in jackson with discussions on race and identity, southern history, u.s. politics and presidential leadership. authors include the author of "loving." and the author of "the making an american sea rts and the great revolt, inside the populist coalition reshaping american politics and author frank williams with lincoln as hero. join us for the mississippi c-span 2.val on >> this morning we were joined by sean spicer and arneduncan who served in the obama administration. we show you both of their

interviews together in their entirity. they were about two hours. jour" continues. host: our next guest served as this administration's first press secretary. sean spicer. he is also the author of "the briefing." is the perception of a white house press secretary and what is the reality? guest: that is a great question. has administration definitely taken things to a different level in terms of the intensity and scrutiny that position received. i think a press secretary's job is to convey the information to the media and to the public when the president is unable to do so for themselves. i think the perception sometimes is that the press secretary -- people would say what you think? reality is the press secretary is not supposed to be speaking for themselves but the

principles they represent. book whenright in the it comes to president trump's interest in your job and how he engaged with you, he was always full of questions, wanting background where a story comes from and curious what we would say about it. he was never shy about giving us directions. he was insistent about how he wanted the points delivered. the more time i spent with him the more i understood president wanted me to repeat his answers to the press verbatim. could you expand on that? guest: i have been doing this a long time, served a lot of members of congress and candidates. team comes up with the lines they think are most effective. president trump is much more specific without he wants his voice communicated. it, the job about is to communicate the views and principles and ideas that the president wants communicated.

the president recognizes that if that is going to be the case, he wants to make sure those words are conveyed exactly as he's these fit. talk about the engagement you had on a day-to-day basis, especially developing what the statements and comments from the white house would be. guest: in order to get ready for a briefing or major event, we would spend a good chunk of the morning going back and forth trying to develop what the questions and appropriate responses would be. we bring in the subject matter expert from the national security council, maybe someone from the opposite of management and budget, depending on what the issue was you would bring in the relevant experts and they would give you their cake -- there take as to where the issue was and the appropriate response. then i would go in and start to check in with the president and say these are the questions i believe we are most likely to get. this is what your team

recommends and he would give his take and we would go back and forth, sometimes with what he wanted and we might have to check back in with the subject matter experts that say the president wants to convey it this way, do you think that is going to be an issue? depending on the issue and the nature of it, it might be one single interaction or it might be a back-and-forth. host: when the president makes statements about specific members of the press, is that shade how you approach your job? questions, how you approached engagement with these organizations? guest: he never asked me to call anyone or not call anyone. that was something i did myself and i write about it extensively in the book. i intentionally wanted to broaden the number of reporters called on in the briefing room and try to expand and democratize the press room. i believe that reporters from a

variety of backgrounds, whether foreign media, niche publications, local media, conservative talk radio, different ethnic outlets all deserve to question and i tried to very who i called on and the frequency of it to see that there was a variety of voices being heard. host: the book is called "the briefing: politics, the press, and the president." sean spicer is our guest. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 four independents. you've heard the president's comments about the press. what do you think about those statements? is that appropriate? guest: i think if democracy is -- needspecially ours to have a free and robust press corps.

i am not a fan of calling out any industries with a broad brush. i think it is more effective to call out inappropriate behavior or disrespectful behavior or a bad story or a lack of professionalism in a specific case rather than paint an entire history with a broad brush. when you do that you throughout the good with the bad and as i write in the book there are a lot of good reporters in that briefing room. i am not one who believes or advocates you should use any industry and call it one particular thing. as a conservative and as someone who voted for and supported president trump, i do not like it when people ascribe those qualities to conservative and all conservatives believe this or people who support donald trump are the following. i have not been a big believer in using sweeping comments to pay -- to paint any industry or group as being synonymous with a trait.

host: you probably saw this on the late show with stephen colbert. the white house correspondent was talking about reporting of the president. i want you.

we do not do ourselves any good if we shy away from these hard questions. host: mr. spicer, what you think of that assessment? --st: i think it is ironic jim never talks about his own behavior. when was the last time jim broke a story? it is all about him and his antics. he turned the page from being a reporter to being an activist and at the tractor the president. it is not about reporting. he coaxed himself and this idea of the first amendment, which we all support. his behavior has been .isrespectful at best he posted this photo a couple weeks back of himself about hundred yards back from the president and made it seem as if

the president ignored a question he had asked when his own fellow reporters called out and said there was no way the president could have possibly heard him because he was so far back behind hundreds of people in an audience. to him it is about the show. i think the idea that he tries to make it about asking questions and fax is ridiculous. at the end of the day, it is not about the free press, it is not about tough questions, it is not about stories, it is about him creating a scene in the briefing room, him jumping up and down and shouting stuff out and making himself the story. most reporters will tell you it should never be about them, it is always about the story. it is the inverse with him. host: you sane your book when it comes to white house coverage a focus four things -- on palace intrigue, a desire to break a story, and a partisan

mentality. i think all of those are true and i going to detail on each one of them. mentality and i talk about examples were reporters who dare to break out of that and ask questions they because theyortant find it interesting or represented constituency, get mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues if they do not go along with whatever the collective wisdom and thought is for the day. that is a big problem. you have seen this more and more were reporters have tried to make themselves the story and try to figure out how to get themselves on tv rather than focus on issues and the pursuit of a particular story. i think there is a big problem with the behavior and the professionalism that is exhibited in that room. host: mr. spicer joins us until 10:00. the phone lines are on the screen. our first call comes from

minnesota, this is derek on our independent line. you're on with sean spicer, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. appreciate your time this morning. i have a couple questions. definiteike a definition of the free press. from what i understand, the emperor has no clothes. becausea has no clothes they have been exposed for help much bias they are toward this president. i've never seen anything like it. i think every study says that 90% plus are democrats or leftists or whatever. what is the actual free press because there is so much opinion, commentary. i've a daughter going to one of the best journalism schools in the country and i would like your advice to her going into it because i do not understand what the free press is anymore when

it is all this conjecture, opinion? host: we will let our guest respond. , i think derek brings up some good points. i do not like to make one sweeping comment about all of them. there are good journalists in that briefing room. i think the washington elite media that is represented by the networks and the cables and the big conglomerate newspapers and toe services tend not understand or take the time to outside the beltway and understand what is going on. i think a free press means they can write whatever they want and liberal news, we have conservative news, we have business news. the ability to write and express yourself in this country is something we cherish. do your point, we need to recognize that so many of these folks in the establishment media have gone from being objective

or trying to appear objective to being activists. expressing an opinion, whether on twitter or cable news, they have stopped reporting and gone on to opining about their beliefs, their ideas, and then as you point out, i think too often there is a degree of stories built entirely on conjecture where it is what we think he is thinking, as opposed to actually reporting stuff. it is all about conjecture about what they think might happen versus what the facts tell us. host: from minnesota, republican line, brad. caller: good morning. i have not spoken to you people in a while but this is a great topic to talk about. i look at life as past behavior will tell you the near future. it started in 1950,

it was called operation mockingbird and it was the cia manipulating the people through the media. step continuing -- another , but it is the media with the fbi this time. we have a big problem with our media today. they want to manipulate the people. host: mr. spicer, what do you think? guest: i write in the book, and pedro, you just mentioned that i try to give people an idea of what was going on behind the scenes in terms of the stories and what actually happens the on , whatory you read or see is happening in the lead up to that story and the back-and-forth and interaction that occurs. there is no question that a lot have an in media agenda, have an opinion. i do not think that is all of them. there are a lot of good

reporters that do a good job. more and more, we are seeing a lot of what you would call establishment media types getting involved in expressing themselves and taking an opinion. host: when you say reporters who do a good job, name one and why that person doing a good job? guest: jen jacobs, bloomberg. you can disagree with us. --re are plenty of stories ,argaret talev, also bloomberg who was last press association president. they can write top stories, they can be tenacious, but they are professional and fair meaning they tell you this is what we have gathered, what is your side, a reasonable amount of time to respond. a lot of times reporters say we are about to publish, what is your response?

it is always not something that can be responded to in five or 10 minutes. too often that is the mentality. we have eight anonymous sources saying the following, you have five minutes to respond. that is not fair. that is an attempt to engage in gotcha journalism. that is where the stories are based. this attempt to be sensational and follow the spirit of tabloid press versus straight journalism. there are a lot of reporters who say i'm working on this story, i would like to hear your side of it. they truly, the story from an objective place and try to gather the facts versus a lot of these people who figure out the narrative they want to pursue, build a case, and then call you and tell you they are about to publish. or in many cases do not even tell you that. host: what is your thinking when it comes to news sources? do you equate mainstream media

with blocks such as breitbart or the daily caller? do you equate those when it comes to news outlets? guest: there is a spectrum. i read all of those. i will also sometimes look at left-wing places like the daily beast or huffington post. i think you need to look at all of it and collectively gather as much as you can. as there is an right, there is a lot of the left. host: review like on the left? which is the main source for you? guest: it is not a question of like. part of the job is to look at the full spectrum. i might read a story from the huffington post or the daily beast, but when i do i think there is a level of scrutiny and now i want to find out further. when you read a story from one of those sources, it makes you wonder how much of it is

activism journalism versus an attempt to write it straight up or something from buzz feed where is all the left-leaning sites and you have to go now i need to further investigate to find out whether this was them pursuing an agenda or how much of it is accurate? host: from minnesota, democrats line, tammy, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am wondering which president, obama or trump, had the biggest inauguration? guest: that is a great question. you should read the book. i think i have talked about that extensively, about that first date and what my goal was to try to communicate which was to talk about the level of enthusiasm and interest there was in the inauguration. host: republican line, georgia, this is joy. caller: i just want to discuss something about the different dv

news people. i try to watch different news programs, especially msnbc and i try to watch cnn and i try my best to watch them but it is nothing but hate. it is pure hate. i want to try to learn something from them but the hatred they spew about our president is unbelievable. i have never learned as much about our country with the president as i have with president trump. i have learned more in my lifetime, and i'm 74 years old. -- i know when you say fox news that is a trump thing, but they do not spew the hatred like these other tv programs do. it is unbelievable. i used to like msnbc. i used to like joe in the

morning but i cannot stand to watch it anymore. host: thank you very much. mr. spicer? guest: we talked about this during the segment. each of these channels has staked out where they stand on the political spectrum. you are seeing it now. you have msnbc and cnn have staked out the left, fox has staked out the right. one of the reasons i love c-span is you guys allow people to talk and the viewers to make up their mind. people can watch a government official take questions, give the response or watch a hearing. it allows people to see their government, exactly what is said in an unfiltered way. i do think you have now seen a lot of activism journalism, especially on the cable news channels where there is a degree to which they understand their audience and therefore their business model is predicated upon tailoring and focusing on a particular niche of the political spectrum.

host: devon in port charlotte, florida, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a simple question. any regrets? -- inould you change if hindsight? that thisn documented current administration lies consistently, every day. i would like your response to that. thank you. , ist: on the first thing think the reason i wrote the book is to give people an understanding of what i did and what was going on behind the scenes. there are plenty of things i said i would love to do over. a lot of times it is the tone i would use, a lot of times it is the interaction, at times it is the way i communicated. i write about this, on how i would have liked to be able to do it over.

that is not how we get to live life and part of what i explained in the book is what i have tried to do is recognize, whether it is a personal interaction or professional issue or event, that the question it comes down to is do you learn from those? are you a better person or a better professional because how you have looked back on an event and recognize tight you could have done it better? there are plenty of circumstances where i look back and say i could answer that better or interacted that are. i talk about those in the book in a candid way because i want people to understand i'm not perfect. it was a tough job, it was intense. there are things i wish i could do over again and i want people to understand, not hear an sometimes the context in which i made those decisions and what i would have done differently. host: the book is called "the briefing: politics, the press, and the president."

sean spicer joining us. serving as the press secretary in the trump administration. a couple questions about omarosa manacled and what she said to you. gives you some type of money to say nice things about the president. what is your response to that? guest: that is completely false. let's walk through the timeline. i left the white house september 1 of last year. i signed a book here in december of that year. i submitted the book in may of .hat year thatned a super pac's supports the president's policies in june. i'd not received a penny from anyone connected to trump until june 15 of this year after my book had been submitted. i did not sign a nondisclosure agreement. america first has put out a

statement saying that. you have to consider the source. money anding to make hawk a book. i just talked about my own timeline. let's look at her timeline. she left the timeline -- he left the white house at the beginning of the year and continuously praise the president and then within weeks was shopping a book to publishers claiming the opposite. it was clear they were telling her that in order to sell and get an advanced she would have to say something nasty. my book is very candid talking about my experience, what i would do better, how i could have had some of those instances. i do not think if you read that book you can say i was not candid and some of my shortcomings. her book is completely different. it is an attempt to go after the

president of the united states because she got fired. she even lies about that. she said she resigned. now she said she was fired. she bought a personal recording device into the white house to record the chief of chaff of white house in violation of countless security protocols and her own security clearance. there is no question she has a huge credibility issue. host: this is mary. las vegas, nevada. independent line. caller: you are out there trying to hawk a book. goes, i willrosa wait to hear the tapes. the president does lie a lot and it is coming back at him. there are so many horrible things going on. he stands up there and he calls the press an enemy of the people. right out of the authoritarian playbook. he goes after the nfl for taking

a knee and sends a delegation to russia on the fourth of july. then he stands up there at then he stands up there at helsinki -- vladimir putin was smiling. they looked like he just got through eating red meat. if he deserves to be defended, he will be, but the truth does need to come out and i think cnn and msnbc are doing a good job and fox news is going off the charts somewhere. host: we will let our guest respond. .uest: there is no question i'm on here, i'm talking about the book. i am trying to promote it. there is a difference. you willad my book recognize i talk about my life, my experiences. i think it is a candid understanding of who i am as a person. i do not go out there and act in a disloyal way as one of my former colleagues did.

book that selling a goes after the president of the united states, who she praised publicly on the record, both in print and on video within days of leaving the white house. i do not think there's anything inconsistent about my account, that i think there a totally different style between how i am approaching this and how she is approaching it. the tone and the tenor are different. i am proud of what i have written. you have seen the people who read the book will tell you it is a candid approach to who i am as a person and the experience of the last couple years. especially with respect to the campaign. if you're interested in understanding what was going on during that campaign, the data and the field operation that was used, part of the reason i wanted to write it was so people can understand what was going on during the campaign. host: you have to get approval from the white house for your

manuscript? guest: no. host: how is it that you do not sign a nondisclosure agreement? guest: with america first? host: with the white house. charge was omarosa's that i took hush money and signed a nondisclosure agreement. i did not. that is the sign -- that is the charge she made. host: republican line. hello. caller: i was many years of service company commander and sean is right on. i will buy his book. the media is so biased. 98% negative which fox -- their ratings are better than all of them. i still watch the channels to see the opposite side. they are all the same companies. they are hateful. this, rosa, the media -- this omarosa, the media hated her.

wrote -- i hope they prosecute her for those tapings -- now they love her and give her nonstop. 98% fake media. keep it going. i am buying your book today. host: when it comes to recording devices, what is the role within the white house? guest: there are two issues. what is the role within the white house? my understanding is that general kelly has banned the use of personal cell phones in the west wing because they present a danger to entities that are seeking to gain information. they ban them. is aituation room classified area that no recording devices, no bluetooth enabled technology is allowed in. you are required to check in all recording devices, all wireless capabilities.

bringing in any kind of recording device into the situation room or any other classified setting is a security violation. may beaping somebody untrustworthy or disloyal, there is a difference between doing that and bringing a recording inice and willfully using it a classified setting, which is what she did by using it in the situation room. host: from massachusetts, democrats line, james, you're on with our guest. caller: i would like to ask a couple of questions. everybody is claiming donald trump lies a lot. i'm a democrat. i do have a problem. i like to think a little bit. is they sayia does donald trump said something happened 48 times and they looked it up at an only happened 46 they call him a liar.

everything he talks about that exaggerate and twist it. i am getting upset with my own party. they also have fact checked this, fact checked that. -- put a fact is owned by politico. fact check is owned by an organization obama was on the board of. they track the trump says 3000 lies but they do not track that they cover a legitimate story for 20 seconds over three networks. entire lifeat my and i've never been so frustrated my entire life to try to figure out what the real truth is around here. host: james, thank you very much. guest: one of the things i talk about in the book is that a lot of these fact checkers are opinion checkers. there is an example where vice president pence made a comment

that more people in america are working than ever before, which is correct when he made the statement. you have the fact checkers say ofis lacking the context whether or not that is in relationship of the total population as a percentage or he is referring to the exact number. that is an opinion. the reality was he was right when he stated the fact and i put it in their because so often these people are looking to focus on an opinion or a way they want to communicate. the reality is these folks cover what they want and do not cover certain other things. you talk about the remains of our servicemen coming back from korea. most of these network paid scant coverage do it. it was disgraceful. there's a lot of stuff the refused to cover. every study, the media research harvard haver even talked about how the coverage of this president has been

unbelievably negative. when you look at that and contrast that with the results the president is getting on the economy and in semi-other areas, ,- in so many other areas fulfilling his promises, you realize how out of whack that is. whether you are a democrat or republican i thank you for your comments. as a democrat from massachusetts you understand there is a desire for the other side to want the other side not to do well but it is out of whack by any objective standard. host: you mentioned the economy. in your book you highlight you used to work for the u.s. trade representative. i want to ask you in light of your experiences there, what do you think about the year approaches this administration is taking to trade policy, particularly china, and you worry about the idea of a trade war? guest: sure i worry about the idea of a trade war. through a variety of trade deals

time, weack a long have given market access to our country and our consumers and our citizens, usually a very low tariff for non-tariff rate whereas many of our products pay high tariffs and steep barriers to entry and steep barriers to entry into many of our trading partners markets. the president is clearly fulfilling a campaign pledge he made, a belief ps had going back to the 1980's that we need better trade deals. he is fulfilling the promises and the pledges he has made to stand up for american workers and say if you're going to get access to our countries markets, we need some kind of similar access to your market. i think it is good you standing up and being top. toprry about -- and being -- being tough. many countries are not taken a seriously and now under this president they are.

you have seen in europe when the european community president pledged to lower their tariff rates. that is a good thing for our consumers whether you are a service provider, and agricultural brower, or a manufacturer. those are good things for our customers, our consumers, our workers. we have to be careful how long we go at this. there are big countries at stake which can affect the prices are consumers pay. the more the economic team can work as diligently as possible to resolve these issues, the better. host: would you go as far as saying it is an economic risk using these tariffs the way he is using them? guest: there is a risk for not using them. the question is if we do not do anything, our workers will face stiff tariffs and barriers to entry. if we do nothing there is a risk to their. -- there is a risk there.

the question is how much and how long. you have seen in many cases the president's tactics being successful in taking down tariff rates when it comes to our trading partners. the question is what is the risk if you do nothing versus what is the risk if you do something and how long do you want to withstand that level of risk or uncertainty. have said it is a long time coming that this action takes place. the question is how long is it sustainable? i know the team has been working to try to resolve this. i think the sooner we can resolve this the better for our country. host: this is from richfield, wisconsin, republican line. greg on with sean spicer. caller: glad to have you on this morning. i would like to make a couple things clear to republicans and i think many would agree with me. i did not vote for donald trump because he was a celebrity. i did not vote for him because he had orange fair -- orange

hair. i voted for him because he was the gop candidate. who are never trumpers out there and people who seem to forget when he does support the republican party and the conservative viewpoint. as far as omarosa, she better make enough money on this book because no one will ever offer her a job again. guest: i appreciate your comments. i agree with you. at some point the voters of our margin votedrge for this president as our nominee and he won the general election. i think republicans have to understand we are getting things done. one of the untold pieces of this president's legacy is what he has done on the judiciary. now the second supreme court justice he has put forward and hopefully another one. it is also the appellate court in the circuit court and the number of federal judges he has put forth to be maintainers of

our constitution, it is phenomenal and it will be part of his legacy. host: you talk about the calls you have to make, the stories you took issue with, were those calls including to never trumpers, those conservatives who do not support president trump? guest: say that again. host: to those conservatives are republicans who did not support president trump, did you ever have to make calls as press secretary's to the opinions they put out there? .uest: i know some of them from time to time i would have the opportunity to speak with them. i would echo the sentiments of this previous caller. you may not like some of this president style but he is getting things done many conservatives have fought decades for and trying to make the case why they should support the president's agenda and policies. host: from texas, independent

line, robert. caller: thank you, sean, for coming on. it is wonderful outlet and a lot of viewers like to be able to call in with questions. i am wondering if there is not some way, or what your opinion would be on having some kind of ethical standard for reporters that could bar somebody from spreading mistruths. i get the idea of spin and different outlooks taking the same topic. that is the idea of debating an issue. when something is actually false, totally misleading not meaning what the actual figures are or whatever, you know it is a falsehood, shouldn't there be some kind of ethical standard that bars a reporter from further news reporting if they are putting out false stories? two, the division we have

in this country, the bias, what do you feel needs to be done to address this division within the press? thank you. guest: thanks for the call. i think the beauty of our country is we have the first amendment. people can articulate what they want. i do think there are a lot of stories -- the biggest problem, and i write about this in the book, is the press loves to call out everybody else for their mistakes and the issues they have with the arguments that they are making. themselves, they rarely apologize for what they do or say. they call it an update and change the story and act as if nothing happened. i do not believe in barring reporters. i think you can chastise them.

the same first amendment that gives the members of the media the opportunity to write what they want gives us the opportunity to criticize. i think there is a double standard in the way they critique and call out everybody but for concerns they have when they make mistakes themselves they cover it up, they cover for each other, they rarely admit they made a mistake, they never apologize. i think that is a problem. result is issues as a your sing the credibility of a lot of journalists go down. i do not think that is a good thing. i believe we need a fair and free press. i believe the more we have faith in his institutions it is good for democracy. the problem is i think a lot of these institutions have allowed bad reporting to go on and it undermines the credibility of their own institutions. minutes with0 more our guest. tennessee is next. terry, you are on. go ahead. caller: i appreciate c-span

offering this platform. mr. spicer, you are quick to blame the press, as is everybody in the trump administration. who might we begin to blame for treason against this country? guest: you should blame anyone who commits treason against this country. i think part of the point, and pedro mentioned it earlier, i think there are a lot of good reporters. i think we should hold those reporters up and complement them for the job they do and say they are fair and tough. we should use the good ones as an example. those are the ones that young reporter should look to and say this is someone who does it right, they break stories, they are tenacious and they get it right. they are fair and professional. we should exalt the good ones. i think part of the reason i wrote the book is so people have an understanding of what it is like to deal with a lot of these stories that come out and what

the recourse is when you're not treated well or that they perpetrate a false narrative. host: illinois, joanne, go ahead. caller: good morning. mr. spicer, i am calling because i saw where you are saying about disparaging the media, but when you are press secretary you work for the president and you had to put out what he wanted you to put out there, true or not true. case in point the picture where ,hey show the inauguration comparing it with president obama's inauguration and clearly there were more people at president obama's inauguration. you had to come up there because you work for the president to say what he wanted you to say because if you had told the truth that day you know there were more in the picture -- the pictures do not lie.

wherever, msnbc or the media has the right to say what the truth is and they are telling the truth. , andews, i watch fox news i am not a republican, but i watch them to see what they are saying. they have it where they have must take -- president trump has it where everybody must hate the media. host: ok, you made your point. guest: i do not hate the media. as i have stated i believe we need a free and fair press. i respect a lot of reporters. i do think that in many cases there is false narratives, there are people who are bad actors. i do not hate them by any means. i have a lot of respect for many of them and for the institution and the role he played in our society.

i want to make it clear that there is a big difference between calling out issues you -- or beingng complicit. my job is to say there is an area where we have a problem, here's someone's behavior i do not think is respectful and go there. -- i talkbe clear about that first date and the inauguration and what was going on and why as it what i said and what i would've done differently in the book at great length. i have said it before during this program. if there is a day i would want to have a do over, that is at the top of the list. host: when his last time you spoke with president trump question mark guest: within the last couple of days. host: what you talk about when you speak? , mediastories of the day appearances, things like that. sometimes just to catch up. host: does he still consult you

on approaches, a media perspective from his point of view, his press office, things they should be doing? guest: my conversation with the president's and my counsel and advice to him and his comments to me are something i do not comment on. host: regina is from pennsylvania. republican line. go ahead. caller: i give you credit for taking the battleground here. i would like to try to get something into the people and to trump. i do not have a direct line. because id for c-span watched the hearing on the commerce department with wilbur my own localh tell newspaper, which i do not want to lose, the pittsburgh tribune review, which is already internet but i get a more local. they printed. lost, i am concerned with his concern over subsidized canadian paper that they are

being dumped on our country. 30% tariffs. is he paying attention? are his people trained enough to wait for these waivers or is he going to make an excuse? i am not that good on the internet. i do not have the availability for it. everybody else is being paid, obama phones and everything. there is a printout, which i wish everyone would call their senators, it is by pat toomey from pennsylvania. 2835, which is suspend tariffs on important paper -- on imported paper. host: we will leave it there. guest: anything you want to take from that? guest: i'm not familiar with the legislation. host: pennsylvania, brian, hello. caller: i wanted to comment because everybody talks about fact checking and i had a case

in a recent gubernatorial race in pennsylvania. ap, but want to condemn i think it was ap, said that governor wolf, who is the current incumbent, he had a tax plan that is against the constitution of pennsylvania. viablested his plan as -- i forget what their term -- it was a valid tax plan. i called up ap. i actually got the guy that wrote the story which was troublesome but i did it. pennsylvania.om he was from pennsylvania, also. i said you must know the constitution, you must know that that is illegal. he said no, that is what republicans want to do. i said is it against our

constitution. host: thank you. and -- go, go ahead ahead. guest: i'm not familiar with the story he is referring to were the interaction he had so it is difficult to comment but like i said i think you often see these stories where somebody who is reporting tries to insert their personal beliefs as opposed to staying on the record what has been going on. that leads to some of the issues where we are today. ,ost: medford, oregon on democrats line, jim, go ahead. caller: thank you for putting me on. sean has knowledge addressed the fact that the president does themlies and you convey through the papers and the news never and yet you have

admitted those are facts and not some things made up by the media. the media is not at fault when they put facts in. and the truth. you and the president are at fault for making lies and expecting people to accept them. i do not understand your thinking. jim, that is last call, mr. spicer, go ahead. guest: i'm not sure what jim is referring to. i mentioned things i could've done better. i write about them extensively. i think the intensity and scrutiny of this administration is like nothing we've ever seen before. it is interesting how many things have happened in previous administrations and yet no one seems to have used near the level of intensity and screwed and d. -- and scrutiny. to which this

administration has been scrutinized is in a category of its own. host: because messaging is your stock in trade, how do you think -- how effective do you think the white house is in messaging the various positions the white house takes? is a tough question to answer. on some things they do well. you look at the brett kavanaugh nomination they have done a fantastic job of conveying the depth and breadth of support and qualifications and experience that judge kavanaugh has. -- with theme areas white house there are variety of issues at any given time. some will be where you on offense, some you will be defense, some you will be doing better