to work with any legislator whether they are democrat or republican to advance pro-innovation and pro-investment companies that will guide the development and future of the internet. the fact is, whether we like it or not, the 1's and 0's that comprise our internet are neither red or blue. we need to have a nonpartisan approach when it comes to shaping the rules of the road that will animate the next generations of how and where we want the internet actually to develop. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. "washington post" associate editor bob woodward talks about his new book, "fear: trump in the white house."

as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for september 17. democrats and centered -- republicans are like are calling for a postponement of the confirmation of brett kavanaugh in light of an accuser coming forward saying he sexually assaulted her years ago. inaking of the white house our first hour this morning, an interview with bob woodward, the author of "fear" trump in the white house." allwould you characterize the things you put in the book

together, the current functioning of the white house? guest: it is a nervous breakdown. the system is not working. there is not a team, there is and disagreement about some basic national security obligations and theory of how the economy works. host: usually when you get a white house together, there is this phrase, team of rivals. does this apply to the white house or is it a different characterization? guest: reince priebus, the chief of staff for the first 6 months in the white house says that trump fails the lincoln test, it is not a team of rivals, but a team of predators. host: natural predators, you describe it. who are the predators on either side? guest: there are many sides. it is every person for himself. the basic approach in the book

is to describe how president trump makes decisions on national security and the economy, the things that i think it really matter to people and , to take one scene, national security council meeting earlier this year in which the president is still worrying about all the expenditures that have troops abroad, particularly in south korea, $3.5 billion although we may get some money back, nato -- thanks we are being ripped off. it is really persisting after a year in office on this idea that we are being cheated, we are being played for suckers by using our own money to defend

other countries, secretary of defense mattis makes the point, this is the best bargain we have. we get benefits to protect our country and the president won't let go of it, so finally, mattis says we are doing this to prevent world war iii, kind of jarring declaration from the secretary of defense to the president. host: what was the reaction from the president? guest: he went on, why are we doing this, why are we spending money on say, taiwan, south korea? he does not understand this old world order, admittedly, where we thrive on trade relations, the security agreements, and the top-secret intelligence partnerships we have.

host: what do you get in a sense of the core philosophies of the president? what does he hold onto? guest: he has a couple of ideas, one that trade deficits somehow are bad and take money from americans. 99.9% of the economists would say that is just not so. economy, it helps the and it sounds kind of technical, but it is not. americans are buying goods abroad because they are better quality or cheaper. therefore, americans have more money to buy other things or save. the president thinks we are losing this money and that it is bad policy and he stands alone with two of his aides and persists in this. economists andto

policymakers on the left, the right, democrats, republicans because it is just not true. host: if he has these core philosophies, who in the white house either previous or present helped shape to those -- shape those? who really shaped and sharpened where he is today? host: the important -- guest: the important thing is he shapes it himself. there's one scene in the book where he is asked, where do you get these ideas and he says, i have had them for 30 years and if you disagree with me, you are wrong. hn said that and asked the question, where do you get these ideas? guest: he was the chief -- director of the economic counsel in the white house. host: i think the president's response was -- i am paraphrasing, but what was the president's reaction to that? guest: this is the way i look at

the world and don't waste your time, in a sense, talking to me about it. heads of any organization are in part measured by how much they grow and learn and trump's inclination is to not learn and change your mind. you have to change your mind. you have to listen. host: there is a hesitancy, that is what you are saying? ,uest: there is not a hesitancy this is the way it is. in the book you say they try to talk to him about the pentagon and the way it is in the world and he -- guest: when you are a change agent, you inherit the past.

you are moving into a house, you cannot burn it down. let's redesign, renovate, change things. he wants to discard these things that are foundations of our and the globalty economic policy and he does not like globalists and he says to a number of people, you are a globalist. host: bob woodward joining us for the hour here to talk about his book, "fear: trump in in the white house." if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .youpendents, 202-748-8002 talked about that sourcing in the book. how does that work out practically? guest: it means i will protect the sources and the nice luxury of having time to do this, you to talk to people, go back

them again after you get more information. there is a kind of deep reporting to everything in the book. guest: there is a passage -- host: there is a passage, dialogue with henry mcmaster. "i have beens hearing about this nonsense with afghanistan for 17 years with no success." we got a bunch of inconsistent strategies and we can't continue with the same old strategy. can you talk about how you constructed that? guest: some of these are nse meetings and notetakers and other people take notes and go to people and yes, i remember exactly what was said in the courtroom. somebody can take the stand and , i remember exact language and that is accepted in

courtrooms. by triangulating, you can get a pretty exact picture of what is going on. , a lot of people think the president is right, we have been in that war for 17 years and it doesn't look like it is going to get better and the pentagon wanted to add thousands of troops. he was very resistant. at one point, secretary of defense mattis said to him, we whether the commander in chief is with us. we cannot continue to fight a half-assed war. host: this is what pete vernon said about the book. every administration is filled with people who have an agenda.

the lines of credibility have shifted. a reliables left book from unreliable sources. guest: he is wrong. from a reliable book reliable sources and there are people and documents and i quote from documents at length. carefully, meticulously done. i have time to work on this. i did not have to do daily stories. host: are you the sole person when you are crosslicensing -- cross referencing sources and material or their -- or are there other people with you? guest: that is as important question. i have an assistant, evelyn duffy, and there are hundreds of hours of tapes and we will go through it and make sure that we have represented from the

andments and notes interviews, what we call the best obtainable version of the inth and she is dogged saying wait a minute, this is ,he word or let's clarify here as you caneticulous and it is a great asset and i thank her at the beginning of somebody wholyn, in spirit and commitment was effectively the co-author of this book. host: we have a lot of calls lined up, so we will start in plano, texas with chris, independent line. you are on with bob woodward. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. woodward. i am about two thirds through the book and i enjoyed very much. it paints a great picture of the

white house. i hate using the word, but i had a question about collusion. a number of conservative columnists have been saying your book's absence of discussion of collusion is somehow exculpatory and i wanted to know what your position was on all things in that matter or if the book was even intended to cover that angle. guest: it is covered in a way. what i have said is i found no new evidence of collusion. there is some out there on the record, publicly. some of the reporting by my own newspaper, the washington post, the new york times. i have found no new evidence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. in fact, president trump's lawyer for 18 months, john dowd, concluded that mueller had something he was not telling john dowd about in the meetings

that dowd had with mueller. other point on this, i think, and it is critical, the real answer to collusion is in russia. as a reporter, if i went there, i almost certainly would not come back. you cannot operate in russia. intelligenceates agencies do and they produced that initial report concluding that russia was meddling in the 2016 presidential election. it's going to be very interesting to see if those intelligence agencies or special counsel bob mueller come up with anything that is intelligence based from russia, but what -- that is where the real key

answer will come from, i believe. viewer onave a twitter, does mr. mueller think -- mr. woodward think mr. mueller or any other entity would subpoena his notes and recordings? in relation to what you wrote about the mueller investigation, perhaps. guest: let's hope that doesn't happen. i hope it doesn't happen and i expect it not to happen simply because ideal with lots of very sensitive, national security issues and debates. i have done this now for 47 presidencies and i try to provide as much notrmation in the book, going so far as to disclose sources and methods to harm operations essential to the security of this country or that

might get somebody killed or some source blown. there is a line. i tend to push it. i think the public needs to know more rather than less. there are people in the government who would disagree with that, but i know, many times, i have been careful and people who know about these intelligence operations understand that. host: will there ever be a time we hear the source taping or otherwise from this book? isst: my general approach after 30, 40 years like in the case of watergate, carl bernstein and i, our papers are at the university of texas, all of the notes, all of the drafts -- everything from that watergate investigation we conducted except from people who are still alive and then when

they are deceased, those papers get turned over and are made point,worried at some somebody is going to be able to go through all of this and see exactly where it came from and see the rigorousness of the process. host: did you talk to mr. bernstein about the book and did he help shape it in any way? guest: carl and i talk all the time. he did. he had all kinds of ideas. he is working for cnn and he has done a lot of his own reporting and we would talk back and forth about where this is, where it is going, what the outcome might he. my general approach is reporting becauseuture is futile you do not know what is going to happen. is an ending there

, the president's lawyer, john that theluding president is a liar. think,paper has, i established there are 4200 plus matters the president has said that are false or misrepresent what occurred. on the outcome of the mueller investigation or the trump presidency, this is, i believe, a slice of reality, covering the period during the campaign a little bit up through the first 15 months of his time in office. host: let's go to minnesota, democrats line. this is bob. go ahead. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i have got a couple of questions . one of my biggest concerns is that trump seems to be -- -media and guest: you noticed. caller: i'm wondering if you are in danger of being taken over by a dictatorship? host: i certainly hope not. is anti-mediadent -- and has coined this term "fake news" and it has a lot of people, particularly a lot of trump supporters agree with that. i think the only answer for us in the media is to do more and be more careful of

the tone. there should not be a smugness self-satisfaction in the writing when reporters or commentators appear in television. we still have democracy, still have a first amendment and let's .ope that will continue talks tough on a lot of these matters and you see the news media generally not pulling punches. host: you write about how reince priebus would change his schedule to keep him from media input. guest: what the chief of staff bedroom,om -- trump's where he did a lot of his tweeting, the devil's workshop and special times when the president would be engaged in

tweeting or preparing tweets, the witching hour, and would try to work the schedule so he would be coming back to the white house, for example, late on sunday night after the weekend because he normally goes away to one of his golf resorts for the weekend or goes out for rallies or other events and so, the president would come back after 9:00 when cable news is kind of doing softer programming most of the time. host: you also write about at one point in time the creation of a tweet committee that never came to fruition. guest: a number of the aides said why don't we review the tweets and fact check them and so forth and that did not work out. the president runs his own twitter account. this is from washington state, independent line.

willie, hello. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: lord knows i love the puttry and i would not have this information out there the way you have done it. subversive.be excuse me? guest: i did not say anything, go ahead, sir. caller: i love the country, bob, and i would not have put this information out there. the people who are our enemies are listening to this and it is a policy we do not have the sophistication to realize this invisible hand is at work and they are not going to be appearing as russian or jackboots -- they are going to be dressed just as you are, trying to infiltrate the , hamper the government. this is how they operate. guest: can i answer that?

i remember during the watergate case and nick's a lot of people said we cannot stand to know the truth. actually, we need to know the way i canthere is no take a position as a journalist or an author, let's camouflage back let's somehow hold the democracy we have is strong and -- we try to base it base the debate on fact. foreigners going on, trying to subvert the government, we have fbi and massive intelligence agencies who monitor what is going on. , the whole intelligence establishment

tens of billions of dollars each year spent on this. as you know, we haven't had -- for example, a major terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. i just think that is my job. somehowthink we should this gets to the emperor has no clothes and you have got to describe what is going on. i think that makes the country stronger, not weaker. host: from california, david in corona. hello. caller: good morning. mr. woodward, i have no doubt based on your track record that the book has factual and you are giving us a true picture of what is going on.

my question is, at some point in the future, trump will no longer be president. it will either be -- he will lose or the completion of a second term. when he leaves, the problem doesn't go away because the division remains. in your estimation, how do we get back together as a country and at least in a civil way, address problems and reason things out together? guest: great question. reporter and the political system we have, whatever strengths or weaknesses it might have, we are going to have to deal with that. systemly, the political is being tested, you are exactly right about the divisions. that hasa polarization

not existed before. the remedy -- and there will be a remedy, i have to be an optimist -- i am an optimist, in fact, has to do with people listening, people feeling and agreeing on what the facta are. facts are. we may have -- because this has happened before, we may have a crisis in this country where mr. trump will have to manage the unexpected and that will test him and the country and even in a sense, the day to day tests everything. let them figure out how to do it. -- i did not --

trying to enter the question, what really happened? who are these people? whatill see who trump is, motivates him, what he cares about and what he does not care it's almost a total universe portrait of him in the operation of the white house. ,hat is where my energy goes not getting into your very good question -- and that is a great question for the elected representatives we have. host: a viewer on twitter says where did you begin and did you start by inquiring on the overall climate and decision-making process of the white house or does it relate to a specific instances? guest: it related to all specific incidences and talking to people and saying, what did

you see, what did you hear, what did you know on the key issues and the book covers foreign policy, what happened in north korea, what happened in the off galveston debate -- afghanistan debate, the middle east debate? how did the president decide to impose tariffs on china or steel tariffs? how did the tax plan get formulated? the debate on trade and immigration and so forth. there are people who are specialists, key people in the orte house and the west wing the departments, the cabinet can -- what is so interesting in doing something like this is you can go to someone and if you win say, whatt, i can

happened that is important? know andimmediately that is your jumping off point, what is important? what has impact? of the the nature relationship the president has with his key aides and cabinet officers? host: one of those interesting relationships, senator lindsey graham, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. why did he have such a large influence? guest: they play golf a lot, he is close to trump. lindsey graham is in a sense a greek chorus of 1 because he talks to trump a lot and they deal on domestic issues and foreign-policy issues. senator graham, the republican a hawk on carolina is military issues.

a very much believes we need to do something -- something humanitarian on the issues. for instance, in immigration. host: from tennessee, democrats line. anne, you are next for our guest. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. mr. woodward, i have a very deep hearted complement to pay you. i find this book utterly fascinating and it gives me hope . i don't know how to explain this. i am a never trumper. i am anti-trump. everything about him just turns me off. , i have toyour book pay you the deepest complement in that you have changed my mind

about -- you have given me hope that there is -- there are two sides to this. i have changed my mind concerning one aspect of mr. trump and i owe that directly to you. guest: what was that aspect? when i readler: your description and in-depth detail of the meeting, i believe wasas a meeting before he inaugurated president and the intelligence community figures people went in and explained to him the situation with the russian tampering. in that, you described mr.

comey's -- the way mr. comey handled that meeting. comey pham, asr. you can figure out. completead your definition and description of what mr. trump must have been feeling during that meeting, i saw his side and i saw something that literally changed my mind. guest: ok. that is a fair point. what i would say is that comey, then the fbi director, took a summary of this field dossier that made some allegations about the president and what he had

done, allegedly, unproven, with 2013itutes in moscow in and my point was, why would you present this to the president at this time, two weeks away from being inaugurated? the j got the aroma of edgar hoover, fbi, look, this dirt we have got on you. i know, in other presidencies that i have reported on, when there was this transition period, new president was coming in, often allegations were made particularly about president clinton before he took office and the response was to take the allegations and not confront the but to throw them in

the burn bag, knowing that if there was something to it, it would come out. theourse, this was whitewater investigation, the lewinsky matter, and so forth, not that that started earlier, but that there was a pattern is one of these incredibly powerful institutions. if they decide to go after you , they canigate you look at anything, finances, personal relationships, businesses, all the people who are in your orbit and so forth. it is a power that has to be used carefully. felt there was not the care taken, particularly, they know who trump was, i even reported in

the book he told president trump after -- told his lawyer, this melania should not hear about. i agree with you, i believe that is a moment trump -- where they got in his face on some of these and created very intense suspicion between the president and the fbi. host: republican line, mary, hi. caller: i wanted to get your response from a common i heard from cheryl atkin's over the weekend. she said, in general and specific regarding your book, that certain journalistic practices are not being adhered to. for example, the overreliance on anonymous sources. she said anonymous sources should be used sparingly and

with as great a specificity as possible and it seems like there are a lot of anonymous sources in your book and in general in reporting. the other thing she said was when you report on someone, you usually interviewed that person to get their view or take on what was said about them. in terms of this book, you reported on the president, but you did not interview the .resident finally, there were disparaging comments made by various people, dowd, mattis, kelly, and i was wondering if they said directly to you and if not, because they are denying they said them. that.thank you for three points, so we will let our guest address them. guest: first of all, the sources are not anonymous to me. i know who they are and this is

about specific incidents that the sources witnessed or participated in. -- by having the time and checking things, there is not a vagueness to it. it is 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 15 and they gathered in this office. this is what people said. this is what the president said. this is what the president did. interviewpeople to president trump. no one ever said, he is willing to. i broke my spear on it. the president called me last did, andesident trump said why didn't we have this interview? because he said he wanted to do

it and that i always treated him fairly. i listed people i have talked to . a president trump acknowledged in one case and kellyanne conway who was in the room. because i you tell me went a long time with kellyanne conway going through what i wanted to ask the president about and it is either the president or some aides decided he should not talk to me or breakdown, as i call it, a nervous breakdown in the white house where information is not getting to him. there was maximum effort to try to go over these things with him because he is really the focus on the book. you use unnamed sources in my you go toecause

people, get out a microphone and say, this is on the record and you will get the press release version of reality. if you establish a relationship to know and say, i want what is real, i want to talk -- i have to be very careful so i test everything i get and if you -- theseugh the book writingome from people them down, all kinds of specific themes. do you want the press release version of what happened in the white house, which,

unfortunately, and as i have said before, the president is conducting a war on truth. he just will not accept the and inn lots of matters , if you talk to people on the record, you are going to get b.s. dig as deeplyto as you can. this is the ninth president i have done books and reporting andthe "washington post" on the method is well tested and meticulous. host: we have a viewer on twitter that says why would jim mattis, rex tillerson, gary cohen, and others dispute? guest: there is what is called the politically calculated where a number of people who said, this doesn't

capture everything. people have disputed some specific things, but not all kinds of other things. people need to survive. case, wek to the nixon used to call this the nondenial denial. and,pears to be a denial in fact, it is not. that is part of how people survive in the administration. reality ofof the survival denial and take them for what they are, believe me, vaguech and a kind of comments by people. it is select the -- everything is selective and it doesn't totally reflect someone's

experience in the white house. itnow it accurately reflects -- perfectly on every moment -- that is impossible. there has been actuallyents by people greater confidence in the method i use. host: this is alan in little rock, arkansas. caller: good grief, you sure answer questions taking a lot of time. i love c-span, i love listening. mr. woodward knows, it is a great cross-section of america every day and he is putting himself up for open questions to the american people for a change. i've got two or three quick criticisms and then two or three quick questions. the one is i hope you did not

take that lady's complement from tennessee as a complement because she is referring to the dossier, which was what the torupt fbi leadership used open up this fall probe against the president, but you did not explain that. then you said this repeated, and all the time, the president said the media is the enemy of the american people, which he did not say. he said the fake news, the false story, the bias is the enemy, which, it is. and the third thing is just this despicable choice you took to introduce your book on 9/11. of all days in the year, you took that day. i think if there were to be a photo -- character of a charlatan, your face would be on it. here is two quick questions. guest: you have made it very clear how you approach these things. newsresident has said

media is the enemy of the people, not fake news. he does called areas news -- various news publications fake news. the publication date of this book is decided by the publisher and it is a sequence to get it out in the fall. i not sure what your point is. we know there was a corruption of the fbi -- caller: we know there was a corruption of the fbi that fed you all those stories during watergate, the so-called deep throat operation. how many of these anonymous sources in your book are fbi sources? guest: let me answer one at a time. first of all, all the information in the reporting on watergate has been substantiated. the president resigned.

sources that of are identified in the book, carl bernstein and i did all the president's men -- did called, "the president -- all the president's men." caller: i thought it interesting the burglars in the watergate hotel were the same crew under g gordon liddy that were in the bay of pigs invasion. guest: ok. look, i stand by that in history in the nixon tapes established what happened in watergate. who the sources are in the trump book, that is going to come out some day and there are all kinds of people. in fact, somebody in a key position after the book came out

who is in office now called me and said, everyone knows what you have in this book is 1000% correct. reality and in my view, i think people need to wake up to reality and not deal in some conspiracy theory that the fbi is behind all of this. the people behind my reporting work or worked for the president. from phoenix, arizona, democrats line. bob, hello. caller: yes, good morning, thank you for c-span and thank you for having mr. woodward on. this is a call of thank you and i give bob five stars for

accurate reporting. i am about a third of the way through the book and i feel like i am reading a confidential report i should not be reading. i have been a fan for 4.5 decades and i read all of your watergate stuff. i read most of the things you have written about the nine presidents and i give you an a+ and that is all i have to say, thank you. guest: ok, thank you. host: independent line, michael from washington state. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, mr. woodward. thank you very much for your many years of service to our country and the world. i would like to ask two quick questions. if you believe a fifth or sixth grader -- a president of a fifth or sixth grader mentality would be able to beat hillary clinton in multiple debates and what do you believe has happened to investigative journalism because

there does not seem to be a lot of it going on anymore and i am wondering if you believe as i do that it seemed to have stopped right after 9/11. guest: i think there has been a lot of very good investigative reporting. the question about a fifth or sixth grader, i quote secretary of defense mattis telling associates that president trump acts like and has the understanding of "a fifth or sixth grader." documented and the reasons for that conclusion are laid out in the book. whethering question of president trump beat hillary in those debates. lots of people think he did, some think he didn't. the important part is he won the

election. what i am trying to do is describe what he does as president and, as i have said, go in to all the areas that really affect people's lives in foreign policy and domestic, economic policy. host: republican line, north carolina. karen, hello. caller: hi. first of all, i was a democrat that vote for obama twice and i ran like a scolded dog to the republicans. the only way i would buy your book is if i was going to send it to venezuela to help with the toilet paper shortage. the thing killing you about me is you are not even aware and enough to know you have the languagebalist violence. why are you doing that? host: thanks. guest: we know what you think

and that is what is great about and hear andthis people can judge the merits of what is said. host: jim off of twitter asked about process. how do we know which quoted passages are real and which ones you reconstructed and put"? -- in quotes? guest: they are all real, there is nothing reconstructed about it. you have notes and interviews of people who were there and get their memory. some of these things were done very quickly after the event, after the meeting, after the decision, discussion in the and it is so carefully done. that is what i have found. -- of the other colors said

callers said it is kind of like looking at a report somebody would do on a business, where the board of directors calls somebody and said, interview everyone, look at everything and find out what happened. i would essentially say that is what this book is. host: from massachusetts, independent line, robert, hi. caller: good morning. i just want to say is thank you for the book because i am saying, look at all the people -- toilet paper. we come to a point that people want to let the country go to hell in a handbasket. we have a president that demonstrated he is a willing agent and people are willing to jump in and orange suit with trump and destroy the country.

we have kids to raise and i thank you for the book and having the courage to bring the truth to us because he is not the united states. he only works for the united states and people don't understand the guy is not prepared for the presidency and that are dashcam, to me are the enemy of the truth. hollywood tape might not be him when we agree it was him. what else do the people want? to me, it is like, tell the truth on your part and i give you great credit because the sontry, right now, is divided and hillary and that. guest: do you have a question, sir? caller: the question is, i am asking what do you think the

-- what wehould do should do to have the president to respect the rule of law in this country? host: caller, thank you, apologies for that. guest: that is an important question and there are debates about the things he does. there is the mueller investigation, which is ongoing. pleasave achieved guilty or convictions of lots of people or marginallyted related to the focus of the investigation. did someone commented president trump or somebody in his campaign for in his government collude with russia during the 2016 election? that question has not been

answered yet and we are going to get a report or some finding some time by special counsel i looked at some of this and i think there are not conclusive pieces of evidence that i could find one way or the other. host: when you talk about the mueller investigation, you talk about john dowd and how willing he was to offer up information to the investigation. can you characterize the length he went to and what he offered? guest: his theory of the case was let's cooperate with mueller because there is nothing the president has to hide and so they turned over the data, provided 37 witnesses in the campaign and from the white house. 1.4 million pages of documents from the campaign. 20,000 pages of documents from

the white house. would speed of this up the investigation and mueller would declare it over and the -- that there would be no evidence the president did anything wrong in this. at the end, as i report in the book, john dowd concluded that mueller seemed to have something -- that there was something he was not telling the president's lawyer, john dowd, about. dowd concluded the president's suspicion about mueller publicly and privately, the witchhunt -- that the suspicion was correct and that mueller had played dowd for a sucker, the president for

and got all this evidence and then was not being forthcoming, kept pressing for some sort of confession under of with -- under oath with the president, which dowd insisted after practicing with the president pre-to president, quite simply, of not capable of telling the truth and when the president said he was going to resigned.owd the very human phone calls between dow and the presidentd on this and dowd regretting very much he has to resign, but he said i cannot sit next to you as your lawyer and let you testify, you are incapable of testifying and telling the truth. andry severe conclusion one, let's face it, look at the

president's statements that are not supported by fact. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: it is stunning, axioms came out with a phone regarding the american contrived press and what mr. woodward is part of. the system is identified by the american people as 85% of the american people believe the mainstream media produces fake news, which they do. my friend, who lives in the soviet union said listening to the american media system -- corporatized media is literally like listening to soviet news agencies. host: we are short on time, so direct me to your question or comment, please. caller: my question is comment is mr. woodward, why don't you support the implementation of the fairness doctrine?

if you have nothing to hide about the club all destroying the democracy and the first amendment by the american people, then you should be in support of the fairness doctrine in media, which will give the american people a voice instead of destroying social media networks and equating every american with conspiring with russia. guest: ok, i personally practice and try tos doctrine get as much information as i can and as i say, i will repeat myself, it is very, very carefully done. -- i do notthis carry politics into it. i have been accused of being a leftist, being conservative, , somebody or that president trump accused me of being a democratic operative.

about that clinton and some of the things i have written about her and her husband in books. it is absurd. somebody the other day -- some time ago called me a radical centrist. i think that is probably where i come from. it is what happened, can you verify it and present it and that is what i try to do. host: how many of your previous books on white houses have taken same deep background approach you took with this one? guest: all of them. nixon do is going back to . obama,arter, the bush's,

i spend time to get information that i can verify on -- from other sources. it is a consistent approach -- it is -- what is interesting is when a book will come out, people like -- henry kissinger -- and carl bernstein and i wrote about a very emotional scene on the eve of nixon's resignation where nixon and kissinger got down and prayed and the president really kind of lost it and was pounding the carpet. when that was published, itsinger came out and denied and years later, when his own memoir was published, he described exactly the same scene and said to people that

president nixon was almost a basket case. bradlee, the editor of "opposed" said, "the truth emerges. sometimes it takes only a day or two, sometimes it takes years." host: you talked about the president's relationship with melania trump. how would you characterize that? guest: i just have a couple of scenes. that's exactly one of the things she should do but i did not get into the nature of the relationship very much. are quotedof people in the white house saying she has a lot of in a, and i think steve van and refers to her as a hammer, that she is very tough. from our republican line, texas, this is james.

go ahead, you are on. personal communication, it is anecdotal, and the general press is the same way. not publish any so that no one can call the studies and paul's impartial. reporting is not -- pure science that the is a method of talk and people and getting records and immense and note and , and tell people what you , the best obtainable

version of the truth, that is what is in this book. host: from georgia, hello. caller: i just walked into my door. i did not hear the callers before now. i heard somebody denigrating our president. --ma, we all remember how this guy does not get really, but i wanted to call and thank you for your work. i just want to ask, how happy is everybody that they have inspired all of this amongst the citizenry? in my 71st year, people do not say hello to each other. how long will it be able to

participate [inaudible] i am not sure what the question was if there was one. maryland, gloria, hello. caller: good morning. mr. woodward, you are the reason why i called. i don't have enough god bless to the stowe. a -- to bestow. we are you a great deal. the truth is a catalyst we all need to i want to encourage america to continue to stay wedded to the fact that the government of the evil by the people for the people shall not perish from the earth and we will continue to form a more perfect union. we will become one nation under god indivisible to bite the madness and insanity going on in

the white house. guest: i recognize some of that language just in fairness. i was not wounded. fromre mixing the up with abc, the reporter who was indeed wounded. i served in the navy for five years after i got out of college. host: dorothy, virginia, hello. um, this is my first time calling. good morning to you. this is my first time calling ever. but i just wanted to make a brief comment. about what is going on. i did not vote for president trump. i voted for hillary.

the minute i came out of the booth from voting for hillary, i i felt that i should not have done that an ice of i am sorry it, voted for hillary. now i know why i got that dealing. -- that feeling. host: do you have a question about our guest in his book? caller: the thing i am saying is trump andr president i'm glad i voted for him because i feel he is doing an excellent job. i cannot see why people can't see that. i wish people would get on their and talk about not only president trump at other people, other people they are talking

about, -- host: got you, thank you. i think this is a case where the book and the information in it speaks for itself. responses,you get not only from president draghi atwitter, but what are other responses, what has it been for you? guest: to a certain extent, it reflects a polarization in the country. i think the simple fact is a lot of people know that i have done now for almost five decades and the reporting in every case has stood the test of time and winds up. .ometimes very quickly sometimes, it takes a long time to be verified.

it is something done with no political perspective and animus. book are things in the that show president trump strong and a victim at times. that show president trumpit alsa were on truth. war on truth. and does not understand fundamental economic national security issues. host:war on "fear " by bob woodward. thank you for your time. for the next half hour, we will about nomineetest brett kavanaugh. democrats and republicans calling for a postponement because of recent allegations of alleged sexual harassment. that, want to talk about

-- we will take those when we come back. that,♪ >> tonight, developing ig. telecom reporter for the help. ask any legislator democrat or republican to advance pro-investment policies that development in the future of the internet. the ones and development in the future of the zeros that coe the internet are neither red or blue.

-- next generations >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. ask c-span, where history unfolds daily. publicwas created as a service by america's television companies and today, we continue to view unfiltered coverage of the condor -- of congress. the white house. and the supreme court third and events around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. x -- >> thursday morning, watch the nomination of judge brett

kavanaugh to the supreme court. >> if this man is successfully nominated, he will become the deciding vote on major legal issues that americans care deeply about. report to the to committee the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. live at 9:30 eastern or listen with the free c-span radio app. "washington journal" continues. host: the name of the person accusing brett kavanaugh of alleged sexual allegation -- misconduct allegations. particularly from the reaction of congress, the story goes as such saying a vote on the into doubt thrown sunday after senator jeff flake says he is not comfortable , all the accusations from a california professor of

saying that brett kavanaugh assaulted her as a teacher. she came publicly forward yesterday. after her story was published, a member of the judiciary committee told politico, if they put forward without an attempt to hear what she has to say, i am not comfortable voting yes. we need to hear from her and i do not think we are -- that i'm alone on this. on the senate judiciary committee, we will show you some of those going on in the next half hour. your thoughts, if there should be a hold on the process of a vote for judge kavanaugh. the committee itself was expected to hold this week before it goes to the full senate floor. if that willstions happen. here is how you can let us know your thoughts on the story developing in the last day. democrats, --

-- you want to post your thoughts on twitter this morning, you can do so. if you want to post on our facebook page, it is facebook.com/c-span. it was just this morning that kellyanne conway moments ago, the white house asked judge kavanaugh's accuser if you should testify. here are some comments from kellyanne conway. >> absolutely. she should not be ignored and she should testify under oath and do it on capitol hill. that is up to the senate judiciary committee. also kavanaugh should testify about the 36 euros allegation. the senate judiciary committee has to decide how each of them will testify. to 30k we're up to closer hours of him testifying, women right and left of center

testified about his judiciary -- judicial temperament. thorough, he sat on the bench for 12 years, and i think you have to weigh this theimonial along with considerable body of evidence already in there. he should not the ignored or insulted. i spoke to senator lindsey graham and he said that should be done tomorrow to move forward. we respect the process and are watching the process. from what i can tell, dr. ford

and wanted an amenity and i was breached by someone who decided they should go to the media with her allegations and that is disappointing but that and will what -- that is wt is happening in this day and age. the republicans are stubborn for to give her her say, to testify under oath. that is kellyanne conway from the white house this morning. this is senator dianne feinstein who forwarded the information. talking about with the senate judiciary committee should do, saying this committee should not forward with the vote for numerous reasons. have beenestions raised about judge kavanaugh's record. to your thoughts, this is wary in mississippi, democrats line. larry, go ahead. caller: it does not matter how

many years it has been since this did happen. lady telling the truth or not, i believe she is because she took a lie detector test. brett kavanaugh should take a lie detector test. i think they men should take one. have a nice day. from illinois, rita is next. republican line. you are on. caller: yes. this is all just horrible. i do not care which side of the isle you are on. if he did it, it is horrible. the way the democrats held on to this information until july, she got a lawyer, she takes a lie detector test, and no one says

anything about it until august or this week in september. i do not care what side of the line you are on. if he did it, he should not be the judge. the democratic party has sunk to a new low. hold onould there be a the process until more questions are asked, not only of the ones accusing him but judge kavanaugh himself? yes.r: what about the other guy who already said this never happened. what about him? notes, she said there room.our people in the now she is saying there were only two. the washington post says kavanaugh did not respond to questions about whether he knew her in high school.

reached by email, the judge did -- the judge decided -- declined to comment. he denied any such incident occurred. "it is just absolutely nuts, i never saw brett act this way." the seventh cap i was a brilliant student and love sports but was not into anything crazy or illegal. in kansas city, kansas, democrats line. caller: here's my question. wereis happened when they , have they got any record against him? i mean, did she go home and tell her mom and dad? did they call the cops? i do not understand this. i think it is a lasted ditch

democrats to not go ahead with the vote on brett kavanaugh. i think they should go ahead. i think it is bs. host: republican line, from ohio. hello. go ahead. , he hasmy comment is been through so many interviewed -- interviews and investigated by the fbi how many times, and none of this came forward. to be honest,-- interviews and f democrats trying to delay everything. all i see is money. it is costing the taxpayers money peerage just get on with it, please. host: the washington times was the republican

from california who received the information or the judge turned it over to ms. feinstein, ms. feinstein reportedly did nothing with it until fellow democrats learned of it and demanded she brief mi on it. she has turned it over to federal investigators who in -- concluded they cannot look into the matter. federal salt is not a federal crime -- attempted assault is not a federal crime, and state statutes of limitations would make prosecution impossible, and gave the information to the white house. i found it strange why these people call you and they are not interested in what is true or not. they are talking about democrats, democrats, these people are crazy. these are guys like mitch mcconnell, they will be dead in a couple of years. when it comes to the nomination, should the process proceed or not? >> they don't wait and see if it is true or not.

host: cynthia is in north carolina. go ahead. morningfederal salt is not a fl . i agree with some of the other colors that it is just ridiculous. 30 six years ago? it is a last stand for the democrats. i used to be a democrat. i turn independent because of all of the baloney democrats do. go ahead and testify but i think a boast -- they both should. before thursday. this is a 36-year-old allegation. >> the senate judiciary committee was set to vote the nomination out of committee. go to twitter, we have a poll asking a question, should the senate hold off on the process. 73% of those participating on twitter say yes and not a scientific effort -- estimation,

just people responding. saying that mostly because of america, a victim is able to face their abuser. saying i think she should testify and in the vote on brett kavanaugh should take place within 24 hours. make your thoughts known on twitter, facebook, and the phone lines. -- cynthia in north carolina, go ahead on our independent line. caller: thank you. both testifyshould but the allegation 36 years ago is ridiculous. let them go testify but i mean, a lot of times we have all the done things in our past, a majority of us, anyway, 30 or 20 movement, the me too

coming up at the last minute, judge kavanaugh should be voted in on thursday and confirmed. i used to be a democrat but all of this baloney going on, i turn independent. it is ridiculous. host: the attorney for christine ford turn to cnn this morning. on its website saying the lawyer for the woman accusing the nominees said monday her client would be willing to testify in public. the senate judiciary committee, the story goes on to say ford originally had a great deal of ambivalence about coming forward and decided to keep her allegations, then. that decision was taken away when those allegations were weak, saying also, adding that andbelieves in the breed ends the inability to take her clothes off, he would have raped her. that is the lawyer saying that they're there are questions from

members of congress about whether the process should be halted until the look and a chance to talk and interview the people involved. we're asking your thoughts on if the process should continue. vicki, democrats line from texas. caller: thank you. i do not understand why it is impossible for people to understand a rape charge or attempted rape charge is 38 years too old. it could have been yesterday or two years ago, it is still a charge and she should have the opportunity to testify and he should have an opportunity for a rebuttal. we should not go forward with for ape of certification judge ship when he had this type of information hanging over his head. thank you. california's next republican line, we will hear from dan in watsonville. caller: i wanted to say that i am ashamed that diane's einstein is my senator. destroy a goodto

man's reputation and dragged through the mud when the only real crime he committed was being nominated by donald trump. jacksonjust like ronnie when they try to nomine him for the veterans. they threw smears at him. he looked now, nothing ever happens after that. he is not going in front of a judge for whatever they lied about what he did, he said -- she sat on this since july and waited until the last minute and through this unverifiable 30 out --ar-old charge, threw it out like a hand grenade, a molotov cocktail, knowing nothing would happen because of it. all it would do would hurt his good name. and if you really look at it, she is tracking the me too movement through the mud. she is debasing it.

anything that hurts trump. graham putor lindsey out a statement saying i agree with concerns expressed in the judiciary committee statement about the substance and process regarding the allegations in the latest claim against judge kavanaugh. if miss ford wishes to provide information to the committee, i would gladly listen to what she has to say and compare it to all the other information. if the committee is to hear from ms. forde, it should be done immediately. the process to continue as scheduled. maryland is next. first time caller, i keep listening to you guys very much. i do not know what is the problem. let that young lady have the day in the senate. then we proceed the next day. what is the problem?

i think he should be vetted a little more. one or two days, what does it matter? listen to what she has to say and make the vote. i do not think there is a problem about that. host: the senator from california who sits on the judiciary mitty and this out, courageously stepped forward to tell her story, it is incredible and a serious allegation. the senate has a responsibility. a thorough investigation. the committee is set on thursday. to vote the nomination out of the committee for consideration. some republican and some democratic senators asking my hope and of the rosses until more of an investigation is done. we are your opinions on if that should be halted. --

democrats line, this is curtis in tennessee. caller: yes. my hope is, if we could just put politics aside and look at the moral integrity -- integrity, we are talking about the judicial system, which really will affect all of us here let's say for the sake of argument that the man is guilty. do we want someone up there making decisions that will affect all of our lives if he lacks any moral integrity? putting politics aside. the question that needs to be asked, this is how we want to be represented if he is in fact no secret if he is innocent, by all means, whatever go with the confirmation hearings. he the fact that he is -- if is not innocent, it is a no-brainer. would nott someone --

want someone like that representing me if you choose women in that way. i do not think the general consensus would be the same. we need to put the politics aside and go with right and wrong. integrity. host: raise in chicago, republican line. caller: good morning. just turn it around, that for democratswrong. , they have a woman up thatcotus, do you think they would delay it? of horse not. because they are in the majority. , wantw camilla harrison to run for president and everything goes the wrong way. ellison was accused of something, of that or he. of abuse. not one word was said by the

democrats. running in minnesota, of course not. host: you are saying do not hold up the nomination. caller: why are you going to hold it up? test thisot allegation. you will because -- thank you. michigan is where karen lives, on our independent line, good morning. caller: i just cannot believe some of the people on here are talking bad about the woman who came forward, after all of these years because she finally has the guts to say something. i was assaulted numerous times and i am a big girl and not a beauty queen. when i was young at 16 with a guy climbing in my bed at my friends house, i had no intentions of having him around me like that.

was in my late 40's, my boss kissing me out of the blue, on the lips, hugging and kissing me for no reason at all, then i never said anything. i would never say anything. who wants the hassle in their life over some think that it is your word against theirs. of course you're going to deny. it's his future. he will be a supreme court justice. late 40's, my boss kissing me out of thewhy wt he was a bad guy? the benefits to not that and make his life that are, to be a supreme court justice's friend. for them to get on her about that is so wrong. to think that just because he was 17 and drunk, maybe if he did it, that is just a kid thing , it is a moral thing. it is a set -- a thing inside of you to be able to do that to someone else when they are not wanting to.

karen in michigan. roll call reports on three waves -- three ways the nomination process could play out in light of what has happened in the last 20 hours or so. that kavanaugh drops out of the way hospitals the nomination. he might decide to spare his family what inevitably will be a few weeks of scrutiny and discussion about churches. he brought up his children repeatedly during the testimony early this month. that chuck grassley, the chairman of the committee, with slow the process, adding democratic editors and will almost certainly call for the chairman to it the very least delay the scheduled vote. feinstein issued a statement calling that -- calling for that. new pressure on senate republicans to at least review the accusations for proceeding to a vote scheduled for thursday afternoon, and possible outcome

three, that the republicans stick to their plan with reports of some details of for sharing with the post must be here in an eighth two hours before the host published the old with democratic senator josh says he doubts it would doom the allegation. he says it is very serious but at this point, you are not going to be able to really test it unless someone comes forward with more information. that has of course changed. three ways the nomination could play out. you could find that on the rollcall webs right. david in three ways the nomination could play texas, re, height. david: let them delay the vote. it is obvious democrats are stalling until after november and that will not work. the only thing that really counts is votes, and a matter what the polls say. it will be 2016 all over again. you're saying delaying the

vote will not hurt the process. caller: not at all. host: why? caller: because the democrats think they will somehow take the majority in november and it will not happen. democrats line from north carolina. hello. caller: yes. i think it is very ironic that these people can call in and talk about somebody delaying what mitchter mcconnell did to obama's nominee. people are hypocrites. what is wrong with them? host: specifically to the kavanaugh process, why should it be halted? caller: because there is more stuff to come. that is why the republicans will not release the remainder of his records p there is more stuff to come. you're saying delaying the vote will not hurt the process. caller:the democrats, you made t move, a very smart move. i commend you for doing that. host: texas republican john

cornyn who sits on the judiciary committees weighing, was puzzling to me is the democrats, by not bringing this out earlier after having had the information from or than six weeks, have managed to cast doubt on the professor and the judge. couldn't agree more. he goes on there and you can find that on his twitter feed. from california, san diego, independent line, good morning to anne. caller: i want to remind everybody that this is exactly what they did to clarence thomas when he ran for spring court many years ago. they brought out last-minute sexual allegation. it is really interesting is the same thing. i find it interesting that democrat, they are still concerned about something that happens them in teen years ago but there's so willing to shop up navy's and abortion. host: do you think we are in a

different climate in 2018 then when judge thomas was being processed into the supreme court? caller: i think it is much worse. freedom of speech is in jeopardy. host: republican line, jenny, north carolina. i say let the vote go on on thursday. i heard now that this girl was saying there in the bedrock. she is 15, all in the bedrock, they fell out of the bed, she ran out of the room. remember anything. anyone can take a lie detector test and maybe she thinks something could have happened. but my thing, what questions to they ask her in the lie detector test? .he was not raped any boy is going to try to kiss a girl may be in high school. i don't know. but i think it should go on

thursday. 30 years, ridiculous. i think every state needs to have a statute of limitations and now the democrats know all they have to do is bring in the think isvement which i half crappy because anyone now can charge anyone they don't "oh yes, hecrime, tried to kiss me" and ruined the whole life. what questions did they ask? host: to the vote on thursday, what is the harm on holding off a little bit to ask both of the parties involved more questions or at least look into it further? because the democrats want them to hold off. the whole goal is to hold off and not put him in. they could have said this in july or they could have had it straightened out. but no, they had to do it right the with a vote. they know what they are doing. they are correct and they need crap andhis crack -- stop ruining someone's life. ast: one more call, free and

-- vienna, virginia, democrats line. caller: when i first heard about this, i did not think it would go very far. this poor woman has come forward and told her story, and i know republicans want her to testify. it is just a very difficult thing to do. the reason she is credible for me is because it came through when she was in therapy. note au hear details, i were maybe 17 over never and i was aching well, that is what evan teen-year-olds do, dumb things. but the way it would happening -- the way it happened and there were two boys to one girl, chuck at a party, that is a traumatic thing to happen to a girl. my thought is where are those republicans who might have given in on kavanaugh because of all of the other roe v. wade and all that. faced with the situation. it becomes just a moral

question. as far as other callers who called in and asked about the timing coming forward, how does that factor into your thinking? caller: i have heard the timing wasn't exactly, she didn't like blow the whistle yesterday. years ago before he was even being considered, she wrote a letter or something to someone about this. it is not just that she has thrown us at the last minute. i know the senator feinstein held onto the letter because she was trying to respect this woman's privacy. i totally understand where this happened. i just think i understand why she handled it away she did here trying to protect this woman's identity. if i was a woman this happened two, i would have to say, i'm sitting here watching the man plea that he is just the most honest and trustworthy and i have never done any tank to harm a woman, and knowing and keeping it from inside of me, i would have to come out with it. it is just a moral question.

it really is. host: ok. cynthia calling on the nomination process. we will did -- continue on with a discussion on the events of the last 24 hours and other events facing congress and the white house. heather timmons from the website quartz, a white house correspondent. and mike lillis of "the hill" covers congress. ♪ --st >> tonight on the communicators, a discussion on developing ig

and the expansion of broadband throughout the u.s. tech and telecom reporter for the health. areock band providers ready, willing, and able to work with any regulator, any alleged leader, democrat or republican, to advance pro-innovation and pro-investment policies that will guide the future of the internet. whether we like it or not, the ones and zeros that comprise our internet are neither red or blue. we need to have a nonpartisan approach when it comes to shaping the rules of the road that will animate next generations of how and where we want the internet to develop. host: watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on seized then too. two. c-span

>> in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by american television companies. 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. >> what does it mean to be american. that is the studentcam competition question. we're asking middle school and high school students to read by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right, national characteristic, or historic event, and explain how it defines the american experience. and $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of five dozen dollars. the deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information, go to our

website. >> thursday morning, watch the debate and vote on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. >> if the man is successfully nominated, he would become the deciding vote on major legal issues that americans care deeply about. >> i now moved to report the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be associate justice of supreme court. >> follow the process live thursday morning starting at 9:30 eastern on seized and an c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: a discussion with two guests this morning. mike lillis who covers congress from "the hill" and heather timmons from quartz, a white

house correspondent. one it comes to brett kavanaugh, what is the general strategy in light of the allegations? guest: we are seeing them to the same thing with the situation and rob porter, where there is some sort of allegation of abuse of a woman and the way it has doubles down. that is what they do. trump doubles down and this case us back to his history in the long history of and against him where he doubled down, tonight, denied, and he won the presidency. this is a way strategy for them. host: kellyanne conway basically testified to that idea for that strategy. guest: very unusual for her to say that this woman deserves to be heard. that was not the official white house statement to come out. they said they will double down. host: mike lillis, on the senate side, we have republicans in

congress calling for the halt in the process and what you think the likelihood is? -- as of this morning, it does not look like that will take a spear chuck grassley it has been clear that he wants to vote in the committee thursday. the supreme court comes back into session in october and the supreme court wants judge kavanaugh seated then. they are on a timeline and are also questioning political of theions here democrats because dianne feinstein the ranking member of the judiciary committee has had this information for weeks if not months. for it to come out last-minute days before the vote, the statement was why now? if you knew the information, why didn't you share it weeks ago? so we could have asked this question -- these questions while we had judge kavanaugh before the committee. you are right there are

republicans calling for the delay, including one member of the judiciary committee, jeff flake. it is all a wait and see right now. how many republicans, what error error as far as both are concerned? guest: 11 republicans and 10 democrats on the committee by my count. that means if jeff flake wanted to push the issue and change his vote, he could force the delay single-handedly. it is not a slamdunk for republicans. host: will we hear more from brett kavanaugh? caller: -- two,: i think if air force they welcome the this woman might have to come and testify this week. determined toe

get them through. there were a bunch of people on the list to could a thin potential something for nominees and you hear rumbling particularly from christian conservatives who wanted amy barrett to be their nominee. history of potential things. there is a huge paper trail with him. on the christian fire right, saying we told you, why don't nominated person we want it? guest: in terms of the new testimony, chuck grassley wants to avoid that. has allowed members of both parties on the committee, professor ford the -- the user,

to hope that would satisfy all members of the committee. of course it will not satisfy democrats who want this to be oath. and under a private viewing not open to the public? guest: yes. is our conference calls. whether or not it satisfies all of the republicans on the judiciary yet to be the in. will talk about this and other topics related to the white house and congress. -- you can also tweet us. let's assume he goes out of committee. what is the strategy among republicans who might the on the fence in the first place, the

tenant -- particularly senator collins and others? thet: they are not on committee, notably. it could easily get on the floor and it would not be a factor. it will be a factor on the floor and they have not said how they will vote. there issue was appeal of obamacare and the woman's right to choose. and some lingering questions over brett kavanaugh's position on both those things. democratswildcard is who are facing tough questions. they all voted for trump's friend supreme court pick and they are facing tough questions and the thinking at least until a couple of days ago was they would probably vote again.

this gives them at least a good reason to vote against them. meaning if mitch mcconnell and republicans lose perkowski or he might not get any help from the democrats. it will be interesting to watch. host: what exactly has the president said over the last 36 hours? host: he will -- guest: he was tweeting this morning low about trade. tariffs may be coming out. he has not specifically address the allegations. we would assume that at some point he will. and seems to be unable to dr. himself from getting right into the mix so yes. through the rest of

the week. as far as we know, the thursday hearing will take place as we know it. out ofe get a vote thursday, that is a possibility. and then we see where it goes. again, courts are coming back into session in october and republicans want him in place. is there a chance they have to wait until next october for the supreme court? guest: the senate will be in. they still have some time. the election is coming quickly and want to get home on the campaign trail. the house will be gone for an entire month for example. mcconnell can do whatever he wants. they will wait and see what the political fallout is. i do not think there is a plan b -- plan b.st: mckay

up,t: he could hold it couldn't he? fry to the floor and go through is the environment different in this case and does that affect what happened with the candidate? judging from the people flee heard calling in, it is a hot button issue. the idea that it was ok for boys to be boys in the 1980's, the environment is different now it is not acceptable. it is not acceptable. women are getting up and saying this is not ok, you cannot treat people like this even if you are 17. host: the me to movement moving through congress as far as they -- the ideaguest: republicans werey confused of moving the -- accuse of moving a process to fast.

with that in mind, if they jam it through, women voters or female voters are very much , new candidates in the house at least it will come to washington next year and they are fired up. it is only going to energized the more so that is the risk republicans like. also worth noting clarence thomas was facing harassment charges, verbal, nothing, not assault. this is sexual assault, which is a crime. >> even before the accusation came out, someone put posters up on the weekend and said roe v. wade is more popular than brett kavanaugh.

that is true pulling wise. the public does not get a vote on him but it is a public racing political moment. host: heather timmons and mike lillis. republican line, you will start us off. what happens to all of the gambling charges? that is not something you want in the supreme court here at hello? host: -- supreme court. hello? host: go ahead. caller: ok. it seems like they are just dragging people out from under rocks. right-wing christians do not run the whole country. hillary clinton was elected by popular vote. host: what is a direct question

to our guest? caller: how can we get rid of a life appointment of supreme court justices that should not he? clarence thomas is still sitting like a bump on a log. how do we get -- host: got your plate. guest: i think you would have to pass an amendment or a law. something would have to go through. it could, i suppose democrats could, there is a long discussion. i believe the only way the truth will come out, since this woman passed a lie detector test, the judge should be required to take a lie detector tests. though i know they are not admissible in court, i trust reince and technology more than

i do politicians. thank you for taking my call. host: a lot was made of the lie detector test portion of the story. guest: there is a lot of information that shows like detector test are not incredibly accurate. shows she is acting in relatively good faith. whereot see a situation she goes through a lie detector test. this is not how trump fights. andill double down kavanaugh will keep saying, i have not done this. host: it's a conference call takes place with the accuser, are those recordings, are they private or will they ever be made public as far as the release?

private.ose are with not a conference call both of them are there would be calls between the senator and the judge and the senator and the accuser separately. not a conference call scenario that i'm aware of. again, we will see if it works. host: john is in kansas, republican line. caller: i have got a comment. i've been waiting for democrats to pull this and now they did. like the previous caller said, nothing was ever said about keith ellison nothing will be because he is a democrat. roy moore, they brought up the same stuff and it worked. the democratic playbook. we will bring stuff up like this

every time it comes up and we will slime any republican, the whole mediators against them. then the thing about clarence thomas, that was almost the same deal. you say it is not the same time but the thing is, democrats have been sitting on this forever. now they will bring it up right before the confirmation. and i'mit is sickening really disgusted with democrats. i think all the republicans should get out and vote to protect the few republicans against the media and the democratic party. me if i'm wrong, senators michalski and collins, where they part of the group that called for al franken to resign? how does that play out? guest: to the caller's point, the me to movement

is lumped sometimes as one generic thing. it is nothing like that. these are complicated and individual questions and they are different is surrounding each one. franken was knocked out of the senate very surprisingly. john conyers, longest-serving -- longest-serving member of the house, a few months before franken. has gone after members of both parties depending on the circumstances. there happens on republicans and some democrats and people have fallen again from both parties. again, the movement and its effect on elections especially from collins, it will be a fascinating dynamic. were among those who were critical of franken. now they will be under pressure to do the same here with brett kavanaugh. no doubt about it. from tennessee, teresa, go

ahead. you're on with our guest. is a bribe for susan collins to vote against kavanaugh. just want to put that on the table. but the democrat party, where are the accusers of roy moore away.t has all went no lawsuits, no accusations anymore. playbook.e democrats play-by-play. i knew it would happen and i have been waiting for it. they are very desperate. they will do anything to stop judge kavanaugh. this is their ammo. seven other women decide stormy daniels accused trump and the was doing, lisa bloom brides to get the women to come forward. they have all disappeared now. we all see what is going on.

it will not work. the woman in tomorrow before the judiciary committee. she should be ready. she already has done a polygraph and already has a lawyer. -- she has already done a polygraph. let us see kavanaugh afterwards. i think which sheiks is expressing is what a lot of us -- we want to see this woman testify. they would like to see this public. no one wants it behind-the-scenes. they want this to be an open forum. i see the point about the roy moore accusers. many of them were trump voters. one of them had her house burned down. the investigation was not concluded. no one knows. those women are still out there.

we could go back and talk to them again and see what there life is like now. did would seemy like a difficult decision was just a political ploy i think is not fully understanding. courts -- with we wrote smarter, faster business news. work andour readers live in more than one place. it is very digital. mike, a little bit about your website. we talk about what is happening inside that building

across the street, looking at the capital. and the white house. we have some policy stuff, political stuff, which i to do it all. pedro: let us we've and a couple of other topics. trade, china. howher: we talked about tariffs are good. we're expecting him to roll out tariffs on $200 billion. is going to cover stuff that ,mericans by --buy televisions. this is another part of the truck double down approach -- trump double down. theysaid they are not -- may wait until november and see how the midterms go, we do not need to do this now. they were sets to come into the u.s. for trade talks.

that may not happen now. if these tariffs go up. saying thepresident cost increases have been desk countries will not make fair deals with us. as far as tariffs and the impact customer -- impact? heather: talking to people who exported lobster, spent years building up this market. while the stocks are going on, they said they're not going to buy it. we are seeing a tiny increase in steel production. lobster,ustries, like or auto production are really getting hurt. pedro: on the house and senate

side, when the president response, is anything they can do to keep it from happening? mike: they can pass legislation saying the president cannot put these in effect unless congress approves them. they has been an appetite in both parties to do that, but not large enough from the republican leadership. they do not want to have that fight with him. particularly since he won the on protecting the middle-class workers. he is making good on a campaign promise. it is not a conservative republican ideal to slap tariffs and oppose free trade. but that is the route he has taken. republicans in congress have gone along. pedro: from michigan, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i have been talking about kavanaugh and the accuser. i did not find much information on her other than she is a psychologist. i am looking, it is coming out this morning, new information. she was there at president trump's inauguration protesting. on is also written articles his immigration policies. it is clear now, we know where she leans. i think this will go away quickly. thank you for taking my call. she was pretty optimistic. mike: the accuser, is a registered democrat so there's no question where her sensibilities, medical leanings are. that is not the issue. the issue is a question of what she put herself in this position

-- she has become a household name. understood me and a lot of -- under scrutiny and a lot of attacks under the statements she made. is that worth blocking the nominee if it were false. that is the question. that is what you're hearing from some of the democrats are it would anyone make it up for political reasons. no, this iser side, politically motivated. she's a democrat, she wants to block systemic -- this nominee and do anything. that is the argument that will happen all week. pedro: even before the name came forward, there was a letter providing 65 women providing support. mike: everyone is asking how they came up with that so quickly. if i had 10 years, i could not come up with 65 women from high

school. i do not know. they must have had it in their back pocket, i do not know period -- do not know. pedro: from indiana, democrat. caller: i wanted to comment on the kavanaugh situation. i am appalled at these republicans, who all of a sudden we do not have a code of ethics. guilty of is not these charges, what is the problem? checking it out area -- it out. if he has nothing to hide, there is nothing there, why is everybody so upset? let it play out. we need to know. this is a lifetime appointment. us, and when iof

was 17 i still believed at the age of 67 -- i still believe at the age of 67. it is important to see this through. pedro: caller, thanks. heather: we are seeing from both let this --e saying a republican caller said that her take the stand. people are ages sit and want to know. -- are interested and want to know. you still want to know. we talked to you about tariffs and trade, let us talk about spending. mike: they are doing well relative to in the past. omnibus, they passed

when you lump the bills together. they are chopping up to 12 into different chunks, and last week they passed the first one. it is already law. about military construction, veteran affairs. the legislative branch, energy and water. this week, they will take up that second bite-size chunk but is a huge one, labor, health and human services, education, and they are lumping it with defense. defense is the sweetener. it is not supposed to have any opposition from either side. the houses out this week but will pass it next week. becausethe tricky part, of all the threats about the president the towing -- vetoing

if he does not get the money for his wall. smartly, was take the dhs portion of the budget, but they do not have an agreement on it. it's dhs and transportation, they attached it to the defense and labor peace. they get it done before elections, the naked the wall fight -- then they kick the wall fight to december. dhs would be to get past the elections before government shutdown. that is the path we are on right now. that is not seem to be anything to stop it.

but you never know what will happen. pedro: why we sing such movement on spending bills? in the past they had difficulty getting approved. republicans want to prove they can govern well and effectively. they had gone after the democrats for not passing spending bills in the first couple years. they were being labeled hypocrites. electionshese midterm , when both houses are in play, they want to prove they can do it. for all the partisan fighting that goes on in the capital, the appropriation committees get along pretty well. they are left to their own devices. they sit down and can crunch a deal. problem,never been the the problem has been once he gets to the floor and you have the bomb throwers.

someone who wants to attach a poison pill amendment and jack the process -- drag the process down. we have not heard of any poison pills yet, we will have to watch and see. because no one wants a shutdown at this point. pedro: including the white house. heather: despite trump threatening a shutdown, he has been talking to the fact he is not going to get $25 billion in one spending bill. he might get a few million in the spending bill. they may have gotten him over the hump to the point he realizes that shutting down the government would be counterproductive and the 25 billion is not going to come. pedro: republican line, this is tim in florida area -- in florida. caller: i like to make a comment, your guess it a comment

about tariffs, that is not republican or democrat. if i'm not mistaken, tariffs have been in this country for a long time. i have been out of school for a while, but i do not think much has changed. i think trump is trying to do makethese tariffs, is to ,- when they import their goods they pay a lot less. what he is trying to do is make a level playing field. heather: throughout u.s. history both parties have put tariffs on.

democrats have been more supportive of unions. a lot of this is about labor costs. i think right now, the republican party to put tariffs is an about-face. pedro: from north carolina, democrats line. caller: how are you doing this morning? pedro: five. you are on. heather, my questions both deal with the kavanaugh nomination and the accuser. the question is, if kavanaugh claims -- if she claims he was drunk at the time and he was a high school kid, what would the difference be between that and if they were on cocaine or some other illegal drug?

it was illegal for a high school or to be drinking alcohol at that age. to some that lead negative aspect of his character? part, ifd park, -- they came up with a list of 65 ladies and he went to an all boys school, why would the 65 women have knowledge of his character? heather: the alcohol question, the statute of limitations has long passed. i think this is more of a question of culture. many of us that are kavanaugh's drank alcohol long before it was legal to do so. your member being a teenager being at parties where there is not enough supervision. it was illegal, absolutely.

is it something lots of americans have done, yes. on top of that, there is a question of sexual assault that we are really talking about. on the letter from the women, i had heard, when kavanaugh's friend made a call about the fact the article was going to come out, his wife who was part of the circle relies the story was going to come out and got a 'school alumni together. when you are in touch with people you went to high school with, it might be easy. there might be an alumni facebook group. who knows. pennsylvania, alan. --ler: i wanted to revisit

everybody keeps talking about nominees, there is no way we will get someone who is not flawed in some manner. back, 229 years ago that us was authorized by the constitution, back then to life expectancy for a male was between 30 and 35 years. down the road, to do thousand 2018, the lifespan is now well over 80 years. do you think, we need to look over that, that long and appointment of life, when someone could live much more than 80 years gives a vast reach. pedro: color, thank you. -- caller, thank you.

mike: this comes up in context of the programs. you hear this a lot with social security and medicare. it was passed to 1965, a goes back several decades. life expectancy was lower. saying hear some critics we need to raise the ages of those. table are working longer, living longer, we cannot afford it. yes, you could make those changes. is there an appetite for them, no. not anytime soon. not in our lifetime probably. these are enormous changes. to the constitution in one case, and to entitlement programs in another. heather: it is an interesting question. was the constitution written, a lifetime appointment only met a few years.

the fact we had two different colors asking this question, means -- colors asking this question, it depends on what voters thinks. pedro: fema coverage or fema reaction to hurricane florence, this was on the show yesterday. talking about the response, and the president's response. --s is what he had to say it >> fema was he only responder going into puerto rico. this is what we are doing to change that. he just came in to his job, and gets hit with one of the most complex disasters. i work with the governor and his staff every day to ask how do we build better capacity in the commonwealth. 1800 -- have we hired fema is one of the largest employers in puerto rico.

teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, that are now part of fema to help design a better future. the president has been disputing the death toll, multiple tweets, he said over many months it would to 64 people, and like magic, 2000 people killed. believe it or not, the white house put out stating other debt totals. 2970 five people died as a result of hurricane maria according to the puerto rican government. does fema except that number? >> the numbers are all over the place. fema does not count this. if you look at florence, the deaths that are verified by the local corners are the ones we take. we do offer funeral benefits after disasters for those that are eligible.

those are numbers you can put forward. thing, these guys are so dedicated, they work around the clock. >> why -- pedro: the reactions by the white house to the puerto rican gusto. -- death toll. heather: we are going to hope they have other things to worry about than attack the death toll numbers. he raises an interesting point. fema does not count numbers themselves. and himdone a project gone down to puerto rico and interviewed families. a lot of the deaths did not occur during a hurricane,

afterwards it was because there was no electricity or medical care. people who would not have died have died. the number is an estimate. those, the fact the white house is politicizing the situation rather than going back -- fema seems to be taking that line 2 -- and saying what did we do wrong? more people died that should have, what could we do differently? pedro: have we seen any reaction from the white house about hurricane florence? heather: it is under 20, i believe. the president has been tweeting great job and things like that. they are giving fema a lot of support which is what they should be doing. pedro: we expect congress or the senate -- as far as aid? mike: we were mike: --

back we were asking this -- going back to california. it was clear there was going to have to be a federal response. we asked this is going to being issued they would half to address in september with the budget. fema has $20 now, billion worth of money and will get some more once these appropriation bills pass. they'll get some after october 1. the feeling is yes, it will require billions of dollars in a federal response. but not this month, not immediate. they have enough to get to the immediate response. after the election, we may see themergency supplemental wildfires and hurricane, and what happens between now and then. pedro: from illinois, the republican line.

caller: good morning. first, on puerto rico. i believe it was the government that was so corrupt that made island as bad as it was. it was the puerto rican people who would not help each other. judge, i want to ask, a year ago it was out where congress made a slush fund to pay off the victims that were paying -- were charging them with sexual misconduct. there's supposed to find out -- now we don't hear anything about it. mike: that was a big issue a year ago. it was taxpayer-funded payments. people went down because of it. they change the law, they very quickly passed a law. people were so frustrated. people meaning voters. the was no choice but for

congress to act and they did quickly. new members of congress no longer have access to that funding for that purpose. whether or not they continue to do those things and had the money somewhere, anything is possible. they can still try. it is not legal. minnesota, this is tammy, democrats line. caller: good morning. back to the kavanaugh list of women they came up with the very next day, i think the only way we can look at this is because the republicans knew already and that is why they tried to push the nomination through so quickly. it seems like this was a prerequisite to becoming part of the trump world, you have to have abuse, harass, raped a woman. i would like your response. heather knew more about

the letter than i did. accusation coming from liberals who are opposed to brett kavanaugh. het they knew about this and was able to produce a letter so quickly. elects a tightknit, community with these private schools in the d.c. area. both all men, all women, coed schools who would keep their contacts within d.c. and might have a facebook page and could produce something like this quickly. be -- theremay not are too many people working on the nomination from inside the white house, to private law practice. this letter came out and

immediately backfired. it shows you marry it was not the most smart strategy. the question is how did they get it so quickly. pedro: before we go off to other a bipartisan bill looking at opioid funding. mike: this has been a years long effort and i think the are 70 bills in this package that have gone through five different committees. crisis a response to a that seems to be growing. it affects a lot of states. a lot of these senators want this priority. it is a good thing to take back to voters and say look what we have done for you. they're expected to vote on that tonight in the senate.

no opposition that i know of. the house will pick it up next week. it is a comprehensive -- dealing with treatment and prevention and law enforcement, any facet of the opioid crisis you can think of. pedro: something the white house wanted? heather: absolutely. trumpard president talking about putting people in jail. if you look at the roots of the crisis, the way these drugs were marketed, whether the white house and republicans are going to go that far with how much money the pharma puts in. that is something trump voters would like to see. dennis in texas, the republican line.

caller: republicans and tariffs , good luck finding republicans these days. republican, i'm an anti-globalist. this is part of the negotiation tactic, we have a president not afraid to use the power of united states to negotiate for the benefit of the country. nato -- hetelling just wants them to pay their fair share before we have to go to article five and defend some country that pays less than half its share of a meager budget. the tariffs are simply a tactic to get to a fair agreement. which were from dealsradios -- bad trade

to help other countries out that never got changed. it never made any sense, and he is trying to put that jeannie back end -- genie back in the bottle. pedro: thanks call her. -- caller. heather: that is how the white house entered this. idea we can come out and be tougher. one of the complicated things is, we are negotiating with china, president trump is up against the strongest communist party that has ever existed. it is a dictatorship, if people in china are feeling the impact, and companies are feeling the impact, they cannot vote him out. there is no give there, if he decides we're going to stand up , ande u.s. and lose money

maybe the people will not make much money, there is not really anything they can do. we have a democracy, and there's a lot of opposition, and we're going against the communist party, it is a difficult negotiation. doy have more power than we in being able to tell everyone in the country to shut up. pedro: alaska calling, democrats line. caller: hello. pedro: you are on. caller: i would like to talk about kavanaugh. the gentleman calling himself a guyster, i am shocked you --the word i'm looking for,

he requested they show all the paperwork. paperse holding up these from the democrats who deserve ssley was on the senate floor when he requested the papers before been nominated her. surprised you call yourselves reporters and have no clue about the truth of the matter. i feel this woman has a right to express and knowledge what happened to her regardless of how long it has been. pedro: to the point about the

paperwork, you go back to this idea of my paperwork? -- more paperwork? mike: long before the article came out, democrats were up in arms about republicans trying to jam this through. touments going back decades when kavanaugh was part of the white house. to them,ot have access some were shared and not made public, some were not shared with the committee. , and grassleyons was accused of being a hypocrite. when president obama had nominated a liberal, and he wanted to see everything, now he does not want to see everything. it depends on who was in the white house, who has the dictionary -- judiciary gavel,

it is called politics in washington and it will not stop with his nominee. pedro: from michigan, the independent line. ironic i think it is that these people are calling in and saying it happened so long ago, and he has is other people vouching for his reputation. trump wouldrget, like to criminalize women, they want to throw them in jail for having an abortion, yet they have guys like kavanaugh impregnating them or trying to. -- anythinging is to that customer -- to that? heather: the opinion you are expressing is there are a lot of angry women. , trumpsoo movement

election, women were not happy with. sense that things are not fair and have been unfair for a long time. here you are with the number -- another reminder of a man in power who is accused of assaulting a woman. pedro: your perspectives on the november elections question mark particularly -- elections? and how the house side is handling customer -- handling? seemsr: the white house to be not listening about what is happening in the house and senate. we saw a tweet that there are some surprises coming.

the last election is still under investigation. they have told reporters the plan is to get the trump a vote out. a lot of people are not necessarily republican voters. vegas,as a rally in las he can get enough people that are chump people to pull the lever -- trump people to pull the lever. mike: i will not make any predictions. certainly the democrats are feeling the wind at their backs, feeling energized. not just because of who was in the white house, it is history. midterm elections for the party who controls the white house are usually brutal. the party in power has lost 36 of 39 times. the average loss is 33 seats. the democrats need to pick up 23 in the house.

it is a heavy lift because of how the map is drawn. but they think they have got it. that they can nail it. the question is will it be an enormous wave and they will control some huge majority, or some slim lead that will make things interesting next year. in the senate, republicans are looking stronger. more vulnerable democrats up for election. including two we mentioned in those trump states. no one knows what will happen. seven weeks ago. it is kavanaugh this week, next week who knows. we were talking gun reform and immigration, now no one is talking about that. heather, thanks

for joining us. pedro: "until the end of the program. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and for independents (202) 748-8002, will take those when we come back. ♪ tonight conversation on 5g and expansion of broadband. he's interviewed by tech and talk -- telecom reporter. >> broadband providers are willing to work with any regulator, any legislator, whether democrat or republican. events policies that will

guide development and the future of our internet. the fact is, whether we like it or not, i broadband networks are neither read nor blue. we need to have a nonpartisan approach we come to shaping the kind of rules of the road that will animate the next generation of how and where we want internet to develop. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.

national characteristics, or historic events. explain how it defines the american experience. $100,000 in cash prizes. concluding a gram prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information go to our website, pedro: you can comment on open phones on not twitter feed. the numbers will be on the screen. to thewashington post, researchers from george washington university the did

the analysis of hurricane maria. analysis wasr based on examination of all that reported by the government of puerto rico period the used mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths to the expected number of deaths based on historical patterns as well as age, social status. after the estimates, there were 3,327,000 inhabitants of puerto rico. february, there was a net loss of 8%. is the scientist added to the research, that is their defense. we go to robert, first up from

maryland, democrats line. support -- it to have known people who would been sexually assaulted and raped. as a man, i feel the pain she might be going to. i don't claim to feel the same pain, but i support that she steps up and is willing to be humiliated. i would never say i know exactly the pain the woman goes through. state,from washington republican line. caller: a couple quick statements, i wanted to make a suggestion to c-span, it would be nice once a month, a week, something different where come up with some constitutional questions or questions about the system, ask the caller is taking

-- asked a call if they can answer, if they cannot you go on. how many callers do we hear a washington journal that come up this tagline of how mitch mcconnell says he's going to make president obama -- don't you understand that is a war in d.c., that is what they do. every representative tries to gain power to get their policies in place. a sitting congressman wants someone of their own party to be in president that will not veto what they want. i also want to thank c-span for the bob woodward segment, it was very good. being a bit cynical, i thought it would be pattycake questions but they were good and objective. the last statement, with respect to anonymous sources, i do not say they have any value. pedro: that is washington state.

he mentioned the constitution, the judge on the fifth fifth circuit court of appeals. he says happy constitution day if you can keep it. the constitution and not graded a revolutionary design. -- by competing interests counteracting ambition. the shortening element, three branches -- we the people. radical than more the idea of sovereignty. again, that is the wall street journal. tom is next, and virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

i really enjoy it. lecture on the things people said this morning i found astonishing. one guy said, i'm an anti-globalist -- you have tariffs on soybeans. we are paying farmers to not sell their soybeans by borrowing money from china. anyone who is not a globalist is an ostrich because they have their head in the sand. the australians are eating our lunch, selling products to china. it is like, will go into the woods. the only thing more frustrating, is the national enquirer style of management that trump is using. tweets, that is not what he's elected to do, he

was elected to run the government not be a game show host. i cannot wait to this is over and trump is out. pedro: john, pennsylvania. caller: hello. the lady that called about the statute of limitations for the case of kavanaugh, and pennsylvania, they want to take the statue limitations off for priests. they cannot have it both ways. i do not know what the hurry is for the skies nomination. we already waited a year. this is unbelievable. pedro: from idaho, steve, republican line. caller: thank you. i wanted to point out as far as the media bias, when you have people that prefer to the down, i to jam it

listened to a few of the hearings, i did not hear anything about jamming it down. but i hear it in the media. referring to it as hijacking. as far as kavanaugh, i think we should point out the hearings are intended to get credible evidence on both sides of the fence so you can decide if we should confirm him or not. it is clear, one side has presented evidence, and none on the other side. as far as inappropriate behavior goes, behavior is not established by a 40-year-old accusation, when someone was never lessened.

-- was adolescent. -- weinstein or bill clinton. where you have a repeat, that is a behavior. pedro: that is steve and idaho. -- and idaho. democrats,8-8000 (202) 748-8001 republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. >> right now we are focused on safety, search and rescue. we have positioned over 27 different teams, 1300 people in the field supporting our state, and local capabilities. for the national guard to swiftwater rescue. they have perform several

hundred of actuations and rescues. what we are about to see because of the flooding, we will have to service people in isolated areas surrounded by floodwaters. it is always difficult, people are displaced in the shelter, we need to make sure the meeting the demands in taking care of the people in the shelters. you have a strong governor in north carolina, a strong division director, we are meeting their demands as they come. we will get through this. it will be ugly, but we will get through. recovery is a frustrating process and they have lost their livelihood. today the lead story, usa dues of people in flood prone areas and flood insurance. coastal-20% of homeowners have coverage through the national insurance program.

inland haven coverage. don in virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. about -- putting supreme court justices on the bench, we should separate the politics. it is a serious situation. that is my opinion. pedro: larry is next in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. trump's tariffs concerning china and other countries. china hasit seems enforced tariffs on us whereby

-- for example, the automobile business. they were buying buicks and charging us to bring them over there. is not the concern to start advertising or eliminating the truth about how much tariffs are being paid by us to other four countries. pedro: a few minutes, trade representatives will gather for discussion, one of those points will be trade, tariffs, that will start at 10:00. if you have questions about tariffs, about how they work or applied, particularly if china will receive more tariffs, we will go to that at 10:00. new mexico, on a democrats line.

caller: good morning. i would like to share something about the kavanaugh case. meore that, my uncle taught believe in reason. he explained to me what that means. point where i want to share my wisdom, why should we have a judge -- choose a judge who is conservative or liberal? what does that mean question mark -- mean? a judge cannot be a conservative or liberal, a judge is a judge. he should make a decision they sun reason. -- based on reason.

we heard that he is well-qualified, yes, no doubt about it. is, 35 yearsing ago, so what. been 35 years, 35 days, it does not matter. it matters that it happened or not. she claimed these things happened, and he said it did not. pedro: that is from new mexico. if you want to have the opportunity to watch the confirmation hearing that took place with judge kavanaugh, several days of hearings. featuringmony, others, you can do it on our website. in maryland, republican line. caller: high.

--hi. in regards to kavanaugh, witty to have somebody -- we need to somebody will walk calmly, i do not believe kavanaugh is. the democrats and other thingsuals presented questionable. offense.ts strong somebody better than who has been accused of race -- rape. let us do better. there's a bill on related to kavanaugh, that i have questions about. abouttains statements

being possession -- in possession of a firearm. possession of firearm has been considered an act of violence against the state. pedro: the corpus christi times reports the rest of a border patrol agent as a serial murder suspect. it has rocked the border community of laredo. surgedulation has according to census figures. it has ballooned in 2017. attorney, sought to drive the point home during a press conference charging the arrest on multiple accounts of murder and other charges.

consistent with bigger crimes -- bigger cities. people need to be careful. we need to look out for each other. in ohio, democrats line. caller: good morning. know,of all, i want to they are trying to run the sky through for the supreme court -- run this guy through for the supreme court. that is the first thing. now you getting they do put somebody in there -- that has to do with someone's -- some woman's body. you want to put someone in who's going to deny all that question mark -- all that? what kind of world is this >> -- is this?

you get the right person in there, who you want in there. once i want to sit back belong withyou go i it. next call, republican line. caller:hi. i wanted to say we need to confirm kavanaugh. all i have read about, he seems like a good man, perfect for the job. to bring up all this does not seem fair. if he was to go through there with a fine tooth comb, you're going to find something. onhough senators, trump ran joining the swap. that is a problem. all these people that do nothing. they're worried about their jobs.

the government has gotten too big. thousands of pages of trump was saying you can say what you say, but it does not have to be these 10,000 page reports. pedro: got you. the travel section of the usa today, a story about international visitors to united states, saying the total is up. according to figures from the tourism office. strong gains from south korea, brazil, and ireland. decline from mexico and the middle east. that is according to the u.s. department of commerce and international trade

administration. from pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling because i'm confused, to me it is not the government that has gotten too big, we have forgotten our power as the people who put these people into office. the same as we voted our president into office. we cannot expect the republicans to do when we are not doing which is make them do their job. we don't know what they have on the line. we know they are afraid of losing their job in the election coming up, but they don't seem to realize that they were put there to represent us and not their own interests. aswe take our power back, women seem to understand the need to exercise their power for

the first time in a long time. things are going to be the way they are. i hope we come together as a nation and realize what we have to do to get back on track. guest: ok -- host: catherine is next. by our constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty. it seems today we are guilty and it is to ourselves to prove ourselves innocent. i wish people would remember this principle and how important it is that we are innocent until proven guilty. host: you are referring to the kavanaugh nomination? guest: yes. i hear this so often where someone makes an accident -- accusation and offers no proof. i have a daughter who is the same age as this lady is.

at the beginning of the year, they had assembly meetings. if anything such as she is claiming occurred, they were to report that to their principal. what i am mostly concerned about, i am innocent until proven guilty. host: ok. brenda in missouri, democrats line. guest: i listened to your last two speakers and was in disagreement with them. someone who holds sway over women, minorities, disabled, older adults of this country, we need to allow a full hearing on this account of what the accuser has said. we don't know if it is true.

but when her psychiatrist or noteslogist issued the from 2012, i think that is enough for us to go on and investigate this and not rush it through. host: connecticut is next. brian calling on the line for democrats. i am a democrat, lifelong, but i think the apathy of this country where we only 1/3 of eligible voters showing up to the polls, this is the result. he will get railroaded through, and then we will see all the decisions that come down turning this country into a church state. peopleat happens, hopefully will wake up and go to the polls and vote some of these people out. host: what convinces you the country will turn into a church

state? guest: when he gets on the court, when he is railroaded onto the court, they will probably get another judge after this one. more and more, the decisions will move toward a church state. host: meaning what? guest: well, abortion will be outlawed and there will be many other decisions in that light. let's sit back and wait for it to happen because people are apathetic and they don't go to the polls. and this is the result. host: that is brian in westport, connecticut, about the upcoming november elections. one of the groups that are going to involve themselves in it are a gun-control group called "every town for gun safety." catherine writing the political arm of the group plans to spend money in several states as an

initial investment. host: from minnesota, independent line. hi. 9/11, i week after would like to throw back to brian lamb who promoted costof war.com. that is where you can find out how many roads, bridges, -- there, and schools is no authorization to use military force since 2001.

they don't even debate the amount of money we are bleeding around the world. take a look at costofwar.com. you can put in your hometown and find out what could have been bought with the money that no one wants to talk about. it is time we start talking about where the money is being wasted. host: that is the last call for this program. another program comes away -- your way tomorrow at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we take you to csis. former trade officials talking about the trump administration's trade agenda and giving their perspective. that conversation is set to start shortly.

> on c-span, we are live at the center for strategic and international studies in washington, d.c., for remarks from former trade representatives, meeting this morning to discuss local trade policy. you are watching live on c-span.

>> just waiting for the discussion at the center for strategic and international studies to begin. we will be hearing from former u.s. trade representative's. they will be discussing global trade policy. later today, we will take you live to the house at 1:00. the center more from for strategic and international studies at 1:30. we will hear about national security issues and transnational threats. more live programming later today from the white house. president trump will be celebrating national hispanic heritage month from the east room. that is expected to start at 5:00 eastern. we will take you there live when that starts later today.