u.s. ambassador to russia and then we talked to wall street reporter william holden about the trump administration's trade policies and congressman mo brooks about the one-year anniversary of the mueller investigation. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: good morning and it's thursday, may 17, 2018. the house returns at 10:00 a.m. today. the senate meets at 9:30 and is going to hold a final vote on the nomination of gina haspel to be the next director of the c.i.a. we begin this morning, marking the one-year anniversary of robert mueller's appointment as special counsel to oversee the russian investigation. one year in, we want to hear your thoughts on robert mueller, his ongoing probe and how close you've been following it all

year. give us a call at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media, on twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj and on facebook, it's acebook.com/cspan. host: it was one year ago, may 7, 2017, that rod rosenstein appointed former f.b.i. director robert mueller to oversee the russia investigation. since then, 19 people and three companies have been indicted in the probe. five have pleaded guilty. 13 of those who have been charge right hand russian who is have been accused of meddling in the 2016 election. here's a few of the headlines today from papers here in washington, d.c.

went to hear your thoughts. again, democrats, it's 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we're going to be having this conversation for the first half-hour of our program today. but also we'll return to this discussion again throughout our program. pat's up first in dallas, texas, a ren -- republican. pat, good morning. caller: i'm a little bit disgusted with the mueller investigation. it's been going on actually, the f.b.i. started it october of 2016. and so it's been going on over a year. and i thought they were instigating about russia -- investigating about russia interfering in our elections but

it doesn't seem to be about that. it seems to be about trump in trying to indict everybody around him. and not anything to do about russia. i think it should be over with and i think -- i saw a poll, i believe. i don't know what channel, that said that there's a majority of the american people that also wanted over with. so that's my comment. thank you. host: pat, i'll pick up on a few of your points. it was an april washington-abc talked aboutl that the poll and while robert mueller has been apoint or was pointed -- appointed a year ago today, the f.b.i. has been investigating the trump campaign and possible connections to russia for well over that time. it was actually the summer of

2016 when they began looking into those possible connections. that story, the lead story of today's "new york times" today. how the f.b.i. embarked restricted secrecy on trump's teams trails. within hours of open the investigation into the trump campaign's ties to russia in the summer of 2016, the f.b.i. dispatched a pair of agents to london that a handful of officials were kept in the dark host: they knew it by its code name, crossfire hurricane.

the name, a reference to the rolling stones lyric i was born in a crossfire hurricane was a prediction that continue to tear shingles off to the bureau. getting your thoughts on the one-year anniversary of the mueller probe. mark is in philadelphia, pennsylvania, a democrat. good morning. caller: morning, john. host: go ahead. caller: yeah, i think as a democrat, i mean, i think mueller should wrap it up too. i mean, this thing is going on so long. you know, come out what you have, ok? it's obstruction if that's the only thing you have, come out with it. i don't know where he's going all over the place. and to be perfectly honest, i mean, i was just reading yesterday in the "new york times" that even, you know, when you have rosenstein on a program on c-span, rosenstein even said that a sitting president can't

be indicted. i'm wondering as a practical matter, what's the whole point here? i don't care what mueller comes up with. i don't see any democrats that can beat president trump in 2020. so i'm beginning to wonder what is the point of this whole exercise? host: mark, on whether a president can be indicted, the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani, having that discussion with a few reporters yesterday including some from "the washington post". giuliani saying that mueller has told him that a sitting president can't be indicted. mueller indicating in a meeting that he concurred with a view that a sitting president cannot be indicted under past legal opinions issued by the justice department. giuliani told "the washington post" most experts had assumed mueller would follow the guideline that bars such a prosecution. the two opinions written in 1974 and in 2000 argue that a president must be immune from

criminal prosecution from his executive branch while in office. host: paul is in california, a republican. go ahead. caller: yeah. my thing is i don't understand how they can go -- i mean, supposedly all the information to they went after him gin was that the clinton-backeds do area nverified information. from what i understand, they can't -- without the application

on these things. i also -- my understanding was that they're using the c.i.a. that were stationed in europe to py on them here. host: what do you make of those result last year? 19 people indicted in the mueller investigation by people pleading guilty. 13 of those who have been charged. -- are russians accused of meddling in the election. caller: now, how is that connected to trump? host: those are what it's come from the investigation so far. the russia probe. caller: but it doesn't connect trump to anything except for the porn star. host: so do you think this investigation is worth it? caller: no. well, i think it's illegal to begin with honestly and i don't understand how the congress is

asking these guys for critical -- show us for what you've got. they're not giving them what my understanding is that they legally have to. hillary clinton is throwing up her nose at everyone when they asked for the server for all the -- that she was using that shouldn't be using and she never did get it. host: one of those members of congress who wants mueller to show us what he's got is congressman mo brooks, a republican from alabama. he's going to be joining us in our 9:00 hour today. so stick around for that conversation. you can hear viewers questions rom him. bradley is next from atlanta. go ahead. caller: i'm extremely concerned about donald trump and what happened during the election. this doesn't have anything to do

with hillary clinton. this has to do with our president just being a criminal. like obama in the last couple of elections ago, they used a facebook app to do a survey and by doing that, they were able to get almost 100,000 close to maybe 500,000 people to get their data and then formulate a way to target individual voters. well what happened was cambridge analytica did the same thing with the survey but in their terms of service, they were able to get close to millions and millions of these people's data to use target voting. so basically what had happened was this was a gigantic voter suppression campaign and everything was fine but if cambridge analytica or jerry kushner or any of them gave that data to that russian firm, that research center, they were able

to amplify their voter suppression tactics by using a foreign government to come in to help target at people, that is collusion. and then you have the russian hacker targeting hillary clinton's e-mails. and then also using those to put them out and amplifying them to that internet research firm, that's collusion. our president is just a common criminal if you think that a sitting president can't be indicted, well then what's stopping him from committing crime after crime after crime through bribery and everything else? no man is above the law. host: you talk about cambridge analytica, former cambridge analytica employee christopher wylie was on capitol hill yesterday testifying before the senate. i'm sure you saw it. but if others are interested, you can check it out at c-span.org. emily is in san francisco, republican. go ahead. caller: yes. you know, i just wish that mr. mueller would stop this.

it's been so long, a year of distracting from all the goodness the president has done for our country. and it continues to defend us against all the enemies in this country. the democrats, i don't understand what they intend do to win this election because they offer us only to take away the tax reduction. they offer to bring in people, no borders, let everybody that wants to come in come in and we have to support them. and when they do that, they end up hurting the american people because i help the poor. and i can tell you there are people out there that have no food no, homes. and these are american people. they are african-americans, they're white people, all over this country that need help. so if the democrats think that

this is helping, it isn't. i used to be a democrat. but the way things are going in this country, especially with the people who have been hired to help us to obey the law, and they are not obeying the law. so really hope -- i really hope that mr. mueller end this. and we waited and waited for something to be wrong. there is nothing that he's accused of. collusion is not a law breaking. host: that's emily in california saying a year's too long. karen on twitter says just one year? let mueller finish his job. if president trump at all did nothing wrong, he may welcome the conclusion of the investigation so the witch hunt will be over. carol writes in do we know how much money mueller is paid to looking into president trump? i don't know how much he's paid

but once that from a senior fellow at the heritage foundation talked about how much money has been spent on the investigation, the figure he cites is $10 million in his column for fox news. his column, it's been one year since mueller began his investigation. it's past time for it to wrap up. robert in charlestown, rhode island, a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, john. thank you. like the woman prior to me, i was a democrat and i've switched over. but i want to tell you, you want to see the president under collusion and now i got to tell you. you want collusion? here's the story, john. and no one talks about it. he wanted d him if to be the f.b.i. director and president trump said no, i didn't want him to be. he didn't want me to be. the next day, rod rosenstein appoints him as special counsel. the reason was this because

under the f.b.i. director, mural under all of -- mueller under obama's years, they wanted to hide what they did with hillary clinton. the d.o.j., the f.b.i., were all involved in this. they were trying to hide themselves. let me tell you something. you have to be braindead not to know you've got mueller, rod rosenstein and horowitz because i don't think horowitz's report is going to tell you much. it's a secular level. collusion is what that is. hat's what host: christopher wray was on capitol hill testifying about the russian investigation. he defended the integrity of the f.b.i. from that. here's a bit from that hearing yesterday. >> but the agents that i have worked with since being on the job have inspired me every day

in terms of their professionalism, their integrity, their courage and their commitment to doing the right thing in the right way which i think is the key. >> you said that your confirmation hearing the russia investigation was not a witchhunt. been about 10 months here. far more immerse than here. is that still your opinion? >> yes. host: that hearing with christopher wray. you can also go back and watch that hearing in its entirety at c-span.org. we're talking about the one-year anniversary of the mueller probe. bonnie is in maryland, republican, go ahead. caller: how much does trump get paid each time he goes to mara

largo? how much is he getting paid when they're doing the new -- in indonesia? i can't believe it. why can't they pruitt him? everybody can get prosecuted. i don't think he has the money that he claims. but once he gets out of the office, he will be a billionaire. e's a crook. i'm 74. i didn't vote for president. i voted for all the other but i didn't vote for him because he's a baby. he acts like a little child.

host: bonnie, why are you a republican? caller: i'm hoping that -- well, see, i like the republicans, what they used to and i'm hoping that they'll get back to the way -- because paul ryan, he was doing good but then all of a sudden, it seems like all of them switched or so worried about their job they're not worried about the people. that's what i think. and it's such -- it should be -- it shouldn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican. it should be you're in there to work for the people. and the only way you can get somebody out of office to be -- is when they leave in the time box. he's got his own men in there that, i mean, they stay in there and then you've got donald trump. donald trump acts like a little

12-year-old boy. host: got your point. jim this pittsburgh, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. -- i think -- i'm zusted disgusted. it started over russia. and i don't want a prostitute or hooker or whatever she is and if people got convicted -- [indiscernible] because under investigated by reporters that caught all this on their videos. mueller -- [indiscernible] i'll tell you what, this thing is disgusting and everything is -- and it doesn't have to do with russia. host: tim, you're going in and out there. i believe you brought in stormy daniels in your comments there or at least referenced the stormy daniel, the payment to stormy daniels through trump's

personal attorney. the subject of plenty of news reports yesterday. because in a new document, president trump reported reimbursing michael cohen, his personal lawyer, more than there are 100,000 last year that cohen paid before the 2016 election to ensure the silence of an adult ilm actress, stormy daniels. host: dave in stow, ohio, line for independents. go ahead. caller: hi, i'd like to remind everybody that iran contra took six and a half years.

benghazi took four years. clinton's e-mails took two years. and bill clinton's investigation took two and a half. so all these people saying just fold up the tent when a hostile foreign power interfered in this election and now it's what the senate bipartisan intel committee agrees with and we're just going to walk away like oh, don't worry about it, until next time. it makes no sense. host: what about the caller earlier who said mueller needs to put up or shut up? that he needs to show that he has something at this point? would you agree with that? caller: if mueller came out and said something, it would make a big brouhaha that what is he doing? he's not supposed to do. they're supposed to keep investigation secret. i'll tell you what. if before the election, if they

would came out with the trump investigation at the same time they came out with clinton's investigation, he never would have been hired. so thanks for taking my call. host: the call dave made he makes reference of the senate intelligence committee report. that committee determined that this is intelligence committee was correct in stepping russian interference in the 2016 presidential election with the help of helping then candidate donald trump, contradicting the findings of the house republicans on their intelligence committee and their report released last month. the story from "the washington post" noted that it marks the second of four interim findings that it will disclose before tackling the more consequential collections on whether or not president trump colluded with russia. allegations the president has denied and sought to discredit. helen in wilson, north carolina,

republican. go ahead. caller: yes. i voted for trump and if he had not gotten president, we probably would be in a deep depression. then everybody would be happy. as far as the mueller investigation, i think it should be over. it all boils down to money. the lawyers he's hired, a democrat, they're probably costing the taxpayers $20 million for mueller. so they keep on carrying about trump. he's done more for this country than anyone in the last 30, 40 years. so, let him do his job. and stand behind him. thank you. host: the one figure on the cost of the investigation that we cited this morning is $10 million. i have seen that $20 million figure cited as well. i'll try to get a third source

for you on the total cost of that as we continue this discussion on the "washington journal." kenneth this pennsylvania, line for democrats. kenneth, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: doing well. caller: did you read the comment this morning that rudy giuliani says we're torturing the president? how could we possibly be torturing the president if he's innocent? that's all i have to say. host: todd in georgia, an independent. go ahead. caller: how are we doing this morning? here's the real story. you got -- [indiscernible] the mueller investigation is even talked to him. but his connection to -- and these particular knows that the russia and hacking group has hacked john and hillary clinton's e-mails. those are tied together. there's your collusion right there.

don jr. did not call on donald trump and tell him? that's his lap dog. they're closer than you know david and goliath. they call, i'm sure he knew something about it. there is collusion going on. if you're worried about the money, we can take the money that donald trump is making off of his golfing trips that were costing the taxpayers for him to go golfing every weekend at his resort. the money he's making there to pay for the collusion campaign that mueller's running. i think there's more to i than this. basically, we have a -- hijacked on election. we have people like fox news who basically do not tell you the truth and then you get up and talk radio saying the same their tv and these people buy into it. and it's just sad. and the fact of the matter is america is going backwards. there was collusion. the russians did help donald trump win. he was and is going to be guilty of money laundering to the

russian ole gators. - ol gators. -- oligarches. we hen to deutsche bank where this is an investigation of laundering money for russian billionaires. there is a podcast on n.p.r. called embedded. have those people on. they are doing a fantastic series. and i just know that -- the file they run and listening to their embedded series that n.p.r. does. and you can talk about the collusion and the russian investigation and who's titled to who and who does what. they do a fantastic job. host: i appreciate the suggestion. a few seconds left on the first segment on the jurrell. we -- jurrell.

-- "journal." e will have michael mcfaul taking us into our 8:00 hour. at 9:00 this morning, we'll be joined by congressman mo brooks, republican from alabama, one member who's been calling for an end to the mueller probe. there's more opportunities to have this discussion this morning. yesterday morning on the "washington journal," we spent a lot of time focusing on the net nutrientity vote. here's the story on that vote. that resolution was approved in the senate yesterday the resolution targeting the f.c.c.'s vote in december to repeal its net neutrality rules. it is unclear what state may await the measure in the house.

f.c.c. chairman agey pie was leading the effort to lead it. pai said it's disappointing that senate democrats forced this vote through a narrow margin. a few minutes left in this segment to get your thoughts on the one-year anniversary of the mueller probe. nate's been waiting in lansing, michigan, line for democrats. nate, good morning. caller: hey, how are you doing? i would just like to ask that the republicans to take a look at all the meetings that the trump campaign has been happening with -- having with the russians. and what are they meeting with all these russians for? to get advice on election? every time you turn around, they was going all over the world to meet with russia.

are they meeting with russia to find out how should we run our campaign? what can donald trump do to win a fair and pre-election? they don't have elections in russia. so why is it every time we turn around, they're meeting with the russians all over the world but it's just -- oh, we just want to meet with them to talk. host: details of that high profile meeting at trump tower in 2016 released yesterday after documents were put out from the senate judiciary committee. and their review of that meeting and the trump associates involved in that meeting. trump junior tells investigator he can't recall if he told his ather. chuck grassley ordered the release of six transcripts

wednesday. a lot of that humbles you'll be seeing in your papers this morning. linda is next. caller: many of the callers that spend for an investigation at the federal level. i want to say that since they are making all of this investigations at this point, we haven't found anything -- in the indictment, i just want to bring some of that expertise. millions of dollars to new york and start making some investigations here of where i might might as well going. a lot of our citizens in new york are being injured by these agency heads in new york and i want to make that suggestion that on our level, at the state level, bring some of the expertise here to new york and start making some investigations and probes. and then maybe we'll still could -- as new yorkers. thank you. host: that's linda in new york. one more on that trump tower

meeting and those transcripts that were released yesterday. we mentioned the ones that were released by the educator committee. those are available at c-span.org if you want to check them out for yourself. a link on our homepage to those transcripts. you can review them and take a look through. also in just the last few minutes, president trump with his first tweet of the day on this topic that we've been talking about. the one-year anniversary of the mueller probe. congratulations, america. the president writes. we are now into the second year of the greatest witchhunt in american history. and there is still no collusion and no obstruction. the only collusion was what was done by democrats who were unable to win in an election despite the spending of far more money." george is a democrat in warren, michigan. george, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. of course he should -- we should continue his investigation. we have had five americans who e pleaded guilty and for a

rick gates and the manaforts, the very first item that mueller charged him with was crimes against the united states of america. i think republicans are the most un-american group of people i have ever seen or heard in my life in this country. i mean, they're siding with russia. they don't care if russia interfered in our elections to get trump elected. they don't care about all tease russians, all of a sudden, names popping out of thin air. it's like dozens and dozens of them. who's ever heard of all tease russians before? none until trump and his group got control of the white house.

host: your criticism about republicans, are you talking about congressional republicans or do you mean all republicans in america? caller: no, most of them. all these people you hear calling in apparently don't care that there was a foreign power interfering in the election of the united states president. host: that's dora from michigan. one more note on scheduling for today on capitol hill. c-span's craig kaplan noting hat the house is holding a brief meeting today. including the homeland security security and f.b.i. director christopher wray. that's going to do it for this segment of the "washington journal" today. up next, we will be joined by former u.s. ambassador to russia michael mcfaul. he will be here to discuss his

new book "from cold war to hot peace." and later, we will turn our discussion with william mauldin of the "wall street journal." stick around for those cushions. we'll be right back. >> sunday, william hitchcock on his book "the age of eisenhower: america and the world in the 1950's." >> i call it the disciplined presidency. in eisenhower, the man that he was a disciplined man, a great athlete. when he was young, an organizized man in every respect but that's how he ran the white house too. he was extremely organized and a lot of people, especially the young senator, future president john kennedy kind of criticized eisenhower's stodgyness for being so disciplined and organized and predictable. but for eisenhower, it meant that when crises came, he had a plan. he knew who to turn to.

he used to say plans are worthless but planning is everything. so you're always thinking what crisis might erupt and we should be thinking about it. so he was very systematic in the way he governed. he met the press every week. he did -- he chaired the national security council every week. and he had his thumb on the government he trusted the process. he believed the federal government could work well if it was well led. >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and

around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: from boston now, we're joined by former u.s. ambassador to russia michael mcfaul. he is current lay professor of political science at stanford university, author of the new book, "from cold war to hot peace." ambassador mcfaul, i appreciate you joining us this morning. how should a u.s. ambassador define success in their efforts to represent the united states overseas? guest: depends on what era you're in. if you're there at the collapse of the soviet union when ambassador matlock was there, it was much easier because moment item is in your favor between the united states and the soviet union. and it's all a very cooperative time. when you're there when i was there at a period of increased confrontation between the united

states and russia, when vladimir putin came back as president, you're mostly playing defense. you're mostly trying to take the edge off of a lot of bad things that happen. so context matters a lot. and one should never overestimate the role of a u.s. ambassador. much bigger factors are at play than what one individual could do at any one time. host: in the end, would you say you're successful as u.s. ambassador to russia? caller: of course. [laughter] ow could i answer otherwise? i was a political appointee. i'm not a career diplomat. i worked for three years at the white house for president obama. he asked me to go out and do this. i do think we accomplished some important things. we reduced the timing it took to get a visa to below 30 days. it's creeped up around 300 days now. and i think the biggest thing i did that was unique was i

engaged with russian society in a very aggressive way. engage with all aspects of russian society to explain to them what our policy was what, the obama administration's foreign policy was. but also what america is. because at the time that i was ambassador, there was a lot of misconception about what america is and there was a lot of misconceptions about what we were doing in the world and in russia. and so i took that assignment very seriously. i speak russian.

i've lived in russia many times before i became ambassador. but i engaged on twitter. i was one of the first ambassadors to be on twitter. i engaged on all kinds of different media, traveled a lot. and by the end of my time the, i think i did touch a lot more russians than your average ambassador would do. host: the book timed, "from cold war to hot peace: an american ambassador in putin's russia." from the book, you write out of the cold war, the hot peace tragically but perhaps necessarily seems here to stay. so define a hot peace and why do you see it as here to stay when it comes to the u.s. and russia? caller: yeah, i liberally used this phrase hot peace to echo the cold war but not say it's cold war 2.0 like a lot of analysts are doing that today. it's not the cold war. ere are some things that are similar but we no longer have a

quantitative nuclear arms race but we do have a qualitative nuclear arms race which is more dangerous. we no longer have an idealle struggle mean communism and capitalism but i do think we but an ideological battle, an idealle struggle between putin and western liberal thinks he is the leader of the conservative christian orthodox world against the decadent lib wall west. and by the way, he's investing many resources, i would say billons of dollars of resources to help propagate those ideas round the world. there was never annexation of

territory. that ended with world war ii. t's back to the hot peace. cyber warfare, that's something we didn't have in the cold war. i think it's very dangerous in the hot peace and it's going to get a lot more dangerous. and sanctions throughout the entire cold war. the united states never put major political figures or economic figures in the soviet union on the sanctions list. host: when did you first meet vladimir putin and what was your first impression of him? guest: i met him a long time ago. i met him in the spring of 1991. at the time he was deputy mayor in st. petersburg in leningrad at the time. he worked for a democratic reformist. i was there on an american

non-governmental organization called the national democrat institute and we were there to help them, educate them how in a democratic society city councils ratify and approve a city budget. pretty boring stuff. i don't have a strong impression of him. i would have never in a million years have said after that meeting that he was going to be a president of russia. he did not have that kind of charismatic personality. and we didn't debate. there was already rumors back then that he had worked for the k.g.b. and i remember us debating has he changed his views and now is working for this democratic reformer or is them and o spy on watch what he was doing? in time, it was not clear. host: why are you banned from russia? guest: well, after russia

annexed territory ukraine and supported separatist in eastern ukraine, the obama administration put on a series of sanctions against russian government officials and some russian business people and they responded. and they put some americans officials and americans not -- non-officials like myself, pause i was already a professor at stanford. and so that's why i am on the sanctions list. the last ambassador by the way to be on that sanctions list was a man by the name of george kenan. so i'm in good company but it's tragic company because for most of my adult life, i've been going back and forth to the soviet union and russia. i've lived there many times. i used to do research there. so it was important for me to go there. and now i've been out of the country for four years. that's the longest i've been outside of russia since 1983. host: "from cold war to hot peace" is the name of the book.

former u.s. ambassador to russia michael mcfaul with us. we're about the next half-hour on the "washington journal," getting your calls and comments. democrats, 202-748-8000 is the number. republicans, one-year anniversary. independents, 202-748-8002. ambassador mcfaul joining us rom boston this morning. glen is next. caller: i like to talk about the last administration which you worked for was pretty much a tyrannical government. and russia, you guys worked -- you worked with loretta lynch to get a special, a special visa for the russian lawyer to help try and subvert an american election. to go against the american people. you're being real flexible after

the election, correct? you worked with the russians for years through probably the clinton foundation help setting up that thing over there in russia where you guys could make money over there and do all kinds of different things, give our secrets away, our internet secrets and all this and spy on americans. host: got your point, glen. let's give the ambassador a chance to respond. guest: yeah, i think glen is referring to the lawyer that met with the trump campaign officials in june during the campaign. i don't know how she got a visa. most certainly that would not happen at my level. but that's a good question. we should know how she got her visa. but let's be very clear. nobody set up those gentlemen to meet with her. they received an e-mail from one of their intermediary saying that she has some very

interesting information on secretary clinton and they said donald jr. trump said that's fantastic. let's meet. nobody forced them to meet with that russian delegation. they all thought they were getting some very important information to help them win their election. nd most certainly, president putin wanted candidate trump to win for very rational reasons, by the way. because candidate trump says things during the election. he hasn't delivered on the, by the way. there were promises but he said things that were of interest to vladimir putin. he said for instance, he would lift sanctions. he said he would look into recognizing crimea as part of russia. he was tough on natea. and he never spoke about democracy or human rights during the campaign. whereas secretary clinton said the exact opposite on all those

fronts. it was rational for president putin to want to see president trump win but he went much farther, of course, and took many measures, multiple -- i would call it a comprehensive strategy to try to help candidate trump win. whether it would matter or not in the margins, i don't know but the intention was pretty clear. host: when asked to the question were we giving secrets on the russians? of course that's categorically false no. american, democrat or republican who works for the united states of america would ever do that. that's called treason. that's called -- those are just things that neither the obama administration did and i have full confidence that the trump administration is no doing that with russia today as well. host: glen made torrance the conference ity -- on march 26, 2012. can you put that statement in

context, explain when they were talking about and why the president would say that? guest: yeah, i was there. it was a meeting in seoul, south korea. and at the end of it, they had a one-on-one and at the time, the russians wand us to cooperate on missile defense cooperation. they wanted to work together with us on missile defense. and the president said i can't -- i don't want to engage on this until after my election. and then that was supposed to be a private conversation, by the way. they got picked up by a microphone. interestingly, there were two things that they talked about in that private conversation. the other one was him telling him to stop messing around with me, personally. at the time they were attacking me with a lot of disinformation, fake news, the things that americans have heard about now, i was the target of that.

they were accusing me at the time of trying to overthrow the utin regime. at one time, a video circulating suggesting that i was a pedophile and the president was pushing back. he was saying storm warning stop being so bridge present and saying these false things about my ambassador. unfortunately for president obama, that comment didn't get picked up the other one did. host: what's the russian television series "sleepers" about? [laughter] guest: well i confess i haven't watched it. i've seen snipts of it. it's kind of an echo of our television show "the americans" if you ever watched "the americans." and by the way, i helped to give birth to that program because i was parts of the team that did the spy swap back in 2010 when we gathered up all of these sleeper cells, as we call them of russians that were living in

america undercover pretending to be americans. and they with respect spying back then, by the way. they were getting ready to spy. they were under deep cover, penetrating our society and the idea was later in their careers, they would begin to report back home. and so the "sleepers" is a play of that but inside russia and the american ambassador, by the way, looks like me, has blond hair. i'm told is a pretty blonde that they want to echo that was mcfaul because that was the role that they wanted to assign to the-to-me when i was u.s. ambassador. somebody trying to run spice and give money of the opposition to overthrow the regime. host: bob this baldwinville, massachusetts, line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. mcfaul. i guess my question for you would be you are one of the --

went through one of the worst administrations that we've ever had, ever. i heard somebody on this show the other day saying that mr. trump is the worst president we've ever had. how could that be? your president was in there for eight years and accomplished no thing. not a thing. he destroyed all of our foreign relations with everybody. i mean, come on. he created isis. it was his problem. he made them happen. he pulled out our soldiers and then isis happened. and i mean, even with the iraq war. oh, they didn't have weapons of mass destructions. democrats held up any kind of inspection for the guys for many years. he had plenty of time to dump -- host: bob, what's the question? guest: yeah, what's the question? caller: you work for -- host: caller on the independent line. that's interesting. caller: and your next person was not a very good person either. and you make it sound like you guys accomplished something and

you didn't accomplish anything. you didn't help the people over there in croatia when they get attacked. host: got your point, bob. ambassador mcfaul? guest: that's the independent line, huh? well, bob, we disagree. i radically disagree with the idea that president obama was the worst president ever. if we had more time, we can go through, i think, some great things that we did on the domestic side including health care reform without which we would be in a much worse play, including taking us out of the brink of disaster. when we came into the white house, we were in an economic recession, deeper than any time since the depression in the 1930's. and it was president obama and his economic team that took is out of that and handed to the next president, the incredible growth economic, economic growth we have today. but on foreign policy, let me remind you of a few facts. didn't accomplish anything? in 2010, we signed a star treaty

with the russians reducing the number of nuclear weapons allowed in the united states and russia. that's what i did in 2010 with the president. we put in place the most comprehensive sanctions against iran ever. democrat or republicans. it's called u.n. security council resolution 1929. look it up. and that then create what had i think is a great deal for preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. we expanded supply routes to afghanistan, which then reduced our dependencies on pakistan and allowed us to kill osama bin laden. we did that. president bush didn't do that. we did that. and with respect to isis, i'm sorry, you're just wrong about that. isis was created once the war in iraq started. we didn't start that war. president bush started that war. and when isis came roaring back, it was president obama that started operation inherent

resolve. google that. look it up. know that it started in 2014, not under president trump. president trump to his credit and you're going to see i'm going to be able to say to his credit when i talk about donald trump from time to time, expanded and continueded operation inherent resolve but it was started under president obama. he was the one that led that war against isis and then we basically now defeated isis and iraq and syria as a result of that decision. host: can you explain the rationale behind the russian reset? guest: yeah. it was a very simple idea. it was my idea. so it was a team process though. it wasn't just me. the idea is very simple, that with respect to russia, we're not going to have any concessions, this language of concessions is not really, doesn't happen in diplomacy. we're not going to check our values at the door in dealing

with the russians. we're most certainly not going to give them our secrets. we never did that. but we are going to look for ways to cooperate with them when it sevens american interests. america first, i'm sorry, that's not a trump idea. every president of the united states, democrat or republican always puts american interest first. and so did president obama. and as a result of that idea, we achieved a bunch of those things i just talked about. where we believed it was good for the united states and we reason that president medvedev, he was the president at the time would not agree to the star treaty or new sanctions in iran or expansion of the northern distribution network if he didn't think those were things that were in russia's interests as well. and so that was a concept pure and simple. it ended when putin came back as president. and he was not interested in looking for win-win outcomes

with the united states he sees the world more in zero sum terms whereas medvedev taught of them in win-win terms. and, you know, in diplomacy, it takes two to tango. you can't instruct another country to cooperate with you and so tragically in my view, my view. ended in host: rick is in leesburg, virginia, a democrat. good morning. caller: yes, ambassador, it's a great honor for me to be able to talk to you. i'm wondering do you feel that the russian intelligence or like they used to say, don't really exist anymore as a critical mass in russia that is fragmented and disjointed? and that, you know, maybe -- and that would be after the last

hundred years of trauma that russia has experienced. guest: yeah. caller: and maybe as a result, russia is not nearly as interesting to study anymore and that most of the russian immigrants that have come to the united states have become americanized. and become americans and something's that's gone out of the joy of studying russia. guest: yeah, it's an interesting question. i do think you're right that the traditional notion of the russian intelligence that you're talking about was def mated during the soviet years and it was much harder to be an intellectual and to do those things in the soviet years because so many things were not allowed in the arts and literature because of communism. there has been a bit of a renaissance, rick, just so you know over the last 20 years scotch there's been a rebirth of literature. there's ban rebirth of theater. and there's been some creative

things happen musically. but i don't think it's the same as it was before. i think you're right about that. and to your point, a lot of what they call now the creative class , many of them have immigrated to find new opportunities. in fact, where i live to the silicon valley, we estimate that there's as many as 50,000 russians that have come to the silicon valley because their intellectual talents and remember, this is a country that has tremendous intellectual capacity, especially in math and sciences and the soich preserved that part of it, by the way. but they can't, you know, it's hard to do your start-ups in putin's russia. and so they have immigrated and tragically for russia, there has been a big brain drain and that has big negative consequences for the future of that country moving forward. host: carl, republican in west virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning.

sir, what do you know about the sell of 20% of our uranium to russia? as you know, there was a kickback. bill clinton went to russia when it was all being discussed. and then in return, this olgark was involved in this deal and kick back $140 million to the clinton foundation. wouldn't be , we selling 20% of uranium to the russians. guest: i was in the government when that decision was made. i was not part of it. ut it's a process and an interagency organization, seven different officials that review it. different parts of the government, excuse me. it's the at the assistant

secretary level. there's no way that secretary clinton would have been involved in that decision. it's just not a decision that goes up to the secretary. i was involved many times on the issues because i dealt with russia. i was russia. i was at the national security council when that decision i was made. there was no way i was in a national this one, but the people that make this decision have national security interests of the top of their mind, and they are proud patriots. most people that work in the u.s. government are not democrats and republicans. they are just americans that serve democrats and republicans for over a course of the 30-year career, whether they work for the cia or the department of defense. those are the people that make the decision. i have no doubt that american

national security interests were not compromised, and if they were, i ask you a simple question -- if it was such a bad decision, why hasn't the trump administration reversed at? -- it? because been there for a year and a half, my friend. the reason is it has nothing to do with americans national security. to your point about mr. clinton -- president clinton, those are hefty speaking fees. i wish somebody would pay me that much to give talks like that, but that was a private bank in russia and it is connecting dots that are not there. because he went to speak for an investment bank in russia, that deal was done -- i -- that is a conspiracy i wish we would put to bed. it is not true. michael are talking to author -- professor

and author of the new book "from cold war to hot peace -- an american ambassador in putin's russia." steve has been waiting on the independent line from milwaukee, wisconsin. steve, go ahead. steve, are you with us? fran, jacksonville, florida. for democrats. -- line for democrats. caller: yes, i heard a story in the last two months about russians expelled or not allowed in the u.s. coming in, one night, more than one of them, meeting with some trumped administration people -- trump administration people, and i want to know if mr. mcfaul knew anything about that. how this people got in, what they were here for, and i was just interested in that story. host: would you hear that story? caller: actually, i heard it on

the rachel maddow show. host: ambassador mcfaul. guest: it is an interesting question, fran. there are russians that come to america from time to time in strange ways on different kinds of diseases. visas.t has -- one that has been in the news recently has formally been on the travel ban list for many, many years and was on the list when i was in the government, and i remember that because the russian government, and therefore minister, sergei light off would lobby our government to try to get them off the travel ban list, and now i am on a travel ban list because we put so many people on their list. but he did something very very

clever. he got a diplomatic passport and became formally a member of the delegation to attend a multilateral organization called aipac. they have their meetings every region.the asia pacific a member ofend as that delegation that would give them an opportunity to travel to the united states found that specialty said that he has, in 2013, he came to the united states in the special way. that could be what you are referring to. it is a curious way he came, but he did that. travelis formally on the ban, but because of the diplomatic passport, i know for a fact he came in 2013. host: whether it is the russian investigation or other stories

out of russia, we hear a lot about russian oligarchs. who are they, what is the relationship to vladimir putin, and how many of them are there? mcfaul is a great -- guest: is a great question, and i think it is too oversupplied. first of all, -- simplified. -- oversimplified. first of all, the word oligarch came about in the 1990's. they prefer to be called businessmen. call them corrupt or not, they are all in business. the first group of oligarchs made their money in a, i would say, quite as i corrupt way in the 1990's when everything was privatized by the government. the most valuable companies landed in the hands of these business people, mostly oil and gas and mineral companies. that is how they became billionaires during that period.

but then there was another wave of oligarchs, if you will, under era, where he took some of the assets from the oligarchs that had made their money in the 1990's and gave it to his friends. the largest oil company in russia, for instance. the original oligarch that controlled assets for that, at the time he was worth $40 billion in the 1990's. 2003,put him in jail in took his assets, and they ended up in a company that one of his close, personal associates now runs. it is important to distinguish between the putin inner circle and a groupke -- that made their money more moneyly, and makes their

is not even the right phrase. they were about to make money as a result of the connections to putin, and then some of these older oligarchs that became wealthy in the 1990's. for instance, light is referred to make his money in the 1990's. that she hasmade been in the news a lot. -- he has been in the news a lot. an affiliate company to him gave michael: $5,000 -- $500,000. crazy in my view. why were they doing that. your listeners should now he is closee of putin's confidant. that is incorrect. his employees were arrested. he has been trying to divest his investment in russia and move

them out of the country because it is complicated and difficult relationship with vladimir putin. complex story.re i would underscore russia in general is a lot more complex a story then we oftentimes give it credit for. that is why you cannot just talk about it on twitter or on tv. sometimes you have to write a 500-page book and get into the meat of it, and that is why have to buy the book because it cannot be also provide all the time. why your listeners have to buy the book because it cannot be simplified all the time. host: ambassador mcfaul. i need a. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you so much. -- i'mdor, i have delighted to have the pleasure to speak to you on the subjects. i am concerned about the fact we have a current president that

constantly talks about the wall but nonetheless owns property like mar-a-lago where we are told russian women come over and have their children and go back to russia. we have people that could legally be spying in later years in the united states, and legally entering our country. thand that far worse illegal immigrants, and i wondered what your thoughts are there. anita, i think was your name, you are right. rich russians -- and people from all over the world -- do exactly what you are talking about, come --america or a few weeks, for a few weeks, a few months,

as a resultere, and that children are american citizens and i think greater regulation is in order. jerry. caller: i actually grew up a democrat for a long time but switched recently. there are literally thousands of stories i have read over the past year about the collusion on the election, which basically, it seems to me it amounts to mem es on facebook and a couple of poorly protected passwords. what i have been saying in some of the other -- "the daily caller" says the russians have been trying to undermine our energy development and in the u.k. with the whole anti-fr acking movement. they funded this one group.

they will give money to greenpeace. what i can't understand is why that doesn't get any attention from the media or even the previous administration and this administration. host: ambassador mcfaul? guest: yeah. well, two things -- first on what the russians did during our iection -- collusion or not, will leave that aside. i'll let the lawyers define what is legal and illegal. i want to be clear about this -- did the russians intervene and violate our sovereignty in 2016 with the intention to influence the outcome of our election? the answer to that is absolutely yes. i don't care if you're a democrat or a republican. this is a national issue. this is about american national security. not republican security, not

democratic security. in my will there is no such thing as republican and democratic security -- in my world, there is no such thing as republican and democratic security. americans to decide who should be the president of the united states and not have outside influence. they hacked and stole data on both sides, published on one side through wikileaks, designed to have an impact on the election. they used their propaganda tools, media tools, rt and ts and trollse bo to try to influence the election. when sputnik, a government-controlled news organization controlled by #ssia circulates on twitter crookedhillary, you don't have to have a degree in public studies to understand what they

are trying to do. third, they sent their emissaries to meet with the trump campaign to provide information about secretary clinton that would help their campaign. for, -- four, they got on our systems in at least two dozen states, maybe more, where they were on our systems. .hese are facts that we know they were looking at our systems in terms of electoral role and how we count the vote -- rolls, and how we count the vote. because we are having a polarized conversation between democrats and republicans, we are leaving out the national interest. i want to remind our republican friends -- why do you think they might not do this against you the next time around? putin is out for putin. he is not out for america's national interest. i wish we could do basic things

and agree we should have better cyber security, more resilience, and americans should choose our presidents without foreign interference. now to the second point, do the russians have a vested interest ing?topping frack -- thee absolutely caller is absolutely right. they are running a public relations effort around the world, not just america and the u.k., to propagate the idea, promote the idea -- i should use that word instead of -- that fracking is dangerous. the reason is simple. because of fracking, the price of energy has gone down and that hurts the russian economy. they have been running these operations for years now, so the caller is right about that. aboutto remind viewers something we might be hearing more about, the house is holding a closed briefing for all members on election security

ahead of the midterms. that is happening today. host: we will look for more information about that. guest: that is important. host: a few more minutes. scottsdale, arizona. democrat. go ahead. caller: it has been good hearing you speak this morning, and i have a question because you said something that is different than the narrative i heard other democrats talking about. believe saying that you the russians were actually favoring one candidate over another rather than to sow division, and you listed a reason on why they would favor a trump presidency over a hillary presidency, but i have not heard democrats talk about that. they talk about trump wanting a

strong military, didn't want to be the world police. he wanted to pump out energy, and get the american economy revving again by getting the regulations. those are all things putin wouldn't like. you mentioned crimea, but that is kind of a problem because hillary was part of the administration that did nothing when crimea was going on. it wasn't just trump talking about it. how can democrats message what you are trying to say better other than they were just trying to sow discord? host: got your point. ambassador? guest: they were also trying to sow discord. the idea they are only doing one objective is mysterious to me. we always have multiple objectives in our foreign policy. why wouldn't putin have multiple objectives? they were trying to do both. i think the evidence is overwhelming. that they managed to get into both the democrat side and the

republican side, but only published the emails from the dnc -- remember what happened. the chairwoman of the democratic party had to resign because of that. and we were talking about dnc emails and john podesta yells right up to the election day -- emails right up to the election day. that was an effective campaign, in my view, the russians did. with respect to crimea, just to be clear, secretary clinton was not part of the administration when vladimir putin annexed crimea. she had already stepped down. secretary kerry was there. what you are alluding to is there should've been greater push back at the time from the obama administration. i also had left the government but before that happened. i agree with the caller that we should have had a more robust response. we eventually got that robust response, but i think it should happen sooner than when it did. host: former u.s. ambassador to russia michael mcfaul, the

author of the book "from cold war to hot peace -- an american ambassador in putin's russia," and also a professor of political science at stanford university. we know you have to catch a flight. we appreciate your time and let you go. guest: thank you for having me. get me back again. host: we will ask callers to stay on the line. we will do open phones right now to get your thoughts on the topic we have just been discussing or any other topic. host: mark, i know you were holding for the ambassador ambassador --ambassador. he is gone now, mark, the what is your comment? caller: i wanted to comment on gorbachev first and foremost and what he thinks about the current state. also, with respect to the cyber

, think that the administration is trying -- is topt because trump is trying strike deals with the company that has been shown to have malicious software embedded to steal our secrets and it is ridiculous. thank you, and i wish the ambassador a safe trip. sema is in fairfax, virginia, a democrat. caller: i was calling about russian collusion in our election. i am originally from afghanistan. i have lived here 36 years, however based on what i know, we also collude with other countries elections. in my country, for the last 15 or 18 years, northern alliance has majority. they have always won the

election, but somehow we at the the votesn and say have been recognized, reported, everything has been ignored, and i remember the last election, john kerry went. the real winner was there, but the first time we americans chose to meet the president, he came and gave a press interview and said even though the otherrn other -- this northern alliance person did not -- [indiscernible] it is so obvious. i hated the situation. wasountry people majority sickening with this.

i hope we understand how those other people feel when we collude with their election. guest: before -- host: before you go, do you think america is trusted today in afghanistan? caller: not at all. 5, 10, or 50 people there. --think because we know them they went to college here and they can speak english. between thoses few people -- is one of them -- who is the fuel in the fire of afghanistan, by the way -- we think because we know only 15 people, we have to pick among these. afghans, even though they are not fully educated, they have been to war for half a century. they know who is good for them. people from the pasture are not

majority. a have to select someone from hash to background. i am mixed. i trust northern alliance because everything they have done is for afghanistan. they have blocked russia. kicked russia out of afghanistan. shtuns are backed by do a that, and they pakistan has for afghanistan to possibly someday be taken over by pakistan. host: thanks for your perspective this morning. james is in chattanooga, tennessee. independent. ".

-- open phones. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, c-span. i would like to say a message to america from a 68-year-old disabled vietnam veteran. america, please take heed to what the ambassador just told us. please, america, the man, the ambassador was right there. he served our country by being a smart, intelligent man. so, please, c-span, have more of truth tellers like him on your station. -- what specifically stuck with you? caller: the conversation -- he is candid, and he takes time and explains it to us as the public. he breaks it down. this man has no all terrier motives. -- all terrier motives.

he is not a democrat, or a republican. it is a refreshing theme for the country -- the country as a whole. we need to look at the big picture and accept the truth and let it go where it goes. host: thomas is an humbled, texas, line four republicans. caller: line for independents, man. to0 -- we have to listen rush limbaugh and sean hannity -- member when you lost your houses -- keep listening to them. they cut medicaid. when you have to take your grandmother to the hospital, and they keep saying it was his idea. keep listening to rush. as far as fracking, unique to talk to kansas city -- you need

to go to kansas city and talk to people who live there. there have been over 500 clicks. thank you. host: edward -- earthquakes. thank you. host: edward. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a veteran of world war ii. i have seen a few things in this world. i appreciate the last gentleman you had on the program. he was honest and fair. i do not know if he was a democrat or republican, but he was an american. he did a good job of explaining what the situation was with russia, and it is a shame he got -- a shame he got kicked out of that country. host: edward, before you go, can you talk about your opinions of russia and the russians from your world war ii days? did not mention anything about my opinions of russia. want to know your opinions.

do you have any opinions -- caller: naturally, in world war ii, we were in the battle together. we were americans, russians, australians, altogether, but at the end of the war, things changed, because we saw what the russians had in mind. and when they decided to take over half of berlin and created such a havoc with our democratic ideas that we had to oppose them , they became the enemy, so to speak. they have been the enemy -- the enemy ever since. of course they are a sovereign nation. they do have their rights like everybody else. interests -- we just have to make sure their interests don't affect our interests to the point where there is a national problem -- a problem with, say, domination of the world, like hitler's did.

hitler did. the worst thing that happened to the world and the people think about it, one of the best things because we have to remember what he did. we can not ever let another nation do that. it does not matter if they are large like russia or small like north korea, they have to be put in their place, and we are the only nation on this planet that can do it. host: edward, where did you serve in the -- world war ii? caller: i served in the airborne. i was proud to serve in the airborne. i was drafted two months after my birthday and i volunteered for immediate induction into the service, and i went into the airborne because i figured that is the best place for me to be. unfortunately, it was at the end of the war and i could not actually get over there into combat.

i was an american patriot, and i served my country. host: edward, thanks for the call. diane is waiting in livingston, new jersey. a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the newest report about the suspicious activity reports generated by first republic bank that have mysteriously gone missing. there was one that was released last week where we learned there to play,ce -- pay corruption going on with cohen selling access to the trump administration. we have russians involved with that. also novartis and at&t admitting that was a mistake. from that report we learned. we also learned there were two other prior suspicious activity reports that have gone missing. this has never happened in our history, and we need to get to the bottom of it. why are all of a sudden these

records disappearing when they could actually prove there is corruption with michael cohen selling access to president trump? now, whether president trump knew about it, that is only to get to the bottom of. when republicans tell us the mueller investigation has gone on too long, we are just getting to the beginning of this corruption. there are so many tentacles with the way the russians have made contact with americans in this country, and the trump administration has been lying. all those aides have been line. what a sham the house and tell republican investigation was. they never called any subpoenas. they took people's words at word that they were invoking executive privilege when the president hasn't even formally invoked it. they refused to issue subpoenas like the dutch bank that would shed light on trump's financial

investigations. we need to get to the bottom of it. host: diane, got your point. speaking of president trump's financial transactions, a lot of stories today about his financial disclosure of those payments to his personal attorney michael cohen. the attorney for stormy daniels prevalent on twitter about these payments, about these stories. he writes yesterday afternoon host: that is going to do it for our open phones segment, but coming up next we will talk about trump administration trade policy. we'll be joined by william mauldin of "wall street journal" for that discussion, and later we will be joined by congressman mo brooks, republican from

alabama, and continue the discussion on the one-year anniversary of the mueller probe. we will be right back. ♪ c-span's cities tour takes you to selma, alabama. with the help of our cable partners we will cross the famous bridge arriving in the town known for the civil war and civil rights movement. saturday on booktv, we visit the home of dr. martin luther king junior, used as his selma headquarters as he planned the selma to montgomery march. it is featured in the book "the help by the side of the road." -- "the house by the side of the road." >> there was a photographer here at the time and he wanted to capture dr. came's game -- dr. king's emotions as he watched president johnson committing to

signing the voting rights act. was was the chair dr. king sitting in that night watching the television. president johnson addressed the nation. >> and we will meet the first african-american fire chief, talking about his book "marching through the flame." sunday, we look at the voting rights movement that started in the 1930's and visit several locations around the town that were integral to the movement. then a visit to the edmund pettus bridge, looking at the role the bridge played in some. >> anyone that goes over the bridge, they see the name, and it evokes a sense of the past and present coming together to have a modern bridge stamp of the key voice of white supremacy here in the south. towards -- city tours.

>> working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> "washington journal" continues. is backlliam mauldin with us, covering trade issues with "wall street journal, close we"wall street journal," as come to deadlines in nafta negotiations. where do we stand this week? guest: it is a bit of a soft deadline, but speaker ryan made it a hard deadline today, saying he wanted to see a deal on nafta , the north american free trade agreement, by today. you always want to get the kind of thing squared away in the first half of your first term, but they are not there yet. the u.s. and canada and mexico another area. the u.s. political situation is

divided over nafta and the trump administration's approach. we would be shocked if we got word of a deal today. it looks like there will be no congressional consideration of nafta this year. that mean fors the negotiations, for how this plays out in the coming months? guest: it looks like we will be in the long haul. it is interesting that president andp's approach to trade his trade advisor are a lot closer to democratic lawmakers -- they agree with labor groups and other groups on the left in terms of the need for change in the way the international trading system works, rebalancing that toward american workers, even that means getting the way of trade at the border and upsetting international business. guest: this is william mauldin's story in "the wall street journal" as the nafta deadline nears. your four scenarios. take them from most likely to least likely. guest: a little bit has changed

since we are about to hit the deadline, but the most likely thing is talks continue for the long-term. they will probably not be in earnest during the election season. in addition to the u.s. midterms that we're all thinking about, we have the president -- mexican presidential election july 1. it will be painful for them to cut a deal ahead of that election because the party in power, they are facing a big challenge from a populist candidate. in fact, the challenger is likely to win by a comfortable margin. that could change the dynamic of the talks. the u.s. election could bring more democrats to the house of representatives. that could change the dynamic a little bit. it looks like something for the long-term. i'm sure they would like to do as much as possible as quietly as possible and try to tee something up as early as next year to submit to congress under fast-track law. host: we'll talk about fast-track law, but what are the

key sticking point in the nafta negotiations -- what issues are holding things up? guest: they have come close on the auto rules -- cars and truck street with mexico and canada. the main issues are what they call the america first issues. mexico calls him the philosophical issues. the trump administration calls them the rebalancing issues. these are other provisions designed to rebalance trade to give the american midwest a chance to get back some auto jobs. investorem is the -state settlement, without foreign governments -- very popular in the business on theee and unpopular left. the trump administration is skeptical of it. some members of congress, maybe even your next guest, might be skeptical of it. that is another issue. procurement -- how countries in mexico -- like mexico and canada

can win procurements of u.s. contracts, or whether we favor a american --, higher hire american approach. canada and mexico are not that eager to embrace these issues. ast: is there still possibility president trump could walk away from the renegotiation and from nafta altogether? guest: well, for canada, that is a $282 billion question. certainly, president trump, on the campaign trail, threatened to withdraw a lot. that continued for months into his presidency. it is an election year. a lot of farm state senators and members of congress -- they becausent nafta to end it allows them duty-free access to canada and mexico to sell farm products, corn, pork, beef -- they don't want to do that. smart money says president trump

one send notice of withdrawing from nafta -- won't send notice of withdrawing from nafta until at least after the election but might keep that in his back pocket as a way of getting that through congress. host: larry kudlow is the new white house director of the economic council there. what has been his impact on the negotiations and president trump's outlook since his arrival? guest: that is adjusting. i think he has had more issue -- impact on the china trade issue than nafta specifically. the u.s. trade representative has taken the reins on nafta. he knows washington. he is a trade lawyer for 30 years. he worked in the reagan administration. larry kudlow, however, did go on the china trip with other senior officials to see about rebalancing traded their. it is something -- trade their -- there.

it is something the trip administration considers a greater priority. the trump administration policy is the -- topic for the next 25 minutes. host: we talked about deadlines and outlook for nafta. let's do the same thing for the china negotiations. guest: that is anybody's guess, of course. the uss threatened $50 billion in tariffs -- the u.s. has threatened $50 billion in tariffs and authorized other tariffs. anda has followed suit pledge to start what would amount to a trade war. they've said negotiations toward some arrangement to avoid that. the earliest the tariffs, the first $50 billion could be imposed, would be later this month. we don't expect that

necessarily, but this administration is full of surprises. the trump administration is working with china on north korea and a lot of other issues. certainly there are some corporate problems in the mix qualcomm fromand the u.s.. they do want to -- the hopes of of thesedash the hopes countries on either side. we expect they drawn out battle. host: the thing we have seen the most in the china negotiations is the president's tweets on them in recent days and weeks. what impacts have those tweets had on the negotiations? guest: it is interesting. china was a target doing the campaign and has been of the tweets. the commerce department sanction the chinese telecom provider over connections with iran and other companies under sanctions. they have laid down the law.

then all of a sudden president trump tweeted zte might be off dog. sanctioning them has caused a lot of jobs in china. that would be seen as a sweetener for talks in china, and the deputy premier is coming to town this week. he is already in town, in fact. on the other hand, democratic critics and republican critics have said zte violated sages. you cannot let them off the hook as part of a trade arrangement. host: the president tweets yesterday -- h real of tweets tweetsng -- a trio of including what we have and have not seen. host: how do you read those tweets from yesterday as you follow the negotiations? side, on the give

president trump looks at the trade numbers, the trading deficit, and sees that we have $375 billion in imports from china. is $375e, the deficit billion, and we only have $130 billion in exports to china. the u.s. could penalize more of exports to the u.s. and china can to china. brought bob lighthizer is about intellectual property and goes deep into giving industries a leg up. that would hand the u.s. wants china to take a broader look at policies. on the other half, their people that want china to rebalance the

trade. or by a little bit less chinese products and help balance the deficit and call it a day. it is a little bit early, but they are positioning themselves on each side. host: if you have questions about the trump administration's trade policy, now is a good time to ask them. mitchell, indiana. line for democrats. --aheado ahead caller: caller: --ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. me and 15 under -- 1500 other and i amst their jobs proud of our president. is there a reason our government will not stop this leaving america jobs? is it because these people donate to their candidacy? is that the reason this won't stop?

thank you, sir. have a good day. guest: thanks so much. certainly, the trump administration is interested in tariffs as a way of protecting u.s. industry. they see that as a problem in the u.s. and indiana. the other side is when the u.s. puts caps on another country, they have the opportunity to retaliate through the world trade organization and china is looking to retaliate on soybeans, a major export from indiana. there are two sides of the equation -- when you try to restrict a country's ability to export to you, they will try to restrict your ability to export. as far as joplin, it is up -- jobs leaving, it is a problem the u.s. has faced. at the end of the day in the free enterprise system and global training system, we have companies offering -- often seen opportunities to maximize profits and supply chains.

host: virginia. met. go ahead. caller: a quick comment -- i believe the obama administration's failure on the transpacific partnership was in a large part due to the secrecy involved in the creation of the transpacific partnership. i feel like if you cannot get enough stakeholders in the united states to know what they are going to get there will be a large backlash against it, whether it is good or bad. i have a question about the trump administration because i feel like they have realized the error of their ways in not approving the transpacific partnership, but they don't like what it was. who is the chief trade negotiator currently, and what is the plan in terms of moving forward with a new transpacific partnership? guest: thanks so much, matt. a lot of questions the. the trump administration has mentioned the possibility of

returning to the tpp, but they need to see it as a much better tpp according to their metrics. before letting the u.s. let -- back in, countries would want to see what happens with nafta. trade talks are secret in this country. there are some negotiating texts that members of congress can see in the basement of the capital. not all of the texts are out there. host: we remember the hunts for the tpp texts. was it rand paul that had cameras with him? guest: right. he led that. that was bad for the obama administration, but i heard from someone on the opposite side of the party, ron kind, who said very little text was available on the nafta, and he was finally bob to get a meeting with lighthizer.

peoplenally they brief and let us know what is going on with talks, otherwise he would have no idea. traditionally it has been kept quiet because they do not want a lobbyist to fight it out in public before a deal is done. candace. jesse. line for republicans. presidentsupport the and any current president that has chosen to serve the country, but as a farmer, i don't understand how we are winning on ag exports and how -- what is going to be the next grain deal on trade commodities. can you comment on that? guest: thank you, jesse, you have raised the biggest debate districts,ublican specially rural counties. that hitgeted --

squarely in kansas, and certain dry areas are best for growing sarcoma. that is pinching the farmers. you have other grain crops. the tpp would've given that certainly, and the trump is seeking to do bilateral deals. japan has not jumped at the opportunity. ,hey help by preserving nafta it will preserve the canada and mexico markets. after that you get the feeling a lot of countries are waiting and seeing how the nafta talks before -- go before they jump into negotiations with the trust administration. in oceanside, new york. caller: i would like to talk about nafta under clinton, barack keeping corporate taxes so high -- thanks -- thank heavens for president trump. you cannot let -- have high-level google joplin say that is the future. -- future is still, coal

those jobs are coming back. in detroit, the heavy ram truck, they are going to revitalize the whole area. one factory will go in, and ,here will be delis contractors, people, and revitalize it. you cannot be a nation of consumers without jobs. then you have socialism like arack -- you chase of companies out of here and then you hand out food stamps. you -- that is socialism. you need jobs every people that can go out and -- to have people that can go out and consumed things. steel that goes into all the transducers. we have one company that builds it. we cannot be relied on china. we will get hit, god for bid, and -- for bid, it and we will rbid, and we -- fo

will have to rebuild our infrastructure. host: thanks for the call. guest: one point you made is the heavy-duty large truck. thosehrysler is moving back from mexico to michigan. they are seen risks that nafta could fall apart in their making that move. probably that would not happen under another president. some other things -- whether the u.s. should make everything, economists would strongly disagree with you. countries have believe there are competitive advantages. it makes sense everyone gets richer's -- richer when people benefit from the competitive advantages. there are certain kinds of steal that are strategic and no country could make every specialty type of steal. it would be inefficient to do so. there is a concern from china,

and the chump -- trump wants to make sure the u.s. is not too dependent on these countries for certain strategic materials. host: macon, georgia. gwendolyn. line for democrats. caller: i am calling about the portion of the ttp that allows entirees to sue governments and receive billions of dollars from them if they feel their profits have been threatened in a way. nobody talks about that. some companies over in europe have been devastated, and that is the problem. that is one reason i don't think we should return to the tpp. thank you. identifieddolyn, you one of the biggest areas of debate in the nafta talks. settlement, and

that is certainly the thing that is dividing talks in the nafta negotiations, but it is also dividing the u.s.. you had speaker paul ryan and house republicans -- at least the ones closer to the business community that very interested in -- community -- very isds.sted in they don't want the trump administration to enact a nafta that removes isds. you have liberal groups that think it is a disaster, allowing an investor to sue a government if it is treated unfairly under international law. this could be a great benefit in some countries where rule of law is poor and they have bad court systems and that could allow investors to recoup damages, but the reality is too but do not want the u.s. to be sued in the same way. the u.s. never lost a case in isds, but it could happen some

day. the concern among workers in the trunk administered -- trump administration is this is a green light for outsourcing. if copies are protected from foreign governments overseas, they will move jobs abroad. host: another issue you mentioned earlier was fast-track authority. remind us what that is and what the results of the 2018 election could mean for granting the trump administration fast-track authority going forward. guest: right. it was also known as trade promotion authority that paul ryan helped pass when he was chairman of the ways and means committee. this was something designed to give -- it is used in lots of trade agreements -- but it essentially was designed to help pass the tpp. it was more recently designed to help the trump administration pass its renegotiated form of nafta. it lets -- it forces congress to have a vote under a certain timeframe on any trade agreement that the trump

administration or any other president brings. there are no opportunities for amendments. the trump administration has to follow certain rules. the authority expires july 1, said his renewed. you can see the renewal being debated. it is hard to remove the fast track authority. for president trump, would be hard to have a republican led house and senate do that. host: if it is renewed, how long is it renewed for? guest: three or four years, i would have to check. it would go into the next president. -- presidency. it would take a big step to remove the authority from president trump. if it did happen, you would also be removing it from another president, preventing trade agreements from moving forward at a time when any other countries and economies are signing them left and right. host: about five minutes left with william mauldin of "wall street journal."

line for independents. go ahead. caller: thank you. i am from burbank, illinois, and i worked for a big company for almost 40 years, and unfortunately i lost my job. my question is how come no one is talking about the trades with middle eastern countries, especially saudi arabia, where right now the oil prices barrel, at almost $80 a which has taken a big chunk out of us from here. illinois is one of the most corrupt, actually. left illinoisbs and the whole country. nabisco, wrigley's -- all these copies. they blame the president for all these problems, but he is trying to fix the trade for us, but

still there is an issue of how the trade has gone before him. guest: thank you so much. a bunch of good points. on the oil price, of course, the trump administration has arguably helped boost oil price by withdrawing from the iran nuclear deal. by definition that implies putting more sanctions on the run, limiting oil experts. -- exports. oil puts pressure on prices. in the middle east, those countries have not been a priority for trade agreements because the u.s. has a trade surplus. if you discount oil, the deathly have a surplus. the u.s. sends more to these countries than it takes back. the trump administration is targeting for its trade agreements countries where there are trade deficits, looking at places like china, rearranging those trading relationships -- mexico, japan, south korea. host: darryl is in detroit, michigan. for democrats -- line for

democrats. caller: i want to look at the bigger picture -- take two numbers from the u.s. debt clock. as we speak, the u.s. trade deficit is $820 billion. the federal deficit is $751 billion. since money is [indiscernible] to assume thatle what we are doing is creating the cash to pay off our u.s. trade deficit? i think something is wrong in the fact you keep taxing individual products. 35% we should do is put a on all goods regardless of country. if our trade deficit falls onto a balanced budget, the trade deficit would automatically drop to zero. americans would determine which products are good to import to us because

they have the value of the extra 35% tariff, or they don't. we are paying for this trade budget deficit through welfare we are paying to the state. this has been going on for four years. it must stop. free trade is not free. guest: thanks, darryl. it is a good point, looking the trade deficit to the budget deficit. the trade deficit and the broader current account deficit are intrinsically related to how much a country saves and invest. if a government spends too much, the country is not spending much, and you have a trade deficit. that is one criticism that some pro-trade democrats made about the republican tax bill. a 35% tariff -- certainly president trump has discussed things like that. it is not clear how you do that without violating the wto rules and bring in retaliation on all of your exports. the u.s. would probably take an economic hit if they did something like that, and exports

would be reduced. people have had the idea, but it is a matter of when you think this is a domestic economy or whether you think the u.s. needs to grow by exporting to countries that are growing faster and two populations are growing faster than our own is. host: the website the caller referred to, u.s.debtclock.org. in southern nebraska, line for independents. go ahead. caller: i have a question about trade policy. the nafta agreement and the trump administration regarding mexico and immigration. a huge part of our trade problem is because of our involvement with mexico. they depend on us. we depend on them. we do not depend on their human labor force nor there overpopulation.

anything in the trump administration regarding nafta can be renegotiated regarding the influx of all the immigrants from mexico. thank you. i will take my answer off-line. host: william mauldin interesti. linkednt trump yesterday immigration and trade policy with mexico appearing to complain about both of them. it's a big debate right now. dismisses in the u.s. government want a growing economy. a growing labor force will help with that. on the other hand people have very strong views about that. same thing when it comes to trade. these are debates that are has to themselves out in the political debate and we will see how it comes out in the midterm elections as well as the presidential election. host: you can see all of william mauldin's work on the wall street journal website. thank you for your time. up next, we will return to this discussion about the one-year

probe.sary of the molar we will be joined by congressman mo brooks of alabama, a republican. stick around for the discussion. we will be right back. >> connect with c-span's personalized information you get from us. just go to c-span.org/connect & up for the program guide is the daily mail with>> the most updad primetime schedule and upcoming live coverage. word for word gives you the most interesting daily video highlight with no commentary. the book tv newsletter send look ats an insider's upcoming authors and book festivals and the american history to be weekly newsletter gives you the upcoming program exploring our nation's past. visit c-span.org/connect & up

today. -- and sign up today. >>-- this weekend, the tv will have live coverage of the ninth bookl gave his word festival in maryland. starting saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern with talk radio host bill press and his book, from the left, a life in the crossfire. national institute of mental barbara let go with her book, the neuroscientist who lost her mind. psychiatrist lloyd federer with the addiction solution. former attorney and maria therman, the true story of german murderer who died defending robert e. lee. and former national security official philip hatchett with his book, advocating overlord. watch live coverage of the ninth

annual annual gave his book festival in maryland. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two's book tv. >> washington journal continues. congressman mo brooks is back at our desk. he is a member of the house freedom caucus. was appointed to that post a year ago today. for an end tod this investigation by july 5. why? guest: i just want him to do his job. finish it. we cannot have this ongoing for years and years. distraction to our country. it interferes with our ability to address a lot of serious policy challenges that we face and that's in congress. imagine what like in the white house where you have to look over your shoulder where you have the fbi that is doing things. if something was wrong you had for years now come july 5.

host: explained in two years. -- explain the two years. guest: i refer to it as the intelligence committee. the majority report said the fbi became involved in the investigation of russian the elections. that allegation. later in july a second allegation that there was some kind of collusion between trump and the russians. all this was in july of 2016. we are approaching the two-year anniversary of when this investigation began. in congress i have deadlines. you have deadlines. people are out there working. they have deadlines. spending one point $5 million a month more or less on the special counsel investigation.

i want them to do their job and finish it. robert mueller appointed by rod rosenstein a year ago today. since then 19 people including two trump -- four tom -- four trouble associates have been indicted. five have pled guilty. 13 of those charged are russians accused of meddling in the elections. prosecutor inmer the tuscaloosa da office. before coming to congress. record not a good track for a years worth of investigation? guest: the big picture is two years. sometimes you are not able to figure out who committed a crime. dry andtrail has gone you haven't been able to ascertain who the culprit is and it mayur investigation

reopen if something in the future pops up that suggests this is the person who did it. had an ongoing investigation of a particular person that lasted anywhere near that length of time. this may be more complicated than most investigations but two years given all the resources of the justice department, the fbi and everybody else who may have been involved in that that plenty of time to conduct an investigation. i'm talking about two years to do the investigation. once you've got your cards are laid out on the table, your arrest warrants, take whatever time it needs to prosecute them in court but get the investigation done. this is not a normal type of alleged crime and investigation in a prosecution. normally that is very limited and has virtually no impact on our country. right now this going on indefinitely was having a significant adverse effect on the ability of the united states

government to properly function and do its job particularly at the executive branch and at the white house level. congressman mo brooks taking your calls and comments. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. harrisburg, pennsylvania. go ahead. line for independents. i want to ask the congress one why it was ok to spend four or five years looking into the affairs of mrs. clinton and nobody complained about how long that took or how long that lasted. actually there were a lot of complaints about that and i personally believe they are legitimate. there is no reason that an investigation if you talking about whitewater in the 1990's, there is no reason that we should string those things out for four or five years.

just as you shouldn't do it when the democrats are in power. you shouldn't do it when the republicans are in power. the fact that it may have been done with hillary clinton is not justification for doing it now. we ought to treat everybody the same. going to have special prosecutors or special investigations or special counsel, put a time limit on it and say get on the ball. delayed is justice denied. get it done. here is your timeframe in which you have to finish your investigation. host: you had a follow-up? especially if there is a republican on the hot seat than that is what you say. my other question is are you and your republican compositor is concerned about the russians interfering with our electoral process and if so what exactly ?re you doing about it guest: yes we are concerned, and

congress has passed laws that have made it illegal. ont: we heard the briefing all member security. word that was postponed. richard is in montreal, canada. line for republicans. go ahead. why is senator rand paul the only republican senator that has called for the immediate hiring of fbi agent peter struck after those outrageous text messages? how come the other 50 republican senators are not outraged? 's outrage.aul it feels like the republicans are colluding with the republicans are colluding with democrats to overthrow a duly elected president. guest: i'm not in position to answer the mindset of republican senators or republican house

members. i think that question would be better directed at some of the republican senators who have taken the position that you disagree with. host: james is in matthews. caller: i have watched you investigate clinton. for three ornghazi four years. investigateed you every appointee that president sincenominated and then you guys become the target of investigation you want to put a timeframe on it and that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard the plaintiff we have an armed robber rob a bank and the police don't catch him in a closeou say, we need to

that investigation. you had a year to catch this guy. some of you guys come i don't see how you get elected to office coming up with such ridiculous statements. keep in mind you are mixing apples and oranges. it is one thing when you talk about benghazi and you have public hearings in the united states congress. that has no criminal impact. to try simply an effort to help public better understand what transpired. the u.s. congress does not have the ability to seek indictments in ao prosecute people court of law in front of the judge and jury. let's talk about criminal investigations on the one hand versus public hearings which is what congress does on the other hand. of example it has long been the case with very few exceptions there are statues of limitations in the criminal where the law recognizes that after some time can no longer prosecute someone for any

alleged activity they may have been involved in and i'm in terms of that kind of limitation on special counsel's or special prosecutors. i'm sure that if you have a job that your employer expects you to get certain work done or else the employer is going to find someone who can do the work within the time limitation. that's what i want out of special prosecutors. i don't want these things going on for years and years. two years ought to be plenty of time to conduct a proper criminal investigation and come up with a proper conclusion. and if indictments are appropriate than fine. get those indictments and then begin the in court prosecution. but to have investigation that is ongoing for now two years that plenty of time

for a prosecutor to do his job and let me emphasize one final point. of theling for the end mueller special counsel investigative phase on the two year anniversary of the fbi involvement. that if there is uncovered, fine. prosecute that in the normal course within the justice department and using fbi agents i'm not saying look the other way. i'm saying let's do the normal course. in this particular instance mueller was appointed special counsel trivia the fbi investigated this for two primary reasons. one, alleged russian interference and alleged trump collusion with the russians with respect to that interference. those are relatively simple things in a court of law to either prove or disprove and i would hope that if you're going to confine yourself to those two items that an investigator worth his salt can do the two yearsion within

and reach a proper conclusion. host: president trump decided to fire robert mueller or run rosenstein would you support that? guest: i have asked the attorney general to terminate the investigation by mueller on the two-year anniversary of the fbi beginning the investigation, the belief being -- that's not saying terminate all investigation of any kind. it is to say that all investigative work after that time would be done in the normal course of business by normal fbi agent and assistant u.s. attorneys. mind right now we are paying 1.5 million dollars per month for this special counsel. we don't have that kind of money. would you support trump if you moved to fire robert mueller or run rosenstein? guest: i would feel more comfortable if the attorney

general makes that decision. host: connie is waiting on the line for independence. caller: hello, mr. brooks. it was testified to under oath cia,pitol hill that the the doj and the fbi had checked out donald trump and russia. and found that he had no ties to russia. james comey said in fact he had zero ties to russia. so i do not get the mueller investigation. hand this faker andier that hillary clinton president obama put out and are spying on the trump campaign, this should be investigated. thecrats run all over

republicans when it comes to getting something done. that's why we never got anything -- settled on benghazi. i wished you guys would step up and start taking action. guest: when you're talking about action on the house and senate side all we can do is conduct hearings and hopefully shed use tohe public can then help determine what the true facts are and make political judgments going forward. we don't have the ability in the congress to obtain arrest warrants and indictments and pursue prosecution of individuals in federal court. that is all within the framework of the executive branch of government, particularly the department of justice and the fbi. there are a number of other investigative agencies within the federal government. we have limitations on what we can do in the congress. i agree that there ought to be more light shed on some of the subjects that you have brought

up and i want to underscore one thing that you mentioned. i concur with your view that as of today i have seen zero between of collusion the russians and donald trump, president of the united states with respect to the alleged interference by the russians in the american elections. zero is what i have seen in terms of evidence. out there but if mueller's got it he needs to present it to a grand jury and the grand jury can make a decision on whether to indict if thereafter two years of investigation when you got almost all the resources of the department of justice and the fbi behind you i would submit at some point you have to recognize that perhaps you don't have the evidence because no crime was committed. host: what do you make of the light shed by the senate intelligence committee finding that russia favor donald trump in the 2016 election? i'm going to disagree to

the extent you talk about it just in that one context. my understanding of what the russians did was try to create chaos. on occasions the russians would interfere with the american election. helping hillary clinton against donald trump. helping donald trump against hillary clinton. way with then some bernie sanders aspect of all this. the russians on seemingly occasions hurting all of our candidates and created discord and chaos. to the extent the russians were really trying to steer the election in favor of one candidate or another let me emphasize one thing. you have information i don't. i have yet to hear from a single person who says that the for me and i voted the wrong way and have the russians not fooled me i would have voted differently. if the russians really tried to interfere with our elections, to the people that say gosh, i was

fooled by those rascaly russians, it seems they did a poor job. host: ken on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm actually an independent. as a former person of the law i think that you would remember that you continue an investigation until it's complete. i believe that watergate took almost two years and have less evidence. it shouldover a crime be exposed. i'm not sure why you wouldn't want crime to be exposed. guest: i never said that. caller: i'm simply saying you are not saying has been. people are getting subpoenaed and being charged, a crime has been committed. thatf all people know criminals should be prosecuted and charged. he also brought up a money issue. every time trump kos -- goes to

mar-a-lago it costs -- we can't play the financial issue when we are talking about justice. let's be clear what we are talking about here. i have never said that all investigations regarding this matter and. what i have said is after two years fbi and justice department , comey and mueller adding it all up they ought to come to some kind of conclusion at least with the evidence they have with respect to alleged russian interference coupled with alleged collusion with the russians and trump. if other evidence comes forth through the regular course of the fbi does that were the assistant u.s. attorneys do or that u.s. attorneys do, fine. and pursue it in the regular course. but the idea of having a special counsel who focuses on matters beyond russian

interference allegations and trump collusion allegations i find most troubling given the adverse effect that it's having on the ability of the united states government to properly function. this is a huge distraction that is taking away a lot of brain power. mental capabilities that could be better devoted to solving and addressing the challenges that we face as a country. host: one of president trump's tweets this morning focusing on the issue of the mueller investigation. it being the one-year anniversary of his appointment to special counsel. congratulations america, we are now in the second year of the greatest witchhunt in american history and there is still no collusion and no obstruction and the only collusion was done by democrats who were unable to win on election despite the spending of harm or money. is in seaside, california. democrat. caller: good morning.

it has been a while since i called. from -- i just have a comment. and brooks knows very well that had they not put every roadblock, nunez is the one who is trying to manipulate the finance. about 60 miles from brooks, him and brooks. and the president. they are going to say it has been too long on this investigation. i know dog on well and we all know what has happened. the republicans have made sure that they have thrown roadblocks. they didn't want to help obama. stated sure that they that they wouldn't help him do anything.

he is going to sit up in front of the public and talk about why this should be stopped. people,sten to these especially brooks, sections in the president. even the democrat majority report on the intelligence committee, i'm unfamiliar with any evidence therein that would warrant an arrest warrant or an indictment against donald trump for the leadership of the campaign on collusion with the russian charges. you got a republican report this is inmind that congress so it is not a criminal investigation. you got a democrat report. neither of them support the has beenn that there donald trump collusion with the russians with respect to the 2016 elections. at what point do we say that there?st not

it's more of a political allocation than it is a legal allegation. and to me if you there? have two years to investigate a matter with all of the resources of the fbi and department of justice behind you and you're not able to get for indictments against the leadership of the trump campaign manager donald trump that says it all. at least with respect to collusion. host: what are your feelings about robert mueller himself? do you think he is an unbiased investigator? guest: i have heard some things that are troubling but i don't know him personally and i don't have firsthand knowledge as to whether those things are accurate or not. political inquiry -- arena in washington, d.c. host: are there things you don't want to talk about because you are not sure? guest: it has been publicly bandied about. i will give you an example.

public reports of the heavy weighting of the attorneys in the investigation. overwhelmingly leading toward the democrat side of the political coin. certainly there has been information that is out there that suggests that is true. that's not the issue to me. i have enough confidence in assistant u.s. attorneys and thatattorneys to believe they are not going to take a case to court unless they believe they can win it. they know there's going to be a jury verdict or judge that will make the decision. if they are doing a good job or a bad job. i'm comfortable with where they are right now. been two years. that's where i'm coming from. come to a conclusion. for fiveing this out or six or seven years and hamstring a duly elected president and his ability to focus better on the major challenges that we face as a

country. host: the editorial board of the washington post this week, initially republican lawmakers praised the selection of robert mueller. now the mr. trump has decided on a strategy to discredit the investigation most gop lawmakers are descendent to the level of courage we have come to expect in the trump era. polls show wide approval of the mueller crew. miller deserves more from republicans in congress in both word and legislation. i am not in that camp. my view is based strictly on the pros and cons that you have to way. if this was in a vacuum and it was a normal investigation without an adverse effect on our country's ability to be properly governed, fine. aspect ofke the cost it. i would prefer it be done in the regular course. instance iticular think it is unquestionable that onre is an adverse effect

the ability to develop mental energies to all of the challenges we face as a country. and i believe that two use of an investigation is plenty of time and we need to stop the adverse effect this is having on our country. waiting ins riverside, california. republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a question for the congressman. ever since this process has begun back in 2016 or earlier it has been on the back of my mind. with thee world russians want donald trump to become president over hillary clinton daca i can't understand that. -- clinton? i can't understand that. it was hillary clinton who went over to moscow with her

reset button. i would submit that donald trump is more troublesome for the russians and their expansionist of their countries influence around the globe. donald trump is much more troublesome to the russians and hillary clinton would have ever to use the obama administration as a backdrop. i don't understand why the interfereould want to on behalf of donald trump if that's what it turns out they did. right now there is evidence that suggests that is the case. there have been 13 indictments. we will see when those things go to court with her mother actually has the evidence that would warrant a guilty verdict based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. we will see that untrained and it will be very interesting to see what evidence there actually is of russian involvement in andica selections in 2016

the question i try to focus on his where they inept? the resources the russians allegedly dedicated to this cause in terms of personnel and drop ine smaller than a the bucket compared to the political parties through the democrats and republicans were dedicating as they tried to influence american voters to vote one way or the other. until recently an actual interference with an effect with american citizens saying i was fooled by the russians, how much time do we want to spend on this? last call. bob in louisville, kentucky. line for independent. go ahead. caller: what i don't understand is why sessions doesn't tell mueller and you have been investigating this for a year and a half and you haven't found out anything. but we are not telling you to stop. we are telling you we are not going to pay you know more.

you see how quick he jumps ship. if he is so convinced that trump we are free. that's all. it's entirely reasonable for an employer to have a deadline by which the job has to be done. and i believe that two years from the time the investigation began by the fbi and to some extent with the justice two years is plenty of time to get the job done if you are confident and thorough in what you are doing. imposedo see a deadline for mueller to get his work done by that period and then after that his special counsel position is gone and anything that may remain can be turned over to the fbi and the justice department for pursuit in the regular course of the types of investigations and prosecutions they do on a daily basis.

you playing in the congressional baseball game this year? guest: i had practiced this morning. i rode my bike over to anacostia. tom moving from outfield infield. we will see if i still have the stuff to be a starter. host: what is that game going to mean a year after the shooting? mixed emotions. when we practiced in alexandria ballfield were five individuals were shot, two capitol police officers, steve scalise. you would look around and remember, that's where steve was. that's where the assassin was. emotions whenixed you're are practicing in that kind of environment. i'm looking forward to the game. it's for a great cause. typically we raise about a half-million dollars for local decent area charities. last year with everything that .ent on we had 25,000 people

raised over a million dollars and the democrats with cedric richmond as their ace pitcher did their normal thing. they were very bipartisan with it after the shooting until the first pitch. brooks,mbersome and mo republican from alabama. appreciate your time as always. until thepen phones house comes in. any public policy issue you want to talk about. numbers are on the screen. you can start calling in now. we will be right back. >> sunday on q&a. university of virginia history professor william hitchcock on his book, the age of eisenhower. america and the world in the 1950's. >> i call it the disciplined presidency. eisenhower was a disciplined man.

a great athlete. an organized man in every respect. very methodical. he was extremely organized. the end center, future president john kennedy kind of criticized eisenhower's stodgy as for being so disciplined and organized and predictable treat her eisenhower it meant that he knew how to respond. he used to say plans are worthless but planning is everything. you're always thinking what is over the hill. we should be thinking about it. he was very systematic in the way that he governed. he chaired the national security council every week. he had his thumb on the government. the federal government could work well if it was well led. >> q&a sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

sunday night on afterwards, barbara ehrenreich with her book natural causes which exports how the body ages and dies. she is interviewed by new york times science reported natalie and her. >> that's one of the jobs of being old. passing the torch. know and haveu accomplished or want done and passing it on to younger hands. >> watch afterwards sunday night on c-span2's book tv. washington journal continues. host: the house is scheduled to come in at 10:00 this morning. we will go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. until then the phone lines are yours. give us a call now.

we will get right to it. doug is in ohio. line for democrats. go ahead. make sure to stick by your phones. jim is in new york. line for independence. go ahead. i know you usually don't answer questions that maybe i'm just not getting it. all this russia stuff reminds me of nero while rome was burning. i don't understand why we are making such a big deal about that while our culture is being changed like crazy. for instance, example. social security i pushed two for spanish. when i go back -- passed my schools, my marquees are in spanish. when i go to home depot spanish is over the pa. i never hear russian. i don't have to push 2 for russian.

i don't understand what the big deal is. maybe some color kenexa explain to me. that's all. host: john is in wisconsin. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. i pushed the wrong button. i'm a democrat. that guy you had on, brooks is the biggest liar i have ever heard on television. he's not going to be elected in alabama anymore so he can forget about that. he will not be reelected and people in alabama should be a lot smarter than that. but evidently they are not. that's all i have to say. chattanooga,is in tennessee. independent. morning.ood i was calling to make a comment on several things. congress needs to change the name of the investigation to the people's investigation of the united states and stood up for mueller.

because there is about 66 million people in the united states who would like to know the truth. as i said before donald trump has already made it known in many ways that he wants to be the last president of the united states and the first dictator of the united states. that's all i have to say. host: how has he made that known. caller: from the time i heard him speak, many things he said on the campaign trail. as a citizen of the united states as he goes -- he is indicating that he would prefer to have a dictatorship more so than a democracy. and that's the way i see it.

host: bill is in palm springs on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: listening earlier to representative mo brooks the is beyond-- disingenuous. the benghazi witchhunt went on for four years. withe only have one year something that's incredibly serious and pretty monumental for the future of this united states. the russians have their fingers there and what they did did not cost of a lot of money. for them to do that. i can get on facebook and say things that aren't true. and people will pass it along. it's a set situation for our country. i'm 64 years old. i have lived through a whole lot of history. so much.

host: robert mueller appointed to his special counsel position the year ago today. .ormer fbi director as mo brooks pointed out in his investigation fbi , the connections between the trump campaign and russia again in the summer of 2016. the story of how fbi embarked with swiftest secrecy on trump team's trail is the headline of the lead story in the new york times today. the story noting that some of the original investigators, the agents filed one of their reports on august 2 and a time it was known as crossfire hurricane. report the name a reference to the rolling stones lyrics, i was born in a crossfire hurricane was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. that story in today's new york

james isn't built in, texas. caller: i'm a veteran. this is for the american public. we need to get off this railcar. saying that our president is in collusion with the russians. i am a veteran and i'm going to tell you this is one of the best presidents we have had in years. i am a black man. obama really didn't do anything major for our country. this guy right here is the real deal and every american, get behind your president. i don't care whether he's republican, democrat or whatever. spit on our people and as far as the russian things, think about it. do you really believe that donald trump is going to allow the russians to hurt the united states? come on, guys. we are all americans.

let's get off this democrat republican thing. let's get behind our president and support our country. host: romney is in stone mountain, georgia. independent. go ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment. the last caller says get behind our president. the republicans did not get behind obama. and as far as that last senate representative that you had on talking about a time limit on an investigation as far as i know two years is the only thing that's limited to two years is like a misdemeanor or an accident or something where you are investigating a crime. two years is really not that long amount of time for you to investigate and come to a conclusion. thank you. host: quincy, massachusetts. helen is waiting on the line for

independence. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is you have a president of the united states that lies. he said he knew nothing about daniels. he knew nothing about the money. and then he admits it. so how can you be behind a precedent that lies? why is he coming up? what is really behind all of this. the other thing is, i'm 84 and i'm very disappointed in the american people that voted for someone that insulted everybody. you have children and how can you allow that kind of speech? does it go in your house or do you sacrifice and say i want to put the best person in that's going to be an example as a president and donald trump is nothing like that.

i do think mueller has to continue his investigation. nobody lies unless they want to cover up something. so thank you. and barack obama couldn't do what he wanted to do because the republicans wouldn't help him. so it is simple. and that's what's wrong with congress. take care and god bless everybody. the: 15 minutes before house is set to come in. it's open phones until then. if you want to join the discussion. here are some notes on what's happening in the building on your screen. the house of course in at 10:00. the senate came in at 9:30 today. they will be considering and possibly holding a final vote on the nomination of gina haspel. there was originally expected to be a house member briefing on election security and 2018 elections but that has been postponed today. we will try to find out when that meeting was supposed to happen or what it is scheduled to happen next. also on the c-span networks today this morning directors

from the national institute of health will testify before senate appropriations subcommittee on the president's for theget request research centers. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. this afternoon linda mcmahon will discuss the state of the small business at the national press club and we will be carrying that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. at c-span.org it and listen to it on the free c-span radio app. linda is in michigan. republican. go ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment that for the last two years i have been retired can't believe what has gone on in this government. i would like to know because it is starting to break loose that the democrats were in on the russian conclusion or illusion that trump did something.

and -- i better go in the other room. so i would like to know who is going to pay for all the money that was spent for this fraud investigation. is mueller going to pay for it or rosenstein or hillary? that i would like to know. the way they waste their money is ridiculous. i love trump. i just love him. thank you. host: bridgette, fairfield, iowa. independent good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment and a reflection and a thought about the food stamp situation where you have work requirements. i think that would be all right but i don't tickets going to work. -- which was adopted in 2006. in this 42 states country adopted it.

what it does is it paralyzed you are basically polarizes you. it takes your ex partake or whoever the pain is. you take the gross income, combine them, cut in half and divided by two and that's your child support obligation. in the state of iowa you also have a medical obligation on top of that. if anybody would do the calculation and look at the, that rothbart mythology, you are going to understand that people can't afford to work with this kind of polarization. and if we want people to work and people want to work and have a pathway to work we're going to have to look at this. this needs to be looked at. south dakota has it still like -- eight states still have it only based onidee your income percentage. new foodstamp regulation of working 20 hours a

week that's going to put people to work. without people looking at this child support obligation we are still going to have the same problems. that's my comment. maxine's in wesley chapel, florida. democrat. go ahead. items here.ve a few to answer the question of the woman from michigan about the money that is being spent on this investigation. i would like to ask her who does she think paid for the benghazi investigation that went on for years. if trump is so innocent of anything why does he tweak every day. if he is so prepared for the functioning of the government, led mueller do what he is supposed to do. why does he have to bring up something every day it's almost

like hitler's told his people, don't believe the press. listen to what i say. and that is what trump is drumming up to his poor supporters today. host: do you believe the press? caller: yes. not only what i listen to, is everyone's opinion. i have my opinion and i go and research. ite things that they say common sense. and what i don't hear a lot is plain old common sense. to me what trump is just trying to spew out there is just for his test trump don't care about his supporters. trump is -- you should be called president me myself and i. because what trump is doing right now is building himself and building his -- everything he needs when he leaves this office. he could care less. me, his supporters or

anybody. it is all about me, myself and i. until these people can sit down, read, listen. they are never going to change their minds. host: maxine in florida this morning. conversation going on on twitter as well. if you want to join in. kepler writes, has mueller had enough time to complete his investigation? he got guilty pleas from or indictments against 19 people and three firms. in the best is yet to come. the senior campaign officials, the tweeter referring to former campaign aide rick gates, former foreign-policy advisor george papadopoulos and michael flynn. it's the one-year anniversary of robert mueller being appointed

to that job as special counsel. we have been talking about that this morning. we can talk about it or anything else and open phones. mike is an missouri. independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to talk to mo brooks. the things he said that the investigation has gone on for two years and mueller has only ,een doing the job for one seems to be the republicans way of life these days. they can't tell the truth. i can't believe he said that we can't afford to find out the truth about what's going on in this country when donald trump -- to his golf properties. and the deal that's going on with the chinese right now, i think we might need an investigator for that. after donalddays

trump's getting $500 million from them. i think the mueller probe definitely needs to go on. people that are getting proof guilty on i don't know. i lost my train of thought. host: you mentioned the chinese telecommunications company. it was the subject of a few questions for fbi director christopher wray yesterday when he testified before the senate appropriations committee. here's a bit of that exchange yesterday on capitol hill. >> what i can tell you is that we the fbi remain deeply concerned that any company behind to foreign governments that don't share our values are not companies that we want to beginning positions of power insider telecommunications network.

that gives them the capacity to maliciously modified or steal information that gives them the capacity to conduct undetected espionage that gives them the capacity to exert pressure or control. so all of those are things that we are concerned about with any company that as i say is beholden to a foreign government. does is therey consensus among our intelligence people at the fbi including that the two rows of threat -- they do pose a threat? i remain of the view that i have articulated before about companies of this sort in the capacity that giving them access to our telecommunications tower provides. >> earlier you testified specifically on cte. to a question about that company.

i provided an answer almost identical to what i did here. my view has not changed since that earlier testament. abouthare the concern cte. after the chinese government pumped half-a-billionaire dollars into thatme park in indonesia have donald trump's name on it was said we should put those people back to work. that's probably just coincidence, mr. chairman. host: if you want to watch that hearing in its entirety you can do so at the span.org. in, we willse comes go there. until then the phone lines are yours. republican. good morning. caller: thank you very much for c-span. what i want to talk about is a psychological term called splitting. it happens everywhere. lennon used it in russia. it against the united

states. this is the grease country in the world. we have every denomination. every race. i would love for x president and use this out term of splitting. it worked. russia didn't care who won or lost in my opinion. they just wanted to split this nation. you can't split chinese, they are all chinese for crying outlook. russia, they ran the jews out of there. anyway obama is the greatest speaker that i have ever heard and i am 85-year-old. he could come out and use this term of splitting of what russia has done to this country is unbelievable. and we don't even realize it. i didn't realize it until i looked up the term. over the place.

but russia is splitting the u.s. worked tremendously. thank you for c-span and thank god for america. caffe. cleveland, ohio. line for democrats. go ahead. i have a question. did i understand representative brooks to say that the reason russia wanted trump to be president and was on his side because hillary clinton had a reset button and russia would be tougher on them that hillary clinton? if that's the case why would you go for someone, an opponent that's going to be tougher on you than an easier opponent? we have to really stop and listen to these people when they talk. he wasn't aware that he said that. host: where do you think we would be with russia if hillary

clinton for president? caller: i think she would have put russia back in its place. i think we would be safer. andel as if hillary clinton our intelligence and news reporters have taken care of us this far. nowthey would not drop us because this is their country. a lot of my family members have donned the uniform and come back in different states. a lot of my family members never drink law. i think she would have been tougher on russia. be in oruld no longer basically have a hard time right now. being in our infrastructure, or computers. i think she would have been much tougher. i also feel as if she would have had a hard time -- part -- harder time.

they would have wrote her like a russian racehorse. this president trump morning tweeting about the mueller investigation. just a few minutes ago the president saying despite the illegal and unwarranted witchhunt we have had the most 17 monthl administration in u.s. history by far. sorry to the fake news media and haters. michael is in 17 month administration in u.s. history by far. california on the line for democrats. it's open phones. what's on your mind? i have been listening to your callers and a lot of them are down on the president could i happen to be a democrat that supported him. to your last color i would say sometimes you ask for something and you are sorry you got it. i believe hillary clinton was guilty of a lot of things including a lot of them her emails to be hacked by foreign governments. i believe right now the democratic party with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are

guilty of obstruction. if you look at how many of the president's nominees have an confirmed it set a record low. this is absolutely absurd. if you look at what the he has kepts done the promises made. look at our unemployment rate. this is dropped grammatically. they are actually paying people to come and go to work. to say that democrats are right is really a stretch to me. host: you're calling him on the line for democrats. what makes you a democrat? caller: i am a labor democrat. i have been a democrat my whole life. i belong to a labor union that supports democrats. when they get as liberal as people like nancy pelosi and elizabeth warren, bernie sanders. i consider myself a moderate. my republican friends call me a left-wing nut. my democratic friends call me a

right-wing zealot. i think that very well puts me in the middle. right now the democratic party has moved to so far away from the center that there is no way in the world i can support them. host: who did you vote for in 2016? caller: i voted for trump. host: you think he will vote for him again? caller: that depends on who he ran against. if you get a kamala harris or bernie sanders or elizabeth warren there is no way i could ever support any of them. harris was, kamala our attorney general in california. the voters approved a measure yet as the attorney general she refused to support it. she said i'm not going to defend this. it doesn't matter whether you liked it or not. if you didn't like it then you say i personally am not going to support it but i will appoint somebody that will. michael in california. the house about to come in at 10:00 here this morning.

10:00 on c-span.org we will be showing the senate appropriations committee hearing with ajit pai, commissioner of the fcc. if you want to watch that you can go to c-span.org. here on c-span we will take you live to the floor of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 17, 2018. i hereby appoint the honorable scott desjarlais to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 8, 2018, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties.