to offer these things to our customers because we believe in the network's mission to be an unfiltered and trusted media source. we proudly support their effort to inform and educate the nation on policy, politics, history, and current events. >> be sure to join us july the 21st and july 22 when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch it on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span >> in today on c-span, washington journal is live with your phone calls, tweets, and emails, the mexican ambassador to the u.s. speaks at the hudson election inter the mexico. coming up in an hour, author and msnbc host, lawrence o'donnell discusses his newly updated book on the 1975 police shooting of an unarmed black man in boston. , the dan kurtz phelan

executive editor foreign affairs discusses a series of essays in the magazine, exploring the dominant foreign policy themes of the current age. washington journal is live, now. ♪ host: good morning, it's tuesday july for -- july 3, 2018. the house and senate will both , onefor brief sessions week ago today a 10 term member of the house democratic leadership team was soundly defeated in the new york primary by a 28-year-old political newcomer and self-described democratic socialist. the washington journal, we will begin my chatting with justin mcgrath only about whether you think the party is at a crossroads right now. we will begin by chatting

with just democrats only, and whether you think the party is at a crossroads right now. if you are a democrat under 30 ,esults, dial at (202) 748-8000 and 60,re between 31 , if you're8001 over 60 dial (202) 748-8002. good tuesday morning to you. just a mcgrath only for the first segment, as we talk about the future of the democrat party -- just democrats only for the first segment. the headline today, internal revolts, democrat at a crossroads.

week, l.a. times this surprise to see that rep joe crowley may signal democratic unease. one more from the hill paper, democratic generation gap widens. we are inviting you to call in this morning. we are splitting the phone lines by age group, if you're under 30 (202) 748-8000, if you are 31 to 60 years old (202) 60-8001, if you're over (202) 748-8002. after theis coming in defeat of joe crowley. tezasio cortez --ocasio-cor spoke. impose an trying to idea on all several hundred

members of congress, but i think it is not about selling an ism, ideology or color, it's about selling our values. >> are you democratic socialist? do you call yourself that? >> it is part of what i am, it is not all of what i am. i'm an educator, and organizer, i believe what we are seeing is a movement for health care, housing, and education in the united states. defeated a potential future speaker. should nancy pelosi be the next bigger? >> -- next speaker? >> we need to see what is going on, i think it's premature for me to commit to any kind of -- it's only been a few days chuck. host: straight to the topic of nancy pelosi and her future as the leader of house democrats, the day after the primary

victory last tuesday, nancy pelosi was asked questions about the party and where it should go from here. here's what she had to say. time, joe exciting crowley is a fabulous leader in congress. to hisnity and yielding successor was something that was beautiful to behold. that is what the democratic party is about. we are a big tent and we respect the will of the voters. we recognize our differences across the country and we know what brings us together are our values. our values are about supporting americans working families -- america's working families, honoring the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and honoring the aspirations of our children. that is why we vote alike, we have shared values. host: taking some time this

morning to talk about the democratic party with democrats only. the president of the united states weighing and already this morning, he is up and tweeting, several tweets focusing on democrats, here are two. ,ne thing crazy maxine waters said by some to be one of the most corrupt people in politics is rapidly coming together with nancy pelosi, the face of the democratic already. her ranting, raving, and even referring to herself as a wounded animal will make people flee the democrats. howpresident also tweeting can democrats who are weak on the border and week on crime do onl in november --weak crime do well in november? the democrats are more interested in with thing and demeaning, and not property -- properly arming our law enforcement. , we democrats this morning

have divided the phone lines by age group. the morning matt. >> good morning, thank you for c-span. my comment this morning is just a reflection on the current state of the democratic party. myive here in d.c., i'm in car all day and i listen to c-span. i'm hearing the same old arguments from the democrats, nothing new. snippet you little played of nancy pelosi talking democratic values are about honoring service members, they are great, but very bag. we want to be inspired by the future of the country and new technology. what we have to for in very specific terms. i think that is what got energy and momentum behind the republicans in 2016, very

specific items they wanted to accomplish. i'm not hearing that playing out in the midterms, there is talk about immigration but invade terms. host: what do you want to see accomplished? focus on the future of technology, transportation, how young people can get ahead and the future of housing. sustainable cities. i don't hear any of that, just the same old people talking about the same old arguments. it's very frustrating being a young person. lexington,tian is in kentucky, 31 to 60 years old. >> a great comment by matt in d.c.. i am 48. in the last election, my wife and i agreed that we take screenshots of who we voted for

and have our conversation with our kids who are young teenagers. , i voted for hillary clinton would've been happy to vote for butary clinton as president i wanted to really vote my conscience so i voted for jill stein in the green party. when we showed our kids are screenshots of who we voted for, it was interesting. girl botha boy and a have the same feeling. that was that hillary was great for today and tomorrow, but the whichparty platform alexandria, who just one in new york against crowley, chooses to a pit among us -- to epitomize is that of the green party. future,sents the especially one that the young want to see and one that american businesses want to say. to sue, in rockville,

illinois on the line for those over 60. caller: i am working with the candidates here, and i think the democrats are really united to support the i can state. because areas like health care, and immigration, and there is but nationally, i think the democrats have issues. , iing the 2016 campaign offered to do volunteer work and was not contacted until weeks before the election. i think organizationally at the grassroots, they need some leadership.

there were some issues of bernie sanders versus hillary going on, i think democrats are looking now at the trump administration, and what is going on with the waste of money for a wall that is not effective. the issue of health care and now supreme court issues. i think democrats will be moving increasingly united over these really fundamental issues. values,ans talk family but they are very inconsistent with individual decisions. host: what candidate rerunning for yucca -- four? caller: kevin gave her is running for the 16th district, he's a terrific -- kevin g aither, is running for the 16th district.

this is another issue for democrats, working with white rural communities, and the issues with the tariffs and how that is affecting rural communities. talkhe actual walking the of working with working people, and not just voting by party lines. host: a few comments from twitter from viewers who have weighed in. one rights democrats should constantly listen and understand the need to support, progressive ideas are in excellent source of ideas. pick what makes ocasio-cortez win, millennials are too progressive and dividing the party. progressive policies are nice, but naive and fiscally and

responsible. more, divisions abound, including among progressive verse moderate democrats, we must find a way back to moderation compromise, a hallmark of our national strength as we celebrate our birth. we are taking your phone calls, democrats only in this first hour of the washington journal today. (202) 748-8000if you are a democrat under 30, (202) 748-8001if you are a democrat 31 if you're2) 748-8002 a democrat over 60 years old. alvin, good morning. what i would like to add is that this should be a wake-up call for democrats to not be afraid of expressing an idea.

democrats cannot stay on unstable ground and one thing and keep changing all the time, they won't be able to get anything done. the young lady told people to stay strong and stand your ground. aggressive now have -- progressive ideas. socialist ideas should not deter democrats from being strong. host: to matt, in pennsylvania, on the line for those over 60. >> thank you for taking my call.

suburb,n a philadelphia i guess you could call me a numbers cruncher. i see it pretty clearly. states to get back three votes.ectoral college pennsylvania, my state, wisconsin, and michigan. most of the people who voted for trump in those states and 2016 working-class voters. we need to forget about this nonsense about getting rid of this,old working-class ideas, e and free that, and let's find out what the voters in the states are interested in. let's strictly stick to economic issues like minimum wage, and things in, like that that are important to these voters. because those 46 electoral votes put president trump over the top, and i do not like seeing

the leftward bend of our party. where younger people are coming from, but at the end of the day we have to pitch it to white working-class voters in pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan. you: before you go, how do think the term, democratic socialist will play in the terms -- in the states you mentioned. you have to beginning me. it sounds like taking money away from hard-working middle-class people like my wife and i, and redistributing it. anyone,want to defame but redistricting it to deadbeats. white working-class people do not want handouts they want a handoff. in this morning, a republican from virginia talked about the democratic she rant label, saying

on rhetoric that she is going to stand up to the d.c. establishment and the swamp. but being a socialist you want this want to take over every component of your life. the left has gone out of the box, moving away from the democratic platform. that is the common from a republican member of congress. posted thisn morning focusing on the democratic socialist label, saying young voters often do not vote, and older voters do. to the latter, the socialist label is an eczema and unnecessary -- nfl math --anethma and unnecessary. it combines the bugaboo of socialism with the irrational fear of immigrants hordes rampaging through the countryside. speak no more socialism, they may no longer suggests the red

flag of revolution but it could be the white flag of surrender. ocasio-cortez went on to late-night programming as part of her media rounds, and was asked about the label. here's what she had to say. >> for me democratic socialism isabout the value for me that i believe in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in america should be to to to live --too poor live. what that means to me is health care as a human right. that every child, no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education. i think no person should be

homeless if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes, food, and lead a dignified life. host: one more headline on the topic from the sunday review of the new york times. michelle goldberg with her column, millennium -- millennial socialists are coming. the line for those over 60. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. i have enjoyed the comments. when the younger people talk about technology, what they need to remember is that that is what got obama elected. technology. democrats know about technology. democrats is a party of inclusiveness, look at some of the republican issues.

all i hear is abortion. and i hear god. -- the hear anything republican party does not connect with me as were how they reason out there soundbites. soundbites. in the last election i had an issue with hillary clinton, i had an issue, her people did not what ir to talk about wanted to hear. she did not do a good job. i'm looking for something for my anddchildren at this point, my kids. as a black woman in america who raised to educated children, they are attorneys. do notd their friends see anything for them.

they are physicians and lawyers and they do not see anything. same issue here in atlanta as when i got back from the various places i went to work when jobs were scarce. the traffic is horrible. obama screamed about the infrastructure. when you talk about the democratic party you have to look at what happened. you had a congress that would not do anything. presidentmentioned obama twice, what role would you like to see him take in the future of the democratic party? is there a role for him right now? time heat this point in has done what he needed to do. appearances,e his come to the democratic national convention. host: should he confront donald trump more? no.er:

let donald trump do his thing. , as far asl tell , with the jobss being taken everyone says they are menial jobs. maybe they are or they are not. i don't know. i am in health care, and what i thesee after we got olympics year in 1996, when atlanta was still country, we had an influx of people coming here. i worked for an f qac which is a federally funded health care facility. all of a sudden we saw an influx of immigrant ladies coming in to have babies. and with the position i had, i

said who is paying for these babies? wilbur's in culpeper, virginia. on the line for those 31 to 60. good morning. my name is wilbur and dime from culpeper virginia. -- and i am from culpeper, virginia. message for spineless democrats who voted for trump, i hope trump put somebody on the supreme court that overturns all of the laws of the democrats have voted for for all of these years, and when you cast your vote you have to make sure you are a strong democrat. we need to get these spineless democrats out of the election. host: wilbur, what makes a spineless democrat? >> they don't stand up for

principle. hillary clinton told them, your vote has consequences. party,he democrat everything trump is going to push through, i hope you all look at euro, and from now on -- at your vote, and stand up for your principles. --t: what are they's not they not standing up for now? caller: we knew we were going to have one or two new justices required -- retiring in the supreme court. if we had democrats in charge, -- trump should not even be in their. i just pray all these spineless democrats in the state of pennsylvania, wisconsin, and ohio cast your vote, and tell people i cast my vote for trump. host: speaking of the supreme minoritye senate

leader, chuck schumer put a column in today's new york times focusing on the importance of the upcoming supreme court nomination, writing that one of the most consequential issues are affordable health care and women's freedom. trump'sw of president next court nominee on these issues could determine whether the senate approves or rejects. while a number -- the number of democrats in the senate in the majority,- is not the but the number of senators who believe in the protection of women's rights, is. way to defend those rights is for a bipartisan majority in the senate to lock arms and rejected supreme court nominee who would overturn them. that is chuck schumer in today's new york times. in frostburg,

maryland, on the line for those over 60. >> good morning. i have voted for democrats and , what i'm really ashamed of what the trump claim that he is going to come to washington and drain the swamp, what he did is he did drain the swamp and he replaced it with the sewer system. what i'm angry about is the quality of democrats we have now. , arnold spineless schwarzenegger call them girlie boys. , peopleas a young man like lyndon johnson, john kennedy, harry truman, they would of got up there in trump space. over.ould not be pushed

the spineless group of democrats we have now, i don't know where they come from. i do appreciate what maxine waters says, she has an spine and she is a woman. but this group of democrats, i see why they have no power. had power taken, and driven them to shutting up. this guy is going to destroy it. kennedy and johnson would've never let this happen. truman would've gotten in his face and called him out. they would've treated him like the bully he is. that is what i do not like about current democrats. they have no spine. host: that's robert, in maryland this morning. a few more tweets. all of this concern and clucks clucking over whether democrats are divided, that we never ask

if republicans go too far right as a bastion of racism. that writes this morning ms. cortez is a far left socialist, and everyone knows that socialism seldom works for anyone except rulers. at seven: 30, just having this conversation in the first segment with democrats only, about the future of the party. if you are under 30, the number is (202) 748-8000, if you are 31 to 60 (202) 748-8001, if you're over 60 (202) 748-8002. as you are calling in coming here are some scheduling updates from washington and around the country. here on capitol hill, the senate is in for a brief pro forma session at 9:00, the house will

be in for their pro forma session at 11:00. both chambers will adjourn for the fourth of july recess. the president is speaking at the greenbrier resort across the virginia border into west atginia, delivering remarks 6:30 tonight. combresident continuing to through his list of potential nominees for the supreme court vacancy. make hisdent will announcement next week, on monday. the story from washington times coming just saw the headlines, the president interviewed four foridates in his research the next nominee, with two federal judges leading as contenders which could change the complexion of the court. president trump says it pram -- plans to meet with two or three

more candidates. in terms of those folks that the president met with, they are inted in the story as judges the comey and brett kavanaugh --amy comey and brett kavanaugh. judge kavanagh has served as a dust on the court of appeals for the district of columbia. and judge barrett was one of the candidates interviewed. she served on the court of appeals. , thee more story, jd vance author of the popular book hillbilly elegy, a memoir of a family of a culture in crisis has this piece on the opinion page of the wall street journal. the case for brett kavanaugh, jd vance saying he is known

since 2011 when he was a law student. he taught a foreign-policy seminar and what most impressed me was his willingness to set himself and his principles in an ideological hostile environment for a conservative, finding myself in an institution where i outnumbered, his mentorship was invaluable. -- heavily outnumbered, his mentorship was invaluable. in thisa half hour left segment. eric is an washington, d.c. on the line for those between 31 and 60. go ahead. caller: i'm so proud of the gentleman to call up the so-called democrats. they are spineless. hillary missed the white working look at the unemployment rates for white americans, that will tell you everything that

they talk about is a bunch of krapp. --crap. you didn't want to vote for hillary, you wanted to vote for donald trump because he still felt some kind of way about a black president. we are not socialists, there are no socialist in this country. all we want to do is be treated fair. ast: what do you think about democratic candidate using the label democratic socialist and campaigning on that? so she uses a label? that's what they used for bernie sanders. we are not a socialist country. if people were so afraid she would not be in that gentleman. -- beaten that gentleman. host: do you think it will be a label that appeals outside of where she is, in new york? to other parts of the country

that one of our earlier caller's words concern that it would turn people off in pennsylvania, ohio, and other swing states? caller: you mean the poor working white class? why? people want to see the democratic party, if you look back at all of the people that used to be democrats, there was a racist part of them, they are gone. it's a false narrative. those overine for 60, ray, go ahead. mainly, the last five people stole my thunder. we need at least a hundred maxine waters.

just like they said. we have no spine. and for these millennials that think they are going to get all this free stuff, it's not happening. why did you stay home? that is what is -- that is another thing. barney frank of massachusetts predicted this. he predicted this when bernie sanders got into the race. that the democratic party would be split up, and hillary was going to win. andack and check your ipods understand. stick together millennials. host: when he talked about this free stuff, explain what you mean by that? caller: precollege, paying off your tuition, all of the free stuff that bernie was promising everyone. it is not going to happen.

and this man in the white house, my god, give me a break. i can't even speak no more. is sickening for anyone in the democratic party to vote for this man. y'all have a blessed day. host: to cj, on the line from 31 to 60 years old. >> good morning to you. i have been agreeing with people on maxine waters side, but also i think the democrats need to point out the track record of attacksconnell when he the way that he was making sure he would not help obama. he waited for the democrats and the republicans are come up with an answer and then refused to help them. and now the same thing the

republicans wouldn't do, it is coming back and harming the country. it could have been solved, better, if they had worked with the previous president before now. now this president, the congress is going on with him because he is doing everything they want him to do. the democrats need to point out all of the things that trump is done that the congress has back ,o mom, -- backed him on because this is just a front for them. doingour democrat it's enough -- democratic leaders doing enough to point that out? caller: not at all, and they should. what maxine waters that was so true and then republicans turned around and said even democrats don't support her. that shows that republicans do not care, they will attack any

strength that the democrats try to show. do thing nancy pelosi and chuck schumer should have embraced those calls that maxine waters made at her rally? caller: absolutely. you need to fight fire with fire. we need to get down and dirty. you'll be surprised at the results you get. right now, the way things have gone, if democrats do not get right with them and start -- don'tthings out forget they just flushed seven years of obama right down the drain. and every time the president says obamacare, he should not -- ite calling in that

that. it's a ca. they should make and call it the -- it's the aca. they should make him call it the aca. , in westfield massachusetts on the line for those under 30. >> back to the topic of democratic socialism and what it means. for me, i think of a couple of thence in my life -- a couple of events in my life that i can never forget. , andmy sister had leukemia my parents crying when they saw the bills. old, withne years tumors all over her body, fighting for her life, and your family wondering if they will be able to keep her alive with the medication in the money to pay for it. i think of norway, germany,

other countries like australia, britain, canada, they don't have to worry about that. for me that was a huge moment in my life. if your little girl is dying and you're are wondering whether you can afford to keep her alive, what does that say about our country? the second thing is 2008, the economy. i remember being old enough to remember how my family was devastated. how we almost lost her home. -- our home. i remember my mom sitting at the kitchen table wondering if she will be able to pay the mortgage . i think to myself, what kind of a country are we where families cannot even afford to pay the rent? or the mortgage? and living paycheck to paycheck.

what does it say about our country that we are so rich that people cannot even afford to live. .nd the whole idea of decency when my dad lost his job, because his factory was sent overseas, i've only seen my dad cry a couple times in my life and one of them was when he got the pink slip. when he lost everything. andmember him look at me saying i can't afford to pay for your college. i remember how upset he was. he could not imagine how he worked for a most 30 years of his life and not have anything to show for it. what kind of country are we where that happens? i'm puerto rican. my dad is in puerto rico. closingfactories are down and he just cried. he said i don't know what i'm going to do. host: d-i asked how old you are?

-- do you mind if i ask how old you are? >> i'm 29. i work in insurance. i try to help people wherever i can. struggling just to make payments, just to do the right thing. detail, buto much when you hear people -- i cannot go into much detail, but when you hear people crying on the phone, devastated about their situations, what is wrong with this country? twitter,omment on saying democrats are not afraid to bring youth into the government, turnover the old guard in certain places at certain times. do you think it is time to bring in the youth to turn over the old guard? i think do.

but they are out of touch. they need to talk to people. maxine waters. fire with fire. -- maxine waters fought fire with fire. most democrats go belly up. we need to say we are not afraid when people call me about socials, i think of canada, australia, great britain and norway, these are all technically socialist countries by the conservative arguments on socialism. free health care, public education, public infrastructure. why are democrats afraid of saying i'm not afraid of that. are you afraid of canada? when we say democratic socialism that is what we are talking about. debate on the pages of washington post, on this term of democratic socialism. eugene robinson writes what does

it mean in real life? for ocasio-cortez, it mean she takes positions that are appropriate for her. parts of what she advocates makes sense for her neighborhoods, universal health care, the abolishing of the immigration customs enforcement agency. this purchase the left of the aging democratic party, particularly democratic hand ringers are warning darkly at the very distance of left said -- left of center candidates in the bluest districts of the land will am -- the end the aim of the house. --y would have candidates it stick to bland central nostrils, saying nothing that might

disagree that anyone -- that might -- that anyone might disagree with. morning, and thank you for taking my call. i want to say that we should at ben jealous, he won the democratic primary in the state of maryland last week. he is running for governor. he was endorsed by bernie sanders. but let's look at his platform. he has a i understand, platform of opioid crisis health college andommunity i think it goes beyond labels.

it goes beyond labels in the sense that people are responding to needs. they are looking beyond color. i think that the candidates need to put force into what are the needs of the people. i will be brave, but let me tell you about something about free community college. old, when i was in school at can you college, many of the minorities, and i'm a minority myself, who came out in the local high school system were way behind and could not keep up. they took remedial classes and never got credit for the first year that they were studying. yet they had to pay. it is happening now, with the public school system.

it's poor in parts of maryland. people are going to community college to take remedial classes for two years, and not getting credits because they are not up to par. we need free community college to correct the injustice that are happening in our school system. thank you for taking my call. sanders' ie affiliated political group, our revolution, you can look at their endorsed candidate list. but there is ben jealous, who is running for governor of maryland on the top right. isandria ocasio-cortez also on the various endorsements. in tuscaloosa, alabama, on the line for democrats 31 to 60 years old. caller: how long do i have to

speak? because i've been waiting from 20 minutes. much timeill see how we have, go ahead and start. caller: i would like to let democrats much time we have, go ahead and start. caller: platform i would like to inject that bernie sanders, when he ran, he ought to run as a democrat. when he loses, he ought to lose as a democrat. you don't come in as an independent, knowing you will switch back to an independent party. you are taking away votes from the democratic party when you do that. when democrats have their platform, i hope they inject that when bernie sanders run as a president, which he is going to do now. as a going to run democrat. when he loses, he should lose as a democrat. don't switch to an independent party like some of these

republicans are doing. host: you mention the democratic threerm, what are the top planks for you that should be in the platform? caller: number one should be voters rights. that's number one. icad the republican party is trying to destroy the voters rights, they are redrawn districts to recount how folks are voting. id voting, and different things. it's ridiculous. two, in some parts i disagree with gay marriage, but they should have a right to be married. they should have a right to be married. however, i don't think the federal government should intervene. i think the state should get involved and choose whether or

not these people have a right to be married. and number three, because i know you will hang up before i finish. the folks on this platform, on the democratic party, what they , whento do, listen good you call and have these folks come appear for these talks -- up here for these talks, make sure that the party and the representative that you are , make sure they believe in that very. some of these democrats were ofning our representatives pac money. the reason why you all ought to vote for democrats is because president trump promise that he was not going to cut social

security or medicare. but he is cutting them. , when you see your medicaid, your medicare, and your social security cut, those are your benefits and your services, cut. go back to democrats. if you go back to republicans and the president, and you ask why are they cutting my benefits -- host: we got your point, larry. paul, on the over 60 line. in 1993. remember back i worked in general electric in upstate new york, i had a good union job. i remember our shop steward saying for me -- saying to me, make sure we vote for bill clinton. we went down and voted for him. within a year, he had been -- he

had promoted and passed nafta. our job and our employees went xico.to warez --juarez, me deregulated the banks, he signed the crime bill would put minorities in jail, and once he was out of office chuck schumer and nancy pelosi came along. they are basically doing the same game plan. money corporate lobbyist from wall street, the same people who are supporting the republican candidates. that is why you do not have -- you will never see the top corporate democrats pushing for medicare for all. that will not happen. they don't want it. it's not in the interest of their donors. that is where we are at. ,e will not see $15 an hour unless these millennials and this younger group come up and

actually get a chance to take over the party. the old guard is still in control and they are bought and paid for by wall street. and nothing is going to change. host: who should lead that effort? who was one of the young people you would like to see replace that old guard? caller: it would have to be at the top levels. pelosi's heir primary.was just i forget his name. but, i can't get her name straight. host: alexandria all caps in cortez --ocasio-cortez. caller: thank you. the party is already coming after her by calling her socialist. that is meant to scare people from the party. the top leaders of the democrat party do not want her in power.

unless these millennials get involved, and take over that party. you will see more of the same. thelma, in florence alabama, on the over 60 line. social security was something that we worked for, that was not given to any of us. when they cut our social security, i don't understand that. i don't see them having the right to do that because we worked for that. host: thelma are you concerned that democrats will do that? concerned that this is what trump is getting ready to do, he is already passed a law to cut social security and/or medicare -- and our medicare and medicaid. host: do you think democrats are standing up to that enough? caller: i don't think they're doing enough to stop this.

we were watching children being separated from their parents. but they were still passing bills to cut what we have worked for. our social security. not only that, they have barred money from our social security paid that --ve not they have borrowed money from our social security and have not pay that back. and they have already passed a law to cut it while we were watching the separation of parents and children. host: richard, in durham, north carolina. on the line for those from 31 to 60 years old. democrats is the old word for the n-word party. if you want to solve a problem, look for the main places.

racism is the real problem that is causing so much angst in this country. that is the same way with abortion, we won't say it, but it's code word for killing four people's babies. ? on: a code word by who both of your descriptions? class: most of the ruling that never showed up on tv, and hides and his cowardly enough to put a snake like trump in office. these are code words. host: who is the ruling class you are talking about? caller: you are one of them. those who sit on the media and tell all of these stories, and

sost the main issue around that we divide and conquer. word amongre a code certain people for the n-word. host: we've got your point. ann is in tennessee on the line for those over 60. caller: good morning. i learned about 40 years ago that whatever a group of people wishes to call themselves is not for me to say. , ion't care what happens have been voting since 1972. i have never pulled for republicans yet. i don't care for when want to use the term socialist, that's

fine with me area -- me. just about run this race as far as i will run it, and i will never, ever, under any circumstance vote for a republican. i don't care if the democratic , if they really want to fight for universal health care, if they want to fight for free college, whatever their fight is i just want to encourage them to vote. host: what was your fight over the past 40 years? caller: two of them, civil behind myways african-american brothers and sisters. and the second thing was a woman's right to choose.

there's never been a time that i did not think about the supreme court. i always thought about what would happen to the supreme court. that's just the way i see it. they will have my vote no matter what. republicans are just mean people. host: to sheldon, in silver spring, maryland. on the line for those over 60. thank you very much for c-span. it's a wonderful service. i want to talk a little bit about the democratic primary in maryland, particularly in montgomery county. there was a mixed bag on public financing. public financing requires you to click no more than $150 from any single donor. that was a real blow against

special interests. in montgomery county we had 33 candidates running for the county council at-large. and the four people who one all all to public financing. there were zero candidates is said i will comply with the requirements but i don't want to take any taxpayers money. non-. anyone who do not comply with the requirements for public financing took plenty of money from special interests. host: we are running out of time in the segment, what lessons should national democratic leaders take from that? voice, ahere is a mixed bag, but a real interest in the involvement of special interest money. at the state level, we had three good old boys who were not

elected as chairman's of committees and were unseeded. --unseated. there is a change coming and it's not just millennials. host: our last caller from tennessee, on the line for those over 60. caller: i'm going to make this brief. democrats don't stick together like republicans do. i'm 67 years old, i have never been distraught with the party before. host: i'm listening. if a republican did andg, they would get out defend the person. democrats will throw you under the bus. they won't even check to see if the allegations are true. host: whose fault is that, that

you see that democrats do not defend each other enough? where does the blame lie? it lies with the. the people we put in office. we put our trust in them. nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, i hope they hear me this morning. i'm telling everybody i know not to vote for them. will get outns there and defend their party member to the end. democrats sit up there like they are doing now and they take comments out of turn. the woman is telling the truth. medicare isthing, what those people work for, they work for their money. medicaid is where the state comes in to help people who can't help themselves. and they turn around and they fornutrition programs children.

our democrats are not caring about anything like that. host: our last caller in this segment that stay tuned. lawrence o'donnell joins us next to talk about his book chronicling the 1970 five police shooting of an unarmed black man in boston. later, daniel kurtz-phelan starts with us. talking about the dominant foreign policy themes of the trump europe. stay tuned and we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. the washington post article, "lost and loaded for the lord." covering the church in newfoundland, pennsylvania.

>> what is going on at the church in pennsylvania is a co-mingling of a lot of co-undercurrent in religion and guns. to a degree that we haven't seen before. church.ill an old he has a worldwide following. maybe 200ould be people in the congregation total in pennsylvania and 500-2000 worldwide. can call ups, you the church on youtube because all of the sermons are there. it is that co-mingling of doeson in america and what it say about us as a culture. is there any precursor to what we may see? you get the genie out of the bottle of guns and

religion, it has been problematic. >> sunday night on c-span secure and day. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created by america's cable. today, we bring you unfiltered coverage of the congress, white house, supreme court and public .olicy events c-span's brought to you by door cable or satellite provider. "> "washington journal continues. host: in 1983, lawrence a book andublished the msnbc host joins us now after the book was reissued in paperback last week.

why did you think now was the time to revisit this story? problem of police use with deadly force has continued in the four decades since i started studying it. the very first thing i ever wrote was the op-ed he's in the new york times. 1970 nine about the problems involving police use of deadly force. the first time that the new york times printed anything about the police use of deadly force. anything analytical or critical. and the subject hasn't changed over time but it has become something people are more aware of over the last few years because of cable news and the ofernet and because personal, handheld videos. we all have cameras in our pockets now. so some police activity that happened in the dark of night and couldn't be proven to be misconduct is now shown through video to be misconduct.

as shown in the case of antwon rose where he was running away from a police officer. threat to the police officer. unarmed. the police officer shot him in the back. the officer has now been criminally charged in the incident. there is now video that shows exactly what i just described. versionis the updated of what i wrote in the 1980's. bringing the story of james bowden which happened here in boston when he was killed by boston police officers. i bring that story into its modern context now. where people are much more attuned to what these problems police use ofthe deadly force. so as a statistical overview -- and i have been studying this for decades, we have a very soft use of of the police

deadly force because the fbi crime statistics do not include this number. no government agency collecting the total number of people killed by police. studied this as best we can over this amount of time, it is my view and belief that most of the shootings done by police are what police called good shootings. meaning there was no choice. the other person did indeed have a on or some kind of lethal threat being posed to the police officer or someone else. and the shooting was, by all police rules, the right thing to do. so i'm not talking about most police shootings. probleming about the cases and unarmed cases. in particular, the case of unarmed black man, a real problem area in the police use

of deadly force. and the case i talk about in my book is one of the cases of an unarmed black man in boston. it turned into a very dramatic trial. my father was the lawyer in the case. came to my father and asked him to take the case. but the police were surprised because my father used to be a boston police officer. he started his work life as a boston police officer and he hard andworking full-time as a police officer and going to law school during the nights here in boston. uniqueook on that perspective of being a police officer himself. multiyear into a dramatic war with his own police department. and that is the story i tell in the book. probably no other lawyer could have successfully handled that

case. because there was no video showing how he was shot in the back. everything he knew as an ex cop and a trial lawyer to bring the truth to the jury in that case. host: we invite our viewers to call in if they want to join the discussion. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. if army get to the statistics, let's go to hugh was james bowden and what happened that night? a maintenance worker at boston city hospital. he was married and had two children. four-year-old daughter and six-month-old son. and one of the big surprises for the police on smith street in

boston in the middle of the housing project after they shot him was the discovery that he had no criminal record. and that was the thing that really changes the nature of a police investigation. of a police shooting. what they expect in these instances even if it is a bad shooting is that they find someone with a criminal record and they're able to say, he was a bad guy and it will be easier to tell the story that he somehow threatened them, even though he was unarmed. and none of that worked in this case. it was a boston police department cover. it took years for us to dismantle that. my whole family and my brothers all worked on this case with my father. i investigated this along with him and i ended up speaking to more police officers in boston then my father was able to bring it to the case legally because

more territory than just the court case. so in that investigation, both the courtroom investigation and my own, we discover that the police knew right away that this was a ad shooting. and the word went out that we are going to have to tell a story about this one. and they got together and the thing about police coverups in these situations is that they it all imperfect, to put mildly. and in those days, most of them never got examined by anyone. so if we hadn't studied it, we wouldn't have been able to show just how badly this police cover-up was put together. each is why it unraveled in front of a jury in court. host: so your father was a police officer. before he took the case. why did he take the case?

guest: as he was a police officer. when he heard this story and fred wondered newspaper article he had a very strong suspicion that this was a dad shooting. it was primarily what he knew about james bowden. that he had no criminal record and had the profile that i just gave you. the firstard that, thing that any cop thinks is that well, this isn't the kind of guy who gets into this time of trouble. at that age, with no criminal record, he probably plays life pretty straight. so he started to suspect right away there was something wrong. but there is another personal and emotional side of this. when he was 11 years old, he

lost his father in tragic circumstances so he was sitting there in his office in boston, talking to a widow with two children at home. he said, i couldn't let that widow go home that day without a lawyer. ist: the widow you mention patricia. what happened to them at the end of the case? case took several years to go through court. it went to trial once. then the appeal took seven years. it went all the way to the supreme court. it went back for another trial. my father tried the case again and won again. and this is part of the new material in the book. it took years to collect the civil rights judgment that the jury gave the family in federal

court. because the city of boston was under no obligation to pay it. as most cities at that time were. no obligation to pay a judgment for any family that brought a case like this. so it took years and it took political pressure, not something that the family could exercise in boston. because we were not politically connected in any way at that time. the african-american community rallied around this cause. local preachers, especially. they got involved and they brought the pressure to city hall. especially after the mayor change. we had a mayoral election and there was a new mayor and that was the one who actually pay the judgment that the city owed and was hit with during the time of the previous mayor. that took quite a while.

and what we see these cases today and received really bad shootings. the bad killings -- eric garner -- one of the things we see that ,s now almost routine especially if there is video, like there was video of eric -- within a relatively short amount of time compared to the seven year saga that i talk about in my book, within a relatively short amount of time, approximately one year, you will see the city involved make a financial settlement with the family in usually a matter of millions of dollars. eric garner, $5 million. in the 1980's when this case was going through the court, there were none of those settlements. none of them. no one had ever won one of the verdicts and gone to trial and

won the verdict in federal court. so the system has changed in that way. it has improved in that way. isolated many spots of improvement that i can identify in the problems associated with the use of deadly force. say being iny to boston today that the boston police department is one of the areas of improvement. bill evans is the current police commissioner in boston and is one of the best police leaders -- if not the best -- currently working in the united states. and i don't believe that the story that i tell in my book that happened with the boston police department in the 1970's and 1980's could happen in today's police department and i hope i am right about that. host: you mentioned the dedication into the search. you can see the dedication

there. joining usdonnell is to talk about the release of his book. again, phone lines for democrats, republicans and independents. art, good morning. this isn't and why i am calling. but you can't strangle a guy in 15 seconds. read, nine hundred police shootings a year. 600 of them are white. under 200 are black. the others are hispanic. what happened to the white lady killed in minnesota when she called the police and she was in her pajamas? how come you don't play up that story? there are more than 900. that is the approximation. and the washington post, since the killing of michael brown,

has dedicated an effort every year to try to figure out and account for the total number of people killed by police. and we still don't have it. the washington post approximation is the best and it is well over 1000 at this point. host: so far in 2000 18, the number is 516 people have been killed so far this year. guest: and we are halfway through the year. back when i was studying, we didn't have the internet. to cut with had scissors articles out of newspapers around the country, all the eliminated smaller towns where this was happening. thehighest number we get in

1970's, the highest approximation was 600. it is very likely that there were many more shootings in the 1970's and 1980's that there are now. with largen individual place apartments, the number of shootings ifo lisa -- students -- shootings have declined steadily. so the overall rate of gunfire around police officer seems to have declined rather significantly over the last 30 years or so but it is a real struggle to get at what the numbers are. questionable case out there is something that people can argue about. so the aftermath that we really

want to see our good, honest investigations. investigations with the best of intentions from beginning to end and in some cases, the minority of the cases, we want to be a will to see a jury in a courtroom make the decision about what they believe happened. host: 516 the leash shooting so far this year. 21 more than a same time last year in two thousand 17 according to the washington post. 987 people were fatally shot. in 2017.3 lawrence o'donnell, has there lets herffort guest: number this is an approximation. this is the number that the washington post has been able to actually document. the real number is something higher than that.

there been an effort to get the federal government to track this, it officially? guest: yes. a few democrats in congress have tried to get the justice department to do this. the justice department has specifically refused to do it. host: dennis, go ahead. caller: my name is denise. police areay that completely off-balance. i remember when there wasn't the shoot to kill policy. and i feel like, as a black woman, the police are not there to protect me. they are more likely to kill me. and i feel like with the call linens with what has gone on recently that white people feel like they are there to protect and serve them only. that is my comment.

guest: i hear it all the time and all he can say is that i completely understand how someone would feel that way. problemu point out a that in the 1970's, departments didn't have deadly force rules. do they all have that now? yes, they pretty much all have that now. are all the most advanced kinds of rules from the 1970. and the rule in most departments is that it is inspected. some departments don't specify it but are controlled by the state law from where they are. so it is a defense of life will. and you cannot shoot someone because he is running away from you. in fact, one year after my book came out, the supreme court

ruled you cannot shoot someone because that person is running away from you. some state specifically used to couldat a police officer legally shoot anyone who they suspect of a felony who is running away from them. it didn't matter if they were a threat to anyone. but that has been struck down. rule -- i support police officers using deadly force in the defense of their lives or others. but we have to think about, what was the threat to life here? the book "deadly force"

and the author, lawrence o'donnell. with us for the next 30 minutes. join us. numbers fore democrats, republicans and independent callers. good morning. caller: i have a question at the because i will veer off you put this person on air and i think the rhetoric and the propaganda coming out since chuck has been -- with people guests, responsible for the congressional shooting at the baseball game. into your show and you, rachel maddow, chris matthews, you are so disgusted with the president that i have never heard so much negativity. so much violent talk.

so i would say two things. one, name two things you love about our current president. guest: what we do with my hour of television is we deal with the truth as we see it. days,st of the time, most the president of the united states in most instances is not truth, the side of not that he provably says things that are not true. president of the united states is now a category of journalistic tracking and statistical analysis. how often and how much he lives. we have never lived with the president like this. so the job of covering this

presidency is unlike the job of covering any presidency and we have ever had to cover. so for people who are thrilled with this presidency and you want to pretend that the president doesn't lie every day about the tiniest things -- the tiniest things and the biggest things -- that there are no more nuclear threat from north korea things like that. if you want to believe that, this is the country where you can believe that. and there's not a thing that i ever going to say that would in any way upset your beliefs in that. book, "playing with fire, the transformation of american politics." what lessons can we take today from looking back 50 years ago to that campaign? 50 years ago, we see the

beginnings of the politics that we have now. that was the presidential campaign where roger ailes entered his work life in politics. he was in entertainment but nixon lured him into the campaign to help with the tv side. he did a great job of that. he went on to work on other successful campaigns and then run fox news for many years. ailes, who was brought into the politics in 1968 had a longer lasting effect on presidential politics than even richard nixon. 1968 and opening on the left side of the democratic party that we hadn't seen before , that was the jean mccartney campaign. followed by the bobby kennedy campaign. those were in search and campaigns on the left party, running against the more moderate democratic

establishment. we saw that model again with bernie sanders. so there are all sorts of dynamics. we continue to see that in our politics today. host: coming off the question we asked democratic viewers in the first segment today, do you see that same segment happening in the form of cortez and what happened last week in new york? hard to say. especially in house races. there are so many of them. , asthere is always a rush soon as anything like this happens, a rush to attach a large and important explanation to it which has nothing to do with local politics. and that is always countered by the chip o'neill saying that all politics is local. and it takes a while to figure out and find out what these things mean.

i was working in the united in 1994 in the midterm congressional election and the speaker of the house, the democratic speaker of the home ins defeated back his own reelection campaign. no one knew what to read into that because it was so shocking. and it turned out there really wasn't much to read into it. there wasn't much to change about the way the democrats were running their campaigns. and what was going on was an energy that was against the progressivism of the current president. at the presidency from that point forward after those first two progressive years became a

fairy moderate, slow-moving presidency. because at that point it was quickly controlled i a republican congress. you know, it is very hard to tell. and i was fascinated by the bronx, queens district. i know it well. i'm surprised joe crowley was able to hold onto it for as long as he did. because of the demographic change in the district. but i'm going to wait to see what it means to the party. and it could be something that is a large and important trend. i will admit to be one who thought bernie sanders would not do well at all as a challenger to her clinton for the nomination but bernie sanders

started off at 3% and i remember privately thinking that ok, maybe 6% or 9%? maybe? and i sat back and watched that patientlyarch with studying it in real-time. i'm one u.s. away. i can't make judgments about what these things mean instantaneously. host: a question from twitter. what is the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? guest: semantics. socialism became a bad word and we then became anti-intellectual about socialism. as a country, we stop thinking about what it actually is and just adopted, for the most part,

a posture of fear against the word and the concept of socialism. medicare was proposed in the 1960's, the argument against it was essentially, it is socialism. that was the entire argument. and it was surprising that the argument didn't work, especially because it was true. medicare is socialism. medicare is the beneficiary of a very smart socialistic program called medicare. and to deny that it is socialism is to deny economic literacy. not terrifying if you know what it is. the other thing about socialism about this inall the united states.

our country wouldn't work without it. every country in the world is what economists call a mixed economy. are mixes, to varying degrees, of capitalism and socialism. cuba is one extreme socialism with little capitalism. and the united states is in an area that is much towards. think of the health care system. of the spending in the american health care system is government spending. that is socialistic spending. every single penny. so is our health care system socialist? no. is our health care system socialistic? yes. does our health care system have capitalistic elements? yes, it does.

people have to grow up and drop the fear of the word and look at the socialists that they like and the socialism they think is smart. they have to look at it like social security and other programs they don't even know. and relax about the word. and make adult decisions about just how much socialism is the right mix for this economy and how much capitalism is the right mix. is, we cannott run this country without both of them. host: lawrence o'donnell. robert is joining us from connecticut. go ahead. every year in america, twice as many white people are shot and killed the police. why is it that we don't see many crying white mothers on tv? why did hillary clinton the

mothers up of the black victims white police officers who killed, where worth their mothers? i have a few friends who are cops and they show me the statistics on black men and how they murdered people at a rate that is 10 times more than whites and latinas put together. but it is always about the black. where are the crying white mothers? guest: every case has to be analyzed individually. and when you do that, you do discover that there is a peculiar phenomenon involved with the unarmed black male victim. that in statistical terms, we see more of those. then we do of white victims. and let's remember what i said at the beginning, when you that getout the cases

protested and the ones that don't get protested, what i said at the beginning is that it is my belief that most shooting by police, most of it, is justified. so most of it does not invoke any protesting at all. we see a very tiny number of protest, if we talk about 1000 or more killings by police in a a typical and we see maximum less then one doesn't over the police use of deadly force, we're talking about the really tiny piece of the total. so you can't draw conclusions about what is happening overall with the police use of deadly force just by looking at the cases that get protested. from your book,

you write "black america has our aid -- has always been this was a problem. unjustified deadly force, passing the word. but it took a series of technological developments for white america to hear the stories. video, as, body cam camera phone in everyone's pocket. guest: it also took the shooting of michael brown because that was the first one that was protested in a major way. that, we had gone a significant distance in time before a major protest. i know people feel that all of these cases are protests but that isn't the case. what michael brown did was that it look at the news media on this issue for the first time in

the age of cable news. in because the protesting missouri turned into ryan payne, cable networks were out there 24 hours a day and people were internet 24the hours a day. at the subject of the police use of deadly force was suddenly front and center because of those developments. forespecially the aftermath a few weeks in ferguson. and that was the moment -- no matter what you think of that shooting -- that was the moment when america stopped and realized that they would have to pay attention. michael from alabama. good morning. lawrence o'donnell, i can't believe i have a chance to speak to you. thank you so much for speaking and standing up for us who have no public voice. you are so special.

this element of fascism and racism that has taken over the country is bringing fear to everybody who has common sense. and what i'm asking you to do -- most of all, is to take and republicans are actually defining what the democrats are about. us baby them to call killers. we hate abortions. i will let you get back to saying what you are saying because what you are saying is so important in every way. guest: it is a difficult thing that -- the politics of abortion are difficult. hard onthing that is the democratic pro-choice element is to talk about abortion specifically. anyone i've never met

who is pro-choice who takes abortion lightly and doesn't thingthis is a difficult for people to go through. it -- it ist of hard to find the public rhetoric for that discussion. i have never found the public rhetoric. whatbortion is obviously the next supreme court confirmation process is going to be all about. democrats are going to try to do everything they can to ring attention to the possibility that roe v. wade is at risk in this confirmation process. and that means they are going to strategically be trying to put enormous pressure on republicans. susan collins from maine and from alaska -- the only two

pro-choice republicans in the united states side. and the democrats do not have any procedural or parliamentary trick that they can play on the senate floor or in a judiciary committee that could block this nomination. the democrats and the senate know that the only way the nomination could be stopped is with republican votes. and they know that senator murkowski and collins are the two most likely votes for them to try to attract. so they will be spending all of their time doing that. the nuclear option -- to get rid of the filibuster on everything except for the supreme court justices? guest: i worked in the senate for seven years. the 1990's, we respected everyone of the rules. each side has used the rules to their own advantage at some

time. and we knew there would be another day down the road where we would be using the filibuster rule in the same way that our opponents were using it that day. so i was extremely reluctant. to join in the chorus. harry reid was under tremendous pressure to get rid of it. included in not that pressure. that is another thing where i sat back and watched and didn't have a strong feeling about it. ift i do believe now is that harry lead had not done it then, then with ricotta would do it now. why mitche any reason mcconnell would not have done anything right now.

host: ohio is next. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that in the 1950's, we didn't have miranda until a legal person across the border from mexico was jailed for rape. you may be familiar with the case. the, i wanted to say that thin blue line is getting thinner all the time. and i wonder if the real goal here isn't to disarm our police officers. you know, the killing in dallas with the police officers, the ,ay those guys were taken down that was a professional hit job.

i don't know if you realize that. it wasn't an ordinary shooting that happened when that guy opened up on those people in that parking garage. i agree. it was. we all were outraged at that. only anyone in america supported what happened to those police officers. the did he broke work and police officers who tried to killer,m, stop that every single police officer in and around that scene that night at her heroic work. for a long time they had no idea where the shots were coming from. and i will never forget that night and covering it. i was watching nothing but heroic police officer work that night. and i never heard a comment anywhere in this country that said any worth -- said anything different.

the loss of those police officers was a terrible tragedy and a terrible tragedy for their families and for the country. that is really what all the news coverage of that time delivered at the time. host: and is in tennessee. caller: we can have justice when those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by who have been. good to talk to you, lawrence. the difference is, the question the guy asked earlier about, where is the outrage when white cops get killed? the outrage is that the police are hardly ever held accountable but the black guys that kelly's people are put in prison for life. the death penalty. that is the difference. and what i want to mention -- i

don't know if you mentioned this. but police and other countries, our country kills 1000 people a year. some of these other countries, they haven't killed 50 people in 50 years. did you see that in the guardian? they have all of these numbers. england, 56 wales, million people. 55 fatal shootings in 24 years. the united states, 59 fatal shootings in the first days of the year. guest: yes. to concentrate on the subject is that police officers are government workers who have more power over you than anyone other-- over you then government workers. including the president and the

supreme court and every member of congress. can kill you.icer can shoot and kill you on the spot with no trial. no jury. death penalty. on the street. that power is enormous. that power is a power that we employedust is being judiciously and carefully all the time. it is as simple as that. when you invest that enormous in human beings, you have to be ready to deal with the possible mistakes that those human beings can make. host: a recent question asked after two officers were charged fatal police shootings, our arrest happening faster? general, certainly by a giant order of magnitude, happening faster than when i

first started studying the subject in the 1970's and 1980's, because they were not happening at all. ofy were just be a couple arrests at most, in the course of a year. sometimes zero. because the evidence wasn't there. the kind of evidence that was irrefutable. in evidence you need prosecuting a police officer is a much higher bar. andes are inclined to favor sympathize with a police officer , as so many of our callers do this morning. some will sympathize to the point of thinking that the police officer can do no wrong. standard ofigh bringing charges against police officers. the charges are rare. of we certainly see more those prosecutions now than we used to and a lot of that is thanks to the personal videos that people are able to make of the shooting incidents.

what is the crucial evidence in the james bowdoin case? autopsy report, for example, it showed he was shot in the back and back of the neck. the police story was that he seems to be threatening them and looked like he was holding a gun in his hand and he was aiming at them. and the devastating question in cross-examination was that if he was looking at you and aiming a gun at you, how did you shoot him in the back and the back of the head? wasgun the james bowdoin using according to police officers was found very far from the location of the shooting and the next question becomes, did james bowdoin have that gun? how did he throw it that far away after he was shot in the back and the back of the neck and was dead?

toause he would have had throw that away after he was dead. automaticself was an there was no ejected shell found inside james bowdoin's car. and that is just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence pile that took a couple of weeks to present to a jury. no gun powder residue on james bowdoin's hands. no fingerprints when the gun was found down the street after the shooting. the police officer who found the gun told me that -- he didn't testify in the court case -- but he told me he believed it was planted by other police officers because he found it to hours after the shooting. he arrived to the scene late and was told by a sergeant to go "look over there" and he looked under a car and there it was. and he told me right away that he thought it was a dirty gun.

a throwaway gun. discussesentire case the shooting and this book was released last week. lawrence o'donnell is with us for the next 10 minutes to take questions. good morning. i would like to thank lawrence o'donnell because i watch msnbc all the time and i believe everything they report. i don't really think there is a solution to this problem as far as the police killing black youth. the police go into these areas with attitudes? they go into impoverished areas with attitudes and think that these guys possess weapons already. part of the gang. flare.denly tempers

think attitude is the central explainer of these that cases. and it is completely human. the attitude is fear. situation.on the it is fear of the attitude. fear of the person they are confronting. and it turns out after the fact that the fear is not justified fear isny cases but what you see when you study the cases. bowdoin,se of james they ran up to his car and they immediately, within three seconds, start firing. , they wereyell terrified. about whaterrified

they were confronting. never want tos say that they did what they did were terrified. but if you get in that situation and imagine what they are feeling, the truth is that it was fear. the bad cases are the cases of police officer quickly overreacting to their fear. host: an independent, good morning. caller: i am a retired police officer of california. least years i was my trainer so i did have the chance to look at the police shootings and sadly, when i started my career in 1981, you never drew monarch and on any person for any reason unless it was so extreme that you had no choice. sadlyat i see these days

is so many things i cannot even begin to explain. other than i have heard the words fear and the demographic change and the reality is that if you look at history, people don't like change. as people have been in control for so long and have seen the demographic shift. and they're are people who look not like me. brown, black, or whites. is something that absolutely will happen. and using california as a model, 50 years ago, mexicans were hand-in-hand and now when you go , good state of california luck trying to find work because it is virtually controlled by mexican people. you that after

analyzing most of the shootings, there is no reason that perception should become a reality when you are a police officer. did you see a gun? no, i didn't. youhy did you think that shot one? guest: i want to add one thing our caller can confirm. this is one of the challenges for the modern policing. learned how to be a police officer through training. everyone who shows up for police work now goes through a minimum of 20 years of that training on television and watching cop shows and videos with dramatic shows. most police officers never fired

their guns. they are never shot at. every police officer is shot at everyres their gun in police show is shot at and fires their gun. on tv shows. caller: that is spot on. you are always going to be having a healthy fear. you should. but when it gets to the point that you are so afraid -- most of my life i was in martial arts and grappling sports -- i had a healthy fear but i kept myself it. i started in 1981. we had to get ourselves into shape because we were expected to train quarterly.

i don't care what size department, if they had training once a year, that is a lot. you consequently would have cops who are not in good shape. they become afraid. if you don't feel comfortable in in my opinion and -- what i have seen guest: there are no better analysts of that will be former police officers. they know. they know what a bad one looks like. host: elizabeth is here in inhing can, -- here washington, d.c., good morning.

i was wondering if the man had stayed in his car, would that have changed? we have no idea. antwon rose got out of the car and the officer shot him in his back. we have seen armed white men stay in the car and be shot. what is really difficult about this is that it is very hard to try to figure out what you would make to --n, unarmed, lachman sorryd, black men -- i'm to say that i don't know what to say. i can look at what he did and say, she shouldn't have done that or why did he do that or that beingknow unarmed and running away from a

police officer was going to get him shot in the back in this country? it is against the law. louisville, kentucky. go ahead. commendi want to lawrence o'donnell. i want to say the call in from you, heia, as he told was an officer since 1981 and i have in since 1961. and i never shot anybody. i never killed anybody. please threw down guns and anyone who is afraid of police should not get a job as a police officer. you can get any kind of job that you want. and i say this to the washington journal.

washington journal, you see what the real america is. because you see people call in and hear the things they say. lawrence o'donnell is about the truth. i had been involved when we had a national black police convention. 1972.e founded in policet is the time when were shooting people and all of this stuff. i commend lawrence o'donnell. truth, thes truth, the opposite of the truth is a lie. the natural enemy of the truth is a lie. the president, you can't deny that the president lies. that is wrong. you talk about the bible and that kind of stuff.

it says tell the truth. host: lawrence o'donnell give you the last 60 seconds or so. guest: you are hearing from an experienced former police officer who is telling you the way things were. he talked about what the police used to call throwdown knife throwdown gun. evidence they could plant in these situations where an unarmed suspect was killed. that is the story i tell in my book, 1975 killing in boston. a very dramatic story and unfortunately it's a story that is still with us. what happened to james bowden's mother, losing her son is the same thing that happened to antwon rose jr's mother. son two weeks ago. there are marginal ways we have gotten better as a country in dealing with this phenomenon. we come more honest in dealing with this phenomenon but those marginal improvements are no

consolation a to the mother ofntwon rose jr today. jr.ntwon rose host: up next we will be joined by former executive dan kurtz phelan to talk about the latest edition of that magazine exploring dominant foreign policy themes of the trump era. >> as part of our 50 capitals tour and with the help of gci cable the c-span bus visited alaska with anchorage the final stop on the tour. >> a critical role in making sure americans democracy is optional. provides a common understanding of what's going on and provides a window into washington, d.c. that those of us who are afar distance away can see what is occurring.

>> we believe it is in porton offer these things to our customers because we believe in the network's mission to be an unfiltered and trusted media source. we proudly support their effort to inform and educate the nation on policy, politics, history, and current events. july 42nd july 21 and when we feature our visit to alaska. alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your

cable or satellite provider. continues.on journal host: what is the grand foreign policy narrative of our current times? that is the question foreign affairs magazine sought to answer in its latest edition. thekurtz phelan is magazine's executive editor. why go through this exercise and why offer up six different views of the world rather than focusing on just one? as we all know we live in an interesting turbulent time. we are all fairly caught up in the day-to-day of the new cycle. a tweet from president trump or the latest back and forth about nato or the g7, the singapore summit. we wanted to force ourselves and our readers and authors to step and trym the day-to-day to give us a theory or narrative of thisat exactly all

means. what it adds up to. another way of saying what are we going to be reading about in history books 200 years from now and what will be a footnote. it's not always exactly what we think. we wanted to say there are different ways of connecting the different dots of this reality. different ways of explaining what is happening. each one of those stories, each one of the world we are living in, gives a different sense of which forces really matter. recede into the background as we move forward. host: those lenses foreign affairs focuses on, the realist worldview, the liberal world, the tribal world, the marxist world, the tech world and the warming world. the six different columns. did you pick writers for each of these worldviews or did you let them come up with the worldview they defend in each one of these columns? guest: we had a sense of the different lenses we wanted our authors to use.

we started with two basic international theories and we started there. we look at interesting authors who had different ways of realities. tribalism and the forces of tribalism which a lot of people tend to discount inform policy and domestic politics. talk about the ways in which the warming of the planet is going to be the main story of our time . kind of interesting lenses that may not be obvious to those who work in the foreign policy world , may be the grand story of this era. may explain what is happening better than traditional theories . with marxism this is not something people in the foreign policy world tend to give a lot of stock to.

our sense was, a way to look at mark's the analyst, not the prescriber and he does tell a story that does map onto the reality as well. host: for those of us not in the foreign policy world start on those traditional views. the realist view though liberal worldview. explain what those are in the difference between the two. guest: realism is the most traditional way of seeing the world. what has idea is that always driven history, global politics, is rivalry between great powers. that was true 200 years ago. it was true a millennia ago and it's true today. what is going to matter is the competition between the united states and china. a lot of us in the united states might have been lulled into thinking they unipolar moment would last forever. that american hegemony would never go away. what we seeing is rivalry between power centers and what is going to drive the course of

events is geography and relative power. that is what really matters. liberalism looks at institutions and rules and ways of cooperating. that has been a centerpiece of american foreign-policy for several decades. the liberal international order people in the foreign policy world talk about all the time. it's a moment when that order looks like it is under stress. liberalism and authoritarianism and a lack of cooperation in trade wars. the system will survive because the only way to address the common problems on the globe. they see this as a moment when the order will be tested. when we look back 20 years from now we will see this as a time when the liberal order proved its value. those are more traditional ways of looking at the world. -- when youtral to read all of these side-by-side,

each one connects the dots. they point to different futures. host: staying on the liberal order, what is the main institution that makes up the liberal world order? guest: everything from the united nations and nato to our alliances. all the different forms of cooperation. the different agreements between different nations. some of those are more traditional. some of them are more ad hoc and informal. they add up to a system of cooperation and rules and norms, if you subscribe to the theory, really do govern the way different governments and nations interact with one another. host: want to invite viewers to interact with us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002

we are joined by dan kurtz phelan of foreign affairs. i want you to focus on that tribal view for a second. when people hear that they may think of something more for third world countries. chua looks aty domestic politics today she does not seen the lines of class or race driving events and explaining the fault lines in politics or foreign policies. she sees tribal affiliation. looking back over the sweep of history she sees identification with our group as the key force driving everything from what's happening in afghanistan or in iraq but also it's happening in american politics today. not always explained by how policy -- identification with people like them. there is sometimes an economic element to that. sometimes a racial element. it goes beyond to something more essential that has been driving human events for thousands of

years. host: we have not touched on the tech world too much yet. guest: this is a great piece by kevin drum. he notes that if we were talking about -- if we look back at the 19th century we would not focus on -- what might've been in the headlines, what was going on with grover cleveland or chester arthur. at the latterack part of the 19th century we go back 150 years or so. we will talk about the steam engine and electricity and germ theory and all the things that drove fundamental and political change. the forcesargues that are going to matter going forward are artificial intelligence. the ongoing digital revolution. he believes we have not seen the beginning of these effects on politics and economics and geopolitics and thinks 50 years or 100 years from now that would

be the essential change talk about. host: we want to hear from our viewers. is it the realist world, the liberal world, tribal worldview, marxist, a tech world, or a warming world. how would you define foreign policy?michael is a forced up first. turn down your television and listen through your phone. caller: i'm on mute on tv. host: go for it. caller: i have a bit of a problem. i'm a democrat. i think i'm going to switch to independent. the gentleman was asking what kind of world i live in. i live in an american world. i have all of these people that are protesting. a proximally 2000 hispanic children put into a safe place after being drug across the witht with renta -- rattlesnakes and heat because their parents broke the law.

i did research and in this country alone i don't know if people are aware of this there's almost half a million american children in foster care that were taken away from their american families because they committed a crime. why aren't they protesting that? guest: this is actually a great example -- an interesting example in that you can take everything we are seeing with the migration situation and the political debates about it and really fit it into almost any one of these different worldviews. you could talk about it in light of climate change in the way that drought conditions and environmental conditions are driving migration, both in the united states but also in europe where recent migration is a controversial issue. you can look at it in light of the competition between the united states and china.

stephen tok and makes point demographics will be a central force in great power rivalry going forward. he would see the fact that the united states is an attractive destination for immigrants has a huge advantage in that rivalry in that it gives us the hope of staying young and having the young of pop -- a young population even as china starts to get old before it gets rich. you can play that out across technology. automation is causing a lot of economic distress and driving a lot of reaction to the migrants. in each one of these cases, you can take a fact like that, something that feels like a fundamental reality now and it to be part of a different narrative. a different theory can explain it. depending on which one of those series is most persuasive it can take you to a different future. it explains why we are where we are but also explains where we are going.

anyone of these worlds is consistent with what is happening now. host: dan kurtz phelan is with us. executive editor at foreign affairs. princely served as a member of the secretary of state's policy planning staff from 2010 to 2012. also a senior editor at foreign affairs before that. also the author of the china mission. that was published in april of this year. taking calls and questions this morning. michael is in nevada, line for independents. caller: good morning. i'm shocked at the complicated reasons and pigeonholed subject answers this gentleman has four causes for war. it's simple and he does not get it. it's for money. for gold. .ook throughout history

the roman empire, the british empire, the american empire. it's not about marxism, it's not about tech. i don't understand a thing this man is saying it's about wealth. let me give you a final example, why we start wars. 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 were from saudi arabia. we know saudi arabia plan the 9/11 attacks. we know the saudi's finance the 9/11 attacks and we go to iraq. reason, saudi arabia has wealth. they have the oil and we are affiliated with them. it's that simple. all this other nonsense is up you sick -- host: do we know those things about 9/11 -- guest: so to focus on the broader point, i think there is

a piece in this package that would very much agree with , karl marx. he focused on the way that the search for resources internationally drove international conflict area i would point the reader to marxist world, which is not so much about marxist systems as we've seen them develop in the 20th century, but much more about the analysis that underpins them that marx develops in the 19th century. that really did focus on the ways that wealth drove these events. you can extend that analysis into present and that can what is happening in advanced democracies and the ways inequalities have been growing but also what dries foreign-policy behavior internationally. i am not picking between different worlds, but if he does go and read this marxist world peace i think he would find a

lot to agree with. host: it is in the july august edition of foreign affairs. which world are we living in? in clinton massachusetts, line for democrats. good morning. caller: my question is on the various worldviews. which would best handle the high point in the world? the five islands that are off the west coast of north korea that are not part of the armistice that would be hard to defend. south china sea where the two main islands are by taiwan, or by calling the occupation of -- is thatinvasion wise? of course there is the palestinian issue. we don't talk about some of these other hotspots and maybe there are more. what worldview is best in dealing with these hotspots that can trigger a war whether it is

for wealth or ego or just the pleasure of war? phelan -- dan kurtz phelan? guest: an interesting set of foreign-policy issues and potential conflicts the caller raises. i would point to the first two pieces in the package on realism and liberalism. they both explain -- they both can account for why there is tension over these different hotspots the caller put it. what happens from here is different in realist world and liberal world. in realist world, this is a natural outgrowth of great power rivalry. very producible and natural that the united states and china would have tension over these islands that china would want a sphere of influence over islands that are near its coastline and that china's neighbors would seek out help to push back and seek help from the united states

. stephen -- would see that and say tensions are going to grow and exactly how that turns out whether it develops into war or some kind of other arrangement will depend on the power and geography more than anything else. liberal world will look at that conflict and say we've developed over the course of the last several decades lots of rules and institutions about how you deal with those kinds of disputes. liberalism does not assume that there are no conflicts or tensions but it says we have ways of dealing with them short of war. 20 years from now if there is a code of conduct about how nations behave in the south china sea bank that constrains chinese behavior but is considered except will buy china that would be a vindication of liberalism. i would point to those articles. you can look at each of the disputes the caller mentioned

and see a persuasive explanation for why they are happening. but also point to different potential futures. different ways situations developed depending on which of these theories you find most persuasive. host: to texas. margaret is an independent. caller: good morning to you. i probably would fit more into the liberal, but i think some of these -- my main interest, i am 90 years old by the way, my main interest is in the environment. unless we have a sustainable world to live in, what does it matter about all of these other things. i probablyi believe would fit in the liberal but i believe we have to work together. no longer is the nationstate the most important thing. joining -- probably

globalism. it is that we have to think in global terms. the terrific advancement of artificial intelligence -- i'm one of these people to drive in all electric car. i'm very concerned about what is happening. of theseem to be unaware particular its their breathing in, not just carbon dioxide. they make people ill. i think in that sense i think we should cooperating globally on antiwar. march against the war in vietnam. i was in the civil rights movement, as old as i am. i marched against the war in vietnam and i feel there are alternatives to going to war.

host: thanks for the call. giving us a chance to talk about several different worlds. why don't we focus on the warming world through the lens of recall? guest: it is a great set of insights. thearet, the author of warming world is joshua busby. i recommend his piece. the point that he makes is that warming, the fact of climate change, will define our future, whether we deal with it adequately. he sees a future of rising sea levels and greater drought. wars over resources. that is if we do not deal with climate change. he sketches out a different scenario. if we deal with it, if we come together between businesses and government and individuals and really rise to the challenge and managed to avert some of the most catastrophic outcomes with climate change, in part through some of the ways you just mentioned, even that is going to reshape global politics and

societies. what happens 50 years from now if our societies and our government and businesses really have managed to address climate will change too the way politics, businesses and societies work. a pessimistic scenario and an optimistic scenario both of which center on the forces of climate change. i would extend that point to other pieces. some of these sound like pessimistic pieces some of them sound more optimistic. what was surprising to us at foreign affairs as we looked at the pieces, even some of the more -- the scenarios that focus on what we think of as darker forces, actually have potentially optimistic outcomes. if you look at realism, it does not necessarily mean we are going to end up in another world war in the course of the next few decades. it does mean the forces of competition are really going to determine how the world moves

forward. with warming world as professor busbee points out, it's going to change the world whether or not we deal with it. there is an optimistic outcome at a more pessimistic one. host: focusing on one of the optimistic outcomes in the piece can you explain his theory on why the u.s. pulling out of the paris climate change agreement might actually create more redundant systems within the u.s. to deal with climate change . guest: a really interesting point that you raise that is made in the piece. paris was designed when it was passed -- when it was finalized years ago, to bring in a broader base of actors. it was not just governments doing things governments could do but making more flexible commitments that involved lots of other players. what has happened over the course of the last few years is that businesses have made decisions about use of energy. states and cities are important

players when it comes to addressing climate change and reducing energy use. that washington is not taking the lead on this issue really shifts the focus of activity to businesses, to state governments. rise to theem occasion as some people think strengthenthat will global efforts because it will be broader based the national governments. it will reshape the way some of these issues are dealt with domestically. that will reshape politics. host: burlington, north carolina is next. line for democrats. demetria. caller: i believe this is a money world. no one is actually paying attention to what the poor goes through. it is only about the wealthy.

the ones who have money were able to provide for their families and do things for their families without no worry. when the poor is just working paycheck and its ak and struggle. i'm a single mother and i am struggling. i live under government assistance but if i go and get a good job, good paying job, it takes majority of my paycheck and that just leaves me a little bit of money to be able to pay utilities. to me i feel as if it's all a money world. there is no help in between there is no help with love, no help with going different places or being able to come off of government assistance because no one wants to be on government assistance forever. with the hispanics and other foreign countries there's going through the things they're going their noserica has

too much in other countries instead of focusing on their own country. guest: again i would point to a couple of pieces in the package that i think would really speak to the reality and experience demetrio mentions the first is marxist world if you go back to calm arts is writing in the 19th century he would say that this is a kind of inevitable outgrowth of advanced capitalism and that all of this is predictable that the declining share of power for labor growing inequality, the increasing struggles of a large part of labor force is in another double development. what is interesting about the piece and the issue is that does not have an obvious political solution what we think of as a marxist political economic system is not necessarily the only way to deal with that. were developments predicted long time ago in some ways. i would point to liberal world.

i should say liberalism in a foreign policy context does not mean what we think of when we say liberal on a domestic political context is about a pragmatism and a institution that does not map onto political debates. talk about the ways in which the liberal system help address some of the issues demetria raised when the liberal order was really -- through the decades in the middle of the 20th century where the and edit states a lot more to address these issues. that has decayed in recent years in a way that they see having implications for global politics as well. host: is there a worldview that you most agree with between realist, liberal, tribal, marxist, tech, warming? i am a foreign-policy guy in that means i was much more attuned to realist world and liberal world but what was fascinating to all of us as the

pieces came in, we started to edit them. you can read each one of them and you can sit with them side-by-side and each one does tell a persuasive story of the you canwe are living find that persuasive and move on to tribal world or tech world and see that as equally persuasive explanation of reality. in some ways it's an unsettling reading experience that does sort of up and your assumptions about how the world works. about tweets it's not about trump, it's not about the political controversy of the moment. it is a way to force ourselves and our readers to step back and get a sense of the broader landscape. perfect summer reading because it was escapist in its own way. host: time for one or two more phone callshost:. janice is on the line for democrats. caller: hello.

phelan. i'm probably a realist and i believe we are living in a shrinking world of too many people in need of work, food water education, training health, clothing and housing many less military war and more service military. females along with males need to enter a draft for a service military. to serve if they are not employed or enrolled in more schooling. also, we need sensible cost control. government as we know it is falling apart because of corruption. we don't have a democracy. a electoral college is a joke. thank you.

guest: i would ask the point you to liberal world. the starting point for liberal international relations analysis is that the world is shrinking and we are growing more interdependent. in an interdependent world you need ways of addressing common problems. you need ways of mediating disputes that you would not have had a few hundred years ago when societies felt more for a part than they do now. if you look at a problem like climate change or nuclear weapons you can't just deal with those on a country by country weapons you can't just deal with those on a country by country basis. you really do need -- that can really address the problems of the shrinking world. i think there's a lot in the little world that would address some of those -- the liberal world that would address those issues. we talked a lot in this country about the breakdown of a national identity. we have a piece coming in our next issue to preview that a bit

which talks about some of the identity issues and talks about the ways in which national service could really create an american identity transcends the tribal differences amy chua writes about in her piece in the issue. host: brandon in florida, line for independent. caller: i wanted to touch on the canadian prime minister do you think it is right for him to call the president out? security.onal he made that argument. 22 out of even make 208i believe that was. i was wanting to hear your thoughts about that. we are right there by them as our neighbors.

guest: we are in a moment where a had a g-7 meeting in canada few weeks ago that ended badly. and it in acrimony for reasons the caller hinted at. we had a nato summit in europe next week i believe. july 11 and 12. these issues are front and center. two parts here. one is the issue of how much different countries are spending on their own national defense. it is not that they pay into a nato budget. they're committed to spending more on their own national defense as part of the nato alliance. this is something that administrations of both parties have been focused on for some time. something the obama administration talks about. the question is how much do you value the broader alliance? do you think the existence of

this broader alliance is really essential, not just to our security, not just to our partners security, but also to stability in the world. having these kinds of alliance structures helps reduce conflict. -- i think when prime minister trudeau of canada talks about, says some of what he says about trump and to trump , it is about his sense of preserving that order is important to canada but also to united states and the world more broadly. getting at that liberal debate in that exchange. that is not what they talk about. you can see the theories that underpins some of these attitudes. , partback to the package of what is really interesting is you are seeing the worldviews that underpin the debates of the day we don't often talk about these when we are consumed with the headlines and the back and forth.

this really is what is fundamentally driving these disputes. host: the package is called which world are we living in. the july august edition of foreign affairs. dan kurtz phelan is the executive editor. appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you so much. it is open phones until 10:00. any public policy issue we will let you lead the conversation. lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. we will be right back. sunday night on q and a, freelance journalist tom dunkel on his article locked and loaded for the lord. on the sons of the late reverend and their church in newfoundland pennsylvania. >> what is going on at century church in pennsylvania is a combing with a lot of

undercurrents in the country of religion, politics and guns. to a degree we had not seen before. it is still a small church. no question about that. be maybe 200d people in the congregation total in pennsylvania and 2000 worldwide. the sermons are webcast every week. you can follow a church on youtube. it is that combing ling of .assion in america what does this say about us as a culture? is there any precursor of what we might see down the road? when you get the genie out of the bottle of mixing guns and religion in almost any society it has been problematic. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 thomas c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. host: here is the schedule this morning and today in washington. to havete was scheduled a brief pro forma session at 9:00 as senators remain out this week for the fourth of july recess. the president is scheduled for

remarks at the greenbrier resort in west virginia across the virginia border. that is happening at 6:30. more scheduling out of the white house, an announcement that the secretary of state mike pompeo will travel to pyongyang later this week for denuclearization talks with kim jong-un. that was the announcement out of the white house monday. the story from the washington times notes that secretary of state pompeo will travel thursday to pyongyang, hoping to add concrete details to the pledge mr. kim made last month to denuclearize the divided korean peninsula. john bolton said on sunday that the administration favors an ambitious schedule to fully dismantle north korea's nuclear arsenal, timeline many experts think would be hard for the north to meet given the technical and verification issues involved. the president, active on twitter

this morning. one of his tweet about the exact issue. the relationship and ongoing talks with north korea. the president tweeting he's had many good conversations with north korea. it is going well. in the meantime, no rocket launches or nuclear testing in eight months. only theia is thrilled opposition party which includes the fake news is complaining. if not for me we would be at war with north korea the president said this morning. greg is in jacksonville florida. caller: good morning. 39 your watcher of c-span. i wanted to make some comments on the open lines segment that you have here. a couple of observations. one is that i would hope at some allowc-span would maybe the members who have watched for

20 years or more to call in in terms of what they have seen on c-span. those of us who watched the program, maybe susan could think about putting a small segment. lawrence o'donnell, i was excited about that. msnbc, his show really does ring you what would .e the facts and the truth you know he is an attorney. the program you had on this morning was next on program in terms of looking at how he and his family were looking at the information. and the statistics on instances that have happened with police officers and african-american men in particular. one of the things about him, this is the observation i really wanted to make. he was very calm in terms of his response to one of the callers that was a bit antagonistic in terms of questioning not only

the book but just his whole program. i found in his demeanor the civility that typically we would like to see asked c-span watchers, and not the kind of the trio that has come up, with all due respect, that i have seen with the republican guest you had. one notably with respect, and he is gone now, was robert novak years ago. a caller disagreed with mr. novak and some of his writing and he cut into the caller with the kind of vitriol that some of us out here in the community really do not appreciate. we expect civility when we watch c-span. it was something i thought lawrence o'donnell handled very well. that is one of the differences in people who can discuss and disagree with americans and move forward and answer the question and be very civil. love c-span.

appreciate you guys. appreciate you taking my call. host: thanks for the suggestion. i will bring it up in our production meeting happening in about 45 minutes. eric is in coleman, alabama. whoever has enough of it rules. people talking about it on c-span right now. conflict. -- the saudi's have massacred thousands of people. on the brink of famine. feeding on the blood of innocent. no one seems concerned with it.

host: willy is in hollywood florida. line for democrats. caller: how are you all doing today? we know that hillary clinton is supposed to be our president right now. so hillary clinton, i heard you were a fighter. -- this country, this government owes us 40 acres and a mule. we are stronger together and the devil is a genius. thataid if it was possible devil will be able to fool -- meaning all of us. i voted for bush twice. everybodycan't fool

like ronald reagan did, they will steal it with the electoral college like george bush did. you know you can't win, why would you hold up a supreme court pick? host: james is in albuquerque, new mexico. good morning. caller: i'm a former delegate in the democratic party twice. i think there is a big perception among a lot of progressive democrats that there is a massive party corruption. i think that is one of the things causing a huge split in the party. there was a convention that i attended and us delegates were supposed to one mark hillary and one marked bernie.

et al. of these conventions there was always more bernie supporters than hillary supporters and they could see that happening again. they canceled the whole thing and decided not to have the straw poll. a lot of people felt they did the news media have seen that they would've put that on the news and said everybody loves bernie. -th the superdelegates, i and both of them never -- deborah halen she told me -- i guess if that is ok with the voters, kind of a week answer. lauren grisham she never really answered at all. host: do you think the dnc has gone far enough? one of the stories from last week, busy week of news. officials voting to scale back the role of superdelegates in the presidential nomination process.

caller: they need to be entirely eliminated and that is what the people want. no scaling back. if the democratic party wants reform they have to show real positive reforms not half measures. host: diane, winter park florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to express admiration and respect for sarah sanders and the way she had to handle the on slot of things that have been coming at her. i watch her daily in the white house press briefings. for a great role model strength and grace under pressure. she's a role model for me and i hope for my daughters as well. i think she's held up extremely and in a difficult job she's handled herself well and i wanted to express my admiration for her. host: what you think about reports that say she's already

looking to the exit later this year? you think she's longed for that job? caller: do i think she is wrong for the job? host: do you believe those reports. the you think she is long for the job? reports that she denied of eyeing the exit. caller: i think she is great for the job. she's a strong woman and a credit to our gender. caller: guest: good morning guest: i have a couple of quick points. one of your first callers this segment spoke about lawrence o'donnell's civility. i also enjoyed it. i'm a huge proponent of civility . there are times when you have to get down and dirty. i think we're in those times with this president.

the caller from florida just spoke about sarah sanders being a credit to our gender. met's kind of laughable to since she lies every day for the president. she looks pretty pain in her face as she has to tell the stories. one of the gentleman called in and told mr. o'donnell that one could not be strangled in 20 minutes when he was talking about a case of a police officer killing a black man in staten island. if you crush a man's windpipe or the larynx i daresay they could die in under 20 minutes. is anothermment caller called in and said where are the cameras and the concern when white mothers cry over their sons being killed. and i would ponder to say perhaps the cameras are on the mass shootings that a lot of white men commit that everybody wants to call mental health

issues. a lot of them are not mental health issues. they're angry because the color in america is changing. thank you. host: dave is in california, a democrat. on the lefte of us have to do something to expose the terrible wrongs that have been going on in our government. presidentopular killed by our own government. cia. inside job of 911 and we are going to have to leave behind a government that has done this to us. we want to have pride. we want to stand up and sing the pledge of allegiance but we have to deal with it. address the reality that it's beyond our scope. we need to do it. host: what is your interest and belief -- where does your

interest and believe in conspiracy theories come from? caller: the reality we are up against. pure greed saying we want everything we can get. we want more and we have to take it from the poor. wars are profitable. that is what we're up against. we want to feel we are good people wanting to bring good to the world. reality is we are pure take, not us, but the goals of those in power by rigging elections. electronic votes that they can flip by the thousands or millions put in power criminals. look at this reality. host: do you still vote, dave? caller: i do vote but i know -- flippedecause i my votes. 98% of the people working

struggling, basically good people. a small fraction, fractional 1%, -- city council's white house, how does that happen in a democracy where people get a vote? pure logic. people that vote for what's best for themselves and their country don't vote to have corporate greed running their lives. host: dave is in california. less than 10 minutes in our program today, letting you lead discussion. lines for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002. a story on the front pages of different newspapers today. the fbi saying it stop the terrorist attack ahead of july 4. a man accused of planning a terrorist i'll attack in downtown cleveland on the fourth

of july was charged monday with trying to support terrorism. the fbi said demetrius nathaniel pitts was taken into custody sunday morning on accusations of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. authorities said pitts talked about hitting targets such as saint john's and giving remote control cars packed with image -- packed with explosives to children or military members. during his final meeting with the undercover agents, pitts x breast -- pitts expressed allegiance to ico al qaeda. agent steven anthony said it was not clear how close pitts was to carrying out his threats but authorities cannot wait to find out. joseph is a new york city. good morning. caller: good morning sir. say donalded to

trump has ruined the global order we had. he's against humanity. he must be impeached. about u.s.othing presence in syria, which is a waste. we are going to leave syria but he has gone back on his word. buddies withudi weapons of mass destruction. no one wants to stop this guy. -- host: bo is in louisiana, line for republicans. caller: i would like to make a comment about the tax cut everyone is talking about how you have more money in your pocket. i'm sure that's true for some people. for instance, walmart, they give a bonus, they give a little raise and then they start from

40 hours a week you get cut down to 35, now they are down to 33. when you take your hourly cut for 26 weeks at the end of the year you are still making less than you did the year before by 15,000 to 3000 -- is not more money in your pocket the way walmart is doing, making a good emphasis over tv but for the actual worker there are losing money. i appreciate it. host: you mentioned the tax cut. i wonder what you think is an issue that's going to drive republicans to the polls for the midterm election this november. is it the tax cut issue? concern about democrats taking the house? something else like the supreme court? what do you think is the issue that's going to get republicans to the polls? caller: probably the tax cut.

and the supreme court. host: that is bo in louisiana. to tallahassee, florida. l is a a root -- and a republican. caller: i've been watching c-span since 1980. i really love c-span. i think you're doing a great service. what i wanted to say to you was 25%eems there are, maybe more democrats that called in to republicans. maybe the same percentage for independents. republicans don't seem to be calling in. i was wondering why. about three or four months ago i

listened to c-span and recorded callerser of democrat independent and conservative. remember.calls as i there is a significant difference in matt and i was -- nothingf c-span you can do about it it's open phones i guess. i wondered if you had any comments about why that is. my conclusion though after the about is i think most republicans are working at a job and don't have time to call while the democrats and independents that really are are sitting at home on welfare getting a government check or something. that supports them and they have the time to call. host: keep watching.

some days we get more of one particular caller than another that we set up the phone lines democrats republicans in independent and we rotate through those lines as we go. we're over 50 calls today and we take about 60 per day on the washington journal so keep watching. lorraine is an wisconsin, line for democrats. caller: i've had my ear to the radio since fdr was president. thank him for social security. why build a wall if people want to come here with their children? they will build tunnels to get here. when trump says he takes -- there are side effects of taking pills. a side effect of the pill is disturbing his brain. and five psychiatrists were willing to violate both and declare trump has an sanity and

declares he is not fit to run heroesntry they would be who saved this country from destruction by alienating us from our allies, child abuse, women abuse. this country, in such a debt with his self-indulgence and no concern for anyone else. why would anyone want a racist to run this country? mitch mcconnell started this hell. another racist. they cannot stand for a colored person who god created to be president. host: cindy is in maple valley, washington. in independent. caller: i could not disagree with her more. i called to say sarah sanders is a wonderful human being. she should keep doing that job forever.

i wanted to say everybody should twitter.alk away on it is trending big-time and it's leaving theats plantation. host: our last caller in the washington journal today. two in tomorrow we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime have a great tuesday as we show you a shot of the united states capitol where the flag is at half staff today. president trump issued a proclamation ordering flags at half staff to honor the capital gazette staffers killed last week in maryland. the annapolis mayor saying his request for the flag to be lowered was approved.

journal@c-span.org >> a mexican ambassador will talk about relations with the u.s. after mexico's recent election. we will have live coverage at 11:30 eastern on c-span. what's online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. president trump will attend a salute to service at a resort this evening. it is part of a military tribute held high a golf association. you can watch live coverage at 6:30 eastern on c-span. and msnbc host

lawrence o'donnell talks about updates to his book. that discussion tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span. this week at it :00 p.m. eastern in primetime, tuesday, the weekly standard posts conversation on the millennial generation. >> what happens in campuses and high schools in terms of not reading certain books because people get triggered by them, that is a fight we are fighting. people making these decisions are often baby boomers, not millennials. --ouncer: >> if they can go through that the currency, white couldn't you have consensus? it is not for me. i do not know bitcoin. bitcoinman sachs has no

but if it does no work -- but if it does work out, i could give you the historical path like it could happen. >> white people are justified. white fears of black people are not. announcer: kirk cameron, attorney general jeff sessions, and cory gardner speaking at this year's western conservative summit in colorado. thee are hammering criminals and violent groups, especially ms 13, that vicious gang is one of the most violent and inhumane groups in the world. , chill, rape, and control. -- kill, rape, and control. announcer: next, the osama bin laden files and the u.s. approach to