as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. congress in recess for the july 4 holiday. but when lawmakers return next week, they will know who the president has selected to replace retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. the president saying he will announce a selection of week from monday. election day in mexico. we will talk to a reporter from reuters inexpensive yet the bottom of the hour. and the technique used to s shootinghe annapoli suspect renewing the debate on

face recognition technology. do you support or oppose it? our phone lines are open at (202) 748-8000 if you support this technology and use. or if you oppose, like the aclu, the number to call is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a tweet. we will read it at @cspanwj. or join in on the conversation on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. we want to share headlines, first from the "baltimore sun" as the community continues to deal with the devastating loss thursday. we are not the enemy. the pictures of those five victims gunned down shortly after 2:40 in the afternoon. the "baltimore sun" owns the "capital gazette." and this photo -- the newspaper shooting shows the widening use of face recognition technology

by authorities. when the police apprehended a suspectfor the shooting in the "capital gazette" newsroom, he refused to give his name. in using antified different technology -- face recognition technology. it shows how quickly officials can pinpoint a suspect using a technology- using a that is increasingly pervasive in law enforcement. over the past three years, facial recognition has been quietly adopted by the authorities across the united states, including at the local policing level and become part of the standard law enforcement toolkit. 16 states let the federal bureau of investigation use the technology to compare the faces of suspected criminals to drivers licenses and id photos.

and things to recent improvements, its influence in policing is likely to grow. "the economist" explaining just how this works. >[video clip] >> in 2018, machines that can read your face will go mainstream, changing the way we live. your face will become your password, unlocking smartphones and bank accounts. facial recognition will change our life. >> the technology will also be able to covertly track your movements. >> moving into a world where machines can follow you around and characterize you based only on your face is worrying. it potentially limits your freedom. >> it will even be able to guess your sexuality through facial features alone. in 2018, you will be forced to face the future. host: that extending the use of

facial technology and its use by law enforcement officials, as we saw over the weekend. from california, supporting this use. good morning. thanks for joining us. why do you support it? ifler: i support it because the underworld uses this whynique to do bad things, the police cannot use it? the underworld meaning like the people bull who deal with drugs and stuff like that. you for the call. let's go to worcester, massachusetts. another supporter. good morning, joseph. caller: i support the technology, the problem is big brother. it tends to get into the wrong hands. for the -- for instance, there is a high-profile case in

massachusetts, where drug dealers are being deported over and over -- three brothers fororted four times each heroin, cocaine, and they came across the border. they burned off their fingerprints. they got false drivers licenses. the only way to identify them, state police had to use facial recognition. in a time of terrorism, we have to do that. over and over, when he gets into the wrong hands, people tend to exploited for political gain and things like that. host: in the case of the annapolis shooter, he tried to damage his fingers to hide his identity. caller: that is true. criminals are flying new ways to -- finding new ways to beat the

technology. joiningt's go to jacob, us from minnesota, opposing law enforcement use of official recognition technology. why? caller: with the history of the united states government law, withng under the everything they have done, it is an absolute terrible idea. ever since the whole thing with snowden coming out, all of the stuff with the nsa, people watching their ex-wives and stuff, it is a terrible idea to let the government have facial recognition systems to watch everybody, everywhere, all the time. they will watch everybody, everywhere, all the time. no one will have freedom. when they are walking down the street, all they will think about is the fact that the fbi,

cia, and nsa is watching them. with trump trying to throw innocent people out of this country that came here and started pizza companies and have 48 american citizens working for them, there is no justifiable use of this technology in our country today. our police officers do a fine job locking up people already. way too many people in this country are imprisoned. we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prison population. host: let me ask you about the situation in annapolis. they have the suspect. he refused to cooperate. he did not have any identification on him. he would not tell them his name. so they use this technology to identify him. under this narrow guideline, is it appropriate or not? caller: i think if he was a shooting suspect and something have kept they would

him anyways, whether or not they have that technology. i have been arrested the police for nothing at all. and so they held me. if you was a shooting suspect, they would have kept him, whether or not they had facial recognition technology. host: this from the washington post -- the facial recognition technology used to identify the suspect is a cutting edge marilyn system using millions of photos. it is also controversial. wes joins us, a supporter of this technology from fort wayne, indiana. good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing fine. how are you? caller: doing fine. support or oppose it. it depends on the person and circumstances. like a criminal versus a private citizen who got in a spat with

their boss, and the boss blackballs them, a contract out where they make their life miserable in the workplace, you know? i oppose it area there are people nowadays -- you still there? there are people now -- look at michael jackson. you know. the way he looked when he was born versus -- when he was a boy versus a man. who will be able to tell it? this world is getting real crazy. also, like, osama bin laden -- are they sure they got him? i say this. , necessarily,ptic but they say they got him, but who knows? guess.'3", i but there are people who look a lot like each other.

they tell us they got him. they destroyed the ashes, that is the end of obama bin laden -- osama bin laden. to step upople need to the play, do the same thing he was doing. host: we want to share this headline from spectrum 13, a news cable channels oh -- a news cable channel in orlando. demanding police to stop these of amazon recognition. pointing out that face surveillance systems like recognition present a grave threat to orlando visitors. that is from the aclu. it says orlando could use recognition to track without knowledge or consent and alleges that amazon has marketed it that way. the city council has allowed the use of this technology by the orlando police department.

that according to the florida aclu. havee officials in orlando stopped using that technology beer that story posted on june 25. we mention that because our next call is from orlando. you oppose this technology. why? caller: i think it is a slippery slope. it may be used for police at first, but then it will fall into the hands of third party vendors. then they will be able to sell that information to whoever wantss to -- wants to buy it. say someone wants a divorce -- they will be able to track their soon to be ex. they will buy that information the same way you can buy tracking information for a license plate from a third company. thanks for the coffee

let's go to jonathan in tennessee. good morning. use of i support the facial recordation technology. we are to have technology that alters the look of video as it plays. there is technology with stuff like president putin and president obama, where they mess around and alter the face. 64 and somewhat that, where you can wiggle the face. but you can add video and audio. they already have that technology. if the police do not have that, we will drop the ball. and as i understand it, there are concerns about a slippery slope. thethe monetization versus containing of privacy and security aspects of this technology, if we project the

customer, not aiming so much in terms of monetization, but if we whileze privacy maintaining security, then it should work out well. there are ways to do that beyond simply saying let's lower the bill and we will not have as much -- focusing on what customers want, what employees want, and what other stakeholders want in the technology, so we can actually use the tech and protect clients and customers rather than letting massive amounts of data go into the internet and take people's face. be thatbly will not invasive. we have technology that collects .eople's data anonymously like our data usage, stuff like that. going into the massive collection of facial recognition technology, that can probably be

anonymous, and we can do that the same way we did with user data on phones today. that is my, -- comment. host: this is from the "capital gazette," were that shooting took place thursday afternoon. five staffers were killed, including a number of editors and a newly hired marketing representative. mayor is asking the president to order american flags lowered in honor of the shooting victims, pointing out he did so after the death of 10 people in san antonio, and also after a shooting on valentine's day that left 17 dead in parkland, florida. governor hogan ordered maryland flags to be at half-staff through monday. the mayor said he had reached out to the white house and had not heard anything back as of late saturday. the mayor said he was upset to see the national media was already leaving town and moving on to other stores. -- stories. you can get that story on

"capital gazette's" website, which, by the way, published its friday paper after the shooting. caller -- use this technology for one thing. to make sure to identify able who commit a crime and have the right person. for example, people who have frauded.d it -- why shouldn't that technology be used for a person getting a credit card, to be identified by faces? not only are just and social just socialnot only security. people who have been frauded by other people.

host: let's go to john, joining us from here in washington, d.c., opposing the use of this technology. caller: thank you for taking my call. against the privacy of citizens. the -- of of the issues overshadowing the occupation, committinggenocide, a program there. host: thank you. this is also on sirius xm.

our question -- should law enforcement use facial recognition software? our phone lines are open at (202) 748-8000 if you support this technology and this use. if you are opposed to it, (202) 748-8001. with you ashare "washington post" story about how china is using this technology and software. reporting from earlier this month pointing out "facial recognition is the hot new tech topic in china. even airports, hotels, and public toilets are all trying to verify people's identities by analyzing their faces. but the police and security state have been the most enthusiastic about of racing -- and raising this new technology. a goal of all interlocking -- to track where people are, what they are up to, what they believe and they

associate with and ultimately even assign them a single social credit score based on whether the government and the low citizens consider them trustworthy. also aimseyes project to mobilize the neighborhood committees and snoopy residents who have long been key informers. now, state media reports, some can turn on their televisions or mobile phones to see security camera footage and report any suspicious activity. a car without a license plate, an argument turning violent, directed to the police." [video clip] plan. ambitious the sharp eyes project aims to extend and integrate edo surveillance from cities to villages, from roads to residential compounds. it aims to use artificial intelligence, big data, and deep learning to analyze this mountain of video evidence to work out who is doing what, where, and when. to track suspects and the people

they are associated with it track crime. i visited three cities to see "thehina plans to make masses have sharp eyes" into reality. here are a few ideas tech company showcased. these cameras are looking at a road junction. they are identifying everything passing through. they're looking at cars, reading number plates, and looking at pedestrians, classifying pedestrians based on their age, gender, what clothes they wear, in even hairstyles. this produces a heat map of where people are massing together. you would useing to prevent overcrowding. it is also able to track individuals to the crowd. if you were looking for a suspect, this is the kind of software you may want to use. here, we can say to cameras

picking faces out of the crowd, comparing those faces to a national database of suspects of wanted men and women. the police then look at the matches flag and see whether they think that is someone there are looking for. then sn then in two -- woop in to arrest the people identified. this camera is trained on the face of a truck driver. it is looking at his facial expressions to see whether he is showing signs of tiredness. if the score rises above is an level, he is seen as too tired to drive. his company's alerter they will call and tell him to take a rest. the sharp eyes project is already rolled out in more than 50 cities. so far, the tech is not quite match the ambition. that facial recognition is improving fast and is a technology of the future. concerns are being raised about whether the system will be used in china to unfairly target

ethnic minorities or be used as a way to crack down on dissonant s. staffung, elite cheerfully unaware of those kind of concerns. host: that courtesy of the "washington post." from is this story "political" magazine. google is building a city of the future in toronto. would anyone want to live there? it could be the coolest new city on the planet or be an orwellian metropolis. we the details at politico.com. back to your phone calls. michael from new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. it is against our privacy. but like her previous caller, i like your are you --

previous caller, wonder how you are dealing with -- host: madonna from indiana. you support this technology. why? caller: i certainly do. technology is available. this is the world we live in now. we cannot back up. and because it is available, people are going to use it. -- lawertainly enforcement should be able to use it. host: from michael, a tweet saying facial recognition software is used everyday at the incoming gates at the national airports here. from another viewer, people who do not know the meaning of freedom have no objection to this technology. facial recognition technology should be illegal to use by anyone, especially lawn was meant. the guy was in custody. why do they need to know his name? prosecute john doe.

good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: hi. how are you? host: fine. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is important to have a database of criminals by any means available, which helps us arrest criminals at the right time, before they attack us. in a time where there are, ask of wars around the world, having to face criminals in a database is a vital thing. to recommend want you to have a series of programs on the conflict in yemen. a proxy war is going on. and at the world cup -- this has become the playground of our allies killing innocent people. another us into

conflict like vietnam. if you can do this, talk to your that it isthem necessary, important. give us the information about the ongoing struggle. do you know anything about that? host: we have it we have focused on this in the past. you are the second college bring this up, we will address this again. thank you. this is from chris -- no way to make sense of it all, also from the "capital gazette" website. he writes what can i say that has not already been said in -- much more eloquently? i struggle to make sense of the senseless, bouncing between anger and sadness, repulsion and exhaustion. for a straightforward here against the viciousness created to take the lives of five people, all while knowing there is not one. when i read what reporter chase

chris promised, i can tell you this, we are putting out a paper -- my heart lifted with troy. crowded further when the attending the vigil were told we are not the enemy. we are you. that is available on the "capital gazette" website. back to your calls on the use of facial recognition software by law enforcement, used in the shooter to annapolis get his name and information. let's go to justin, joining us from california. you oppose this. why? caller: i oppose it because it is -- it already seems ready for deployment. up to what is not the chinese want. that look completely scary to me. it can happen there. it can happen here.

i strongly oppose this and would not accept it for reasons like it is there, we should use it, this is the world today. way, and this is really wishing, that it could be controlled -- and i do not believe it could -- use it to who hasehicle or person it triggered to some device -- we have all seen movies like -- for someoneld against invasion of privacy, like me, it really tugs at you that way. but it will not be used like it is in the movies. it will be abused.

it is probably being used already. i love c-span. i think you have a very great show and channel. host: thanks for being with us. who says thejen, concern about racially profiling people -- send us a tweet at @cspanwj. let's go to jared, joining us from arizona. good morning. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i was just watching bloomberg businessweek five minutes ago, and they were saying a report was released in england that facial recognition gives a 90% false positive rate, and they have severe problems with racial facial recognition. something like that should not be used for legal purposes or submitted in a court of law. that kind of false positive rate, if that was done in the medical industry or health care,

people would be getting sued for malpractice all over the place. host: thank you. let's go to john, joining us from albany. your thoughts on all of this? caller: when is enough enough? that is my opposition to this technology. insanity to think that, now, you can walk down the street and know that -- criminals will use this for -- that is how it will begin. but they will look at anyone who has ever had a picture taken a registration for motor vehicles. and then they know who everybody is. when is enough enough? host: thanks for the call. this is from the "washington post." amazon is selling facial recognition to law enforcement for a fistful of dollars. amazon has essentially been giving away facial recognition

tools to law enforcement accordingn florida, to documents obtained by the american civil liberties union of northern california, paving the way for a rollout of technology that is causing concern for civil rights groups. amazon is giving away the technology known as recognition, according to documents which the aclu obtained through a freedom of information act request. the details about the program illustrate the proliferation of the technology deep into american society. either the advocates point out that in an era in which everyone has a camera on their smart phone, a -- cities have put cameras on traffic stops and other public infrastructure, and police have body cameras, the opportunity to have one's photograph taken, identify, analyze, and stored in perpetuity has grown.

our next caller -- you support this. why? caller: i think it would be a great idea to identify people, especially people who go on killing sprees, if we can identify people who are mentally ill that way. host: travis joins us next. good morning. caller: i support this technology 100%. they should use any technology available to the american public that would assist law enforcement to protect against any and all criminals. host: calling it a pilot program, this story from reuters , late last month, orlando stopping its testing of amazons facial recognition technology after civil rights groups raised concerns that the service could be used in ways to violate civil liberties. let's go to carl, joining us from louisiana. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i oppose this, because for me, i believe it is another invasion of privacy.

also, donald trump, part of his thing that he ran on was to help inner cities. take that money and let's put it into something like that instead of this. host: thank you. if you are just tuning in or if you are listening on c-span radio, our question is should law enforcement officials continue to use facial recognition software to identify suspects, as we saw in the shooting in annapolis, maryland? send your tweets at @cspanwj. good morning. where you phoning from? caller: hello? host: you're on the air. go ahead, please. all right, we lost that caller. we will come back to your calls in a moment. we want to turn our attention to the elections taking place in mexico. isning us via skype

christine murray, in mexico city. good morning. city, tell us what we can expect in today's elections. is the biggest election and mexico's history. the country will choose a president, several governors, a new congress. there will be many local elections. voting opens in a couple of hours. polls close around 6:00 local time. there are four main presidential contenders. one is far and away ahead of the polls, andres manuel lopez obrador, the mayor of mexico city and running for the third time to be president. host: what is his message? why is he so far ahead? guest: the main thrust of his campaign has been to stamp out corruption.

mexico -- there is a lot of corruption in mexico. and other key issues, such as violence. he has floated the idea of having amnesty for people who are caught up in the drug war. and on the economy as well, people seem to respond well. the main sense of his campaign is anticorruption. host: is there a sense of what turnout will be up off the country today? guest: i think people expect turnout out to be slightly higher than usual, about 65% or so. that is mainly the cause of how many -- because of how many elections are happening. has: we know obrador clashed with the business community across the country and has been critical of president trump. how have those issues played out? guest: he has been critical of a small slice of the business

community. he has picked fights with several individual business people. he will take to twitter and in his speeches, speak about how they are corrupt and part of the power mafia. that is one of his signature phrases. it is focused on really high level set of business people. people know who they argue they have heard of them. has said he would try to persuade some to try to make sense in mexico. in general, i would say obrador is more focused on national issues in mexico rather than foreign policy. host: we are talking with christine murray, joining us from exeter city. mexican elections are today.

there are a number of reports of journalists killed because of the -- as a result of the campaigns. can you explain what is going on? guest: is a difficult, complicated problem. violence in mexico is at record levels. there were more than 25,000 murders documented in mexico last year. been dozens of journalists killed under this government. i would say -- it is a factor of the rampant impunity there is across the country. if you look at the case of journalists killed in mexico, they are almost always local locallists working for news outlets. maybe a newspaper. often covering crimes, sometimes writing stories that local organized crime does not like. sometimes, local politicians are also mixed up in drug gangs.

so people kill them at the local level. ont: there is a lot of focus the presidential election, but also the mexican equivalent of congress. can you claim that front? guest: most of the polls have not been detailed or large enough to give you a good estimate of how many seats lopez obrador's party will win, but most indicate his party will win the majority. one of the questions a lot of people have is whether he will get an absolute majority or not. it looks like that may not happen, but really, the polls have not been detailed enough to tell you. we will be looking for that, whether he can manage to get an absolute majority or not. that includes the senate and lower house. host: reuters reporting this is, if not the largest, one of the largest elections in mexican

history. is that true? guest: that is right. exactly. it is rare for all of these different elections at different levels to combine. you have presidential, gubernatorial, all of congress, and many, many local congresses across the country. host: we mentioned journalists have been killed. but also, more than 100 politicians have been killed since last september, is that correct? caller: that is right. i think it was around 27 of them were actually candidates. politicians. it really tells you how dangerous it is to run in mexico at any level, but particularly the local level. almost all of those candidates were from the local elections. just one was from the federal level. you face a difficult choice, if you are running for local mayor somewhere in mexico. and someone else uses a lot of

use a jog cartel to you -- a drug cartel to do their bidding. before we let you go, president neato -- president nieto is term limited, 16-year term. why is that in the constitution? guest: it is a long, complicated history. had at least one dictator who was in power for a long time. it cost latin america, you'll find some of the rules against reelection, just to stop people who want to stay in power for a very long time. host: when will we know the results tonight? guest: there will be the exit polls -- you know, the national broadcasters and posters around 8:00 p.m.

but the national election authority will give their count around 11:00 p.m. tonight. host: christine murray joining us from mexico city. election day in that country. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: back to your calls and comments on law-enforcement using facial recognition software. some of your tweets. johnny -- should law-enforcement officials use facial recognition software? they already do. from another viewer -- what happens if the facial recognition system gets hacked? we good angela, joining us -- we go to angela, joining us from indianapolis. caller: good morning. on your topic about law enforcement, i understand where you're coming from with that topic. but it is a much broader topic. retailers, a lot of our fortune 500 retailers, are potentially

using this technology without their customers' knowledge. even though we know there are , and then the stores aclu published an article marched for a first of this year in regards to that topic. are stores you shop at secretly using face recognition technology on you? a lot of these retailers refuse to answer that question. host: along those lines, this is from the "take out," a restaurant industry website. restaurants using facial recognition software to remember how you like your burger. your reaction? caller: i really oppose that. but what are we to do in this technological age? they have the technology in our own hands the smartphones and

being able to take our own pictures, if you will. you have the caption -- everyone has the caption -- available to them. the famous icon -- facebook or what is facebook? look at that keyword -- "face." host: thank you. caller: we are taking the pictures for the government. -- this should not be happening. they have already enticed us with the candy. we have just taken it. we got on board with it. i of -- i have opposed it for a long time. [indiscernible] -- host: we go to carol joining us from michigan, opposing this as well. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree. i oppose it as well. but what can we do, because we

already have it. that to put ite back into our checks. imo over 70 years old. over 70 years old. and i still cannot make a living to my bills, because i still have to go back to work. i thought i was going to have been retired but i still have to work. they need to have a living wage in the economy, and the reach people are getting richer, and the poor people are getting poorer. host: things for the call. mark williams with this tweet -- this is the stain -- this is the same store were laws are passed and technology is used in some form to attack people or provide

safety. how many liberties are we willing to give up to be safe? another tweet -- we will go on to politico. the cover story -- your city is watching. the future metropolis is smart, efficient, and knows what you did last that -- last might. the cover story of "time." talking about the replacement for justice anthony kennedy. -- his announcement will, on july 9, similar to how announced the nomination of neil gorsuch. russell, the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement? caller: i support it. preventto slow down and

terrorism, crime, which is bypassing us. they are using technology and weaponry that we do not use. we have to use technology to protect the citizens. i believe the majority of law-abiding citizens do not worry about their right to privacy. i believe this is not intended to do that. this is not a game we are playing. we just need to know more. tools to prevent terrorism and crime in our country. almostime on tv now, every time, there is a crime on the street, and a surveillance across thea business

street, their camera picks out the criminal. because it is easy. was it in 10 to -- it was not intended for that particular person. upreality, if we do not step , the terrorists and criminals thanhave better technology anything we have, because they have that ability to do their business. host: let's go to jodie in this week -- if you sign-up to be recognize, that is one thing. you are stupid. but if you do not want your face recognizable, that should be your right to privacy. this from karen -- the u.s. constitution again an example of to seenders' inability into the future and technological advances. from another viewer, the criminal gangs in power get more protection from the mexican police. big bucks at stake.

back to your calls. the issue of facial recognition. should law-enforcement be able to use it on a regular basis? you oppose this, why? joining us from ohio. good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that i believe this is a violation of our privacy. inre was a radio broadcast 1940 that said as americans of all -- evolve, we will give up certain freedoms in the name of liberty and in the name of safety for our country. this does not mean that it is a good thing or bad thing. thank you for the call. from the "new york times" sunday review, millennial socialists are coming. a look at the elections in queens.

congressman joe crowley defeated, and a look at what it means for millennials. legacy.s towering he often cast the deciding vote, but his estate for our president provides a path to undo them. judy joining us from delaware. caller: good morning. i support this. it was good they captured this guy so fast and were able to use technology to do that. as far as the aclu and other organizations that violate personal rights, as far as i am concerned, when you have someone like that, and we are having all of these problems with gun issues, you have violated everyone else's rights. at that point, your rights are up for grabs. if they can catch you this way,

that is the way it -- the way it ought to be. i feel very strongly about it. i hope they do more. host: thank you if front page of the "washington post" -- north korea plotting to keep arsenal. u.s. intelligence official studying -- exciting -- citing newly obtained evidence that north korea is considering ways to conceal the number of weapons it has and secret production facilities. the evidence collected in the wake of the summit in singapore points to preparations to deceive the u.s. about the number of nuclear warheads in north korea's arsenal as well as the existence of undisclosed facilities used to make fissile

material for nuclear bombs. mike pompeo saying congratulations to harry harris junior on his swearing-in as the ambassador to south korea. a lot of work ahead on maintaining our ironclad alliance with south korea and achieving the final, fully verified he knew where is north korea, as agreed by chairman kim. that from the secretary of state, mike pompeo. your calls on law enforcement use of facial recognition software. next, from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. have these they lineups network people identify them. they make a lot of mistakes. this is another attempt to help. if they make mistakes, what difference with that in making mistakes i technology? 10 years from now, it will just be a fact. host: thank you.

we go to carol, next. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi. i oppose it. i think it is an invasion of privacy. there needs to be a trade-off. if law enforcement are able to use it as recognition and verify it, they should also take their guns away or do other means as far as arresting people. or, if they wind up shooting someone, and it is the wrong person, they should get the death penalty. there should be a trade-off. if they get the advantage of facial recognition and confirmation, then they should not have the luxury of making mistakes. host: thanks for the call. we go to danny next in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been watching your show for about 25 minutes. i have not heard anyone say it yet. i oppose it based on war list

searches. kind of like wiretapping. with wiretapping, you have a certain citation of privacy. i will disagree with her privacy, because in public, no one has a reasonable expurgation of privacy. therefore, the privacy argument side is kind of null and void in that respect. but if the government and police can just watch anyone from point a to b, c, and d, there is a problem. we have to keep it in check. that technology, there is a high risk for it to be abused. that is my concern. host: we go back to the "new york times" and the report that prompted this question. also in the "washington post" and the "baltimore sun." when the police arrested the suspect that took place -- for shooting that took place in the "capital gazette" newsroom, he refused to diebold his name.

authorities identified jarrod ramos using a different technology. facial recognition technology. it showed how officials can pinpoint suspects using a technology that is increasingly pervasive in law enforcement. the past two years, facial recognition has been quietly adopted by authorities in the u.s., including at the local policing level and becoming part of the standard law enforcement tool kit. 16 states use the fbi used the technology to compare faces of suspected criminals to drivers licenses and id photos. and due to recent improvements to facial recognition by some of the world's largest tech companies, its influence is likely to grow. next is james joining us from texas. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. i fear a police state. america has been pushing in that direction for quite a while,

with the level of corruption and racism that exist in law enforcement. you hand those tools to those --ple, it obviously and obviously will be used for political and racial reasons. it makes it real scary to me. thank you for taking my call. host: this from spectrum 13 news. the aclu and order wants -- in orlando wants police to seize and desist use of this technology -- cease and desist use of this technology. it alleges that amazon has marketed it that way. the city council has allowed use of this technology by the leased apartment without inviting public debate, obtaining local

authorization, or adopting rules to prevent harm to community members. later in the week, orlando police announcing it would stop the highlight programs using -- stop the pilot programs. next, greenville, south carolina. caller: you the man, steve. how is it going? host: fine. how are you? caller: it could be worse. the young man who pointed out the racial aspect in law enforcement, he is right on. there is a whole history of it. beforeouple of callers him, a woman who was not that said these guys in baltimore, they would catch the good guys using this -- no. he was holed up. he was in custody. they used that software to id him. two questions. why is it, when you watch old tv read your cops

miranda rights. anything you say can and will be used in the court of law against you? isn't it anything you say can and will be used to bring about justice for all? and how will you get the c-span bus to hawaii? host: that is a good question. it was up and alaska. the answer is it will be placed on a barge and will be there in august. thanks for following that, by the way. caller: thank you for being here. c-span is the greatest. host: we should point out our visit to hawaii is part of our 50 state capitals tour. wrapping up our trip to alaska. all of our programming on c-span.org. the "new york times" -- newspaper shooting shows the widening use of facial recognition by authorities. from akron, ohio, gene is next. caller: good morning.

i oppose it did i was reading the other day that in israel, they are already developing software that, through facial recognition, they are being able to input pictures of people and see if they are predisposed to be criminals. they are using the software already in israel to profile somebody that might be involved with a criminal activity just by his looks and face. or if they may be a terrorist or something like that. this is somebody that has no -- they are not looking for an individual person. they are actually just using percentages of this facial features -- are they predisposed to be a criminal? that has huge implications for misuse, i believe. i think that will come down to racial profiling. it is just another tool that the police already abuse now.

people in this area, if you are this color, you will be predisposed to be a criminal, and this is another thing that will put on top of that. it will evolve to that. host: this is the tweet from lou, who points out photoshop could negate the use of this technology. from the "baltimore sun" we are not the enemy, as mourners gather. photos and candles lit for the five victims. funeral services begin this week for two of them. dan joins us from ohio. caller: hi. beautiful morning. host: go ahead. illegal tohink it is have face recognition.

what we need is an understanding of each other and a balance between our nation, especially on immigration. we do not need more laws or anything. before i go, i would like to say that what we need is to go back to merit. with the infants, men, and women, paid for by the millions of dollars to our allies. host: we go to dj next in bismarck. caller: good morning. i am opposing this. my grandson, my nephew, my son where falsely accused due to facial recognition in a facility. host: how so? caller: they were put in jail for months, trying to get bond.

i do not feel it is right to accuse people falsely because you are people of color. native americans are born here. some native woman are arrested and called terrorists, and they're putting them in jail. the majority of people in north dakota -- if anyone came here to visit us, they are all people of color there. host: thanks for your calls and comments. you can continue the conversation on our facebook page facebook.com/cspan. were the tweets at @cspanwj. coming up in a moment, we will look at the president's replacement for supreme court justice anthony kennedy. and congress, when they come back, dealing with a number of issues. two guests to talk to also about midterm politics. we are joined by andrew egger and jamie stiehm. later, laurel miller of the rand operation.

17 years in afghanistan -- what is the role of the u.s. military? "newsmakers" follows "washington guestis adam smith, the ranking democrat on the house arms services committee. among the issues where the president is taking u.s. foreign-policy. here is a preview. [video clip] >> president trump is cozying up putin,jong-un, vladimir to some extent, president xi in china while pushing away traditional allies in europe, that is the most concerning thing to me, are we moving away from the notion the united states believes in economic and political freedom and towards sort of a strong man approach to governance? i think we need our allies in europe and need to promote democracy and economic freedom. this presidency seems to be

moving away with that. he is having a meeting with the larger, it is trend of where he is taking our foreign policy that is troubling to me. >> the nato summit is coming up, could you give us a little perspective on how you see relations with native -- nato allies at the moment and what expectations are for the summit and does the administration deserve any credit for pressuring allies to increase defense spending? administrations have been pressuring the allies to increase defense spending for quite some time with mixed results. i guess the concern is that this president has basically said a number of times that he wants to move away from nato and our european alliance and he has a lot of people around him, most notably secretary mattis, who want to reinforce those, but there is always that tug-of-war.

that first speech he gave where he refused to reassert -- article five, the one that says every nato country should defend another and he refused to say it and a week later he kind of mumbled it. i don't think the way the president is going about this is ultimately going to strengthen the alliance and i am really worried that he does not even want the alliance to continue. host: we hope you two in test "newsmakers" program. our guest is adam smith, the democrat from washington. you can listen to it on c-span radio and our free radio app. all of our programming online anytime at c-span.org. our sunday roundtable here in washington, andrew egger, he is a reporter for the weekly standard. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me on. host: and jamie stiehm.

we want to talk about the news begin week, -- we want to at the shooting in annapolis maryland and the death of your colleagues. -- friendly colleague that had a smile for everyone and wonderful insight into stories and characters. host: how do you explain this kind of tragedy? in the last year and a half, there has been increasing hostility to the press as has been stoked by president trump. this is not related to that directly, this was just journalism catching up with the rest of the mass shootings we are seeing and i guess it is our turn. host: one of the issues we were talking about, the suspect was not cooperating with police and law enforcement and the use of facial recognition to identify him.

guest 2: that is a new development. he was the first suspect since he had been making threats for years. it was not surprised the suspect -- a surprise the suspect turned out to be mr. ramos. i know he had no personal grudge against the five slain i had a dreadful feeling rob would have been one of the victims because he was -- would literally stand out. host: what do you remember about him as a former colleague? guest 2: i remember he saw a life as a comedy. he had this southern, jen teal way about him. he was not a news reporter, he was a columnist at the annapolis capital. theried to look beyond obvious. now.""it is trump's court

we will know a week from now who the president will select to replace anthony kennedy. what can we expect in the ensuing five -- 8 days? it will be insane. the president has quite a flare for thedramatic -- dramatic. we know around who he will pick from, kind of evocative on his days from "the apprentice." it will be knocked down, drag out in the senate as senators, especially red state democrats are scrambling to figure out whether this is a similar case to when we saw neil gorsuch's confirmation, whether they should treat that differently, whether they can run the risk of opposing one of president trump's nominees when they are going home to run for reelection in a couple months. it will be crazy and we will have to see what happens. that politico as a story

two key senate votes will be lisa murkowski and susan collins of maine. therehose two women out and the debate over abortion and whether or not this will be roe v. wade all over again. those rights are very much on the line and those two women are the only republicans who are pro-choice. neither has said that would be their one and only criterion. it could be a very close 50-49 either way and neither one of these senators has tipped their hand. host: do you want to respond? host: i think -- guest 1: i think that is absolutely right. you will need every republican, most likely. last time around with gorsuch, there were three democrats that

ended up siding with republicans .o vote for his confirmation question obviously here as opposed to last year, the question of roe v. wade is a lot more front and center because it is an essential flip for the court and if republicans do not break rank, we will probably see whoever president trump's wants in there. host: you also read about claire mccaskill, how will that play out? guest 1: she is one of the red estate democrats that did not vote for the corset nomination -- gorsuch nomination. i don't see a situation where this plays well for her. i think it was helpful for her last year.h happened it will have been 18 months by the time her reelection campaign came out and she is running against the attorney general right now. it is hard to see, there's a lot of things here.

she will have to grapple with this while facing down a state of that went very hard for the president and does not want to be seen as a check on his agenda. democrats who are still smarting after mitch mcconnell blocked the nomination of merrick garland in 2016 to be barack obama's selection on the court now says mitch mcconnell should wait until the elections are over and republicans say we will move through this quickly. guest 2: it is really brazen showmanship and democrats, especially dianne feinstein, who is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and chuck schumer of new york are making that pitch right now as hard as -- but mcconnell and the president are hard thatiners and i will think i think they will get their hearing whether democrats like it or not. host: this is what chuck schumer

said about that and talked about hypocrisy by senate republicans. let's watch. [video clip] course, if republicans were consistent, they would wait to consider justice kennedy's successor until after the midterm elections. time and time again, leader mcconnell justified his unjustifiable blockade of merrick garland i claiming the american people should have voice in deciding the next supreme court justice. of anas in february election year. it is now almost july. if -- it is the senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent is just as important as the president's right to nominate, which the commerce -- constitution says it is, why should a midterm election be any less important than a presidential election? leader mcconnell is simply engaging in hypocrisy. host: that was chuck schumer after the announcement that justice kennedy will be stepping

down and he told the president in the white house on wednesday in responding to it, chuck schumer said -- [video clip] >> the senate will vote to confirm anthony kennedy's successor this fall. this is not 2016. they are not the final months of a second term constitutional lame-duck presidency with a constitutional -- election fast approaching. we are in the middle of this president's very first term in to my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the senate should only process supreme court nominations in odd numbered years. host: what is going on here? guest 1: i think there is a compelling case from the democratic side. this is an issue that motivates democratic voters and the base and the idea the supreme court seat was stolen from merrick garland. at the same time, i think it's mcconnell has a strong port,

that nobody on the republican yearwas saying no election -- the argument was this was the last year of a presidential term and it was always about the president, that he was outgoing and voters should have a say who appointed that. argumentee whether the carries water, but i think mcconnell and his allies will have no trouble getting that process to the floor. host: justice kennedy was confirmed in february 1988 and that was an election year and nomination -- confirmation began -- guest 2: that is right. appointed by president reagan so this so-called rule that mcconnell introduced into public discourse -- political discourse is a rather strange bird, something he invented.

he is extremely crafty, very shrewd, and i mean that as a compliment and he came up with an excellent argument as to why this should proceed. host: let me fast forward with a hypothetical. if in 2020 democrats have control of the senate and there is another vacancy on the supreme court, is this now standard procedure for both political parties? my goodness. it is hard to bet against the breakdown of norms. it seems like any time one of these institutions has come under the chopping block, we have seen either side tends to go with the short-term victory rather than the long-term institution and i don't think that is surprising given that especially when it comes to the supreme court, publicans and democrats are operating under two different ideas of what the court's role is and how it should function. i fully inspect -- expect in 2020 to see whichever side

wields as much power to get their version of the court, whether that is through stalling or not. that this is just one ad will affect many, how this is shifting the midterm elections. let's watch. [video clip] has proven herump wants the best of the best on the supreme court. he appointed neil gorsuch, a fair and independent justice committed to the independent and now there is another opening, a choice to appoint another great justice just like they did before, extremist will rise and attack the nomination. president trump's list includes the best of the best in with your help, america will get another star on the supreme court. host: that is from the judicial crisis network, a conservative organization and liberals also attacking whoever the president nominates, so this will be a political football. guest 2: the battle is on right now. as soon as summit democrats come

to the four and say -- senate democrats came to the floor -- he made his intentions there he clear and never has this seat been so criticized so quickly with perhaps the exception of clarence thomas in 1991. host: this is from "the washington post," colling this and other robert bork moment. is that a fair analogy? guest 1: that seems to be fair. it will be a question of whether or not an originalist judge like gorsuchill be the 1 -- will be the one nominated this year. it was less contentious last year because gorsuch was seen as replacement, kind of one-for-one. them treat -- whoever the new nominee happens to be, in much the same way as bork was treated.

host: joining me at the table is andrew egger and jamie stiehm. this is from "the washington post," barack obama planning a bigger role in the midterms. unlikely to stay quiet for long according to mary jordan of "the washington post." guest 2: i think that is appropriate because the party is undergoing a reckoning and they need all men to come to the aid of the party. barack obama has stayed in the shadows mostly and he can make a margin of difference in a few races like the one in missouri, wisconsin, michigan, there are 10 senate democrats up for reelection and face -- in states that trump won. host: bramble joining us from texas, independent line. good morning. caller: i have two questions of the guests. are they aware of any services

that violate the freedom of information acts on kennedy's son and the bank loans and connections there? the second one is will the president be asking putin if he plans to return the 14 russians that have been indicted by the american grand jury and if trump himself plans to pardon 14 russians. we have been asking that and we have been wanting to know and as far as future elections come up is simple, 2020, it i will vote against russians and republicans. host: the president cannot pardon foreigners and you need to explain what you were a referring to with regard to kennedy's sons.

caller: justice kennedy. host: justice kennedy. guest 2: i think the caller is referring to justice kennedy's son was a banker that had dealings with the trump company on the floor of the house at the state of the union, trump data point of going up to justice kennedy and saying give my best to your boy and that has recently been revealed as the tie between them we were not aware of before. host: we want to go to a story you wrote, andrew egger, because he is in the spotlight following the shooting in maryland. larry hogan, the governor of maryland seeking a second term and he will be challenged by a democrat. guest 2: the spotlight -- guest 1: the spotlight is on him right now and there are no good things about a tragedy like this, but a guy like larry hogan is well-equipped to handle a tragedy like this.

he is a very capable leader. he got a lot of popularity in his first year in office for the way he'd -- he handled the rioting in baltimore following the death of freddy gray. i think he is a pit -- capable guy. host: why are these governor's races so important in terms of congress? guest 2: because the congress is kind of, hopefully, away one way or the other that governors or senators rise and fall together and this is such an important election. it might be the most national midterm election we have ever had. host: you also have congressional -- up in 2020. guest 1: it will be interesting how all of that is. host: joining us from columbus, georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: we are fine, thank you. caller: here we are with democrats raring up to go

against trump's nominee for the youeme court and so far, see the liberal media going against him, too. the liberal media can point out some terrible stuff against people and you see it all over the place. do you all see any bias on media and the both sides -- on both sides are just one side? most biased people are the liberal media because they come out of their skin and almost like a snake, they come and allstart to strike the women in the liberal media seem to me are drama queens. they get up there and talk nonsense and you cannot get any anymore unlessm you go to a conservative network and i appreciate you all hearing my comments. host: who don't you trust and

who do you trust? cbc, abc,don't trust and nbc and i don't trust very many of their offspring's. i trust some of fox's news and some of the other conservative people, such as the people online and stuff. i just don't see the liberal media being unbiased anymore. host: do you watch programs on msnbc and get the other point of view? caller: yes, i do. i try to get the other side and when they start telling people trump is a monster and will have everybody in the states locked up or killed or whatever and they are just awful. you cannot sit there and listen because they scare you to death. host: thank you for the call from columbus, georgia. andrew egger.

guest 1: i think you are right on one account, which is that as we in the country get more politicized, get pulled further apart, it becomes harder for anybody in media or elsewhere to have sort of an objective take on things. pulled tod to get their ideological side of. as a member of the conservative media, i think there is a lot of slant on both sides come on our side as well. you can find people who are less interested in giving you the straight facts than they are into deceiving and try to push a particular partisan point. i think your point is well taken that happens on both sides and even sort of amount -- among mainstream publications. it is hard to be a reporter and try to get straight facts the people. host: jamie stiehm, in your piece "ohio: both sides of the political river," it is already

july 1 and you write i look across the ohio river and i sigh. explain. ohio rivere hot -- is a dividing line between historically north of south, the slaves would cross over from slavery to freedom. it has a place in our mythology, but also in our politics today because north and south are still pretty polarized and when i sat with -- saw it with my own eyes, i can picture it all happening back in the 1850's leading up to the civil war and right now, we are in a comparable mood, we are angry.ng, we are polarized, as you said on both sides of the whole. into the house of representatives, and you can feel it. it is like a seething mass. host: we will go to stephen in connecticut, independent line.

caller: good sunday morning, everybody. thank you for taking my call. judge judges -- picking a insomebody who is not set up an ivy tower. it would be great if they could pick a woman. that goes back to the midterm elections. the one lady from had really gety .ut the vote efforts i think companies like facebook and apple and google, even our allies like in london or germany, with social media, you

can really mobilize get out the vote. host: andrew egger? guest 1: to answer the first part of your question about the supreme court, i think you are really getting at something which is that, because the court has gotten so powerful and become such an answering body to the degree that a lot of the law that exists in this country exists because it has been decided one way or another at the supreme court, it becomes a problem sort of that people who are appointed to the court tend to be cloistered from the upper crust, they are all lawyers and nerds and i think you get right at it. when the court serves in what i would say it's appropriate role essentially sort of an interpretive body settling questions of what the law says and how the law is supposed to function and whether that squares with the constitution, that matters less that those people are a bunch of harvard lawyers and you are absolutely

right that now that the court has become a body that determines policy a lot of the time, that becomes a much more present host: problem. this is the editorial from the new york times, bring on the young democratic leaders, in reference to nancy pelosi and jim clyburn and -- both in their late 70's and talking about the defeat of joe crowley. the leadership disarray it caused was predictable because of the regime's failure to foster new talent, the caucuses lack any bench of members ready to assume this pelosi -- mrs. pelosi's mantle. -- a younger replacement can be groomed for the job. what is going on among house democrats? guest 2: i think nancy pelosi is determined to hang on to her place in leadership for at least one more term. a deal might be made that she

serves until she is 80 and she strategic, soand i think she may bargain for one more term, especially if democrats take back the house. host: she is also an issue in this midterm election. guest 1: that is true. republicans will be happy to campaign on opposition to nancy pelosi and support of donald trump. they see those two as the two big fichter -- figures. if you are pelosi, you have to make that decision whether it is too big of a trade-off. host: with the win last week, rtesander -- alexandria cot defeating joe crowley -- this is the headline from "the washington post," "a working-class woman speaks the bronx's language." caller: good morning.

you guys have a great show. my comment is that you can't get in touch with the news agencies anymore. msnbc, you have rachel maddow, chris matthews, which i watch every day. the new york times you have michelle goldberg. i tried to email them or contact them through their news agency and you cannot do it anymore. there is no way of doing it. no matter what you do they say, we will get back to you. i used to be able to email and make comments and i am wondering what happened to contacting your people anymore? the reporters and the journalists? this is important for the working people, anybody who wants to make a comment and they wonder why people are screaming at the politicians in streets. that is the only way they can comment anymore. everybody is either working for

somebody and they will let the news come through, but the little guy in the street gets no reporting at all. host: aren't you glad you can just give us a call and talk to us and you are right there -- we are right here? caller: you are the only ones, it is wonderful. i tried to make a comment to them, i said, why don't they russians who messed up our elections, why don't they call them terrorist? every time somebody in this country does something, they call them terrorist. there are ecoterrorists, peace terrorists, but the russians are out to destroy our democratic election and they worst they call them is the russians or cyber terrorist. cyber terrorists are often -- after my credit card and not the russians -- all the russians are

doing this. jamie stiehm, you were shaking your head when you -- he talked about calling them terrorist. guest 2: the word terrorist is so overused in our culture, i don't think it would be helpful. we have not gotten to the bottom of russian -- the russian interference, the investigation is not quite over with. it would be premature to call russia terrorist. host: andrew egger, fox news is in the building, below us on the fifth floor. every weekday afternoon we would he this gentleman come in, died last month after a battle with cancer. he was 68 years old. what is his legacy? guest 1: he basically has enormous shoes to fill for

people in the conservative movement and writers who want to make a sharp point in a respectable and illuminating way. there really aren't a lot of people around who do what he did as well as he did it, just a handful of people and a lot of them are also getting up in age. of as sort of a relic bygone time in american politics where it was possible to make a case to both sides even though it was -- he was clearly a conservative. i certainly hope we will be able to see a return to the kind of environment that he helped bring about and the kind of writing he helped to make famous across the country. host: he told foxnews he loved being on television, but especially loved being a writer because he could edit himself and make sure when his essay appeared, it was his opinion in full thought. guest 2: he was such a master of

-- argument of the diatribe he was almost unequaled in terms part of hiselegant viewpoint and washington can be a small town and i have heard from both sides with a kind, sweet, generous soul he was. essay, heis final basically said i lived the life i intended. those final words in which he talked about his life and admitted he was going to die. guest 2: and to go back to that previous caller -- guest 1: and to go back to that previous collar, a lot of things we have heard about him since his death, a lot of people who knew him about how they cared about him and there was one story on twitter about a guy who's father suffered a spinal injury about a year after he met krauthammer

and he sent him a very kind letter. he never really lost that common touch for speaking to regular people, which meant a lot to a lot of people. in thee would see him building and he never wanted to be in the way of the elevator, always a smile on his face and a quick wit. guest 2: he also went to harvard medical school and he made a shift in his life to this line of work. host: joining us, andrew egger and jamie stiehm. on the democrats line, good morning. caller: hello. it is nice to be on your show today. i had a comment to two of your previous callers, a gentleman from texas and a gentleman from georgia. gentlemano tell the from texas he has renewed my faith in the south and the gentleman from georgia, i suggest he get his news from a

reputable source. i find it interesting he says he does not get nothing but fake news from the top three abc, nbc, cbs news channel. when one of those stories report a false story, reporters and newscasters lose their jobs on a regular basis, but sean hannity can spew lies to the nth degrees and foxnews keeps putting him on and on. i would suggest people in the south tried to get some facts. i live in tennessee and i can tell you racism is alive and well in the south and the politicians down here as well as in washington whistle call to opinion,e -- in my uneducated, and i will put that kindly, on a repeated basis and all you have to do is live in the south and you will understand how trump got elected and it is sad, but i think they

had it right in the 2016 election. there are some people who are deplorables. people who listen to foxnews don't listen to news, they are listening to state-run propaganda and it is not news because it keys into their emotional state, their biases, their colored glasses they are wearing, be they religious or whatever. i am tired of living in a part of the country and getting elected officials who don't do what is best for this country, that do what is best for their pocketbooks and what is best for their lobbyists and i would include trump in those politicians. host: tracy, thank you for the call. this is the headline from the new york times front page and in the a section. fox and if trump, it is a friendship without equal. the president tweeting he will

be on the business channel this morning. bill shine is in line to become the next white house to medications director and more often than not when the president wants to be interviewed on television, it is on fox or fox business. a romance, is almost sean hannity and the president speak often, so there is no pretense that -- of a neutral distance covering his observers. there is very much a slant trump plays that for all of the world. host: that's go to tim from indiana, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know if they can answer this or not, but are there any recusal standards for supreme , he hasstices, such as got to go to a senate hearing,

but is that a question that can to aned -- if it goes indictment to the supreme court of a sitting president, is there a refusal product -- recusal process for that? host: there is a background check, but do you want to respond? yout 1: i am not 100% sure -- i understand your question whether you are talking about recusal for senators or for justices. i think you were talking about justices appointed by the president whether they would recuse themselves if an indictment came before them. i don't know the answer to that question. i imagine that would be unlikely given the role the senate plays in terms of consent, that is supposed to be a check that the basic competence of a justice and obviously, the ability to serve in that kind of role would

speak to competence. at the same time, i think the question that reason is worth , if itat all is because were to come to that. if robert mueller were to come out with an indictment against the president. do not know it is going to happen, but if it were to happen, it was -- it would be the biggest test to our institutions we have ever seen. that is when we would find out whether or not these institutions we have set up to preserve our sort of equal justice under the law would be able to hold. host: we saw a this past week before the house judiciary committee how republicans trying to discredit the justice department. rod rosenstein and the molar investigation. guest 2: that is very heated and tempers flared on both sides.

there is an accusation, a suspicion the justice department was holding documents that the committee wanted to see and still interested in hillary clinton's emails as far as i know. of a sense ofpart the various branches of government. federal, congress, between --rts and rod rosenstein himself rather well. it is the first time we saw him really speak up for himself in public. host: wisconsin, tim, you are next. democrats line. good morning. good morning, c-span. i think the way we bring the country together has to start at abortion, it is the new civil war. how we do it is let's say a couple from your state goes to florida, has a vacation, comes

six, goes toe gets the doctor, he says you are pregnant and says you also have zika virus. no matter which one of your families out there would go through this situation, the basic question is would you want them to make their own decision or taking care of someone who will be tremendously damaged through their lifetime, bills they would not be able to afford, no quality of life to that child? the basis of abortion has to begin at the extreme, yes, i would agree with and then work toward how many weeks. it needs to be re-debated in a large -- logical way, not a religious way. thank you, c-span. host: senator chuck schumer saying whoever the president appoints, roe v. wade is on the line. guest 1: i think you get at a

really good point and this is sort of a fine point, but a lot of people beyond the issue of should abortion be legal or illegal. a lot of people have previously taken issue with the way roe v. wade settled that question by an all ory making it nothing proposition. that makes it very difficult for there to be any kind of compromise on this issue. obviously it is inherently a thing that is hard to compromise because of the blatant ideological disparity between what motivates the left and the right on this issue. you are absolutely right that most people in this country believe there should be some restrictions on when abortion is legal and for what reasons abortion is legal. there are not that many people who think it should be illegal in all circumstances and not that many people who think it should be legal all the way up to birth. i think it will be difficult to have a national conversation on that, especially with roe v.

wade on the books, and i say that as a conservative republican. host: that goes back to our earlier point about these two senate republicans, lisa murkowski and susan collins of maine. guest 2: it is really all on them because all senate democrats will hang together on this and they will do their level best to bring one of those two or both of them with them. i have a feeling it might not happen. roe v. wade has been settled law for 45 years. reproductive rights have been a given and i think the threat they mean may be endangered this month and next month and the month after that will energize voters in november. host: let's go to danny joining us from north carolina. with the started out conversation about the fake news

, ok, let's get to the facts here. out there -- news everything out there is fake news to a certain extent. everybody wants to push to the left, pushed to the right. info wars, he leads the ay on the truth 6 months to year and advance. he will tell you about how the government is going to take everything from everybody. this is not a right or wrong situation, this is a god versus satan thing and the sooner america wakes up and realizes color and cover -- no only love for everybody. host: b is also the one that claimed the shootings that sandy hook, that they were actors and did not really happened. do you believe that? caller: i believe a lot of things like the 9/11 situation

where you have 200 story buildings that collapsed directly down on one city block they would build on instead of around the world, you can see them falling sideways, it is impossible. we know the government done this and we know george bush and the clintons have been in the drug cartels for years, that they are the leaders of the drug distribution to america. we know obama is just a flunky of theirs and is not even an american. it is time people wake up around this world and get to the straight facts. host: let me go back, how is barack obama a flunky? caller: are you kidding me? anybody that spent $7 trillion on black ops or whatever they done with their money. this is your money, the american people's future, this is my great grandkids they are taking advantage of here. how you can sit there, anyone of

you three and not realize what the world is coming to an you all are fostering that in. one man to sit at the top and claim he is the ruler of the world. host: why would the government want to bring down the world trade center and kill 3000 americans? caller: to be honest with you, the buildings were junk. how do you get rid of junk buildings, you blow them up? at the same time, you can create a war overseas that hillary clinton wants to bring a pipeline over syria. read the books, do some research rather than talking sometimes. host: why do you believe info wars that sandy hook did not happen and what do you tell the families that buried their children? caller: i tell them the government sent shooters in there. host: why, why would the government do that? why do the rich do anything?

to keep you from being somebody that can replace them. they want their bloodline to succeed and your bloodline to die. it is that simple. host: what is your background? caller: i started out in the united states military, ok. after five years, i saw the brain watching that is done in the military to make you rush into a bunker with a live ammo shooting at you and you are going to take this man out. i recognized my entire life how intelligent people -- they think, intelligent, can twist you into doing things you would never do, jump off a building, jump out of an airplane. there are systems just like technology hid from the average american. host: we want to get a sense of where he is coming from. do either of you want to respond? guest 1: i will say briefly you are right that god has no color,

god is love. i think there are plenty of things that -- to be upset and angry about about the way the world works. i think one other place you are right is if there is something -- some way people today are hurting your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, you might look at the national debt and the way that is going down, but you might want to turn off info wars and there are plenty of thing stopped of -- occupy your time and energy beyond that. conspiracythink the the caller outlined is a real alienation from the government and the u.s. government, we see the citadel of democracy behind us, is not that bad. difficult time, but never what i ever imagined those scenarios could be true. host: and often not that

competent. it takes them years and years to pass little pieces of legislation. it would be a whole other thing if they were running the country behind the scenes without any of that leaking and a whole new shadow government. host: and the fact that 20 children, preschool, children, first and second graders and 6 children's were killed at sandy hook and 6 more family members are filing more lawsuits against alex jones that it was put on by the government and those killed were actors in hollywood. athens, georgia, independent line. caller: good morning, thank god for c-span and the weekly standard as well. i would like to express the opinion that when donald trump was running for president, he kept claiming the education, the schools in this country are terrible and falling apart and worthless and i did not believe him when he said that, but then

he got elected and now i think the schools in this country are falling apart. my other opinion is i tried to start an anti-hate group, but everybody who joined hated donald trump, so i had to give it up. thank you for your time. host: thank you. ironic, that is kind of isn't it? i think the caller did something noble, very commendable to try to start a group like that and i would urge him to try again. host: let's get next to hyattsville, maryland. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, steve. i was calling -- i always listen to c-span and sometimes the comments are very difficult to take. there was a white woman a little while ago and i think she said it she was in tennessee talking about the deplorables and things

of that nature. a nasty woman because that is what all the organizers -- i am a nasty woman -- because trump said something about a nasty woman so i decided to be a deplorable. out here in maryland, they have --s going to bed bathroom bathrooms with girls, everything the democratic party is for. every single thing that is disgusting and nasty, they are for. girls going to the bathroom with girls, sexy changes sex changes you want the american public to pay for -- that is a personal thing. i know it is supposed to be, it is no longer a mental illness, i think it is. a deplorablebecome because i do not want girls in the bathroom with my daughters.

i do not want discrimination and democrats are the party of hate. everything they say trump and the republicans are for, they are the ones that are for that. anything they say you are doing, they are doing it. who wants open borders? now sacred.hing you cannot make a decision on your own or you are a horrible person because you do not want a man in the bathroom with you. host: andrew egger? guest 1: i think what you are referring to with the comments about taxpayers paying for it would be the recent change just now going into effect about transgendered people in the military and now it is no longer going to be military funded sex change operations -- if that is what you are referring to, that is happening and i could see why if that is your issue, that would bring you on board the trump train. host: andrew egger, if people

want to follow you on twitter, how can they do so? caller: they can go to my page, eggertws.om/ @jamiestiehm and i always welcome a dialogue with readers. reading,s is from jd referring to the caller from north carolina saying it is the elements in the government, not the government itself. goodness. keep those tweets coming. you,r: good morning to steve, and happy early fourth of july for america. earlier some guy called up wondering about if a supreme court justice could recuse themselves.

the answer is yes and i believe it was sotomayor or kagan who recused themselves and the -- in the aca debate because one of them had written some articles or wrote something for president obama on the affordable care act so when it went to courts, they recused themselves. i remember reading that in the paper. host: thank you. guest 2: it is up to the individual justice whether or not to recuse himself or herself and the caller is right to point that out and for future new justice will have a dilemma may be a vote of conscious whether or not to recuse himself or herself. host: what role does the federalist society play in the -- selection process? guest 1: i think they are clearly a vote -- group that has the president's ear when it

comes to legal theory. the president has never been a legal beagle himself and from the first weeks of his presidency, he has made it clear he sort of is outsourcing that particular side of things -- maybe not outsourcing, but taking it it very seriously, groups like the federal society and heritage foundation and these conservative think tanks that have a lot of ideological firepower behind them. i think they will probably play a large role, he says he will select from that short list. host: we know some of the nominees are meeting with him. robert is joining us from rhode island, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i want to thank you for c-span. i used to watch msnbc, cbs, all the different news channels. the only ones you can get a fairly good -- even keeled with

what the news is is fox news, one america news and sky news. the rest of them -- and this is the truth. the rest of the stations, cnn, nbc, abc, msnbc, there has been a coup . they have been working with -- they are all jewish owned. the news is so slanted, it is disgusting. they cannot put anything true about president trump. it is all skewed and i tell you one person i feel sorry for, you --e mueller and horwitz three people, secular jewish and the one i feel sorry for is horwitz because they must have pressured him so much cannot bring out the full truth of what happened in this investigation. host: thank you. guest 2: i don't have a comment. host: we will go to john in

silver spring, maryland. democrats line. caller: i want to say this previous caller, exactly. people are so confused and i really want to say the gentleman you gave him more time, that ex -military guy, he needs some help. this country along star all of us. when we are attacking each other like this, we are not going to get anything succeed. donald trump divides and conquers and that is what he is doing right now, dividing people against each other. sometimes people have an economic issue and they are angry and i understand that. i travel here all the way to indiana and i have seen a lot of people hurt because people get respected when they have jobs and most of american don't have a job. my call is this. i think mitch mcconnell is very smart. chuck schumer, if he thinks he is counting jeff flake or anyone

will stop this judge, he is dreaming. the democrats always attack and before they even get a judge. i believe one thing, wherever come a supreme court, they will not overturn anything, they will let things go. host: thank you for the call. let me take the first part of this call and respond to the second part. the tone you heard from the calls this morning, what is your take away? guest 1: i agree with most recent caller and think that it is true he have come to a point in the country where the town has gotten very divisive and people do not know who to trust and they have lost their faith in their institutions, even the places we work for that try to present things down the middle as much as possible and i think there is a couple of reasons for that. one thing is when there are so many people who have sort of gotten so angry and distrustful

and suspicious, part of that is the fault of demagogues like alex jones who capitalize on that so they can sell herbal supplements or whatever. there is also blame that gets assigned the national institutions for that. can't beil -- if you accessible, as news organizations or governments or whatever, if people feel like you are insensitive to their of that you don't understand the pain they are in for various reasons like the caller was saying, that makes people more susceptible to listen to anyone who says i get you, i understand your pain whether that is alex jones or donald trump or whoever. a lot of people have seen success through little s -- else other than saying those people don't understand you, but i do. guest 2: -- reflects the impact

of what we are here -- in here in washington and it is only the beginning of july, but it already feels like a very long, hot summer. abraham lincoln said a house divided cannot stand. however, that house over there is divided and divided again, republicans cannot even agree on .n immigration bill i think the resentment we heard this morning has been reflected here in washington. back to ant to go 51-49 senate and and or john mccain, who has not been in washington since before christmas. how important will his boat be to mitch mcconnell and if he continues to be in poor health, do you think there is pressure for him to step down to make sure there is someone who can vote for republicans? guest 2: there may already be pressure on senator became. he -- senator mccain. he is gravely ill and that

effectively makes it 50-49 in the balance. host: and the vice president cannot vote in those circumstances. guest 2: the vice president can only vote if there is a 50-50 tied. mccain, he will do precisely as he pleases. guest 1: it is ultimately going to be up to john mccain. of the senators who could be in this circumstance, i think he will make the right decision for himself and the country that he has been serving for a very long time. weeklyndrew egger of the standard. his work is available online and jamie stiehm, her work at creators.com. they give very much for being with us. guest 2: my pleasure. guest 1: thank you very much. host: 17 years and afghanistan. what is next for u.s. forces in that country? laurel miller will talk to us

about what is next as a new commander takes over. you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal." the very first day of july. july 4 and just a couple of days. we are back in a moment. ♪ >>," monday night on "the politicalors reporters discuss their investigation of a china gives andss to u.s. technology the challenges it poses to u.s. defense. >> in china, the government keeps all kinds of information on its people -- personal information, financial information, potentially health

care information. a company with close ties to the chinese government had access to millions of americans' health care records or banking records. that could be used for espionage purposes. if they know who works in the state department and owes a lot of money to the banks or is deep about tohas four kids go to college, maybe that person is a better target on espionage operation. the warning that national security leaders have been putting out there is any time a chinese investor with a potential link to the chinese government has some sort of foot into our supply change -- into our supply chain as we are building artificial intelligence, to build space technology, the things really

powering the military, powering the government. if the chinese government has some sort of insight into what that technology is, not only monitorey plant a bug, american communications, but that allows them to adopt the technology themselves which gives them an edge in the global marketplace. > watch "the communicators" monday night at 8 p.m. eastern. continues --ournal "washington journal" continues. welcome ourt to guest from the rand corporation. we appreciate you being with us. 17 years in afghanistan. what is our mission there? missionur original there was to deal with the , whichfrom al qaeda

attacks from afghanistan, and then to establish a stable government in afghanistan that its ownke care of security eventually. but the mission has changed over .he years this when senior u.s. officials are questioned on the points. you don't get very clear answers. is unwinnable war, and is it still a war? war.: it is still a the afghan government is engaged in a counterinsurgency against the taliban. government is undertaking some of its own

counterterrorism missions in the country. but the war against the taliban is not unwinnable war on the battlefield. it is a war that is stalemated. stalemated for some years with an ebb and flow and who has the relative advantage, but it is particularly stalemated most of the last decade and it is not likely to be concluded on the battlefield. en route to general testifying before the senate committee, and two takeover new operations in afghanistan. listen to this question by senator elizabeth warren, democrat of massachusetts. [video clip] warren: you come from a long line of military leaders who say the strategy is working. you are not the first commander to come in here to express

-- cautious optimism. i started looking through the old documents. general campbell said, i really do think as people look back, they will say 2010 was the year afghanistan. secretary panetta -- 2011, was a real turning point. it was the first time in five years we saw a drop in the number of enemy attacks. general dempsey in 2014. the election seems to be a turning point and the confidence tothe afghanistan secure forces. general mickelson in 2017. u.s. and afghan forces have turned the corner. general miller, we supposedly turned the corner so many times, it seems we are going in circles. so, let me just ask you. do you envision turning another corner during your tenure as commander? after 17 years of war, what are you going to do differently to

bring this conflict to an end? miller: senator, first of all, i acknowledge the 17 years. that's a generation, and i have experience from 2001 until very young guy- this sitting behind me, i never anticipated his cohort would be in a position to deploy as i sat there in 2001. so, i acknowledge that. i also can't guarantee you a timeline or in end dates. i know going into this position does not offer a turning point is one.here something to report back that something has changed. that is where i anticipate being. the vital national interest of the united states of america and i do know today, from personal forces there, i

know that is having an effect on theents that would affect united states of america. the other piece is, can we harden the afghan security forces to close the distance and change the calculus on the ground now? testimony fromhe lieutenant general austin miller. it's on a website, c-span.org. it gives you a sense of how many deaths we have seen, civilian deaths and injuries afghanistan 2017.009 through as you look at these numbers, the deaths inside that country and what you just heard from lieutenant general miller, what is your take away? pointing outth this number of casualties do not include afghan security forces, which have taken very heavy casualties and increasing casualties over the years. i think that senator warren's

question pointed accurately to a certain repetitiveness in u.s. strategy in afghanistan and a in the promises that have been made, the advances that have not been achieved. and i think that general miller was prudent and not promising a turning point, as has been promised in the past because, as he stated elsewhere in his acknowledged that the is needed in terms of endgame is a political negotiation, a negotiated settlement of the conflict, and he elsewhere characterized the military effort in afghanistan as being in support of the political effort there. -- a and some news

unilateral suicide -- cease-fire with the taliban. what is the significance? guest: he called it for a limited time and in that time expired -- hence his statement yesterday. what was more significant was that when he initially called a cease-fire, the taliban also called a cease-fire for a more limited time, for three days, to with the holiday in afghanistan. during that three days, there were two separate, but overlapping cease-fires that really did show the potential for a hiatus, at least, in the violence in afghanistan, and it showed the potential for leaders on both sides of the conflict to exercise some control over their

fighters, if and when they choose to do so. host: our guest is laura miller miller, rand -- laurel from the rand corporation. you have a long and distinguished career. explain your background. guest: i have not with the military -- i have been dealing with it. i have worked in the state department on a couple of different occasions earlier in my career when the balkans was the hot foreign-policy issue. i worked on that in the state department. and i have worked on the national security staff and more recently, i spent four years at these state department from 2013 until the middle of last year working on afghanistan, pakistan as a deputy special representative and the afghan special representative. 202-748-8000 is the line

for democrats. 748-8001 is the lie for republicans. we have a line for independents -- is the line for republicans. we have a line for independents. what is the mission? in a: there are attacks dutch on u.s. interest that could in theory emanate from afghanistan because there are some terrorist group still active in the region. the challenge is that, in the of the u.s.ng invasion, the bush administration decided not to distinguish between al qaeda, which have attacked the united states, and the taliban, which

had hosted al qaeda leadership in afghanistan. that distinction to not draw a distinction between the two, led the united states to the path of fighting a counterinsurgency in afghanistan against the taliban, which is an afghan nationalist group that does not have ambitions beyond the borders of afghanistan. the strategy that the u.s. adopted in afghanistan of excluding the taliban from the settlement that was put in place in late 2001, early 2002, led to this long-term counterinsurgency in afghanistan. and that is the conflict i referred to earlier. al qaeda has had tremendous success in afghanistan and in pakistan, as well as against other terrorist groups that have

a foothold in the country. a longer-termis needs for the united states to be able to have some capacity to deal with the counterterrorism mission in afghanistan. a different question is, what is the endgame for the insurgency -counterinsurgency in afghanistan, and there, i would advocate that the endgame can only be a negotiated political settlement that will bring the taliban into the fold of normalized afghan politics. it -- if yousearch served in afghanistan -- we have a line. ted poe talked about afghanistan and the taliban. let's watch. [video clip] poe: someone said

afghanistan is where empires go to die. i don't not that's true or not but nobody ever one in afghanistan. states, in united the nationbuilding business of afghanistan, are we building afghanistan into a new nation, democracy.e -- a are we in the nationbuilding business with that $29 billion we spent on civilian programs? trump has been very clear we are not in the nationbuilding business, and i think rather than term the war and indefinite war, what the administration has sought to counter is the idea of having a troop surge and announcing the departure at the same time, along the taliban to wait as out. we are no longer giving the taliban the luxury of knowing when the united states plans to leave. instead, the united states --

poe: that may be indefinite, because we do not know that has happened. has the situation changed in the last 17 years? are we in the same place we were 17 years ago? we still have pakistan still supporting terrorists, the government is shaky enough -- and afghanistan. but could we say -- and i'm not arguing with the president's policy does we say we will be there indefinitely if need be to make sure we obtain victory? the situation has changed because the afghan security forces are in the league. we are not. the situation has changed because we're putting unprecedented pressure on a pakistan, including the sensation of military assistance . the administration's strategy is being much more proactive in trying to put pressure on those countries and actors that we

think -- oe: i'm out of time. i think we should cut off all aid to pakistan until there is proof they are not harboring terrorists and sending them across the border. thank you, mr. chairman. last wednesday before the house foreign affairs committee. alice wells. reaction tor, your what you heard in that exchange? true the situation is not exactly the same today as it was 17 years ago. the united states has poured a lot of money into afghanistan, as have other countries around the world, and there have been results produced as the consequent of that. there's been a significant increase in development in afghanistan in health care, education. there is a fairly robust afghan security force that has been of u.s.as a result

money and u.s. training. there has been progress along a number of these indicators. .ut there are fundamentals congress pointed to one of them, the dynamic between afghanistan and pakistan. the tension and the relationship there. that has not really changed. it is also a case that the afghan forces are in the lead. they are not capable of withoutng the fight u.s. military support, particularly in the form of air power, which they only have two a minimal degree on the rhône. but especially u.s. financial support. the afghan government only pays about 10% of its security costs.

90% are paid for by the united states and other donors. if that withdraws, there will be no way for the afghan government to sustain the security force they have today. when you look at the fundamental capabilities of the afghan isernment, it self-sustaining, pays for its security costs, pays for its own government beyond the security costs. if you look at the dynamics of the conflict more broadly in the , there's a lot of continuity from 17 years ago. host: with a new military commanders that to take over, we are looking at afghanistan over the last 17 years. what is next. anna is joining us from philadelphia. thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three parts i hope the

lady will comment on. host: sure. in 1944, wet, entered into the agreement with the british commonwealth to give them all of our intelligence. were made to take britain's place in the world. i want us to get out of all of these foreign in 10 months -- entitlements. under ased to be protector and that was used to funnel a lot of arms. those were often sold to china. and that -- and i would like the lady to comment on the fact that agreementto p theicot agreement and you had a speaker on last night who covered the betrayal of the british in that area. this is a reinstallation

of the great game. it's going to go on forever. the british triple deal and we have to get rid of all of the -- british, is really in our government and start afresh. i would appreciate her talking about this which is yet to be done. thank you so much. host: a lot on the table. anna, thank you. think the question of a very entanglements is broad brush is difficult to address without separating different issues. agreement you referred to as to do with intelligence sharing, sharing of information. i do not see that as something that draws the united states into foreign entanglements. that is an arrangement among several countries that enables all of those countries to have improved understanding of the ofuation in a variety

countries. that is simply an information sharing agreement that the united states benefits from in improving its capabilities to understand the situation in a variety of countries. you know, the issue of the great game in afghanistan, that at regularreplayed intervals, and i think it can be rather overstated, the parallels situatione current and past situation. however, it is the case that afghanistan has, for a very long time historically, been subject to interference by foreign powers, whether it is russia, the soviet union, britain, in an earlier stage, the united states , some influence by iran. and it is the case that

afghanistan has struggled to maintain its own stability against him foreign interference. but just because there is some termsical continuity in of the stresses and strains on afghanistan, it does not necessarily mean the great game scenario of the 19th century is in any precise way being replayed today. james in south bend, indiana. good morning. caller: first of all, i would like to get some equal time for -- i think it is publicinte grity.org does a great job, a disturbing job of listing all of the defense contractors, the trillions of tax dollars. for would be a challenge c-span. also i saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "9/11, lest

we never forget." with got that were the 19 hijackers saudi and we do not have a military presence to speak of in saudi arabia. think -- ay, so i the cause of all wars is great. i wonder how your guest feels about the biblical teaching. host: it is true there is the sense that defense contractors have been an integral part of operations in afghanistan. we often talk about the number of american troops in afghanistan, which is currently around 15 to 16,000. it was 100,000 of the height. troopsany level of u.s.

in afghanistan, the number of contractors there is several times more than that. it is simply a function of the way the united states conducts war and conducts foreign iserventions that it required to have a very significant number of contractors helping to support the mission. not do the fighting, but supporting the mission in a variety of ways. i don't personally draw a direct line between the fact that contractors are needed and utilized to particular policy with other nations, but it is an objective fact that contracting organizations have made money off of u.s. operations in afghanistan. on the separate question was -- about contractors -- mission.tractors and

i want to put on the screen what the president is saying the goal and afghanistan is -- according to cnn their five points. higher troop levels, more military economy, cut aid to pakistan, victory, but leave the nationbuilding. start talks with the taliban. the president talking about the endgame in afghanistan. your thoughts about this front? host: most of those five pieces are tactics, not really objectives. i think one of the things that was missing from the administration's articulation of its new policy, which was announced last august was a very .lear sense of what the goal is there was passing reference to the idea of negotiated at the time the president announced the strategy and afghanistan, that was given

short shrift. out aary pompeo has put more forward leaning statement indicating that the united states is prepared to negotiate a settlement of the cut in afghanistan, but i think we would be are pressed to say there are signs this is a major foreign-policy initiative being undertaken by the administration. to do something as difficult as negotiating peace in afghanistan -- negotiating an end to a conflict in which the united states is a party -- which means the united states negotiating and putting its own interests on the table and being willing to compromise -- that requires a major foreign-policy initiative. it's not simply one of several pieces of a policy. for our radio audience, including those listening on serious xm channel one 24, our

topic, afghanistan, what is the endgame? our next call is from pennsylvania. good morning to you, sir. caller: good morning. thanks to your speaker there. i have a question. first a statement though. i am a gold star dad. i lost a son in afghanistan in 2010. back and did came another true there. we have a son in the marines and a daughter in the navy -- d to yourt happene son? guest: he died -- [indiscernible] host: so sorry. 1980,: prior to afghanistan was the terrorist of the middle east. touristretty much a

destination. it can't be the people there do not understand this kleptocracy that is running there is relatively new. i mean, they had a royal family. --y had prince ali sure raw he had to be smuggled out when the russians came in. , that was a that vibrant economy. it's the crossroads of the silk road. it would be a centerpiece where they could run trains, pipelines, everything could , but the done kleptocracy. the fact that we need to spend more money, i think much of that money never reaches the people because it is divided up. that would be my point. host: thank you and thank you for your children's service. so sorry for the loss of your son in the military. ownt: first, let me add my

deep simply swear loss and the appreciation of the service of your children and your children and your families sacrificed -- her family's upper price. it is the case in the 1970's extent a to a limited more, shall we say, modern face and afghanistan. it was a country and number of people travel to. afghanistan was then and is today one of the world. it is in the rural areas in particular, and was then a very traditional country. it is an arid, landlocked country, which may be has some potential mineral resources that could provide a source of wealth hadhe future, but has never a very vibrant domestic economy. it has always been dependent on external forces of funding from

other countries outside of afghanistan. , while times have changed to some extent in the way that you describe, the fundamentals have been pretty stacked it -- static overtime. there is some potential for future development in afghanistan. they are somewhat better educated, interested in trying forromote a brighter future its country. it is also the case the ongoing conflict there is a huge, and i would say overwhelming, obstacle to afghanistan being able to develop economically and ultimately stand on its own as an economy and the government.

to our viewers on the bbc parliament channel, norma is next from hastings. good afternoon. caller: good afternoon. i have a question from the gentleman who just spoke previously to me. he talked about when the russians moved in. because the freedom fighters were fighting the russians to get out of afghanistan. was it the american intelligence ?gency that helped i could not believe what i was reading in the broadsheets.

isn't it true the cia actually helped train those freedom fighters? please tell me. thank you. host: norma, thank you for the call and thank you for watching. what you broad terms, described is not fake news. it is part of the history of afghanistan. it is the point of the point i in afghanistan of long-term interference, shifting alliances, often for very short term objectives. invaded soviet union afghanistan to support a faltering communist regime there, the united states did major- and was one of the whosors of the mujahedin,

were opposing the soviet invasion. at the time, this was looked at through the cold war lens. the saudi's were also major supporters of the mujahedin opposition to the soviet-backed regime afghanistan and the soviet invasion. conductedhis was prominently -- the funding was channeled through pakistan. gave tounited states the pakistanis quite a bit of say, quite a bit of leeway over whom they chose to fund, who they chose to channel. this did support individuals and groups who are now adversaries of the middle east. host: our next color is from

north carolina. the dim -- our next caller is from north carolina. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. say.something to i jumped out of airplanes. i know what it is to protect freedom. the lady you have on now from the rand corporation, i'm glad .-span covers all spectrums this lady from the rand be anytion could not more misinformed. host: how so? caller: fox news. a man from the rand corporation complaining about

the aca. how many people did the aca help? , the rand corporation complained against it. host: we will stop there because it's on to a different topic. with our focus here, did you want to respond? caller: no, -- guest: no, i would just say the rand corporation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit corporation that does not take positions on political issues. experts from the organization speaker based on their own experience and expertise and their own research. out thatshould point we asked her to come on not only because of her expertise in the area, but she is also a former adjunct professor from georgetown university and a special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the state department. joining us from waco,

texas. good morning. ok, we will go to debbie, our last caller from out of turkey, new mexico. good morning, debbie. , how are you? i know who you are, the rand organization. a lot of people do not know who you are. you are really tight with the military-industrial complex and you do not seem to mention any revolving doors of senators and representatives to have resigned and come to work for you. host: we don't have -- guest: we don't have any resigned senators and representatives working for the rand corporation. there are certainly people who have had experience working in government. it is true rand does receive funding for many of our projects military, from other agencies of the u.s. government, as well as from philanthropists and other sources.

if you're interested in the rand corporation, i would encourage you to look at the frequently asked questions portion of the rand website, which deals with some of the misinformation about , some inaccurate information. our goal is simply to provide objective analysis. we are not influenced by our funders and providing that is. two final points. first, pakistan. how important is pakistan in resolving the situation? guest: pakistan is crucial. there's no resolving without pakistan. host: why? guest: first of all, it's next your. it shares a 1000 kilometer border with afghanistan. -- first of all, it is next door.

there are potential indian influences in afghanistan that would cause pakistan to perceive is up to be encircled by its archenemy, india. and it has suffered from instability in afghanistan. so it wants influence over the course of events and him. it sees its national security interest there in a very seesrent way than the u.s. what pakistan's national security interest should be, and pakistan has a lot of skepticism about the potential for u.s. , totegy to actually work achieve stability in the country. pakistan has to be part of the solution if there is going to be any stability. it always has the option of s that do notresult go sufficiently with its own interest. host: with the geography of

afghanistan -- as you pointed out it is a landlocked country, it is mountains -- what vice president joe biden said should maybe be nine different countries because of the regions around afghanistan. health firmly in control is president ghani? fracturedhanistan is in a number of ways. it is a very decentralized country, but it has a very centralized form of government, which means whoever sits in kabul in the presidential palace is not likely to have firm control over the entire country. there's also a power-sharing government right now, which is a relatively weak form of government. there are upcoming elections where there are likely to be forces in thezing country and many have pointed to

an increase in ethnic positions in the country that have begun to infect politics there. none of this is to discredit president ghani and anyway. he is just dealing with an thatmely fragile situation is as difficult for any person sitting in that position to control. for: r miller, thank you coming by and sharing your expertise. we appreciate it. guest: was my pleasure. host: we will take a short break. when we come back, we will open our phone lines. to a radio audience of those watching other web, this is "washington journal" for sunday morning, july 1. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> syndicated columnist mona

cherin has about her book "sex matters." we send such confusing messages to young people. them.women, i do not envy this was a story i put in the book about a number of women athletes who have posed topless or semi-topless and one of them , i am proud ofid my body and i want to help young women who might have body image issues. you know, my feeling is, that is a crock. women should be dignified. they should remember that when you disrobe, it is very hard for people to see -- to take your sears like. a man looking at a picture of a topless woman will not say,

isn't it wonderful that she does not have the problems with body image? no, he is one to think about sex and he is not going to think about her in a respectful way either. that is why i said i glow merkel, who is the chancellor of germany, did not take off blouse to prove she does not have body image issues. she wants to be respected. if women want to be respected they have to behave in a way that will elicit that. host: -- >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. "washington journal" continues. our phone lines are open. this is a headline in "the union tribune." hundreds of thousands rally. herestrations took place in washington, d.c., new york city, chicago, los angeles, houston, miami, and elsewhere

around the country. we will share more headlines in a moment. let's get to your cause. tim is joining us from abington, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe what we need to do is forget about this law. we have thousands of troops. we need the troops on our borders. the biggest thing about the want to take they back -- raise the minimum wage. we have to -- we are people trying to work two jobs. you can't get ahead in this country. if you raise the minimum wage, that is what needs to be done. that would help a lot. host: thanks for that call from virginia. from "the capital gazette," and of course that is where the shooting took place midafternoon on thursday. photographs of the five victims in remembrance.

shouts. shots. silence. the front page this morning of that newspaper. meanwhile "the baltimore sun," which owns "the capital gazette." "a quiet day turns to bedlam." good morning. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the elections. all the presidents since ronald reagan and all the treaties and agreements that have been broken by donald trump. thehe elections of all presidents, they made all of these promises from reagan on down and they violated the law. in violation of the u.n. charter. they saidverything they would not do in the elections. it that we even have a

democracy when everybody does what they want? violates therump arn. charter, goes to w with everybody, says to help with your treaties and he expects others to make agreements after that? host: frank, thank you. "the columbus dispatch." more on the rallies and rallying for kids and columbus, ohio. a similar headline from "the boston globe." thousands join to do no separation. the democrats' line. good morning. good morning. caller: excuse me. to bring upated [indiscernible] money outance of big of politics.

conquer continues to be an effective way to keep the majority of americans distracted from what is really important. change if we do not get politics?ney out of [indiscernible] thank you, steve. i have always appreciated your interviews. host: we appreciate you calling. how are you in california? i am not in california. i'm in washington state. host: oh, same time zone. the president on saturday opening up a new front in the

immigration debate, diverging at away from his administration's treatment of undocumented immigrants. golftweet from his private club in new jersey, the president defended the performance of the immigration, customs, and enforcement office, well accusing the democrats of of radical left agenda wanting to abolish it even though only a few have publicly supported such a position. from texas, the republican line. good morning, steve. i watch you every morning. i do not even go to work until you all are on. host: we appreciate you watching. want to say that bernie sanders is a fraud. the man owns three houses. heher this year lester bought a $650,000 beachfront

.ome so he is out there talking about money this and money that. well, all that money he has made, he could set up a huge fund that would pay for a lot of free education. thank you, c-span. love you. thank you. we will hear from the president certainly in the next week on his pick for supreme court and the official announcement date has been set for monday, june 9. this is the cover story of "time" magazine. it is trump's court now. toledo, ohio. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment. if you want to be respected, you have to act respectfully. when you act disrespectfully, you're probably going to get a lot of disrespect. i mean, it is time this country

goes back to basics. the things that america did stand for no longer does -- that's honesty, integrity, respectful. these things have all gone by the wayside. i am 57, a veteran. 20 years in the trades. the way people behave and talk today -- sometimes i think i am in the twilight zone. i really do. what happened to honest, decent, respectful conversation? if you can only back up what you have to say with insults instead of facts, no. why do people follow these people? i don't understand. if you could explain it to me, i would love it. that headlineread from "the washington post," the president tweeting -- the liberal left, also known as the democrats, want to get rid of ice and have open borders. crime would be rampant and

uncontrollable. make america great again. the mayor of annapolis once the president to order all flags at half staff to honor those killed last thursday. so far no response. the flags behind me in the federal buildings are not at half staff. the mayor pointing out it was done after other shootings, including after parkland, florida. what is on your mind? so, i am more than a republican or democrat. i just think this is a little crazy. i understand these people are coming to america to find a better life. if someone -- a parent, has their child with them, that

child will be taken away from them as the parent goes to jail. i don't get this. to mexico, would they allow us in? would our kids -- would we be treated the same? everybody is protesting in the streets. i don't get it. we do need to take care of home. we do need to secure our borders. -- merkel is starting to crack down on their borders. we need to cram down on our borders. we need people to go home. fix their communities. that's all. brennan, who quietly ruled of the nationals agree state under president obama, is coming forward to rail against donald trump and defend his own

legacy. "out of the shadows" is the cover story of the "new york times" sunday magazine. and remembering a conservative hero and columnist charles krauthammer, who died after battling cancer. the cover story of "the weekly standard." good morning, mark. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. i appreciate what c-span does. i would just like to make a correction on one of your callers from texas there. boughtbernie sanders three homes. for, the one mansion $750,000 was in heritage by jane , burney's wife, from her family that passed away up on lake champlain. they do not own three homes. they owned two of them. one was inherited.

i would just ask the settlement from texas to go online and look up all the congressman and senators. the money is all there. it explains everything. he is the poorest one of all of the senators. if you go on there, you will see that most of the other ones have much more money than he has. and i think the trump bringingation is just up rings to distract us from the main thing. and i think he is in trouble .ith russia i think that will come to light pretty soon. host: thank you, mark. the president will meet with insian president putin helsinki, sweden in july. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to wish everybody a happy candidate -- happy canada

day. i a few the points. there are dangers when a nation places too much value on business, law and order at the expense of higher values. a nation asks nothing of its maintenanceut the of borders is already a slave at heart, and i believe that. , and thea christian higher values are truth, love, this current administration is a total antithesis. long-awaited homecoming. this is directly related to the summit in singapore. can the president and the north korean leader bring home an iowa soldier killed 67 years ago? is older brother reflecting on the storyr brother in

from today's "des moines register." good morning. caller: good morning. first, i want to say happy fourth of july to everyone. i love listening to c-span. i love hearing from a wide array of subjects. i am your average citizen. i cannot articulate myself as well as i would like to as far as certain political issues, but i do try to stay on top of everything is much as possible. first i will say this. i will make my points very quickly. for the feel very bad five people who were shot at the newspaper organization the other day, that thursday. i feel very bad for the unmanned who was killed in -- for the young man who was killed in new york city. we have a president who -- i did not vote for him, but he is -- i

do what is trying to correct for the country. just how he goes about doing it and how he articulates himself, you know -- you can't be in front of a platform and sounds like a bully or say some of the , and then you see the reaction you see in the country. i just read something that took place in d.c. -- and i am a black woman -- it took place in d.c. a stop and frisk situation with young men in front of a barber shop. and i just read something else policy is type of going to be passed where someone is to -- trying to create a policy about playing music.

these things are so menial, but things are on such a heightened level. i work in a grocery store, and there are people who buy groceries and they are very angry. you are buying groceries. what are you so angry about? you know? and to have a person in place that articulates themselves in even in his he does references to president obama -- if he has such ill feelings -- if yousident obama are going to have issues with that man, than have issues with his politics. liar, just the whole characterization, just being a human being. that makes no sense.

we have to move on, but think you for the call. we have glory of turning us from four wing, indiana. you have the worst -- you have the last word. caller: i think trump is doing a tremendous job keeping the country safe. i think he is doing a wonderful job. that's all i have to say. host: gloria, thank you from fort wayne, indiana. in-depth fiction series continues on c-span2. brad fluor is the guest. is out see -- brad thor guest. you can see the full schedule on our website. and of course, c-span3, american history over the weekend and a full week of scheduling with the house and senate in recess for the july 4 holiday.

a reminder we will be back monday morning at 7 a.m. eastern time. we will discuss health care. we have the chief washington correspondent for kaiser health news. fromater christopher mihm, the government accountability office. theu.s. debt -- how does u.s. begin to pay back a $21 trillion debt? our guest on "the washington newsmakers" is up next. our guest is the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee. have a have a great weekend ahead, and a happy fourth of july riyadh♪ [video clip] ♪ .

>> here on c-span this morning, newsmakers is next. with democratic congressman adam smith washington state, followed by deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and fbi director wray, testifying before congress about fbi's handling of the hillary clinton email investigation during the election. later, president trump and members of congress react to the news of supreme court justice anthony kennedy retiring. >> "newsmakers" this week is pleased to have congressman adam smith of washington. it is home to the air force base and he is the ranking democrat on the aed