[reporter shouting questions] president trump: thank you, very much. announcer: the senate judiciary committee postponed this thursday's scheduled vote on supreme court nominee judge kavanagh. income of the committee will hold a hearing with judge kavanagh and professor christine ford who has accused the judge of assaulting her in high school. for the live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. author bob woodward joined us on washington journal to talk about his new book, "fear: trump in the white house!" c-spanp then,n attorney general jeff sessions talks about freedom of speech on college campuses. "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 >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and you.y issues that impact coming up tuesday morning, "washington post" columnist about the sexual misconduct allegation made nominee upreme court

brett kavanaugh. his new discusses book, a memoir of the clinton investigation. springfield, llinois, for the c-span bus 50 capitals tour with tim butler who will talk about tough issues state.the be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. the senate judiciary committee as postponed this thursday's scheduled vote on supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. will onday the committee hold a hearing with judge kavanaugh and professor accused the d who judge of assaulting here in high school. coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org on the free c-span radio app.

attorney general jeff sessions spoke at a justice department on free speech on college campuses. attorney general sessions was what he called efforts to suppress a variety of said ns on campuses and that his department would stand up to colleges and universities that try to limit free speech. >> good morning and welcome to the united states department of justice and our forum on free speech and higher education. >> good morning and welcome to the department of justice. my name is jesse, i'm the acting associate attorney general of the united states. i will be your emcee today as we scholars, students, advocates, and policy makers who committed of defending the fundamental right of free