaker paul ryan has made the point that you should measure the success of the program not by saying we spent $70 million on snap, that meet the success -- that means it is a success. you should say we only have to

spend $50 million on snap because we were able to get this many people off of snap and onto their own two feet. we will just see how it is implemented to see if that is the best way forward for other benefit programs as well. host: angel lives in travis air force base, california. independent line. caller: good morning. just wanted to give a thought on civility and another thought in general. i called before. i think civility i be a difficult concept for either .arty nowadays i would ask me before i thought from both speakers on when third parties might make an interest in the near -- mike and entrance -- make an entrance in the near future. right timew when the might be for third parties or even fourth parties to make an appearance. another point in general from my point of view given where i'm

coming from, i think reciprocity is a good word to use for this administration. i don't think there is anything wrong with that. i would just say that people should give this new way of thinking a chance because it a lotto be working from of different sectors of government and international relations in general. host: thank you. anna: i think on the issue of civility in politics and the extremes of both parties, it is a very vocalsee part of the party on the right and the left that are very vocal about certain issues and speaking badly of the other side, but there is a very strong center in congress. you don't see it very much because they actually don't yet to weigh in there is heavily on a lot of the legislation that happens, except for the things that everyone agrees on. you have groups like the problem

solvers caucus, the new democrats that are kind of the more moderate democrats. these groups are really trying to work together to find bipartisan issues they can work on. one example would be a group of freshmen trying to get a term through both houses, and the president supports this bill. you see three freshmen republicans and three freshmen democrats trying to work together to get the attention of their party leaders and force a vote on this. hunter: i find the caller's point about third parties to being one of the more interesting questions we will be grappling with in the future. what we seen at the moment is sort of internal third parties, and i mean you have the bernie wing in the democratic party that obviously sort of opposed to the party mainstream during the last primary. on the republican side we have the tea party emerge as an insurgency, and as we were saying earlier, you could call it now more the blankenship-roy moore wing that is creating

difficulties for the establishment. i think we will see potentially a primary for president trump. you've got guys like john kasich and jeff flake who are making real moves, and it looks like a mecca for that. these insert -- like they might make a move for that. you seem things like the green party that only pop up every four years and run for president, and they don't do the hard work of getting involved in municipal elections, building real party infrastructure, local political clubs. one group i have seen so far that seems to be starting from the bottom rather than just fielding presidential candidates is the dsa, the democratic socialists. these guys are getting involved in city council races across the country. once you start to see that happening, we are five to 10 years out from real third parties making a difference in much larger races. host: in franklin, tennessee, john on the democrats line. caller: hi.

i would like to know about the omni for the -- the nominee for the cia. one thing they haven't talked about is if she does do something that is immoral, she is going to try to cover it up. thingk that is a damaging for her. what do you guys think? host: because we've addressed this topic a couple of times, i would invite you to go to www.c-span.org. that hearing on these kind of topics are all available to you. that is where the hearings are and all these other topics. i don't want to discount your questions. house speaker ryan was talking about this discharge position

concerning the kids under daca. here's what yet to say at the time. rep. ryan: whenever want to turn the floor over to the minority, and i don't want a process that in with a veto. we actually want to solve the daca problem. what you originally try to do is find a two-way bill. we will have to have a bill that is going to be bipartisan and that the president can support. that is what we are working on right now. what is a bill that deals with issuesd the security that can get some democrats and get a presidential signature, going down a path and having some kind of spectacle on the floor that just results in a veto doesn't solve a problem. host: tell us how we got here. anna: this is another example of congressman who are not in leadership trying to force something on the floor.

they have different measure they suggest to solve this daca and border security problem. the understanding is that all democrats would sign on so they would only need about seven more republicans to sign on. like house speaker paul ryan said, he does not want this to happen because that means he loses control of the floor schedule, and you can have democrats voting in favor of a more liberal policy that could get through the house and go on to the senate. under this kind of queen of the hill vote structure they are proposing, the one with the most votes would go on to the senate. it is really interesting to see congressman saying this is important to my district, this is important to my constituents, i am going to use legislative tools i have to enforce action on this. i think it is more than electoral ploy now that they have started the discharge positions, but we will see how it goes. it has gotten some support from republicans.

if it is not too far from getting to the finish line to actually making this post happen . host: ultimately it would have to go to the president. hunter: and i think you might go more open to it -- he might be more open to it and speaker ryan is making it seem like. the speaker has his own reasons not to want this to go forward, but at least one of these measures is the usa act. that surfaced in january as a potential move to avoid the shutdown. at the time, i talked to sources in the white house who pointed out they were having meetings with the president and the author of that bipartisan measure. that was a bill that would have protected daca, something president says he wants to do. it would have conducted a full system assessed and -- full system assessment of border security needs and provided funding for overtime for border security guys. i think at the moment, that one

was missing funding for physical border walls, but both sides have signaled openness, especially if the docket kids were protected. i think paul ryan as maybe less open to the family president. we saw sarah sanders last week when asked the president's legislative item for the year, saying we are still hoping we can get immigration done. i think this a situation with the president might be on the same page of some of these house members who are frustrated with leadership. host: and ultimately the president told congress it would be their problem to fix. hunter: and he is on the hill this week. this is the kind of thing you might weigh in on while he's there. there are a lot of house districts where immigration is a very contentious issue, and he doesn't want to enforce his members to take a vote right before the midterm. this is a strategy that could work, especially if they get behind it.

the house passes legislation of the honda doesn't become law, so i don't think that is a very good reason to not go forward with this effort. host: let's go to bob in ohio on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? here is my concern. it seems like we are spending an awful lot of time in the senate committee investigating the cia director, concerned about the 10 seconds it takes to do the waterboarding. however, i don't hear any of those people address the issue of the 10 or more second it took for those people that jumped out of that towering inferno on 9/11 that certainly had a different outcome than the 10 seconds these people are concerned about , and it isictim still alive. linda on the democrats line. i think we are confusing

civility with opposition. good, healthy opposition is what we are supposed to have with both our leaders, our congress are voters were spies to be on different levels. voters.ongress come our we are supposed to be on different levels. we purposely mispronounce names when we go out of our way to demean others without being overt about it. when we use the language to outright insult. prior toeight years this oval office, civility started to unravel, but we had a leader who did not fall prey to it. he stated above it. now we have a leader who seems to relish in it. unfortunately i am hoping it is unfortunately, i am

hoping it is temporary, the opposition has broken down into just rude and discourteous host: linda in connecticut. again, because we don't with that topic, we do what to take on one more topic of the tweet delivered this morning. "how long do our guests think the mueller event should continue? what was his mandate versus trap anyone they can and squeeze them , driving them into bankruptcy as they go?" we see pushed back to this event specifically, this investigation. stance the white house's as far as what robert mueller has and what he should produce. in the past week you saw the white house cannot more forcefully than they have at any point in calling for this investigation to end. you notably saw my cousin -- saw my present -- saw vice president

mike pence in an early-morning interview say it is time for mueller to wrap it up. i don't see any impression from his side that that is going to happen i think it is an anti-threat. interestingly, -- an empty threat. it is continuing on multiple fronts and expanding. i think this will continue to be a form in the president's side. anna: it is interesting to see how the house and senate have handled this. the intelligence committee and the house, they have issued their report to say there is no evidence of collusion. as far as we are concerned, we can move on. on the senate side, their answer would be that mueller's investigation should go on as long as it needs to. it is not just, what did the president do? it is also preserving the institutions of democracy and making sure we understand exactly how russians rejected this campaign, whether or not

the campaign responded to that and how those used to influence the way americans voted in 2016. it is not just about this president. it is also about making sure that future elections are conducted in a fair way. host: the tactics to this are interesting. last week we had the house freedom caucus chair mark , calling on the government accountability office to look at the funds being spent over the mueller investigation. >> it used to be part of statute. it is certainly within the parameters. it is appropriated funds from congress that we will be sending to actually the gao look at and audit and make sure that those funds are put forth properly, so that letter will be going up. anna: any member -- hunter: >>

any member of congress can do that -- >> any member of congress can do that, but as you know i am chairman of the subcommittee on government operations. gao and others are under that subcommittee, so we will be sending that out? >> the audit for the mueller investigation. >> yeah, because that comes out of a dedicated fund that we called backdoor appropriations. that might be the inside baseball language, but making sure that what we are doing is properly spending that. host: so instead of going after the investigation, instead go after the funds and fiscal accountability. anna: it is not only going after the funds. it is also going after the structure of this investigation. this is something you have seen from republicans, especially in the house, but why there should be a special counsel and the history and why they are trying

to discredit mueller on the team around him. if there is a result that is not favorable to him, he has already qaeda have -- he has artie kind of sown the seeds of distressed in this and can easily dismiss ing results without risk very much in public opinion. hunter: one of the biggest white house strategies we have seen so far as to discredit the people working on this. we have seen this focus on the text messages between these two fbi agents, the allegations counting of the number of people registered in either party even a mueller himself as a republican. i think those are going to be the two fronts the white house uses to attack this probe, but i want to go back to the earlier point because i think is important, separate from what has happened, the intelligence

community has said that russia wants to continue targeting our elections, and that we need to address even possible tampering with voting machines. the real base level of democracy in this country. and we are not talking about it due to the fact that the president is trying to pick this all is a witchhunt. we are not talking about future intervention and what steps we can take. i don't really see anyone in congress making that too much of a focus either. host: we've heard rudy giuliani say several times about the possibility of the president sitting down for an interview. what is the likelihood of that actually happening as it stands today? hunter: well, rudy giuliani has set a lot of things in a couple of weeks. [laughter] but giuliani was brought in as someone who, through his work in in new york,torney does have some familiarity with mueller. someone whored as could broker a speedy end to that. part of that was setting conditions for an interview.

a lot of other legal experts think it could be disastrous for the president to sit down with mueller. i think if this probe gains enough momentum and you see more cooperating with witnesses and the details emerge about finance, babys best result is to negotiate that interview on his best terms there's a lot of asking what his lawyers be in the room, what length of time. i see them pointing toward the negotiated sit-down rather than trying to avoid it. i would be crazy to guess how long it would take to reach this point, but we are seeing a lot of momentum. host: let's go to new mexico, democrats line. caller: hi. thank you guys for being there, and all your work and freedom of the press. let's keep it up. i have a couple of questions. just one, really.

tell me about the current federal judgeships coming up, the nominees this week, i believe. i am trying to keep up with some of the behind-the-scenes activities of this administration, and it is kind of hard, so anything you know about federal judgeships going on coming up, i would appreciate more information. important is really for especially the republican senate this year to try to convert as many judges as possible because they don't know exactly what will happen in november. this is a huge project the tried to appoint as many conservative judges is possible to fill all these positions left open after the obama administration. there's been a discussion as to whether they should focus on confirming as many judges as or run the appropriations process and try to get as many of the appropriations bills through before the end of the fiscal

year in september. i think you are going to see senate republicans trying to do smallerthat they have a , continuing resolution if they need to extend funding on a short-term basis. the want to get as much as base level work congress done as possible, which is passing big spending bills, while at the same time trying to make progress on this priority of the president. host: and this is the president's chance to put his own stamp on the judiciary. hunter: he's already done so. one of the more confidential achievements has been remaking the judiciary, whether you are on whetherepending you view it as a good thing or bad thing. this is clearly a legacy that will continue after president trump. . i think there's a lot of things

that touch on this point on real policy happening in this administration, whether on the foreign front, justices, things like changing legislation on medical prices in this country. we are so often focused on the latest leak or tweet or crazy statements that i think it is tough for viewers like your caller to keep up with the real work of government and the real consequential changes being made every day. host: on the drug announcement from last week, did anybody -- what was the reaction, particularly why now? inter: the reaction i think the pharmaceutical world and among analysts and investors was, you don't have to worry. this is not really don't to change the way we do business. definitely not going to be bad for the companies. which is really interesting, because on the campaign trail that was part of president trump's populism.

i'm going to have the federal government negotiate lower drug prices. that was something totally absent from this order that was announced. i am not clear why he brought it up at this given moment, but it is this interesting thing where you're seeing him take a step that seems to be had off with his campaign promises and would not -- and we are not necessarily talking about it because we are talking about kaylee sadler. host: and the reaction on capitol hill? anna: tackling prescription drug prices is a political winner. politicians on both sides of the i would make this a priority because it is something people want to see. there's a sense in this country that people pay more for health we do in other countries. i think there was a collective sigh of relief from the pharmaceutical industry that this is not going to be the same kind of aggressive action to president proposed last year on the campaign trail. host: from maine on the

independent line, hello. caller: one, there are consequences. here in maine we have cut our welfare rolls. the governor bragged about that. the consequence is that we have more people in food banks and greater food insecurity. i wanted to say that i totally support the mueller probe, but for years i have been living on -- been watching on c-span people protecting job security. yes, the russians are definitely a problem, but the obstacles that we are putting two people significant and really am a so few people vote that that really deforms our democracy. is very troublesome.

as much as the trump's circus is diverting, it is really mitch mcconnell and paul ryan who don't play by the rules so that we do have neil gorsuch on the supreme court instead of president obama's nominee. host: ok. that is interesting. anna: to her point about the food stamp recipients or welfare theficiaries who have seen benefits reduce and are now trying to seek help in other i think house speaker paul ryan would say that is a good thing in some ways because he would point to civil society as really having a role in taking care of the least of these in our country, that it is not government's job. he talks about trying to break the government on poverty reform. he held that up as an example of how religious institutions and

other groups could fill in the gaps that is not necessarily the role of government. i am not sure everyone would agree with that, but it is the ideological point for him. as far as the mueller probe and election security, the democrats on the house intelligence committee last week released 3590 facebook ads. on russia's meddling focused on acebook, it was much broader

than that. faceback is more trackable, that we're talking about it. somebody that uses twitter frequently, i can tell you, they doing a lot of interesting things with your data. suggests en twitter someone i should follow, someone i texted once five years ago. that they have information? a lot of intelligence analysis conjunction aid in with everything else, armies of menting ots were that racial tensions, you know, really inserting themselves into the election and i've already seen what i would consider activity surrounding 2020 candidates and other forward-looking issues. i do not think this issue is going away and think it is typically how we discuss it. host: one more call. go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call and the fellow on there talking about

blankenship, in my opinion, he's a joke for the simple care about the't coal miners at the big branch in raleigh county. the only thing he cared about money. else? anything okay, that is linda from west virginia. just to finish off then air lot things wee talked about, events this week. what is one thing we haven't interested you are in or following that might be interesting for viewers to pay attention to? guest: i don't think we got it all into the embassy in erusalem, we will see the ceremony, i think right after this broadcast. that will be interesting. move president trump made, did fit with the campaign romise, it will have interesting implication. thrilled with this,

pail upset.inians are giving it to them without iscussion, loses american leverage and see if president son-in-law can get meaningful peace talks going to is such a provocation one side. guest: speaking of deals and enegotiation, i would watch nafta this week to see how that plays out. negotiators have to come up with plan pretty soon if they are going to get approved by congress. clock of specific time that has to pass for the different approval steps and running up of against deadlines here. on congress for bloomberg.com, hunter walker reports on the white house and that is nay on congress fornew. we'll have open phones for the next 20 minutes. if you want to get in thoughtos

the day, it's 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans and independents, 202-748-8002. we'll take those in just a moment. >> connect with c-span to personalize the information you get from us. and c-span.org/connect sign up for the e-mail. the program guide is a daily with the most updated prime-time schedule. upcoming live coverage. for word gives most interesting highlight in own with no commentary. the newsletter is an insider authors and ing festivals and the american history t.v. weekly news letter give upcoming programming exploring the nation's past. c-span.org/connect and sign up today.

>> tonight on landmark cases, regents of university of california v. bakke. bakke, a white male was twice rejected admission to medical school, he claimed he was passed over in favor of less qualified applicants and took the university of california system to court. supreme court decision struck down the admissions program and upheld he constitutionality of affirmative action under the 14th amendment. our guests to discuss this case neil catiyal, solit obama ral in the and istration until 2011 randy barnett, constitutional scholar and commentator. atch dlandmark cases tonight 9 eastern on c-span and join the conversation. our hashtag is left-handmark

and follow us at c-span. backgroundources for background on each case. the companion book, a link to the national constitution interactive constitution and c-span.org/landmark cases. >> open phones continue. hoe hoekd /* hoekt phones.re in open tweet us at c-span wj, or post facebook. if you are to go to the state epartment, there is activities today, when it comes to hoping jerusalem.assy of follow that at state.gov. cufollow those activities, they streaming the activities, if you follow that.

talk about that or other topicos own phones. to the phone lines or go twitter feet at c-span wj and facebook.com/c-span. paul is in las vegas, republican line. up on own phones, go ahead. caller: yes. terrfor taking my call. veteran from the navy and i saw a segment on the news this morning. it was thatmber who said it, was putting down trump that ing for we were not very favorable were -- it hat we was a negative comment. democrats would get their act together and start trying to work with the on things that are important and quit cutting down the american people. as i'm concerned the democratic party has gone so far

left that they're all socialists now and they do not report a damn thing. excuse my language, that is my comment. you. host: chase.com, live streaming happening in there. u.s. ambassador to israel speaking. [applause] >> we have among us an xtraordinary gathering of american patriots and israeli leaders, i would like to few.gnize a from host country his excellency revlen, and wishing the best to your wife.

the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, and his wife. of jerusalem mayor beverly.and his wife the speaker of the yuli edelsteine and his wife. the leader of the opposition isaac herzog and his wife. he deputy chief justice of the couhanan melser and eisencott.di rabbi of israel lou. chief rabbi of israel. rabbi of rmer chief israel.

ministers, cabinet members. host: if you want to see more, ambassador to israel, david friedman talking, monitor the events connected to the opening of the embassy in israel. report that 37 -- killed at the gaza border since the last round f protests six weeks ago, according to the ministry of health. the demonstrations were taking opening rs before the of the embassy. he health ministry says 1600 suffered injuries frchlt marlin, in kansas city, missouri, on line.phones, democrat's hi. caller: how you doing, pedro? caters this president to -- first of all, he didn't the popular vote, but i hink he carries the amount of americans that are kind of like neducated and plays to that

base. deter creates chaos to from everything he's doing wrong. yet.ill haven't been -- host: why do you characterize uneducate? ed caller: >> well, not all of them, not them. all of everything he says. if you don't do your research, eye mean, notke00 everything he is doing is bad, good s character is not for the country or the world, i think. ost: let's go to stan, stan is in michigan, independent line. ann arbor, go ahead. caller: response to the caller from maine, in the previous

regarding nomination a of gorsuch to on the supreme court. like to remind her and other democrats, as d ell, this was brighton rule which if the table his been urned, and the democrats were in power in the senate, and there was a chance that going to win the -- democrats were going to presidency, then they would have also held off and not up the nomination of any justice by a sitting republican president. so it is just good to recall hat there was that rule, the biden rule put in place by biden.us vice president the host: this is mike in wheeling,

democrat's line. caller: yes. i just like to make a comment on program they're going to try to cut again. ne thing i'd like people to listen, please go to www.gsa.gov/perdiem. the average senator or house of staffs tative and their and all great amount of federal a day for -- or sorry, $82 per day. gsa.gov.ook on how can they get, how can congressmen get $82 per day to to take hey're going away from people who don't have anything? veteran, vietnam veteran, taxes, my country, paid

paid my own health insurance, i'm 73. i'm disgusted with this. that is mike in wheeling, west virginia calling. in fort pierce, florida, democrat's line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i want to talk about the appointed by s donald trump this year and i'm ooking at the ages of some of them. look like they are not much more than teenagers. those, there e of was appointed by trump this year interrogated by the ongress, he had no experience in that level, he had never kind.any court of any he didn't have experience, couldn't answer the questions sked by the committee and the committee leaders there. why is it that these people i'm listening, that guy that was on trump's omoting donald

appointees? another thing i'm concerned cabinet, ald trump's the people that were there people, promote and to craft legislation. of all these people, all those positions are are being, hey people that are being people that are have no experience in that level and it is showing and donald legislature, everybody is really flapper gasted about he policies he's gotten over since he's been there. host: okay. florida. steven calibury, from the reagan has a piece in the "wall street journal" today bout mueller's investigation say nothing his words, it crosses a legal line. makes.are arguments he at issue is the appointments clause, provides "principal

be appointed by the president with the senate judge renquist, officer, not subject to appointment process because their office was limited in to certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes. is investigating a large number of peep and he will defendants with many ifferent crimes, including as ma manafort's case. is more powerful today than any of the 96 u.s. like eys, behaving principal officer," and more is in the op ed section this morning. washington, d.c. on this open phones, ken, independent line, hi. caller: good morning. are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: great.

as close ely this is to -- stage you can imagine and wrong.s completely you know, when one side has stones and rocks and mortar and side has rockets and missiles nd tanks and and you're still supporting a certain side against another ide, you are supporting that agenda. it is unfortunate because the state of israel didn't come 1948 or something around there, and it is land that isplaced a lot of people and made them refugees from their own land. it is unfortunate this president is no different than another land deal for them there s something else going for him he's trying to -- another agenda behind everything he does. a smoke screen. 37 people get killd and make it seem as though it is a clash. how can it be a clash when you have rocks and stones, it is not kind of unfair fight in my opinion. washington,

202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans.for and independents 202-748-8002. the new york times this morning takes a look at education department when it to policy for profit universities. danielle ivory, during the final months of the obama team expanded to include a dozen lawyers and investigationors look intoing recruitment and ob-placement claims at several institutions. devry investigation ground to a summer, later in the smoke devos named julian as the team's new supervisor. mission has been scaled back investigate loan opcasion and looking at cases, the current

former employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity from the aliation department. new york time system where you find that, available on their website. kentucky, langley, jane.ky, next from >> caller: hi, my name is jane brock. veteran.o the amen for what you have done to serve our country. he only president that has stepped in to take care of our eterans, our military, our policemen and get our country back is trump. i hope and trump and pray that everybody will vote for him again. for our country. curry, illary clinton, hey were trying to destroy our country, they were starving our veterans, taking away from everybody. on the s people living streets. i say amen to donald trump. and i vote for him again

hope this country will do like in theree and vote him forever. host: to steve in winter haven, florida, republican line. caller: yes, based on what has een going on the past two weeks, history repeats itself, money n repeats itself, repeats itself and so does laws. scripture in john, 15:7-8.ion, chapter 7, the beast, four countries, iran, north a, korea and to the united states. that was the only nuclear crisis. host: how do you know that portion of the bible pecifically deals with those country? caller: because it is written, based on different bibles. ost: spells out the countries specifically? caller: correct. if you understand how the words it is also under

section 8, mentioned, smoke of israel, judaism was gone, od told no man allowed in jerusalem until the seven angels work.lowed to have last host: okay, don in south carolina. democrat's line. don, hi. caller: hi, pedro, i want to comment on the opening of the embassy in jerusalem. lindsey r, senator graham is there, i believe. i think texas senator cruz is there, i do not understand why it 're supporting it and really is disheartening to me as citizen that na lindsey graham is there. there is nobody else there for the united states, it alienating us from nato aa ies, not a single european

country is there, they are claping and smiling with the really pushed it in paliile gym while over 38 killed, ans have been riots in the gaza strip tis awful. host: what is your personal disagreement with it is embassy being in jerusalem itself? caller: it is like we're not the g the palestinians in original effort for peace, they would have a peace. i believe the east side of erusalem, they want for their capital and even, i'm not sure it was, kind of agreed that he thought jerusalem should an international capital to andpoint of allowing israel he palestinians the two-state

solution should occur to claim jerusalem equally and they it ld be able to claim equally there is no way we will get any kind of peace andle with such a one-sided for the moment thinking. host: okay, let's go to randall's t line from town, maryland this, is edward. caller: good morning. c-span and thanks for taking my call. the mment is basically on extreme partisanship going on. anybody is 100% conservative or 100% liberal, we believe in certain thing when is we get rhetoric like -- the electorate believing ike make america great, like a caller just said, obama and hillary clinton trying to destroy america. we get false facts like the iran nuclear deal, like we gave them

no, we gave their own money back. and little inaccuracys talking points that get pushed and have people actually so, ving it, so much someone just said, we should life. t him president for it is a scary slope we're going by, before the conservatives the moral -- threpresented morals and religious right and rus president that can seem to overlook. daily that can actually be proven, but seem to on partisan based loyalties. host: okay, okay. bend, indiana, jame system next. caller: well, hopefully god is overseeing all of this and trump netanyahu, hopefully the iblical passage where jesus

throws the money changes from the temple will come to fruition. ashameded to myself to pay federal taxes to provide israel ith state of the arms weapons counter protesters throwing rocks and stones. netanyahu will eventually get theirs, matthew 19:24, rich man will have the east chns at kingdom of heaven like a camel slipping through the eye of a needle. teresa, dallas, texas, democrat's line. hi. teresa, calling basically tis an idea that i that we have ink brilliant people in the world ought to do away ith the democrats and republic and everybody and hire just basically the most brilliant to analyze all of the , cts and situations

strategists and analytical accountants and whatever. those ow do you choose peep snel caller: our democrat and republican people do not seem to all they do is fight and argue and i think if doing this alists work i think that the people for the facts ande on not on whoever is getting the sent to them. ost: teresa, can i ask you a couple question? caller: sure. host: how would you choose those people then? basically, i would choose them like they would be, be a ould not be able to party affiliate, they were people who -- that e knew that were brilliant in their field. host: you think that --

some kind of, we have people all over the world that specialized in accounting -- host: got it. made that point, second question, don't you think people would fight, even if they don't a political party attached to them? caller: no. job is only their to -- do nothing but analyzation strategy and what have you, is.t is all their job and then all you are vote og facts. the you're not voting who gave you the most money or whatever. basically 100% fact. you. got hoe in baltimore. independent line. hi. caller: just a simple comment the ding the opening of embassy. n ukraine, on the so-called

palestinian side, they lost war, when ssary 1967 the liberated the area as spoils simulated into the long established. host: from mississippi, republican line, next up is hi there. caller: yes, i was calling about -- the israel put out leaflet to tell the come to the not to fence because it would cause them to have to shoot at them to their home. team david declared of israel 3000al years ago and people stick to divorced side, like a couple. the husband's family sticks with he husband's family and the

wife's family will stick with her and have her side. clinton passed a law, to capital of salem as israel by 1999 to pass it and no president has done it yet. in miami, florida, independent line. caller: yes, hello. ask why we don't hear more about israel's influence on the united states, of the three e billionaires who pave the way for trump's iran deal withdrawal, sheldon elderson, singer who, supported trump with over 30 or in donations to get he iran deal squashed and this turmoil now that is go og there n israel with the embassy opening, it is a shame because hese people really wanted conflict for benefit on -- disgusting and most of the are ignorant of

all this stuff. they don't know what they are talking about. hematocrit from helo, hawaii. tribune herald talking about the going out there. connection with eruptions and certain things happen whenning activity.vcanic ki ing us is aliza larson, t.v., reporter and producer. good morning. k-d morning. could you tell us a little bit volcanic activity and what is go og as far as keep people safe there? guest: yes tis an ongoing issue, more of these vents are ground, what e fissures.s are calling lava is appears from underground, spewing into the residential area.

who live on that part of the big island are continuing to be evacuated. they are being told to grab whatever belongings they can and safe spot. c stantly being monitored 24/7, itself or reat, lava sulfer dioxide smell. the big te a scene on island. host: as part of that goal, what this eral involvement at level? uest: it looks like that the president has agreed to do, help out with some federal emergency right now is more of a state effort. the national guard is here, helping residents. i was on the big island last week, oahu.ack on the governor of hawaii is

the president and as it him informed developed. host: what have we seen and what could face the hawaiians in more activity continue? more than his point, three dozen homes or structures damaged by lava, andher completely burned or -- dents down slope have shown that this was a couple long process, trying to rebuild and trying to make sure for peep ion is safe toll return to their home. opportunity to talk with a couple families who had to leave their homes or whose

no longer exist. it is going to be a process to their lives back together. right now, mostly focusod people are ng sure okay and they have the necessary items that they need. injury, far as physical have we seen reports of people activity itself or the gases you spoke about or anything along that nature? guest: the only one that i'm aware of is that some officials have reported activity itself some daches or getting ill from the gases. no injuries from the lava far as i'm aware, but as i said, it is still a developing situation. that will be making sure no one gets hurt is priority, still. host: eliza larson, what can we xpect over the next 24 to 48 hours then? guest: just, that is a great question because we're not sure. the there are some warnings, when i was there, it was very

quiet. people were just considering, maybe i'll be able to go back items.day to collect the police in the area has been allowing people to go back in things from their homes, if it is -- they deem it place. but then the next minute a new eruption may occur or an earthquake there have been some significant earthquakes, as well. constant, everyone is on high alert constantly and just aiting and waiting to see what happens next. social media has been a great has been somehere people on the ground there, ocal people posting videos saying i'm on such-and-such street and you see behind them opening in the ground lava is spewing out of or they will post something, i'm -- steam rising out of this crack, stay away this area. update people and that has is unpredictable.

we don't know when the events occur. know if they're going to occur, it is just paying attention to the civil defense, updates from police, to an official source. it is just keeping monitoring twitter accounts, e-mail messages, monitoring any message send out. host: eliza larson joining us kitv is the station she reports for, reporter and producer. up early for ting us. guest: any time. host: joining us to talk about volcanic activity in hawaii and what it means from the federal perspective is charles mandeville, with the u.s. geological survey, volcano coordinator.ram good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. is the usgs?

of t: within the department interior, whose responsibility o bring key information to the american public, as well as land managers, stake holders and all agencies about and the general geology of the nation. in this case, the volno