confirmation process for brett kavanaugh. georgetown university law professor discussing the increasing election security preparedness and preventing foreign interference. ♪ host: good morning everyone on this september 20, yesterday on the washington journal, we hear from women only across the country on whether judge brett kavanaugh should be confirmed to the supreme court. this morning, we want to hear from men only. if you're under 30, (202) 748-8000. between the ages of 30-50, (202) 748-8001. .hose over 51, (202) 748-8002

join us on twitter and facebook as well. men only this morning, should brett kavanaugh be confirmed? trump weighed in on the nomination and hearing from the accuser of these allegations, before he left -- here's what he had to say. >> i want to see her. i want to see what she has to say. but, i want to give it all the time they need. they have given it time, they have delayed a major hearing. when i first decided to run, everybody said the single most important think you do is supreme court justice. we have heard that many times about a president. i would say this, i think he is an extraordinary man. i think he is a man of great intellect.

he has an unblemished record. this is a tough thing for him and his family. and we want to get it over with, at the same time, we want to give it a tremendous amount of time. if she shows up, that would be wonderful. if she does not show up, that would be unfortunate. host: that was the president yesterday. we want to hear from men only as we heard from women yesterday. what do you think should happen? the judiciary committee and the senate said hearings should take place monday where they would hear from professor christine for an judge kavanaugh would get an opportunity to testify. chuck grassley said they need to hear from professor ford by 10:00 a.m. friday on whether or not she will be testifying. democrats, led by senator mcdermott, and a series of tweets, have laid out this argument.

republicans have tried to break the process. no neutral investigation, no witnesses. now they seem happy that she will not compared -- they think this makes it easier for them to -- that is insulting. this is not a typical partisan fight. this goes to fundamental questions about whether survivals will be -- survivors will be treated with dignity and respect. the republican vote -- americans cannot vote him out. republicans are comfortable with that. senator dianne feinstein at that the center of this letter that was sent by professor ford, she's doing out yesterday, in 1991, anita hill and clarence thomas were interviewed. came forward

claiming first-hand knowledge of the events. it is time for the fbi to do the same today. polls, across the the country, on brett kavanaugh and the confirmation, they break saying in a paul by men 44% say he should be confirmed. women, 27%. this was done between september 16 and 18th. look at the numbers for sexual say it is, 35% of men a problem. 50% of women say it is a problem. let's go to matt in new york, good morning to you. what do you think of all this? caller: am i still on? host: you are. caller: of course he should be confirmed. this is a drive-by.

that is what it is. that this is the same as anita hill. the only thing that is the same is that they are both lying. -- all of ahing they want to move the goalposts. they want to do this and that. it is ridiculous. july, she letter in has been talking to her therapist. she is been turkey -- talking to this person and that person. why can't you just answer the question? i thought that anita hill was lying. i think she is lying. they will say this poor woman is putting herself out there, guess what? she will get office for tv movies, but offers. she will be getting paid to talk here or there and probably get

to some university for women's studies. it is ridiculous. the whole thing stinks. host: d think she is lying because you think she is playing a political game? caller: exactly. this whole thing stinks to high heaven. democrats and dying feinstein, -- diane feinstein, she was playing to her because she is playing for her reelection. reasonable thinking person can see right through this charade. -- there are legitimate cases. thate to remind everybody there have been cases -- women can live.

-- lie. this woman put him through so much. we hear about elizabeth smart, there is a long -- young lady who has been put through the ringer. she is what modern feminism is supposed to be about. being strong, not playing the victim. attorneys forhe ford out a statement, cnn has the story. saying this is a rush to a hearing and called it unnecessary. contrary to the committee she hasing the truth, been thrust into the spotlight and is not able to go home. she has relocated her family according to the newspaper. anita hill wrote an op-ed in yesterday's new york times.

she said do not rush these hearings. doing so would not only signal that sexual assault is not lead to faxt would being overlooked that are necessary for the senate and public to evaluate. simply put, a wii's preparation into -- into time very serious charges. professor ford's lawyers have until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow to tell the committee whether or not she will be testifying on monday. let's go to ron in new hampshire. you're on the air. caller: i always love this show. i don't think he should be confirmed. this lady seems credible. she is a doctor.

i think a teenage brett kavanaugh is different from an elderly brett kavanaugh. it is conceivable that it happened. why rest the hearings? -- why rush the hearings? -- most of his original staffers are in jail. a whole jail just for the administration. they have the russian investigation. -- the present should be above

the law. this judge believes it. that at least the present should be. that is one reason why they are rushing him to get on this court. fromevent this president pot -- prosecution and possible impeachment hearings. host: hottie respond to the national review, the conservative magazine writes they are determined to implement a new standard. but the accusation is sufficient evidence of guilt. bet new standard will implemented for figures in both parties, whether they realize it you believe that al franken and bobby scott are falsely accused while brett kavanaugh and clarence thomas and roy moore are guilty as sin, or vice versa, you are part of the problem. caller: no.

i don't see it that way at all. answer but your question went too long. -- what is theat problem for holding off another week or two? this lady togive gap -- another week to rather up her evidence. -- there is no reason why they can't hold off another week and give her an opportunity to come in with her evidence. they are not going to do that because it is all political and -- the bread crumbs lead to the white house. christopher in oklahoma.

christopher, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: i had a comment. the fact that this guy could be confirmed and be in the supreme possibly end up and hening roe v. wade was a member of a club at yell that celebrated promiscuity and then striking. that seems kind of strange. that he would be in a position -- host: how old are you? caller: i am 40. , what's -- maurice

do you think? caller caller: from what i saw on television in 1991, two senators , they said they wanted an fbi investigation on anita hill, i don't understand .hat the rush is i host: eric between the ages of 30-50. caller: i do not think that the judge should be confirmed. politics is destroying our country. i'm talking about an allegation. ofcan destroy the lives

people without the benefit of knowing what happened. any allegation is considered the truth. -- the man did not have a chance to defend himself. now the lady does not want to come. and say what happened. they are using her and she does not realize it. -- i'm very concerned. host: ok. it is moderate, republicans in the senate who hold the key to whether or not

the senate could confirm judge brett kavanaugh, with democrats saying that they will oppose him. one of those senators is susan collins of maine. hopeweeted this out, i they will reconsider testifying before the judiciary committee on monday. it is my understanding that they can hold a public or private session, which ever would make her more comfortable. and, according to the washington post, chuck grassley has left open the possibility that the hearing could occur with only judge kavanaugh present. building anludes expensive timeline with or without her. as democrats push for an fbi probe, trump has suggested that an fbi investigation is unnecessary.

many of you discussed, in 19 91, when anita hill accused justice clarence thomas sexually harassed her. the fbi reiterated that they have information about the 'slegation and kavanaugh p background. an inquiry is out of the because it does not constitute a federal crime. it should be handled on the state level or is typically handled on the state level, according to news reports. already has received two official letters, the ninth any knowledge of events. -- the ninth any knowledge of events. by taking a serious matter and turning it into a political

football, democrats have done a massive disservice to dr. ford and victims everywhere. what do you think? we are talking to men only this morning as we talk to women only yesterday. arts, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. judge kavanaugh should be confirmed but they should listen senator grassley is making every effort to allow dr. ford to come to washington. sendenator was going to staff to california to listen to her. and give her a chance to tell her story. but, i think that judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. host: do you think this should be done in public? or are you ok with private testimony? caller: excuse me.

if the doctor wants to do it in private, let her do it in private. if the judge wants to do it in private, do it in private. accommodate them. feinstein'snator desk for two months. host: she said she was respecting her privacy. she only discovered the leather -- letter once the media made it public. not heardhave anything from senator feinstein in the last few days. i think he should be confirmed. i think dr. ford she get her due process. i heard on the enterprise this morning, she was not going to testify. why should we hold up the confirmation hearings? host: she has not ruled it out totally. the senate judiciary committee

has said they need to hear by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow about whether or not she is going to testify. they say monday is it and they are having the hearing on monday . according to senator collins, chuck grassley has given her the option of private, public, and congressionalk to investigators, rather than senators. it has not been ruled out. say that they are rushing and would like to see an fbi investigation first. chuck grassley's side has this tweet. majority has yet to see the original unredacted letter from dr. ford to senator feinstein. good morning, sir. caller: i'm here. think?hat do you

should judge brett kavanaugh be confirmed? caller: i would say no. think it is a shame the process -- the way the process is being handled. think this does not set a good example. i think the right thing to do is to have the fbi investigate that. that, the senate can go ahead and do the hearing. she says it happens and kavanaugh said it did not happen. -- see says it happened and kavanaugh said it did not happen. fbi putt we let the

-?me suspects to it yet thoug - at this point, after watching the hearings for the last couple of weeks, it is really shameful. i'm china to look at from it fair perspective -- trying to look at it from a fair perspective. it is a shame. it is just a big shame. i don't think he should be confirmed. host: james from texas, good morning to you. how old are you ? about 54-55.

here's a quick point. the accusation- is enough in the eyes of media. regardless of whether it is fact, innuendo, or substance. it is simply the allegation that is enough for anyone in most cases. pointed out and a comment just a little while ago, because it does not level of aise to federal crime. the democrats and those potentially on the left who are opposed to the nomination are literally asking the fbi to do things that are against the law,

that would violate kavanaugh's civil rights. or anestigating a crime alleged crime that is not a federal prosecution. next, and final, and i am going to anger some folks and i don't mean to. that what we are talking about is a he said-she said from school days. women,re men, there are from first grade through their college years, that have done stupid things in various contexts in one way or another. to preclude an individual, male or female, from moving forward in a chosen career path because stupidity, i'm not

talking about legality, i'm talking about stupidity. aree precluded because we -- we think your that stupid for all time. thank you. ost: the washington times notes -- claire mccaskill sent out this tweet. she said her decision was based on campaign finance regulations, not the sexual assault allegations. president trump is traveling to -- on friday. he is in las vegas today. rallying with the missouri attorney general who is challenging claire mccaskill for that seat and the washington

he can textural kavanaugh message on the camp time -- campaign trail. he called her decision no surprise. she is now 0-6 on supreme court nominees. withays she has cited chuck schumer every single time. donnellytkamp, and joe have joined their democratic thatagues in insisting miss ford get the chance to speak before a final vote. demandingsilent after conditions, -- what do all of you think? the four we get to more of your calls, let's bring in this tweet. am a democrat in nevada,. while i did get a chance to

discuss my concerns, i look forward to voting no because nothing less than a woman's right to choose is on the line. washington, good morning ted. the guy a couple of times ago talked about how everybody deserves the right to a proper investigation. right now, there has not been one. the fbi, when they did the report new that this letter was there. presidento the whether to have the fbi go any further and investigate the letter that was sent. as an independent, i have been watching this congress and i want to talk down to those guys. that sheso much bias will never get a fair hearing.

some of the guys on the anita hill are still active and still doing it. if you go back and look at her hearing, it was a witch hunt. this is a witch hunt. think until a proper investigation has been done, we untilo go ahead and wait then to confirm somebody. it is important to all of us who is going to be on the supreme court. i think that the way that republicans have been handling obama,d what they did to by holding up these judge appointments, they have now gone ahead and stop the court -- stuff the court with employers. it is all bad.

thank you. host: he mentions the anita hill hearings. thoseis testimony from hearings and you can go to our website if you're interested in watching portions of them. .d. in maryland, how old are you? caller: i am 52. i think kavanaugh should be confirmed. feinstein, she is a lawyer, she held onto the allegations for several months. she should be disbarred. host: the fbi is saying this is not a federal crime. a federal crime was not committed. if you saying that there i caniminal allegations,

tell you first of all, the lady who claims she's the victim is from montgomery county. they have agreements, montgomery county has agreements where they handle crimes. the fbi does not handle those type of crimes. fbi in the anita theyclarence thomas case, had federal employees. that is what the difference is. you have experts calling in, claim to know everything about procedure, they don't. feinstein needs to be disbarred. it needs to be investigated as a criminal in -- allegation. i don't get you. i don't get you at all. host: i appreciate your

explanation, this should be investigated on a state level. i was just reiterating from a newspaper that the fbi is saying this is not a federal crime. you laid out the argument of how it should be handled and the difference between anita hill and the situation. it is not just an argument, it is a fact. she needs to go to montgomery county police department and file a complaint if she believes that these criminal allegations are true in her mind. that is where it needs to start. feinstein needs to be disbarred because she is on the -- she is not only a politician, she is a lawyer. a lawyer has an obligation to report an alleged crime. there needs to be people calling her office to request that she set down -- step down and be

disbarred. host: keith in woodbridge, virginia. caller: good morning, how are you? host host: doing well. caller: i'm going to approach this from a different perspective. from the perspective as a retired military officer that held high security clearances. i will let you know that he should not be confirmed until an investigation is done. not necessarily by the fbi but by personal investigators. people in the court of conservatives for such allegations, not convictions, just allegations, i know people who were barred from the white house because of allegations. in the past, as far as elementary school.

that has happened. this. grassley were doing and this had been a democratic appointee, he would have postponed it. -- number two, the investigation for positions of responsibility in the government. this is something that impacts that. we should not repeat the mistakes of the clarence thomas appointment. we keep forgetting that this lady is potentially and probably a victim. and we gloss over that for -- he needsrposes to go back and understand. we have the proper people serving government who have

proper qualifications by character as well as by technical expert. -- under the constitution, the senate is the ultimate judge of a fitness of a nominee appointed by the president. in this case, senators must accept whether they think qualifications are enough to qualify judge kavanaugh. they go on to write that some on the left are pointing to claim is the anita hill president. but, as mr. grassley pointed out, the fbi did that when miss hill's allegations were still private. probably notified the white house, which directed the fbi to conduct a handful of

interviews within a few days. , the the charge late hearing was reopened within five days. we are in the same position the committee was after the allegations were late. after the leak, we did not ask the fbi to have an investigation. we reopened the hearing. in 1991, it is up to the senate to gather evidence. that was from chairman grassley in today's wall street journal editorial. we are talking to men only. what do you think about the judge kavanaugh confirmation? yesterday, we talked to women only. i want to share a couple of the phone calls with you. womanl begin with this who says she opposes him. forced,i personally was when i was a girl, 15 years old,

i became for -- pregnant. i spent five months of my life in a home for unwed mothers in los angeles, california. i remember every detail, i remember everything about it. remember the kind -- i remember the kind of car it happened in. -- i don't remember the kind of car it happened in. people, i can't remember their dresses or their phone numbers. i am 76 euros old and i have and i- i am 76 years old have seen how callous men can be toward women. they have been callous toward my daughter who was raped. the police investigated it and dropped it. men just simply do not

understand the abuse that women have had to put up with for centuries. and it is high time this nation of ours looks at what is going another 2-3zes that weeks, and another year to get a supreme court justice, we have waited all this time, a year to give trump a chance to nominate his first supreme court justice. court dople on the quite nicely. i am tired, tired, of this pushing through. when a woman does come forward on allegations, just like women who have come forward on bill cosby and donald trump, they are put in the gutter. they are shamed. then you say why doesn't a woman come forward? host: that was a caller from

texas, yesterday. when we talk to women only about brett kavanaugh's confirmation. men only this morning. before we get back to those calls, here is a another woman who called from louisiana in support of judge kavanaugh. caller: i wonder if these younger people remember the lacrosse players. it was not too long ago. how many of them are considering these women live. women live just like men. -- women lie just like men. i know women who accused husbands of being child predators or abusive so they can get custody. i would like everybody to use their common sense. you ruin a man's entire life. you ruin his reputation. and the whole point of it is they don't want him confirmed.

consider you are young man, how would you feel if one accusation that happened 25 years ago, you lose her job over that? how fair is that? do any of these people have common sense? they have brothers, husbands, sons, how would you like it if that happened to your husband, brother, or son? him tos no way for refute it because the lady cannot recall who was there and who was not there. this is a lot of nonsense. if you're going to ruin somebody's reputation and cause them to lose their job, you better have some facts. host: a caller yesterday from louisiana in support of judge brett kavanaugh. we asked women to call in and give us their thoughts. today, we are hearing from an only. if you're under age 30, (202)

748-8000. between the ages of 30-50, (202) 748-8001. those over 50, (202) 748-8002. let's go to bethesda, maryland. lafayette? donright, let me go on to in chesapeake, virginia. caller: high. --hi.. nothing has come out. his reputation is impeccable. he has a great looking family and all of these other women came forward and gave him praise. lying and it is all political, i think it is, if she is lying, she needs to go to

prison for a long time. fact that about the she took a lie detector test, according to her lawyer? caller: she can take medications to control her blood pressure, what kind of doctor issued? i don't know what kind of doctor she is. host: the story in the paper is about her this morning and who she is. she is not a medical doctor. let me find this for you and read a lot of it from it. how she iss about dealing with this situation. that she is ave professor at a university. i will try to find that. we will go to another caller. let's go to morris in san diego. caller: i have a couple of things.

at harvard -- i heard a few minutes ago about judge kavanaugh's mother foreclosing on a house. i heard something about that, i don't know if it's true. that would be a motive. ellison, i think that is an excellent one. i don't know why more people are upset. to look at the guy and say he is capable of doing what his friend notsed him of, -- there is -- it is not going to change one person's opinion in the entire country if she goes and testifies. they are not going to get to the bottom of it. 35 years ago, get real. he is going to ascend to the supreme court and he is going to

be an excellent supreme court justice. i think president trump gets one more pic before he finishes his second term. i will let you go. host: i will leave it there because there is news in the washington times about keith ellison. the headline, women feared retribution. a 2017 medical document released by karen says she feels -- feared retribution from ex-boyfriend keith allison. -- allison. she may allegations which mr. allison has denied. when i post allegations, it gets deleted every time. anemia being treated for and has attributed it to the stress from her relationship

from mr. allison which ended in 2016. the medical report continues, she is worried about retribution if she identifies him publicly. the release came after she tweeted that she had provided medical records to the minnesota democratic attorney which began charges last month. mr. allison has given up his congressional seat to it -- run for attorney general. he denies that he abused miss moynahan. accused him last month of physical and unusual abuse during their two your relationship. this morning, on c-span, we will cover a discussion of sexual assault experts in washington, discussing this allegation against judge brett kavanaugh. or can go to c-span.org

listen with the c-span radio app location. accuser is seen as thorough and guarded. sent an unusual facebook message to her friend that asked if she had mentioned the sexual assault that happened in high school. no memory ofhad that. she did not know that dr. ford was considering coming forward with her allegations. interviews with friends and acquaintances of dr. ford painted a picture of a guarded person. one more interested in discussion of sports, science, and politics than personal drama. she says it thrust her into an uncomfortable spotlight and put her three decade old memory at the spotlight of president trump's nominee.

ford, athat dr. research psychologist, said that she and judge kavanaugh were teenagers at a party in the early 1980's when he and a friend pulled her into a bedroom. at the end of the story, a friend said that it was clear that dr. ford remained traumatized decades later. a friend in palo alto said she confided in him that she needed more than one exit door in her bedroom to prevent her from feeling trapped. let's go to stand in bridgeport, connecticut. stan in bridgeport, connecticut. incident was common knowledge and was discussed among the students. i think they should locate some of the students. host: how so?

that would establish that something happened and that students knew what the incident was about. some of them are not willing to come forward. i think they could find some people who will speak about this. host: brent in west virginia. caller: i do believe that judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. i want to remind everyone to be careful. because what we are dealing with is an environment where accusing anyone of anything, as long as the accused is of a particular party or political mindset, that is enough to destroy that person. do you really want to live in a ?ountry in that environment here is my point.

i want everybody to stop for a moment and step back and look at what is happening to our nation right now. we are deliberately being distracted from discussing the important issues that surround any confirmation hearing or process for the supreme court of the united states. it boils down to a series of questions. number one, do you believe that the constitution says what it means and means what it says? two, do you believe the 10th amendment, do you know what the 10th commitment says? do you know why it is important that we have a 10th amendment? number three, are you really comfortable with nine unelected ,udges dictating law legislating for the entire country on issues like abortion,

marriage and others? are you really comfortable with that when we are supposed to be living in a free, democratic republic? these are the questions we should be discussing. not what happened in 1982 or whenever. the democrats are doing their best to delay this process because they want it stopped. they want it to take place after the election because they, for some reason, think that they have a chance at gaining the majority of the united states senate. that is what this is all about. .t is not about the accuser it is not about sexual assault. it is not about 17-year-old drunken parties. it is about we are being

manipulated like people in a political party who do not want us to discuss the important issues because they know if we do, they lose. host: all right. the caller was referring to this story on fox news. brett kavanaugh's mother dismissed a foreclosing action -- the parents of the woman have a connection to his mother, a maryland state judge. she granted a motion dismissing a 1996 disclosure action. -- ford came forward to accuse kavanaugh. don in sumter, south carolina. a lot of would say

partisan misinformation. i agree totally with the guy from connecticut, people are saying it is too long ago to investigate. you can look into this. --d a yearbook, the guide grab a yearbook. 50 ofy started talking to his classmates. are they going to tell the truth under oath? a probably will as they won't know what the other classmates are saying. if they come out with i don't remember or some kind of lie, they have to be assured that all of the other guys are going to do the same thing. when they start contradicting each other, you are going to get some straight information. to say we cannot investigate because it has been too long, that is nonsense and i don't understand why they don't investigate. the wall street journal

printout this. the senate has not set a new date for the judiciary committee to vote. they were going to vote today, before the accusations became public. time is running short a cap -- ahead of the session. if the committee votes on monday, mitch mcconnell could would lead to a procedural vote on thursday. late friday,ote by september 28, assuming democrats use their allotted time. in gainesville, georgia, good morning. actually, i am from gainesville, virginia. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of points on this.

said that this is political. thatld tell them everything that happens in washington is politics. theuld remind them that republicans were playing politics with that. they tried not to appoint him. the third point that i have is 's appointmenth will be a lifetime appointment. it will affect the direction of this country politically. the supreme court is partisan. almost every major decision in the supreme court -- it is

-- he is qualified. anybody can be qualified. qualifications should include the character -- the moral character of the person. maybe this happened 35 years ago, that says a lot about the character of the person. that is my point. host: in tennessee, what is your point? caller: i have a prediction. go onrde will never official record, if she will not file a police report like cops requested. report,alls a police she is subject to arrest for filing a false report. if she sits under earth, they will ask her questions that

don't make sense. she will have perjury issues. what she is going to do, you will see her on cnn, innocent bc -- msnbc, and she will tell her story there. nobody is going to ask her hard questions. the democrats are going to get two things. they will get the confirmation hearing in the newspapers and she will influence the elections that are coming up. she is never going to be asked the hard questions that have to -- and have to stand by them. host: will in ohio, good morning. it is comical listening to republicans getting technical and getting into the technical reasons why kavanaugh should be placed on the supreme court. -- it wasok back,

before an election. it does not matter now. the supreme court has become so political. there will come a day when justices will be impeached. this is the point we are getting too. we are making it so political that the party in charge will get to the point where we do not care about this judge possible opinion. let's impeach him and get somebody that we agree with. that is where we are taking it. thethe most part, republican party has become smaller and smaller. they are looking to control the judicial system. it is not going to work. you're not going to control a majority of the population. you can't let three people in kansas tell 3 million in california how to live.

you can do what you want but we are going down a path that republicans might not want to be on. host: a few minutes left for your phone calls. when we get to the top of the hour, we will open up the conversation to men and women as we continue on the washington journal. i want to point out a front page story on the new york times, a special report by the newspaper. the process of birth and election, unraveling the russia story so far. absorb reportd to after report on the russian intervention in the 2016 election. widespread social media fraud and allegations of conspiracy. the glamour first politics has taken a toll on comprehension. as with president trump's frequent claims that it is all a hoax. the new york times explored what

we know and what it means. influence an and election. you can find that in the new york times today. sean, you are on the air. caller: as far as the situation goes, support the accuser. -- i support the accuser. men who support avenal's nomination -- brett kavanaugh's a nomination have not heard of him before this summer. i think we have a lot of talented judges out there. i think that with this up,sation, muddling things i think we can investigate and hold things for a little while. the second point that i would like to make is about the fact if you know anything about

the private school community, you know there is a tremendous issue without the hall and drug use. saying that this is not remotely within the realm of possibility, given the educational -- education in this facility, it is ridiculous. a something that could happen within private schools in this community. host: lawrence, your turn. my comment is based on morality's. -- morale at the. -- morality. i don't understand how americans have forgotten morality and spirituality. american,enging every male and field out -- male and female to think about morality.

man -- can get away with violating a woman, that we look at him from a political standpoint and not a moral standpoint. it is unbelievable that we have come to this. america, stickn up and find your morality and your spirituality. take a break. we come back, we will pick up this conversation with the torilla toensing. -- victoria toensing. will onoshua geltzer prevent on americanend

history tv on c-span 3, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on railamerica. >> we are privileged to witness tonight a significant achievement in the cause of case. possiblevement nonfat a year ago. or even a month ago. reflectsvement that the courage and wisdom of these two leaders. >> the 1978 film framework for peace on the camp david peace accords. sunday at the p.m. on american artifacts, a look back at the bombings of the u.s. embassy in kenya and twos in the app. we met with the minister of commerce. we heard an explosion. most of us went to the window. later, a freight

of highunding impact energy hit all of us. 213 people were instantly killed. 48 of whom were employees of the united states government. >> watch on american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> this weekend on book tv, saturday, bob woodward's interview on his new book, "fear, trump in the white house." >> someone in office now called me and said, everyone knows what you have in this book is 1000% correct. eastern, ken starr discusses his book, contempt.

a memoir of the clinton .nvestigation >> impeachment wasn't a wise way to go. >> on sunday afterwards, the former secretary of state john kerry discusses his book. every day is extra. by janeterviewed harman. >> john and i were flying to kuwait and we didn't know each other well. we were seated opposite by seniority. brought usty together and we had a ,onversation into the night talking about annapolis and his father and grandparents and his family. his own service at his time as a prisoner. and he wanted to learn more about what happened with us and and what it was

like. and we pledge to each other then that the country was still too divided over the war. we saw only needed to try to find a way to not just make peace overseas but at home. >> watch this weekend on c-span 2 book tv. c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the world. to you by yourht cable or satellite provider. "> "washington journal continues. host: at our table is victoria toensing.

for being at our table. where are you on the charges, the accusations against judge brett kavanaugh? guest: i'm a former trial lawyer where i have investigated cases. i did that for five years in michigan. it is unbelievable. think of somebody walking into the fbi office today saying, something happened 36 years ago. i can't remember what exactly happened but -- i can't rule where and i can't remember when. else aboutd anybody it. at the time. and i'm going to give two names for men -- which she has done so far and the fbi conduct on the both of them say oh, we don't andmber anything like that it is and how he acted ever when we knew him. so first of all, it's not a federal crime. a sexual assault that she alleges.

the fbi would never be investigating it. it would be a local sheriff, local montgomery county. of limitations is passed. what is there to investigate at this point when you don't have host: whatecific? about one of the last callers who said this goes to his morality? why not take the time to figure out if this happened. and then that that the something that the senators debate and discuss? guest: how do you do that if she can't remember where it was or when it was? tell me how you do that. i will give you the responsibility. tell me your first stop. host: what about hearing from her in testimony? of course, he has said we could do it in private or public. he is gone out of his way more so than any witness in any

single prosecution that i've ever been involved in. notyet witnesses are permitted to dictate the terms of how the investigation goes. so he's already been generous in that regard. i would like to comment -- because i think your viewer should know -- how this process is supposed to work. because i've been on the hill and i've done these. and i also had to look at get intod checks to the justice department. and these allegations arise when somebody is being investigated. maybe a neighbor is mad at you. a million reasons for bad statements being made about a person. the way it is supposed to work thehen dianne feinstein got allegation, she should have taken it to chairman grassley. they confer or with the whole committee, this is the allegation, how do you want to proceed.

they have their own investigator. democrats have their own and republicans have their own. they always have their own staff. usually retired fbi agents. proceed, they have however they want to handle it with allegations looked into and then, they bring them back and people assess in an executive session where it is in public. are these credible or not credible? evaluation, the committee finds that if they are credible then they call the person in and say maybe take off your name. you don't want to go through this because it will come out. if it is a than it is never raised up. nobody is ever shamed in this process in the past. and a lawyer on tv recently who thein charge of this for

senate says it breaks his heart to see how this is going. such a partisan and political way when it is supposed to be sophisticated with trust on both sides of the people are not embarrassed. so that good people and decent people, they should want to go through this process and know that they will be treated fairly. this is not fair. her lawyer says she has taken a light detector test. guest: there is a reason why lie detector tests are not admitted in court. it means something to me as a former prosecutor and someone who i've worked with -- someone who is worked with a number of polygraphs. it doesn't mean anything. they are demeaning. ok, here we are. anybody could raise any kind of issue. 36 years after the fact and now you have to go through the spectacle of taking a light detector test.

i think that would be demeaning to the process. i've never heard of any process on the hill of that being required. host: the torilla toensing here to take your questions on the legal side of this debate happening over the confirmation of judge brett kavanaugh. we do want to know your thoughts. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. others, (202) 748-8002. --an collins represented susan collins recommended that brett kavanaugh and professor ford question each other. what do you think of that? no, no. i hope that somebody got that wrong. thatthey might have meant the lawyer for brett kavanaugh question her. that would be fine for me. because let me tell you that the

senators are lousy at questioning that it is embarrassing. i'm a former trial attorney and during cross examinations, they don't have a follow-up. so bad. host: so you think that could work. and would you do that publicly or in a hearing room? hast: senator grassley offered to do this privately. it is all out in the public now. it would be good to do if it hadn't been made public. that senators will come out and the rest come out and of us don't get to assess this. so i don't like the private position, the private function of doing it. but he has offered it so. mark. host: let's go to fred. hello. caller co -- caller: i want to make a comment about the

guidelines that senator grassley has put down for ford's testimony. he said she cannot allow to bring any other witnesses. not even a therapist that she told about this. years ago. quicklys the sports are and insists there has to be about next week because brett kavanaugh has to be on the supreme court by october 1. and it is hypocritical when you consider that republicans allowed a vacancy on the supreme court for an entire year to deny rightful nomination for the supreme court. dr. ford should be allowed to testify. and should be allowed to bring forth any corroborating witnesses she can. that would be the fair thing to

do. notthe republicans are just being fair to her or to the country by pushing through this nomination so quickly and without due diligence. and investigating this matter. address the merits garland situation. he is a friend of mine and i think the world of him. and i wish that obama nominated him right off the bat. -- joet was the rule biden said that if there were we won't approve anyone. that is when democrats were in charge of the senate. ruleat was a long-standing -- well, not long-standing but it had been put out by the democrats. so republicans say, ok, let's let the electorate decide.

it was six months. allowed she should be to testify? she is being invited to testify. and your other issue is about how many witnesses should be brought? the senate, i believe, the judiciary committee has a pool that you can have one other witness that could come in. i've no problem with that. the chairman sets the rules senator grassley always confers with feinstein gazette that is the way it works. host: we go to eric. a republican. by want to hear you talk about the process and how refreshing it is. it is obvious from the beginning that this has been nothing but a character's fascination from the left. ange kavanaugh has had

exhausted amount of investigation done on him through the fbi and every thing else related to his record. he has provided more files than any of the supreme justices board today.e it is nothing but partisanship. i really hope the nomination stands. guest: well, i am a lawyer before i am republican but i am a republican. this process, it is frightening to me that an accusation is a conviction. we have senators coming out to say that he did it. no doubt. she is credible. ourwe don't have that in judicial system. we have a due process. there is a constitution and the six amendment that says that anybody accused has the right to confront the accuser and

cross-examine the witness. so how could we decide if somebody comes out with such frivolous accusations, not knowing where or when and then decide, yes, he did it. that is it. caller: i am troubled by them not wanting to have the fbi investigate. because it has been protocol since clarence thomas. guest: no it hasn't -- caller: give me a minute. anybody with any legal background knows this. and the problem here is that it isn't just that. they haven't been forthright here. the credibility. on his lasthimself

judgeship in 2006. that is coming to light now. and what about all the documents? is, this should be investigated by the fbi. you know yourself that you can't go into the court was just to witnesses. the judge will throw you out. he better have corroboration. guest: ok. you -- on the glideot anymore. guest: i'm just going to ask first probablye you will make? i do commentary for the clarence thomas hearings. the fbi did questioning. before the issue was made public. but as soon as it was made public, the fbi got out. ends.s what the fbi role a want the shuttle and

understand. it is to go out and get information. knocking on the doors in the neighborhood. what do you think of this person. is this person a good person. and then the fbi puts it together and comes back and gives it to the senate. they don't make a judgment. they don't do an investigation. recommend action. they give this to the senators and it is the senate's decision what to do with the raw information. what brought information are you possibly going to gather here. she doesn't remember where or when. me start by saying that i think he will be confirmed but i don't think you should be. i have a couple questions for you. you talk about this in a court. but the senate floor is not a court. it is a legislative ranch. of government. let's get the facts straight. in a courtroom, as you were talking about, these kinds of

things come up and sway a jury. it is simply a matter of public opinion. to say someone who was 17 years old doesn't have a right in this country to make a mistake -- and we are talking about two people who made a mistake -- your disparagement of this woman is disgusting. i get due process. but this is discussing. i have three questions for you. where in the world did you read your constitution and what the branches do? i get that there is due process but you are standing on nationwide tv telling people basically that the senate is a courtroom and it's not. duty and a process to appoint. caller: i have on my question. because of time. and believe me, i have this

recorded. this is recorded. so you did do this. thiswouldn't have said because it is the question i wanted to ask you. why is everybody asking this man the wrong questions? whether they are democrat or republican? the supreme court is designed and found it to take every matter in front of it to the declaration and bill of rights. we have not had a supreme court -- be they majority republican or democrat -- capable of doing that in 25 years that i know of. and probably more than that. host: let's give our guest a chance to respond. what them not sure point is. i'm not disparaging the woman. to thinkingly open

that something bad happen to her. i am disparaging the accusation. because nobody in this country should be the subject -- should be accused based on doing a bad thing but i can't remember where you did it and i can't remember when you did it. the way we-- and by do have due process in the courtroom. but there also is due process in the senate. the procedures devised by the senators have the same legal concept of due process. so that is why the fairness that i'm applying to the senate procedure -- but the disparagement is not of the woman. i have no doubt that she went through some kind of trauma that to accuse somebody and not for member where or when is really not the way -- isn't a fair system. to the accuserir

as is the accused. host: we go to johnny in winston-salem. i am calling because i'm trying to figure out wise this being -- why c-span would have victoria toensing on to have anything to say about an appointment of donald trump? her and her husband have some kind of conflict and they couldn't do it. all she is a mouthpiece for trump. a mouthpiece for fox news. what she said isn't true. this is a big joke. just like when she's calling and stalking about it being a courtroom. she just gets to get up there and say what you want to say. this man shouldn't be put on the super court. this man -- i watched the entire thing last week.

answer anydn't questions correctly. he's already been proven to live. to senator leahy. this man is a liar. there are crooks at the prep school. this man has no right to be there. and c-span has absolute no right to have victoria toensing there. host: we got people of different opinions on the show all the time. what is your response? if you have one? guest: my lawyer inside of me says that i have to respond to this -- he said he is no recollection of anything. and that this wasn't the kind of person that brett kavanaugh was at the time that he knew him.

host: douglas. good morning. caller: i want to thank c-span for having victoria homesick -- victoria toensing. you have a lot of supporters. my point is that when i was in the military, i had a top-secret clearance. through a background check. and i will assure you that they went back to my high school years and talk to my high school friends and if he has been through six background investigations, i would assume that six different times they were to talk to everybody they could get their hands on from when he went to high school. so what will the seventh investigation do? this whole thing stinks badly. host: victoria toensing?

guest: i couldn't say it better. host: all right. thank you for taking my call. for the guest and her husband. they've done a fantastic job in representing all the facts -- not a bunch of loose lips lingo represented by the left. --comment and question is on i wonder, how -- how do they know that this lady had a psychiatrist four years ago? and her attorney already knows -- she is a left-wing activist. how do they know this is all concocted? you want to talk about getting an investigation and they need to investigate this lady on all of her crap.

can they do an investigation on her? that's my question. guest: no, they wouldn't. the best they will do is have her come forward and question her about what occurred. host: after that questioning, what is it that senators going through the process would be deciding at that point? will go through and decide if she is credible. beat accusations of they their wife or they snorted cocaine or a smoke marijuana -- that was back in the days when it was a no no. -- had to evaluate whether sometimes you asked the fbi to go back and interview for more people. but again, they bring the faxed to us. we make decisions on the raw data. mary is watching in

seattle. guest: i would like to know why we all go on the assumption that the woman is telling the truth. i was eight rate in a situation very similar to what was described. and i can tell you that if the door was locked and there were two guys in i would like to knoy we all go on the assumption that the woman is that room, there's no way she escaped. i don't believe that. second of all, it is in a party situation. there would be somebody who remembered and came armored to to say something. there's somebody you know something. , people say, why are you brushing this through but it is because it could've been addressed much earlier. clearance -- during

the clarence thomas hearings, i if hea female coworker, had said to you what she says, would you take his phone call? would you return the phone calls? only if isponse was, wanted to hear more of it. -- if everyn to woman is always to be believed. even if her story is ridiculous. weren't colin jones and whole lot of other women who hillary clinton dragged through and double down on the assault -- perpetrated on them. i would like to hear a response on that. guest: it is a double standard. and this clear for those of us who --, in washington give a credible story and did tell somebody at the time it occurred that bill clinton raped her was not believed and she was

shrugged off by many in the feminist movement. as i understand it. from the reporting, the same lawyer who represents dr. ford -- those accusations at the time. has an association working in liberal politics. we do have bias. but i don't think you can have -- this is what is bothering me. a double standard. i don't believe that a woman should always be believed or not believed. look at the evidence. evaluate what the accusations are. when you look at them factually, they don't stand. there's nothing there. she can't remember where and she can't refer when. and the two men that she alleged will remember it say they

haven't. where do you go from there? host: what about the notes that the therapist took and the story her husband recalls? -- t: host: we go to gabe. go ahead. caller: i want to say thank you to you. doingk your always fantastic job of creating a conversation. to the guest, i have comments based on what you said during the call. one is that i think you have qualified the merrick garland rule as a joe biden law. i think tactic might be better? republican characterization that something joe biden tried as a tactic to

say it was a pool and that is how we do things on an ongoing aces on the path of our government is not the case. unless i'm wrong, i inhabit be clarified. you're now made several comments about what with the fbi do, where would they start? where would they look? and i think it is misguided to say that there is nowhere for them to look. they are an information gathering agency. responsibilityb here to characterize information. but they do to go out and gather it. there are a lot of places they could start. they concerned with the therapist or the school, any reporting from the time when she was a student. they could go to the georgetown prep record. i'm sure there are things like this. there are enough people on both sides of this who have provided different characterizations of what it or did not happen.

there is information out there to be gathered. so if that is their main role than they should be out there doing that. host: victoria toensing would like to have a conversation with you. guest: you said the therapist notes? the therapist notes. they already exist so there are ready abscond. time so where the do you go? what year do you golf to? guest: -- caller: i'm pretty sure it is easy to know which year she was at school there. ever: have you investigated the case? you have have specificity. if somebody says it is when i was in high school in four years, where do you go? how many records you have to go through to find out if there was a police report? she said she didn't make a police report so there wasn't one. she could come up with the names of anybody she said she told at the time so it is a difficult --

people say, the fbi should go out and investigate but it is hard to do that when you don't have specific facts. and i want to say something about the biden rule. you're right. it is not a rule in the senate. but joe biden established it. and said, here's the warning. that they wouldn't confirm anybody in the supreme court until after the election. lb got to adopt that tactic word. caller: one more point which i think is the most concerning -- i am disappointed with the way these charges have come out. i do agree with the guests that it is a difficult -- in terms of the public realm for this having to occurred and there's a statement that comes along with this type of assertion that it is very difficult for all parties -- both on the sides of

it. my biggest fear is that should this be proven to be a frivolous thing or something that isn't found to be factual and something that has already been heavily politicized, what i fear movement andthe the discussion in the public realm around sexual assault and things of that nature -- i'm worried about how damaging that will be should this not be deemed to be appropriate. guest: i agree with you completely. and i'm glad you brought that up. because it is something that others may. because there are women out there who were attacked. i was attacked when i was an assistant u.s. attorney by a justice official 30 years ago. and there weren't even the word sexual harassment then or sexual assault. there is no way i could do .nything

andee this with bill cosby harvey weinstein. it is a matter to be taken seriously. and have a system that is so unfair to the accused then we cannot really deal with what the real problem is. i agree. host: rick. hello rick. caller: my question is for the guest. why is the fbi done six investigations? how come they didn't bring this up? republicans are want to give all of the information. because they might be part of the investigation. so they had the information because all of a sudden they women -- either women are lying or something is going on. they had this prepared. and also, republicans are

hypocrites. they would tell obama's domination -- they withheld upon examination for a year and their whining about what the democrats are doing? it was the attic the way they act. guest: let me correct you. all, probably the last when he was put on the court of appeals here in the district of columbia. and just like i was, with the various jobs you have in the government, you go through a different background check. so there's no way that republicans could have kept any of this information in these investigations from anybody. these are shared. they have reports that the fbi gets and everybody gets to read them. other point. i was so focused on the investigation.

as it comes to you, we will come back. caller: good morning. i am a 68-year-old republican who did not vote for donald trump. under the constitution, it is a senate decision. we don't need another fbi investigation. question dr. ford and assess her credibility. the ball is in their court. andenator's lamar alexander bob corker didn't get a chance to vote on merrick garland. and they can listen to four and brett kavanaugh on this matter if she shows up. i didn't like the move on merrick garland. i wouldn't devoted for him. i would've voted for my senators to vote for him. i wrote them as a time to kick the thing to the floor and voted down.

because that is the process i believe in and is in the constitution. but in this case, dianne feinstein withheld information from her colleagues and she did this as a delaying tactic. she could have given the anonymous tip to her colleagues so they could have talks to kavanaugh in private. they do that all the time. there always allegations made against people. they share that with fellow senators on the committee. but she did this as a delaying tactic. and i understand that. i like it. but i will urge my senators to vote against this nominee. trump reached into the swamp and nominated someone out of the swamp. it's clear that he came out of prep school privilege. and that is what he was supposed to clear up when he went up there and he didn't do that. gottend've gone out and

a graduate from the university of tennessee or from the university of texas or stamford. there are plenty of people he could've gotten in the case of this. -- ie picked another yale don't mind them but we have enough of them. guest: i want to suggest that they should nominated merrick garland for the republicans to vote down. republicans that they wouldn't put a met through this. put said they wouldn't anybody through. i talked to several senators about that and what they're feeling was was why should we put somebody through it only know that we will vote against him? so i vehemently disagree with you wanting that procedure for somebody. washington he could on in history as somebody who was voted down when the people were doing it on process? host: reset.

caller: i appreciate that you legalrought forth resources and information for us to listen to from both sides. the political spectrum. and i appreciate that. however, when we talk about supreme court nomination, i think it's going to be a little messy and you can probably agree that senators are not necessarily good at questioning. like when you say they don't follow up. i will listening to the programs on c-span and i wonder why they don't ask the right questions. so i get that. that there is a system that isn't working. often do we confirm supreme court nominations? -- not me, personally, but our system. so i think that right now women are having a moment.

with use clashing getting fair, legal treatment in the legal system has taken decades. and so are having a moment. and maybe that is clashing with this particular person. but i think sheesh -- but i think he should be able to handle it and we should be able to speak out and that it is messy and not perfect. and i appreciate your legal input that it is more than that. guest: this is illegal. it's political. it is in the senate. host: tennessee next. caller: this is sad if it happened to her. but i read all the stories about things happen to girls and women as they go on to take drugs and alcohol and therapy forever. but in this case, she went on to

graduate from high school. went to school. more school. more school. she's a doctor. a psychologist or whatever. it didn't seemed to bother her all that much. host: any thoughts? guest: no one knows. that's a problem. we don't know anything of what she did and what her life is. host: canada. an independent. theer: if you think this is equivalent of feet -- based on the fact that -- fighting the rebellion against the president. which i believe is subversion.

-- real crime in the case. thank you. about she said something brennan? but that is another issue. i will have to come back another time. host: we appreciate the conversation with you this morning. thank you for spending time with viewers and taking their calls. we will be joined by joshua geltzer on efforts to increase security preparedness ahead of the 2018 election. >> sunday night on "q&a." major garrett talks about his book. mr. trump's wild ride. >> it isn't just about partnership. it transcends party.

he is bigger then partisanship. emotional dynamo that he spins within people. he does this intentionally. sometimes he doesn't even know he's doing it. it happens. it influences every aspect of american life. culture, politics, economics, and in ways that you have detected. the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. c-span's "q&at on ." andob corker from tennessee niki tsongas from massachusetts talk about their experience in congress. >> it is so important for us as a nation to continue to be able to of the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best. when we stoop to uncivil

discourse, we stoop to heaviness and we have to remember that the entire world looks to us. they do. >> i'm deeply concerned by our president on many levels. policy. -- i think he is not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. you can only read about that on the daily basis with long-term allies who now question the support of united states. he suggests that we in the united states go it alone but i don't think that is the case by any means. we have extraordinary power in and of ourselves but we do need partners around the globe in order to change the goals that we seek. >> join us for the conversation with bob corker and knew he held c-span.org or and listen with the free radio mobile app.

>> what does it mean to be american? studentthis year's camera competition question. we ask the middle and high school students to answer this by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right. anional characteristics or historic event. a how this defines the american experience. award $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000. is january deadline 20. 2019. for more information, go to our website. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies area 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. you by yourought to cable or satellite provider. "> "washington journal continues. host: we are back with joshua geltzer, senior director of the national security council during the obama administration. now, talking about election security. thee do we stand now with midterms right around the corner. could our election system be hacked? he compromised in some way? guest: it is reason for concern. first, you have threats to the integrity of data itself. the voter rolls. who should show up and be able to vote on election day. then you have threats to the integrity of the discourse election day. more along the lines of 2016

during the presidential campaign when it was the kremlin directed campaign to polarize american voters, spread disinformation on candidates. right now, there are steps that have been taken to help on those fronts but they do remain real threats. host: is that discourse still happening? from foreign actors? is it happening at the level it was? guest: it is doubly still happening. we know that i the u.s. intelligence committee. we know that from journalist accounts and tech companies themselves. facebook has come out and say that they've seen this sort of campaign unfold in advance of the 2018 midterms. whether it is happening at the same scale is tougher to say. say they have identified and disrupted some activity. but that may lead a lot of activity still occurring and still the undetected or

disrupted as election day gets close. host: these tech companies, are they doing enough on their open -- on their own? done is to they have for inauthentic behavior. accounts that seem to be designed to spread disinformation in the ways that russia's spread it. not real americans expressing political views or objecting to other views. polarizing, discourse by people actually sitting in russia or elsewhere posing as americans. full identities. i think the disruption that the companies have done so far is too little, too late. even when facebook revealed the efforts to block some of this activity, those accounts at already spread this information widely. .undreds of thousands of views host: last week, facebook,

google and microsoft talked about their efforts and work there doing on campaign cyber security. here is what the judges had to say. >> what sort of guidance -- you mentioned meeting with dhs and the hi. i know you're briefly talked to them every day. but what sort of guidance is the government doing you guys now from the federal side? >> the collaboration has been less about either of us telling each other to do and more making connections and opening lines of medication. i have really heard anything that would be a guidance for us directly for many of them. >> i agree. it is more about making the connection. >> and i think they're happy to hear about our outreach efforts and magnifying the outreach efforts and products. and that has really been

beneficial. host: what do you make of them saying that they are offering guidance? opening communication is good. something we've worked hard to do on counterterrorism issues. directing tech companies what to do is not where the u.s. government generally wants to be or should be given the first amendment. but there is something in between which is providing a steady stream of information. what is the u.s. government seeing in terms of the latest tactics by kremlin backed actors or others? what could the u.s. government informed the tech sector about so that the new steps of the tech sector trying to take our fortified? "how washington can prevent election interference?

guest: my co-author and i were trying to get out the concerns that if this information wasn't flowing from washington to silicon valley. a recentvoted from reporting at the time that there had been a first meeting with only a few months before the election between government and the tech center to talk about midterm election interference. the tech center -- the tech center -- the tech sector called the meeting. they turned to the government and said, what you're briefing? what have you been seeing? and the government representative said, we are here to listen. we don't have anything to say. and that's a tough problem. our government is good at digesting information on national security threats but not good at sharing information. but with the right structures, it even information that's classified, certainly information coming from the open internet, the best of the law enforcement activists could go back and inform their efforts on

this issue. host: rene, you are up first. go ahead. caller: i worked elections in mississippi. there is a huge technological euro will we have had these machines 417 or 18 years. you have to physically come in when there is a problem to fix or alter the machines only have a problem with them. so i don't see any possibility that anybody could possibly temper with these machines by some remote technology. facebook and twitter did not exist when these machines were guest: an important point. so i don't see any possibility that anybodythe social media cae aspect of this. it has a mentioned at the outset

, actually altering data is a different piece. and we have found that some of the best protections are simply to disconnect. unplugged. i'm not familiar with those particular machines but the idea that paper ballots maybe the safest because they don't have full abilities and internet connections, that is where a lot of experts think the safest way to go is. host: what are the problems with that? guest: it creates problems with people being able to vote -- long lines. people have to get to work or pick up people from daycare. so it can block people from exercising their ability to vote. so there is work to be done in showing that there is enough machines and work machines. is at least the cyber piece somewhat eliminated if there is

in that connection. host: and. i wanted to see if you could respond to a statement or clarifying something that bill nelson in the state of florida said there was a situation where the russians would be hacking machines and i guess it was dispelled because he did not -- or the democratic party or whoever -- they didn't verify that it actually happened or is going to happen. that mr. thing is corley came out with an article in the paper regarding something disseminated from washington, d.c. that looks like a paper ballot early voting system. put out by an activist group there. and it looked absolutely real. he also came out saying that it is a dubious thing and they are

nervous that these election offices in florida, not only the electronic things but the other means of people trying to sway things right in our own country. bill nelson. he's a senator. thank you. ofst: an important aspect how elections happen. thatroader point is elections are federalized. handle that the state level. unlike a lot of national security challenges. they are not administered by a single federal agency or the federal government over all. elections are handled under the constitutional system by the state. which means that states across the country need to understand the development that the collar is pointing to and other sources of development. to ensure the

integrity of elections in that state. that is the challenge. ensuringactivity and that those who work on this at a federal level are sharing information with and learning from those at the state level. part of what makes this so hard. host: diana. an independent. caller: i wanted to ask you how the democratic party weaponize the election and what will they do with one them to register undocumented workers? i don't see the issues we are talking about this morning as being one party or the other, frankly. it strikes me as the epitome of a bipartisan issue. which is standing up for free and fair elections in this country. and the threat i see with those elections right now is the threat first and foremost. and other foreign backed activities designed to correct the integrity of these

elections by corrupting the discourse leading up to them and conceivably corrupting the data associated with them. host: the president signed an executive order recently that would impose sanctions on individual entities that metal in u.s. elections which applies to anyone who authorizes or directs meddling. meddling. does this go far enough? what does this to turn? guest: the language on its face sounds good. but this executive order was issued last week and actually seems to be an attempt by the white house to forestall an with legislation that was gathering momentum on the hill that would have been tougher and offered more can -- more conferences coverage on these issues rather being an executive order and it baffles me as to why we wouldn't want the toughest forms of protection.

there is work legislatively to be done here. there is a way to criminalize the sharing of deliberate way hacked information so as to influence an election which i think would be helpful for those who prosecute these issues. and there is more for the white house to do with respect to russia and the bilateral issue,nship and for this more generally. host: in that legislation sponsored by marco rubio and chris van hollen from maryland, it is called the determined act and it defends elections from act of with the red line 2018, aiming to prevent election interference from foreign intel community. authorizing broad sanctions against businesses and imposing -- on senior political figures in addition to barring entry to the united states and for dating and for bidding the president to end sanctions unless leaders certify that russian governments have not interfered in the

elections for at least two presidential elections. what is it about this language that you like? that you think could help deter further interference? caller: -- guest: i think it at least responds, it begins to respond. a bill authorizing additional sanctions against russia that at first the white house seemed to threaten to veto. and them when it became clear that it would be passed over and -- over a presidential veto, the white house pivoted to under enforcing. there had been sanctions imposed under that authorization but very few. is what the bipartisan group trying to do is penalize those who are part of crushing the 2016 campaign cycle. by pushing the white house into sanctions that are overdue. the information sharing piece is critical. i am all for the protection of classified information, but at the level of can be shared,

making sure the executive branch is informing the country as to these threats as they are gathering in advance of the 2018 midterms and surely in advance of the 2020 elections. host: republican line is next. caller: good morning. question on the voting machines. assureds, i have been that they are unhappy double -- are unhackable, but i keep hearing about the voting's being hacked. i want to know if they are or not. -- hackable had dementia and she was given absentee ballots in could have signed

it with her name if i wanted to, seei didn't but i could misuse on the absentee ballots as well, but i am more curious about the voting machines. thank you very much. guest: let me start with the question about voting machines. it is hard to answer because there are different voting machines in use in different parts of the country. that is part of the nonuniform nature of the system that i mentioned earlier. the ways in which those who worry about hacking of the system takes different forms. one could hack the voter rolls so the people who show up and are entitled to vote or told based on what the volunteers see that they are not registered to vote there. that is a real problem. then there is the changing of votes after they have been cast. the recommendation seems to be that paper ballots are safer

until we can determine what cyber security practices are sufficient to guard against electronic voting machines. mentioning the absentee ballots, there was a commission set up by the president. he asked the vice president to cochair it on the voter fraud issue, which seems not to be an issue by groups that have looked into it. the commission ultimately folded in the face of widespread litigation suggesting it was endangering if anything the sanctity of american elections by pulling together a lot of information on american voters and storing it, not sufficiently securely. the focus right now as we worry about guarding our elections should be less on voter fraud which seems not at all to be widespread and more on interference by hostile actors. host: patricia is wanting in minneapolis, a republican -- watching in minneapolis, a republican. caller: while you were on duty,

that is when the suppose it hacking happened. it happened during the 2016 election and president obama mocked president trump for being concerned about meddling in the election and did not do anything about it. another thing, we are concerned about illegal immigrants voting because they are being given identification and if somebody does not check, they can just go vote. we understand that they would be voting democrat but don't tell us that it is not a concern, illegal immigrants voting. it is a big concern. that is where there is fraud. absolutely there is. guest: let me go back to where you began in terms of the 2016 campaign interference. most people would say that this has been an issue that could be handled better, going back to 2016.

certainly as we learned more in the wake of that campaign and it is one that i hope can become a bipartisan issue. a legislation that has been worked on has been bipartisan. it would be nice to see elections themselves as something that both parties regard as worth protecting and worth engaging with the private sector to help protect and let the chips fall where they may. host: louise in leesburg, virginia, democrat. caller: i have a question for you. what is behind the white house going so easy on russian issues with hacking? it makes no sense to me. i think it is bipartisan. i think we want fair elections. hands-off when a it comes to russia and we know they have been doing this for years. what is your understanding of that? guest: the caller is asking a

question that a lot of us wonder. i am not sure i have a great answer for you. there seems to be some sense that as this issue gets on the white house agenda, of election interference, there is a reluctance to take it on. whether it seems to cast doubt on the 2016 results or because of a different view of washington-moscow relations, i don't have a clear sense. what is important is to see a consensus building outside of the white house and that is in congress, at least to a great extent. i think it is in the tech sector that needs -- that more needs to be done and i think it is a consensus among the american people that no matter the party, protection -- protecting our election results are real our priorities -- are real priorities. host: tim in minnesota, republican. caller: what i am wondering is,

with the paper ballots, they are accumulated and then processed in some kind of computer system that can be hacked. do they ever go back and do a double check on the paper ballots to make sure that the numbers are coming in appropriately? guest: i think i do. the answer is that things differ state-by-state. they also differ depending on how close elections are and viewers will probably be familiar with how close our elections have been, with states going back when a certain margin seems to be the difference, recounting. circumstancesthe and the state, but the paper ballots are there to be rechecked and that is why they are seen as less boehner will right now.

-- less vulnerable right now. host: connecticut -- peter in connecticut. caller: you're just made a about the speaking strongest possible methods, whatever those measures may be. i have one perspective and that is voter identification. i formerly lived in new haven. i was able to vote and i found it shocking at the time. i voted with no id whatsoever. i raised my hand and promised i said -- i was who i said i was and then gave in my paper ballot. we are talking about the security of the person handing in that ballot. when your guest speaks of the strongest possible measures, wouldn't he be speaking of that kind of security. -- kind of security?

guest: you want security to respond to real threats and real problems. there has been a lot of research done as to whether voter fraud is in fact a problem in this country, even some fairly exhaustive candidacy has statistically negligent even attempts to vote fraudulently. that has lead to litigation over some of the voter id laws passed in states like north carolina where judges have found that they were not passed out of a genuine attempt to protect elections but as part of a partisan attempt to skew elections and keep specific and to do it -- constituencies from voting on election day. i begin with the real challenge and that does not seem to be the one. what does seem to be a real challenge is the corruption of discourse and conceivably the hacking of data related to our elections. that is where more work needs to be done. host: let's go to linda in south

carolina. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. all this flooding and so many people being displaced in north carolina and south carolina, how are they going to handle the voting and have it be fair in north carolina, with the gerrymandering they have going on? this is going to be another excuse for them to try to corrupt the elections. how would they handle this? guest: there is an immense amount of work to be done to rebuild after these horrific storms and their consequences. as the caller indicates, the midterm elections are not far away. i suspect this is one of many priorities that local, state and federal officials have been rebuilding. host: eric is next in baltimore, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span.

calling to comment -- we were learning about foreign interference in our elections and computing -- and computer hacking when we had someone in dataia delete the election after a lawsuit was filed to look at it. toneed to look into our own make sure we are not the leading votes in different ways. there is also purging polls, voter data and many other means. gerrymandering. i would like to hear what he has to say about that. guest: the caller is referencing --eresting litigation

judgment mandated improvements to the security of elections and that is complicated. these issues are not ones that have been litigated in this way, to ask for judicial rulings on what cyber security standards are sufficient and how they might be achieved. what you see there is a valid impulse, one that is not enough has been done to protect the foundational elements of our democracy and whether the recourse is the executive, legislative or the courts, i think you see a growing sense from the citizenry that government needs to do more. host: kevin in michigan, democrat. caller: thank you. i have a question. were hacking into our system but the value of the hack just means they're going to be controlling who controls our government. have we looked into if the republicans or the democrats are hacking the election because the stakes are much higher.

if a party were to be hacking into the elections, and by the way the russians are not that much smarter than our own people but if any of the parties wanted to control the united states, i would hack the election too. have we look into that? guest: i am not sure what the question is referencing in terms of one or both parties hacking our elections. there is this course coming from both parties that is heated and that is always the case in a critical election like these midterms but i hope even as the parties duke it out in the midterm elections, they can in termsome together of protecting the election process it self. in the midterms, there is a lot riding on them. will turned our sites on the 2020 election which will not feel that far away.

the hope that both those here in washington and those in the tech sector and elsewhere can work together and do more to protect those elections, that strikes me as a critical priority. host: what do you think about a poll that showed one in three americans think a foreign country will change midterm votes? guest: it is hard to know what one means by changing votes. one can change votes by affecting discourse or by reaching in and actually altering them. it is all about being concerned. the new york times had a section doing a comprehensive look at what actually happened in 2016. the report acknowledges that that election was so close in many ways that it is hard to say what tipped the scales. let's get one last call in. kevin in michigan, democrat. is could ourestion

parties -- are the russians just a red herring? are we using them to manipulate our own control of the united states? i am not a paranoid, i am asking the question, we have evidence of corruption and part of these things are, wouldn't behoove one of our own parties to manipulate the citizens in devoting their way so they maintain control of the money that controls the rest states?nited and if the russians hacked the elections, they were control something. it,rnally, if you look at the control of each of the parties control the money in each of the united states which control the power. if you changed the money down,

the value goes to a much larger internally corrupted than externally. you can use external means as a way of hiding your own internal means. have you seen anything like that in your security investigations? guest: the caller is putting his finger on a key point which is that this is not something that can only happen from beyond our borders. the internet is reachable from within our borders as well and perhaps this is a question that can be directed not so much at a party but a campaign. this is an ongoing investigation by the special counsel as to collusionere was between that campaign and rush on actors -- and russian actors. prosecutions continue and we expect some sort of report at the end but that is a piece of this issue as well. host: joshua geltzer is the executive director at georgetown university's law school

institute of efficacy and protection. you can follow them on twitter. thank you for the conversation. we will take a short break and when we come back, we will open up the phone lines and we will discuss anything you have heard on today's episode or anything at all in politics. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 10 of 5 p.m. eastern on real america. >> we are privileged to witness tonight a significant achievement in the cause of peace. an achievement none thought possible a year ago or even a month ago. an achievement that reflects the courage and wisdom of these

leaders. >> the 1978 film framework for peace on the camp david peace accords. sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, a look back on the 1998 bombings of the u.s. embassies in nairobi, kenya and tanzania. >> we were meeting with the minister of commerce. we heard an explosion. most of us went to the window. later, a white -- a freight train sounding impact of high energy hit all of us. 213 people were instantly killed. 48 of home were employees of the united states government -- of whom were employees of the united states government. >> watch american history tv sunday on c-span3.

booktv,weekend on saturday at 4:15 p.m. eastern, bob woodward's interview on his book fear, in the trump white house. >> someone in a key position after the book came out was in office and called me and said everyone knows what you have in this book is 1000% correct. eastern,hat 9:00 p.m. warmer independent counsel ken starr discusses his book, contempt, and memoir of the clinton investigation. >> what i've saying about the clinton experience is we learn from our history as a free people and impeachment was not the wise way to go. >> on sunday and nine at 5 p.m. eastern, former secretary of state john kerry discusses his book, every day is extra. he is interviewed by president and ceo of the wilson center jane harman. >> john and i were flying to

kuwait on an airplane. we did not know each other very well but we were seated opposite each other by seniority. it brought us together and we had a conversation into the night, talking about annapolis and his father and grandparents, his own service and his time as a prisoner and wanted to learn more about what happened with us and how we fought and what it was like. thatedged to each other the country was still divided over the war. we thought we needed to try to find a way to not just makepeace there but makepeace at home. >> watch this weekend on c-span2's booktv. "washington journal" continues. host: here is our schedule for today.

coming up, there will be a brief pro forma session in the house. it is not expected to be too long. we will come back and talk about president trump's trip to nevada focusing on this and it race taking place out there. the program ends at 10:00 this morning. until then, it is open phones on the washington journal. any public policy issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are open for you to do it. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. here is the front page of the las vegas sun. as i said, we will be talking about more about that trip later this morning but we will let you lead the discussion. bridgeport, connecticut. independent. caller: good morning. brieflylike to comment

tome onoodward's latest president trump. i am no fan of the trump administration or either political party. however, one thing out of the extraordinary -- that i have been able to pull out of that particular book had been an ongoing discussion that i don't think americans are ready to face. trump has been trying to pull out of very as treaties that many of his advisers have stated have been televised to do, as pulling out of the treaty we had with south korea could theoretically place the entire planet in jeopardy as it is something we honor with south korea so we can have a diplomatic relationship with south korea to keep tabs on north korea and their nuclear program. many of his advisers have stated that we cannot pull out of these treaties even though we are spending billions of dollars to stay in them as one advisor is

recorded as saying bluntly in the book, if we avoid these treaties, we will be heading into world war iii. trump to his credit has been stating quite frankly perhaps we don't have the money to stay in these treaties and it forces the question, how much cost is it going to be for america to remain the primary benefactor of international world peace when we can't really function as a nation to take care of the problems of our own republic? host: james is up next. you mentioned bob woodward's book. he was on this program on monday morning. watch want to go back and it, it is at c-span.org. he joined us for an hour-long can -- hour-long discussion,

taking viewer calls on his book. james is in new jersey, democrat. caller: good morning. i know how the russian mafia works. trumpeted doing is this with the russian mafia in 1984. i know that. host: how do you know that? knowing their overpayment on the rents at trump tower. a whole bunch of -- [indiscernible]

host: walk me through how you know the russian mafia so well. i cannot tell you all these -- all the details. i told the fbi all the details. host: have you talked to the fbi? caller: i have known the fbi since 1997. host: that is james in new jersey. roger is in missouri, republican. inler: i am more interested what local election officials can do to protect their itormation and be sure that

is carried all the way through to the final tally. host: what should we be doing? caller: i have no idea. theykind of wondering why are so easily hacked and at what level are the local elections cap local or is your information given to the cloud where it can be hacked more easily? host: we appreciate those questions. a story you might be interested in. this from the new hampshire union leader, the issue of voter fraud. a woman is facing felony voter she wasarges and said on powerful painkillers and recovering from surgery when she and her husband voted in both massachusetts and new hampshire in the 2016 provincial election.

she said she and her husband made a simple mistake. she said in her statement on wednesday. if you want to read more on that story, those charges against that couple in new hampshire. judy in maryland, democrat. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: good morning. i think i am on the wrong call. host: it is open phones. what do you want to talk about? caller: judge kavanaugh. watched when this elderly gentleman asked him, is there anything in your past when you were younger, that you wish you could go back and change and judge kavanaugh started talking about how he was so glad to see his coach. -- herted talking about

said i see that you are not going to answer my question. that right there told me something and i felt uncomfortable about it. have a good eye -- have a good day. host: the clip you are referring to is from his confirmation hearing. it was a conversation he was having with senator kennedy of louisiana. you can go back and watch that. i know the c-span twitter handle actually clipped that segment of that discussion. you can of course watch all of the confirmation hearings in their entirety at c-span.org. edward is next in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. the first thing, election security. there was a caller from michigan who mentioned whether or not if we are looking into if our systems are being hacked from within. that was very interesting. we know we can't trust the establishment.

there is incentive to do that even though it is wrong. we should look into that. judge kavanaugh. i was shocked when revelations came. i thought the culture of rape and sexual assault, this is terrible. my thing is, it happened 35 years ago. the statute of limitations, even if it is able to be proven that ms. ford was sexually assaulted, he still should pay for that crime. segmenty, there was a on ballot initiative throughout the states. michigan was doing really good. thanks. host: before you go, on that ballot initiative in michigan, what sort of commission would ?reate out in michigan

we lost edward but we did a conversation with reid wilson about ballot initiatives and you can go and watch that. the house about to come in for that brief form a. from new hampshire, independent. caller: i have two issue comments. the first one is about ai leaving humans without a job. the second is about banks in the u.s. economy. humans today would go to high school, a two-year or four-year college. freehey would be issued a government program to water -- a few -- a free government programs robot. if hired, his or her robot would do their job. humans will be paid the money that the robots did for them. gdp and human salaries would increase where robots could work

24/7. also free time could be used to care for families, children, openly and the sick. host: how long do you think it is going to take for that to happen? we believe it there but we appreciate the thought. we will take our viewers to the floor of the house. >> the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., september 20, 2018. i hereby appoint luke messer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed paul ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. >> the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain from the people's church in jacksonville, texas. >> come pray with me. heavenly father, bless this

house, its members and families and the families of every american house recovering from florence. hear us in the day of our calamity. send us help and deliverance from your sanctuary according to the depth of your mercy and goodness of your heart. spare us from the arrows of our enemies. forgive us our presumptuous sins. cleanse us of our secret faults. then will we rejoice in your salvation and in the name of the most high. then will we know that it is the lord who saves his people by the saving strength of your right hand, that you hear us from your holy heaven. some may trust in chariots and horses, but we will remember the name of the lord our god.

let the words of our mouths and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in thy sight. in jesus name, amen. pursuant to section three a of house resolution 1059, the journal of the last days proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance and join others in the chamber. of allegiance] >> the chair liz before the house the following communications -- lays before the house the following indications. the honorable speaker of the house of representatives,

pursuant to the permission granted of the rules of the house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 20 -- on september 18, that the senate passed 25-54, that the senate passed with an amendment, hr-six with best wishes. the honorable speaker of the house of representatives, pursuant to the permission granted in clause two-h in the rules of the house of u.s. representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 18, 2018 at three: 10:00 p.m. that the senate agrees to the report of the , hrittee of the conference -- hr-6157. >> the chair lays before the

house a communication. >> the honorable speaker, pursuant to section 214 a of the help america vote act of 2002, 52 united states code -- i hereby reappoint dr. philip stark of berkeley, california to the u.s. election assistance commission board of advisors. thank you for your attention to his appointment. >> the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bills. senate 29-46, united states code to clarify the meaning of the terms act of war and blocked asset and for other purposes. >> house resolution 100 -- 1059,

the house stands adjourned until 2:30 p.m. -- 10:30 a.m. host: and with that, the house is done for the week. the house meeting again on monday. the senate expected to meet again on monday. votes scheduled in the senate in the late afternoon around 5:30. we are still waiting to see what will happen with that senate judiciary committee hearing that as of now is scheduled on monday with brett kavanaugh and his in what his accuser says happened in their time in high school. something we can talk about in open phones. it is open phones of our program at 10:00. (202)-748-8001 -- (202)-748-8000 if you are a democrat. (202)-748-8001 if you are a

republican. an2)-748-8002 if you are independent. of front page lead story several major newspapers today. cause byork times, the the accuser may open a path to confirmation waivers. both parties try to frame the stalemate for votes as the midterm election nears. from the pun -- from the front page of the washington times, republicans get tired of accuser's snubs. senator chuck grassley sets a deadline to hear if she intends to testify. it would be monday morning at 10:00 in the same room that brett cavanaugh sat in for three days of testimony earlier this month. taking your calls this morning. mary has been waiting. thank you for waiting. hendersonville, north carolina. republican.

how are you doing since hurricane florence? caller: thank god we are well. just a lot of rain and wind. keeping everyone in our prayers. a few things i would like to mention. i have seen a lot of comparison with this situation and anita hill. it is apples and oranges. anita hill was an employee. this has nothing to do with her situation. with respect to the justice and the accuser, he is a judge. why didn't she come forth before? why didn't she say anything before? why didn't she say anything when he was working for president bush? thatems very suspicious diane feinstein would keep the letter.

they did not say anything for seven weeks. i am republican but my kids are democrat and we are divided on this. i don't think it looks good for the democrats. everything is the end of the world. if the president is going to redact something, it is the end of the world. they cry wolf too much. i think that we are in a better place after the election. that is where i stand. if she does not come forth, that is not good. as a woman, i remember going on a date and it was very strange what happened. nothing happened to me physically but it could have. after that, if i did not know the person, i would drive my own car. there are a lot of facts missing. she does not know how she got to the party, how she left. i have the utmost respect for her. rate must be horrible but i

don't believe it happened and maybe what she thinks is something else and i hope we can put an end to this and that she does come forward and that she has nothing to hide. let's clear the air. if something did happen, then he does not get confirmed. host: the accusation is that sexual assault, but it is not rape but i appreciate you sharing your story. you mentioned that you are republican and your kids are democrat. what is the biggest disagreement you have had with them? caller: interestingly, label vote for trump in 2020. they are not voting a damn democrat. they have seen what has happened and they think the world is a better place. we don't care if he had an affair in 2006. that does not matter. what matters is what he is doing now and i think that everyone has to put the politics aside,

stop dividing this country. we are the united states of america. i let them choose and they told me you are right and for now we are going to vote for trump. i just want this to be cleared out and i feel bad for both the justice and i feel bad for the accuser and i pray that this get resolved. it does not look good. host: that is mary in north carolina. good luck to you and hendersonville in the coming days. you mentioned the rivers cresting soon after florence. here are a few of the headlines out of north carolina. president trump in north carolina yesterday, talking and taking note of some of the damage and recovery efforts. he says a lot of money is on the way, the headline from the news and observer. from the index journal out of

south carolina, hot dogs and hugs. in thes the president picture, waving as he walks down the street. next to the president is south carolina gov. henry mcmaster. some images from the president's visit yesterday. fromore headline for you the columbus dispatch, talking about the farmers in north carolina. hog farm buildings surrounded by floodwaters. a lot of concern about the industry and also what the flooding means for the environment. leonard is waiting in maine, independent. good morning. i tried calling -- calling in during your previous guest. it drives me crazy when i hear things going on about russian hacking and rushing -- and

russian meddling when there has been very little forensic evidence of that but there is overwhelming evidence of internal actors meddling in elections. a couple callers called in with good points and i would refer him to two good sources. journalisttigative just produced a documentary called the greatest democracy money can buy where he documents how the kansas secretary of voters thatmoved had the same first name and last name but a different middle name and was successful in illuminating 1.2 million people statesvoter rolls in key where elections were going to be close. have aen party trying to recount in three states and was

unable to do that but finding ample evidence of vote tallies thendid not make sense and having 70,000 voters in the detroit area where they did not vote for the president, the only voted down ticket and that would be like when the powerball twice in a row or something. this has been going on for quite some time. -- supreme court the secretary of state wiping off non-villains -- non-felons. -- showing how ballots were tampered with in the middle of the night. his book is called witness to a crime. certainly some great sources out there. i never see any of these sources

on c-span. host: we appreciate the sources. november,he polls in are you going to vote and do you trust that your vote is going to be counted? >> i trust because i am in a small town, but when you have large areas, it comes in question and you have partisan officials that oversee these elections. ripe fors to me potential corruption and when statisticians looking at the results and finding that the exit polls which are a very good measure of how people voted , that did not match the actual and when that falls outside of the statistical boundary, these people have written about it, they are out there.

you never see them talked about on major media. host: that is leonard in maine. we mentioned earlier that president trump today is going to be in the bottom. here is the headline from the las vegas review journal. trump returns to las vegas for a rally on thursday and a bill signing on friday. joining us now to talk more about the president's trip out vegas reviewas journal state government reporter. let's focus on the rally part of that headline. for those not following nevada politics, who is he going to be rallying about? guest: good morning. thank you for having me. trump'spresident donald seventh visit to las vegas since he declared his candidacy in june of 2015 and he is here to energize the gop base.

very critical senate election for the president and the republicans. this is a sensitive time for trump's presidency and republicans need to win the senate race in nevada to hold on to their majority. stumping fore senator heller who is widely viewed as the most vulnerable senate republican seeking reelection. heller is the only senate republican running for reelection in a state that hillary clinton won in 2016. also there are two open house seats this election cycle. both of those seats were held by democrats. ande are favoring democrats i think republicans are fighting hard to win those seats as we sort of try to maintain -- as they sort of try to maintain

their control of both chambers. this is a critical time for nevada. there are three exciting races that could very well determine who controls the senate and who controls the house after the 2018 midterms. dean let's talk about heller's democratic challenger in that contest. where did she come from? is she known statewide? this is atter that state hillary clinton won or does she have an appeal beyond the demographics of the state? guest: that is a good question. she is a current member of congress. she represents congressional district three. she has only been in congress for less than one term. she does not have as much name recognition in the state. heller has never lost an election and has lots of support, especially in some of

the role deep red counties -- rural deep red counties. what the challenger has in her favor is the democratic establishment behind her, former senator harry reid is behind her and all of the polling we have seen on this race so far shows that these candidates far in a deadlock -- candidates are in a deadlock. it is really a tossup. it is a very tight race. both sides have spent millions of dollars, flooding the market with tv ads attacking each other on everything from veterans issues to health care. early voting is a month away and we are seeing that voters are truly torn between the two. however, the incumbent senator, the veteran senator has a lot of name id, a long record that people can look at.

rosen not so much. if there is a so-called blue wave, then that definitely fares in her favor. host: the air force one expected to touch down around 6:30 local time today. where is the president heading and what is the crowd expected to be like? guest: that is right. expected toe is land around 6:35 at mccarran airport. from there, the president is going to head -- is going to head to the las vegas convention center where he is going to do a make american great again -- make america great again rally. i am not sure how long again it is -- how long it is going to run but after they rally, he is going to head to the trump hotel on the strip and that is where he is going to be staying overnight. as far as the crowd, it appears to be a healthy crowd.

he does have sizable support from the gop base in nevada but we are also seeking on social media that there are at least ,our or five groups, activists social justice groups that plan to be outside the convention center protesting the president's arrival and protesting some of his policies. host: what is the bill signing tomorrow? guest: tomorrow morning, he is headed to north las vegas the a medicalcenter -- va center where he is expected to sign an appropriations bill for military construction and the veterans affairs department and then he is going to a fundraiser for senator dean heller. host: the state government reporter with the las vegas review journal, we appreciate

you starting your day early with us. likely to be a long day. guest: thank you for having me. host: our last 10 minutes this morning, it is still open phones. any public policy issue you want to talk about. bettye is a republican -- is a republican. caller: i am calling mrs. feinstein. once she accepted that message from that young lady, she should have acted on it immediately. otherwise she withheld that for the whole time. many people were traveling. the cost was dramatic to our country. offdelayed putting that until almost everything was over. she could have saved everyone a lot of heartache and financial things for our country as well. i think she should be dismissed from the senate.

it just seems like the right thing to do. that one of the reasons has been put out there that she did not act sooner according to the reporting on this is that ms. forde did not want her name to be public. -- ford did not want turning to be public. when she told her it was something it was could -- that was confidential, she should have said i am on the committee and i cannot take that unless i put it forth because it was going to be something so dramatic and cause such problems with the discussion? host: going forward with these accusations out there and term name on it and the store that there were three people in that room, do you think it should be investigated? caller: i do. iny went to all that expense bringing the many people that came to see the judge and

celebrated him being there and seeing what a good man he was and then for her to hold that vital information that could destroy several families not only her own, and for the judge as well. if she is that unstable, why should she be teaching and seeing patients if she was considered to be that ill and cause such distress? it was a deliberate action on feinstein's on mrs. part as well. i thank you for allowing me to make the comment as i found it very disturbing that she would withhold that and cause all of that trouble for this country now. we have divided too much and it is just causing more. note that inld just a few minutes, we are going to be taking viewers on c-span to an event, sexual assault

survivors and representatives of women's groups are going to be talking about professor ford's sexual assault allegation against brett kavanaugh at the national press club. live coverage of that starting in about six minutes on c-span. if you can't stay on this channel, you can watch it online at c-span.org. that is where we are going to be going in just a few minutes. bill in michigan, independent. caller: hello. to echo the gentleman from maine with the election security and insiders in our own political parties. with the gerrymandering and purging of voters and voter are.ession, they certainly our own elected officials are

definitely trying to skew our elections. particular, the call in georgia, there was a recent court ruling where the judge said these paperless voting machines in georgia are not safe at all, but we are going to keep using them for this election. host: do you think votes are being changed and names are tong purged from voter rolls the tune of hundreds of thousands of people? ?illions of people to change national elections? is that the extent to which you think it is happening? caller: i am not sure exactly how much. i have not been studying this a lot but i used to read info from the brennan center.

i would not be surprised if purging voter rolls and things of that nature. it could have discouraged or prevented enough people from voting in key states to change possibly the presidential election, but that is a lot of speculation. host: you mentioned the brennan center, it is the brennan center for justice. their entire page about voting rights and elections. you can read some of their work. the recent posting, better safe than sorry, how voting -- how election officials can protect voting against cyber attack. donna in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am disgusted about this.

when you in the bible have a house that is ran by lies , this nation is ran by a liar. these people who are talking about kavanaugh, suppose it was their daughters? how would they feel? it does not make any sense. what bothers me is when they interview people on public polls, i don't see no black people being interviewed and telling their opinion about how they feel about the president. it is always white people. "i support him, support him, support him." interview some black people. host: i you talking about what you are seeing on television? caller: yes, all over. the polls. they say i went and talked to these people.

i don't see them interviewing black people. they interview white people. host: vivian in california, independent. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: what i wanted to say is that i hear everybody on both sides of the supreme court thing arguing about what diane feinstein did wrong, about the woman who brought the charges. did she do this, why didn't she bring it out sooner? is a goodlike there chance this did happen and who cares exactly when they brought it out? do we want somebody who did this to be on the supreme court? we should be talking about him. did he do it and what does that mean about him as a person? these ladies are not going to be on the supreme court for the next 20, 40 years. host: who is the burden of proof on in your mind? is it on brett kavanaugh to

prove that he did not do it or is it on ms. ford to prove that he did? caller: this is not a dispute between these two people. it is not whether we are going to say she is right or he is right. we want to find out as best as we can whether this happened. the important thing is him, not that the burden of proof is on him he is going to be on the supreme court and i would like to know as close as possible whether or not it is likely that he did this. it is not whether he is more convincing than she is. that is why they should have the fbi investigation. we should do whatever we can to figure it out. we are going to pay for it. host: one more call before we take you to the press club. mike is in wyoming, a republican. sayer: i just wanted to thank you for you and your colleagues being neutral hosts.

i could not do it myself. i have a suggestion for a topic on elections and fraud. harris. her name is bev she has a website, blackboxv oting.org. she would be a good guest for you to get on. host: we have a bit more time before that event starts at the press club. why do you think you could not do it? caller: i am too opinionated. i would have to almost explode -- i could just not be as calm and neutralize you guys are. to you folks are having the demeanor to be able to do that. too opinionated. post: mike was our last caller on the washington journal. we will b