queer people adopting them. we have to be paying attention all of the time. there has to be hearings from us all of the time. >> nanus today in a discussion of the news for today is the washington times. here to talk about a lot of things during the course of it is kelly. thank you for joining us. we were asking people about the top stories of the week. what caused the most tension for you? >> definitely james brennan and the yanking of his security clearance. it was not the yank of the security clearance, it was the this wasto it as if

horrific and unheard of. i would like to point out that the security clearance is not a right, it is a privilege. when you have someone like him who takes to twitter and constantly wages into the political world and goes on msnbc to use his security clearance to further his political agenda, it is time to take note. i think the white house did the right thing. >> he says, this is an act by the president to silence him and others. what do you think of that argument? >> nobody is trying to silence him. i do not understand how he is being silent spirits if it's twitter account was shut down, maybe he would have a case of censorship. if he was prevented from writing up ads in major newspapers, perhaps he may have a case but here is a guy who has been out in the public more in the last

couple of days then you have the last couple of months. to claim that his rights of free speech is being shuttered is a little bit disingenuous. alcorn the cd potential poor, toe potential of see this -- again,big reason why is these are not rights to maintain your security clearance. there is only a very elite few who are allowed to maintain them through thick and thin. few who are 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 >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span, maggie talks about covering the front white house. >> the relationship between this white house -- that is what you see when you watch these press briefings on television. they are combative. transitioned from what has always been a typically adversarial nature into something more openly hostile. p.m.,urday at 8:00 african-american lgbtq leaders

talk about issues facing their communities including acceptance, inclusion, and civic engagement. >> we talk about voting and running for office, but there's so much work that has to happen beyond those things. david was saying, just as 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 queer people adopting them. we're not just going to change that by voting. we have to be paying attention all the time. they've got to the hearing loss all the time -- hearing from us all the time. >> watch on c-span, www.c-span.org, and listen on the freeze these been radio -- the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal live every

day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, the center for responsive in politics on the recent report detailing foreign interest spending on lobbying and influence in the u.s. then, jayne o'donnell talks about the fda's consideration on regulation of e-cigarettes. and wired magazine discusses the emergence of a super fungus and how experts are working to combat the spread of infections. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. our live coverage next week includes tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, officials from the state and treasury department testify before the senate foreign relations committee about u.s.-russia relations. trumpy evening, president has a rally in rest virginia

scheduled for 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will also have that live. >> the senate judiciary committee met to discuss chairman chuck grassley's decision to limit the request for supreme court ca nominee brett kavanaugh's records. grassley said some are trying to stall the nomination for political reasons. dianne feinstein of california and patrick leahy of vermont spoke about the move to limit the request and called for full transparency leading into judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. this is about 40 minutes.