general speeches, they take up opioid bills at 2 p.m. federal works the on a federal spending package, funding for energy and water projects, the legislative branch, military construction, and affairs. the housearing with oversight and judiciary committees to hear testimony from the justice department inspector general on the clinton email probe and fbi actions leading up to the 2016 election. at 2:30 p.m., the senate commerce committee holds a meeting on data privacy risks, posting on cambridge analytica and other facebook partners. hour, supremen court correspondent lauren turley on the supreme court action yesterday on key partisan gerrymandering cases. watch's chriscial farrell on the department of justice inspector general report on the hillary clinton email investigation.

at 9 a.m., johns hopkins paul the publiccusses health implication of children being separated from their families due to the trump administration's zero-tolerance immigration policy. ♪ heads tosident trump capitol hill later today to meet with house republicans reportedly to discuss his support of two immigration bills to be voted on by the house. they deal with how to treat so-called dreamers and border wall funding. also discuss the zero-tolerance policy. that policy has resulted in the detention of young children separated from their families. it is that result that prompted many republicans including members of congress and former first lady barbara bush to come out against it, citing it as an inhumane -- way of treating those children.

your thoughts on the zero-tolerance policy, but the end result of these children being detained. if you support the zero-tolerance policy of the administration, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. policy, gope this only, 202-748-8001. you can also post thoughts on twitter @cspanwj, on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. several significant republicans from capitol hill taking to twitter to give their comments on the zero-tolerance policy and the stories you have seen and they on children along the border including pat roberts, the senator from kansas. he tweeted out "i am against using parental separation as a deterrent to illegal immigration. my concern is the protection of

those children." another senator saying "we should not be separating children migrants from their families. congress can take action on this issue in a way that does not incentivize unauthorized border crossings." "children should not be used as a negotiating total. president trump -- negotiating tool. -- provides for asylum reform, border security and path to citizenship for dreamers." we also heard from fred upton saying, "it is time for this ugly and inhumane practice to end now." we will show you more during the morning. this resultonly on of what is happening because of this zero-tolerance policy of children being detained at the

border. if you support the administration's current position on zero tolerance and you want to give your thoughts on that and that end result 202-748-8000 it is. if you oppose that, it is 202-748-8001. you can make your thoughts on twitter and facebook. it was jeff sessions on fox news yesterday talked about the zero-tolerance policy and the children at the border and specifically asked by the host of the laura ingraham program about bringing children off -- over the border and if that policy is meant to deter people from doing that. here is what he had to say. >> fundamentally, we are enforcing the law. >> is it a deterrent, sir? no onee the fact that was being prosecuted for this as a factor in a fivefold increase in four years in this kind of illegal immigration. yes, hopefully will -- people

will get the message and come to the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully. host: more republicans commenting on this policy and we will show you that also. "the children cry for help saying taking a child away from its parents is traumatic and the effects may last a lifetime. it is not fair for the child -- to the child to make him a victim of bad policy. alone, confused, puzzled, and theified, a child wants safety of his mother's arms. we get your opinions in this first hour, starting with long beach california, randy. remember gop only this first

hour. randy, up first, go ahead. caller: i feel -- i really feel these innocent children should not suffer because of a law we have in place whether it is democratic or republican. we really should care about the children and maybe we should build the wall. i think we should build the wall. we are trillions of dollars in debt, hot -- a couple more million is worth it. host: what about this idea of zero-tolerance? how supportive of you of that? caller: i am not for zero-tolerance at all because we were able to do this before during president obama and president bush and i think we should not have zero tolerance. host: this from buckingham, virginia, douglas. good morning, you are next. caller: i support the zero tolerance to the point to this

has been the law of the land forever. people that get caught robbing banks, we don't ask of them, where are your children at? all we do is send them to jail. if you break the law, you are required to pay the price. host: what about the treatment of the children currently? what do you think about that? caller: do i what? host: what do you think about the treatment of the border currently? what should be done about that now? caller: we need to put their parents to a place they cannot get out of and they have to take care of their own children. host: that is douglas in virginia. the wall street journal, their editorial, the gop's immigration meltdown. saying the immediate solution should be for the administration to end zero-tolerance. congress can allow migrants to

-- until that is possible, better to release those with no criminal past rather than continue forced separation. the threatcores -- of dreamer deportation is not imminent. it is sure to return with urgency next year. a supporter of zero-tolerance, florida, this is pat. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is all on the parents. they should be keeping their kids as close to home as possible in safety. they should not be coming across two or three countries and come across our borders illegally. host: so the children currently being detained, what you think about what you have heard and seen over the past few days? caller: they should be on a bus

and taken back across the border and it is not our problem. they should be taken back across so they have to come across at a legal checkpoint. host: this is from texas, courtesy of the wall street journal of some of the tents immigrant children are currently being held. postu go to the washington this morning, this is near texas, on the inside of the u.s. custom border protection showing children at the center. just to give you images of how those children are being treated. thoughts on that, you heard from pat from florida. this is alford from california, also a supporter of the policy. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. i support zero-tolerance because they are blaming president

trump. clinton,ted with bush, and obama. obama is the one that created this monster. is president trump is doing enforcing the immigration law. first of all, these children, i feel bad for them, but it is turning into europe, the refugee camps. people need to wait in line and what they are doing is blaming president trump for this. it was obama that started this. if you look back at the history, obama is the one that did this and nobody said anything about it. host: so zero-tolerance is a product of this administration, though. caller: exactly. the fact is obama is the one that started this and look what is happening now. now it is becoming a refugee camp.

have a problem with people coming to this country, but come the right way. ken inlso a supporter, pennsylvania. you are next up, go ahead. caller: i just want to say i support the zero-tolerance policy and as far as the kids being ripped apart from their family, these kids do not have it so good where they came from. they are being housed, clot given medical treatment. welcome to america, this is how it is. host: what about the idea they are separated, even if they are getting all that? caller: listen, if i break the law, i will be separated from my parrot. child brings a parent here illegally, they will be separated from their parent. what part don't you understand? host: what is it about the

policy that you like most? i like the fact -- caller: i he is enforcing the law. if you don't like the law, change the law. has a piece in the washington post. zero-tolerance will not work for he saysthe headline and "i hesitate to criticize my successors in office. i hesitate to cast doubt on the -- those who work for me and the department of homeland security, but when it comes to certain policies, those of us with public voice and who understand -- the current zero-tolerance deterrence policy resulting in the separation of 2000 immigrant -- immoral and un-american. the policy will prove to be ineffective. the answer to the problem is twofold. sending more aid to central america. in 2016 congress started down

this road with assistance to guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. congress must do more. encourage neighboring countries in the region. mexico, panama, costa rica, belize to develop their own systems as alternatives to the united states. this is not politics, this is common sense. " those are the thoughts of j johnson this morning. chris nielsen was before the white house per -- reporters yesterday talking about the no tolerance policy. what president trump wants to see happening on the border of solving the problem, here are statements from yesterday. [video clip] >> he has been attempting to work with congress since he has been in office. he has made it clear we will enforce the laws of the united states as long as this administration is here. he has continuously reached out

to congress to fix those and i think what you have seen him do in the last few days is that, continue to tell congress please work with us, the system is broken. the only people who benefit right now are the smugglers, traffickers, those peddling drugs and terrorists. let's stick to the system. >> does he feel any compassion for the families being separated? he has talked about the parents being criminals, blamed it on democrats, offered no words of compassion. tweetsink he said in a he would like congress to act to end the underlying laws that require separation. host: that was from the white house yesterday. if you want to see that full conversation, go to our website. the president is expected to travel to the house today. in an effort to deal with the immigration problem on capitol hill. that will take place later today

most likely and reportedly could talk about what is going on currently with these children and what is going on when it comes to zero-tolerance policy. barbara in new hampshire, a supporter, hello. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call initially. why are we so concerned about illegals when we have a huge homeless population? who checks immunization records are backgrounds? many children are coming without parents. the others coming with adults, who checks to see they are the parents? there is no way that can be checked. there is a legal way we should enforce our laws, whether it is concerned for the children. we need to be concerned about our children, we need to be concerned about our schools. we need to be concerned about the cost to this country.

they need to change the laws. host: let's go to alabama, also a supporter of the policy. caller: i don't think i could have said it any better than the lady just did, but i want to add a few things. , thank you for taking my call. i have noticed the uproar past to do with people who are not even from this country. how many children in this country have been separated from their parents because of a crime that their parents did? and yet, you don't get to go live with your parent in jail. now the uproar and everything that a child is being separated from their parent and the lady was right. how do you know who is bringing them over the border wasn't a smuggler, trafficker, and everything and we are just supposed to let them go to the

united states and live with this person just because they are -- they claim they are their child. host: is it possible a policy could be created the families get to stay together even if they are detained altogether? caller: that would take a lot of money. no american loves seeing a child separated from their family, from their parents, their legitimate parents. i would love to be able to -- then you all would just come back and say, they are living in a cage. where are you going to put the family? a home down in brownsville and let them stay together until they adjudicate for the immigration system? who is going to pay for that? host: the wall street journal has a short primer on the policy and the effects saying the current -- the trump administration enacted a zero-tolerance approach to border crosses by migrants by

pressing criminal charges against defenders. why does that lead to separating families who are trying to get to the u.s.? generally parents and children are held together at the same facility and separated when a -- when parents are taken to a courthouse for prosecution. the administration says they must -- the children have declared to be unaccompanied by the government and arrangements are made to transport them to the care of the health and human services department. critics are saying separating fromren, including infants their parents is inhumane and say there is nothing that currently legally requires migrant families to be separated while cases are being pursued. they also ask what happens to children who are separated? some --g to an hhs spokesperson, the children are held for an average of 56 days.

advocates of the children help them apply for asylum or other protection to stay. that is the wall street journal. another picture to show you from reuters in the washington post of children of detained migrants playing soccer outside that encampment. it is one of several pictures about the facilities where children are staying. we are asking republicans only in this hour, 202-748-8000 if you support it. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. this is josh in illinois. hi. josh from illinois, hello? caller: this is gus. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, i support the president and his policies. there is a simple way to end the immigration problem nobody wants to talk about. turn off the bird feeder. we have a bird feeder and the

birds are destroying your port, get rid of the birdfeeder. we cannot afford to support all these people. what happens to the ones here already? and we are paying for that. what you guys should be doing in the news as putting out every single day, i want this spent on illegal immigration. the ones who are already here cut to their aid by 5% a month. that gives them 20 months to get a jobll out of a and get or find a place. i don't care if they are here illegally or not, what i care about is we are paying for them. opposesis is andy who the policy. andy from new york. go ahead. i think we should be careful about all the refugees.

they are in a cage with plastic blankets. , first ladies like michelle obama and others have to act to change the policy. tone -- atone. host: what do we do with the children in the meantime? are in a cage, we have to know they are human beings. they are not animals. this is disaster, this is disgusting. york,that is andy in new one of the critics about this policy and what it has -- one of the critics of this policy and what it has done to the children is barbara bush. another first lady tweeted "sometimes truth transcends party," from michelle obama.

criticizing the policy and the larger affected has on children. in alabama, a supporter of the policy, you are next. go ahead. >> -- caller: first of all, i want to say this. christians are being criticized because we support this. it is not that i support the but,ren being mistreated, i say this all the time, we have people that come over here from over there and they just keep having kid after kid after kid after kid and then they go after the program vouchers at food stamps and they go to their vehicle and they drive better vehicles than i do and i was born and raised here. don't blame trump for what is going on when the parents or

somebody else, they are saying it is not only the parents that bring the kids over here. don't blame trump for that. blame the parents or whoever is bringing them over here. they have no business bringing them here and dropping them off. host: what do you think the response has been from the religious community on this? caller: i have heard comments on msnbc that the christians are opposed to the policy because we are pro-life and we don't believe in abortion, we don't. parentsdon't believe in having kids and bringing them over here and dropping them off either. the kidst about currently being separated, is there a christian response to that, due you think -- do you think? caller: my feeling about that,

the children who are already over here, sometimes pictures are deceiving. i can take a picture and make it what i want to be. the children should not have been brought over here. that was wrong. host: that is a caller in alabama. when it comes to the response from the religious community, there is a story in the washington post looking at that. criticize president trump. white evangelicals who have been among the president's strongest supporters and perhaps, more than any other faith group, share the denunciation of families being separated, but see the issue as more nuanced and view strong supporters of the president as important to their other aims. 75% of white evangelical -- federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants as

positive compared to 46% overall 25 percent of non-white christians. that is from the washington post. if you turn to the opinion section of the new york times, by thes an op ed president of the family leader based out of iowa. it is a christian organization. when the iowa caucuses come up, they are a big force. he talks about this this morning "cruelty at the border is not justice saying it is the department of justice implementing the justice with a measure of mercy. he has shown you what is good and what does the lord require of you but to do justly and walk humbly with your god. this means we should execute justice, but not with the cruelty we are reading about with the border with mexico. families first is a biblical principle. the nuclear --

unless the authorities have a case of the most extreme circumstances involving trafficking or child abuse, the placement has no right to a national border between a parent and a child. fred, you are next from mississippi. hello. caller: good morning. oppose -- actually, i think this problem started the democratsand and the reason they are using these children to become the political points and that is sad. separatefor people to their parents because when they are legal, but nobody says anything about abortion when they take the baby away from the mother and that happens -- times

a day. as far as the press, when they , it isout christians amazing to me the only time they talk good about what they are saying is when it is against trump. -- reality is, the president trump is trying to take care of our country and democrats want to bring power by using people thedo not care about country who cannot be productive and i think that is very sad the will and the united states take -- host: let's go to massachusetts, someone who opposes the policy. we will hear from ron. caller: this is ron from massachusetts. the united states cannot support the whole world, that is what it

is leading to. own have to stay in their country with their mother and father and build a their country up. host: when it comes to the zero tolerance policy, you supported this or oppose this? caller: i don't see no zero policy, i am not going to comment on no zero policy. host: that is what we are talking about. what do you think about the treatment of these children? caller: what is that? you feel about the treatment of these children going through the legal process? caller: they should not be here, they should be where they come from. host: let it -- let's go to joe in maryland. also an opposer of the policy. caller: why do you think many of these immigrants are coming to the u.s.? host: i don't know. caller: my guess is to try and earn a better living. they are getting paid money by someone that employs them. i think if we apply zero-tolerance to the employers

of undocumented workers, we saw -- time when the ceo of a major corporation like toll brothers or one of the corporate farms in the corn bill or the hotel chain,jor somewhere below their rank, employees illegals. if there was zero-tolerance for those individuals, it would stop quickly. host: what about the case when someone is escaping a country for asylum? should the current policy change or should there be changes to that? caller: i believe there should be zero changes. asylum-seekers should be able to follow due process. the previous caller i think is a cafeteria evangelic asked -- st and they

acknowledge they have made a faustian deal with the administration. host: so you are saying there should be -- of those people who are religious, they should be supportive of a more humane treatment of children being detained? caller: i am just saying i am a don't pickian and i and choose what parts of the bible i want to follow. host: for the first half-hour, we have been looking at this idea of zero tolerance, the policy and acted by the administration for those illegally coming into the united states. the spinoff of that are these children being detained along the border and the tension facilities. we have asked republicans only because many republicans have come out against this policy and the treatment of the children and how they are being treated.

we want to get your thoughts. if you are republican and you support the current zero-tolerance policy, it is 202-748-8000. if you oppose that policy, 202-748-8001. you can also post on our facebook page and our twitter feed as well. we will hear from a critic of the policy, this one on the democratic side, this is a senator on why -- what congress should be doing when it comes to family separations. [video clip] >> if this congress can't or won't push back against this administration when it is actually harming children, when will it act? i urge my colleagues to come together right now to stop this stain on our nation. we have a bill that was introduced by senator feinstein. cosponsors.ave 49 we should vote on that bill. it would protect the welfare of

children and make sure that children would not be separated from their parents and the only time they would be separated from their parents is if they are being trafficked or abused. otherwise, families should be stay together. madam president, we should do the right thing. this is a moral issue, this is a humanitarian issue. this is an issue of right versus wrong. as a mother, as a legislator, i cannot imagine the terror these parents face to not know what is going to happen to their children. it is wrong of us to stand by silently. to do nothing.us this is what the darkness looks like. we have to stand up against it. host: if you go to our website at c-span.org, you can see a hearing that took place

yesterday. they talked about that report that came out last week that took a look at the fbi's dealing with the investigation of andary clinton's email use -- there will be a hearing today that will feature the inspector general of the justice department on the same topic of the hillary clinton email investigation. you can see that on c-span 3 at 10:00 and c-span.org and the radio app. c-span is visiting alaska for the first time in 22 years. it is our 45-foot c-span bus touring the states for the next two weeks and will be hosting community events and producing programming for the networks including our program "washington journal." that is part of our ongoing city tour. we have already visited a bunch of state capitals, more to come

including hawaii. when you go to c-span's community page at c-span.org /community, find out about our 50 capitals tour as part of the bus program and you can find that at the website. las vegas, nevada, on the support line, judy. you are next. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. or people who are of faith, we are told to obey the laws of the land. in obeying the laws of the land, this is the law of our land. i am a little disturbed that all of this inhumanity of these aredren and morality issues being laid at our doorstep when it is clearly their parents who have brought them here knowing that what they are doing is illegal.

stand theat they chance of letting their children being taken away and there being a separation. i had a son who has traffic tickets and he has five children. he got picked up on a warrant because he could not afford to weekse ticket and spent 8 in the county jail separated from his children. we certainly did not get support of the state for his children. these "cages" that they have these children in, these are facilities, to the best of my knowledge, which are a lot of fema facilities, which are there for even the citizens of the united states should there be an emergency. why is it inhumane for illegals coming across, but just fine for the american citizen? i don't get this, i don't

understand it. it is wrong. host: let's hear from kathleen in california, and opposer. i supporta -- caller: the policy, i am sorry. i support the policy of zero tolerance and i can see how the media has manipulated. they manipulate every narrative. the children, the children, the children. the same thing with the dreamers. this is manipulation by the media. we have had three to four decades of illegal immigration. crushingegal, it is america. those people, those illegal kids and parents will come straight to california where we have 75% homelessness in over 6 years. 75%. religiously, spiritually, america is a family. we are a family. these are not americans.

these parents bring their kids purposefully because they know they will get in. 300 45ncreased by percent. before the zero-tolerance policy, they are being advised andhe democrats progressives to bring your kids and then you will get in. host: what about the idea that the kids are separated from the parents and isn't there an aspect where they should be together? caller: this is the issue. first, it is the dreamer children, the dreamers. host: you made that point, i have asked the question, what do you think about it? caller: what do i think about what exactly? host: should the parents and the children be together in this process? caller: this is what we heard that you did not play on the laura ingraham show where they say the parents put the kids in the trunk of a car. not all of the parents -- not

all of the adults are the parents of the children. they put the parents in the trunk of the car knowing they will be separated from their children. host: ok. let's go to daniel in stafford, virginia. hello. daniel in stafford, hi. caller: can you hear me? host: yep. caller: great. just so you know who you are talking to, i am a christian, fbi employee,rmer i have a unique perspective and there are two arguments i have not heard made. the first argument is when the children, that nobody talks about the dangerous, harrowing, life-threatening process these people go through to try to come into the country illegally. i consider that reckless

endangerment. in america, if you have a child feces and theyn are beaten, the state comes in and brings the children wards of the state because the parents put the children in a situation where they are recklessly endangering their safety. i consider it similar to reckless endangerment. i forgot my second point. host: from the perspective, i have been asking this of a lot of people, what about the idea that children are separated from the parents when they come over the border. should something be done to address that? caller: i totally understand it is a terrifying process that after having gone through all of that, to be separated from the only anchor they have throughout the ordeal. however, i cannot imagine the separation from their parents is more terrifying than everything they have already gone through.

as a christian, i would say we should always have compassion and i hope there are church groups trying to collect clothing and do pastoral visits to children and help meet their needs. the kids are reunited with their parents after a period of several days. host: that is daniel in virginia giving his perspective. you can offer your opinion on the phone line or on facebook or twitter. president trump heads to capitol hill to head -- to talk with republicans. a senior white house official says democrats and raised by the trump administration's policy should negotiate with donald trump. ton the president heads capitol hill tuesday afternoon, he will only see republican faces. -- he is expected to endorse both measures with senior

administration officials contending both would address the migrant separation issues. congress and the courts graded this issue and congress alone can fix it. that was said yesterday during the briefing at the white house. then, we will enforce every law we have to the sovereignty and security of the united states. the president has directed his blame at democrats. in recent days, he has alluded democratsmed bill past on their own which is a mobley was signed by an unnamed democratic president -- which presumably was signed by an unnamed democratic president. we will hear next from alex. caller: thank you for taking my call. with the disagree zero-tolerance mandate. the only reason i see all of this trouble that is coming out

is not only that unfortunately the masses of americans and american citizens are kept ignorant about the truth of why all of these things are happening. the people -- if the people in this country really open their eyes and understand what is it that all of these people are crossing the border for the past ity years and decades that has been going on from administration to administration. from republicans to democrats. you are only ever really able to think hey, nobody ever talks about the foreign policy of the u.s. government in central america and south america. literally removed any government that was prosocial or socialist or even got forgiven, communist

-- god forgiven, communist. and all these attempts to the u.s. government have resulted in all of these countries to have pro-u.s. that are that means there are going to be a lot of these people and of course, you have the christian rights that go there like telling them don't use birth control, don't use family planning, don't use birth control and of course they have so many kids. what do you expect when you don't understand the logic behind -- let's go to william in clarksville, tennessee, oppose line. and i: my name is william am really concerned. i am a christian, i am a republican and when i look at the statistics up 75% white people are against this, well,

these are babies. my family came here as immigrants and i protest any separation of children. we think about the statue of liberty, it is a symbol asking people all over the world, freedom toto come to better themselves and when we have people of different color to come here and people act racist and especially christian people, we need to think about the facts and i have heard all types of things that were wrong. jeff sessions was the one who signed in this administration policy for this zero policy. it was not obama. it was with president trump. things,say all of these these people are coming here for asylum because they were abused. i think if you have any type of christian -- yes, i believe in romans 13, obey the laws of the land, but i will not stand for

any unjust moral that hurts people, that is discriminating, and especially when i see children, when it is inhumane, appalling, barbaric behavior and all americans need to look at themselves because if it were them and they were being separated from their children, how would they feel? hhs, they have taken a lot of measures and i understand, it is more than just getting food, but there are language barriers and when you have two-year-old separated from their parents and we have no means to put the children back together with their parents, i think it is humanitarian -- in humanitarian. this is a kid jail 24 hours a day they are inside. no space, five to a room, cramped. if we are looking at asylum seekers, these people were already abused before they came here. they are fleeing from attacks.

what type of country are we if we are not looking at these traumatized people seeking good for their children and they come here and sleep on cement floors and in tents. i think this is poor judgment. host: william, we will leave your thoughts there and go to gail in california. caller: good morning, everybody. i have a different take on this altogether from everybody else because i am one of the people who passed proposition 187 in california in 1984 and the mexicans use their kids as a meal ticket to get across the border. they have been doing this for decades. they have been doing this since the late 80's. this is basically a well-planned invasion and it has been out there for the last 30 years that

the mexicans will not overtake us, they will overwhelm us. host: you are saying in this case the children are pawns? caller: exactly and they rent their kids out to other people so they can get other people across the border and they have been doing it since the late 80's. sue is next in illinois. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am very much for this because we need to close the border and people need to come in legally. i do not have anything against other people coming into our give them freedom, but they cross all the way through mexico. why doesn't mexico take some of these people? theyspeak their language, can help them, where is the mexican president in his country? why doesn't he help his own people? host: that is sue in illinois.

one piece of sound from jeff he was at a conference yesterday and talked about the situation at the border and because of that and child separations, this is from yesterday, the attorney general, jeff sessions. [video clip] >> let's remember we have a generous, lawful system that admits over one million people a year to permanent legal status in america. when we ignore our laws at the border, we encourage hundreds of thousands of people a year to likewise ignore our laws. and it illegally enter our country, creating an enormous burden on our law enforcement, our schools, our hospitals, and social programs. president trump has said this lawlessness cannot continue. we do not want to separate parents from their children.

if we build a law, we pass legislation and close loopholes, we will not face these terrible charges, the numbers will end. we will have a system for those who need to apply for asylum can do so and those who want to come to this country will apply to enter lawfully. the american people are generous who want our law enforced. that is what we intend to do and we ask congress to be partners in this effort. it is critically important they help us at this critical time. the front page of the washington journal takes a look at the administration's approach when it comes to tariffs saying the president escalated a trade conflict asking his administration to identify a new list in chinese goods that will be penalized by tariffs. of that follows a list last --

designed to punish china for unfair trade tactics. statement late monday which the president said he now wants robert lighthizer to -- if chinat second retaliates, mr. trump promised to escalate further by placing tariffs on the $200 billion. there is a related story saying when it comes to the announcement, it came -- zte components by the corporation president trump sought to overturn. massachusetts is next, we will hear from becky. hello. caller: yes. say sorry, you did not becky, i assume you are speaking to me. host: becky from massachusetts,

yes. caller: ok. i wasn't sure. thank you for taking my call. tolerance.h the zero my call basically is saying yesterday there was a woman who called in and said that jeff criticism. as a i am saying some of the pictures, i question the pictures because there is one you showed that they supposedly are coming out of the bush, they have traveled hear from honduras or wherever, crossed mexico, the is clean.eir clothing they have brand-new sneakers and different things. i think some of these photos put out our staged. host: you said you supported the zero tolerance -- why are you

supportive of that? the head ofsten to the homeland security. host: kristen nielsen. caller: yes. she is stating most of these people, they are in lockdown or whatever, the parents, cross, if they actually wanted asylum, that they need to come to a port of entry, not to the wall, not over the wall, they need to come and they need to claim that. you are wrapping all these people into whether they are coming here and claiming it as they come over the border, we do not know any situation and we don't even know, she stated many of them are not with their parents. it is sad, but what are we going

to do, put them in a cage with their parents? put them in a jail cell with their parents? we should not be doing that either. this has to be zero tolerance. becky fromis massachusetts. she imagined this idea of photographs you have seen and the perspective they offer. if you go to the cnn website, there is a story, the truth behind this photo of an immigrant child crying inside a cage. this was posted yesterday and goes on to say a photo of a little boy crying in a cage is being shared as seemingly another heart rending byproduct of the zero tolerance immigration product. this picture is being completely taken out of context and does not show what it is purported to show. some claiming the image depicting a boy claimed by ice, referring all people who cross

the border illegally for criminal -- criminal prosecution, saying 2000 children have been separated from their parents -- adding that a journalism filmmaker posted the photo on twitter saying "this is what happens when believes -- a government believes people are illegal. kids in cages." it goes on to say the picture was taken during a june 10 protest against the white house immigration policies at dallas city hall as first reported by a fact checking site. the same boy outside the cage as activist holds signs urging the white house to stop separating families. if you go to the cnn website, you can see the post, the pictures involved with the perspective it offers. line,exas on our oppose roger is next, hi.

caller: thank you for taking my call. how are you, pedro? host: i am fine, thanks. the zero tolerance policy will just make me mad. it is heinous, inhumane. bad picture of what we are really doing. are we not human? the president of the united since is, in a way, not woodrow wilson, an active, belligerent, white nationalist dedicated to rolling back the rights of americans and like everybody in the world. host: what about the idea some of the callers have brought forth that it was the parents' acts that resulted in the

children being detained and if you lived in the united states -- caller: i don't know what justifies putting children in cages like that and showing pictures to the world who clearly had a picture of the united states and democracy in it. who would've believed this creature who campaigned two years ago with a psychotic attack on mexicans and americans of mexican dissent, actually it is ridiculous. -- supporters they go back and change their mind about who he told us he was going to be and who he really ended up being. host: ok. caller: i am going to finish now. millions of us saw through him.

i prophesies this moment -- i prophesized this moment. host: but go to tennessee, patricia, go ahead. caller: i can see both sides here. have 3my children, i sons. the oldest one is 33. let me tell you my experience. as a mother, my last child, i ended up having to work three jobs. he came from mexico the right way. they fired him and hired an illegal. this is what is going on in america. they hire the illegals, undocumented workers, and put us out of work. the men who come here illegally, they are sitting here, employees here in america will give them put us outer us and of work. the womenaround and

here can marry here and there. they can have kids here and there. the women here and some of them -- ,ost: with all that in mind what do you think about the zero tolerance policy? i definitely have a zero-tolerance policy on this. how many kids are getting kidnapped to bring those children across? how many kids are being abused in mexico just to be used to smuggle drugs into america and use them? how many kids are going through that? how many families are missing kids because some of these people -- i am sure some of these people want to come in, but they need to do it the right way. host: ok. let's go to thomas in south carolina. you are next up. thomas in south carolina. caller: yes.

i don't even look at this as a zero-tolerance policy. withs obamapictures -- with the obamas in office and he had pictures of kids in cages. as act like zero tolerance, a person on c-span, you don't have a right. you should be neutral. caller: i have not taken a position at all on this. the only reason i am here is to get your position. ander: you can watch you tell by your attitude you are definitely taking a position. host: i think you are reading too much into it, but i will give you one more chance to give your position on the zero tolerance policy. caller: are you an immigrant? you come from some other country? host: let's go to brenda in kentucky. go ahead, you are next.

brenda in kentucky, good morning. caller: are you talking to brenda? comment to have a make. i think most of the problems we are having -- most of it, all of it, is the people in our government that are legislating for mexicans and set of the american people. that is not their job. they are there only for one purpose, to protect the american people in our country. i don't know what gives them the right to think that they can start legislating for mexicans in mexico. we empathize with those people, i think they dig them out of the scummy us places in mexico and bring them in here. what is wrong with mexico? it is such a bad place to live, i don't get it. why they can't get along in their own country. mexico is a beautiful country. i have never been down there but i have seen pictures.

here to go from there for vacation. what is wrong with mexico that these people can survive in their own country. >> derek, houston texas. doing?how are you , i think the amount of money we are sending down in isico and honduras and stuff our fault. some of the people in the countries down there have taken the money -- are being abused just like in germany or anywhere else and they are trying to get situation, deprave we are supposed to love everybody as christians. or however you want to put it.

i don't care if they had their mom or grandma, they are human beings. we are supposed to accept these people. say -- howund and can you be pro-one thing on one side and against something on the other side? you have to look at things with your heart? we will change gears in our next segment. we will talk about the decision that came out of the supreme court yesterday including that decision by the court on political gerrymandering and what it means for future elections. joining us from that conversation is lawrence hurley. those conversations coming up on washington journal after this. ♪

the c-span bus is in alaska this week for the 38 stop of our 50 capital store. with the helpau of our partner gci. >> we are thrilled that c-span has chosen to visit alaska for the first time in 22 years. as part of its 50 n cities tour. a big shout out to c-span. [applause] for decades gci has offered c-span to customers because we believe in the network cost tosion -- network's mission open to a trusted media resource. dci support c-span's efforts to educate the nation on politics, policy, and current events. gci and cable companies around the country make c-span

possible. it is no government funding or advertising. it is a public service funded by fees paid by gci and other countries. c-span calls itself cable's gift to america. thanks to our long-standing special partnership with nationwide capital tour, we get to showcase our state, the largest in the nation , to the rest of the country via c-span. they are here. finally. thank goodness. >> we are ecstatic. it is a huge deal for us. it gives us a chance to showcase our city nationwide. and just to have the idea that andbody wants to come in sample what we have to offer here and hopefully -- we are open for business. we like the idea that you are here. be sure to join us on july 21

and 22nd when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host:this is lawrence hurley who reports on the supreme court for writers here to talk about some of the decisions that came down yesterday. one of those decisions. with the idea of political gerrymandering , can you tell us what the court was asked to consider? >> these were linked cases that could have put limits on to what extent state lawmakers can take into account their own partisan preferences when drawing electoral district. it could have affected elections for years to come. the court issued a narrow decision that sent the cases back to a lower court.

they did not say anything about the bigger question of whether there should be limits on this although many election reform type people think it is a big deal. this issue is going to continue to simmer. there is another case from north carolina that the court could take up in the next couple of weeks. host: wisconsin being one of those decisions, maryland, can you generalize what is going on in each of those? guest: in wisconsin, democrats challenged a state legislative district john by republicans -- drawn by republicans. the court said they did not have legal standing to sue because they did not have plaintiffs in every district. the court sent that case back on the standing issue. they did not get into the legal merits over whether this legal theory the democrats had to be workable in the court. is, it is suchn a political issue. people are going to accuse judges of being biased. the courts are reluctant to get

involved. they need to have a workable standard they can implement across the board that will be seen as favoring democrats or republicans. so far the court looks like it has not come upon a theory they can get five votes four out of nine justices. in the maryland case, this was just one congressional district john by democrats and challenged by republicans. the court said the plaintiffs had not shown enough to block that district, that will continue in lower course. host: in the general sense, what is the history of the supreme court when it comes to the decisions? purely political, what position have a taken before? often takes upt cases of racial gerrymandering rawne district are d 2pac minority voters into a single district. when it comes to partisan

gerrymandering, it is an issue the court has been reluctant to get involved in. justice kennedy, the swing justice on the nine justice court, said in a previous decision that he was leaving the door open to maybe allowing it in the future. in these cases yesterday, justice kennedy was completely silent. the court was unanimous in both cases. we are no closer to knowing whether they want to get their toe in that water. did they take these cases in the first place, because they get thousands, they take these in than they make the decision they do? >> this was a difficult one because gerrymandering cases, but the court in different ways that i normal case. there is more a need for them to hear the case and decided. in some ways they don't have much choice, they have to take these cases. for the election reform advocates, the good news yesterday is that the court did not say, no we can't hear these cases which is what they could

of done. they could have shut the door entirely and said it is not something the court can decide. if politicians or voters think it is that they should find a way to solve it. host: political gerrymandering with one of those cases you took place at the supreme court. --ll talk about our about it with our guest or related issues. you can call in (202) 748-8000. for republicans. fort republicans -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for independents (202) 748-8002. what was the breakdown on boats? guest: going in it seemed like it would be a 5-4 decision. likely to bemore in favor of staffing and conservatives less likely. hey were unanimous on the vote to send this wisconsin case back and overturn the ruling

that said the districts drawn by republicans or thrown out. the same thing in the maryland case. there were different opinions the justices wrote and the liberal justices did write their opinion with a made it clear they are more sympathetic to this issue. the question is whether they can get justice kennedy to go along with them. host: it is always hard to see how the justices will react. when the arguments took place for this case, did you get a sense this might be the result? >> it looked like it was a close thing. justice kennedy did not really tip his hand one way or another. with the maryland case it was very clear they were reluctant to delve in. host: with the north carolina case you mentioned, can you set up the contours of that state's dilemma and how it leads to the larger issue of gerrymandering? more: north carolina is interesting because it is

districts drawn by republicans that have been challenged by democrats. this would be the congressional districts. the theory is a little different to wisconsin. they do have plaintiffs in every district which is the thing the court faulted wisconsin for not having. there is reason to think maybe the court, this is a better case for the court to get in on if they want to. the court could just say next week, we are going to send this case back for a do over in light of what i will yesterday. host: our guest is was thus -- is with us until 8:30. cliff is in flint, michigan. you're up with lawrence hurley of reuters. caller: good morning. i don't have a question. my opinion is that gerrymandering is used by both to create a we know

majority for their party. i think it is about time for the united states supreme court to this is actually illegal voterssomething so that can be better represented rather than being steered into districts against their will. guest: that is exactly right. both parties do gerrymandering when they have control. the maryland case we just talked about was democrats joined the district, trying to diminish the votes of republicans. the case in wisconsin was the other way around. the question is, is anyone going to be willing to step in and resolve this. politicians who control states may be reluctant to do that if

it means they are going to lose their power. host: dennis, good morning from pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. in the north carolina case, republicans openly brag that they drew those districts so there would be 10 republicans and three democrats. they also openly brag that had they had a way to do it they would have drawn them so there would be 11 republicans and only two democrats. i am from pennsylvania, and we just had the state supreme court redraw the districts here because the republicans had done exactly the same thing where we had 13 republicans for two straight elections, three straight elections, and only five democrats. actually more of a democrat slightly state, get they had rigged it so there

would be 70% of the u.s. representatives would be republicans. i want the districts drawn so that there is -- that you get to choose your representative and set of them choosing you. i don't want to see gerrymandering. there needs to be something done to stop its of the sisters are aren just -- districts drawn just as districts not to give a party on advantage. guest: what is interesting about north carolina is, they have previously been faulted by the supreme court for doing racial gerrymandering. when they drew these districts they said they were not doing racial gerrymandering, we are going to do is purely on partisan grounds. at that time there was no indication the supreme court get involved. now that it has, there is an irony where the supreme court could end up using some of that evidence that the state used to say they weren't doing racial gerrymandering to show they were doing partisan gerrymandering.

in pennsylvania there was an interesting case as well. the republican drawn districts were thrown out by the state supreme court. it was done on states lock around. which means that the states laws -- states laws grant. the supreme court had no authority to intervene because there was no issued a result. host: is part of the difficulty that the constitution has to address all these and is there not a's that of the -- guest: if you are a plaintiff filing a lawsuit, what do you sue under? equal protection, first amendment, the courts have not figured out a test they can use to say, i have been hurt by this, how do i get a remedy that results is claims? host: racial gerrymandering would take a different track i imagine? guest: there is a long tradition of the court getting involved in that. that theory does not really apply in the same way too

partisan gerrymandering. host: here is anne in the tampa, florida. caller: i want to thank you for taking my call. i wanted to -- i never really understood much of the detail about gerrymandering. there was -- here is my two-part question. the supreme court and partisan gerrymandering, when it comes to issues, he just mentioned -- california just had something on the ballot about splitting up their entire state. host: she dropped. guest: it makes me think -- it is true that in california and several other states they have set up these independent commissions to draw the line. the supreme court has okayed. in those states, in theory at

least, you have a nonpartisan group that draw the lines which may be can limit the impact of gerrymandering. host: could the states argue this is purely a state's rights issue on how we divide district in our state and why should the supreme court enter into that? guest: under the constitution it is said that state legislations can draw district in each state. the states have a big say. host: i am always interested in neil gorsuch and how he responded to both of these cases, could you break that down? guest: unusually for him, because he has written a lot of opinions, he did not say anything on these cases yesterday. in theority opinion wisconsin case was written by the chief justice. it seemed like the chief justice get a strong vote without any dissent.

trying to issue his narrow decision. it seems like he did that. again, (202) 748-8001. for republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. new york, good morning. caller: this is going to be impossible to try and find an even designation for republicans and democrats. there is always going to be regions that go one way or another. municipalities -- the municipal lines that have already been drawn be the ones, need morects, if you representatives because of higher population, then divide

like citiest just are, eastside, westside, north side. it does not seem like it should be that complicated. these lines are ridiculously drawn. you never know who your representative is. , according toave population, drawn up in lines that are already designated? guest: obviously it is a complicated issue. limits thather lawmakers have when trying to draw these lines. one is the need to have one person and one vote. the other issue is the racial issue. you can't draw lines in the way that is going to create violations of the voting rights act or equal protections. especially in urban areas where there are a lot of minorities. you can't just pack them all --o these districts and say,

there is a science to it as it were. it is not perfect. they have these computer software's that can draw maps very easily, taking into account all these minor data points. question is, who gets to do it and what limits there are. >> indiana, lana is next. >> hi, how are you. i was just wondering, this has been -- i am 72 years old. politics has been important in my family for my entire life. this issue has been going on forever. they keep redrawing lines for everything. for congress, senate, school districts. all of that sort of thing.

why do we have to keep doing over?ver and over and guest: the reason for that is the population keeps growing. census thethere is a lines have to be redrawn to ensure everyone is representative -- represented. host: a couple other matters from the supreme court to discuss. another case dealing with the topic of sentencing. set that up and tell us the result. guest: an interesting case that was argued by deputy attorney general ron rosenstein who everyone knows as under a cloud at the moment because he is overseeing the special counsel's investigation into the alleged russian involvement in the election. jobook a break from his day back in april to argue this case , which is a pretty minor case.

it got a lot of attention from the media and so on, because it is not often that a justice department official argues the case. he did a pretty decent job. he won the case. on a 5-3 vote. a guy whoment won have been convicted with drug possession with intent to distribute drugs was hoping to get a reduction to his sentence. the court said no. host: as far as the remainder decisions, how much time does the supreme court have to issue what you decided on? give us some information with the cases that have yet to be heard. guest: we have big ones coming. the court has a self-imposed deadline by the end of june. they will probably be finished in the next week or so. they can all go on their summer vacations. they have some big cases, the biggest one is the challenge to president trump's travel ban.

people may have forgotten about it recently. the supreme court in december allowed it to go into effect. this is the case, we are going to decide whether it is lawful. another big case is one that is going to affect everyone's wallet, a case about online sales tax where the court could decide that states can force out-of-state online retailers to collect sales taxes on their behalf. which would affect a lot of companies around the country and mean that most consumers might have to pay a little more for some of your online purchases. host: the travel ban decision, if you can go back. i know you can't tell what they are going to do at the end. what is the sense of the court when it came to the argument when it comes to the discussion of the legality of the ban? guest: it was a low-key argument.

sometimes there are these political high tense cases when you get a lot of tension in the room between the justices. this one they kept the temperature down. they already allowed the band to go into effect on a seven-to effect ban to go into on a 7-2 vote. there was nothing that happened in the argument that minutes he might that would not happen. one of the questions is whether they do uphold the ban whether it will be a 5-4 vote or maybe even the liberals might join with the majority. decide to notdo withhold the band, is that it as far as the ban is concerned? guest: if they strike it down that is the end of the ban. it would limit future presidents and what they can do. if they uphold it, the ban

continues and the administration can change it. they can tinker around the edges. the have the authority to do that. host: when it comes to the online sales tax, i know matters of technology, the court is not taking a lot of these types of cases. what was your sense of the arguments and what are the long-term implications? guest: this was a close one. what the court is doing is clearing up its unmasked as it were -- its own mess as it were. 25 years ago the court decided, before the rise of internet sales, that states could not collect taxes from companies that don't have a physical presence in the state. as soon as amazon and others came along and started selling stuff from out of state, the states had no ability to force them to pay sales taxes. the court has now decided to , inturn its own decision

doing so it would give states power to call back that money. the environment has changed since then. amazon grew off the back of this court decision because they could sell things cheaper than in-state retailers. companyzon is this huge and they do have a physical presence in a lot of states. they already do collect these taxes. the companies affected most will be smaller companies, including small businesses that operate out of people's basement. they may be required to collect sales taxes. , but almost every case people say watch anthony kennedy. would you say that is the same for these cases? guest: with the sales tax case in particular, it is justice kennedy who wrote an opinion i couple of years ago in another saying, we should think about overturning that decision. we did not anticipate the rise

of online retail at the time. the only question now is whethek about overturning that decision. he has the other justices behind them. we know that two of them probably will be. divide, it partisan could be a case where the court is divided. host: let's hear from crystal in delaware. caller: hi, how are you. i had a couple of statements. i think that it should not have ever been a question for sales tax to be collected online. that is part of running the brick and mortar out of business. if people can go online and avoid paying sales tax, who is going to go to the store where you have to pay it? that seems to be pretty unfair. i think they need to make sure that sales tax is collected to matter what. on the other thing we were talking about, on sentencing. havew individual states

different rules and regulations. i think there should be a if somebody gets caught, he was talking about a man with drugs. a somebody is caught with amount of drugs, or distribution or whatever, there should be a set guideline of what can be imposed all across the united states. it should not differ according to where you live. in justices are being served there. host: ok, go ahead quickly. caller: how come right now that donald trump -- i'm a black woman and i support donald trump. how come when he is president, now we act like the president does not have the right to decide on who comes into the country? that is his job. host: thank you. guest: on the immigration thing.

president barack obama when he was in office tried to make changes to immigration policy in terms of maybe limiting people being deported and allowing people, the dreamers, to stay in the country. those were challenged as well. one of his programs was blocked by the court. quiver is president gets a lot of leeway on immigration but they also tend to get sued over it. on the sales tax thing. i think the issue about the effect on brick-and-mortar retailers is certainly in this case. companiesand-mortar feel like they have not been on a level playing field ever since the rise of online retail because they have to collect taxes but some competitors don't. what is the likelihood that justice anthony kennedy

will be part of the nine justices come this october? guest: there has been a lot of debate over whether anthony kennedy is going to retire. normally, in recent years when someone is retiring we would have heard about it by now. they would have announced in april or may that the senate or white house have a bit more time to line up a successor who could be confirmed in time for the new term in october. that is one piece of evidence for what it is worth. the bottom line is, nobody knows except justice kennedy. host: laurent early reports on reportslawrence hurley on the supreme court for thomson reuters. coming up, we're going to hear about the justice department's inspector general report on hillary clinton's use of email. christopher farrell of judicial watch will join us to talk about it.

later on we hear about those children being held at the border and what happens to them emotionally, physically, and otherwise because of their dissension will have is -- because of their detention. we will have those conversations next. attack andguage of of damage that by expressing an opinion that people don't like you have inflicted an injury, i striking andry rather frightening. and quite emblematic of the way the left is responding. to any sort of dissent and especially one that trenches on identity grievance politics which is everywhere. it has infected everything. professor amy --

>> on the limits of free expression on college campuses in the u.s.. sunday not at 8:00 eastern on cue and day. --q&a. >> maryland congressman john delaney, the first democrat to declare our run for the presidency in 2020, offers his vision for america in his book " the right answer: how we can unify our broken nation." he is interviewed by donna brazile. -- youpe and a member have had the opportunity to introduce the most -- legislation. you also call for an end of partisanship, especially partisanship that rewards division. what do you mean by that? >> i think the president or any other elected leader in this country should effectively represent everyone. whether they voted for them or

not. they should make a pledge never to divide us. that does not mean that they don't go out there and say why they should vote for me over the other person or why my ideas are better than the other person's ideas. to the step where you are actually cultivating a one of theivision is things that is going wrong in this country right now that is insidious. i think if you have the privilege of serving, which i feel like i do, we should all in addition to swearing to protect and defend the constitution, we should pledge to the american people that we are not going to take things that divide us. we're going to go out of our way to unify the country. the country is stronger when we are unified. >> watch sunday night at 9:00 eastern on booktv.

washington journal continues. host: joining us now is chris farrell with judicial watch. he is their director of investigations and research here to talk about the release of inspector general's report. to start with, tell people about the release of the inspector general report. what was it about, its conclusions, and how much you agree or disagree? guest: the inspector general issued a report last thursday. the focus of the report had to do with the fbi's handling of the investigation into hillary clinton's email server. the investigation was conducted, whether it was proper, complete, or accurate. in the course of their avestigation, they uncovered series of communications, primarily text messages, between fbi officials, attorneys on fbi

staff and special agents. the results were pretty shocking. the conclusion the inspector general came to was that there was clearly some sort of misconduct here, there has been a referral to the office of professional responsibility within the fbi. they are kind of split. they go on at length, there are dozens of pages discussing these inappropriate or unlawful text messages. that demonstrate bias. on page 398 of the report, the discussion of bias and the appearance of bias, the appearance of improper activity. they talk about it for a while and they say, he did not affect anything. that is kind of where i have a little trouble with how the report came out. i think you have to contextualize what an inspector general report is. it is not a criminal investigation. looks at a department or

agency and a does an investigation to find out about policy and procedure. it is an in-house policy review. they uncover things that are unlawful or inappropriate, but that is not what they are being asked to do. they're asked to examine from a policy and procedure point of view. that is what people see this disconnect. they say, the things they said and did appear to be unlawful, but that is not the lens through which an inspector general looks at things. they found several instances, not only with email, with other things that may not have been the best way of doing things but there were malicious undertones. guest: that is a fair appraisal. i think the other thing that is interesting is to look at the -- they spent so much time talking about their process. they go out of their way to explain, where there were options, investigative

alternatives, three courses of action and the persons involved chose course of action a, they did not question that decision. they assumed it was a good -- it was in good faith. they interviewed persons about that but there was no 2020 hindsight. there was no, we re-examined it and he would have chosen this course of action. they don't do that. they accepted at face value. administrative policy and procedure review. it is a singly different than a criminal investigation. host: we will talk about this report on hillary clinton's email use. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8001. for republicans. for democrats (202) 748-8000. (202)dependents 748-8002. you had issues with the conclusions, what are those issues? discusses four

different categories of text messages that were exchanged. they say there is an appearance of impropriety. that there was bias. that decisions and actions were affected by those points of view expressed. in the next breath they say it did not affect the outcome of the investigation. they say it did on page 398. if you are going to discuss these categories of text messages and say there is an appearance of bias and that bias is politically motivated and affected behavior and conduct, then there was bias. there are a few instances like that. when you start on page 395 of the report there is discussion for thirtysomething pages of these text messages. they interviewed the persons who page, and strokk three other characters.

agent 1, 82, and an attorney. i think it is fair the public know who they are. they go text message by text message and allow those persons to explain what they were thinking, how they felt, what they intended by it, and there is an awful lot of rationalization. " i did not mean it, i did not say it that way, if i was spouting off to a friend." they backpedal from the language, some of the language is quite reckless and offensive. what is particularly curious to me is that, on page 409 there is a text message from lisa page developingabout speaking points are it she said "potus wants to know everything we are doing." there is no description or

rationalization about that particular text message. it is absent. i find that interesting. that takes his entire exchange and drags it into the oval office. it advocates president obama -- -- -- implicates president obama. we have andrew mccabe's calendar. documented least two distinct lines that draw this controversy into the obama white house. there is no discussion of it. it is conspicuously absent in this report. host: we will start with connecticut. independent line. anti-islamic our guest chris farrell, go ahead. thatr: -- and he is on caller: the doj over the

timeline of how dollar was hired and -- mueller was hired and who at the doj knew he was in line to be special counsel? did comey and residency discussed that mueller was lined up to be special counsel? when coming was fired and he licked his memos -- comey was fired and leaked his memos, he probably knew that mueller was already lined up for a special counsel position which would help comey to the president trump. your thoughts? guest: i think the caller has a pretty recent approach to this. will be a small universe of persons who are on the go to list for special counsel. mueller is one of those prequalified persons because of his background in training and career. another name was patrick fitzgerald, another sort of very

experienced professional prosecutor, doj time and fbi time. thats been discussed comey's actions and activities in front of the senate intelligence committees, where under of he admitted he had leaked information, that was all a precursor or lining up of the stars to provoke or initiate a special counsel. i don't think the have documentary proof of that yet. i think it is not unreasonable to think that was the way things were going. host: back to the report that was leaked. when it comes to the freedom of information act, is judicial watch seeking more information about this or does the report settle it? freedom ofe are many information act requests around this report where we are seeking

information. the reason why the report was ever written was because of hillary clinton's email server decision, her decision to not use state department to medications for her own purposes. -- communications for her own purposes. that was revealed by judicial request. with all the information about benghazi, there was traffic to key figures, and conspicuously absent was anything from mrs. clinton. the case took its course, as many cases are it was dismissed because you get what you get and you are done. about 10 months later the state department came back to us very sheepishly and said, we discovered another universe of documents. what universe is this, what did you not see before? that is when they revealed mrs.

clinton was running her own outside server and sending all of our communications across it. that caused us to go back to the court and have the case reopened, which is extraordinary. the state department admitted on the record they had perpetuated fraud of the court with misrepresentations. for was the ignition point where we now find ourselves years later. host: from amsterdam, new york, joseph on the democrats line. caller: i am glad to see we are relitigating hillary's emails instead of talking about children being held captive on the border. i am really disappointed that c-span did not see fit to ask the opinion of democrats concerning the border policy, as if they don't matter. host: i will stop you there. two days ago we address this with everybody. we wanted to address this republicans today. what question do you have for our guest?

caller: how about democrat. let's keep going on judicial watch. millions been $20 investigating hillary's email and they don't seem to think the collusion with russia, all these russian meetings that were lied about in congress, those don't matter. we need to relitigate hillary's emails because that seems to be the most important issue to these guys. host: ok. we will leave it there. why make light of this now? why continue down this track? guest: there has been documented misconduct arguably. i could make the case pretty strongly that there has been a violation of u.s. code section 242 which is deprivation of rights under color of law. that is the long expression for

abuse of power. you have arguably a pretty strong case that very senior fbi officials attempted to steer a presidential election. there is unambiguous language. one of them says we will stop it, meaning the election of president trump. who gets wrapped up in the partisanship of this, pause for a second and flip it around the other way. suppose you had different candidates from different parties and very senior government officials at the doj themselves --ing expressing themselves in no uncertain terms but what -- about what they want to accomplish, throwing an investigation on a national security front because they did not want to have that candidate in jeopardy because the notion of having the other candidate elected was unacceptable. this is great stuff. i have done some public speaking

engagements where i said let's do a thought experiment. let's take the same caliber of persons at the department of justice and at the i, same rank -- and the fbi, same rank and authority, let's lift them up out of the doj, slide them over to the department of defense, and drop them in and say go. when you do that thought experiment, you go from a legal coup of some sort to something we don't think about as being in our american history. where a military leadership would go to those lengths to suppress an investigation in one area, engage in misconduct in an effort to skew an election. this is extraordinary stuff. it can't be overstated. int: let's hear from mark delaware. republican line. caller: hello, gentlemen. i have a question and it may be

too simple. sometimes you can tell where a person is from, they can tell you something about them. his hillary clinton from new york state or arkansas? host: what is the point? caller: uhhhhhh. hillary clinton is a good name. it's too bad she could not have been our first lady u.s. president. -- i would like our next president to be from los angeles. mark from salem, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i was wondering what your opinion was, i know you touched briefly on when one or more people get together and conspire to overthrow a sitting president and influence an election, isn't that a conspiracy or coup d'etat? why did the inspector general treat this as just a bias when there is multiple people involved with the exact same plan?

that is conspiracy. the fact that he did not turn it over to the prosecution for any of these individuals is appalling to me. on top of that, why was christopher wray not asked why peter struck is employed at his agency. i would like to hear your opinion on these issues. the caller makes an excellent point. i want to go back to this notion, it is documented. these activities at the fbi and department of justice were being either coordinated, directed, or some synchronization with the obama white house. president obama has been silent on this, i don't think he has had any press statements or availability concerning this issue. he had previous event on the record saying he is never emailed with secretary clinton, we know that is false, that he

did. the ig report discusses that. was senator hatch yesterday, mr. ray was trying to say these are a few bad apples. it is unfortunate people stepped out of bounds, it does not reflect the larger fbi. i think mr. hatch said, let's look at who the bad apples were. the director, deputy director, agent involved in the interview of general flynn, the email investigation, and the launch of the russia investigation. his girlfriend was a principal attorney in all three matters, advising the director. this is pretty great stuff. this is not, one dirty agent in el paso. of the the leadership premier law enforcement and intelligence service. host: we have a bit of christopher wray talking about how this could affect the fbi.

the report makes clear that we have significant work to do. as i said, we are going to learn from the report and be better as a result. at the same time, i want to emphasize this report is focused on a specific set of events in 2016 at a small number of fbi employees connected with those events. mistakes made by those employees do not define our 37,000 men and women and the great work they do every day. report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole, or the fbi as an institution. i want to be clear with the committee about the fbi i've been able to see up close and every day in the 10 months since my confirmation hearing. host: how would you square with that assessment he gives? guest: i think the director is involved in damage control and defending and protecting the institution.

i think it minimizes or in some way trivializes or diminishes the gravity of what he faces. i understand where he is coming the and i understand mistakes were made approach. be -- i know he has inherited a tremendous problem. minimizing or talking about it like, some people make errors on a travel voucher, this is much more important and much graver. host: this is nikki in new york, independent line. caller: i would like to say hi to mr. farrell. as a child to always consider the source of information i was receiving. i would like to know, do you have a legal background, if you

are an attorney, i would like to know if you have a particular conservative bend, who funds you. i would like to know your background before i can believe anything you put out there. i shouldght that consider the source of information. i would like to know if you are an attorney or if you are merely a reporter with the name of director. i'm going to tell you why. i see someone in people on television, talking heads and they claim they are experts, a security analysis, and these people are 21 years old. you are older. i would like to know your background and why i should believe what you are saying. guest: i am happy to provide you with information about my background. --do judicial watch judicialwatch.org and under the about us section you can read my

biography. i am a former intelligence officer, i was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the u.s. army in 93. i was a special agent for army counterintelligence and i crosstrained to be a clandestine human intelligence case opposite. i successfully prosecuted espionage sketche cases. -- espionage cases. these are through court means or through intelligence operations successfully resolved six different astronauts cases -- espionage cases against the united states. i have a lot of background in the intelligence world and in the law enforcement world. i am also an adjunct professor universityason teaching a course on journalism law. i've been with judicial watch for 19 years.

university teaching a course on journalism law. i have seen an awful lot of 19 years and washington, d.c., particularly when it comes to government corruption. if you go to the website you can read my full bio. that is the thumbnail sketch version. host: for all the things in the report there were a list of recommendations. i will read a couple. i want to get a sense of the tone of what they're recommending. to develop is guidelines on permitting a witness to attend a voluntary interview of another witness. i think this goes back to the hillary clinton interview. in certain instances, charging decisions should not be just -- i think that goes back to james comey. fbi should assess if adequate training to employees of the proper use of text messages and instant messages. what do you think about those, considering what was investigated? guest: that goes to my point, this is a policy and procedure review. this is pretty weak stuff.

employees should be instructed about how to use text messages. that is hardly the point. yes, that is true. they should know how to use text messages properly. what is the environment, leadership, there are much graver questions here. mr. comey, on his fifth of july briefing did two things. he overstepped his bounds grossly by making a decision that was not his to make, it was the attorney general's. he invented an entirely new element of the crime of 18 u.s. code 793 f, the mishandling of classified information. he came up with this new standard and talked about intent. intent is not an element of the crime. he goes on and on discussing intent. this is an effort to manufacture a result that was desired.

the interview of mrs. clinton on , mysecond of july at fbi first question at that time was, was a rights warning interview? as to the last caller, i have done this. if i'm a federal law enforcement officer and i believe you have deviceed a crime, your and decision to establish that device is the essence of the investigation. have to mirandized you. there was no rights warning interview. david kendall, mrs. clinton's attorney turned what should have been a rights warning interview of a subject of an investigation into a coffee and donut session. people who have been granted whonity who were witnesses claimed to be mrs. clinton's attorney, these are all massive conflict. they are all sitting in the room together. there has been nothing like this ever in the world of counterintelligence investigations with respect to mishandling classified information.

host: gregory in missouri, republican line. caller: mr. farrell, i have a lot of respect for judicial watch. yet enough to the president -- you have had emails to the president, all kinds of doj , one penalized because he could not do what congress was asking. this was a coup d'etat attempt. i think that is the way they planned it, although i think the fbi people made quite a few mistakes with the emails, you can't be doing that. they did it anyway. i think therefore the storm out of this one. i think the clinton email matter hould be brought up again in fair time. i am not a republican for no reason. it is a sense of right and wrong.

if it was us doing it right now as republicans i would say the same. that is all i wanted to say. i think this was a coup d'etat attempt. you have so many top heads. i think valerie jarrett. things that the page, agent one and five, that were talking about the ig report, i think to a large , even there was a belief more probably in the media, there was a belief that mrs. clinton was a shoo-in. that then candidate trump was an impossible or was unlikely he would win. in which case, a lot of the stuff we are talking about with respect to this ig report friendly never would have seen the light of day. nowmr. trump did win and there is all this wreckage that

needs to be cleaned up. it is not going to go away. host: democrats line from brooklyn, new york. robert, hello. had severalst questions for mr. farrell with on theto his commentary leaks which were communicated by rudolph giuliani on fox news, the judge any joe -- regarding information he had received from the fbi field officers in new york that indicated that hillary clinton was about to become indicted, which greatly affected the election. fbi clearly was actions by and had a direct impact on the

election. i know that there has been discussion about with perhaps he obtained information, but i do not have direct knowledge of that. generally, there has been a lot of leaking across the board. whetherective leaks, out of the committees, or i can think of instances where people have claimed that mr. nunes leaking, certainly the mueller sadstigation, so leaking is ly, almost an art form in washington dc. when one person points the finger and says they are leaking , you can wait 10 seconds and find a leak in the other direction. i am not saying that is good or right, but when you are

conducting a postmortem to say what happened here and how it happened, you will find another leaks -- a lot of links. ag documented were several fbi agents, where they were taking sports dinners and a quid pro quo, let's go to dinner are i'm going to give you , thats to go watch a team takes leaking to a whole other level because now they are receiving benefits for trading information. that is another topic that mr.wray has to tackle. we are in trouble. host: this is sandy, portland, oregon. independent line. caller: good morning. >

mr. farrell? guest: yes. caller: i've a question for you. i am upset about this whole situation. i had a feeling that this was a set up. mueller isnow why still investigating. what the heck is he investigating? i think they all need to be canned, even wray. i could not believe his testimony. host: thank you. mr. farrell. , itt: the ig report certainly does touch on it -- there are involvement and bleed

over, but when you look at the broader sort of pattern of conduct, these text messages are a window into the thinking, behavior, and conduct. these are people who planned and then acted and those text messages are an articulation of where are we going and what are we doing. while not directly on point to mueller, it certainly knocks out a foundation piece of the investigation because you can see it is a deliberate, contrived effort to destabilize what was the trump campaign manager trump transition. -- what was the trump campaign and the trump transition. that combined with the staffing decisions that mr. mueller has made with respect to the attorneys on his staff of the 14

attorneys -- nine are registered democrats, something like another half have documented campaign contribution histories candidates, there is only one gentleman who was a prolific donor who is given something like $35,000 over the last 10 or 12 years. about $3000 have gone to republican candidates. you can do an analysis of who the staff attorneys are for mueller. they are decidedly in one direction. you put it all together, it is a mosaic. we do not have a perfect picture. it all together, it raises many questions. host: more about this topic is available at the judicial watch's website.

thank you for your time. guest: thank you. the childrenup, being held at the southern border, how that experience will affect them. next is dr. paul spiegel with john hopkins school of public health. we will have that conversation next on "washington journal." ♪ the c-span bus is in alaska this week for the 38th stop. this is our 50 capitals tour. >> we are thrilled that c-span alaska forto visit the first time in 22 years as a part of its tour. big shout out to c-span. [applause] hasor decades, gci

offered c-span to our customers because we believe in the unfiltered media source. it educates the nation on policy, politics, and current events. cable companies around the nation make c-span possible. there is no advertising, c-span is truly a public service who is gci funded by fees paid by and other companies. c-span calls it self cable's gift to america. as now, we get to showcase our nationthe largest in the by the way, to the rest of the country. well, they are here, finally. >> we are ecstatic. it is a huge deal for us.

it gives us a chance to showcase our city nationwide, and just a have the idea that someone wants to come in and sample what we have to offer and hopefully take it back. we like the idea that you are here. it is like having visitors in the summertime. >> be sure to join us july 21 and 22 when we feature our visit to alaska. c-span,aska weekend on c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio. "washington journal" continues. host: dr. paul spiegel joining us from the john hopkins. he served as the director for the center for humanitarian health. good morning. guest: good morning. the centerus about and your work on this idea of humanitarian health. guest: sure.

the center for humanitarian health has three objectives. itin future humanitarians, is research. go toe a long way to improve how we actually respond to humanitarian emergencies. and finally, in power meant, ment inents, -- empowere students, governments. host: apply that to what we see at theildren being held southern border, what is the long-term and short-term effect of that happening? guest: there are short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects. there is a lot of data looking at trauma against children. started in 1995 with the centers of disease control.

what happens is when you have this stress that we cvs children are under when they are separated from their parents, a actually can -- that we see these children are under when they are separated from their parents, it can have behavioral and mental health effects, but it may have medical effects like longer-term issues when they become adults. diabetes, cardiac disease, and it may result in early loss of life. host: d.c. that being applied to the current situation with the children on the southern border -- do you see that being applied to the current situation with the children on the southern border? guest: absolutely. it is likely they already have trauma. by forcibly separating children, it is adding to the trauma and tore is this response

adverse child hood experiences, they are exposed to the worst of the situation that we see immediately. tot: what could the u.s. do alleviate that? guest: most importantly, do not separate children from parents except one that is in the best interest of the child. that is primarily when children are undergoing abuse from their parents or caregivers. there are other aspects where alleviation can occur, but frankly, the most important thing is to not do this. this is a choice being made and we wrote a letter across the board to everyone saying, this is wrong. seriousong-term consequences and it should not occur. what other steps can be

made in the short term? guest: at a minimum, to try to ensure the children know where their parents are, that they have contact with their parents, not visited the border to see what is happening but we need to make sure there are a lot of social workers there to be able to give care and making an environment where the children feel secure. the most important thing is to have contact with the parents and their families to provide a secure environment. host: our guess is with the john hopkins school of public health. this is dr. paul spiegel. separatingk about families at the border. for republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats,

independent (202) 748-8002. are there best practices for other examples of refugee children that can be applied here when it comes to schedule or structure or some things we can learn? guest: we looked into this and my previous work, i smith the last 14 years with united nations high commission -- i spent the last 14 years with united nations high commission for refugees. from parentsildren at the border -- i spent time on whereaches of greece the refugees were arriving, and even in that situation, governments do not separate children. as a humanitarian, it is the opposite. when we are dealing with children fleeing the persecution, the goal is to make sure that minor is reunited with their family.

opposite, wey the should always try to reunite minors with their family. there is little to learn from other situations because it is frankly not done. the united nations high commissioner for human rights has come out to say there is a convention on the rights of a child. article nine talks about avoiding separation. host: we will start off with burke, virginia. democrat line, hello. caller: good morning. my name is elise. thank you for taking my call. i really appreciate your position, but i want to present for you -- this is an isolated situation that has been turned into hysteria. we have how many people in this country who are incarcerated? probably about 2 million. how many of them are parents?

how many have given birth in prisons and been separated from their infants? you are making an exception. case of extreme harmfulness to these children's psyche. do you know how many people in this country separated from their parents because of incarceration? as being refugees and being in refugee camps, you do not know who these people are. you do not know if the children are actually their children and you are making assumptions. these children are turned over to individuals who claim to have close ties to these children. they are paid to take care of them. i think this is really a kabuki dance put on by the politicians. host: what about the assessments she makes? guest: there are strict rules in terms of when families seek

asylum. there needs to be a quicker adjudication to decide if they are fleeing and they have a credible fear. weo not think that hopkins are saying that we should let everybody across the border. we should clearly be decidingw is at risk,ng who make a clear decision, those that are decided that are not following the rules, they should go back, and those that are granted asylum should be in the u.s., but the key is to keep the children and the parents together. host: what about the argument of makes of the parallels imprisonment in the united states who is separated because of crossing the border? guest: this will come up a fair bit today. the issue is crossing a border is the misdemeanor, it is not a felony.

with misdemeanors generally, people are not detained in this way. there are been lots of how we are going to be able to deal with it. it is not an easy fix in terms systemsms, but can be put in place to adjudicate quickly. while those systems are in place, we need to ensure children are not separated unless it is in our best interest. host: on republican line for michigan, this is brian. caller: good morning. i know you have had them on before, but i do not know why for genia is so upset. if democrats tell us, these are all doctors and lawyers coming over here, these are the best of the best, just because obama turned it into a misdemeanor ,hen they get there false cards

they are back in the felony. if they do not have enough respect in this country to come , they have norts intentions of following any of the laws. why all ofderstand the mexican doctors and lawyers are doing that. that is all who is coming over, remember? host: i think he is talking about daca. guest: there are unaccompanied minors that are coming over. we are not dealing with that in this case, we are dealing with families that are coming over with their children, so it is a different situation. there is the issue of crossing beforeder and -- or crossing the border, asking for asylum at the frontier. points,lem is that this and this is why i think we will come back to the systems issue, but clearly there are not enough

border points that people can come to. they are not sufficiently human resourced, and it is dangerous for people to wait and wait at this border. if they do move over and declare asylum -- we have to differentiate between unaccompanied minors, dreamers, and the specific instance. host: market washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: thank you. i was fortunate enough to obtain my education in america and i started off in humanities and now i am working on a degree in economics. i think there is a humanities perspective. we are not treating people humanely. there is the economic perspective, and we can look at it normatively or positively. positively, we can follow our rule of law, but from a normative perspective, we are not doing what is ethical. thank you for having on eight

-- a doctor. it is a horrible and barbaric thing to do, that is my comment. host: getting back to the health aspect -- is clearly a law of controversy about how people, across the border. say, andt heard anyone will, thatllers separating the children can have any positive effect to the children and we cannot forget the parents as well. there are ways to put systems in place to adjudicate those who are seeking asylum, make a decision, and they move back or not quickly without separating the children. back ando keep going back to think about what will be the effects for this child. whether the child ends up with his family, the decision is they have not been accepted for asylum, or whether they are

excepted and they are in the united states, this child is going through trauma that made a lot of serious consequences. from a human point of view, we protectbe able to children. we can do that while ensuring the rules in terms of immigration are followed. your background, could the united nations play a role and to what level? guest: i was just reading this morning the united nations high commissioner for refugees did in 2017, we have the highest level of refugees displaced worldwide. it is important to note that 85% of those people are actually in

lower income countries not in the west. the west itself is receiving a very small amount of the numbers of refugees. commission for refugees has clearly said that what is happening now is not acceptable, and they have a lot of experience across the world dealing with borders and dealing with adjudicating for asylum. they have offered assistance. , this ise issues also a policy that was implemented without sufficient preparation and we are seeing that. ,e see all of the communities whether it be the faith leaders in the u.s., the both sides of the aisle, but the american academy of pediatrics -- the president has visited these areas and seen that children are crying, that rules that

apparently the social workers the childrenuch or comfort them because there are concerns about abuse. there is a lot that needs to be done, and we would prefer this to not occur. if it does occur, there needs to be a tremendous amount of prevention that needs to occur. host: do you know what level of care and for a child in a refugee situation, how many times today play and do they get the chance to interact with people? guest: i do not. i've been trying to follow up with people who have visited. there are not systems in place to know. people who are visiting are getting a limited chance to see what is happening and it does not appear -- when we have in different situations, there are clear rules of how we deal, how

people per children, these are more for on accompanied minors because again, we never separate children from their parents, but there are a lot of requirements in place to ensure the children are being supported as much as possible, and that is not appear to be the case. this policy was implemented without sufficient preparation. host: arizona, patty, go ahead. caller: thank you. this did not happen organically. this caravan at the border, i remember when it started, they were saying there is more women or children. some of the children do not even belong to anybody there. they are props. let's storm the border and let's bring women and children and let's see what they are going to do. first of all, when you flee your you shouldegally, not expect anything but to be turned away. are int that these kids

summer camp right now, they put the cameras in there, they only did it once on msnbc, because it looked too happy. ol,re was video games, po food, because what can we do. what else are you going to do when you storm the country and not come here illegally. host: thanks. guest: sure, patty. there is a lot of misinformation out there. the people coming over are not necessarily from the caravan. leeing ande insecure environment. people -- andfew i've dealt with refugees throughout the world -- there are very few people that would want to leave their country, their families, their security, their livelihoods unless they

have a reason to do so. these are not people that are just a fleeing for no reason, they are fleeing for their safety and security. if there are issues of children and trafficking, that is done at the border where you will have an adjudication process to see is this this person's child or not. cases where one cannot confirm if it is their parents or their guardian, then it is legitimate to take the child away from that person until that can be verified. but for the most part, these are people who are fleeing , and weion, gangs need to be able to clearly demonstrate when they are at the border, if they immediately crossed the border, clearly adjudicate if they are seeking seekingnd if they are security. host: john in missouri valley,

iowa. caller: my question is, what is the age of these kids range from? . heard 17 down to 2 where douestion is, these kids and families go? they have no food, no clothing, insurance, no medical -- what do they do? there is going to be out in the wilderness? guest: thank you for the question. data that is currently available up until may 31 is dren there were 1995 chil that have been separated from their parents. those, 100 were less than four years of age and some of them were infants. that is vary,

someone that is less than 18. in terms of what happens, it is a process. if there are a lot -- if there are enough human resources, homeland security, or judges, it is quickly decided if meeting the requirements of a credible fear of becoming a refugee. many do not end and they are moved back with their family without being separated, we hope. if they are, then there is a process and it depends where they are located and they work after a short time, they moves to hhs and they are taking care of correa. of for are taking care period of time. misinformationof

in terms of refugees either being resettled from abroad or crossing over. the longer-term effects have shown that they are positive providers to the u.s. economy. host: what is the average length of time a child is separated from the parents? guest: that is one of the problem with the systems. in theory, if there were enough immigration judges at the border, it would be with in a few days they should be apple to adjudicate whether they are -- they should be able to adjudicate at the border of whether they are seeking asylum. i've heard a month. it can be longer because they are being prosecuted and detaine d, that is being dealt with first and then the immigration component. in may even be longer which is why we need to look at the system to make it as just but as

quick as possible for everyone. host: democrat line from indianapolis, ishmael. caller: good morning, gentlemen. iegel, this is a question for you. refugeeslking about from europe, and we have 100,000 from abroad. some you say we have problems with the past couple of years? he was sellinge, weapons to iran and getting money for contra. it creates so much problem not enoughre are foreign policies. there is a problem we know with the dictatorships, and we have

supported them for decades. to the question of the children being separated and how they are treated, to that? caller: that is what creates it. it is a problem when you guys create a problem in those countries, there is a flood of people to have to get out because they are not safe. host: thanks. guest: what ishmael is saying is broader than the specifics of this, but the geopolitically, there is a lot of instability. now for 2017hncr says we have the largest number since world war ii of 16.5 million people that are forcibly displaced due to conflict. that is because we are in a time of -- when you look in the middle east, when you look at what is happening, we are seeing a tremendous amount of displacement.

i would like to emphasize, these people -- it is not the u.s. that is taking the burden. it is not even the west. it is the countries surrounding. when you look right now, turkey now has the largest number of refugees in the world from syria. one in three or one in four people in lebanon are syrian refugees. is reallyof this dealt with by more low in, or middle income countries where these conflicts are occurring. i would add, it does not look good in terms of resolving these crises. when you look at the foreign policies both globally and what is happening in the security council, but when you also look --ionally with issues

it does not appear these crises are going to be resolved anytime soon. what we are seeing is a longer crisis. host: allen from maryland, hello. caller: hello. dr. spiegel, i have a question. that you watch the news conference yesterday with nielsen. guest: yes, i did. caller: i thought the most important thing she said was out of the 12,000 children detained, 10,000 of them came without an adult. they came by themselves. factsot think we get the from the media. she also said that families that went to the proper place for asylum were not separated, they were not separated. i just wish we could get , andate information another thing, if i was a chinese, i would not build battleships, i would build

cruise ships. guest: i did watch the news conference. that weportant to say are dealing with two different groups of people. we are dealing with unaccompanied minors, those are less than 18, that have come over by themselves. there are systems in place, they can always be improved to deal with those children. but what we are talking about here really is the 2000 likely at this point, the children that have been separated. when you are unaccompanied, you are not with your family and therefore this is not an issue that we are talking about today. but here we are talking about where thischildren policy of separation started in april. it is true that people that are arriving at the border, there have been cases where there has been family separation, but for the most part, and people arrive at the

border and declare asylum there, that should be the way we move forward. if possible, there needs to be more border points, more immigration judges. we have seen pictures of people waiting for a long time even when they declare, but it is not always safe to be there at times in the middle of the night. as long as they declare asylum and their cases quickly adjudicated, we can avoid the separation of children. consistently that i have heard today and the last few days, no one is really saying that they like this system of separating children. everybody agrees that this cannot be good for the children. therefore, we need to be able to agree on a system to stop it. but we would say at hopkins, but this is supported by many others including the american academy of pediatrics and the association of schools of public

health, that we cannot wait for a congress to make a decision on how to move this thing. we must stop this now so we can avoid trauma for the children. speaking,paul spiegel he is the director of the humanitarian health. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: open phones until the end of the program. (202) 748-8001 for democrats, (202) 748-8000 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. attack, ofguage of harm, of damage that by expressing an opinion, people do not like -- you have inflicted an injury. striking andvery frankly, rather frightening. of the way thec

left is now responding to any sort of dissent, and especially one that trenches on identity which of politics course, it is everywhere and has infected everything. >> university of pennsylvania x.w school professor amy wa sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. this weekend on afterwords, maryland congressman john delaney, the first democrat to declare a run for the presidency in 2020, offers his vision for america in his book "the right answer." he is interviewed by donna brazile. you've been a member of congress in 2013. you have had an opportunity to

introduce legislation, work with democrats, republicans, but you also in the book offer a partisanship, especially that which rewards vision. what do you mean by that? or anyink a president other elected leader in this country should effectively represent everyone whether they voted for them or not. they should almost take a pledge never to divide us. that does not mean that they do not go out and say why they should vote for me over the other person, or why my ideas future ir, or why the am envisioning is better, but taking get to the step where you are actually cultivating a think of division is i one of the things that is going on in this country right now. it is really insidious. if you have the privilege of serving, which i feel like i do, in addition to swearing to wetect the constitution,

really should pledge to the american people that we are not going to say things to divide us. we are going to go out of our way to unify the country. the country is inherently stronger when we are unified. >> watch this sunday night at 9:00 eastern on book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: open phones, you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, an independents at (202) 748-8002. you can also tweet us or something on our facebook page. don, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call and comment on the first hour of your show. boy, that was really tough to watch.

some very hateful and angry people on. talk about the finding what cognitive dissonance is -- they seemed to absorb the facts that supported whatever views they wanted to take, allowing them to be unchristian, but support themselves as christians. an donot sure how you c battle with that people are unwilling to accept what is the truth. they will make up their own facts, or take facts that justify a very bad position. so they can feel good about themselves. that is about the worst thing you can do. i applaud you for your patience and your ability to absorb that kind of abuse that was being thrown out to all of us.

thank you very much for your patience and your kindness. host: from new york, republican line. ian is next. caller: good morning. a lot of the kids that are coming across, these are not even their parents. they are gaming our system by seeking asylum. it has gone up like 70% or 80%. loopholes,these whether from lawyers or a long time ago, they are told how to come across, where to cross, and what to say -- and these are all things. away,kids are being taken the 2000 out of 12,000, they are probably in safer hands than they ever been in their life. to better or worse, it has go down because we have to find out is that even their parents. are they a part of these gangs, like ms-13?

these kids are in wars at 11 years old. they are murdering people just like the isis. 45's thatith the were shooting people. remember? all of thehooting guys in their orange suits, those are children,too. with a know who his children they are before they come here. safety is already gone because of illegals. host: the president will later on head to the house to talk about immigration matters with house republicans. north carolina who went to the white house this morning to talk to the president amongst other things. he talked about the undocumented children at the border. [video clip] >> we do have to talk about our

borders. asylum-seekers, only 20% of those were actually adjudicated to say they had a legitimate claim. 80% of those came here perhaps under the opinion or the belief that they could claim asylum and get here. we have got to address all of that. there is a way to do it compassionately. there is also a way to make sure that we are a nation of laws and we do that. let's hear from john in newark, new jersey. independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am and 82-year-old man. i am a korean war veteran. i am totally ashamed of what is going on at the border. with those children. remember when my uncles and my

father and everybody came back from world war ii, after fighting the not -- the 's for doing basically the same thing that we were doing. zi's kept thena families together even though they ended up in the oven. american indians should remember that. host: up next, edgewood, maryland. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: my name is vernon. i would like to make a couple of comments. it isst caller, worst then the nazi's? how can we compare?

it is ridiculous. -- whyask a question is it an american citizen can commit a crime, and you go to jail, the child services take your children, and you go to jail? they do not worry about whether you are nursing a child or you separate the parent and child. and also, what if i go rob a bank and say, well i wanted to feed my family? it does not count. it is basically the same thing. host: getting thoughts this morning on open phones. on other topics, it was yesterday that both the department of justice inspector general and the fbi director

christopher wray appeared before congress to talk about that aig report. another hearing with the inspector general is to take place today. come around 10:00, there would be people filling in for the hearing on the hillary clinton email investigation featuring michael horvitz. -- michael horowitz. that will be live at 10:00 this morning. place andng will take will hear from phyllis in kansas city. caller: yes. i believe in the zero-tolerance ouruse i do not think country is like the welfare country for everybody else that is having problems in their country. i just wish that our politicians would have more concerned about the people do -- the people

they are representing as they do the illegals that are coming into the country. to me, when obama did daca and stuff, he said they get free education, free college, free k- 12, but they do not give our american kids free college. host: joseph, republican line from ohio. hi. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i would like to say that there is a lot of dead soldiers buried all over the world that paid the price for this freedom. these peoplely why all want to come here. they want to come here because this great freedom that we enjoy

. in the sameem, but to get themuld like to understand what it is to be an american. fought.t that my father i have many relatives that have fought this great fight for this great freedom that we have. anyway, thank you, brother. god bless you. all the best. to highlightday" the desire of president trump to develop what he calls a space force for matters directly concerning gus -- -- concerning us. the president has promoted the idea of a fighting force dedicated to the united states earth's orbit.

the house of representatives rejected a plan that would have carved out a space related combat force. needsesident congressional authorization to approve the move and with senator bill nelson, a leading voice in congress on the u.s. presence in space run a tweet that says quote, "now is not the time to rip the air force apart." the president himself commenting on activities concerning child separation. [video clip] pres. trump: we want safety and we want security for our country. if the democrats would sit down instead of obstructing, we could have something done very quickly. good for the children, good for the country, good for the world. it could take place quickly.

immigratione an bill. we get that child separation -- we are stuck with horrible laws. they are horrible laws. , it is happening is so sad is so sad. it can be taken care of quickly, beautifully, and we will have safety. this could really be something very special. they could be something that maybe even for the world to watch. just like they are watching our great economy, it is soaring. they can watch this. we have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. bad --has such a sad, and in many cases, such horrible and tough. you see about child separation. withoutember, a country borders is not a country at all. we need borders. we need security.

we need safety. we have to take care of our people. you take a look at the death and destruction that is been caused by people coming into this country. without going through a process. we want a merit-based immigration system. host: if you want to see the whole event, go to our website at c-span.org. if you have watch this program, you know that our c-span bus is traveling the united states on a 50 capitals tour. this week, the buses in alaska. stops in thateral state to talk to local officials and do other programming for our network. if you go to the c-span bus twitter feeds, you can see some of the activities in that taken place. to learn more about it and logistical aspects of taking the bus there. website ato our

c-span.org, there is a community page dedicated to the 50 capitals tour. you are welcome to go there at c-span.org. brad in kentucky, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. be at like a now would good time to take the temperature up, the political parties that we have -- the the childmessage of separation message of the border. it has really failed to grasp at level when the democrats could instead highlight the child separation child separation, was theple, that ill pursued war on drugs. the tragedy is immense.

,o turn to the republican party you have donald trump issuing a corps.ce it ties back into the problem that we are having at the border. the money is not there and of a thee corps would not be brand-new military-industrial chest to treasure money that we have done since the 1960's, i feel like our parties have reached a point that they are olishent and fo beyond fixing. host: cedar rapids, iowa. republican line. caller: the morning.

-- good morning. couple of days, i've been catching a lot of talkingbout experts about the trauma that the kids have to undergo being separated from their parents. the majority of the kids that come here are not with their parents. do not hear a is anybody saying anything about the trauma they are suffering to get to the border. they are being separated from their families and sent to the borders, sometimes alone. if you have any parent in the u.s. that put their kids were childnd of trauma, that would be separated from them in a heartbeat. like somebody to come on and discuss what kind of trauma these kids have to endure to get to the border. is that possible with c-span? host: thanks for the suggestion.

pennsylvania, don, hello. caller: hi, a quick comment. there has been so much dialogue going on in past few days about the law about whether kids can be separated. -- someone say who what the law actually says? that the law say they may, they shall, they must? vague.aws are written not can you comment as to whether or not what the law actually says? in "the wall street journal" highlights the policy as it currently stands, particularly as the administration that has rolled a zero-tolerance policy.

they will probably find it there, but there was a short explanation. if you want to go to the website for "the wall street journal." alex from new jersey. caller: hello. good morning. what happens. separate children from parents? and i would like mr. obama to respond. could they have possibly done to be locked up in jail? host: the wall street journal story ifntioned, the you go to the website, you can find it there. fort lauderdale, florida, democrats line.

ruben, hello. caller: hello, how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: it is a shame that we are doing to these kids. it does not make no sense at all. itmp knows he can strain out. the democrats do not have anything to do with it. on twitter, "the american people have bigger problems than the folks crossing the border illegally." hearing with the department of justice, he serves as the inspector general in light of the release of that report from last week. there is a hearing at 10:00 on c-span3. the room is slowly filling up and you can go to c-span3 at 10 a clock. you can also monitor it at the span.org. glenn,s vegas, republican line. caller: hello, how are you?

two things quickly. i like the way you handled that guy that was trying to debate you earlier about you being an immigrants. you showed great professionalism. i would like to read an excerpt. give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. these, the homeless, the tempest tossed to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door. europeans by the thousands came into this country with no more than a signature or i -- an x in a book on ellis island based on this statement, and now they are saying to immigration is illegal. this makes absolutely no good sense. thank you. host: tom from indianapolis on

our independent line. caller: yes, good morning. real quick. i want to comment on the polarization and the issue down at the border. you have on the left, that part of our country so polarized. you have so many media centers with tapes of children crying a, theiryou get opinion on things. at thingsook rationally, it is probably 35,000 per child, and we are a compassionate country, but this compassion a lot of times is overblown by the media complexes. understand that there are some any issues that americans in the middle of the country -- things are just ignored. understandthe operational and c

data from the media networks, it never comes out. it is like they are an arm of democratic party, they have no issue they can run on except children and people in cages, where the obviously is not as bad. they have stopped showing how good it is for some of these kids. when you look at the price, what it costs, $35,000 a child. , the wholendchildren school was infested with lice. things are costly. democratany, georgia, -- one more call quickly, james and south carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you. berate the issue and

people have said this already, but i am in the health care profession. when we deal with parents that we think may be abusives abusive committed a crime, children are always taken away. i think a lot of people are sensationalizing the conditions these kids are in, being thrown into a cell in this and that. we don't know what is going on. there has to be a separation, especially coming across the border. host: i apologize, i have to leave it there. we are just about to start the hearing with michael borowitz, a joint hearing on the senate side, this is a little more of that. >> then we will have questions and answers. director -- i think director -- i