>> thursday on c-span, national institutes of health director testifies at a senate health committee hearing on federal science and medical research programs. live coverage starts at 10:00 eastern. at 2:00 eastern, a discussion about the war in afghanistan and possible peace talks with the taliban. c-span2, live coverage of the senate as they continue work on an $857 billion spending package for the department of defense, labor, hhs, and education. announcer: in about an hour, we will talk to criminal defense attorney seth waxman about the paul manafort and michael cohen 's convictions and then benjamin

storrow on the administration's regulationsoll back on emissions from coal power plants and aaron jones of the wilson center on federal spending bills before congress. ♪ good morning. 2018.thursday, august 23, the senate is back in session at 9:30 today and we are with you for the next three hours on the "washington journal." we begin on the president's power to issue pardons. it is an issue that has moved into the spotlight in the wake of tuesday's guilty pleas and conviction of michael cohen and paul manafort. how you think this president or any president should use that power. give us a call. republicans, 202-748-8001.

democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good thursday morning to you. now.an start calling in we are talking about article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution. specifically, the last 20 words when noting the president's power, the constitution says he shall have the power to grant reprieves for offenses against -- the united states with the exception of impeachment. president trump would asked whether he would consider issuing a pardon for paul manafort in the wake of his guilty conviction in an interview with fox news yesterday. [video clip] >> are you considering pardoning paul manafort? >> i have great respect for what he has done in terms of what he

has gone through. he worked for ronald reagan for years, he worked for bob dole. his firm worked for mccain. he worked for many, many people. many, many years and what he did, the charges they threw against him, every consultant, every lobbyist in washington probably does. if you look at hillary clinton's person, you take a look at the people who worked for hillary clinton, look at the crimes clinton did with the emails and she deletes 33,000 emails after she gets a subpoena from congress. this justice department does nothing about it and all the other crimes they have done. host: that was the president on his pardon power yesterday. how should this president or any president use the power of the pardon? you can start calling in now online for democrats, republicans, and independents. pardoning powers put on

spotlight. the reporter in that story joins us on the phone this morning. start by talking about the history of the pardon and why it was included in the constitution in the first place. what was it included to guard against? guest: it is essentially one of the checks and balances the founders put into the constitution and is essentially a grant the executive can pardon almost without check and this has gone before the courts a number of times and they have affirmed that, indeed, congress cannot limit the pardon power. the court system cannot limit the pardon power. it is essentially unlimited by the president. it is one of the checks by the president over the federal court system. host: who, historically, has used the pardon power the most? is this something that in the century has been -- last century has been used more? guest: president have varied w

ildly in their use. president obama preferred shortening sentences. he embarq late in his term on a number of major commutation initiatives, shortening the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders and releasing them .ack into their communities he was notoriously stingy with the pardon power, issuing very few actual pardons. donald trump has issued pardons, just a handful, but in a number of controversial cases including joe arpaio, the sheriff in arizona, and a number of others. host: in your column in the " wall street journal," you review it -- refer to it as an unreviewable pardon situation. guest: congress cannot put a restriction on it and the courts cannot review it. it is essentially the president's discretion.

that doesn't mean there aren't political consequences or prosecutors looking at something like conspiracy could not try to shoehorn the idea of a corrupt pardon into an obstruction of justice or corruption case or that congress could not initiate impeachment if they believed a pardon was corrupt or unwarranted or fit to bar impeachment. the president can essentially pardon people at his or her discretion, but that does not insulate the president from political consequences stemming from the pardon. host: what about the legal debate over whether a president can pardon himself? guest: that one is an interesting debate. it has never been contested in court because we have never had a president who tried to pardon him or herself and legal experts are split. some of them say essentially the president could issue a self

pardon, but would be restate -- would be risking impeachment. pardon of yourself defeats that principle. this has never been tested. it is an esoteric and obscure part of constitutional law. this is unprecedented to begin with. we may be dealing with unprecedented and obscure parts of constitutional law. host: since we are in the legal weeds, can you talk through the fifth amendment applications of someone who accepts a pardon? guest: it is pretty complicated and what i am about to say is not absolute. generally speaking, if you get a pardon, you could be called to testify in other circumstances and lose some of your ability to claim your right against self-incrimination. essentially, if i go cocoa or paul manafort got a pardon -- michael cohen, or paul manafort

got a part in, they could be called to testify in other criminal charges and lose ability to claim immunity under the constitution, under the fifth amendment right against giving testimony in your own case. that is something president trump has to keep in mind as he is thinking about pardoning paul manafort or michael cohen or any of his other associates facing sentences in prison. these are people that could be called to testify in front of other parties about conduct the president may or may not have been involved in. host: from your story yesterday into today in the "wall street was the" what discussion on capitol hill yesterday when it comes to potential pardons in the mueller investigation? guest: democrats are pretty strongly warning the president not to go down that road. sayingchumer warned him,

he better not. mark warner said that would be reckless. to talkans don't want about hypotheticals. by and large, they say they want to let the wheels of justice and the normal court process go on. there is a bit of a partisan divide in tone, but by and large, there seems to be opposition to the idea of granting a pardon to any of these associates. host: byron towel, appreciate -- , appreciaten tau your time this morning. we want to hear your thoughts on how this president or any president should use the power of the pardon. anen is first in maine, independent. caller: interesting that -- byron had interesting points. i would like to bring up a thought that differs a little

bit in terms of the pardon being somewhat of an akron is a -- an akron is a -- acronism. someone having the power to pardon seems at odds with the nature of the founding of the united states of america with respect to the british empire. certainly, kings had pardon power and historically if we go to roman history, caligula could pardon himself. himself.d pardon in difference to the way trump is acting, we, the people, should call him emperor trump and he should have unlimited ability to pardon because he is acting like an empire, causing

america to be viewed as a global empire and even in comparison to general douglas macarthur, who was called in a book "america's macarthurazurka -- was a genius and did not deserve to be called america's caesar because he wrote the constitution for japan and made -- theerican style american-style rules of law and ethics prevailed in other countries. host: do you think it is time to do away with the pardon? do you think we should amend the constitution? caller: not at all. we should not do away with the pardon. we should not use mechanisms like that. we, the american people, should fire a large public in the street, shout heard round the world to get rid of and dump

emperor trump. host: that is allen in maine. ralph is a democrat in kalamazoo, michigan. good morning. caller: i have to agree with the previous caller. i think we have an emperor on our hands. i don't know what happened to the law and order republican party. [laughter] when it comes to their own people in office, they are not the law and order party. they are the pardon party. let me remind people about manafort. trump says he is a good man. i think he was convicted of 8 counts which would have been bank fraud. various bank fraud, maybe? lobbyist.oreign he never registered as a foreign lobbyist. in case donald has forgotten, i

guess he has forgotten that manafort was fired. the trump campaign fired this good man, manafort, when they found out he was connected with the corrupt dictator in ukraine and was taking millions of dollars and i think still receiving money from a foreign agent. the other thing to mention is there used to be a pardoning process. i thought there was a pardoning process where it went through the justice department and it was passed through aides. trump doesn't care about process or doing things in a proper way. to your points about paul manafort, he does face another trial coming up next month in washington, d.c. to the specifics about his convictions. more on that in our 8:00 hour. we will be joined by seth waxman, former assistant u.s. attorney and also former defense attorney -- criminal defense

attorney who actually argued in front of that same judge where the manafort trial took place in alexandria, virginia, in that u.s. district court. more on that discussion at 8:00. we are talking about the pardon this morning. the presidential power of the pardon. want to get your thoughts how this president should use it, how other presidents should use it. jean is waiting, republican. caller: i wanted to say trump doesn't really have anything to fear from the mueller investigation and that manafort and cohen got caught up in all of this and they haven't done anything worse than democrats have done and what goes on every day. trump is not an emperor. we are talking about current law . that is all i have to say. if he wants to pardon him, if he doesn't, he doesn't. host: one line from -- headline

from roll call yesterday. here is chuck schumer yesterday on capitol hill addressing the idea of presidential pardon for one of those two men. [video clip] >> the president should not even consider pardoning mr. manafort or mr. cohen at any point in the future. to do so would be the most flagrant abuse of the pardon power and a clear obstruction of justice. host: more reaction from capitol hill throughout this first hour. we especially want to hear your reaction, your thoughts on the presidential pardon power. republicans, it is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 roger is waiting on the line for independents in alabama. go ahead, thanks for calling in. caller: i think it ought to stay as it is. it has always been a president

could pardon anybody he decided to and i don't see why that wouldn't include himself. as a disabled veteran, i see they keep calling trump trader can't come up i for the right word for it now, but treasonous. aeason is trying to overthrow duly elected president and all that was legally elected and trying to take his powers away from him. one of my friends died fighting communist aggression and all these communists are in the democratic party right now ought to be ashamed of themselves. thank you. ,ost: lewis is in perry georgia. republican. caller: i think this whole is thes about the pardon

press who is terribly anti-trump noise a bid noise -- big about nothing at all. i think it ever happened that would require the president to pardon himself, he would just move on and the vice president would pardon him. can't anybody see any farther than their nose that is in the press? host: you don't think a pardon will happen whether it be for manafort, cohen, or the president doing it for himself? caller: i don't know about that. i am talking about the president pardoning himself. host: you don't think he would go there? caller: why would he bother when the vice president, after he was out of office, could pardon him? host: you think he would -- do you think you would pardon himself while in office? caller: no, that is what i am

saying. why would he if he is going to be put out of office and he surely would be if he got involved too much in this pardon business, then the vice president could pardon him. host: got your point. thanks for the call, lewis. larry in fort worth, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i just don't think a president who is under investigation should have the power to pardon anyone if he is under investigation himself, they should take that right away. host: if there is a special counsel appointed, the president loses his constitutional authority to pardon, that is what you think should happen? caller: yes. if he is under investigation himself, why should he have a right? host: it is in the constitution right now. you would have to amend the constitution to do that. do you think there would be any

effort to amend the constitution if something like that were to happen? if president trump were to issue a pardon in this investigation? caller: yes. yes, i do. host: larry and fort worth, texas. we showed you this chart visually earlier treated for our radio listeners, let's go through it. president trump so far in office has issued seven. president barack obama over his 8 years, 212 pardons. 196 pardons.h, bill clinton, 396 pardons. pardons.agan, 393 jimmy carter, 546 part is pretty gerald ford, 382 pardons. richard nixon, 863 pardons. pardons,he gerald ford there is probably the most famous one that was issued on september 8, 1974, the pardon of

former president richard nixon at that point. this is the proclamation from gerald ford from that day in 1974. the wording of that part saying that gerald ford does grant a full, free, and absolute pardon onto richard nixon for all offenses against the united states which he, richard nixon has committed or may have committed or taken part in from period fromg the january 20, 1969 to august the ninth, 1974, that is after president nixon left office after the watergate scandal. john in washington, d.c., independent. good morning. caller: good morning, america. -- give americans freedom, but they place checks and balances in the constitution as well. i would like to draw correlations to some of the constitution's allowances.

for instance, the first amendment gives you the right and freedom of speech. however, it doesn't give you carte blanche to call people certain things like the n word and things of that nature because it is offensive. the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. it does not give you the right to go around shooting people willy-nilly because you have the right to carry arms. just like the pardon. i would not say take the pardon away from the president. however, there needs to be checks and balances on when the president uses the pardon and how and what the circumstances are. the previous caller recently said something about a president under investigation or has the potential to be criminally charged with something. there should be some type of check and balance on what his privileges would be as it relates to the pardon. host: do you think the threat of impeachment is enough of a check

and balance on the president's use of the pardon power? caller: no. the check of impeachment -- if the charges the president has to be called up for impeachment is so small. when you talk about criminal charges and collusion of a foreign country coming into our election process, that is a great thing. that is way bigger than what it takes to impeach a president. what i am saying is we need to look at things because this is the first time this type of situation has happened. i am sure the framers did not think -- they probably had some foresight, but they could not have possibly thought we were here today dealing with what we are dealing with with this president. president trump, that is why i am independent. contrary to what people are saying about president trump, if he would just shut his mouth and stop tweeting, he may be considered a pretty good president.

he have these flaws that keep manifesting themselves that even when he does something positive, he out rains that with this tweets.iocy he we need to evaluate that process where he can pardon a criminal. a criminal is a criminal. if you break the law, you break the law. host: here is senator john wise and yesterday on a twitter saying "michael cohen's crimes go right to president trump treat any effort to pardon michael cohen or paul manafort would be a gross assault on the rule of law and constitute high crimes and misdemeanors." high crimes and misdemeanors the wording that would go to impeachment. gary in connecticut, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i cannot believe some of the ridiculous statements i am hearing about taking away his

pardoning power because he is being investigated. my god. there is no evidence he committed any crime and the statute for special investigator is that they have to be investigating a crime. there has to be an underlying crime and there isn't. the whole thing is bogus and then you have other people calling and making these ridiculous emperor statements with no evidence. nothing to back it up, just disrespect by calling him by his first name and mocking voices and it is petty and ridiculous. bill clinton pardoned michael rich, one of the most despicable human beings in history on his way out the door. it was bought and paid for. nobody was talking about taking away people's powers or authority. it is ridiculous. especially with an investigation

that is not even investigating donald trump himself. it is the campaign and they still haven't come up with any evidence. host: that is gary in connecticut. here are comments on twitter. john wright's and "under most conditions the presidential pardon is appropriate, even needed. when the president is and allowedcriminal to manipulate that power, a presidential pardon can be used for corrupt purposes." cynthia says trump is misusing his pardon power by passing the rules. trump used part as a get out of jail free card. pardoning manafort might be the enablers. for his gop gabriel is in north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. one of the wonderful things about c-span is that you can listen to several testimonies

from experts who come in and one that i have been privileged actually was on the c-span video library from a very knowledgeable person about the pardon of presidential power. one thing i hope viewers understand. host: who is that person so we can direct viewers to the c-span library? caller: susan allowed -- susan louche, i think it was. she was big time involved with the clinton impeachment and the stuff that went to the supreme court. she is very knowledgeable about the nixon and ford. --m pretty sure it is susan very knowledgeable and one of the things i hope listeners are taking in in terms of c-span's broadcast is that pardon powers are restricted to federal crimes. that was something i thought --

state crimes are not pardonable by the president of the united states treat if it is a state crime, you cannot pardon it. if it is a federal crime, that falls under the jurisdiction. about 80%, 90% of the laws we have in this country are founded by the state legislature. i thought that was an important thing for people to know and a sideand, but then statement very quickly, the pardon power is something that is reserved for a case that sits in the middle, a case that is not a political choice and the only time it has ever been used -- as a mainity is political tool has been saving the country through what whenned with watergate gerald ford had to make that

decision. i want people to understand it of is be left to a prism this good for the country and what does it mean as a result? especially in a divisive world like this one, we need to be able to come together. host: thank you for the call this morning and thank you for pointing us to the c-span video library at c-span.org and i appreciate the clarification on one of the few restrictions on the presidential pardon. greg in his column from earlier this summer with his question and answers about the presidential pardon talks about the two restrictions the constitution places on the pardon. it is within those 20 words we read earlier paris to the pardon must be an offense against the united states, that is a federal crime and not a state crime. also, the president cannot use the part of power to save himself or another official from impeachment. that is the 20 words of the

presidential pardon power. i will read it again. a president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united's eighth in case -- united states except in cases of impeachment. athens, tennessee, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am completely amazed we are even talking about this, that the papers and schumer and you have all of this on the air when there is no proof he is even going to pardon anyone. what is wrong with our country that we -- about trump that doesn't even exist. i believe there are powers and they are doing this to trump on person. he has not said he is going to pardon anyone yet. why is anyone talking about it? i don't get it at all. i believe it is just like the other man says, clinton has

pardoned all kinds of people and so has every other president. trump has only done seven so far, give him a chance. what is going on here with our country? host: james, spring valley, new york, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. 71 years old vietnam vet. i was drafted and i am proud to be a vet now. this guy, i am almost ashamed of my country. i am ashamed of those politicians and congressmen and senators that aren't opening up their mouth to this embarrassment, this shameful person that is driving this school bus blind with blinders and sunglasses on, smiling all the way down the road saying how is he doing? and we are just letting this go by. this guy is hurting us and i know one thing, we are big

enough and wise enough, we are going to bounce back from this, but why are they letting us go down this road? hisink his numbness, intellectual capacity and the shock of it is covering for a lot of those guys. i heard senator hatch, who had been in there since the 70's, when did i first hear hatch? when they were doing anita hill. he said a couple months ago before he announced his retirement this is the best country -- president this country has ever seen. another dumb thing he said and it could be from senility. poorer than a church mouth when i -- church mouse when i got here so don't tell me what this country can do for you and another fellow said how much do you have now?

he turned away from the camera. it would have been funny, but it was sad. host: an interesting juxtaposition on the front pages of the "new york times," and the new york times -- and "the washington times." similar graphics focusing on the results of the mueller investigation. here is what is written about that graphic. guilty pleas and a guilty verdict of the 33 people facing criminal charges stemming from the investigation into russian interference. seven had pleaded guilty to charges or have been convicted and you can see the 7 listed on the front page of the "new york times." washingtonw the " times" puts it. they right underneath their graphic "special counsel robert has yet to -- connect russian meddling with the trump campaign," the

assignment for which he was hired." similar graphics, different comments about those two graphics and the results of the two investigations. penelope is in san antonio, texas. a republican. go ahead. caller: i am rather interested in all of this talk about the russians and 2016 campaign. if there is anybody. i mean, anybody who does not understand that the russians have been interfering or trying to interfere since the day russia was born, they are simply too stupid to involve themselves in politics. the russians interfered, the germans interfered, the britons and the israelis interfered, we all interfere with each other. get over it, it happens. it will happen again. if god was watching over

everything, it seems interesting to me everybody is so wild about whoever is this and whoever is doing that. host: does that mean we should not be worried about potential interference? caller: i think we should be worried about it, but i don't think we should destroy the serenity of our country over it. i think we should investigate in quiet. you don't go trampling after an element, screaming and yelling, or a deer. you. going to escape you quietly, softly, softly sneak up on them. you don't go putting it in the paper. what kind of idiots do we have of there? host: the democratic national committee said on wednesday it was alerted to an attack to attempt to hack the voter database. it was not successful and party

officials said the identity of the culprits were unclear. this attempt to -- was aggressive. the hackers set up a face page that mimic the login page for the voter registration website. a tactic that could garner names and passwords and other credentials of the owes -- of those using the database. spearp tactic known as hishing. federal officials are looking into that incident. david is in galveston, indiana. an independent -- independent. good morning. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. the pardon has always been in effect since the beginning of the constitution and bill clinton did it with susan mcdougal. she kept her mouth shut and went to jail and he parted her.

he brother his own -- he pardoned his own brother on drug charges. am i correct? host: i will double check that for you. go ahead. caller: yes because i am thinking president trump will do the same thing with his advisers and his lawyer. he is going to pardon them after they did their time just like clinton did with susan mcdougal and his brother, roger, didn't he have drug charges and he pardoned him? am i correct on that? host: host: i will double check that for you, roger. from florida, go ahead. caller: with respect to the pardon, i have a complaint. i have seen what you and pedro have been doing lately. you have been getting more republicans in then democrats. one democrat, two republicans,

-- host: we take the calls as they come in and we try to rotate as much as we can so we can go democrat, republican, independent, through that order. sometimes we don't have somebody on the line. caller: it is a lot harder to get through. i have been doing this since 1980, since before you were born. host: what is your comment today? caller: the actual issue, with respect to pardon people. all of this about clinton -- clinton did not pardon anybody who basically was part of the investigation he was involved in or dealing of that nature. trump, talking about the way he is talking and coming out and telling these guys to be cool and sit down and don't do this and don't do that, tell these guys, especially manafort not to cooperate with the special

counsel because basically, i am going to pardon you. he is violating everything with respect to these criminal cases by sitting out and making comments about these individuals whether they are on trial or not on trial and he has been doing that. he is already trying to compromise these investigations on his behalf. hillary clinton with respect to these people that are deplorables, anybody trying to make excuses for this man and all the stuff he has done openly. lookh you well, but please it up before you continue to talk about the economy and what he has done with respect to the stock market. he has done nothing in this instance. this is the way -- same way it has been running since obama. he has done nothing to increase ifmake it any better and more -- more people have not been higher than obama's 200,000

would be less than 216,000 with trump. host: it was actually a cocaine conspiracy -- conspiracy to distribute a gram of cocaine that bill clinton's brother was sentenced to more than a year in prison for in 1985, pardoned by president clinton in his last day in office back in 2001. , texas,ugar land independent. go ahead. caller: hi. first of all, it really upsets make upsets me when people up things. president trump said -- never said he was going to pardon everybody. you put up a graph of the other presidents and how many day pardoned. more than seven. host: the vast majority of those aftern the latter half or

those presidents had been in office more than two years. caller: i understand that. i remember that, actually. i was thinking to myself, he is pardoning people like crazy. host: some presidents do it on their final day of office and issue quite a bit of pardons, including bill clinton. caller: exactly. one thing i wanted to ask is why did you even ask this question? all it does is cause problems and the other thing is -- i want to ask is why do we even have to lines? different i don't vote democrat or republican, i vote for the people i want to. why can't we just call in? host: that is why we have an independent line for you. caller: ok, so that is the independent line. that is why i call in, so i am a registered republican. i don't always vote republican, ok?

these people are like, oh my toh, trump, he is going pardon manafort and cohen and all of this. he never said he was going to do that. never. he has pardoned 7 people. host: got your point, tracy. to mike in california, independent, good morning. caller: thank you john and c-span. thank you for taking my call. good morning to america, the most beautiful country on the planet. john, i like your rotation. clinton was the only criminal in the clinton investigation, so i don't think clinton could pardon himself. is that right, john? host: you cannot pardon yourself for impeachment, to avoid impeachment. that is one restriction. the other restriction is that it has to be a federal crime. other than that, no restrictions for a president.

caller: i gotcha. i have been researching this and it is astounding how many pardons and commutations, remissions president barack .bama has done it is not the pardon, it is the quality of the pardon. i think the submariners and joe wereale -- joe arpaio menons of magnificent corralled in jail because of their views. this country is in a state where you get put in jail for your political views. i think conservatives are finally getting back at the corrupt democrats and republicans for their fifty-year domination of the congress. the congress' approval rating is down to 10% or 12%, john? host: what makes for a bad pardon? caller: marc rich.

he was stuffing his pockets with blood money from ayatollah community while we had 56 hostages locked up being torches and terrified. every day they were taken out with a gun put to their blindfolded heads, said they were going to be killed and put back in their cage while this .o.b.b. was caching -- so.o was cashing in. that is a racist country. that is why i am so disgusted with our congress. theident trump is doing right thing and so are you, john, by letting everybody voice their opinion on here. i will tell you what, it is a crackup at your uneducated callers. host: got your point pretty you mentioned south africa. president trump tweeting about

south africa late into the night, saying he asked mike pompeo to closely study the south african land and farm seizures and expropriations and large-scale killing of farmers. south african government is seizing land from farmers. that was the president last night. i assume after watching that segment on tucker carlson. well after midnight, the president tweeting just five gedds, "no collusion -- rig witch hunt." that tweet around 1:00 a.m. last night. bob in waldorf, maryland, independent. good morning. caller: let's take for instance d.c., doj get what they want. they deliberately steal an election from the american people. they try to impeach president trump with no crime committed.

let's say they throw him out of office deliberately, stealing 62 right to vote,' undermining the election of all the american people that voted for donald trump. if you can steal our right to vote and undermine a legal election, which you guys lost and they can't get over, do you honestly think out of those 62 million people that you are stealing the right to vote that nothing is going to come of that? when you do not have the right to vote and you had that vote stolen from you in the united states of america, are you not in a position -- are you not on a footing straight to civil war? do you honestly believe that out of 62 million americans, no one is going to do anything about that? host: that is robert in waldorf, maryland. coming up on 7:45.

our question for our viewers in his first hour of the " is aboutn journal the presidential use of the pardon power. how should this president use it? how do you think any president should use that power? lines for democrats, independents, and republicans on your screen. we want to keep you updated on other stories going on around the united states and the world. this story on u.s. widening sanctions against russia. escalating diplomatic u.s. pressure on moscow as the white house tries to fend off a push by lawmakers to deploy even more tools to cripple the russian economy. the u.s. treasury department plastics it -- blacklisted -- breaking u.s. laws against cooperation with russian intelligence. the federal security service is what that is called. combined, the sanctions

underscore a recent escalation in u.s. economic pressure against moscow. more on that in the "wall street journal." one other story we noted yesterday has been getting plenty of attention. the killing of that iowa student solidifying arguments on illegals is the headline in the washington times -- "the washington times" today. the suspect gave his employer a false identity. more details coming out about christian rivera who gave a false identity to the farm he worked for nearly four years, allowing him to maintain a job and work in the community where he went on to kill 20-year-old mollie tibbetts. the washington -- "the washington times" noting his attorney requested the judge impose a gag order requiring the government refer to mr. rivera as a documented resident of the united states.

"the washington times" says there is no evidence mr. rivera has any legal status. u.s. citizenship and immigration services search records and said there is no hint mr. rivera entered the country legally. we found no record indicating he has any lawful immigration status paris that was a quote attributed to a u.s. cis spokesman. worth, texas, is next. for democrats. your thoughts on the pardon power. caller: thank you for the opportunity and i would just like to say i have been watching this morning since you started about the presidential use of pardon power. it is sad and it is really a sad thatn the united states we, as americans, regardless of whether you are republican or democrat, that we sit here and

let -- allow the reason that we are discussing this this morning to happen. regardless of whether it is russia or china or whoever the country is, when they interfere with what goes on in the united states,states, we should be upst enough like we are this morning, expressing ourselves, to do something about it and stop it. thus far from a from what i see -- from what i see it, i don't know that president trump will attempt to pardon himself, but i am upset that we have even done this far. i am a veteran and i am very proud to say that. ,hen i became a military g.i. this was not the chaos our country was in because people respected the constitution. they respected the presidency tom washington all the way now and this is ridiculous that we are sitting here discussing the possibility of two criminals

who have been convicted that are saying that they are guilty themselves and we are not doing anything about whether this is going to happen again. we are about to come up on another election november the 6th and we have not done anything to prevent this. why should we allow this president or any other president to parted himself or -- pardon himself if he does that for himself or pardon criminals that sit there and admit they are guilty? if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. independent in seattle, washington. good morning. caller: i am confused about this situation due to the fact that everybody here is an immigrant. as far as the constitution, it was written by the same people who owned slaves. by the same people who created war to divide and conquer, who

started everything that is going on. how can you say you are going to go to some of the else's country and take over what they have going on for millions of years and tell them how to run their country? the whole problem with the united states is we are all up and everybody else's business without taking care of our own. host: how would you change the constitution? caller: i would change the constitution -- we have a handful of politicians that do nothing for our world. above -- a bunch of hatred, harm, and danger. more --ident -- brings the government brings more danger to us than we could ever bring to ourselves. we have to fight for our kids to even fund infrastructures. you have people that can walk down the street and shoot somebody and say i am standing my ground. mexicans coming

over the border when this was their country in the beginning along with the indians. it is wrong. host: marshall in beltsville, maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: i am calling on the situation of the pardoning of manafort. i think it is not right. it is not right at all and this president is really sad. this election has been sad from the get-go. host: you think president trump is going to pardon paul manafort? caller: truthfully, honestly, i think he is not because if he does, it is going to look really bad for him. i don't know about this president. he is just the worst president i have ever seen in my life and everybody, all republicans in the white house know this man is wrong and they keep defending him. to president is supposed preserve, protect, and defend the united -- constitution of

the united states and he has done none of that. host: you heard the president in that fox news interview talking about paul manafort. here is the president on twitter talking about paul manafort saying i feel very badly for his -- paul manafort and his family. unlike michael cohen, he refused to break, make up stories in order to get a deal. such respect for a brave man." tweeting out before that, "if someone is looking for a strong -- good lawyer, i would strongly suggest you do not retain the services of michael cohen." caller: good morning. i very troubled we are in a country of laws and i find it troublesome that a president can go on television and praise a convicted criminal for not cooperating with law enforcement . i find that extremely troublesome.

host: just in winter park, ark,fornia -- buena p california. a republican. toler: i wish we would stick the constitution and read it, occasionally, and know what is in there before we make these absurd comments about our president and the rights he has. host: specifically what? what do you wish people would read more? caller: just like the one guy came out and said this is what the president is allowed to do and this is what he is not allowed to do. everybody is uptight about everything and he has not done anything yet. to take away his part in powers because someday -- pardon powers because someone is looking at what might happen. what happened to innocent before guilty? host: one of our comments on twitter speaking about the pardon power said it everyone

does it, we will have a problem. we need to address this type of pardon, i assume about the potential pardons for paul manafort and maybe even michael:. what do you think of that comment? caller: is -- who exactly is asking the questions? it is the 24/7 news media. will? this happen will -- will this happen? will that happen? there is so much speculation people think it is true. host: sarah sanders was getting questions about possible pardons. [video clip] >> intending to pardon paul manafort? doesn't havease anything to do with the president, nothing to do with his campaign, nothing to do with the white house. >> even if it has nothing to do with the president, he could have the power to pardon mr. manafort. is something -- is that

something that has come up or been rolled off? >> i am not aware of conversations. other than when he was asked by a news outlet earlier this week and he said he had not been thinking about that at all. host: that was sarah sanders in the white house briefing room yesterday. if you want to watch that entire interview, you can do that at c-span.org. , your thoughts on the presidential use of the pardon power. caller: good morning, c-span. are missing here is these are high crimes, misdemeanors. discussed the transfers of money with of the shrimpers and what over -- strippers and whatever was right before the election. mcconnell,ere mitch

paul ryan, trey gowdy? these are high crimes. are they going to hide and say nothing? and where is mike pence? hidden, soim so insulated from this president, it is ridiculous. what about a news conference where the president actually has the answer -- to answer question decides on fox news. thank you very much. i appreciate your program. you: this chart we can show as we take the next couple of calls, tracking the payment the caller was talking about. michael cohen pleading guilty to campaign by lance -- campaign .inance violations this chart a flowchart on how those payments worked according to the documents that have been filed with this case, both how the payments were made, how the

tips came into michael cohen, the president's personal attorney, how the money went out and how cohen was paid back in the process. in today's "wall street journal" if you want to check it out. brian in pennsylvania, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i wanted to make a quick comment about presidential pardon powers. it is interesting to me a lot of the banter back and forth at the end of the day you guys have already discussed and hit the nail on the head when it comes to president trump or any other president. it is written in the constitution that it is his constitutional right and it is not going to change. you need to thirds of the states to ratify the constitution. it is great and you had and r onter -- ann coulte yesterday and i was surprised -- host: surprised about what? and i: -- the cancer

thought it was an interesting comparison of basically saying to the country that we will get through it. having cancer, fighting cancer, trump is like a key move -- like and we willtment get through it on that end. for those viewers who may have missed it when you went out for a moment, that viewer was quoting ann coulter when she was on talking about her book, "resistance is futile!" cory is an independent in las vegas. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. everybody has everything wrong about this country. first of all, this country is not a country of the united states, canada, or mexico. they are all racist governments created by russia and england and they murdered and the

africans, they were the worst murderers. host: bring us to 2018 and our question today about pardon power. shows: the pardon power you the american system does not work. the powers don't belong to the president. it belongs to the people. host: that is our last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." up next, seth waxman, a former u.s. defense attorney. he served as an assistant u.s. attorney and will join us to talk about the cohen and manafort cases. if you have questions about the details of what they pled guilty to or were convicted of, now would be a good time to call in. later we will be joined by benjamin storrow to talk about the trump administration's move

to rollback rules on coal power plants. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: the c-span buses traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. the bus is on its 39th stop in honolulu, asking folks what is the most important issue in hawaii. me the youngth girls, and one of the issues is will they have a place to live? will they be able to afford to stay in a place of their birth? we have a huge homeless situation that is going on right now. we are looking for ways to take them off of the streets. but i think the problem is going to get worse if we don't take care of it now. hawaii.from honolulu,

one of the important issues i feel we are facing here is trying to manage work life balance. i work full-time. my husband works full-time complex a part-time job -- full-time, plus a part-time job, and we take care of our children. >> right now for hawaii, we need to continue promoting the aloha spirit, which is in itself a lie -- a life style. humility,eableness, and patients. if we can all promoted live within this aloha spirit that the state of hawaii thinks of so greatly, we can all be in a better place not only in the city apollo group and -- city of honolulu and sit of hawaii, but across the nation. announcer: join us when we

feature our visit to hawaii on c-span, www.c-span.org, or the c-span radio app. washington -- "washington journal" continues. seth waxman has served as assistant u.s. attorney here in washington and criminal defense attorney, here to take your legal questions about paul manafort and michael cohen. i want to start with the charges that have garnered the most attention, the campaign finance violations that michael cohen pled guilty to. do you explain the exact laws he broke, and why this seems to be the charges that are getting the most attention? there are limits on campaign finance contribution, and they are transparent so that the people can see how much of individual contributes.

if they interviewed over a certain limit, that needs to be reported, corporations contribute, and he like. the law broken here is that there was a $130,000 payment and winter $50,000 payment funneled through cohen to acorn star -- 28 morningstar -- to a porno star and mistress that were not reported. why is this a guilty plea in a federal court? guest: it is really apples and oranges. there was no allegation that president obama was in any way individually involved in his came in finance -- campaign finance missteps. those were more technical violations, that were reporting within 48 hours of campaign-finance emissions -- campaign donations. mr. trump had those same kind of issues come up, and those just resulted in fines. case, you have an

individual who is funneling money through an surreptitious ways, and that is what mr. cohen is pleading guilty do. host: what sort of legal exposure does this create for president trump? guest: that is a difficult question. there's a good debate on whether a sitting president can be indicted. i am under the opinion that he cannot come in the constitution was set for impeachment processes so as to not offend this country -- to not upend this country's election. some legal scholars disagree. host: the plea deal, is this usually a precursor for more cooperation down the road? guest: this is a really unusual situation. i've never seen an individual go and plead to eight counts without an agreement on the table. to me he is not cooperating at this time. mr. davis, his lawyer, has set as much. cooperate and we will

or maybekey charge, three different counts of tax evasion, bank fraud, and campaign, but to have eight counts indicates to me that he is not cooperating. we are taking your calls and questions, if you have them, about either the michael cohen or paul manafort case. for republicans, it is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. on the manafort conviction, how did you read that conviction on eight charges of the 18 he was originally charged with? guest: that is a sweeping victory for the government. it is major accounts. he is facing significant jail time. given his age, it could be can't

about to a death sentence. as a former prosecutor, you'd like to get all 18 counts. obviously we are hearing from one of the jurors that there was a lone holdout. that happens. but at the end of the day, the government's primary goal was to try to flip paul manafort. host: do you think that is going to happen now? we had conversations in the last hour about a potential pardon from the president. do think that is something paul manafort is holding out for? guest: in every case of ever been involved in, 100% i would say there is no other path for him. he's got to get a deal. he can't face 10 or 20 years in jail. the x factor, of course, is the part. i don't think any expert can really predict what mr. trump is going to do in that regard. host: walk us through the next steps for paul manafort. it is a little confusing as to what happens with these eight charges and what he's facing in his case here in bc next month -- and d.c. next month. guest: will face sentencing,

typically 60 to 90 days out. because there is another sentencing, it may be pushed out after that trial. he will be sentenced under a guideline regime that is kind of complicated. he could be facing anywhere from 10 to 20 years, depending on how the judge staff the crimes -- just ask the crimes. host: do those 10 other charges the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on just go away? does the mueller team ever try to try those down the road? guest: they have the option. they can ask the judge to recharge. whether they will practically do so depends on if he cooperates, gets a part, and just -- gets a pardon, and just judicial and prosecutorial resources. to haveget convictions him face 30 or 40 years, probably not. host: seth waxman with us to take your questions.

you served as assistant u.s. attorney here in d.c. and also argued cases in front of the same judge that manafort appeared in front of. guest: i have been in that courthouse, not arguing in front of judge ellis. i have been in status hearing. host: give us your thoughts on how judge ellis perform in that case. guest: he was clearly an active judge, giving his advice and opinions. i think he crossed the line when he commented on the credibility of a witness. that is really not the judge's role. as long as the judge doesn't cross the line and give the jury the impression that the prosecutors are playing unfair or doing things underhanded -- i mean, jurors react very badly if they get the idea that the government is playing fast and loose. i don't think he did that come and maybe that is why we saw convictions in this case. host: a lawyer was experience both in prosecution and defense, so let's take some calls. terry in woodbridge, illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a couple of questions on the president's

campaign. isn't it true that a president can spend whatever amount of money that he wants on his own campaign? and isn't it true that when it comes to businessmen, that they usually do have lawyers that handle certain things for them, like for instance, people trying to get free money from them and everything? and isn't it true that he did pay that money back to his lawyer usually bills him as expense accounts and everything? guest: very good questions. there's a lot of controversy over a lot of the things being said. mr. giuliani essentially offered at the same comments. the reality is that a candidate can spend as much as they want on their campaign, but they would have to disclose that. when you look at this matter, the money that mr. cohen paid at mr. trump's direction, according to mr. cohen, was done for

payments for porn stars and mistresses. if this was done for signs and things, maybe you would say the lawyer was acting as an agent. that is in this kind of situation. , theis circumstantially nature of this transaction, is under nefarious intent. of course, mr. cohen testified to that intent. and finally, this is donald trump's justice department. this isn't in some rogue entity or third-party country. these are political appointees of mr. trump. it is a person mr. trump appointed. it is a little bit disingenuous for him to talk all this of a witchhunt when it is his team bringing the charges. is the justice department pursuing felony campaign-finance charges in general? guest: not often. this is not an every day, run-of-the-mill thing. when i was a federal prosecutor,

there wasn't a single case in d.c. with this kind of focus on campaign-finance. we are dealing with bribery, white-collar theft kind of crimes. that's not because the laws weren't on the books and shouldn't be enforced. john edwards is one example. it is simply not typically overspending on a campaign limit. thursday the something much more involved when you bring criminal charges. host: to california, connie, an independent. caller: good morning. all of this money that was paid stars or whatever they are, was it campaign money or was it president trump's own money? and also, when clinton was president, ok, all this happened with that young lady. i can from her name -- i can't remember her name. and all this talk about impeachment.

why aren't they bringing the all that up? that is so hush-hush. i'm sorry, but thank you. guest: sure. the first part of your question had to do with the payment to the porn stars. it is more along the lines of president trump's personal money. they came out of a corporate fund come up with wasn't any suggestion it came out of a pac for mr. trump or a campaign organization. i think she was referring to monica lewinsky. there were impeachment proceedings with mr. clinton, so it did get to that point. whether this rises to impeachment proceedings, that is where we are at right now. caller: good morning. waxman like to ask mr. if there isn't anything suspicious about that one juror chargesfor the 10 other because manafort had a reputation for witness tampering.

he had an ankle bracelet, but he was still roaming around. ,t just seems extremely based on what that woman said on fox news yesterday, that regardless how much the other 11 jurors tried to point out to her all the paper trails, she just was flat out refused to accept it. i would be suspicious of a juror of that nature not having some kind of connection within the trunk party that's within the trunk that's within the -- with in the trump party. host: for those who do not watch fox news, one juror reported that there was one holdout for the remaining 10 counts in an exclusive interview yesterday. guest: i understand the thought process there. i think that is unlikely because

that juror did convict on eight counts. if someone had really gotten to that juror, you would assume they would have held out on all 18 counts and there would have been a hung trial. for whatever reason, and the logic behind it seems difficult for us to digest on the outside as to why this individual juror was willing to convict on eight counts but not the other 10, but i don't see any indication of witness tampering or jury tampering here. host: is the mueller team doing some monday morning quarterbacking on their jury selection process after this interview? guest: it is interesting. that judgebefore is ellis wanted to move this court quickly. it is called the rocket docket. i think you and particularly too fast on jury selection. in a case of this magnitude with this atmosphere coming to pick a jury in half a day, you really don't get to hear a juror speak. typically the prosecutor and defense would get to ask what they do for a living in here that person's voice.

i think they would be wanting a longer jury selection process at a minimum. host: why the rocket docket? why does that court act that way? guest: it is a reputation. it is a good question as to where that originated. i know that judge brian has been on that courthouse for a very long time. it is a very reputable, highly regarded court. whichake their speed with they bring cases through very seriously. frankly, i think it does a lot of good in most cases. sometimes prosecutors become too enamored with their evidence and start to believe, and sometimes the -- and an example of that is the o.j. simpson trial, a no witness trial. host: bonnie is in maryland. good morning. caller: this with stormy daniels is ridiculous. she provided a service. , andas overpaid for it that should be the end of it.

lawyer your, 90 -- her tti is nothing more than a walking billboard because she's making millions off of stripping and providing her service. host: got your point. guest: what stormy daniels background was in her conduct, that is a separate question as to whether someone violated the law. if mr. trump or mr. cohen funneled campaign contributions to miss daniels or anyone else coming despite what they may do for a career and how much money they are making office, the justice department will take cases and make charges where there is law and facts to support it. host: do you think michael evan is a -- michael avenatti good attorney for stormy daniels? guest: he is certainly a strong advocate, and his case is unique. he is fighting fire with fire. it is not my style so much, but he's being effective. host: charles in north carolina commit republican. caller: good morning.

it seems like a sign of desperation to go back and look at white-collar crimes that happened many years before the campaign to go after. it looks like mueller is squeezing anybody has any connection with the trump campaign on unrelated charges. taxing anding about payments to playboy models, but there is no russian collusion after two years. we keep looking for something. i think that if we had squeezed the clinton campaign and john podesta and all these people around the clinton campaign has hard and as tough as we are, everybody in the periphery, just to go after everybody and try to squeeze them for any information about emails, we would have a different outcome on that investigation. also with chris collins, let's talk about 90 pelosi's insider -- about nancy pelosi's insider trading. , and now suddenly

because he's a supporter of trump. host: you are going in and out there in the end, but i think we got your point. guest: on the idea of desperation come in my experience, conspiracies don't drop out of the sky in the spring of 2016. there's a reason the russians were willing and felt convertible to reach out to the trump team, and why the trump team felt comfortable entertaining those calls. a lot of times, in my experience, it is because there's a back story. what we saw in the alexandria court, while not directly related, can provide a background as to why conspiracy starts and why people are comfortable working together. i don't think it is completely disjointed or disconnected from what we heard in alexandria, from the miller investigation. one of the other points on squeezing individuals, that has a pejorative sense to it, but that is what federal prosecutors do. if people are caught up in criminal conduct and they can provide information on other criminal investigations, that is the meat and potatoes.

that is how federal prosecutions work and how investigations occur. is in the context of the president so it is getting a lot of attention, but that is happening everyday in every jurisdiction in this country right now. upt: the caller brought huntsman chris collins. who has more to worry about, condiment chris collins or cumbersome and duncan hunter -- or congressman duncan hunter? guest: that is a tough one. congressman collins seems to be a done case. you would have to be creative in both situations. host: andy is in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of things. to me, it is nothing short of blackmail. if we agree to a contract, but you come out when you do something along those lines, that is blackmail. that is number one.

isber two, my suspicion attorney mueller is not going to find anything because it is going to lead right back to maybe nothing short of the former president. it is going to lead back to hillary clinton. it is going to lead back to the fbi. and that is not what they want. there is no way that they are going to find any collusion without it leading back to the original source, that is where it is going to come to. guest: on the blackmail idea, frankly, nondisclosure agreements are signed every day in this country in all kinds of contexts. good about it,el the people separate from their companies all the time and agree not to speak ill of individuals and not bring any civil actions against them. that happens all the time. there are reasons why those may or may not be enforceable. i think we've heard a lot from mr. avenatti on that point. as to the miller investigation

not -- the mueller investigation that coming up with anything, obviously that is a common refrain, a witchhunt. know.k we don't everyone needs to hold judgment until we get that report, and then we could be educated and offer up what i would consider a more pointed criticism or critique of whatever he has. host: that witchhunt refrain came up again last night in the 1:00 a.m. hour on the east coast from the president, "no witchhunt."gged seth waxman taking your questions about the manafort investigation and convictions, about the cohen guilty plea this week. time for a few more calls. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, i did want to ask about the cohen

guilty plea. why was that case moved through the southern district of new york? but with the legal reasoning? guest: mr. mueller has a mandate to investigate russian collusion or conspiracy leading up to the election. he made a determination that this was significantly separate from that and it was more properly prosecuted by a separate office. host: and what does that mean for what happens going forward? are they still cooperating on evidence gathered and what they can charge with depending on what court they are in? guest: 100%. anything any federal prosecutor does they can share with others in the justice department, state and local officials. everything going on in the southern district, we should all, is going right to mr. mueller's office. probably more measured out. maybe they have a weekly call or something, unless there is something really momentous. dnytever is happening in f is being funneled back to the mueller investigation. caller: good morning.

the question i have, if money is speech and corporations are people, aren't governments people? and therefore, isn't all of this unconstitutional? speech?ople make secret and is hacking a private institution's email any different than recording a conversation in a private auditorium for donors? so mr. cavanaugh and the supreme court, might we not see 5-4 the whole campaign conservation law totally thrown out as unconstitutional? host: big legal questions there. guest: good ones. the government is not a person under the law. there are different legal standards. and donations have been ortermined to be speech f

almost the mid-1970's now by the court, and that does apply to individuals like you and i, and corporations. different standards for government institutions. the hacking and recording a private conversation really kind of apples and oranges. hacking, of course, is unauthorized intrusion into a computer system. , inrding a conversation some states you have to have both party's consent. other states you have to have one party's consent. the recording by mr. cohen is a one-party consent state in new york. and in a public space like an auditorium, you don't have a right of privacy. i think that is, again, apples and oranges. host: our most estates one-party consent? guest: most states are one-party consent. maryland, for example, is a two-party consent state. we couldn't record this conversation unless you knew it

and i knew it. in d.c., i can have a tape recorder recording you right now and you couldn't do anything about it. does that legal decision to back to in these states? is it something that was set up back in the last century? guest: after alexander graham bell? i'm not really sure. that is a good question i would have to look into, why some of these laws were adopted and some didn't. host: tina is in alabama, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. one-party consent, or you can sit with? that just -- who are you consenting with? that just seems folly. it seems every time president trump speaks, there's an elegant truth to what he says. avoids trying to something, wouldn't he be changing the story if he were lying? that i have a question. ler is investigating russian collusion in our elections, where in the world is

the investigation into the hacking of the russians into the dnc computers, to john podesta, to uranium one with hillary and bill? how much, $225 million from the russians? please help me understand this. guest: on the last question about the investigation into hacking and the dust and idiocy dnc emails, i think that is very much a part of what he's looking at. the hacking into the dnc emails, i think that is very much a part of what he's looking at. i think that is essential. the idea of trump changing his story, it is 30 say that he does change his story a whole lot. not to be flip about it, but as a -- it is fair to say that he does change his story a lot. not to be flip about it, but it shows consciousness of guilt.

a jury is allowed to consider a changing story to go to the state of mind of the defendant. , so these was charged changing stories are very difficult to digest for the american public, and from a prosecutor's perspective, is evidence. host: how many years did you do that? guest: 13. host: did you have a specialty? guest: violent crime and corruption. host: why do you turn to criminal defense? guest: iowa's wanted to try cases in the courtroom. it has been -- i always wanted to try cases in the courtroom. it has been interesting. i work at a law firm down here in d.c. tennessee, a is in republican. good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to ask, do you know what really started this off? it was when mueller was turned down for an interview for a second or third go around for

fbi director. but that was when he was turned down. and the very next day, rosenstein and mueller started this special investigation. do you know that? and this has gone every direction but russian collusion or whatever they intended it for. guest: that is a constant refrain will hear from advocates for the president. trying to be as independent and objective as i can, mr. mueller has a storied career. he's been a career prosecutor for decades. he was a decorated veteran, a war hero. i will tell you he worked in the u.s. attorney's office here in d.c., where i worked. he was a little earlier than i was by a year or two, but by all accounts, from people i know that know him well, he is of the highest moral character and integrity. the timeline your caller laid out mrs. a number of important steps before mr. mueller was actually appointed to be the special counsel, and obviously selected by rod rosenstein, not

donald trump. i think there's a number of steps missed in the analysis. host: have you ever met bob mueller? guest: i have not. host: did you know rod rosenstein? guest: i did not. i am speaking only to reputation. i do know people know him, and i have a lot of people who -- i have a lot of respect for the people who i am referring to. host: do you know anyone working on this probe? guest: i do know several of them, and for my experience they are of high moral character and doing things as career prosecutors do because there's law and facts, and that is it. wherever the evidence leads them. host: what do we do about how they do that job, where they work out of? d.c.?e -- are they in d.c., they are here in the special counsel's office is. mr. mueller is notorious for having very early meetings when he was at my office.

a good friend of mine reported to him directly, and when he walked into mr. mueller's office, you better have your ducks in a row. you better make your points. if you are wrong, you are going to regret it. if you are right, you better be able to back it up. it is a no-nonsense atmosphere. host: maxine in michigan, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. in respect to this cohen and case, i look at this as two little parts of a jigsaw puzzle. washingtonmess in frightens me. it really, really frightens me that these people with the power to force people to do what they want them to do to obtain their end, which is to impeach and get

rid of trump and negate millions of people's votes. that is frightening to me. if they can do that to these people who have money like what willnd cohen, they do to average lunchbox joe or jane like myself? host: maxine, is it the special counsel that you don't trust specifically, or the entire justice department? guest: the -- caller: the entire justice department. everything that is going on his plane on the face. host: what you think of the attorney general jeff sessions? caller: he is not doing anything, really. host: in what way? caller: i don't know. i don't know why he's silent. it is frightening what is going on in our country. ,t really is frightening to me is just a plain citizen who is

watching all of this and seeing it. guest: that is a sentiment that , given by polls, about 30% to 40% of the country. it is one that everyone has to recognize and that president trump relies on. we haven't seen all the evidence. i will just tell you we are seeing the tip of the iceberg of what bob mueller actually has. with all respect to the callers and people out there that are a part of that 30% or 40%, i would ask to hold judgment and see what is actually there. is at the end of the day the evidence isn't there, it is my opinion that the case won't be brought. but just one last thought to what would your caller and others talk today about richard nixon? was he wrongly indicted as a co-conspirator? was he objective five? was he on -- was he objectified? was he unfairly treated ?

if people agree that was a righteous series of events based on the conduct, hold judgment here. host: how concerned is the justice apartment about public trust in the justice system? guest: 100%. morale is not good. to have the leader of the country, the leader of the justice department, everyday calling the justice department a witchhunt, specifically identifying prosecutors and agents and the attorney general himself and calling them not men and degrading them this way. i would just suggest if you thought about where you work everyday at if your boss came in ,nd treated your senior staff you individually, how would that be an environment to work? the good news is i believe those prosecutors, career prosecutors and agents, will follow the law and the facts and take it where it leads them. host: daniel has been waiting in chicago on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i find this comical.

this is totally ridiculous that i have to sit here and know that 40% of america is this backwards. they act like they don't see that this man lies to them every day left and right. he degrades his own justice department when they don't do what he expects to do. everything he does is criminal. everybody around him is criminal. face the facts, the man is a criminal and he is laughing at you. you are destroying this country by supporting someone who is criminal. guest: that of the other 60% to 70% of the country. today you have mr. trump out there saying that people who flip are criminals, and it is people like manafort standing tall who are doing the right thing. that is backwards. that is a statement coming from a criminal defendant, in my mind.

that is someone in the criminal crosshairs, not a president. that is tony soprano or michael corleone, a mob boss, that people who flipped our rats. guilty --ort played pled guilty under oath. for the president to essentially collect illegal is a shame. host: seth waxman, former federal prosecutor, appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: up next on "washington journal congo the trump administration announced a new rules on powerplant emissions. we'll talk about those with benjamin storrow of e&e news, laterter was in center -- wilson center official aaron jones. we will be right back. ♪

announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern, the house energy and commerce committee hearing on the status of the 21st century cures act to help accelerate medical innovations. >> just last month, a team led by nih's dr. steven rosenberg announced in a been a therapy approach -- an immunotherapy approach that led to a regression and likely cure in metastatic breast cancer in women with a previously universally fatal form of the disease. at theer: later, hearing national institutes of health. watch live on prime time in c-span, www.c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app. announcer: c-span, where history

unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. this sunday on "oral histories," continue our series on women in congress with former republican congresswoman helen bentley. >> i knew i had to do well because i couldn't afford not to. plugging andpt working hard. a campaign is tough work, and i

admire anybody who goes into it. announcer: in the weeks ahead, we will hear from barbara kennerly, nancy johnson, and lynn woolsey. watch "oral histories" sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: benjamin storrow is a reporter covering climate and energy issues for e&e news. what would be affordable clean energy plan do? guest: the affordable clean energy plan is essentially a replacement for the clean power plan, was president obama's sort of signature environmental achievement, to put carbon caps on power plants. is it sort of

answers the long-standing republican criticisms of the clean power plant. one of those criticisms was that obama had gone too far and had tried to regulate the entire power sector, when what he really needed to do was just regulate the power plants themselves. this proposal just focuses solely on coal-fired power -- andand approve improve their efficiently. one thing it does not do is challenge the legal underpinning for carbon regulation and endangerment finding. that was notably left out. the idea here is to provide some sort of emissions reduction by moreg coal plants efficient, and obviously at the same time, the president has been very clear about his desire to help the coal industry and provide some sort of regulatory certainty and that regard. host: if and when this plan is implemented, what changes for a day and a coal power plant?

guest: the main thing is the ereat is that -- is heat rat efficiency. basically, how efficient is your boiler? can it burn coal better than it did in the past is the simplest way to put that. one of the interesting things about this rule is that buried inside of this is a larger sort of reform effort of the new source review program, which is a permitting program. when you ask what it does for a coal-fired plant on a daily basis, what would happen in the past is if i am a power company and i wanted to improve my boiler, that would have probably triggered new source review. that gets triggered when a plant s overall -- when a plant's overall emissions increase. what the: industry -- what the

if wendustry had said was trigger new source review, you are going to hit us with all sorts of environmental controls that it makes the rajat gupta improving the boiler prohibitively expensive. projecthe thing -- the of improving the boiler prohibitively expensive. one of the things in this proposal is that if they want to improve their boiler, it is not going to trigger these reviews. phone lines, republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. a special line for those who do or have worked in the coal industry. we would like to hear your thoughts on this proposal, (202) 748-8003. get to the criticism of this plan.

thatrats very concerned this is going to cause increased pollution. if the idea of this plan is just increased efficiency at: our plants, why would that mean more pollution? -- at coal power plants, why would that mean more pollution? guest: when the obama administration approached this, poweridea was that coal plant efficiency was one way to approach this, and they did not expect much from that. they thought that clean power, renewable power, trading of credits, that would be carboneated the most

emission reductions. what the epa is proposing here is effectively if a plant improves its emission rate, they will not trigger new source review. but if a plant improves its emission rate, it is going to become more competitive. so where it might have sat on it isdeline sometimes, going to run more, so overall emissions are going to increase. host: is it fair to say the obama administration's clean power plan was aimed at shutting down coal power plants, and this new plan is aimed at trying to keep them open longer? guest: of course the obama epa would not put it that way. they would have said they are trying to address climate change. but that was the criticism from -- host: addressing in by shutting down one of the dirtier energy sources? they want to address climate change by shutting down what the dirtier energy sources? guest: i thinkguest: coldplay

lant-- i think coal p retirements were big part of that. they were very sensitive to the criticisms that they were going aftera coal. whether people believe that are not as a separate question. certainly the trump administration felt like the obama administration was launching a war on coal. the president has said, and said in west virginia the other isht, that the war on coal over, and that this plan is ending the war on coal. host: here is a clip from that trip to west virginia. we all want a strong, beautiful, clean environment. i want clean air and crystal clean water, and we've got it. we've got the cleanest country in the planet right now. there's nobody cleaner than us. and it's getting better and better. but i'm getting rid of some of these ridiculous rules and

regulations which are killing our companies in our states of mind our jobs -- our companies, our states, and our jobs. --terday we were announce we announced our plan to save coal power plants and save consumers billions and billions of dollars. [applause] host: benjamin storrow is with e&e news. what is the projection here on money saved, and how does this plan do that? guest: basically what the andnistration is saying, it goes back to that initial point of getting back to the long-standing republican criticisms of the clean power plan, and what they are trying to do is provide more for its ability to the states to come up with some sort of emissions standards. aey say this is going to save lot of money because it is not going to impose a top-down

federal mandate. if you dig into the epa's own analysis, it is not billions and billions of dollars as the president put it there. but certainly the idea behind it is let's provide some more possibility to the states who might want to keep their coal-fired power plants running longer. host: we have a special line for those who are or have worked in the coal industry, (202) 748-8003. we will start on that line. charles is waiting in west virginia. your thoughts on this plan announced by the president this week in your home state? caller: good morning. i really haven't followed the plan much. that is why i'm watching this morning. it is an interesting thing. notrked for over 30 years for the plants, but basically on construction building the devices for the last 30 years. it obviously made work for us and did clean up the plants, but

now you see so many of them are dying, basically. they are tearing them down left and right. you got to hope that that this is a band-aid, something to fix them because somebody has to generate this power. they can't go out of business or we will be a mess. host: do you are never what the obama administration's clean power plan met for the coal industry in your area? caller: it creates jobs, ok? but it puts additional costs on the power plants. we needed precipitator to take the particles out. when you come up through into the scrubber systems, which most and itplants put a jbr, was harder for the units to run with these, but again, you hope the trade-off for cleaner air -- everything in life, you have to find a trade-off to find a happy medium somewhere. host: we've heard this from some of the democratic critics of

what the president is doing. do you think there is such thing as clean coal? cleaner.ell, it can be is it the final answer? obviously know. we've all said forever that solar or fusion, you know. but you just can't jump from one to the other. from that point, i think obama was doing good. he was trying to find it at to the feud -- find a path to the future. you can't destroy your current industry hoping for the future. host: thank for your call. guest: that is just a really great, nuanced take on the complexities behind these rules. the most recent thing somebody like charles might have been working on in recent years under the obama administration were the mercury and air toxic rule upgrades. on the one hand, as charles

said, those are big jobs with 80 retrofit -- when they do retrofits for plants. -- for mats, older plants just decided it wasn't worth the cost of doing a retrofit. some of the bigger, more efficient plants went forward. that is some of the give-and-take there charles was mentioning. host: in today's opinion page of "usa today," in the debate section, looking at the plan we have been talking about in this section of "washington journal." the editorial board calling "putting big: ahead of planet earth." -- putting big

coal ahead of planet earth." anthony is in illinois, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. speaking with your spokesman that came on and was commenting with her that i appreciate what c-span is doing and what you are doing as far as getting factual news out there, with everything else going on on cable and local television. very seldom do i get an opportunity to hear something this. opinions on phone calls is what i'm hearing, and i don't think that helps resolve the issues that are facing the -- issues that people are facing this country. you are putting the power of controlling emissions and things in the hands of states. well, the only way i can see that the impossible is is that state can control whatever their emissions are and make those

stay in their state. i see that as being impossible. there has to be some federal control involved because it seems to me that federal control would take care of people in all states affected by those emissions. from that perspective, i am called to say i appreciate c-span actually trying to reach out and give people factual information, although it seems like a lot of the people listening to you aren't taking that into consideration. host: we appreciate you for calling in. this program doesn't work unless folks like you call-in, so appreciate you doing that. guest: anthony hits on another great point that comes up with this plan. one of the criticisms of it is does aually when epa rule like this, they set a minimum standard. what epa has done here is they are identifying what they think are the best ways for a coal plant to control emissions.

but notably absent is any sort of minimum standard for emissions. there are some folks that feel come amongst the critics of this plan, that that is one of the biggest, and in some's view, a radical change. host: ed, a democrat. good morning. caller: first, i want to say that donald trump is driving this country over the cliff like thelma and louise or something. the way i understand it is the east coast was pretty much completely wiped out of trees a long time ago, before they had coal to burn. whales wereeat -- being slaughtered right and left just for oil for light. so i think coal and gas and oil have provided important -- you

know, they saved whales and trees for a couple centuries now, i guess, or a century. i don't know exactly when, but they were using coal before that. host: we will take your point. guest: these are -- there is no --bt that the coal industry it is not exaggeration to say that the coal industry built this country over time. there was a time when teddy roosevelt was trying to prevent the coal strikes in west virginia because it was a matter of national security. one of the things that's happened in the power sector is in the way that we have moved from whale oil and biomass, i suppose is the implication there , we now have cheap natural gas as alternative to coal. we now are increasingly seeing wind and solar.

trendsseeing some of the , and one of the interesting things here is that in the power sector, we are seeing some of the trends in the wider economy mirrored here. a coal-fired power plant has a lot of employees, and it has got a big workforce. powerplant,s fired , much farm, a solar farm fewer employees needed to operate that. so the trend of automation in the power sector, that is one of the reasons -- hardly the only one -- that natural gas is so competitive. host: give us a sense of the size of the coal industry today and how that has changed over the past 10 years. guest: when obama came into power, coal was about 50% or maybe a little less of our electricity generation. today is a little less than 1/3,

hovering around 30%. natural gas, there were a lot of headlines last year that natural gas overtook coal for the first time as the country's leading source of power generation. industry has gotten significantly smaller over that time, both in terms of tons produced, but also in terms of -- we always end up talking about regulation, low natural gas prices, these sort of key factors in the coal industry's decline. but the other thing that has happened from a coal miner's perspective is our coal industry used to be centered in appalachia. coal mining and appalachia was a very labor-intensive job. after the 1970's and the passage of the clean air act, we have seen a migration to the powder river basin in wyoming and montana and the illinois basin in illinois. loy mining

techniques that are much less labor-intensive. so independent of what the president is doing, independent of whatever anyone believes in climate change, there are simply fewer jobs in coal mining than there were in the past based on where and how we are producing it. host: we are talking somewhere in the area of 50,000 according to the bureau of labor statistics. this is the chart on mining and logging jobs, specifically coal jobs from 2008 until 2018. you can see the chart there at bls.gov. jimmy has worked in the coal mining sector in alabama. your thoughts on the proposal this week? from alabama, and i come down here, originally born

and raised in west virginia. , had 37 years in the mines and i loaded up and come to alabama to finish my timeout to retire. tilld worked in the mines he died. my grandfather did, my uncles, my wife's daddy and uncles and brothers. when you go back to west --ginia right now, i know y i know you all are saying there's less jobs there, but every job there, people need it. it looks like a third world country up there, and that didn't happen until 2007 on up. it was gradually declining, but it looks like somebody has come in the andre just -- in there and just put a nuclear

bomb off. host: do you think president trump can change that to bring it back to what it was before 2007, as the year you give? caller: no, he can't, but i support him 100% because every job you brings back is a big thing up there. when i first started in the us at they hired 18 of one time. that one hollow they had 1200 men. where my wife lives, they had probably 15 or 1600. he's doing a good job. he's the man. host: did you like working in the mines? caller: yes sir, i did. host: thanks for the call. guest: the caller is making great points. the folks might have seen in

recent years some headlines, things like there are more people that work at arby's then in coal mining, but that sort of stuff of skiers the importance skiers -- stuff scureswers -- stuff ob the importance of coal mining jobs in these areas. even if the industry is smaller than it once was, to the people who have a job in the mining industry, it is a stable job, a good job, and that is why i think we seen so many in this sort of push to protect and fight for it. host: glenda is in minnesota, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have never passed a coal burning power plant that didn't have a smokestack that wasn't

higher than 500 feet, and it would be a whole different story in that whole community if they could lower their stacks to 200 feet. there's a jet stream that a gesturing that affects all of the state that it goes through. the womenn minnesota that are pregnant can't maybe because of the little lead weights or whatever. about our airns that comes from our coal plants. my question for you is everybody talks about the air. that there is coal ash in georgia. there is a coal plant and they don't whine. drink around there can

the water. not even the executives of the country. not the workers and company. the farmers can't water their animals because it leeches. and in knoxville they had a huge coal ash dam completely go down into knoxville and completely flew the river. -- pollute the river. so what do you do with coal ash? guest: that's a great question. sort of the suite of regulations the trump administration has wanted to roll back our rules on the ponds that you was mentioning and also wastewater standards. coal plants are the largest source of toxic wastewater pollution in america. ironically that sort of stems from the air quality controls that we put on coal plants. those subscribers will get flushed with water.

that is laced with stuff like mercury and arsenic. really toxic stuff. it is put unlined pits. host: is that coal ash? thet: it's all part of waste stream of a coal plant. coal ash is the ash that's left over after you have earned coal -- burned coal and it is also toxic. what she is talking about wet coal ash. the boiler gets flushed with in a pond.eposited trump administration has significantly weakened the rule that would have governed those disposal pits. and it's working on a revision of the wastewater standards.

plan gets ther headlines but there's a lot going on here with all of these different regulations. host: time for one or two more phone calls with ben stora of e&e news. go ahead. caller: good morning. you've got the right subject for me here. i am an expert on all the stuff you are talking about. i was one of the first who scrubber for a power plant. i worked in the oil industry, the coal fire plant industries and so on. the 1990 clearn -- clean air act which involved something really crazy. if you buy oil that has 1% , the aird you burn it will have 1% sulfur.

sulfur, 5%,e 1% whatever the percentages. the air is proportional to the substance that you burn. they said in the 1990 clean air act you have to put a meter on top of the stack to measure the emission. and then you have to record that every minute to the pm. and if you missed -- to the epa. data pointmissed one you'd get fined thousands of dollars. we had to comply with that. meter on you to put a your tailpipe in your car and then you backed up and you had ,he tailpipe and the data lost and you had to pay fines, how many americans would go crazy about all this idea of having to measure their emissions every minute? host: we only have about a

minute left. do you have a question for ben storrow? caller: i think the whole relationship between the mission and risk tolerance must be balanced. i know about mercury. it's a very small amount. host: we will take your point. then stora. of the things one the coal industry has said for a long time. but if you give us time we have shown that we can reduce and sulfur matter dioxide. you can go down the list, mercury. but one of the big criticisms of the coal industry had of the clean power plan was simply that they didn't have enough time to deal with the carbon regulations. host: ben storrow is a reporter for e&e news. you can follow him on twitter. thanks for your time this morning.

up next, we will talk about the federal budget and upcoming fiscal deadlines to do that. we will be joined by aaron jones of the wilson center. we'll be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. national constitution center president and ceo jeffrey rosen talks about his biography of william howard taft. >> he never let politics. aid, archie buck, who served roosevelt and taft as an intimate aid, i will not play a part for popularity.

if the people want to reject me that's their prerogative. he had this madisonian view. his heroes are james madison, alexander hamilton, the authors of the federalist papers and john marshall who he considers the great american ever. so that reason rather than passion could prevail. taft believes the entire system the directo slow expression of popular passions of the people can be governed in the public interest rather than through faction. but as mobs that favor self-interest rather than the public good. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme

court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. aaron jones is an expert on the federal budgeting process at the wilson center. if you have questions about the federal budgeting process, now would be a good time to call in in the segment of the washington journal. an overview of how the budgeting process is supposed to work over the course of a fiscal year. way it is supposed to work and the way that congress set up to work is that every year in february the president is supposed to put out his imprint of how things are supposed to work. and april the congress is supposed to have their budget resolutions and by the early summer congress and the house in the senate are supposed to be

working on their appropriations bills which is all supposed to be wrapped up by september 30 for october 1. the way to supposed to work ideally. host: we are in late summer now. are we working that way this year? guest: congress is working that way a little better than it usually does. towardste is moving some spending bills being done. congress usually doesn't get the work done. there has only been four fiscal years where they have actually got it all done in time for the end of the fiscal year. host: in how long? guest: over 20 years. when you hear people talk about , what really is regular order when you have only done it regularly four times. host: was the biggest hold up to the process? not designedss was to be things that move quickly.

the founders did not give us a system that was designed to move things in an expeditious way. you have a lot of contentious points along the way. people elected from all over the country and have different constituencies, a republican from alabama is not the same as a republican from california. how do you expect them to come together and say this is all of our priorities as one. that's a very difficult thing. people talk about the kitchen .able analogy americans need to sit down at their kitchen tables and work out a budget so congress should do that as well. we know from divorce rates in this country and just from our natural trying to do a budget at home, it's difficult to sit down with two people and do a budget at home. expect congress to get it done we are expecting a lot. where are we for folks who have been watching the floor? how many spending bills have been approved? which one still need to be

approved? this month the senate is laborg done defense and health and education. right now. they've gotten ahead of the house i believe at this point. labor rates still need to be done in the house. and it's all going to come down to in september during an omnibus bill done. it is hard to guess where they are going to get it done in time for theof her 30th or elections. we will definitely see. host: what is an omnibus? >> that is when they package bills together as one bill. there are normally 12 appropriations bills. when congress has trouble getting things passed individually they will package them together. when you have more than one they will usually call it an omnibus bill. sometimes it is all of them put

together. is 4, 2. it host: what is usually the easiest of those 12 to pass and what is the hardest? guest: historically they seem to be ok with doing things like it usedor the veterans to be also that homeland security was pretty easy and now that has gotten more contentious. defense was always pretty easy and now that has gotten more contentious because it is a huge spending bill. it does vary depending on the political nature of things. what is actually easiest to get done is all relative. aaronwe are talking with jones of the wilson center about the federal budgeting process. getting your comments and questions. as we do that. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002 >. remind us what the wilson center

is. guest: it was set up to be the memorial to woodrow wilson. he was our only resident to hold a phd. when congress was looking to create a memorial for him rather than creating a statue or a stone obelisk somewhere they wanted to create a living memorial. we are primarily focused on foreign affairs and looking at the way the world views washington. cleverhave experts that -- cover the globe to some of the best expertise on russia and latin america and europe and asia that you can find. host: how long did you work on budgeting issues in congress? >> i used to work for hal rogers for eight years. always an interesting thing to run through each year of the appropriations process. host: how much is the person at the head of those committees responsible for the passage of

one of these spending packages or are they just at the mercy of the rest of the members of congress? can a strong personality push through a budget package and spending bill? yes.: to a certain degree you do see a lot of strong personalities on the hill of course. when you work for the chairman of the appropriations committee you see how much people do like to work together on the appropriations committee. it really is a largely bipartisan endeavor. the personalities that run that committee do take a lot of pride in being able to work across the aisle. yeare clock runs out every a lot of times you will see the leadership of the house or the senate take over the appropriations process. which is in very good for the committee structure as a whole. if you watch and a lot of viewers will watch the hearings on c-span you may have noticed that this year especially even in the senate the interior bill was passed unanimously in the senate at the

committee level and there's a lot of bipartisanship work that goes on. host: why don't the committees just get their work done earlier if they don't want leadership to step in at the end? guest: there's always the problem of getting time on the floor. senate has to do with a supreme court nomination or something like that. just's other things that happened to come along and take up time on the floor. all of the committees can work at once. but the floor can only handle one thing at a time. ift really slows things down something is taking up the oxygen. host: what is your prediction for the next six weeks? guest: i hate to be asked to do protections because you can always be wrong. i think congress wants to get things done so that they can get back home and get to their campaigns. they will come back in september ready to work on appropriations.

if they can't get something done on single bills i think we will throughmnibus or to get the election. host: aaron jones of the wilson center taking your calls about the budgeting process. we can certainly talk about that. with us for about the next 15 minutes this morning. one question i did want to ask center'slson suggestions for fixing this process. it has only happened four times in 20 years. how do you up the percentage? guest: one of the things the wilson center is really good at is providing an education to understanding how these issues work together. one of the things we had at the wilson center that we went in with the brookings institution and the peterson foundation is a game. we call it serious games. we have a game called fiscal ship.

it is a budget game where you go in and set priorities. you try to bring the federal budget timeline. you're going to see the debt to gdp ratio. you're going to try to bring that down while meeting your policy goals. there's a lot of things out there where they say why don't we just police levers and we will be all right with the federal budget. this game really shows you there are choices you have to make and if you are a politician who has campaigned on certain issues and you have set i wanted be a ieward of the environment or want to fix entitlements. these are actually trade-offs that you have to have. host: can you win the game? guest: you can. it shows the trade-offs. this is something that can happen in a vacuum. there are things that you are

going to have to push and pull with. host: pat is in florida. on the line for republicans. appreciate the i span. i watch you constantly. it's a problem. go ahead. >> i would like to explain how i have worked in numerous countries. china, japan, indonesia, korea. is the issue that i have mainly when you deal with these other countries you have to have a lot of trust in my dealings in china was that you couldn't trust them very much at all. in dealing with them to do work. i have a question whether we are able to trust these people that we are making these deals with. and we are spending a lot of money to do that.

we are sending a lot of people over there. and discussing these meetings. in my experience they would sit across the table from you and smile and say we're going to give you this and they never did. host: aaron jones. foreign spending certainly of the part of the federal process. and spending guest: it is, but not as big as others. there is a conception that we are spending a lot of money on foreign aid and foreign things but really in the total budgeted amounts to less than 1%. host: what would be your suggestion on the trust issue? guest: it's a bit outside of the budget stuff. i'm not a china expert or a trade expert. host: what about getting members to trust each other in this process? is something that people talk about a lot of

times. congress is broken. i think when you see the bipartisanship that is on the appropriations committee which i don't think a lot of people really take notice of. really is a lot of working across the aisle and a lot of trust. i think members themselves will take notice of what the appropriations committee is working on and how much bipartisanship and i think that might spread out. host: south carolina is next. ben. republicans are good morning. caller: good morning. i'm enjoying his comments and putting down his thing about if a couple can't balance a budget over the kitchen table and how can we expect 300 or 400 guys in congress to get together. that's really a good one. i just -- i don't know why. we do need to do something to force them to balance the budget. like maybe if they don't balance it by a certain date than their pay gets cut 10%. and that they don't balance by

another date, 10 more percent. something that would force them. what do you think? guest: it is something that has come up many times. they had the no budget no pay act a few years ago to try to force congress to do exactly what you are talking about. i think when you talk about a balanced budget sometimes people don't really realize all the things that go into a budget. we always like to talk about weapons of being the discretionary things which are transportation, funding for roads, education funding things like that. we have a huge side of the budget which are the entitlements. that's almost $3 trillion a year. to getvery difficult people to talk about that side of the budget when that's really where most of the spending is. last time wes the had a balanced budget? guest: in the 90's. host: why were we able to do it

back then? tesco it took a couple major shutdowns. congress was able to work with the president and there was a motivation politically for it. there were some pretty painful shutdowns that i remember to this day from the mid-90's. .ost: greg is an independent good morning. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. thank you wilson center. you do great work there. i recently read that earmarks actually never really added to the budget but rather were contained in the budget. so i think the bumper sticker earmark -- i'm curious about your take on that. and also are they coming back? you listen to appropriators in their markups you can see that they do like earmarks. it did help people to move things along.

i don't know if they are coming back. congress when they were last doing earmarks i guess in 2009, 2010. they were doing them in a very transparent way and they still got rid of them. logically people thought, i don't want to do earmarks. does seem like there's a lot of appetite in congress in members are the congress are the ones that know their districts the best. in leaving this spending that would go directly to people in their district to the executive branch is something that they're not that comfortable with giving to the executive branch. host: do you buy the argument that it creates more -- more bipartisanship? does to a certain degree give some skin in the game and let everybody know that there is something in this for you.

i doubt not that it necessarily makes people vote for a bill that they naturally wouldn't vote for. if you are in the minority and you are a senior member of the appropriations committee and ugandan earmark in the appropriations bill are you then going to vote yes on the majority's appropriations bill? it's not likely that that's going to happen. behind the scenes you may not because in a lot of trouble to stop it. in st. joseph, minnesota. republican. good morning. caller: i believe the president when he did all the deregulating. he pulled out all of these different things that were basically strangling everybody and costing a lot of money along the process. the other thing is on the terrace. a good way to explain the tariffs to a lot of people that don't understand them is it's like when you discipline a child you have someone in forcing him being the disciplinarian. if you have too many people

doing that you don't get the same result good i think people need to see that we need to wait seettle bit of time here to the products of how this all will work out good and i think he's absolutely on the right path. i just wish so vehemently that these people would quit obstructing in congress. would get out of the way and let our progress continue on. because there are many beautiful things happening with as president. tariffs think with there certainly is a way that people look at terrorists and think we need to punish things. to do this for national security. it's really not a way to get revenue. we only get about $21 billion in a $4 trillion budget from tariffs. is not that much revenue coming from tariffs. host: where does the money go that we taken from tariffs?

guest: it comes in as revenue. congress can decide whether it can go to deficit reduction or appropriated fund. host: wilmington, delaware. democrat. good morning. i think that both parties don't really care as much about deficit reduction as we think and the reason for that is because i feel like if we truly took steps to reduce the deficit not of these people would be reelected because the steps we would have to take would be so widely unpopular. we have to significantly increase taxes. we would have to dramatically reduce military spending. we would have to raise the age probably on social security and medicare and yet the politicians say we need to reduce the deficit so we will reduce things like the national endowment for the arts. which are less than .1% of the budget.

deficit thing going to actually get solved? guest: great question. it comes through education. need to ben public educated on where the money is actually going and understand the process of how congress appropriates. well made but in a $4 trillion budget if you're going to try to cut $10 million it's not a drop in the bucket. that's not even a missed over the bucket. it got to really make some hard choices. peoplely helps to show the trade-off. it may seem unpalatable. but i do think that what happened to greece and some folks in europe a few years ago is unpalatable, too. us to bet does behoove good stewards of the money we have. host: daniel is in texas on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i have been hearing this for 30 years.

forced to do it. this all boils down to trade. you can't run massive trade deficit. we built china. to our peril. now we are going to have to build our military up to undo what we have built. it don't make any sense. we spend all this money on so-called free trade and it's not free. you destroyed the middle class in america. your tax base. tax enough rich people because you took everything they had. host: aaron jones on the trade issue. guest: i don't think there is needy much -- i think we to be careful when we are about trade and how much money we're spending on it. that definitely talks about economic growth and how much

people have jobs and things like that. the money that congress appropriates should be the revenue that is generated from taxes and tariffs and things like that. we are trillion dollar deficits more outlaysve than we have in coming. and if you look at the budget and was laid out about a third of that is in discretionary and 2/3 is in mandatory spending. we are spending a lot more on entitlement programs and we do spend a lot of on defense. about half of our discretionary is in defense. certainly we want to look at trade and make sure we are generating revenue from economic growth. we also have to look at the way we are spending as well. host: is any deficit bad? guest: that's for an economist. that is something economists have argued about for years. i'm more on the process. i don't want to pretend to be an economist.

in kentucky.dent good morning. caller: good morning. to answer your question i will say deficits are probably generally bad but i'm not an economist nor pretending to be one. mr. jones, are you from the fifth district? guest: unfortunately not. kentucky and i went to school at morgan state university. caller: ok. that's where i'm calling from. is there a pension process that is being not addressed at all in that very soon a majority of states will reach a point where they don't have the money to continue paying pensions and continue current payroll? and justn the horizon not being talked about? can you address that to some

extent? guest: states are having the same problems. states also have obligations. and they have health care obligations, pension obligations in addition to doing their own work on roads and education. states are really feeling the squeeze as well. you talk about tensions there are several states that have had some pension issues. kentucky is bond that recently had some headlines on that. the state.on there are some states that have worked well on that and others that have had some issues. obligations are something states are particularly worried about and there is at the federal level the pension benefit guaranty that has a backstop to some of that. i do think at the state level there's a lot of concern about pensions. host: randy is in iowa. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have several short points.

my senator, the one that's pushing for the supreme court he went to the senate there was nearly zero debt. with the laste two republican presidents. toh, it took him 18 months froms in deficit spending a that was in the green. and it took donald trump 11 months to turn around the austerity that the republicans had on president obama. which he had the debt down i believe to 600 billion a year. and was paying things responsibly to the tax cuts in 11 months for donald trump. and he grew the debt to a trillion dollars a year. so the point is that

conservatives aren't conservatives. and republican congress are the ones who grow the dead. and historically they never hold themselves response all. host: we will let aaron jones take the point. guest: i think there are some good points made there. i don't think it is just republicans are just democrats are guilty of this. at trillion dollar deficits and think about what that actually means, that means you could get rid of all discretionary spending and just pay for entitlements and mandatory spelling and you would still be in deficit. host: the current debt right now , 21,000,000,000,408 billion 536 million and counting. according to the u.s. debt clock there. one question i asked you earlier about your projection for what happens later this year with the budgeting and the spending process. does that change if there is a

government shutdown? talk of aard potential shutdown if the president doesn't get his border wall funding. guest: it does factor in. is always some gamesmanship when you start talking about a shutdown. especially in the summer. people want to get to the end game. the president talked about wanting to have, he would be ok with a shutdown if he didn't get his border wall. the response from congress on that was pretty surprised. they continue to work. having the senate work in august on appropriations is actually pretty remarkable. jones ison congressional relations director for the wilson center. we appreciate your time. next, it's open phones until our program ends at 10:00 today. any public policy issue you want to talk about you can do so. phone lines are on your screen.

you can start calling in and we will be right back. ♪ >> the c-span buses traveling across the country on our 50 capital store. the buses on its 39th stop in honolulu. asking folks what's the most important issue in hawaii? one of the big issues is will they have a place to live. tol they be able to afford stay in the home of their birth. we have a huge homeless situation that's going on right now. we are looking for ways to take them off of the street. i think the problem is it's going to get worse if we don't take care of it now. >> i'm from honolulu. born and raised here. important issues that

i feel we are facing here is trying to manage worklife balance. i work full-time. my husband works full-time. plus part-time jobs and we have three young children and are trying to take care of everyone. right now more than ever for hawaii we need to continue to promote the a little hot experience which is in itself a life form. ,t means kindness, unity agreeableness, humility and patience. can all promote and live within the aloha spirit that the state of hawaii thinks of so greatly we could all be in a better place across the nation. >> be sure to join us october 6 and seventh when we feature a visit to hawaii. watch hawaii weekend on c-span,

c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: it's open phones until our program ends at 10:00 today. any public policy issue you want to talk about. that's onanything your mind in the realm of politics or public policy. phone lines, republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. want to show you the front pages of some of the major national newspapers today. continuing to focus on the president's response to the guilty plea by his former personal attorney michael coh en. president praises brave man up

for -- manafort. the washington times, president hen didn'tsting co violate campaign law. the wall street journal. president denies role in payments. usa today focusing on susan page's analysis piece. trump's moment of truth is at hand. consequences could be real. consequences could be real. you want to know what's on your mind. give us a call. james is up first in crystal bay, nevada. republican. go ahead. caller: i want to ask your host there. and grinu set their and take three or four

democrats, two or three independence and one republican. even though i've tried and i've tried to call. take just one call her every once in a while from republicans and you are not the only one that does. james, earlier we had a caller complaining that we weren't taking enough democrats. we are getting complaints on both sides we are doing our job. we try to rotate through the lines as much as we can. phone lines for democrats, republicans and independents and we take the calls as they come in. was there a public policy issue you want to talk about? caller: what of you take three or four calls from republicans and one every once in a while from a democrat? host: i will take the suggestion. sean is in virginia. independent. sean is in virginia. independent. caller: i have a suggestion.

you have a person coming in. you can disagree or agree. that way you will have both. because there are some people who are republican that their views are mostly democratic. there are some people who are democratic and some views are republican. i think that way it would be better. , now theshould include younger generation doesn't use phone calls. they used twitter and text message. taking the --lude on twitter. that's my suggestion. host: we do bring in tweets on thesion and we do occasional agree disagree. is it helpful to you when we have questions to know how

people identify themselves? regardless of what their opinion is on an issue yet -- issue? caller: it's not helpful. to me it's divided the country. -- dividing the country. you should bring people together. so agree disagree will be the best way to go forward. that way the caller -- if a caller calls and says i'm a democrat than the listener who is a republican, he's not going to take it seriously. host: shown in virginia. clarence in washington. independent. go ahead. caller: my comment is the blind trust that a portion of the for thisseems to hold

president. he's the liar in chief. says as gospel to them. they will not turn away from him. no matter what he does. it reminds me of the jim jones followers. i think it's time, right now people are lining up to drink the kool-aid. it's a mess. host: is that just a criticism of republicans and president trump? did you see blind trust when a democrat was in the white house? caller: absolutely. thatld not believe president clinton was reelected. or george w. bush the second. it just seems to be part of human nature so we are going to go through with this. it's not going to be pretty. , new york.eanside

republican. good morning. that.: i'm united states coast guard captain. i was listening to the call factories before. the problem is without coal india and china are putting dirty coal factories online. we need industry. you need coal, you need cheap electric. we need that for industry. god forbid we fall into a world war. that's like in the future without tanks, without metal. the only steal that rebuilds are transducers, our electrical grid. and we are down to like one factory. we need like when you go see riveter building everything and men to war for all of the factories. we need industry. and global warming i would just

like to -- being a coast guard captain i would just like to warn everybody that there is definitely global warming. because i live on long island. there were two glacial remains right here. there were ice age is that were here. and i'm here now. and it's sort of nice. it's a good thing. global warming, we could go back to horse and buggy. china was going to come along in 2030 if they wanted to with all of the agreements that were selling us down the river. you need it to compete in the world. . -- period. corporate taxes come down. bring oreo back to cookies and that this kobach's and get our jobs back in america. host: john is next in germantown, maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: there is so much going on today.

manager hes campaign undoubtedly was involved in the republican convention. with changing the platform. something the russians wanted very much. to tone down the language that was condemning them for their behavior. othereve with some of the neighboring countries. and that ought to be stressed as statements absurd made by the president when he says flipping is wrong. going too way you are get ahead of a mafia or any other criminal enterprise which this administration is unless you have what's called flipping. thank you. host: the editorial board of the wall street journal today in the wake of the guilty plea and conviction calling on congress to do your job.

the right after mr. trump's bad day republican lawmakers need to stop pretending there are any red lines the president won't cross. they say an obvious first step is for comments to pass legislation protecting robert mueller's russia inquiry. speaker ryan needs to shut down the attempt on rod rosenstein. trump's lackeys in the archconservative freedom congress -- caucus. that's the editorial board of the new york times today. lorraine. redford, michigan. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. these women and all this other stuff happened. it was before he was sworn in president. so why is it making it sound like he was the president when he wasn't sworn in to be the president yet? and you getting all these

allegations against him as if he was the press and of the united states then. he wasn't. office ofning for the presidency. host: would you care about anything that happened before donald trump as president? caller: not until he became president. host: ok. key west, florida. independent. good morning. caller: when i hear c-span it's always someone from the right or that have the hardest positions. no one seems to be addressing the subject from the middle ground. for instance there's a woman on youtube. her name is bridget lynch and she has written a thing called the modest proposal and one of her concepts is we are not capable as laypeople of addressing the subject of global warming.

but we are capable of addressing the subject of good stewardship of our planet. find somebody in the middle who can address the subject that speaks to the majority of people makes some sense rather than this continual fighting back and forth. but we are capable of addressing the subject of goodinterested im someone else. host: that's what we are here for. to get things from everybody else. lewis. line for democrats. caller: good morning. my biggest fear with this trump, donaldald trump is a guy who can't tell the truth even to save his mother. we are headed in a good economy and he's back in the economy. but i believe obama has done so

really take us from serious economy and to get us to this point. now he's trying to destroy that democrats have built. government built for years. rhetoric he's talking about the economy. but when you as a president of the united states who represents the world and cannot do things right at home. you can't tell the truth about anything. tor own lawyer is going jail. everybody around you is going to jail. confessyou will not that you're a part of the

problem. so we need a president who can not only tell us the truth and represent us around the world. today we are losing ground around the world. nobody respects us. i was born in a third world country but came into the united states believing that not only a , a refugee.meone but who believes in the system of america. freedom for all. i think president trump believes that he is above the law and like you said, before when he started running for president stand on 5thn't avenue and kill someone and nothing's going to happen. host: you mentioned the american dream.

it you think the american dream is still achievable today? caller: it is very uncertain. because of the way donald trump sees america. i believe this beautiful country could i was born in haiti. i was born in haiti. and for me i think i achieved a lot. my kids went to college. and have a degree. and are doing excellent. but with this president, i don't think anybody can create a dream. host: bill is in jackson, montana. independent. go ahead. caller: jackson, michigan. host: sorry about that. caller: that's ok. i'll manafort, what he did happened 10 years prior to him ever meeting donald trump. to keeple seem

forgetting that. as far as michael: come he will never be an attorney again. jail.'t spend one day in he will be willing to say just about anything to keep his but out of jail. and you can't blame the man for that but it's not right. .ike i said paul manafort, what he did happened 10 years prior to meeting donald trump. that needs to be brought out every time they come out to link him with the president. one of our independent colors earlier was talking about the need for more independent voices. just wanted to give you the latest breakdown of party affiliations in this country according to the ongoing gallup polling tracking of party affiliation. in politics the question is asked to do you consider

yourself a republican, democrat or independent. the latest numbers from the beginning of july 26% of the public identifying as republicans. 30% identifying as democrats. 41% identifying as independent. i should note that independent number is up quite a bit from just before the 2016 election going back to the month before 36% in6, numbers of 38%, the weeks just before the november 2016 election. bill is in georgia. a republican. go ahead. thank you. i appreciate that you have the lines for republican, democrat and so forth and i also appreciate whenever on you to say where they are from or whatever. of the bottomlot

from times but i have decided you don't have words for republican, democrat or independent somebody clicks their tv on afternoon have already introduced me or whoever and said which party we are or if we are independent. they may determine from listening but they don't have it up there. when you just put up independent or unknown or wherever that goes. i think that would be helpful. host: all right. caller: i think a lot of our voters are uninformed and they don't inform themselves. i have been involved with some of the elections locally in georgia as far as administration in the elections at the county level. people go to the wrong polls. they wait until election day to go. we had three weeks of early voting in georgia. they have plenty of opportunity. they can vote by mail.

absentee. if they want to vote on a paper ballot they can get one. you don't have to worry about getting to the polls. i think people ought to be paying more attention and informing themselves more and be aware of what they are doing. host: do you find yourself listening more to those callers who call in on the republican line? do you tune out colors on the democrat line or do you listen to all of them? listen to all to of them. there are some things you can pick up and listen and tell which they are. it's good to be able to hear the other views and know what people are saying. like whenever i'm watching tv programs. i like to watch c-span to be able to get people to views without getting interrupted by

commercials every three minutes. then i want conservative stuff like maybe fox news and sometimes i will be watching cnn or whatever he cousin want to hear what they say. somenotice that sometimes of the tv networks stations seem to leave new stories off that i can hear a news story on fox news and turned over to cnn and listen for 15, 20 minutes or more and never hear a thing about it. i don't know. sometimes they just don't want to cover it. i'm sure fox probably does the same way. you don't always get it right just going from one source. host: linda is in st. louis, missouri. democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't know why if you are a nor do they always want to say because they are the democrat you are not supposed to worry about what's going on in the country. we are allowed for our opinion.

want things toto happen. host: what about the republicans who say democrats never gave donald trump a chance? caller: i can say republicans never gave barack obama a chance. from day one they wanted him to fail. donald trump is failing because of who donald trump is. all this propaganda, all of this hatred. all of the lies. you can't believe anything that he says. and i can't believe how people even go to his rallies still. just the other day still chanting, lock her up. whenever but he has been locked up is associated with donald trump. i just don't understand that. like the other guy who called earlier.

they are lined up to drink the kool-aid. they are lined up to drink the kool-aid. if we were a normal citizen we would be locked up if we had done all of this stuff. host: that's linda. we go to laura in washington. republican. go ahead. i am calling because i feel that i was drawn to the republican party because i believe in this country and i believe in the united states. and i believe in what was done for us 250 years. that's why i went towards the republicans. and nowrump came along this man has done nothing wrong. yet everybody has decided he has to be impeached. democrats put in, she was not even selected by the democratic party honestly. i mean it was written by shelton and clinton. and go on and on. and that has been the story of democratic party. so that's what scares me.

.ost: laura in washington last caller on today's washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow. now we take you up to capitol hill. the senate came in at 9:30 today and one of the hearings taking place as before the pensions committee. hearing on prioritizing science and you and ship at the national institutions of health. nih director francis collins is set to testify. we take you there now.

>> the senate committee on health, education labor and pensions welcome to order. senator bennett will have an opening statement and i will introduce the witness, national institute of health director francis collins. we will hear from dr. collins and senators will each have five minutes to rest questions. we have a vote at 10:30 a.m.