announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: coming up on "washington journal," we will talk to "washington post" columnist christine and but, who will give us an update on the allegations against judge brett kavanaugh. then, former independent counsel ken starr discusses his new book "contempt: a memoir on the clinton investigation. >>" we will be live in springfield,

illinois this morning for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals to her. we will be joined by illinois state representative tim butler, who will lay out the top challenges facing the state. ♪ good morning, it is tuesday, september 18, 2018. the house is out until thursday, but the senate reconvenes at 10:00 a.m. today. the strategy lunch is scheduled for 12:30. we will be with you for the next three hours on "washington journal." we begin today with your reaction to have the supreme court now any and the woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her decades ago to testify publicly before the senate judiciary committee on monday. we want to hear your thoughts on the upcoming hearing, and what it means for kavanaugh's supreme court nomination. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans at (202)

748-8001, independents at (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media, on twitter @c-span_wj. and a very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. brett kavanaugh and his accuser will testify on monday at 10:00 a.m. at the heart senate office building, the same committee hearing that brett kavanaugh testified in for three days earlier this month before the senate judiciary committee. we'll be covering monday's hearing live on c-span, but a lot can happen between now and then. we will talk about some of those scenarios. we will also talk about some of the reaction yesterday on the decision to hold a hearing. the reaction was lead off by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, who questioned and criticized how democrats came

about bringing up these accusations against brett kavanaugh, and criticized the process by which they went through. >> they did not raise it, even with the name redacted, in four days of exhaustive public hearing while judge kavanaugh testified under oath. even though they chose to raise a myriad of other matters at the hearing, including some which are bizarre innuendos. they did not raise it at the closed session, in proper form, where allegations could have been addressed with discretion insensitivity. they did not raise it in the thousand plus follow-up questions senators sent to judge kavanaugh in writing. t the 11th hour, with committee votes on schedule, after democrats spend weeks and weeks searching for

any possible reason that the nomination should be delayed, now they choose to introduce this allegation. not through the standard, bipartisan process, not by advising the judiciary committee colleagues and committee staffers through proper channels, but by leaking it to the press, because the chain of custody in this letter runs through the democratic side of the judiciary committee. that's the chain of custody. host: the judiciary committee originally scheduled its committee vote for the 20th, thursday of this week, but now of course there is the additional hearing. we want to hear your reaction this morning. more reaction yesterday, not long after mitch mcconnell made his remarks, and minority leader chuck schumer came to the senate. he said brett kavanaugh's credibility was damaged even before the accusations came out. >> there's another issue here.

judge kavanaugh's credibility is already seriously questioned in the aftermath of his testimony regarding emails stolen from the judiciary committee by a republican member. the involvement in judge william pryor, and other controversies. in all of these cases, judge kavanaugh's credibility was questioned, because documents reveal that he was far more involved than he let on when he testified. unequivocally denied this. there's an issue of credibility here. you have two people, with diametrically opposed views as to what happened, and this is not just an argument for its own sake. it is for nomination to the supreme court, the highest court in the land, that determines through their legal rulings the

lives of americans, and in many instances is seen as the arbiter of right and wrong. are we going to let this happen? re someone who whe believes she was terribly aggrieved, and i believe her, has to say? credibility of the supreme court justice is on the line? we are just going to brush it under the rug? host: so far, any statement from brett kavanaugh about these accusations has come out from the white house. the latest statement says, "judge kavanaugh looks forward to a hearing where he can clear his name of this false allegation. he stands ready to testify tomorrow, and the senate is ready to hear him." that testimony will happen monday at 10:00 a.m. getting your thoughts and reactions through most of the morning on "washington journal." we start with harry in pittsburgh, republican. harry, good morning.

caller: yeah, i believe this woman should be under oath. the first thing she should be the fellow she accused of jumping on top of them, because the therapist's story -- the one she accused denies it. the other thing is this woman donates to the democratic party, that has been exposed. she marched in the me too movement against trump, and put a case in front of kavanaugh they lost. it has all been exposed by investigative reporting's. i don't know what republicans don't bring it up. in all, kavanaugh has to say i didn't do it. caller: harry, do you think she is making it up? do you think she is confused? do you believe her? caller: do i believe her? no, what did i just tell you? listen, she is part of the democratic party.

you so what happened with the me too movement, her story changed, she doesn't know when or where it happened. let's bring her up with her therapist and the second fellow she says was on top. host: we get your point. we will go to spence in clark berg, west virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i find it hard for mcconnell to give any lectures about following the constitution. and nevered someone had a visit with him, it's real ly unbelievable. taken like you should be -- action should be taken against him for not following the constitution. the leader is as crooked as they come. have a wonderful day. host: back to pennsylvania, maria, independent. good morning. maria, are you with us? staying on the independent line,

bobby is in clarksburg, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. yesterday, president trump signed the order to release the unredacted fica's, and apparently this morning the democrats have made an agreement, if he would hold those back, that they would withdraw the nomination of judge k, and it would be very interesting to see what happens if -- when these fica documents come out, if mueller and rosenstein have to be recused. apparently in the session they wrote a letter to the supreme court this morning, asking for him to be un-recused. host: what do you think will happen on monday? in alabama, a democrat. tim, go ahead. caller: good morning. ,bout judge kavanaugh, well

one of the things is -- she took hade detector test, and she -- i guess documents from her therapist. i would like to see kavanaugh take a lie detector test. -- i wouldhing is like to see anita hill come and attend the hearing. is representative grassley, the chairman, he's got some letters from some women that support capital, 60 something women. and i think that number has decreased to nine or something? because these women didn't know what they were signing. to since he opened the door use as witnesses -- some of them

were in the room during this alleged attack. you should be subpoenaed to come in testified. he was an eyewitness. that's all i have to say. host: you bring up anita hill, a story about the echoes of the anita hill testimony before the senate judiciary committee in the new era for women who come forward. a similar showdown over sex, truth, and politics 20 years later. that is the headline from "the new york times" today, other papers carrying similar stories. bob is in tennessee. republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i don't believe that she will show up to testify. her story has more holes in it and a piece of swiss cheese. she will want to remain incognito or whatever, but she took a lie detector test she paid for herself and hired a

lawyer in august that she didn't want anyone to know who she was, and i would like to ask you another question, not pertaining to the subject, when are you going to have greg jerrod on to discuss his book, "the russian hoax?" thank you very much. host: always appreciate suggestions for future segments. it takes a lot of time to fill the three hours every day here on "washington journal." a couple colors have brought up president trump already this morning. one of the headlines about trump's reaction to the accusations, calling them "unusually sober," the headline in "the washington post." here is most of his comments yesterday from the white house about brett kavanaugh and the decisions that the senate judiciary committee had to take yesterday. one of thevanaugh is finest people that i've ever known. he's an outstanding intellect,

an outstanding judge, respected by everybody, never even had a little blemish on his record. the fbi has, i think, gone through a process six times with him over the years, where he wanted to hire positions. he is somebody very special. at the same time, we want to go through the process and make sure everything is perfect, just right. i wish that the democrats could have done this a lot sooner, because they had this information for many months and they shouldn't have waited until literally the last days. they should have done it a lot sooner but with all that being said, we want to go through the process. one thing i will say is, as i understand it, judge kavanaugh spent quite a bit of time with senator feinstein, and it wasn't even brought up at that meeting when she had this information. you would have thought certainly she would have brought it up at the meeting, not wait until everything is finished and then

have to start the process all over again. but with all of that being said, we want to go through a full process. i have great confidence in the u.s. senate and in their procedures and what they are doing, and i think that's probably what they are going to do. they will go through a process. i think it is important, they think it is important. he is one of the great intellects and one of the finest people that anybody has known. you look at his references, i've never seen anything quite like it. they will go through the process and we will get it done. i don't know it depends on the process,. i'd like to see everybody be very happily. wilson portland want the people to be happy. they are getting somebody that is great. i want him to go in at the absolute highest level, and to do that you have to go through this. if it takes a little delay, it takes a little delay. it shouldn't be very much. but again, this is something

that should have been brought up long before this. they had the information in july, as i understand it. that's a long time ago, and nobody mentioned it until the other day. it's very unfortunate that they didn't mention it sooner. with all of that being said, it will, i'm sure, work out very well. you are talking about an individual who is as high a quality individual as you'll ever see. him.e not spoken to question, what a ridiculous question. host: president at the white house yesterday. one note on the white house response yesterday morning, this from the same "washington post" team, kellyanne conway set the tone early yesterday for how the white house would handle the allegations after speaking with the president late sunday and early monday. conway said that the claim

should be fully heard, "this woman should not be insulted or ignored," she said during an interview on fox. she called kavanaugh a man of character and integrity, and noted that in sworn testimony he darted given the senate judiciary committee -- she should have a chance to tell her story. that the white house's message coordination was ineffective, no one was ready or briefed. that is the line she was going to take monday, said one veteran republican strategist. william is in eureka, california. independent. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. she'scan say for this is going to be able to say whatever she wants to say, and the public is going to have to weigh in. but let me tell you something, it's very obvious that she is going to write a book and retire very early.

she will get a book deal out of all of this, whichever way it goes for her. thank you. host: bruce, scottsdale, arizona. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it's pretty interesting. it'sa really sad tactic, the way the minority party can stop a nomination from going through. the mysteriousness is what they are counting on, and in the book -- they talk about the tactics. thing i always tried to do is to take emotion out of it, tried to do things from the other perspective. if the republicans were doing that, it would be wrong, too, and they have to listen to this lady and i think the democrats are banking on the need to movement.

they believe public sentiment will go towards the woman just based on the seriousness of the crime. i hope that nobody is lying about this, they should be ashamed and they'd never get through another nominee again. host: michael in and over, new jersey. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead. caller: ok. anda democrat, as you know, we have what they call left wing moves, right wing moves. i believe that the best way to go forward is with a full thestigation before they do questioning that they plan on doing monday, because as you can see, the right has their conspiracies, and we have our gripes, like then rushing it through without releasing his

records, stuff like that. you have mcconnell talking about coming in at the 11th hour. you have people that are truly confused. investigationll so that when they do have a full hearing they can go in with the right questions. host: i who? the fbi? caller: yes, by the fbi. host: so here is where we are on a potential fbi investigation. in a statement monday, the justice department signaled that the fbi doesn't plan on reopening brett kavanaugh's background checks for now, noting that it gave information about the allegation to the white house, consistent with federal guidelines, although that hasn't kept democrats from calling for the fbi to reopen the background check. here is richard blumenthal, a democrat from connecticut, senator on the judiciary committee, saying "only a full and fair fbi investigation, including interviews with

relative witnesses, is an acceptable next up, and must precede any interviews or additional hearings. i call him my republican colleagues to step forward and stand up for a full and fair fbi investigation, without question postpone the vote." and now here we are, the vote originally scheduled to take place on thursday, and now we are having another hearing on monday. john in salem, oregon. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my feeling is that kavanaugh is in a no-win situation. if he can prove himself to be innocent, it is still not going to be enough. there's going to be outrage coming from the democratic side, they are going to say, "you have to believe the women, she is never wrong." do i believe her? i don't know. i don't know the woman. you are hearing various inflicting stories. host: enough in this case is just 50 votes, with mike pence

being the tiebreaker in the senate. you don't think there's going to be -- he can't do enough to get those 50 votes? caller: i don't think -- my honest feeling is, no matter what he says, there's going to be certain people like jeff flake that it's not going to accept whatever he says. into theoing to throw whole thing. host: jeff in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. independent. go ahead. this shows the hypocrisy of the republican and democratic senators. these people don't care about the american people or whose elected to the supreme court, they are just there to show boat. the american public be darned. thank you. host: richard wolf, an occasional guest on this program, supreme court reporter for "usa today." the rights of peace, "kavanaugh's battle periled."

he talks about a potential timeline, if the white house where, for some reason, to withdraw brett kavanaugh's nomination, president trump could select another nominee from his original list of 25 people, possibly a woman. the most prominent name is amy tony barrett, a notre dame law finalist for the high court nomination in july. the supreme court nominations take about 50 days, which brings us to november 6, election day. before then, most members of congress, including a third of the senate, will be out campaigning, making confirmation all but impossible. no matter which party wins, republicans will still wield the gavel until january in the lame-duck session, giving them time to confirm a potential second nominee. if democrats win it, they will have greater intention to stall until a new congress begins. that is one potential timeline that could play out in the coming weeks, although a lot

could happen between now and monday at 10:00 a.m., when the senate judiciary committee hearing is scheduled. we will be covering that hearing here on c-span. jerry is in will, massachusetts. good morning. caller: yes -- i believe judge kavanaugh will be confirmed. host: and what you believe that, jerry? basically, iieve, think he is a competent judge and i believe he will be confirmed. host: brett, sunnyside, new york. republican. good morning. caller: hey. i just want to say something -- years ago, a couple decades ago, there was a news our, and roger

mudd used to be on there for a brief time. he was interviewing the libertarian candidate for president, and roger mudd says, "why, when you think of libertarianism, do you think about homosexuality and abortion?" "maybe rogersays, mud thinks about that, but that's the way i think about the democratic party." this whole thing about kavanaugh and the supreme court justice, it all comes down to democrat fanaticism for sodomy and abortion. reflection of the ungodliness of these people. i'm hoping that kavanaugh gets on the supreme court. anyway, that's all i got to say. thank you. host: you think brett kavanaugh is a godly man? caller: i don't know about that, but i think he's a good man.

his career is pretty well unblemished. i think this is an aberration. what do you think about his performance during his three days of confirmation hearings? caller: i think he accomplished what he set out to accomplish, what his opponents wanted him to. i think you did well. to get through a hearing like that in public life, all these decades, all these years. i think this is characters estimation. look at clarence thomas, what he went through in that hearing. it but he made it. he was successful. he was confirmed. he has been an excellent judge. i think he is better than scalia. scalia was great, but clarence thomas is even more correct in

his judicial iism. these acquiesced to all rules that government agencies are making, and he is more conservative. clarence thomas is against that. host: brett in new york, appreciate the call. the confirmation hearings from earlier this month, part of the discussion was on brett kavanaugh's background and his time in high school, although there is expected to be more of a focus this upcoming hearing, when this allegation from when he was in high school. he talked a little bit about his time in high school in a q&a. that was back in early september, with senator kennedy, during the confirmation discussion. here's a bit of what brett

kavanaugh had to say. >> i can tell from your testimony the last three days, wasdays, that high school formative for you. you went to georgetown preparatory school? >> i did georgetown. jesuit high school. it was very formative. >> what was it like for you? what were you like? did you ever get in trouble? were you more of a john boy wilson type or a ferris bueller type? >> [laughter] enoughe ladies are old to understand. >> i loved sports first and foremost. school, i had a lot of friends. was very formative.

you left out the trouble part, i was waiting for that. >> right. that's encompassed under friends, i think. >> you are an athlete? >> yes, i played football and basketball. and football coach was named tim faegan, he's a legendary football coach. where i eight weeks have been in a slightly different situation than i've been for the previous 53 years in terms of where i can go freely, i have been working out on weekends at my old high ,chool and running on the track ran into him out there, it was awesome. he is still helping out with the football team, and he sent me a text three nights ago. awesome. >> that's all i'm going to get out of you, isn't it? i understand. host: if you want to go back and

watch those hearings in their entirety, you can do that at c-span.org. give us a call this morning as we continue to have this discussion about this decision to hold another confirmation hearing on monday, this one featuring brett kavanaugh and his accuser at 10:00 a.m. on monday. we will be airing it on c-span, c-span.org, and you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app as well. of her marlboro, maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i think that a lot of the conservatives calling it in our watching too much fox news, getting the talking points from them. i believe that if you were accused of something like this, it should be disqualifying, or at least they should take a lie detector test. when it comes to a democrat, they all want to vilify a democrat, but when it comes to a republican nomination like this, it is something different. maryland, a a few more

tweets from members of the senate judiciary committee who will be in attendance on monday. senator orrin hatch saying, "this is the right step for chairman chuck grassley of the judiciary committee, to help him get to the bottom of accusations that deserve to be heard. we can only hope democrats stop playing games and work with us to find the truth." saying, "ifs coons you are troubled by the assault allegations that have been made by dr. ford against judge kavanaugh, they should be taken seriously by everyone, irrespective of party and ideology. i would like to think we are beyond the days of dismissing an accuser as an acceptable substitute for an investigation." one more from tom tillis, "allegations of misconduct must be taken seriously and require a fact-based process that is fair and respectful to the accuser and the accused. andpport the investigation invitation to each individual to speak before the committee to

ensure this is thoroughly vetted." plenty of senators having their say on twitter on the senate floor yesterday. speaking of twitter, plenty of you are having your say. tj writes, "this was expected, dems are desperate. if that doesn't work, you can expect more shenanigans." hasy says, "a man who respected women all his life doesn't have to parade women around to prove this point. i believe this woman and i think there were more, after all he was picked by the misogynist in chief." michael, "the senate judiciary has seven days, what surprises will turn up in the interim? mainstream media will be happy to fire off and speculate on rumor and innuendo." "brett kavanaugh was a flawed candidate from the start. if others come forward to collaborate the alleged sexual assault, he's done. he should do the honorable thing and withdrawn now." the's the comment --

conversation taking place every single day. we also ask you to call in. maria has been waiting in pennsylvania, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to put my two cents in. i'm a woman, and women sometime in their life will have been -- let's call it harassed, by a man, for several years, probably. with the judge who is the nominee, this was more than 30 years ago. i need, he was drunk -- i mean, he was drunk, you know what alcohol does to your brain. i think the process should go on, let us hear what the woman has to say. if she has no other witnesses -- we don't know if it is exactly judge kavanaugh who is the

person she is -- we are not saying what she said is not true, but if the judge has done many good deeds in many, many years, even if he was the person who did when he did, he was drunk, and there was no rape accusation. it is probably just that he was so drunk that he doesn't remember. alcohol does a lot of things in your brain, and maybe he doesn't remember now. these senators, maybe we should dig their past, 30, 40 years from now, see if nobody has done something foolish in their life. host: howard, osten, texas. good morning. caller: yes, a previous caller stole my thunder, because i just tuned in about a lie detector test brought into it. the way i see it, we saw the way

it played out with judge thomas and anita hill. this is going to be the same on, same old. --ublicans will act like like they want to be serious about getting to the truth, but i think the real truth, even though it isn't a punishable offense or a criminal thing we are looking at, we are still wanting to find out the truth. f judge kavanaugh did not want to take a lie detector test, then one given by an independent company -- they would have to be careful about who they selected to administer the exam. one,u would balk at taking i think that would be quite revealing. one of the callers said he was drunk at the time, and if he was underage and he was drunk, and if he was drunk anyway, does that go to character? that would also have to be taken

into account. so that is pretty much only want to say. i'm just tired of the war of way the republicans are saying that a democrats are being sneaky, or it is fishy that they are coming out with this at the last minute. i think the way to cut through all of that rhetoric and all that baloney is simply to have a lie detector test given, and i think it should become the standard whenever there's an issue like this. it shouldn't be an anomaly. that's pretty much -- host: you are not the first caller to bring up anita hill. anita hill spoke at west lynn university earlier this spring at their commencement ceremony, and talked a little bit about the need to movement and how america is responding to sexual assault allegations and victims. here's a little bit of what she had to say. >> throughout the country, women and men have demanded that universities and workplaces take

action to end sexual violence. even today, however, silence breakers face backlash, often delivered instantly, harshly, and anonymously with the click of a mouse. but speaking out despite the liberating, be self and can empower others. because you have persisted on campuses, campuses will be safer for the next generation of that we, and we know can make our campus safer against sexual assault and sexual violence and sexual harassment. everyone, in processes that involve protection of everyone's rights. that is the only way that we are going to proceed with this

issue, and we know that. host: if you want to watch that commencement speech in its entirety, you can do that as well as c-span.org. past 7:30 on the east coast. we are continuing to take your calls about the decision yesterday to bring brett kavanaugh and his accuser before the senate judiciary committee on monday to talk about the accusation dating back to the 1980's. we are continuing to take your calls on the lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. we also want to keep you updated on this story from "the wall street journal," the trump administration slashing the u.s. cap on refugee admissions to 30,000 in fiscal year 2019, to focus on a backlog of cases and efforts aimed to reduce the number of applicants. that is according to the secretary of state, mike pompeo. the new ceiling sets a record low since the refugee program began in 1980, and represents a

reduction of almost one third after it was reduced to 45,000 in 2018. the president has sole authority to set annual refugee admission caps. he has made reducing refugee admissions a key focus since taking office. u.s. refugee admissions stood at 85,000 at fiscal year 2016. former president obama's last year in office. another story from "the washington times," a big vote in the senate on opioid legislation yesterday. it was a package of opioid bills. they approved that legislation 99-1, underscoring the depth of the drug overdose crisis, hammering every corner of the u.s. that resulted in thousands of deaths. it allows the fda to require drugmakers to package certain opioids in smaller to supply packs.

it gives the national institutes of health the authority to vote more funding and authority. negotiators still have to smooth out the details from the senate package with the house package that was passed earlier this june before president trump would be able to sign that legislation. back to your calls this morning, a few minutes left. we will be talking about brett kavanaugh's nomination throughout most of the morning on "washington journal." adrian is in florida, democrat. go ahead. caller: hi, how are you? thanks, c-span, i'm a first-time caller, somewhat nervous. i just wanted to say that i am a democrat and i think of myself as a feminist, and i'm really appalled that i haven't heard anybody else: except i think maybe maria that has pointed out that this is not like anita hill, because that happened when she was in the workplace, if i recall, with clarence thomas. this is an event that happened , andars ago when he was 17

i have heard it called misconduct, i've heard it called assault, what have you, but my problem is -- you have to cut it off at some point. host: what would you call it? -- whati would call it goes on at house parties when you were a teenager. i can remember things going on that nowadays might be called misconduct, frankly. i don't think a man's career, and i'm a democrat, should be ruined from someone who clearly didn't think of it as a problem up until now, could come out in ruin a man's career. it's appalling. i support need to do all the way but this is what's going to hurt the movement, when you -- how much further back are we going to go? far,t feel it has gone too and had it happened even in a

more aggressive manner, that probably would have been taken up in juvenile court. who knows? records might have been sealed. the point is it is too far back, there has to be a cutoff, i think. host: where would you set the cut off? what is it happened in college? caller: i think college -- you are an adult, you have to be responsible for your actions once you turn 18, you are out there in the big world. that would be different. i still think it's a long time ago, but that would be ok. but high school, as soon as i heard that, i said to my husband, "what kind of things did you do?" both of us were like, this is an issue for this man that has gone through three days of hearings? it's not somebody i would vote for or support, but to be fair to him, i don't think this should derail it. host: what if it was an allegation of rape as opposed to sexual assault? caller: that is different.

that is not misconduct, that is not horseplay, that is not a house party, that is rape. that might be an exception to the rule. you could keep going on with different what ifs. what we know so far is that, what i understand is there was misconduct, there was an attempt to pull her shirt off for that type of thing. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that's acceptable, but if you look at the time it happened, the time that has passed, what has he done since then? we are not going to have anybody left to be judges if we start looking back this far back, incidents that can be misinterpreted or interpreted in several different ways. host: tom in texas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span, thanks for taking my call. i just want to say, christine was the ford has been

discredited. she is alleging that in the summer of 1982, when she was a 15-year-old girl, she went to a party in a swimsuit in the suburbs of of maryland in an unknown location and there were only four other people present, and all four of those people were older, drunk boys. it didn't happen. it's a complete, utter fraud. host: what don't you believe about that scenario, tom? caller: i don't believe that one 15-year-old girl is going to go to some party with four older, drunk boys. now is it possible? anything is possible. but it didn't happen. she didn't go there. she can't identify where the location is.

she can't identify who invited her to the party. one of those four boys, which one of the four boys invited her to the party? do you think she should testify on monday to answer those questions? caller: i think what ought to happen is the republicans should immediately -- yes, she most definitely has to testify on monday, but before she publicly testifies, the republicans need trained,killed, experienced litigators to california to interview her privately so that she's not getting a first at-bat when she testifies publicly. oh, yeah -- caller: what about the lie detectors she took and passed, according to her lawyer? caller: [laughter] they'ree detectors --

not reliable. ford, sheis, mrs. always claimed she wanted to remain anonymous, but at the same time, she is claiming she wanted anonymity, and she is going to take a lie detector test? and she -- and of course, she didn't reveal prior to the lie detector test that she would release the results, she only released the results because she passed it. if you want any credibility, you have to announce before you take the test that you will release the results. she didn't do that, she only released it because she evidently, allegedly passed it, i haven't seen the results. i don't put much faith in lie detector tests. host: got your point. hang on the line for other callers about this topic. we will keep discussing it in our next segment of "washington journal." i didn't want to give you an update on one other story from

actually, detroit that came out yesterday. former congressman john dingell, who was well known for his live twitter remarks in recent years, and for being a powerful legislator during his time in congress, suffered an apparent heart attack on monday morning and was admitted to henry ford hospital in detroit. he was the longest serving member of congress, from 1995 until his retirement in early 2015, a former chairman of the powerful house energy and commerce committee. he was replaced by his wife, debbie, who put out a statement saying that her husband had a heart attack and was going to be hospitalized. she says he is alert, in good spirits, and cracking jokes, in the process of being admitted. she thanks the medical professionals and nurses at his ride. we will know more later. we are continuing to monitor that for updates, on the former

congressman. that will do it for this first segment of "washington journal" today, but stick around. we will continue this discussion about brett kavanaugh and's supreme court nomination. we will be joined by a christine emba, and later, ken starr will be here, former independent counsel who is out with a new book about his investigations into the impeachment of former president will clinton. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: sunday night on "q&a," cbs news chief white house correspondent major

garrett talks about his book "mr. trump's wild ride." >> it is not just about partisanship. i think it transcends party. i describe donald trump in the book as proto-partisan. he is bigger than partisanship. dynamos this emotional that he spins within people. he does it intentionally, sometimes he doesn't even know he's doing it, but that happens. he is influencing every aspect of american life, culture, economics, politics, and, in ways you have detected, the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress,

the white house, the supreme court, a nd 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 this year's studentcam competition question, and we are asking middle and high school students to answer it by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right, national characteristic, or historic event, and explain how it defines the american experience. we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. journal": "washington continues.

host: we welcome our guest for the first time, christine emba, to cover societal issues, has written about the me too movement and the reaction to it. when it comes to high-profile accusations like what we are hearing here, what do you look for in trying to determine credibility of that accusation? guest: well, first of all, i think people look for whether there has been evidence in the past that this was an allegation. everyone is usually suspicious of something that appears to have come from nowhere with nothing buttressing it, something that could have been made up for political purposes. but we see that christine brought this forward to her therapist years ago. she has spoken to her husband about it years ago, even before kavanaugh was a factor in the supreme court nomination. host: she didn't want to have her name out in public, and here we are talking about her and her testimony on monday. your thoughts on how her name

eventually came out? guest: well, washington, d.c. is a sieve when it comes to secrets. she asked to remain anonymous because she was afraid of the backlash afflicting her family life and career. but i think once a semi explosive rumor like this hits offices in congress, the more people who know about it and the more important they think it could be, the more they are tempted to share it with others. host: do you think she should have had any x dictation that her name would remain anonymous, after sending that letter to her senator and house member? guest: i think it was fair to have the expectation. she really did ask for confidentiality in the letter, she was not trying to self publicize. i think as kavanaugh drew closer to the nomination and as the nomination fight became more intense, i think her expectations dropped, and they

were correct to. host: christine enba, with us for the next 40 minutes on "washington journal," if you want to join in the discussion. democrats, (202) 748-8001. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. do you think monday will be a test in some way of the me too movement? guest: absolutely. we have already seen the test happen. when of the first questions we always have is whether they believe women idea holds up. are we going to believe women if it is inconvenient for our party, say? if the timing of the allegation comes at a moment that could be not beneficial to our goals? it seems that perhaps this might have been a change. almost immediately, congressmen and women said she deserves to be heard, even kellyanne conway said she shouldn't be insulted or made fun of, she should get a fair hearing. that is more than we've had in the past.

host: do you see echoes of anita hill and clarence thomas? guest: absolutely. i think, however, as you said, that this moment is very different. women's allegations are being taken seriously from the get-go. host: when you say believe women, should that be the default position when talking about these sorts of high profile accusations? and if so, why? guest: i'm not actually sure it should be the go to statement. i think the idea is we should presume that everyone deserves a fair hearing. we should presume that women are probably not making up these stories for no reason. when you decide that you are willing to go public with an allegation of sexual assault against someone who is often much more powerful than you are, it is not a fun experience. we should necessarily say that these women are making about or dismissing them out of hand. there's a reason they are saying something, and we should take

the time to investigate it. host: christine enba taking your calls. how long have you been writing this column? guest: about three years. host: what are the societal issues you cover? guest: it depends. i am interested in big ideas. often it's the day-to-day horserace in congress and on the hill, but what is behind that? a fight between capitalism and socialism in the minds of millennials mean? what does it mean to have a more moral economy? when it comes to societal and cultural issues, things like the me too movement, how women, sexuality, and feminism are talked about, and how that influences how laws are made. host: all topics we can cover. brian is waiting in connecticut, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to say the problem with kavanaugh is he is telling you

he didn't do it and he is lying, do we want to judge that lies about facts -- is that the kind of judge we want, that lies about facts? i don't think that's a good judge that we want. also everybody in the country, truth.it's the host: how do we know that, brian? caller: because the lord god put it inside you. everybody knows it's the truth. host: christine, what's your take? guest: i think that's a great point. what we are talking about supreme court nominees, we are talking about whether they are people of moral character. the supreme court is the highest court in the land. the seabed kavanaugh is being nominated for his a lifetime appointment. we want people of unimpeachable character, and yes, we want people who tell the truth. kavanaugh has completely denied

these allegations. he said he doesn't know. he said he has never been at this party, never behaved in this way. if that is false, that is a lie, and a big one. host: how do you want to see the senate judiciary investigate this in the next six days? how does this become more than just a public opinion judgment on who they believe in trying to understand what happens 30, 40 some years ago? guest: i think first it is important that both sides are given a hearing, which is what's going to happen on monday. but this case is also referred to the fbi. they are always of corroborating -- there are ways of corroborating evidence. perhapsclassmates, someone else has a recollection of the event. there are your books, there are ways to see, or at least check, the potential that kavanaugh was visible and active at this time, that they knew each other.

host: louisville, kentucky. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks to c-span. i am very concerned about this book that marked judge has written "wasted,." there is a character called kavanaugh, he sounds pretty much like brett kavanaugh, and how come this isn't being looked into? i don't understand what's going 65 and it's a graphic -- women writing a letter within a couple days? apparently he had this information long before it came out. christine? guest: another interesting question. christine ford says brett kavanaugh's friends, mark judge was in the room as this alleges sexual assault happened. he has been questioned about this, and says he has no recollection of the event.that said

, he has written and spoken extensively about his past. drinking,e was often often to the point of blacking out. yes, there is that character named bart kavanaugh, which does sound a bit suspicious, but we can only leave on what he says to be the truth, and so far he says he doesn't remember. host: do you, like the caller, believes that the references -- the 65 women that came out to advocate on behalf of judge kavanaugh -- do you find that suspicious, the fact that republicans had obviously talked to them beforehand? guest: i don't necessarily find that suspicious. reporting from "the post" has shown that this wasn't plotted weeks in advance. once these rumors trickled out, people who knew brett kavanaugh, who were in the washington area, organized this. and if you look at his nomination, there has been a large female presence, which is i think something the republicans have planned.

but just because he has friends and supporters doesn't mean they are planned. host: lancaster, california. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this little investigative journalism -- if you did a little investigative journalism, you would find out that the brother, her brother is refusing to [inaudible] that needs to come out [inaudible] host: before we lose you, where did you hear that? caller: -- why is it [inaudible] host: you are going in and out. that,t know if you heard that her brother might work at fusion gps? caller: i had seen that rumor floating around online. i'm not entirely sure where it comes from or how accurate it

is, but it doesn't have any bearing on this specific case. host: in what way? caller: fusion gps is related very slightly to the russia investigation. that is the organization that helped produce the steele dossey are against trump. but again this, doesn't have any relevance to a supreme court nomination. not everything is a conspiracy against the president. host: cj in providence, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning. i think this is malicious. first, feinstein sitting on it for three months. second, he was investigated six times by the fbi. probably the most distinguished nominee we have ever had. -- i don't respond to these allegations, the brought it7 women,

, maybe whensband she was nominated for the appellate court. >> i think investigative reporting has been done, but because these allegations had not come forward, i don't think the fbi would have picked up on this story by themselves. as i've said, there are reasons why the women take time to come forward about these allegations. they are immediately suspected of having some sort of all terrier motives. she had spoken to friends and family members and her therapist in the past about how much this has bothered her. about how she had post-traumatic andss and had for years, every time this famous management further she wondered whether she should say something for the moral health of the nation. she came forward anonymously at

only when she felt pressed by her civic responsibility did she make these public. host: we talked about these echoes of anita hill, you were talking about the difficulty for women coming forward with these allegations. like back on october 1991 where she testified in front of the senate judiciary committee, started her testimony talking about the difficulty of coming forward with her accusations against clarence thomas. here's what she said. at theng this period department of education, my working relationship with judge thomas was positive. i had a good deal of responsibility, and independence. i thought he respected my work, and he trusted my judgment. after approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. what happens next, and telling the world about it, are the two

most difficult things and experiences of my life. after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless numbers -- and a great number of sleepless nights that i am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends. host: 27 years later, what do you think listening back to that. guest: it still resonates, what woman wants to relive a dramatic moment in her life? especially in court over and over again through the years? no one does. the fact that ms. ford's braden ,- brave enough to come forward requires a civic and national responsibility that should be respected. host: brent, in birmingham, alabama. a democrat. [inaudible]

i agree with the young lady. first of all, to you men that are calling in doubting this woman, have you ever raped or been accused of it? you don't understand what a , and thes through shaman which you doubt morley and mentally that comes out. doubt and the shame and which morally and mentally comes out. because no one wants to believe her. me what happens when women go through with rape, men do not understand. and then there's the abortion issue telling women what to do with our bodies.

it took hundreds of years to vote -- and what will you do when they go back because you want the government to bring forth justice. do not tell us anything about rape if you have never raped or attempted to be rape if you are a rapist he cannot tell a woman how to be and when she needs to speak up. --t: guest: that statement makes sense and it shows the depth of feeling that women will have around this issue, inking about thinkingng, the cut -- about the hearing, the confirmation process and who to vote for in the midterm elections. it seems to have come down in many respects to being a .ro-woman or anti-woman vote one of the reasons that

republicans wanted to confirm kavanaugh and thought he would , maysuccessful nominee assume that he would be in favor of rolling back roe v. wade. women are not necessarily in favor of that. host: back to this question about what this means for the me too movement, this is the editorial per dashboard of the wall street journal. they and their title with the -- with these words. letting accusations of this unsubstantiated and procedurally irregular procedure would mean weaponize and every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. it will tar miss -- tarnish the me too cause with a smear of partisanship and it will unleash even greater polarizing furious. what do you think? interestingi found about the response to miss ford's allegations has unfolded is what the defenses seem to be. more often than not it is not,

he definitely didn't do this. and he is 7 -- he was 17 doesn't matter anymore. or if we let this allegation pass, suddenly men everywhere will have to be afraid. i think this reflects more on these editorial writers and their state of mind than it actually does on this nomination. if you're not afraid of having sexual assaulted anyone in the past you don't have to worry about it? . host: we have about 20 minutes left with ms. christine emba. janice is in michigan, a republican. good morning. are you with us? bill is in college park, maryland. an independent. good morning. that last caller had a great point that it must be very traumatic for this woman to come forward with these accusations. my question is, i'm wondering if the details of the events are

lost to history, by what grounds do you think this argument will turn? because it's going to be a mixture of the current climate and how believable the testimony from bretth sides kavanaugh and the accuser. and what will make the decision in the minds of the senators and the american public? that's an interesting way of looking at the question and that is yet to be determined. it is possible that many of the details have been lost to history. i think what we will see at this hearing is a real validation of who seems more credible. it's definitely a question about our times, how much to allegations like this matter? how much weight should we give them? in a supreme court nominee we are not necessarily making sure he is the perfect person, or that he is completely unimpeachable.

but we do want someone who we can respect, and these allegations cast enough of a cloud over supreme court nominee, maybe he is not someone his -- who should be representing us. i think senators will be thinking about how their constituents, how the public will view this discussion if they are not doing it well and if it goes badly for them. if kavanaugh is seen as representing something the public does not want to see continue, they may think it is worth pulling him back and putting forth another candidate. host: do think the burden of proof is on brett kavanaugh to prove he didn't do this or on miss ford to prove that it happened? guest: i would say this point the burden of proof is on brett kavanaugh. he is the one who is going forward with this incredibly important and permanent monitor -- nomination. that ourmportant is supreme court justices are of good character. they are people we can trust.

if he cannot prove that, fighting off this allegation, if his dial -- denials are proven to be false or even potentially false, that marks his character. diane is in michigan, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i think we need the public hearing for everyone to listen to. but i'm afraid it's going to turn into a he said she said situation. i think the fbi needs to get into this, this is what they do. this is their work, to get to the bottom of it. , she think a polygraph took one, why not him? andould compare apples apples and oranges to oranges instead of differing testimony that will get us nowhere. for him to say he does not recall anything, i find that questionable. he was capable -- he said he was

falling down drunk and he did not remember but he was capable of locking the door. capable of finding the volume knob to drowned her anticipated screams with the volume. that's not falling down drunk. guest: one thing that is true is that polygraph tests are usually not admissible in court. they're not used in regular court proceedings for that reason. i think it's notable that miss ford agreed to take a polygraph test in the past. it shows that she feels very confident in her truth and the polygraph test she did take that was administered by former fbi official came out true for her. i'm not sure it would be helpful for kavanaugh to take the same test. host: dennis, in florida, a republican. caller: good morning. i would like to add a comment from your guest regarding the

following. within the last couple of months, i was very shocked to be watching on c-span when a judicial nominee came up before the senate judiciary committee named amy coney barrett. i was shocked at the questions from senator feinstein. i thought this is anti-catholicism. someone, and i started to ask questions about this to him. and he cut me off and he started telling me what my complaint was before i could say it. so here's my question. this regard senator dianne feinstein. there is an entity known as bloomberg, owned and operated by a jewish individual, a highly respected jewish individual. in this entity, i'm holding in my hand, a publication titled

feinstein's anti-catholics questions are an outrage. that comesanother from a widely respected publication called the washington examiner. and the title is this is, dianne feinstein renews her decade-long crusade against catholic judges. host: dennis, what is your question? we lost him, as anything you like to comment on? do think there is an anti-catholic bias? guest: i'm not sure there is. i do remember the statement that he is thinking of, at one point dianne feinstein complained that the dogma lives gladly within amy coney barrett. i think the supreme court nominations have become increasingly partisan, it seems that senators want to predict

how future judges will vote, and that is not how we are to decide on the court. i'm not sure this is a religious prejudice issue. host: linda, from st. louis, and independent. you have to turn down your tv and talk through the phone. commenti just have a about what somebody says before, the woman i believe from michigan. i am think it matters how long ago this happened. look at how many criminals are in prison right now that started their terror in their high school years. some people can change and some people can't. that it this man is a judge but it does not necessarily mean he is honest and truthful. i think they should do a light detector test, i know they're not admissible, but i think they should do a lie detector test, i know they're not admissible but i think it should. this woman has a lot to lose by

coming out, she's a well-educated woman with a respected job, she is nothing to gain except telling the truth. guest: i think that's true. one of the things pink -- people seem to be thinking or saying is that even if it did happen, he was 17, he was a kid. people can change. we charge 17-year-old as an adult every day. president trump, a kavanaugh supporter, notably said that the central park five who were 14, 15, and 16, deserve the death penalty for an attempted rape that they were eventually cleared of. and he is never apologize for that. -- has never apologize for that. i think that people can change and make amends. one thing to note here is that he is not done any of that. he has not admitted anything. it could be because nothing happened, it could be because he doesn't remember, it could be he's not telling the truth.

but that's is more about anything that happened to him, that he spent the last several decades covering up a heinous crime, and not caring about the woman who he hurt. one more question about the me too movement on brett kavanaugh's past. this is the national review. the allegations against kavanaugh is almost certain to get lumped in with discussions about the me too movement and powerful men engaging in wanton sexual misconduct. unless more women come forward this would be unfair to the judge. infamous cases involve multiple accusers and patterns of abuse. west: that goes back to what were discussing originally. do we believe women? how many women do you need to stack up to say finally this matters? do men get a freebie on one attempted rape and only after they established a pattern they are seen as bad people?

momentis is a crucial for the me too movement and for the foundation, and how the country thinks about what really matters and who really matters when we make decisions. host: what do you think about this happening six days from now, the country chewing on these issues and the facts that are coming out over the course of the next six days. do you think the press will handle it well? guest: i would hope the press would handle it well. i'm an opinion columnist at the post and while i have thoughts on this and i will probably right, yes, we have to wait for facts. i think the next six days will be that, waiting. and taking on these larger questions that underlie this conflicts. -- this conflict. how much do we care about the me too movement? how do we believe women and what does that look like? we think about somebody's past influencing their future ,haracter and what positions

jobs, or opportunity should be available to them? had we just take things like this? we had time to think -- how do we take things like this? and we will have the time to think. host: judy, a democrat. caller: i doubly people are anti-catholics, i am a catholic. -- i don't think people are anti-catholic, i am catholic. when i was assaulted in high school i could not go to the priest, or my parents. this was the late 70's and early 80's, and i don't understand why people think because he remembers certain things -- you know, he is selectively picking what he wants. and i think you need to take a --ygraph and recuse himself he needs to take a polygraph and recuse himself. good point and

we have to knowledge the timing of how this discussion has changed over the years in the decades. harassment really only became a topic of conversation after anita hill spoke out against clarence thomas. that was in the 90's. i'm younger than both of my colleagues, i was not around in the 70's but i think many have said that the climate was different. if a woman was assaulted, it was not usual to tell. there was no one to tell. the expectation was that you would not be believed. it would be seen as your fault. maybe it makes sense that she did not speak up then. but we are in a different era, and we have to see what matters today. host: you write a lot about how young people are viewing these big ideas and societal issues that you have been talking about. how much attention our young people paying right now to brett kavanaugh and miss for? --ford? guest: i think there paying a

lot of attention. this is not just a reflection of their interaction, the he said she said. i think it reflects how society and our congress thinks about men and women, and their concerns. that has beenngs talking this nomination process, and the discussion for the midterms, is how do these parties think about women? a huge constituency, one that was enraged after trump selection -- trump's selection -- election. i think young people will be watching this closely, because these are the people who will have control over their lives going forward. host: in mississippi, gina, a republican. caller: i would like to point out, it seems from the callers that this man has already been

tried and convicted. this man is saying he was not there, he doesn't remember. but people are already assuming that he is lying and she is telling the truth. something like this should be in a court of law. if you are going to have the guts to accuse somebody of something like this, you should be willing to go to a court of law with attorneys, and everything. and take whatever is given. this is ridiculous, if anyone can just come out from anywhere and accuse somebody of some thing, and automatically that person is guilty. i actually don't think it's unfair that somebody can come out from anywhere and make an accusation. that's what accusations are. they happen you investigate them. i think we have remember that this process is not necessarily

a referendum on whether brett kavanaugh did x thing or why thing --y thing. his charactern of and whether the american people and the senators who represent he is someonet they want on the court. that includes his character, his past, what he has been seen having done or not done. and whether this case has affect -- affect, i think it's a question of whether we want brett kavanaugh. host: randy, from new york. an independent. good morning, thank you for taking my call. as usual, we know what the democratic judicial committee had aat chuck schumer conference about. they have the red herring, here it comes. everyone is giving all of these

innuendos, it will play out on monday. , i feel sad for the me too movement being used in this way. host: you are falling in and out of this way. that ai don't think movement has feelings. i think it's important that the movement, and the need to raised are being seen in the public eye . that means that america is finally grappling with these issues. with the meaning of sexual assault, questions of power, divergences between how men and women are seen and believed in the public eye. i think this does more to bolster the case then tear it down. whatever the outcome is. at least we are asking the important questions. host: time for a few more calls

with christina and let. -- christine emba. judy, a democrat in delaware. all of i have watched these hearings and i think this is another piece of the puzzle. we had a problem with him not being willing to release some of his papers, were they don't want to paint the whole picture. inave found him very evasive congress, where he cannot even give a simple yes or no to questions that are a lot easier to answer than this one. he would've been more of a class guy if he had said in high school i was very foolish, i did something stupid and i regret it. his character of not being able to be upfront and honest between releasing the papers and not answering questions, and now denying this accusation.

if you did not do it that's wonderful. he should be able to demonstrate it or let her demonstrate that it did happen. but if he didn't make these kinds of bad choices in high school, he needs to be a class act and say i did some foolish things, i have tried to atone for the rest of my life. times have changed, it's not like clarence thomas, when they were willing to go along with it. it was acceptable -- it's not acceptable anymore. i don't care how long ago it is, he needs to take responsibility for his behavior. guest: i think it's a phrase that you've used, the whole picture is a good and important one. this is literally and figuratively just another piece of information into the file that we have on brett kavanaugh. he has already been through several hearings, we have seen

how he has answered other questions, whether we should be satisfied or dissatisfied with those. this is just another piece of information, and it combines with everything we now to paint paint a clearer picture of the man. what we figure a going forward is with what we know and think about brett kavanaugh, with the impression we have gotten, is he someone we want to nominate to the supreme court? and it's worth noting that he is not the only option. there are other people out there. this is not the end all be all to the supreme court if brett kavanaugh recuses himself or withdraws. host: i wonder about your dots on president trump's reaction, the front page of your newspaper called the president's reaction unusually sober, uncharacteristically muted. what do you think? guest: yes, it was uncharacteristically muted. i think you had bob woodward on

the show recently, one of the things he revealed is that president trump has said he has a template for dealing with sexual abuse and assault allegations. it's deny, deny, deny. it's fascinating to see him sit back in this situation. to theer lends credence idea that even he thinks this might be a risky move, but it also makes you wonder when is he going to lash out this weekend what is he going to say? host: this testimony on monday might be a risky move? guest: yes. i think the continued support of brett kavanaugh with all of this kerfuffle going around, it seems that it's not making women happy. it's not furnishing his character in the eyes of the court and other senators and the eyes of the country. this is not making his nominee look better. host: what about kellyanne

conway's statement coming out saying that ms. forde needs to be heard --miss ford needs to be heard, and not insulted. guest: i believe that was correct and appropriate. very confusingly to republicans in congress, this sort of messaging has not been discussed beforehand. before in congress there had been attempt to make this conversation private. to have these call with her and discussions of brett kavanaugh behind closed doors and get it out of the way before the plan to vote on thursday. but kellyanne conway coming out and saying she needs to be heard means that yes, she will be. host: james, a republican from texas. good morning. caller: can you ask the lady you i do take a program and ask her 60 years from now about her comments. host: what is your question? talking about brett

kavanaugh not remembering, what to ask the lady that she can't ofember a lot of the details what she has accused brett kavanaugh of. guest: i think that memory is an interesting thing, it's something we're still learning about. but it's pretty clear that some events stick harder in the minds than others. i think dramatic events that happen in the pet -- traumatic events that happened in the past , like attempted rape or assault is memorable. last call, sam, from tennessee. an independent. i read the washington post and i don't remember when , --here it happened [indiscernible]

did you get some of that? guest: i think it's another memory question, why are we relying on her memory? and that's the thing, we are not just relying on her memory, or just adjudicating this case. it's another piece of information. it may or may not be true. were not sure how much relevance we will give it. but adding it to all that we know about brett kavanaugh we have to make a full decision. christine emba, a columnist at the washington post. we appreciate your time. come back again. next, ken starr discusses his new book, about the investigation and impeachment of a former president bill clinton. it stopr this morning, number 41 on the 50 capitals --r, take against cash taking us to springfield illinois.

we will meet tim butler who represents the same district that lincoln did in the house. we will be right back. >> what does it mean to be american? that is this year's studentcam competition question. we're asking middle and high school students to answer it by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right, national characteristic, or historic event and explain how it defines the american experience. we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information go to our website, studentcam.org. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on real america. >> we are here to witness

tonight, the significant achievement in the cause of peace -- a significant achievement in the cause of peace. and achievement none thought possible year ago -- and achievement--an none thought possible year ago or a month ago. it lets the current and wisdom of these two leaders. >> the 1978 film, print -- framework of peas on the camp david peace accords. , on thework of peace camp david peace accords. we were meeting with the minister of commerce, we heard an explosion. he went to the window, 10 trains later, a white sounding impact of high energy hit all of us. 213 people were instantly

killed. 48 were employees of the united states government. on american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: ken starr that with his new book, about his work as the independent counsel to the whitewater and lewinsky investigations which is been titled the memoir of the clinton investigation. you begin and end that book by thanking the people in the independent counsel office with you, one of those people was brett kavanaugh. i wonder your thoughts this morning on this hearing that will be happening on monday where we will hear from that kavanaugh and his accuser -- brett kavanaugh and his accuser. >> i don't know the accuser but i do know brett kavanaugh and i have been reaffirmed in my firm hisef in brett kavanaugh,

integrity and his character by the outpouring of support from those who have known him. not just people of worked with him, the people who grew up with him, including a lot of women who say this is not the brett kavanaugh who we knew and went to school with. i hope there will be a balance in the ultimate judgment, that we have this long and distinguished career, and this one alleged episode from high school. but i believe in brett kavanaugh and his integrity. host: we invite viewers to join in. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. speaking of the judgment here from what we will see on monday, who has the burden of proof? is it on the accuser to prove that this happened? on brett kavanaugh to prove that it didn't? guest: i don't think it will

sort out that way. i think this is an ultimate judgment by the world's greatest alliterative body. they need to go through a process and they are going -- body.st deliberative they need to go through process and then step back and render judgment. this is not a court of law, a process of -- it is a process of what is right for the american people, and the supreme court. i hope it will be on the merits, looking at the entirety of the record. i'm very concerned about the process, i don't hear people talking about it that much. this is a very detailed process of confirmation, including the former fbiix investigator reports and all of this has come to the public light within the last six days. i think that's unfortunate, and unfair to the process. the process beld with this hearing on monday? what should be happening now? guest: i think one of the best

suggestions would be for this to have a non-circus atmosphere, and the best way to do that is by having professionals, i am arguing from an profession, but very skilled lawyers, doing the questioning. obviously senators should make statements, but if we want to get the truth, have a lawyers do it just as it was done during the watergate hearings, many years ago. host: so if details of this incident are lost to history, how do you end up deciding who to believe? guest: i don't know this will just be a credibility judgment so much as here's an episode or incident from high school. i want to emphasize that, from hice will. it's not from college, law school, or anything in the profession. nothing in the office and there's knows justin of -- a suggestion of a pattern or practice.

so i'm suggesting an ultimate judgment about the character of an individual based upon his entire life. host: our first caller is kathleen, from ohio. a democrat. hard for theushed investigation, while you let it into the clinton and his extramarital affairs. and that preceded to impeachment . so knowing or pushing back against the idea of impeachment in regard to the president. sigh question that. and i also question in regards to kavanaugh -- so i question that, and in regards to kavanaugh, the question about how the all receiving confidential letters and stolen emails and confidential letters, i question his integrity based upon that line of questioning and always voting in support of

corporate interests. so why would you push for engagement with clinton? host: with gotcha question. -- we have got your question. guest: what i did not do, which was what the statue it required me -- required me to do. the statuette that required me to pass, required me to report to the house of representatives with any substantial and credible information came to the independent counsel's attention. so i simply obeyed the statute. the investigation itself, and i think this is not understood by the american people and i lay it out in my book. my memoir called contempt. that part of the investigation, as with other parts was authorized by bill clinton's attorney general. she reviewed the evidence we had of possible perjury and other

,rimes, and she then decided the attorney general, that she needed to go to a three-judge court and say this has to be investigated. turn a blind to the possibility of the president of the united states committing crimes. duty, and i had a duty to do as well. will saynal thing i with, in respect to impeachment, what i said in my testimony in the house judiciary committee and i described that longest day for me was essentially 12 hours seat, youead -- hot could take his referral and do anything you want, including tossing it in the trash. and i'm sure a number of people wanted to do that. but i simply said this is my duty, here it is, now this is your judgment. ,hat experience, the final part

what a not saying is don't go there now. what i'm saying about the clinton experience is that we learn from our history. impeachment was not the wise way to go. dianne feinstein, who is in the news these days, was pushing for a resolution of censure. she wanted to condemn president clinton's conduct. and not the morality of the relationship with monica, but rule ofes against the law. we believe that no one should be above the law which is one of the reasons the independent counsel was created and why we have a special counsel now in bob mueller to ensure the rule of law. last the book is out again week, contempt, a memoir of the clinton investigation. ken starr is with us to talk about it on the washington journal. douglas, in alabama, in independent. good morning. i'm very disappointed in

ms. feinstein and her action that she took, sending that information to the fbi. i felt like that was very wrong of her to do. she should not of done that. she should have waited and checked to make sure everything was appropriate on this lady's part. and that's the way everybody does, and they think the man is always wrong, and every cap -- in every case, because a woman always goes hollering the sky is falling. host: do you think dianne feinstein should have in -- conducted a pre-investigation before forwarding information? caller: she should have come before the people, before going to the fbi and going that far to try to damage him. if that had held up, the fbi could have come out and arrested him and embarrassed him. host: we've got your point.

guest: one of the great things about our country and our system of law is that we believe in fairness. the supreme court frequently uses the term fundamental fairness at the core of due process. i think that's important in the senate processes when it's engaged in fact finding and not lawmaking. i do have concerns about the process, and i think it would've been far better -- i don't know anyone who had said that it was handled well by senator feinstein, to keep this and notion confidential to share that with the committee in a timely matter, so it could be considered in a timely matter. i think the process is so order for the

american people ultimately to have confidence in the ultimate fundamental fairness of the judgment. quickly, it was felix frankfurter, a great justice on the supreme court from a bygone era who wrote that the history of liberty is in large part the history of procedure. the we think about that in criminal justice system we can understand that. we need fair process, we think of miranda rights in the light -- and the like. so too with the fairness of everyone involved, including the dignity of the supreme court. this kind of thing should be handled with a keen eye on fairness and i have concerns about the way it has been handled. but we are where we are. in georgia, a republican. good morning. caller: i was wondering why she waited so long. --hater.trump hader

40 states have voted for him and democrats have been after him from his time, this gal should have come up, she has known where he was but she hates tromso she's going to take down this good man. this is not the christian way. concern understand the we have in this country, but as part of our sense of fairness. statutes of limitation. if you have a complaint about someone you should in fact bring it forward. but i'm not going to criticize the accuser, much less attack the accuser. it lets sort this out. as i have said, we are so let's get to the bottom of things as best as we can. my concern, and this is part of the fairness concern is that there will eventually be a judgment on the part of the senate that reflects the dignity of the senate and the supreme court of the united states, which is judging the entire record.

i heard a united states senator from alabama say that he had been in the process, and he happens to be a lawyer, senator jones. he has been in the process of reviewing the entire body of work of brett kavanaugh. that is as it should be. look at all of his judicial writings in his 12 years, look at his extrajudicial writing, his long review articles, his speeches. it's a vast body. look at his service under president bush, look at the service in the independent counsel's office, that is what a fair and mature representative democracy will day. i fear that what is unfolding right now is a mob and circus atmosphere. and i hope that wise sages in the senate, which is why we elect them every six years, we want them to take a step back,

and we understand the people have strong feelings about this issue. you have expressed strong feelings, the priors caller -- expressed wrong feelings but as for the senate to step back and say this is the right thing to do, looking at the entirety of the record. i want to say one more thing about him. i know brett kavanaugh, i worked with him, i saw him daily in the office. i did not know him in high school. i did not know him in college. i do not know him in law school. but i have known him since he was an adult professional and what you're saying seeing is an outpouring of commentary. with the people who know him who say this is completely out of character of brett kavanaugh. and that is my sense. heardemployer, i have complaints about sexual harassment, not a hint of on the parte that

of brett kavanaugh. he led an exemplary life and we saw that in the confirmation hearings. i hope that exemplary life will be taken into account by the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. host: tom is in connecticut, a democrat. good morning. we lost him. in virginia, on the independent line. the reason i'm calling is because 72 years ago, i was five years old. it was the last school in the early part of june and i was card. home with my report and a boy started chasing me and i started running and iran into into an alleyan

next to a church. and the boy came up to me, pushing against the wall and pulled at my panties. and when he did that i should really hard and flew across the to thediagonally apartment building where i lived. day, i have always remembered that. and i did not tell a single adult. parent,r was my only and he told me things about how to defend myself and not have .eople to bother me but i was afraid to tell anyone because i knew my father would probably try to find out about that boy and hurt him. but the point is, i never forgot

the incident. i saw the boy years later because we moved away from the neighborhood. i remembered his face, and years after that i saw him as a young man running for city council. he was the upstanding young citizen at that time. that, at i'm making is the age of 77, i never forgot that and i was very lucky. the kid was only about nine at the time, but the point is the violation. -- it was a violation. guest: these are searing experiences in what you have just described is a horror -- and what you had just described is a horror that remains with you. i don't think anyone in this process will gainsay or doubt the importance of hearing a

story and for the process of healing and the like, when these kinds of episodes are alleged. my point is very simple, the character we know, and obviously i don't know the person who is running for the city council and your story which is very powerful. buti know brett kavanaugh, many women who have served with him, in the office, have known .im, have worked with him and have come forward in this .utpouring with solid testimony to his character. with all of the reports from the -- itt is in him letter is an unblemished record. and that is the record that i saw unfolding when he treated every person with dignity and respect. here is the key point. brett kavanaugh and that a clean

denies the episode, he says it did not happen. your city council person situation, i respect what it is you're saying. but what i think the public should appreciate is that those of us who have known him for decades and you have worked with him every single day, never saw any indication of a character that was anything other than upright, honest, and treating onryone since the focus is this issue, especially women, and i think i came out in his confirmation hearing. he went the extra mile when he saw the impediments to professional progress of women. and we have seen all of his law clerks come forward and say complete dignity, respect, and encouragedhat, he them and help facilitate the professional opportunities for them. so what we are hearing is something to me is totally out

of character to the brett kavanaugh that hundreds of us know and admire. host: what are your feelings on the me too movement? guest: it was overdue. it was about people in the position of power and when we think about the people who have lost their jobs, men who have taken advantage of their power position. and i frankly note this in the tok, with all due respect his many talents, bill clinton was never called to account. including for the possible rape of someone, who to this day said i was raped by him and not in high school. but i -- but when he was the attorney general seeking to be the governor. i think president clinton will likely be called to account for the abuse of power directed towards women by powerful men. bob, a republican in illinois. good morning.

caller: good morning. i left c-span. you did a terrific job in the , i'mwater investigation concerned about our special counsel now not doing a very good job. fbi, doj, and the cia are up to their years in spying --ears in spying and leaking. do you think it's time to get a special counsel to investigate the investigators? concern appreciate the but let me say several things. i know bob mueller, i have confidence in his integrity just as i served with brett kavanaugh. , a marine whofi has had an exemplary career as has brett kavanaugh as a public servant. i believe in his integrity. i have expressed concerns about

some of the senior people around him, in terms of their overt partisanship and i hope they are leaving their partisanship at the door. which is their responsibility. they have a right to believe whatever they want, but believe that at the door -- but leave that at the door. but some of what we have heard is distressing and disturbing, there are checks and balances in place and just as i say in the book, the system works whether you agree with what eventually happened, or what the senate or house of representatives did, during the clinton phase -- the clinton years. these checks and balances work. bill clinton was held accountable. you may not like the judgment or he may love it. but he was held accountable and i think that's unfolding as we speak. not just bob mueller, but let's go to your specific concern about intelligence officers and the like. those investigations are

underway, including internally by someone whom i have great confidence and that's michael , the inspector general at the justice department who is a career civil servant and is totally honest, very able. he will get to the bottom of things. he has the power, and he has done this, to refer matters to the criminal division of the justice department for possible prosecution. the cia likewise has an inspector general, they are on the beat but we don't read about them. finally we have a house and the senate intelligence committees and other oversight mechanisms, the senate judiciary committee was very much involved in looking at certain issues pertaining to the investigation. i would counsel the american people to be patient, although the process to run, but the checks and balances are in place. in illinois, on the

independent line. caller: i will give you a short bio on an army veteran and police officer, and the reason i brought that up is because the rules we lived under them were extremely harsh and you could be terminated for a lot less than what we see in politics. i should actually thank mr. there during the clinton hearings, i couldn't care less about president clinton but the fact is there is action and reaction and you should be proud because you started something that is continuing today. and you are going to see that we cannot go back. when you start telling people about morale at a, which is a very touchy subject that i never approach -- morality, would you the touchy suspect -- subject than i never approach. now you want to see things change. as far as i'm concerned he lied. but we can put these people in congress, anyone in public

office and put them under public oath and when they get caught lying, let me throw some names. dennis hester, homosexual pedophile, david that are, larry gingrich, those are the kind of people you want? fairness in american life should not be in the same sentence. hang on. once you start on this track, this is the game is played. guest: thank you for your the army and in law enforcement and enjoined the land of lincoln. since you are there, i obviously ofe a different view american society, american culture, and politics. obviously politics can be ugly, but this is not about morality. i don't think. the book is not about morality. my book is about america is a country that believes in the constitution and the rule of law.

and the principle that nobody is above the law. some of the names you mentioned i will not comment on any specific situation, but one of the checks and balances is the press. i'm a fervent believer in the freedom of the press, enshrined in the first amendment. come out andl americans connect says -- assess and evaluate. the truth came out during the clinton investigation. i will be harsh, but what i'm about to say is absolutely true and demonstrated in the book. president clinton did everything he could to keep the truth from coming out. we could say was about a moral issue but it wasn't. it was about whether he committed perjury and encouraged others to lie, whether he was embarked on a process that we described in the referral as the abuse of power. that's important. this is the president of the united states. and you mentioned is co-former speakers of the house, a united formersenator -- two

speakers of the house and the united states senator people are -- senator. in washington, d.c. i was teaching at the unit -- a new york university and i was on my way to get to the shuttle and the cab driver turned around and , and it turns out that this cap driver is from a west african country. starr, is that you? in my country this never could have happened. our leaders can do anything they want. they are not called to account. but that's not america. host: he said one of the reasons you wrote this book was because you had, -- because you had the time. he used to be the president at baylor university and you no longer do? guest: i was dismissed.

i was not fired as chancellor positions.a two in light of issues of sexual violence and the like, and possible violations of title ix which is an important law that they needed new leadership. as chancellor of the university because i felt i could no longer work with at the board of regents at that time. it's not a criticism, it's just the fact that i did step down voluntarily as chancellor. i was not fired for cause, we just need new leadership. thought,complete the it's the summer of 2016, i immediately said no to law firms . let me have some time, i wrote a book about my baylor experience, and it turned out to be, as my agent said, as is a love story to baylor. and i was delighted to do this. i was finishing the project and

hillary lost the election. the time is right, 20 years coming up for the entire process , that we are noting now, the in early 99process at its time. it's now or never to write this story. an hour left. irving is in las vegas. a democrat. caller: host: about half an hour left with ken starr. a democrat in las vegas, good morning. caller: good morning. can you be? host: go ahead with your question or comment. , who isi hear ken starr kavanaugh's exemplary

character, but the same thing .ould be said for ted bundy there were people who knew him, and they stood up for his even elected eve officials. i am not saying kavanaugh is ted know thet they did not real ted bundy. so, -- host: got your point, irving. all due respect, i emphatically disagree with the comparison we are talking about, a situation where a person was caring out the most heinous crimes and living two lives. brett kavanaugh has been an exemplary public servant.

ted bundy wasn't and he did not hold office and was not a federal judge that went through confirmation. ted bundy never went through, as far as i know, a single fbi background check, let alone six. the real rent kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh is the one we saw in the hearings and has generated -- not generated, but people came up spontaneously who went to high school with him, young mothers, said this is not the character of brett kavanaugh. this is not who we knew in high school. just accepting the possibility of the argument that let's just look at the high school episode, what we are hearing is to bits to his character, even in high school. it is a character that has continued for decades. turn out to charges be true, should he get a

lifetime appointment to the supreme court? guest: i am not going to answer a hypothetical question. i do not think it can be from the stage at what we know, it is not owing to be proven. it will be her best recollection, and he is -- going the to be proven. it will be her best recollection, and he is not , heing an episode happened is denying being the perpetrator . i am not going to deny there was an accuser, but i hope there will be fairness and everyone just like we ask for fairness in the justice process. we want fairness in families. let's have fairness in the process. about the dignity of the supreme court of the united states and the allegation, again it is an allegation, single episode in high school.

people just need to look at the balance and the career of brett kavanaugh. janice, alabama, republican. good morning. caller: i have two or three points. one point being, this woman went to a therapist -- i don't know for how many years, several years ago. there was something that happened with a bunch of kids that went to therapists, and they convinced these children that they had been sexually molested. later on, it was found out to be untrue. they ruined a lot of people's lives, or at least the therapist did. i am wondering how much the therapist did in having this being brought out. hater andrump

waited till the last minute to do anything for it. host: we will take those points. guest: one of the great presidents of the past, whose words i read -- frequently invoke is lincoln and the gettysburg address. in the second inaugural, he appealed to the higher nature and angels of our being. we want fundamental fairness. art of fairness is to make sure -- part of fairness is to make sure that an individual who is ed fairly andeat dispassionate. i will not make comparisons with the current situation. you are right, lives were ruined by false accusations. i have been involved for many years with a wonderful project called "the innocence project."

there are people on death row who are factually innocent, not a legal technicality. want fairness in this country, and that is what i am crying for to look at brett kavanaugh's character and to say, look at the nature and depth and range of his contribution. ofhas never been accused this until the senate hearing up. he has let the life of integrity and has denied that not an episode didn't happen, but that he was the perpetrator of any such thing and never acted that way. he has this entire lifetime and a cloud of witnesses rallying

around him and saying yes, we we knowwith brett and him now and this is not brett kavanaugh. host: good morning. guest: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the last caller. since dianne feinstein knew about it in july, she is a disgrace and an embarrassment. at the 11th hour, they come out with this just to destroy his character. i totally agree with you that his character is without blemish. this is ridiculous. guest: i am not going to get into any characteristic -- characterization. i appreciate your point of view. there is a genuine process

concern, and i will say it, i wish senator dianne feinstein would have been fair to her fellow senators. course. kavanaugh, of to the supreme court, of course. look what has happened -- she chose not to act on this .nformation that she had she had it in july and is not act on its until september, and credencet and gives to those who believe this is political. i am not saying it is political, that it gives credence to those who believe this was a last-ditch effort. this kind of process violation, as i see it -- failure to respect orderly process, and we do not want to talk about the process. we want to focus on the allegations. host: what about the desire of the accuser not to want to come out in july?

she did not want her identity known until reports started coming out and she was concerned she would lose control of the story? guest: i respect that. if you make the information known to a united states senator in this country, it is, as we say in the law, reasonably foreseeable that information will need to be assessed by the fbi, committees on staff or what ever. all due think him with respect, you can have it both ways that here is a set of allegations and by the way, i prefer to remain confidential. i understand the humanity of it. in talking about the process, we are in washington, d.c. and talking about the most important court in the united states of america. we have a single individual making these comments at the descriptionnd the of the alleged episode not being made known to the senate, when

the senate judiciary committee has a process. host: 25 minutes left with ken starr to talk about his book (202) 748-8003 "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." host: a democrat, on the line. good morning. caller: you talk about reality and different things you are doing. i do not know why you continue on with the clintons, and number two, which a woman has been violated and i have, it is not easy to come out here just as she waited until the 11th hour, it is hard to come out and say, i was abused by somebody. do you take this into consideration? do you have any answers for that? guest: i understand it is not easy. i am not saying that it is by

any means. any violation of human dignity, the dignity of the human body, is a very serious matter. what we have is brett kavanaugh saying, i did not do any such thing, and we have many people saying that kavanaugh is not the person. if the accuser, who has had an interesting career, if the person did in fact have something happened to her, i understand it is not easy for her to come out. we are not talking about an individual, we're talking about an episode that is affecting the country and raising the question of, well, who is brett have a kavanaugh? i want to come back to her first thing because she raised the question about why don't i get away from the clintons?

it is a part of our history. we need to know history. this is the inside story, melanie, about why we chose not to seek an indictment of hillary rodham clinton. that is a story that needed to be told. here is a story about our views with respect to the disappearance which constituted obstruction of documents.the rose hillary clinton supported that and it was a fraud. the story needed to be told because we did not ring charges and we didn't bring them because we did not believe we had the evidence admissible in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hillary had committed those crimes, we believe she had committed those crimes. the story needs to be told.

morality, i am not talking about morality. i am talking about the rule of law. that is with the special counsel 's statute was talking about and what janet reno was talking about when she said to the three needs toudges, starr investigate whether crimes against the role of justice were committed. is that moral? of course, but we are not talking about the relationship. --y american people needed the american people need to be reminded that what the house of representatives was focusing on war crimes that were proven on bill clinton's part. that is when i felt the call to write the book. host: you described brett kavanaugh's accuser of having an interesting career. what did you mean by that? guest: she has gone into

different fields and what to california. i find her careers an interesting journey. it is a different kind of career path that she has followed. host: diane in new jersey, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say that i just don't know anyone else that has been sexually harassed as many times been.ave ok, if youthat off, have ever experienced another woman that would plan to destroy say that hee and has sexually harassed to, this woman wanted me to go along with her, ok? -- she didn'tnt

even know that i didn't like the guy at the time. she just did not like him. was not interested in her, but he was a horrible person. i had to talk her out of doing this. all the times i have been sexually harassed, even to the i didwhere, thank god manage to get out of it at gunpoint, it topped all of that because it was so we could. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: that is very moving story, and i regret you have had this experience, including with the relationship with your friend. sexual harassment in the workplace is a terrible thing. -- and thisseeing

goes back to an early part of societyersation, is misse has matured. i described an atmosphere that bill clinton created that he could do essentially whatever he to visa-a-visa women. we are taking it seriously and people are losing their jobs because of sexual respite in the workplace. what we are talking about something that happened in high school when he was 17 years old, according to the allegations, and wish he has denied.

there is a danger always of mob rule. host: jeremy, independent, massachusetts. good morning. .uest: good morning, mr. starr i value your opinion. i wanted to get a couple quick comments from you about the case that is happening now on the independent. i have been trying to follow this without any left or right leaning. -- arestions i ask is they admitting there is no collusion i hear into this investigation, what do think of that? what do think of president trump releasing documents and texts? would we really do that if there re?n't something in the if brett kavanaugh gets booted, will he lose his seat on the district court? guest: thank you.

it iser, i think intriguing that lisa page, the former fbi agent has made the statement that she did and council cautioned that she was an important agent. i would not take that to the bank in terms of the overall investigation. let's see what happens in the investigation. that being said, i see no evidence whatever of collusion. i have seen lots of evidence of what we all know, and that is russian interference. great the contributions of robert mueller was the indictment of the russian officials and organizations. in one paragraph of the indictment, i found this revealing and there was no word of collusion in the indictment of the campaign. it described the following, on the very same day in new york

city, russian organizations funded and organized both an anti-trump rally and april trump aally -- and all the pro-trump. that is my view in terms of lisa page. on the documents, we need to protect the national security interests, and so there are reasons for classifications. given what i know, and i do not , iw as much as other people think we need greater transparency. r on the side of transparency. . would presume transparency let's allow this information, as long as we don't reveal sources we methods, that is a key,

do not want to danger the interests of the united states, including individuals who serve bravely and in dangerous, covert situations. that goes without saying. beyond that, we should know the truth, truth will set us free. what's have as much transparency as possible. i welcome declassification. host:'s third question was whether brett kavanaugh would lose his district court seat? guest: no, it may not come to that. host: in maryland, democrat. good morning. morning.ood mr. starr, with all due respect, and i have no issues with what happened to bill clinton. you are referring to do process -- due process as far as brett kavanaugh is concerned, but how

about the republican strapping 40,000 documents on the eve of where the hearing started and not waiting for the other bedred thousand documents to reviewed by the library of congress? guest: i truly don't have of you with respect to the issues of document access and the like. i view that as an issue and trusted to the discretion of the senate. i do think there needs to be process, orderly and respect to declassification of documents. a number of the documents, as i understand them, had to go to the archival review process under the law. sometimes we on the outside do respect the way their operating. they may say let's just postpone hearings for a year or two years. that is a judgment call.

my own view is, given what i saw, the senate judiciary committee has before and had before it a very elaborate record of judge kavanaugh's work. his body of work was extraordinarily detailed because he has been an exemplary judge for 12 years. i do not think there was a lack of information that materially affected the appropriateness of brett kavanaugh to serve. host: 10 or 15 minutes left with ken starr, offer of the new book "contempt: a memoir of the , clinton investigation." we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. phone lines as they normally are. host: in virginia, a republican. go ahead. caller: first up, i am too young to remember anything from the clinton stuff. i am looking forward to the book. guest: thank you. caller: as a female and as a

republican, i have experienced similar situations to what is been going on with the hearings right now and the accuser. my question is more -- everyone is saying the 11th hour, and from my understanding, a lot of hearings have been pushed through your are being seen as being pushed through. is it the 11th hour as a normal hearing would be, or is this one being fast tracked more than normal? my other question is -- with the president -- they can be impeached and everyone says supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. if it is found that a supreme court justice lied during their confirmation hearings, is there -- what happens question mark what are the repercussions? question,the first let's review what happened. on the last day of the term,

which he was serving, justice anthony kennedy made the announcement to the nation that he was stepping down. within a very short period of july,the president, in nominated brett kavanaugh, and the hearings were set. the hearings were set to provide literally weeks of opportunity to review records and the like, to do the assessment process. then the hearings were set for early september. we are talking about a two month plus process, all designed to have a vote, and for my perspective hopefully confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court, in time for the judge, justice to join the court which begins its work in literally two weeks. it begins on monday, october 1. judiciary-- senate

committees set a schedule and everyone knew what the schedule was, and the process began. it was in july, so early on, that the accuser came to senator feinstein, and the 11th our concern is, nothing was done, as i understand it, with those allegations, even though the senate judiciary committee wanted public appearance and went into executive session, as i understand it, and wanted to review the most sensitive materials in our democracy and fbi reports. i have seen fbi reports, and believe me, fbi reports you do not want to be the subject of an fbi report because anyone can say anything about you, and the fbi agent will dutifully reported. he/she will not cross examine you.

they are extremely sensitive records. even in an age of transparency, senators all agree that they will review the files, allegations that may ever have been made against someone in closed session. they have the discretion that they will have hearings on this issue or that issue. brett kavanaugh sailed through that process. senator feinstein do not bring this information forward, even in that process of executive session. that is the 11th hour nation -- nature of it. one of the messages in the book is, be very careful, very cautious in the house of representatives about impeachment. the american people do not like impeachment. it is an important tool to have in democracies to hold people accountable. judges have been impeached and convicted by the senate and

removed from office. host: south carolina, dave, go ahead. an independent. starr good morning mr. and everyone in the country. much has been made of the fact that this happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old. in some states, 17-year-olds can be tried as adults. i would be curious as to how many 17-year-olds were -- thised his judge judge during his career that he tried as adults. secondly, the comment that justice is equal in this country is complete nonsense. anyone who has had something to do with the system knows that. if you're rich and powerful, you are not held to the same accountability. otherwise, jails would have just as many rich people as poor. host: we will take the comments. guest: very well. first of all, brett kavanaugh has never been a trial judge and is never had the issue you talk about.

17-year-oldsstates can be tried as adults. we are talking about the episode that was alleged was when he was .7, decades ago that is the fairness into and statutes of limitation. we have laws that say if you do have charges, and i know some charges are sensitive, you need to bring them forward. in terms of justice is equal, that is a struggle. i totally disagree, with all respect to with your cynicism. look what just happened to paul manafort. look at what happened to his partner, rick gates. i can start enumerating millionaires and billionaires who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system. i respectfully disagree. i think ours is a good system. if you have a state and local system, and by the way,

yesterday was constitution day and mr. madison warned against the kind of phenomenon you're pointing to. in federalist 10, he said we need a vast, commercial this vast nation because of oppression will more likely occur at the local level. boss of loss called, -- that littlen community. that is what he warned about. if you do not think rich folks get chased after, i can tell you from my own personal expense you are quite wrong. host: james, democrat, virginia. good morning. guest: good morning, sir. am i on? host: what is your question for ken starr? guest: my question is, if he is saying that fairness and injustices are a true mirror of all things, and i think it is, that mr.ou citing

kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations? i mean, the 65 people that are saying that mr. kavanaugh was a nice guy, and the only one that is important to the whole issue is the one that seems to have forgotten what happened that night. guest: well, i have a different perspective, as you might imagine. you are right. i talk a lot about fairness and justice, and that is what our system, including our political system, is designed for. we do not want them browbeaten. as a nation, we recoil at a united states senator in a position of power abusing his power. power can be abused, and we need

to have checks and balances in order to prevent it. what i am testifying to, kind sir, is i know brett kavanaugh. i know him and i worked with him. it is not that i went out with him to a washington nationals game one time and he was "a nice with himorked hour-by-hour, week by week. my expense was not unique. it is consistent with all of those who have worked alongside him in his berries editions in public life. his experiences in public life. in the full body of work football and see who is going to get into the college playoff. what is the entire body of work? i hope we will not lose our perspective, and i think we are starting to get our perspective back after the revelations of

the weekend to say, let's be deliberative about this and not turn it into a circus. host: a couple final colors have been waiting a long time. augustine is in north carolina, republican. good morning. guest: good morning. mr. starr, i have a question for theas far as, what does male that is being accused of a legend acts that turn out to be false? does he have any recourse? you -- also like to tell i come from a small town back in new york. the next town over had a high school football starr and his girlfriend. , buthad consensual sex

ultimately he was charged with rape, sent to prison for 10 years, and was put on the national registry for sex offenders. that, to me, is wrong. host: answer? guest: very quickly. this is no remedy in arena. we are seeing in the college and university arena lawsuits being individuals called respondents in the title ix area who believe that their due process rights were violated when they were found guilty, are responsible, and kicked out of school or otherwise sanctioned and career substantially ruined. we are seeing increasingly judgments being brought against colleges and universities for their violation of basic due process and fairness. false charges are in fact -- i am sorry, i failed to say in

this arena for brett kavanaugh, the remedy for him is confirmation, but that is it. there is no legal remedy. false charges are something the american people should be aware of. there are lawsuits pending right now that are alleging exactly that. the charges were entirely made up. let's get things educated in a fair way. host: last call tom, ohio, democrat. good morning. guest: you try to make the clintons look like some kind of bank robbers. they did have money here they released their tax forms. mcdougal wasusan on larry king, and she said 18 months in prison and you cut a deal with her anytime if she would have said she had sex with president clinton. host: we will let can start and there. guest: susan mcdougal was convicted of serious felonies

that led to the collapse of a savings and loan in little rock, arkansas. she was found in contempt by the united states district court. susan has made these allegations, and they are false. clintons andto the their finances, i never alleged were wealthy at the time. fact -- you need to read the story. the story as i recount will demonstrate to a fair-minded person they were involved in financial crimes in little rock. host: can starr's story. the title of the book, "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: up next, the capital tour continues. we will talk about illinois, the 41st stop of our 50 capital to her. we are joined by state representative tim butler --

tour. we are joined by state representative tim butler. we will be back. >> sunday night on q&a, cbs news chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book, "mr. trump's wild ride." >> is not about partisanship. i described donald trump as bigger than partisanship. emotional dynamo that he spins with people. he does it intentionally, sometimes he does not know he is doing it, but it happens. every aspectcing of human life, culture, economics, and the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's monday. history unfolde

daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public house he in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> ""washington journal," continues. illinoisgo to sprinkle , located on route 66. springfield was the capital in 1937, and the city is known for being a hometown of abraham lincoln. stateg us on the bus is representative tim butler, a republican, who represents the house seat that lincoln once did. good morning to you. let's start with the fiscal health of illinois.

it is a state that is consistently ranked at the bottom or near the bottom of fiscal health when it comes to various state rankings big white is that? -- rankings. why is that? guest: we have huge pension debt in the state of illinois. with $130 billion in unfunded pension liability. medicaid payments have skyrocketed over the next -- past decade and a half. on top of that, we are coming off an unprecedented budget impasse, what we did not have a budget for the state of illinois for two years. that accumulated unpaid bills upwards of $60 million. debt just our structural problem in the state of illinois is squeezing out a lot of the other programs we want to fund.

situation.gh those in the general assembly try to battle it, but it is a hard situation for the citizens of illinois. with the second-highest overall tax burden out of all of the states. he will feel taxed out. we need to provide for services we offer to the citizens of illinois. .t is a tough situation we are trying to move forward and we passed a budget earlier this year, a bipartisan budget that was balance. canfully moving forward, we tackle these issues. we will continue to see big questions about the financial health of our state moving forward. host: to put the this goal perspective, a report was released that found unfunded pension liability in 2017 to grew 25% in $250 billion in total. talk about the future things you are doing to bring down that curve. guest: certainly, the pension debt is a huge issue for us.

in illinois, the last constitution we enacted in the state of illinois was the 1970 constitution. in the constitution, the pension clause says you shall not diminish pensions of public employees, tensions and benefits of a look employees. that puts a strict burden on what we can do to tier one employees, especially those under the tier one program. -- too have tier one and two and tier three for public employees, but we cannot touch tier one pensions and can't change them or diminish them. we have to figure a way around it we are obligated to pay those pension debts annually. tohave to pay every month the pension obligations we have in the state of illinois. we are looking at ways to get around that. aboutis a lot of talk making it longer. i am not in favor of that.

it gets a lot of discussion in the state that would lower payments annually to free up money. we will have to make good on our promises, and that will be tough to figure out because we only have so much tax income we can get. we just raise the income tax last year, and i don't think it will be raised anytime in the future. we have to figure it out. over the long haul, it will come from dropping other services so we can pay the pension that and make sure we are keeping up with our obligations to state employees. callinguld you advocate a new constitutional convention to change the pension? guest: i have introduced a resolution to have a constitutional convention in the state of illinois, not because of the pension clause -- ira present a lot of state employees in the capital and i said i do not want to see the pension clause diminished. we need to make good to our --

on our promises. it is time that we do have a constitution convention. we call it every 50 years that we have been a state where it this is our bicentennial year. every 50 years, we've called a constitutional convention. it has been almost 50 years since we had our last one. there are so many issues we deal with that are constitutionally related. term limits, redistricting, home rule powers, education funding, that are tied to our constitution. it is long past time we reevaluate that and move forward, and possibly create some changes to the constitution. term limits is something that annually comes up in the state of illinois that has been blocked time and time again, and something i have been advocating. redistricting, especially come with gerrymandering in districts in illinois that i would love to see us go to a commission form of redistricting where it is

taken out of the hands of the legislature and moved to some sort of bipartisan or nonpartisan commission that draws the maps. we need to do that through the constitution. host: you are dealing with the open euro crisis. -- opioid crisis. you get attention for a law that would expand the use of marijuana to help fight the opioid crisis. explain how that works and if you supported it. guest: i was one of the cosponsors on the bill and i was happy to see the governor sign it. it is an important piece of legislation that allows anyone who has an opioid prescription to get a medical marijuana card in illinois. if at the medical marijuana program going for a few years now. i've seen many successes and talked to people directly who benefited from the use of marijuana. illinois, if you have an opiate prescription you can get marijuana card and

swap out marijuana for opioids. it would be for the extent of your prescription for opioids, you would be able to get a six-month card for medical marijuana. it is a step in the right traction. certainly the end-all answer to the issue of opioid abuse and problems we have, but a step in the right direction. we are offering safe alternatives to people to deal with pain and issues they have while they are using opioids to use something that really does not have the problems that opioids do. i am looking forward to seeing the program get implemented and to see how it will change things with the opioid abuse. host: another issue, gun violence. very states have been compared. illinois has the eighth strongest gun laws in america. what has that meant for gun

violence in illinois? guest: we continue to see terrible violence -- gun violence in the city of chicago. chicago is one of the worst cities in nation when it comes to gun violence. we see gun trafficking as a major problem and trafficking from other state guns coming into illinois is a huge cotton. we have tried to tackle some of these issues in the general assembly. there was a package of ours that the governor signed and try to address gun violence. at the end of the day, when it comes to a community like chicago or my home town of springfield, we need to have good programs on the street that work with folks before they get to that point. we have cut back on some of that funding. -- a proudseen a big supporter of any of the programs, but some of the programs we help neighborhoods

and interact with folks prefer they get to the violence can really help them through the situation and that is important. as a state, we need to put a priority on the things to make things in place to address the gun violence and make our place state -- safer. housetim butler is in the here and before becoming a state representative, you worked with two members of congress. can you compare the expense of working up on capitol hill to your experience in the state? guest: i have to say it is quite fun to be on the side of a journal," camera. working for the transportation secretary and was a republican member of the house of representatives. whorked for rodney davis,

is my own congressman in springfield. we are in his district in downtown springfield. we have been friends for a long time. i was honored to work for him before i got to this position. prior to that and the 1990's, i got my start working on capitol hill. i was in the house education and labor committee for three years. it was a great opportunity. i loved living in washington and working on capitol hill. my experience working for federal legislators aim in handy when i got in the general assembly. i am a creature of legislative bodies. i was appointed to fill a vacancy in 2015, i hope i have the ground running and i was familiar with the process as a staff person. it is different being on the side of it. you do not have to go out and advocate for someone oh, whatever comes to my brain and out of my mouth is my own ideas.

certainly, that is a different part i did not have before. i enjoy it, and it is an opportunity to serve illinois and advocate for the 110,000 people represent. of talkicago gets a lot about being dysfunctional. is it dysfunctional? guest: we are coming off a two-year budget impasse that highlights the dysfunction we have in illinois. all the timeeople and we have a big partisan divide in the state of illinois. we have regional differences between downstate illinois and the southern tip of illinois is adjacent to kentucky. the northern borders with wisconsin. we have a lot of regional differences in the state that leads to political differences. at the end of the day, we are here to make a difference for the people we represent. it is important that you work with both sides of the aisle. you do see some dysfunction, but day in and day out, you see

opportunities in illinois were both republicans and democrats work together to try to get something done. the bill you mentioned, the opioid bill, where we now allow people to get a medical marijuana card is definitely a piece of legislation that was the bipartisan piece of legislation advocated by high-ranking democrats and signed by republican governor. you had republican cosponsors on the bill. we try to work together, we are at times no different than washington or other states where we have partisan divide on the issues of the day. host: you have served since 2015, how long do you plan to serve in state politics? guest: as i tell people, i will not serve in the shop forever. i enjoy what i do right now, and i am wrapping up my first full term come in second term overall in the general assembly and will be on the ballot this fall. i doubt if you ask me 10 years from now i will be in the same

position. there are plenty of good people who can do the shop answer for a little while and go do something else. i do not have necessarily a time frame when i will be done, but it will not be a long-term career for me. i will certainly go on and do other things but i feel that i have done my time here. host: tim butler represents the 87th district and the illinois statehouse. we appreciate your time in stopping by the c-span bus today. guest: happy to do it. host: i want to thank as part of rs inus tou springfield illinois. stay tuned for our next stop which is st. louis, missouri. for our last 10 minutes or so this morning, we'll go to open phones. any public policy you want to talk about or any issues we brought up, you can do so could

the phone mines are yours. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. as you are calling in, out of north carolina, impact continues from hurricane florence. this is the "citizen times," serving asheville, north carolina. underwater is the headline. death toll rising as a result of hurricane florence. 14,000 people in emergency shelters is the report and result of the storm. "charlotte: observer tornadoes, flooding, deaths. the longing the agony of the storm. that is a few of the front pages.

those who are still getting newspaper delivery in north toolina today are waking up these headlines this morning. william is waiting in mexico, tennessee, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, what is on your mind? caller: the state representative from wrinkle, illinois, is he still on? host: he is not. what is your comment about illinois? i had a question about the judge who had all the trouble where he was colluding with the justice department and was reprimanded. statewondering what the representative felt about that judge if he should resign. host: i appreciate you watching ur. 50 capitals to

we are 41 stops into the 50 capitals. harold is next in indiana, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that if we are going back 36 years, there are a lot of guys in washington and all over the place who probably are not sleeping well at night. a 17-year-olds kid, if that can come back and haunt to this many years back -- later, there will be sleepless nights. i think there are a few people on capitol hill who are not safe, either. host: to detroit, michigan, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. when you were talking about the brett kavanaugh thing, his confirmation with this incident going on with this young lady when she was a teenager and he --, what i want to know is

the information was turned over washe fbi, so the fbi supposed added to brett kavanaugh's inquiry or whatever they were looking at his background. that was in july. it seems to me that the committee should have been made known that there was some evidence, even though they did not know the person's name. what does the fbi do with that information when they get it? when they got the information, what did they do with it? if they did not do anything and that is why it was not brought up, why are they holding it? what was the purpose of turning it over? host: in terms of getting to the bottom of what happened, who would you trust to do that? would you trust the fbi to do this over the next six days here

do you think it is up to members of the senate judiciary committee now? caller: yes, i think it is up to the members of the senate judiciary committee. i want to know, if it was turned over to the fbi and i do want to there is abi, but lot of partisan going on with that, i don't know. what did the fbi do with the information? host: i got your point. speaking of the kavanaugh accusation, and i've shown you several front pages and headlines about the echoes relating back to anita hill's accusations against supreme court nominee clearance thomas back in 1991. here is one of the stories from the new york times. echoes of anita hill in a new era for women who come forward a similar showdown of sex, truth, and politics. 27 years later.

anita hill also writing an opinion column for the new york times, how to get the kavanaugh hearings right. she is the headline could writes, there is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better at the same committee on which sits some of the same members as nearly three decades theas it moves forward with kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court and the countries maybe to addressing sexual violence as matter of public interest and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. today, she writes the public expects better from the government and what we got in employershat give permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decade. the senate judiciary committee still lacks the protocol for vetting sexual-harassment assault claims and it suggests they have learned little from the thomas hearing and much less from the recent me to movement.

pat is in new jersey, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. can you be? host: yes, ma'am. caller: i just wanted to call and say, i am getting really disgusted with the democrats and republicans. sick of, especially right now mitch mcconnell, because i feel like president picked hisd have supreme court justice. now our whole system is messed up because of what mitch mcconnell did. i am just so disgusted, and i wish we would get true independence and that congress and senate, because i am so sick of the bipartisan and each party

going their own way. i want to get back to normal. host: what is normal, cap? caller: i feel the supreme court justice, he is not a bad guy, but i feel if he gets appointed right now after what happened during the obama administration, feel like he would be illegitimate. louisiana is in republican. good morning. sayer: what i would like to -- i talked to about three months ago, and want to tell you things. number one, the american people are sick and tired of both parties. what they have done is put up a slush fund for them. is taken have done care of their improprieties and not taking care of the american people. number two, if they are such

great people, why is it that hillary clinton committed espionage, and they did nothing to her, and you tell me why? host: we want to hear from you this morning. craig is in virginia, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have to say it is my first time calling, and i have been listening since 1979. i am a veteran and my wife is a veteran. what disgusts me more than anything else is you talk about character. here is a 17-year-old man who is supposed to be a supreme court justice in this country, and he was not vetted better than he is. has been to what coming out, he was drinking heavily when he was a youngster, and he had wild parties. i will not judge him based on

somebody else's word, i would like for us to investigate and go all the way back and do it properly and give it the proper vetting before we appoint him to a lifetime judgeship. if he is not the man for the job, they are to pull him back and put somebody else out there. he has taken away president obama's on our timeframe. bridgette is in austin, texas. caller: thank you. him.would not even talk to they cannot come up with any criticism, let alone constructive criticism. they stole the prior supreme court seat. know.tuation, you they had somebody calling in. different decisions could be made with this judge and people tellingup with -- and

her that white women are not having enough children. know, some of these people in high political office so they are not in walk step with correct corporations that want people pressured. the national organization points out there are areas where it is hard for people to pay condoms in this country. they are not in pressure with people have 6, 8, 10 children. they want slaves working for slave wages. beaten atraped and epidemic levels in our society. host: domingo is in midland, texas. go ahead. a second. go in kavanaugh is his

promise. who saved $40r million in savings. i am not allowed to get any of money went toy this rich country. that is our last caller that we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we take you live to the senate foreign relations committee holding a here he -- hearing today. that hearing getting underway momentarily.