politics about keith saying at least for now, fellow democrats have taken a latency approach following allegations he was now formerard a girlfriend, an accusation that went public days before he won the party's nomination for attorney general in november. paul kane writing that many yearrats were harsher last when the senate colleague al franken faced allegations of groping women and other inappropriate sexual advances within an hour of the first senatoron, heiress and kiersten gillibrand made it clear they would not spare the senator because he was a leading liberal and paul kane also congressional no doubt -- democrats have called for a house ethics committee investigation into allison -- ellison.

kiersten gillibrand has not issued a statement and her press office did not respond to her request for comment on wednesday. that story follows on in paul kane's column in "the post." susanna, independent line. caller: good morning. i am serving currently as a u.n. human rights commissioner. my top story of the week has been the excellent coverage you all had of the unique hearing with regard to the child migrant detainees. it was excellent. i highly recommend people take a look at that. we have four individuals responsible in the process for clarity and transparency of these children. the chief officer in charge of the entire process -- it was actually claiming that children were missing and his

whites commander jonathan . he is a public health service commissioner and responsible for the oversight of that. thatd two individuals slighted any kind of responsibility and kept pushing and would notes claim they had "authority" or funding in order to do that. we had excellent senators on the senate subcommittee for homeland security and over this process kept asking them in particular for details and even offered to sendpeople -- their staff information so it would not be a federal versus state issue and ducking and stop diving in regards to this issue. host: quickly if you want to make that final point, please. caller: chicago, we are working

on the violence issue, on the long time -- i am a longtime activist and organizer. the media will only cover drama. the work we are doing at the local level is amazing. thank you. host: that hearing is available inour website at c-span.org front of that senate subcommittee with officials from a variety of departments taking a look at the topic of unaccompanied immigrant children. richmond, virginia, mary, go ahead. caller: i am also calling about the immigration senate hearing yesterday and i have the opposite point of view. i felt senators bullied the bureaucrats who have had to deal with catch and release, which has been mandated by a judge and nobody ever calls a judge before the senate committees and asked them why they have thwarted and complicated our immigration laws

. that is all i have to say. host: that is mary in richmond, virginia. many photos this morning of aretha franklin since the announcing of her death yesterday. this is "the new york times" take on it. there is a story that talks about how she has been involved here in washington, d.c. performing with an appearing for several presidents, saying her history of performances began in 1977 when she was one of the artists who play for jimmy .arter's inaugural gala she was among the heavy hitting lineup of stars who performed at the event's for president bill clinton in 1993. this also highlighting the story in the "post," that it was george w. bush who awarded her the presidential medal of freedom. that was the highest civilian honor in 2005 and barack obama continuing the tradition of

fandom, inviting franklin to perform at the swearing-in ceremony on the capitol steps in 2008. president trump made his thoughts knowns about -- thoughts known about aretha franklin. [video clip] >> i want to begin by expressing my condolences to the family of a person i knew well. she worked for me on numerous occasions, she was terrific. a recess -- aretha franklin on her passing. her legacy will thrive and inspire many generations to come. she was given a great gift from god, her voice and she used it well. people loved aretha. i wanted to pass on my warm wishes and sympathies to her family. host: several tweets related to the passing of aretha franklin. "aretha helped the find the american experience. feel power and pain,

darkness and light, our request for redemption and hard-won respect." this is from michigan "she raised her voice when women were not heard, demanded respect when women got none. she was a powerful black woman when black women were denied any power. there will never be another like her." also claire mccaskill of you and yourspect, music lifted me up during many difficult times in my life. it was hard for me to stay down while listening to you. thank you, aretha franklin. " imprint onnklin's american culture will ring through generations. the world is better because of her." the heavenlygraham " choir just got more soulful." republican line, go ahead. caller: pedro, earlier you

called it the "courier journal" that they had a piece on rand paul. "the courier-journal" is nothing like it used to be. it used to be a paper where presidents read it every morning. it is not even a shadow of what the newspaper used to be. i lived in louisville and used to take the career. -- courier. it has gone so far left it is unbelievable. clapper,nan, james james comey, these guys should be held accountable for breaking the law. james clapper lied to the congress of the united states. john brennan lied to the congress of the united states and they were not held accountable. they had come back and say i miss spoke. they did not miss speak, they goes allenda and it

the way to barack obama and it will be proven that they have tried to overthrow a duly elected president of the united states. , never,o be a democrat ever again, pedro. host: new york, republican line, sean, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i just had a few comments. one about mr. brennan. they are proven liars and leakers, all of them. this is getting totally ridiculous and any american that --ieves in the kind of should be concerned. i would like to praise -- on excellent journalism. if it wasn't for those gut -- for those two, sarah carter and john solomon, we would not know what was going on. host: such as what? caller: they have reported things on john brennan and

christopher steele and their correspondents last night. it is good stuff finally getting released. host: give us the gist of the story they published? caller: it is just correspondents between christopher steele and bruce -- which says something about firewalls for certain things. i am not sure exactly what, pedro. it is very suspicious on the correspondents and there is correspondents with -- where the dossier came from and -- hehristopher steele says it is like a 50-50 shot it is true. maybe even he did not believe in it, but it was forwarded. host: shreveport, louisiana, democrats line. be democrat,sed to

now republican. host: i am going to have to put you on pause because you are calling on the line for democrats. if you identify as republican i will ask you to hold and get reassigned. louis from go to pennsylvania. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i want to say one thing. a good reporter never gives his opinion. he is only there to report the news. this is what leads to communism, when they start sticking their opinion in. they have no right to do that. just report the news as it is and nothing else. host: what are you specifically referring to? caller: all stories. all stories. i have seen this over and over about them sticking their opinions in. they are not getting paid to

give their opinion. they are getting paid to report the news and they must report the news as it is, only the news. host: give me an example where you saw an opinion in a story reporting? caller: i watch the news constantly. host: give me a specific. caller: tonight, on any story. he says, she says, you are not there for he says, she says. this is how it is. host: ok. anna in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i have three points. the first point i wanted to make is i have read on the internet mr. brennan has converted to islam. the more important point is that the end of world war ii, we agreed to take britain's part in the world and that is why we and wars ind fury

foreign places. we are taking the part -- of the british empire. -- i believenow everybody should go to this dance. i want obama's sealed records opened up as well and i feel we should look into all of our foreign aid and foreign troops and bring them home and use them for our country and make america the way it should be. host: consumer spending the top of "the-- top story wall street journal," looking at specific retailers saying walmart said quarterly sales rose at the fastest rate in over a decade. home depot reported sales were the strongest in five years. --dstrom said duty products beauty product sales were extremely strong. the retail apocalypse everyone had been talking about really hadn't happened, that was eric

rosenthal, the senior director of finance at stitch ratings. from earnie in illinois. caller: i am watching and heard a gentleman from new york moment ago talked to you about comey, brennan, klapper, strzok, and others who need to be made accountable. the two journalists responsible for bringing the information to the public are john solomon and sarah carter. these two people deserve some kind of an award. without their hard work, many of us would not know all of these documents now that are being presented. all of these documents that have not yet been presented by the justice department. there is another guy by the name of tom sitton and i think he is in -- he is with judicial watch and he is working like crazy to get these documents for the american people.

people don't know this because they watch certain networks. if you watch sean hannity, a lot of people don't watch him, but watch sean hannity and listen to markle event and you will hear all the details about -- listen to mark levin. mr. klapper and comey try to overthrow a duly elected president. host: in maryland, democrats line, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. thank you for the opportunity. i am calling in reference to the revoking of the security clearance. the securityl get clearance through a process of background checks. in reference to this issue, most of the people -- for example, jeff sessions, he lied in front of congress. for example, the secretary of state who reported at the

helsinki conference, he could not inform the american people with respect to what happened or took place between the president and president putin. all these people with security clearances have not delivered. speaksave somebody who up, irrespective of what the media is showing us today, we cannot justify revoking the secure declares of someone who has been in power, been in the federal government for so long and has some of our secrets. there is no justification with respect to that. because of the confrontation between republicans and democrats, we choose whom to support with respect to revoking security clearance or not. host: let's go to ron in ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i enjoy c-span, mr. pedro.

i have a comment. wanted john- i kasich in there because he had more political experience than donald trump and on the other side of the coin, president trump is a very successful businessman. our economy was at a low point. the reason i trusted donald trump because of his stance on the abortion issue. i don't necessarily agree with his stance on the homosexual issue. host: we are asking people to talk about the top story of the week. what would be yours? caller: my top story. the intricacies of what is going on in washington between comey and strzok. i have been focusing on that much. i like to listen and i think donald -- i don't like tillerson

and i think donald should have gotten rid of him. caller: i am a 39 year watch her of c-span.- watcher it is still the most objective news broadcast, but i want to make a quick comment regarding john brennan's revocation of security clearance. i think it was wrong and i think the president is wrong and i think americans should look at the service of john brennan compared to the service of a president. mr. brennan has served the country and the president is taking all the profit he can make for himself and his family. there should be objectivity. i think a lot of your callers are misinformed about mr. brennan. i love your show. i continue to watch after 39 years and i will continue to do

so. you and the crew do a great job. host: i appreciate you calling and watching. tennessee, republican line, you will be the last call for this segment. caller: my comment is about the donald trump is basically reacting offensively because the mainstream media has not been reporting accurately, they have been underreporting the truth. , tom fenton and other reporters are going out and making these other reports the dossier and everything. the top story then, is this the response from the editorial page of this week? is that is what is spurring this? it's an ongoing

situation because if i had not been watching fox news, if we relied upon cnn and others, you are not going to get the truth. host: james is the last call for week in story of the washington. i appreciate all of you who are participating. coming up two guests joining us, talking about different things. we will be joined by cheryl chumley from the washington times, getting a take on her stories from -- on news stories from this week. and joining us later is lawrence lessig, who is joining in a lawsuit designed in part to challenge the electoral college. we will talk about that lawsuit and the progress he has been making on that. we had seen earlier about president trump's response to the death of a writ -- aretha franklin. here is a portion of aretha franklin performing my attry'tis of thee

president obama's inauguration in 2009. ♪ my country,'tis of the, sweet land of liberty, i sing. land where my father died. cry.of the pilgrim's from every mountainside.

let freedom ring. ♪ my country tis of thee ♪]

>> washington journal continues. host: a look at the u.s.

capitol, the senate is still working during portions of summer, the house will take a pro forma session at 9:00 today, when they come in for that very short session, we will take it live. when it is done we will go back to resuming our normal programming on this washington journal. joining us today in a discussion of news of the day is cheryl chumley with the washington times. she served as an online opinion evidence -- editor and is you to talk about many things. thank you for joining us. guest: it's great to be here. host: we were asking people about top stories of the week in the previous segment. from the look of everything that broke this week, what caused the most attention for you. guest: definitely the yanking of securityennan's clearance. it's not a much the active yanking of the clearance, but the leftist response to it, as if this was something horrific and unheard of. i would like to point out that his security clearance is not a

right, it's a privilege. when you have someone like james ,rennan who takes to twitter and constantly wades into the political world and dr. goes on -- and actually goes on msnbc to use his security clearance to further his political agenda, i think the white house did the right thing. he saidu also saw that this in part is an act by the president to silence him, what do you think about that argument? guest: i think it's thin. no one is trying to silence him, i don't understand how he is being silenced. if his twitter account shutdown perhaps he would have a case for censorship. he was being prevented from writing offense in major newspapers -- off --op-ed's in major new paint -- major newspapers. but this guy has been in the public for the last couple days

more than you seen him in the last couple months. to say that his right to speak freely is being shuttered is disingenuous. host: we see the potential of more these of security revoked, do you think there are unintended consequences, particularly among those who need those in the security world? guest: i don't. the big reason why is that these are not rights to maintain your security clearance. there's only an allete few who few who ared elite allowed to maintain them. when your regular folk depart from the government they have to turn in their security clearances, or they are only allowed to maintain them for -- for a limited amount of time. idon't see consequences but do see political repercussions that democrats will use this to their vantage. host: such as how? guest: such as how we are seeing now, we see the left carrying james ryman and his rhetoric as -- brennan and his rhetoric as

if he has a real case. ridiculous. the guys a lot to speak as freely as he wants, he's all over the media, so he's having more speech opportunities than he did when he had his security clearance. to hearr guest is here your questions and comments. if you want to ask your questions you can call in (202) 748-8001for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. i'm sure is, what did you think about the responses of those newspapers across the united states, several hundred taking a look at the statements that donald trump has said about the media. main message was that this white house, this president, president donald trump is pushing these media

outlets into some sort of coward of chilled speech. i have to say that's ridiculous. these are newspapers, they have free speech. there's an old adage that says you don't argue with someone in the media because they are always going to get the last word. attitude,f an elitist as if the media is justified in attacking the white house as it has done, and another the white house is supposed to stand back and do nothing. i'm not impressed with the response from the media. host: the white house's response, what do you think generally about the president that he calls the media the enemy of the people, particularly for industries like yours? take ai step back and longer look at this. if you go back to the campaign days, there was not a who was more mocked or vilified or cast

as a circuit -- circus act. the attacks started early and came first from the media. i think donald trump, unlike standsher candidates, alone in the fact that he is not going to take that. he is not going to be diplomatic. he's not going to take the attacks. he takes to twitter and he goes on twitter rants. say what you want about him, the american people have an unfiltered way of viewing this president. host: is there a balancing act, especially when you do reporting's about this white house and its activity even if they cast a negative light and what you talk about is the response you see as members from the medium -- the media. guest: of course i cherish the first amendment, it's my job, --

it's not just my job but it's one of the liberties i love. i'm hesitant whenever someone is pushed out of the white house briefing. to me, that has to be something the media person did that was very over the top to justify throwing them out of the meeting. house hask this white staged an unprecedented attack. it's been coordinated. you saw the national review pen letters, saying they did not want president trump to be president. they did not think he is sick. a nicely the other side of the equation, the mainstream media newspapers around the united states coordinating and attacking this president. these are the times we are in and i don't think it will change. host: when you write that about the president, how do you make that balance for you, as far as addressing the white house and its actions versus your opinion

of the white house and its actions? guest: i did criticize the white house for the most recent fromng of the cnn reporter everything. but on the other hand, i stand by the right to tweet, and his ability to speak unfiltered to the public. when i write in my opinion pieces i look at what is coming out of this white house in terms of policy i don't go back and forth with what donald trump says and what the media says. that's getting in the weeds. i think most americans care about core principles and policies coming out of the white house. the economy and so forth. that's what i try to focus on. host: those can be found at washington times.com, cheryl chumley our guest, how often do you write? wendy know you are going to write about something, is it something that catches your attention, how do you go about the process? guest: i write every day in a

section called rapid reaction, where i weigh in and give my opinion on things that are breaking on the day-to-day. that is dictated by what the news of the day is. write ae times a week i more thoughtful commentary on things that struck me as important. the state of our rights and what goes on that violates our conflicts with them. i decide that based on my own worldview, which is christian conservativism. i look for things that conflict with that that i think americans need to be told about. host: our first call comes from mike, in richmond, virginia, on the republican line. there are so many things

i want to talk about, i will try to keep it short of down to this freedom of the press being under attack stuff. it's hilarious to me. tank,ess has been in the at the bottom of the tank, to the democratic party for at least 85 years. everything they do revolves around making republicans look bad and democrats look good, the ,ay they manipulate poll data the way they slant stories. that's one aspect of it. the second, the first amendment prohibits congress from making laws that restrict freedom of the press. it does not restrict the president from criticizing the press when the press gangs up on him. i will leave it at that.

i have a list of 30 things that happened over this -- and i know i can stay on long. host: thank you for the call. guest: thank you mike, it was nice to hear from you. just to tail off of that and give it a more positive spin, you are right the press is constantly in the tank as far as poll numbers and trust from the people. but the industry we are in now has changed so much from 20 to 30 years ago that the average citizen can hop online, turn on a radio station, turn on c-span for crying out loud which i think most americans love because it's unfiltered. but there are so many different cable and news outlets to choose from. there are bloggers, radios, there are so many tools where americans can equipped themselves with the truth they need to make decisions. i think you are right that the

press has lost the trust of the american people. for this goodness active media that we have, from social media to online news to the cable stations. it empowers us to make better choices. host: because of that do think --in how theye make their opinions? respects i think people dig in and have their favorites and they stand by them and they go with the talking points of the same old same old. i think the millennials coming up, they are social media savvy and we are going to see this new insurgents of intelligent voters that we have not been able to see in past years because of the limits. ohio, onm cleveland, the democrat line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. c-span does amazing work. mr. trump in i was wondering, last week there was a special election in the 12th district here in ohio. the democrat, daniel connor is running against troy balderson. it's a district that would thelly not be competitive, last winner won by upwards of 20 points, but this time the election was within about 1500 votes, the republican still won. democratics not a victory looks good for democrats because he was able to turning usually noncompetitive district into a competitive race. i was wondering which are thoughts were? guest: of course it looks better for democrats if it had been a complete blowout. republicans are claiming it as a win, a referendum on donald

trump because they say it's due to his last-minute way in and support thatnd brought republicans of the lead. but the fact is if you look at the midterms now, if you look at the special elections, the democrats are without a doubt energized. that's due almost entirely to donald trump, white house policies, and so forth. i think that's pretty typical of what happens in most elections. you have to remember that midterms and special elections are different beasts than the main election. the real truth will come in november. host: what is your gut telling you when it comes to the november elections, i know it's -- but what do you think? guest: i think republican still hold the house but they will lose some of their seats. independentour line, raymond, rockwood dennis eads.

caller: i'm 79 years old and i've worked at the oak ridge tennessee at the department of dispatch. i was a small welder with no priority. i had a clearance. ien i work -- when i retired signed an affidavit saying i would not reveal what i worked on for the rest of my life. and i'm not spoken of it -- if i had spoken of it i would've spent 10 years in prison. i wonder if brenner signed the same paperwork. thank you. i think you hit the nail on the head of what is nagging him most americans. it's the disparity. it's the insider d.c. versus the joe.ge jane and i think that is what nags at americans. they want to know that their

political elites are being treated the same as they are back in their hometowns. this is the latest tweet from the president, concerning that military parade he has spoken about in the past, saying the local politicians who run no angton, d.c., poorly, windfall when they see it. when asked to give the price for holding a parade they wanted a number so ridiculously high that i canceled it. i will instead attend a parade scheduled at andrews air force base at a different date and go to the paris celebration at the end of the war on the 11th and maybe we will do something next .ear when the cost is down because the parade was estimated at 92 million dollars. what do you think about the idea of the parade? ambivalent. little i'm a military veteran, i have a natural affinity for the military. i support them and i think most americans love the military.

but to be honest, i would much rather see any money spent for to parade instead be put toward .eterans organizations you have hospitals, the v.a., all kinds of nonprofits, charities that could benefit veterans and their families and i think would be a much better show of affection for the military and they must better expenditure of taxpayer dollars. in newrom leah, hampshire on the republican line. caller: it is ridiculous, this claim that he is trying to stifle the press. i think that what needs to happen is he needs to grant immunity to julian assange, who is been asked to go before the senate to testify in the russian investigation. julian assange has said it did not come from russia or any

intermediary. i don't know if you could speak to veteran intelligence , for sanity. they were formed in 2003. they do good work and what they an attack.s is not it's a leak. that the download speeds would not have allowed for this to be a hack, but it was done on site. one less thing, julian assange was on a dutch program shortly ,fter this happened and he said what he intimated was that seth rich was involved. he brought him up unannounced and the person asked him what are you saying? and he said i'm not giving up my source, but he did.

, -- professionals have said this was a leak from inside. and julian assange said russia has nothing to do with it. host: with gotcha guest:. we have to let our guest respond. briefly, i think that fake dative idea to have him -- that is a creative idea to have him testify. host: i will take you back to august 8, there's a reporting of several platforms and alex jones not being permitted on those platforms. what is your take about the actions? guest: i'm in full support of alex jones is right to use social media platforms to get his opinions out there.

the booting of alex jones was a travesty. it looks like a coordinated andrt to build him destroyed his ability to communicate. . find it humorous but it has backlash so badly. i think he is picked up a few more followers and i think that's great on his part. whenever you hear about any member of the media, far right , i don't like to hear any of them being booted from social media. host: and the claims he's made in the past, things about sandy hook, what do you think about those claims, do you buy them wholesale? guest: i don't agree with what

he says and i probably don't agree with half of what he says at least. the fact is he has a right to say it. -- is right toor speak freely. not only do i believe in free speech but i'd much rather have ,he people that i disagree with i'd rather have their opinions in the public so we can all see them for what they are instead of keeping those opinions behind closed doors. eric, goodmaryland, morning. caller: good morning. comments, initially related to the clearance, i work in the community and i have a clearance myself and it's true that having a clearance is absolutely a privilege not a right. in no shape or form it suppresses anybody's ability to get communications out there regardless. it's very easy for a lot of the

left to grab on this and make it seem like brendan and -- brennan and others are having their voices suppressed. it's a decision by the employer themselves to revoke that clearance and it enables them to not have entire access to certain classified materials. that's a little nonsensical. related to the press, there has been a concerted effort to criticize conservative viewpoints from all accounts. he spoke about alex jones specifically. there are a lot of leftist propaganda that continues to exist on the platform. i do not align with alex jones, but either way, it seems like it has become a situation in the media where it's only free speech if you follow our beliefs . we are seeing that with children with the way their institutionalized in college.

democratic lot of aligned children allowed to have rallies in any time any conservatives come on, they are getting passes revoked. it's unfortunate. i think a lot of americans are waking up and seeing what is going on. host: let's leave it there because you put a lot out there. guest: well said, thank you for those comments. in briefly to point out one about the shutting down of some peoples of speech versus others, i would like to point out that those who favor ortting down alex jones proceed races -- racist and lookynists, you have to forward a few years. what happened is that same shutdown gets turned around on your own people.

on your own political views and people who espouse those views? these are real situations. once you start shuttering free speech, or choosing sides on who gets to speak versus who doesn't, there is always the chance and it's more than a chance at the likelihood that that will come around and bite .ou in the butt it will go to the point where few people are able to speech, so let's take a longer-term approach. that factor in the fact some of these platforms are social media platforms in the far as technology, as what you see her concerns about free speech. guest: the whole artificial intelligence fueled algorithms and so forth, i know that those in the tech world like to shield themselves from criticism by pointing to the fact that we've instilled these algorithms to

make things equal. and taken unbiased approach to who gets to stay on a social media site. but the problem with algorithms is that they are programmed by humans. the bias is contained within humans we've into algorithms. that's not a good justification. i don't favor government regulation, i think there are more creative uses out there and one i brought up inane -- in an amendmentece was an to the title vii civil rights act to add in political affiliation. eeoc still has restriction over title vii, but it sets a strong message that political beliefs are something that cannot be discriminated against. host: brad, on the democrats

line, from new jersey. hello. caller: i want to talk about with them going on in the senate , which no one is paying much attention to. everyone's talking about omarosa and john brennan. the senatecans in are continuing to attack the endangered species act, they don't care if the sage grass goes extinct so long as the oil companies can make money drilling in the habitat. the senator from wyoming is trying to weaken the clay border act, bash the clean water act. -- the clean water act. a lot of people do not buy their water they have to drink tap water or well water and we need to protect our drinking water. public health has to come before the profits of energy companies. that's my comment.

you for the comment. briefly because i could talk about environmental issues and private property rights for hours, but the esa is not about providing for the citizens and ensuring that they have access to preservation. it's not about protecting wildlife is so much as it is about giving environmental lobbies and washington, d.c. control. property right should dictate how are environmental is an policy goes forward. host: you go to the website to --k about the rapid response guest: rapid reactions. one has i'm correct, been written about omarosa. guest: i written a couple pieces about her because, it's talked

about in the news and this is a huge white house issue that the media is fueling. the reason i have written about she is not i think bringing anything to the table to put herself in a good light. , in mys like the proof mind, only goes to support what the white house has put out in thingof donald trump surprise she was fired and in the latest audio, conversations with lara trump. trump on the audio made the omarosa you can work for the white house but you have to keep things quiet. that's just saying the obvious. if you work for the white house you are expected to keep in-house discussions. she has broken the principal and made recordings that if not

legally questionable are definitely morally questionable, and in my view places national security at risk. on the democrats line, vanessa from washington, d.c.. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i think it's a little disingenuous to blame the media for reporting the news . it is not a media that is making the news, it's the president of the united states. if he comes out and he makes racist or misogynistic statements, and the news reports that, how is that their fault? and everyone has become the fbi, the media, now it's omarosa. ?o say she is feeling this -- fueling this? the white house had no business hiring her but now that she has one minuteiness, she's his best friend and an next minute he doesn't want to

be bothered. he makes horrible decisions and everyone else gets blamed except for him. he is the main culprit. host: thank you. as far as the media fueling the narrative, what trump said is true, the media reports what he says. the media has control over what is reported versus what is not reported, where the placement of the report says and how the context is played and how the narrative plays out. feedf those things cede -- the question of bias. as a member of the media i can tell you it is not hard to find the report. you can quote somebody and then you can quote someone criticizing that person and then the criticize or becomes the headline. i have yet to see where donald

trump has made outright statements that are racist or misogynistic. but i often see the media taking statements he has made out of context are going to their opponents and getting -- their pundits and using that to feel the narrative. host: besides her work at the washington times she is the author of two books, winning back the country from the beast in washington and policing usa, how orwell's nightmare is becoming our reality. one of those recent pieces if people want to look up themselves as technology. i have been covering -- excuse me -- i have been covering artificial intelligence since january. the police have, at their disposal, technology were they can help law enforcement officers identify the location

of gunfire. that sounds great. everyone is in favor of police officers being protected and going home safely. i'm a big supporter of police. the problem is that it requires you to place in the community, listening and audiovisual recording devices which feeds back into a software and computers at the headquarters area and alerts police. safe,want police to be that's great. if we want them to be safe at the expense of the price -- of our privacy rights we need to consider technology like this and think about whether the ends justify the means. host: also one of your pieces takes a look at a recent statement by andrew cuomo, tell us not only what he said but what was your reaction to the response of what he said. york, the governor of new

for crying a lot, to say america -- it's so great egregious. , theant public servants people you're paying to represent you, you want them to hold your country in as higher regard as you do. for him to come out and say america is not that great leads to the obvious question, why are you here? don, on the independent line in texas. hello. caller: i have a couple of questions, mainly on standards or newspapers s.gumentation and as far as russian

interference, i don't think they have to do it anymore because --se same organizations host: thanks. guest: as for the media pushing opinions, so what? if you are going to be an opinion writer it should be noted. if you're going to be a in his person you should keep your opinion free. i have done both. ,hen i warn the reporter had i've kept my opinion out of my pieces. when i do the opinion i try to we the facts into the opinion. but it goes towards having a vibrant and active press. host: at the washington times, how is that done to keep the news reporting and the opinion

reporting from mingling? west: in the print version have different pages in different sections that are clearly marked. the online version is a lot harder to data, as you probably yourself now. if you look on my pieces it says clearly at the top it says " /opinion" from a lot of feedback people who think i'm a straight reporter and they speak critically about me injecting my opinion into my pieces even though they are clearly marked opinions. readers could be more alert to tabs. --anne, on the independent line. i wanted to ask, do you revocation of brennan security clearance could

be better explained? his security clearance and certain rums may not be taken away, but he will be allowed to go online and do things that he might and things that undermine the security clearance because he didn't have certain tears taken away? i like your opinion having to do with the washington post and how you as a journalist at the washington times get along with each other. thank you. tears,as far security you brought forward a good idea, and probably some member of the media would jump on that story. i think some clarification is needed. as far as how i get along with other journalists who write for competing newspapers, i get

along fine. something, i do my don't have her in groups. groups.'t hover in host: charles, on the republican line. caller: i have a question on she's been refreshing to listen to and i would like to understand about the ultrasound. development begins at conception, they have dna and they grow. that's what we all do. jesus loves us, everyone. we are all sinners. my question was, when they do it ultrasound and they let the

woman who is pregnant see that, there are 80% of them that do abortion.n but abortion people are losing money. host: thanks. know, it's a sad issue for both sides. i know a few women who run to and are relieved the procedure had been done. that is not to say that there are not women out there like that, but i would say that abortion is probably going to take a political hot seat in the weeks to come with new supreme court nominees coming in. i don't have much else to say right now about that. host: as far as brett kavanaugh do you think that will be the main frame of how the senate confirmation will go? guest: i hope not. i hope it's about the main issue

. i think it's going to be brought liked i do -- but it's that for all supreme court justices and i think you'll be vetted in that. i hope we don't focus on a single issue for supreme court nominee. int: do you think that reality, if he gets his supreme court does roe v. wade become a viable case that could be overturned? guest: there's a valid argument to be made that abortion should be a state issue. from virginia, kay, on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i been watching c-span for almost 20 years. i would like to speak to the lady on a few issues and i will be quick. in regards to the governor of to york, when he referred not being great i don't think

that there's a problem with that , if the president said he was going to make america great. what's the difference? that means america was in grade already. -- great already. you got someone to give you evidence to house the the president has been races, you've been reporter and i thought you should know this better than anyone. just imagine what he did with -- he called to have best the new york five, he had been called back in jail. players,lled the nfl black players, sob's. his behavior has been so rampant , i don't know if you have a special-needs child but if you do you should be ashamed of what this president is doing.

that's the reason i did not vote for him. host: thank you. guest: there's quite a few issues there. callingt, the president black nfl players sob's. he talked about the coaches calling them that, which is a thin distinction but a distinction. nflid not say black players, he cannot help it is most or all or whatever percentage of kneeling nfl players are black versus white versus hispanic, that's not his call. he's talking about the kneeling. the reason is talking about the kneeling is because he thinks it goes against american principles. cuomo, he talked about the reason that america was not back rate was because women -- that great was that women do not have the same rights as men.

he spoke of social justice issues as if there has been some systemic,ng inherent, from the founding father issues -- years, that there's been some sort of racial and female sit -- disparity and nowadays how men and women can equally apply for jobs, and so forth. i think we have in this country, regardless of sex, race, and so forth, we have the right to pursue our notions of success and happiness. i don't think he is saying america has never been that great, does anything except motivates his left base to cheer. i'm not familiar with the new york issue, and i think you had another. host: he talked about the general behavior of the president at times. guest: that's a personal

opinion. his base loves it. they look at it like you're the president to his taking it to here is atate, -- president to his taking it to the deep state. but there are republicans who don't like it and would rather trump keep his mouth shut and stay off twitter entirely. there are republicans absolutely detest donald trump because they cannot get past the way he speaks and tweets. they cannot get past enough to look at the policies he puts forward. and the leftist not going to like -- the left is not going to like whoever is wearing and our button. host: betty, in virginia beach. quickly i have a couple of real quick points. i was very sad when they took away the clearance for john brennan. i like him.

, know he has freedom of speech but he should of been able to keep his clearance and i'm happy about all of the people that came out from the intelligence community to stick up for john. especially that man, i think his name is craven? that was wonderful. beond point you have to death or live on another planet to not know that president trump does not come out with racial and misogynist remarks. really. i don't mean to insult you ma'am, i really don't, but i cannot believe that a reporter like you could say such a thing. if he does not do it on a daily basis he does it at least a weekly basis. is only thing i agreed with alex jones. i despise him, i'm originally from sandy hook. my daughter and grandson was in

lockdown on that horrible day. all schools on newtown where unlocked on that day. i had to center a text message will she was in lockdown and she was able to text me back. host: thank you. guest: i'm obviously not deaf or living on a different planet, so i will double down. that i see nothing that points to donald trump as being a racist or misogynist. guest: as far as your future columns, where you looking at reporting? be staying with the artificial intelligence, it's one of the most underreported issues in the main media. you have to go to special tech outlets and journals to get news on that, as important going forward. i will be watching the manna for trial like everyone -- the manafort trial like everyone,

and the supreme court. host: cheryl chumley, and opinion editor from the washington post -- washington times, you can see her work on their website. thank you for your time. we will talk about the future of the electoral college and one person who would like to see the change, lawrence lessig is discussing the losses he is joined to challenge that system. bythe c-span bus has arrived boat in hawaii, for the 39th stop of our 50 capitals tour. we are on the island of a lot who, visiting the capital, honolulu, with the help of our cable partners. >> we are excited to have staff here in hawaii, especially with the aloha spirit we can share with the history and the culture. this is a great opportunity to

showcase hawaii, welcome and a loja. --aloha. >> i would like to welcome c-span and its impressive bus that's going all over our nation. while in hawaii, i noted they will enjoy the beauty, the sunshine, and the loja --aloha of the 50th straight -- state. i hope they feel the spirit as the bus embarks on his discovery of a as part of its capital store. therefore, the governor -- i is the lieutenant governor, i proclaim august 15 through the august -- through august 22 of c-span we can hawaii. october 6 and seventh on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free app.

>> sunday night on afterwards, a retired marine corps lieutenant on gender bias in the military, she is interviewed by todd south. >> is a female marine is not really catered to -- i'm sorry not paid attention to to develop her as a quality marine, and not held to a high standard coming out of boot camp how does that affect her career and the perception of her by her colleagues? that becausem is the marine corps does not want to change what happens at that foundational level, and because everything is so segregated, those stereotypes persist. and the stereotypes feed into the perception that women cannot because they are women, then they are not respected and the lack of respect between men and women in the marine corps is legendary.

stuff that you hear in the swap space. you hear male recruits have to be -- will happen to be slower that they are women, that they are the p-word, and that they should be sent to the fourth battalion. it becomes normal to say derogatory things about women. that womendilemma have in the marine corps, that is the culture they are then brought into. >> watch afterwards, sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span twos book -- c-span2's tv. >> washington journal continues. host: the house of representatives in pro forma session, coming up at 9:00 today. we will take you to that when it happens. joining us from harvard law school's professional lawrence lessig for a discussion about the electoral college. good morning. guest: good morning. your before you talk about

efforts on seen these potential changes with the electoral college, what are your concerns about its makeup? the electoral college is in the constitution, but the constitution does not actually specify how the electors in each state will be allocated. right now, all but two states allocate their electors according to something called winner take all. the prisoner gets the most votes gets all of the electors. that sounds innocent enough but what it actually does is it statesnly about 12 to 14 are actually relevant to the presidential election. in 2016, 99% of spending was in 14 states. that means that if the president's care about those 14 states and not the rest about the -- that means the president only cares about is 14 states and not the rest the country. we don't believe that in the principles of the democracy or the constitution itself, it denies the rights of individuals who happen to be the minority in

these other states. andould like to challenge we are challenging this winner take all system. host: was the legal strategy? 100 -- what is the legal strategy? ago, --nder 50 years 150 years ago, the state ratified the 14th amendment, which had the equality principle which the supreme court started articulating in a forceful way as applies to voting. , one vote. which the court applied in bush versus gore when it decided that the election had to go for george bush. that principle says that every vote within a state has got to be counted equally. what we say is that the winner take all system for counting up the vote and then throwing away the votes could be up to 49.9% of the population. we think that violates the principle of one person one vote and is the basic core of the

strategy we've been pursuing. host: you mentioned bush and the, was this effort shaped because of the last election? guest: my think a lot of people have recognized that this call a of what we minority elected president, a person who loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college is not just a once every hundred year problem. that's what i thought it was in 2000 but after 2016, statisticians started looking at demographics in america and the estimates are anywhere from 20 to 40% chance that an election is going to produce a minority elected president. not always a republican, you remember in 2004 with 50,000 votes in ohio, if they had switched to john kerry would have won the electoral college that lost the popular vote. this is a problem that affects

republicans and democrats and it's basically a product of this winner take all system, given the changing demographics of the country. not want a system where the person who loses the popular vote becomes president. but the really critical problems in the system is not bad so much as the president is representing a fraction, literally 35% of the population of the country. the whole country deserves to have a president who cares to win their vote. with 306sident trump electoral votes, winning the presidency but only with 62 million popular votes and hillary clinton gaining 232 electoral votes, with her popular road at 65 million -- with her popular vote at 65 million. if you see these changes, what do you think happens to the art of campaigning, which people have said some states are

considered over others. does it fundamentally change how campaigns are managed? guest: absolutely. and in a good way. right now, candidates worry just about these battleground states. we can show the policy, like spending policy and regulatory policy is adopted in order to make battleground states happy. if you change the way we elect if electors were allocated proportionally for example, then candidates would have an interest in campaigning everywhere in the united states. inocrats could win votes texas, republicans would try to win votes in california. be in play would because the ultimate objective is just to win votes. that would produce a president who's concerned about the whole country. representing the whole country. rather than happening to represent the most purple states. host: a discussion taking look

at the electoral college. is talking about his legal efforts him and other people involved, if you want to ask questions its (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. what do you think about other attempts in the past to get this done? guest: there have been attempts to amend the constitution and that incredibly difficult, there's also a national popular vote compact were states are pledged to make their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote and that would be another solution to the problem but that is stalled because it requires lots of support and republicans are not yet found it. we believe this is a strategy that could force reform in a

much more effective way, more consistent with the objectives of the framers. house of representatives is just about to come in for the pro forma session and we take you to that now and resume our conversation when they finish.

our citizens, may harmony and justice be secured and may there be lasting prosperity and peace. y the work of this chamber contribute to these ends and may the members of this house be blessed and strengthened to accomplish it. bless us all, lord, to enable our contributions to build up a nation in the kingdom where you reign. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2-a of house resolution 1012, the journal of the last day's proceedings are approved.

the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on august 16, 2018, at 12:08 p.m., that the senate agreed to the amendment of the house of representatives to the bill senate 717, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following communications.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony issued by the u.s. district court for the central court of illinois in the above-referenced manner. after consultation with counsel i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed sincerely, mark roman. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony issued by the u.s. district court for the central district of illinois in the above-referenced matter. after consultation with counsel i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed sincerely, sarah rogers. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2-b of house resolution 1012, the house stands adjourned until

12:30 p.m. on tuesday, august 21, 2018. host: the returned organization with laura's lessig. this lawrence lessig. this is mark on with lawrence. caller: good morning. i just had a question, professor. if you could explain, a lot of us don't really know how the electoral college was put into the original documents so could you explain about that and could you explain also if you think the electoral college where it relies on those mains well states that it can be gerrymandered -- main 12 states, that it can be gerrymandered?

the electoral college was an innovation to deal with the problem the framers had which is never before in the history of the size had a country of the united states elected the president. they had to figure out how they were going to do it and some people want to direct election other people wanted congress to make the selection. they greeted his body that would be somewhere between those two extremes, but the purpose of the body was to act as an independent judgment about who the president should be. initially state legislatures would select the electors in the select, but very soon most states adopted a to monitor the system in it shouldime and

follow the result of the popular election. there's the result of the popular election which 2016 raised which was due electors have to do with the state does in the popular vote? electors voted against their pledge in 2016 another litigation, we are trying to clarify that question because it -- criticallinical constitutional crisis in the middle of a presidential determination, electors switch their vote and it changed the result of the election. we want to resolve that question separately, but the framers would have said the electors are free agents and get to do whatever they want. mutedssumption has been over time because we believe the electors are going to follow with the will of the public is. it's originally just a hack to deal with the problem that they never seen a national election before. now we have elections like this all across the country in really important district. as the gerrymandering point, the

12 or 14 states are not selected by law. they are selected because they theen to be states where , there's noo close clear winner. in texas, it has been such a solidly republican state since the modern era, there's no chance that the democrat is going to win it. the democrat doesn't campaign there because it would be a waste of time and the republican's campaign there because he or she has already won it. same thing with california and massachusetts in most states except for these battleground states. the battleground states could change, conceivably, a state like texas could become competitive again but our point is regardless of what those happen to be, they still create this incredible distortion so that presidential candidates are not thinking about every american, they are thinking about how did they win the tiny majority they need in each of those states in order to win the

electoral college. is frome next call johnston, pennsylvania, democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the electoral college should be limited and it violates the will of the people that i think majority rule should take place. we deserve better than second-best in this country as far as the candidates go. if this would happen to republicans, you would hear a primal scream from here to the land of the dueling banjos. we have to really do something and change the whole system, a really stinks as far as i'm concerned. thank you. guest: i know a lot of people share your view. a lot of people can't understand why women have a system that presidencylocate the to the person who gets the most votes. it's interesting to recognize that different system creates different incentives. the electoral college as it is

right now was winner take all, concentrates power in these few battleground states. if the electoral college allocated their votes proportionally, if you got 40% of the votes in the state you get 40% of the electors, than the small states of america would have more power than they have right now because they have more electors for m than big states. but if you have the national popular vote which is what the national popular vote compact would create where the winner would be the winner of the national popular vote is the states would pledge all of their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, then bigger states would have more power or more populous areas probably have more power because it would make more sense to be running in those districts. these are very different results what we recognize is that change the system requires the politicians to get together and agree to change the system. if you are going to amend the constitution or adopt the

national popular vote compact and i don't have a lot of faith in the politicians and stepping up and doing anything right now, quite frankly. we wanted to find a way to force this issue into the context of a , which is the supreme court and asked them to give us a principled reason why we should have a system that systematically elect the loser with a person who didn't win the popular vote and have no justification in what the constitution originally intended. the framers never imagined they would create a system where 14 states out of the 50 that we have would control the presidency is. this is not their plan. there's no good justification the form ofe want principle, the supreme court, to make a judgment on the basis of what makes sense for this republic. is theemind people what political process of making the amendment to the constitution to change the electoral college? that has to be an

amendment proposed either by congress to vote to support it or its proposed by convention of the states and two thirds of the states would have to call for such a convention. you have proposal on the table, then would take three quarters of the states to support it, which means 13 states could and ofny such amendments course, battleground states alone would be interested in blocking that amendment because in their view, the system benefits them. it's incredibly difficult to imagine our constitution being amended, is the general problem not just as it affects the what we arellege trying to do is the best we can, given that really critical constraint on our constitutional process. host: with the state compact, how many states would be needed to make that change in how many states have signed on?

the compact is triggered when the equivalent of 270 electors of joined. -- have joined great 12 states representing 165 electors that have joined. a veryblem is, they hit thick red wall because there is not yet a solidly republican state that has joined the compact. they could change, people are thinking about trying to bring referendum in states that allow referenda because what we know is that the public overwhelmingly supports the idea of a president who actually represents all america and what we know is the public is deeply skeptical as your earlier colors were of the electoral college system that seems to be just a random number generator increasingly in the selection of our president. if the people could decide, i think it would be an easy question, but we depend upon politicians to bring the national popular vote compact to

fruition and despite incredible hard work of many people literally sense bush versus gore, that still has not come to fruition. host: a tear for mark on the independent line. mark on ther for independent line. caller: were you actively involved in this litigation at an earlier date or is it just been since donald trump? reality is that bill clinton lost both election cycles popular vote. would you pursuing the affiliation at that point -- this litigation at that point? guest: bill clinton lose the popular vote, just didn't get a first election. you doesn't four, the was no litigation by wrote a piece on my blog when democrats were trying to challenge the results in ohio so that ohio was switch to john kerry and john kerry would be elected even though he lost the popular vote nationally

, i wrote a piece on my blog that said that's just wrong. -- have many of us said been really critical of the result because george bush lost the popular vote but was selected by the electoral college and many of us that was improper then and then for democrats to turn around and try to embrace the same idea in 2004 i thought was a real mistake. i've opposed the idea of the electoral college overcoming the popular vote as long as i've been involved. this misses. we've a strong desire to turn every issue into a partisan issue and i guess that area c-span is not part of the ratings war, but if this were fox news were msnbc, that would be the natural way that our commentators would take it. but here's the facts. regardless of whether you are republican or democrat, what the system is doing every single election is distorting the interest, the concerns of the presidential candidate. presidential candidate if you are an average american doesn't care about you.

what he or she cares about is the voter in this battleground state. and the question is not is this going to benefit republicans or democrats, the question americans should be asking is forget the parties, is this benefiting u.s. and american as you as an american? about thead care average or marginal voter in these few states and that was not planned by anybody, no framer of the constitution says this is a great idea. the constitution doesn't mandate this result. the question is why we allow it to survive, given how badly it serves the american democracy? host: who is funding and backing financially this effort? guest: we did a crowdfunding campaign last year to raise the funds, equal citizens did, to make it possible for us to kick this litigation often and david boys, the lawyer in bush versus firm tounteered his

take on the litigation. they are it all pro bono and we have to cover the cost of the experts and courts. this has become incredibly important volunteer efforts, we could have never afforded hiring attorneys because the lawsuit is being filed in four separate states. to blue states, california and massachusetts into red states, south carolina and texas. that's a massive amount of work which is being volunteered for free by their law firm to support this because they believe like we do not so much that we have to have one kind of president, a red president or a blue president of because we ought to have a president that represents america and they saw when we spoke -- when we pitched this case of the system is not producing that. host: from memphis, tennessee, democrat line. thank you taking my call

i certainly agree with the professor on this position. at the possibility of getting anything done in regard to the way the court the main is a cash is made up now it's also true that the electoral college the way to set favors the smallest states, three electoral votes that they get a really disproportionate to what they deserve as far as regular population. would hope that the professor is able to continue to do this, but i just have my doubts that it will succeed. i know that, especially we democrats are increasingly skeptical about the supreme court. i don't think we should be very i'm not a conservative, but i clerked for justice scalia and what i saw when i was at the court is justices try to work out with the right answer was from their own perspective. let's take the perspective of conservative justices. you're right, the framers set of

the electoral college to benefit small states. this does not benefit small states with winner take all. theer take all benefits battleground states. pennsylvania, ohio, florida, the small states. michigan. if they were to rule with us and say that the electors had to be allocated proportionally, that would restore the power of small states because you are right, montana all of a sudden would become a player because every candidate would say television is very cheap and montana and if i win a couple more votes, and i'd be able to win another election, some going to spend money paying attention to what montana cares about intending same thing with wyoming all small states where right now it makes no stents national no sense because small states are either totally very far to the left or right on it makes no sense to pay attention the small states. if we would win, it would make sense. constitutionf the did not want the system.

they did not want to concentrate power in a small group of states that are not even small states. if you down to the principle of equality that the one person one vote standard of weeks to come in and you could benefit small states the way the framers all ofd and give americans of play in selecting our president is. host: is an author named josiah who makes this part of the argument saying that the main effect of the college as to force candidates to campaign to try to win states without the college almost can would take place in major media centers like new york city and los speeches, pulling and reporting would focus even more than they do now on national issues without consideration of the particular states involved. guest: i think that if you choose between the national popular vote in the system we have right now, at the gardens. it's not a good argument against what we are arguing for. we are arguing for proportional

allocation of the electorate in each state. what that means is that every state is in play and it wouldn't make sense to spend all your time in new york and california because they don't have enough electors to win. the point is you would then be campaigning in many more states a new campaign in right now. right now, the concentrate their efforts in 14 states and 14 states might be better than for states -- four. if we win, they will be focusing and 45 states or more, every single state rather than the chance of winning electoral vote and that's what the fight ultimately is about, getting to join at 70 electoral college. the government has been thinking about there being two choices here either the existing system or national popular vote, what we are saying is there is a the thirdce and choice is actually closer to what the framers of our constitution were imagining, everything will state matters and small states matter most. and it's much more consistent than the existing system with

the principle of equality that the 14th amendment gave us. and that's different from what pearson and many people have been writing about. host: jeff in kentucky on a republican line. caller: i agree with what this gentleman is saying. i'm from a small town, saying we need to do away with the electoral college and also, we do away with the primaries and the way they are done. we need to have a one-day primary because by the time against us in kentucky, we've got to choose from what everybody else has done dropped out from. it's all about to say on that matter there. it change the primary system and the rule of delegates and superdelegates is the new system were put into place? a litigation not affect the primaries at all but i agree with the college of the primaries and turned out to be a really disastrous part of our system of democracy, not necessarily just the presidential level, but some -- especially at the congressional and senate level because what we know is the turnout primaries is

so low that it amplifies the power of the extreme left and the extreme right. the presidential level, it silences certain states fundamentally because if you are not in the first 5/8 -- five states, you are not going to matter. it created competitions of california, who people think of the favorite candidate in the democratic process in 2020, kamala harris, has moved up its primary to the california to become more relevant. and you could say it makes sense, california feels relevant to the general election, they might as well try to be relevant in the primary election, but i think we ought to think fundamentally about a better system so that we don't basically have three years of presidential campaigning in order to selecting the nominees of a presidential race are going to be. we ought to have this in a much more efficient and focused way and we do right now. host: from springfield,

missouri, independent line, hello. caller: good morning. professor, i think -- i disagree with you. the popular vote would always elect one party. and you woulde marginalize the center part of the country. we want a democratic republic, we do not want a pure democracy. i would like your statement on that. guest: i'm going to agree with you and say you're going to be surprised that you think we are disagreeing. we don't want to have a pure democracy, that's not with the framers imagined. they rush to representative democracy. they measure representative democracy that represent everybody. i'm not in this litigation arguing for the national popular right,hich you might be the national popular vote might create a dynamic where the only state they cared about were coastal states.

what we are arguing for is something really fundamentally different. what we are arguing for is that in each state, the electors should be allocated proportionally. you win 40% of the vote, you get 40% of the electors. not create a dynamic you described, where they are only worried about what's going on in california and new york and texas maybe, instead we create a dynamic where they are worried about what's going on every state and indeed they would worry more about what's going on in smaller states that a bigger states because the van for your buck, the electors for money spent would be much higher. the extreme view of just a national popular vote may or may not create as you described a democratic president every time. republicans have won the popular vote many, many times in my lifetime. i don't think that there is a built-in bias that necessarily favors on the national popular vote democrats over republicans. but that's not our case.

our cases arguing allocate electors fairly in each state so that when i vote as a democrat in texas, my vote matters. and when a republican votes is a republican in massachusetts, that vote matters. 2016, oneusetts in million citizens vote republican. they got zero electors in the electoral college and they got zero members of congress because the democratic legislature in massachusetts is gerrymandered so it is impossible for republican to win. there's no reason for that bias. there's no reason for that unfairness. but we are arguing for is not a system to benefit one side of the other, we are arguing for a system that actually counts votes equally and make sure that when you vote, your vote is going to matter ultimately a result. host: how much supported getting from state leaders in washington dc? guest: this is such a new thing for many people, i think many people think is only two

choices, what is the national popular vote and the other is the system as it is right now. i think that as more people begin to think about it, they come around to it. in massachusetts, the existing system does not benefit massachusetts. why don't they just change in allocate their votes proportionally? the national democratic party would be furious with massachusetts of allocated its votes proportionally because we would lose a lot of democratic votes in the old electoral college, so they restrict the ability of states leaders to push for this kind of proportional allocation. i think that as begin to see that this is not about who's going to win public in a democrat but instead about making a president who represents everybody, there's going to be more people come around to see why this ultimately will next and. lauren from alexandria, minnesota, democrat line. caller: republican. host: i'm going to put you on

hold. you call in on a democrat or republican line? caller: republican. host: casey in naples, florida, democrat line. caller: i do agree, i got a question though. as far as eliminating the two-party system, do you think that the electoral college would be enough to switch that over to allow for third-party or do you winnerhey getting rid of take all voting and installers and like a second or third ballot or instant runoff, for example, might be a better way to stop this duopoly of the two -- two that care parties? i was the democratic socialists of america and we would like to have our own party and i'm sure all the read the tea partiers

would like to have their own party. my question is about what you see is the bigger hurdle to getting rid of the current two-party system towards a parliamentary type one? agree thatmpletely these two political parties and donuts for in our job to build a duopoly that is really hard to penetrate. and not even so much of the federal -- at the national level, but at the state level. his incredible difficult to get on the ballot across the country if you were not one of the two major parties because the two major parties have conspired to make it almost impossible. i don't think the change we are talking about would directly help that, but i absolutely believe we ought to adopt something like what you're talking about of ranked choice voting or instant offloading. i think we have to adopt that right now, at least for the president, because people who for example in 2000 one to support ralph nader for good in principle reasons shouldn't be forced into the position of thinking if i vote for ralph

nader, and probably electing george bush as it ineffective in the state of florida or in this election cycle, many people voted for jill stein from frazzled reasons but it shouldn't be that voting for jill stein is ineffective over donald trump, which it was in many of the swing states that ultimately determined the results. if we had a system each statement said we're going to be right choice voting so you vote for your first choice and your second choice and even your third choice, then you could vote for jill stein and mitchell ,igned as an win, then the vote your second vote would be allocated to whoever you voted for, so if you vote jill stein in the hillary clinton, although jill science and donald trump would be better than hillary clinton, the point is there is no reason we should force people to cohere into these very crude categories of republicans and democrats when there are so many more interesting and diverse views from the left to the right

that we ought to be encouraging in our political process not suppressing. of thehe editors promised her what her an editorial about your effort and here's what they said. as of the founders greater the electoral college because it provided one last an important check against the candidate win the presidency by rolling a huge popular vote majority in just a few large states. they argue this also, like other attempts to alter or abolish the electoral college of the effort seems shortsighted and ignores the fact that states themselves can choose how to reward their electoral vote egg nor is how will the system has worked, even if it isn't perfect. guest: i think this is evidence that there's a lot more learning that has to be done out there. as i have said consistently through the show, we're not trying to create a system where there is just a national popular vote. you try to criticism where a state like rhode island matters again. you can imagine a least relevant state in the country on rhode island because it's a small state in the solidly blue state,

nobody is going to spend any time trying to talk to people in long island. the framers want to set up a system where rhode island matters. just like wyoming would matter and montana would matter. if we won, that's in fact what we do. i would also say that to say that this electoral college system has worked well is to have very low standards about what working well would mean. it's elected twice in our lifetime since 2000 the person who didn't win the popular vote and that's not because the system is trying to say just count the votes of two states, even under the current electoral college system it's failed to do that. in every election, it creates an incentive for the candidates for president to care not about rhode island, not about wyoming or texas or california i'm a but about these swing states. the battleground states are

older, they are whiter, their industry is like early 20th century industry, is probably the case that there are four times the number of employees in solar energy right now is you never hears about solar energy in a presidential election because they don't happen to vote and the electoral battleground states. if you're about coal mining again and again because all of the coal miners are in those battleground states. the system doesn't work well, it's complete betrayal of the basic commitments of representative democracy and so what we would say is let's go to a system that would work better and actually more consistently with what the framers of our constitution were trying to achieve. seattle, washington, marcus next on the independent line. caller: hello, c-span. thank you for your lawsuit. personally i've always felt ripped off by the electoral college. when i was a first-time voter in spokane, washington in 1980, i waited until after dinner time

to go vote with my dad. the news was on and came out with the declaration that reagan had won due to the electoral college result of yet the polls will stir -- were still open. yet for myven voted very first time i vote for president did not count it all and hasn't gotten much better since then. great point. you can say at least the virtue of your story is that you can see your vote didn't matter. but let me tell you, if you voted in washington state ever sense, your vote has never mattered. it has never been one election where your vote has helped determine who the winner of the presidency is because washington state is an unlikely to be our lifetime of battleground state. what we're saying is if we change the system and we changed it by saying each state allocates their electors if you werely,

republican in washington state, you could be important to the presidential campaign because it might turn out that campaigning in washington would get that presidential candidate one or two more electoral votes and that's what they know they need. we ought to at least achieve a system that makes it so nobody ever votes in a context that it could not matter in the system does that again and again, whether you see it or not. host: do is a projected timeline for your lawsuit. guest: everything depends on how quickly the courts decide. david boyce has argued this case twice, once in california and once in massachusetts read we still have arguments in texas and south carolina. that the district court level. the district court will decide it goes to the court of appeals, four different circuit courts and in the question is how quickly the court of appeals could decide. conceivably, massachusetts is in the first circuit and that court of appeals is a very fast,

efficient court of appeals and conceivably they could decide it pretty quickly. it would get to the courts frequently. what is going to depend on how it levels the system. but it's important for courts to take the time to get it right, but i also like is important to the extent that we can make a countscy that actually everybody's votes equally, we should do that as quickly as possible. there is no excuse to delay the process of making every vote count equally and certainly not the excuse of courts not pursuing this diligently. host: joining us as lawrence lessig, professor at harvard law school and founder of the group equal citizens, thanks for your time this morning. guest: they give are having me. republicans, call (202) 748-8001, democrats, call independents, call (202) 748-8002.

c-span,ht at 8 p.m. on "new york times," white house correspondent maggie haberman talks about covering the trump white house. >> the relationship and when this white house and the press is more or less what you see if you want one of these press briefings whether it's sean spicer's or sarah sanders. they are combative, they are often futile seeming and they have transitioned what has always made typically adversarial nature into something more openly hostile. >> saturday, african american lgbtq meters that leaders talk about issues facing their communities including acceptance, inclusion, and civic engagement. >> we talked about voting in running for office, but there is so much political work that has to happen beyond those things. david was saying just since we've been here, policy is moving to prevent queer people

from being parents, from adopting children and fostering children. it is better for a child to stay in the system then heaven for bed to queer people adopting them. going to just change that by voting, we're not just wanted change that, we have to be paying attention all the time. they have to be hearing from us all the time. >> watch on c-span and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> saturday morning at 10:30 eastern, book tv is live of the mississippi was desperate festival for their fourth annual literary lawn party at the state capitol in jackson. with discussions on race and identity, southern history, u.s. politics and presidential leadership. authors include sheryl cassian, author of "loving," interraciall --

intimacy in america and the threat to what the premises. and davis, selena xina provoke is "the great revolt," inside the body collision reshaping american politics and author frank williams with lincoln's hero. join us live saturday beginning at 10:30 eastern for the mississippi book festival on book tv on c-span two. >> "washington journal," continues. host: the capitol n washington, d.c., the senate working someday within the month of august in the house out on recess and this is open phones. republicans, call (202) 748-8001, democrats, call (202) 748-8000, independents, call (202) 748-8002. our facebook conversation