out there. you have literally millions of people who will stand up and fight for you if you need help. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: today on c-span, "washington journal" is eternal next with your phone calls. joe biden will speak at the cancer initiative inaugural summit an. in about an hour, former assistant a president george w. bush, anita mcbride on supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. adam bates of the international refugee assistance project on

the trump administration's proposal to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the u.s. and issue one's michael beckel discusses the report on dark money campaign spending. ♪ shows texaspoll republican ted cruz slightly edging out beto o'rourke in the texas senate contest. both men set to debate tonight. you can see that on c-span, c-span.org, and our radio out. president trump holds a rally tonight. watch that at 7:30 on c-span 2, the website, and the radio app. this is the "washington journal ." christine blasey ford says she is open to testify next week in front of the senate judiciary committee about her allegations about judge brett kavanaugh.

she has made conditions part of her deal. there is no word on if the committee will honor those requests. your thoughts on the latest and you can call on one of three lines. if you support judge kavanaugh, it is 202-748-8000. if you support professor blah the ford -- blasey ford, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure who you support, 202-748-8002. you can make your thoughts on twitter @cspanwj and then also post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. the story in the wall street journal shows the headline that the brett kavanaugh accuser is open to -- joining us is natalie andrews of the wall street journal who reports for congress. good morning. guest: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am well. thank you very much. can we start by scoping out what

the professor is looking for in terms of testify next week? guest: this is a story that has changed almost every hour of this week. last night we learned in a phone call with the judiciary committee the attorneys for dr. ford listed about 10 demands or requests they were looking for toorder for dr. ford testify. some of these things had to do with her safety. if they wanted to know how she would get out and in of the building -- into and out of the building. it looks like they are asking for thursday in order to testify. they said monday is out of the question and they are looking to have judge kavanaugh go first, which is an interesting request and got some criticism because people on the right said they want judge kavanaugh to be able to respond to the allegations dr. ford may make if she were to

testify. hopefully today we will get more clarity on the reaction from judiciarys on the committee on what they want and whether or not they are willing to accommodate her demands. host: if the questioning takes place, will this solely be done by members of the committee or is an outside counsel still a possibility at this point? guest: it looks like republicans are pressing or have ideas on having some sort of outside counsel or bringing in someone to question them both. the optics of having an all-male republican judiciary panel bad.ion dr. ford could be i think they are a little worried about that. susan collins suggested having someone come in and question them both. they have not announced that yet, but it seems like an idea several people are floating. about thehad talked

response from the committee and indicated what they initially thought of the requests. have we heard anything late last night about how this will go forward in the committee? guest: we haven't although grassley did say he was wanting to listen to her and the call had gone well. that it washought more likely this might happen then maybe earlier in the week when we thought she won't be, this will fall apart. host: we heard from the chairman about the 10:00 deadline set for today as whether or not we will see an official response from professor ford and whether she will testify. is that 10:00 deadline still in existence? is it questionable now? guest: we have heard from congressional aides that they would be willing to maybe let that deadline slide if they thought the negotiations were going well.

that deadline could, and ago and we may not have news or we may ite an indigo -- indication is going well enough that they can move forward. if the date is thursday for a hearing and they are willing to accommodate, that gives them more room. i have to notify a hearing friday in advanced. if they are willing to go to thursday, that gives them more room. as anwhy does it stand actual vote to get this nomination out of committee and walk us through the timeline? say this hearing does take place next week. guest: if the hearing takes place next week, the committee needs to schedule a vote. they can vote as early as the next day. they could vote and send it to the senate floor the day after that. because ofnt, procedural votes, it would take about five days if democrats insist on all the time for cloture and procedural votes.

were thinking originally if they voted on monday, they could have him confirmed by a friday. like if sheg testifies next week, he would not be confirmed by the october 1 deadline that mcconnell wanted , but it could go into the next week. host: when it comes to republicans on the committee, republicans overall in the senate, what is the level of confidence in judge kavanaugh? guest: they are standing by him. there is only a few wavering votes. we saw jeff flake wanted to have her testify and he was fine with grassley having notified the hearing. he seemed to feel like that gave her a chance and he implored her to testify. having her given the chance, he wasn't holding out for her to have her say. like -- he felt like

she was given the chance, he could vote to move her forward. we don't know about susan collins and lisa murkowski and whether they would support kavanaugh. they were always swing votes. we don't know how they are going to vote. generally, susan collins holdout until the hearing process is over. with the hearing process reopened, we don't know where she would stand just yet. host: one more thing. has there been questions about whether this will -- will it be open to cameras and will people be able to see this hearing take place on television? guest: we don't know. that was one of the questions the attorneys were trying to negotiate last night, how public would it be. where would the media be, that sort of thing. we saw in the hearing two weeks ago that the hearing was

disrupted several times and there were protesters. there are concerns on both sides. republicans are concerned that is cap -- if kavanaugh were to be testifying, he could be interrupted several times. her attorneys are concerned about that. i was talking to some protesters yesterday at the capital who were planning on attending the hearing and they were definitely saying they were planning on being there and were trying to figure out how to be present at this event and so, it could be loud and it could be disruptive. they were saying if dr. ford were to testify, they would let her be silent during this. it definitely got raucous during the hearing a few weeks ago. guest: natalie andrews, who -- host: that leandra's, who reports for cash natalie andrews --natalie andrews, who reports for congress. thank you.

guest: thank you. host: your thoughts on the requests from professor blasey senate judiciary committee. if you support the kavanaugh nomination, 202-748-8000. if you support professor blasey ford, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure, it is 202-748-8002. tamara up first in dale city, california. she supports judge kavanagh. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think professor ford does not intend to testify. she is a political contrivance and she will try to hang up senator grassley as long as she can. i think he is making a mistake indulging all the prima donnas involved in this nomination. i think he should tell miss ford next week testifies or forever hold her piece and they should hold a vote next week, thumbs up and thumbs down. host: what about the concessions on factors of safety?

do you think those should be met by the committee? caller: i don't think the senate can guarantee her safety. i think she would be wise to stay out of washington. host: this is wendy in washington state, go ahead. caller: hi. i guess that last caller is maybe an example of why women are having trouble coming out and letting anyone know what happens to them. protection is important and orng threatened by strangers having to leave your home, that is something wrong with that. i think if the u.s. marshal is going to try to investigate or go after people threatening

there should be an investigation into who is threatening her. the whole thing is that anybody -- he could have said she was mistaken or -- he could have done anything as a compassionate person that wants to be a judge to say -- he could have said yes, we can investigate this, to prove he is innocent. it just really bothers me that women are not believed when we know it happens and there are men out there that know it. host: let's go to david in texas, supporting judge kavanaugh. hello. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: dianne feinstein and the democrats could not have done

anything more than what they have done to make this appear more political. waiting until after the hearings had concluded, when she knows she has this letter for six weeks. as i understand it, there's a question about who actually outed dr. ford. on the one hand, it would seem it had to have been the democrats for it on the other side, dr. ford had taken -- had approached the media -- i forget which paper it was, a month before. they would have also had the information. the so-called demands, the idea that someone who is accused has to prove their innocence, that is not the way our system works. the accuser has to come forward and the state has to prove guilt. obviously, this has a political element as well and there is no way they are ever actually going to prove guilt or innocence in that context. the idea that he should have to

testify first when no one even knows what the letter said. dianne feinstein won't release the letter. she has been asked for days by chairman grassley to release an unredacted copy of the letter or seven weeks ago. judge kavanaugh doesn't even know what is being alleged. that is crazy. host: that is david in texas. your thoughts on these requests from professor blasey ford. possibly for her testimony next week when it comes to this issue. the748-8000 if you support judge kavanaugh. support8001 if you professor ford. if you are not sure at this point, 202-748-8002. the it comes to the work of senate next week, kate shaw, a professor at the school of law writes a piece in the new york times, the senate is not a court. she is saying it is natural to

place this sort of accusation within a criminal justice framework, the burden of proof without a reasonable doubt, if judge kavanaugh should -- stood criminally accused of attempted rate, all of that would apply with full force. there is no production of confirmation and there is certainly no birder -- burden of facts that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt. if she also writes in the column saying judge kavanaugh has been nominated to fill a pivotal seat on the court. for many people, what is at stake is not just abortion and contraceptive rights, but a actn's ability to meaningfully. if members of the senate conclude a criminal accusation againstl misconduct is judge kavanaugh, that should be enough to disqualify them him from a -- disqualify him from a

seat to decide on matters of women's equality. host: in florida, a supporter for professor ford, go ahead. caller: i want to thank you so much for doing this program. and i 79-year-old woman have been a professor in college and a minister. i have had so many attacks on my person by members of my my schools andnd has been always afraid to report them. i am very grateful to this woman for doing this and i am very grateful to all of you for hearing her. host: trixie is next in west virginia, supporting that

kavanaugh. caller: i am for judge kavanaugh because i think he is a great person and i don't think that -- it was back when they were young. she is just doing it for the democrats. that's the only reason. i know she is a democrat. it for the democrats and judge kavanaugh is a great man. host: should she get the ability to testify? caller: yes, she should, but he should talk first. not first, he should talk after she talks. he doesn't even remember it. maybe it did not even happen. maybe she is just doing something to cause him from getting judge. ist: sandy off twitter says think the fbi should do their investigation first and professor ford should testify. remember the horrendous

treatment of anita hill. i would hate to see this happen again. we will continue with your calls on the latest concerning the brett kavanaugh nomination. the president was in las vegas yesterday during a rally talking about his nominee for the supreme court. you can find that rally on c-span. here is a portion of it from last night. [video clip] >> one of the reasons i was was because you believed i was going to pick great supreme court justices. applause] and brett kavanaugh -- and i am not saying anything about anybody else, but i want to tell you brett kavanaugh is one of the finest human beings you will

ever have the privilege of knowing or meeting. applause] intellect, a great gentlemen, and impeccable yale, top, went to student. top to yale law school, student. we have to let it play out. i have to tell you, he is a fine , fine person. and he has got tremendous support. i can tell you that, tremendous. just like neil gorsuch, who is now on the supreme court, had tremendous support. we will let it play out and i think everything is going to be just fine. this is a high quality person. host: the president from last

night. he heads to missouri for another rally today and you can see that at 7:30 this evening. a viewer who supports professor ford in ohio, jim is next. hello. caller: hello. in the ohio's governor's race, they are talking about mike going back and testing rate kits are are -- rape kits that 20 years old and they are getting convictions out of that. do they decide those convictions, those 20-year-old stand up, do they not just because you cannot go back on somebody in power that is a judge -- go back in time and investigate that? but they can go back and investigate time on someone poor and put them in jail, in prison maybe for the rest of their lives?

he definitely needs to make people believe in the judicial system, he definitely needs to go through the judicial system like everyone else because that is why a lot of americans don't believe in the judicial system today. host: a viewer who believes in judge kavanaugh. in new york, linda. hello. caller: good morning. all putf, think this is up by the democrats. the woman knows she will not be charged for lying. awould like to ask you question, if i may, pedro. host: before you go farther than that, when you say it is a put off, do you mean the hearing should not plate -- take place? caller: it should take place, but i think these are false accusations. that is my opinion and i would like to ask you a question now.

when are we going to do an hour on keith ellison? we have heard one little clip in five days. these are recent charges, there is proof of what he has done, yet it is all silenced. we would really like to hear something on him. host: ok. from staten island, new york, another linda who is not sure. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to make a comment about this important issue. i don't think the accuser or her are using both sides of their brains because i also don't think the allegations of attempted sexual assault can be proved because of the statute of limitations and there isn't any actual physical evidence or content. think this should

be held liable for defamation paympts on this judge and our government with monetary penalties because this sets a precedent for us, in america, how we bring charges against people such as judge kavanaugh and i have never been -- had a case in this court, but i don't think these allegations are actually true. on theou are calling line for those who are not sure who they believe, but it sounds like you believe judge kavanaugh over the professor. believeit's not that i judge kavanaugh over the professor, it is the way the allegations have come out. i am astonished someone can come out of nowhere and make an allegation attempt for -- 36 years ago and those are issues

that -- such as murder, should never have a statute of limitations. that is absolutely absurd. new york. is linda in the feminist majority foundation held an event yesterday in washington, d.c. and you can see that whole event on c-span. one of the speakers was the former special victims district attorney roger can of -- roger, sexuales the a certain assault -- allegations can be investigated from years ago. [video clip] >> allegations of sexual violence, even very old ones can still be investigated. timelines can be narrowed, fax be be -- facts can determined. it is not at all impossible. one of the most frustrating things i have been hearing is individuals saying there is nothing the fbi -- orrin hatch

said the same thing, there is nothing the fbi would be able to add, there is nothing the investigation would produce because it has been too long. frankly, that simply is not true. investigations such as this do occur. i personally have been involved in investigations of very old sexual assault allegations i have been able to prosecute. i may hold the record in alexandria city for the oldest sex case prosecuted. there was a man who had come forward later in life with molestation of a family member and we were able to put that together. it is a painstaking process and takes quite a long time and involves an appreciation for the --ects of trauma neurobiological effects of trauma and how it impacts the brain. in which talented investigators who are compassionate, competent, and trauma informed can unlock the

details with individuals. we do it all the time. there is absolutely no question an investigation -- a proper investigation conducted by trauma-informed individuals would be able to assist dr. ford to narrow down that timeframe. to the detractors saying things such as all she knows is it was the summer of 1982 and near a country club -- perhaps that is all she has been able to express so far. she is, without a doubt, a brilliant woman, statistician, someone who is extremely intelligent and with the proper support, she is able to do this. host: david says these people calling in and gushing over how great a man kavanaugh is never knew anything about the man three weeks ago. what easily led sheep. guilty until proven innocent, that is a new standard. liberals have no common sense, so it does not surprise this

fake accusation will go nowhere. you can make comments on our twitter feed. our facebook page is open to you .s well facebook.com/cspan and then there are the phone lines. if you support judge kavanaugh, 202-748-8000. if you support professor ford, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure who you support, 202-748-8002. this is liz in washington, d.c., who supports professor ford. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to echo some of the comments made by your guest. i would say when are we going to believe women who are of all walks of life and in this situation, very accomplished as the commentator made very intelligent and let's go back to 1991 where we had anita hill make those same accusations. when are we going to start

giving them an opportunity to voice their trauma? let's take a look at where people were when the catholic priest and the abuse of young kids started to break and how many doubted that and where we are today with that investigation and there was so much denial by the catholic church, there is no strong denial anymore and they are having to cope with the realization that did occur and they cannot hide it anymore. host: we will go to winchester, kentucky, supporter of judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my response to this question today. i am in support of judge i don't trustuse someone that comes out 36 years later. i don't care what her status is

or who she is and where is -- she is from. how is she going to prove something like this and make all these requisitions of when she can testify and what has to happen before she can testify? is that really somebody who had been assaulted like this? i would want to testify and come right out and do it, not have to make all these provisions of how and when i will testify. it just stinks and i don't like it. host: should the judiciary committee offer this hearing or should they just go ahead and vote the nomination out of committee? caller: to me, they have offered it. they have offered it to or three times. they gave her until monday and she is coming back with all these exceptions she wants in place. let's get this thing over with and let's find out. if he is guilty, let's move on. host: kimberly in the op-ed section of the wall street

journal writes the gop cannot win for losing. about the politics behind what is going on currently this week, handedrepublican voters republicans control of the white house and congress in large part to oversee these supreme court fights. republicans have 51 votes, a sterling candidate, and no excuses. good luck to any gop candidate who promises a nominee after a kavanaugh file. why should voters believe republicans will get it done next time? especially when republicans -- democrats know they can repeat the ambush exercise. gop failedness the in core promises to repeal obamacare and restrain spending, a blown supreme court nominee would make matters far worse. her thoughts on the wall street journal. is next from chesapeake, virginia, on the line for those

who are not sure where they fall on this. go ahead. hello. caller: having listened to your comments, i have quick points i want to make. for a traumatic or significant event in anybody's personal life, do you remember every detail? what actions would you take if it was your family member whether male or female? america needs to wake up, read, do their homework, hold their representatives accountable to their responsibilities regardless of the party. host: before you go, how should this go forward? terry hung up. we will go to gary in virginia, who supports the faster ford. -- professor ford. caller: your last caller nailed it on the head, but the color previous said she did not trust the woman and she is a liar. kavanaugh she has only heard of three weeks ago. it's remarkable this republican party has turned into the trump

party. they have a president who has done the same thing to women and it has become socially acceptable. for not blame the doctor not wanting to go forward. he subject herself to that? it is a shame right now -- i can say to myself, i do not trust my judicial system at all. it is an old, republican, white male view of how they see america and -- black men, white women, muslims, we do not fit into that equation. it doesn't matter -- she told this story to her husband many years ago and her therapist many years ago. yes, democrats should have come out with this earlier. no matter what, it happened or at least she said it happened. why don't we pause and look into this? ago called her a

liar. this is what we have come to. host: let's go to jack in iowa supporting judge kavanaugh. caller: i am curious -- i've got four points. was hypnosis ever behind professor ford suddenly coming forward? i think she is giving people in therapy a bad name. torunk 16 euros girl to me, my mind, isn't all that credible. everybody loves to hear about sex. look how they lapped up all that bill clinton impeachment stuff and think of all the money she is going to make selling books. in the end, judges are boring people. look how much spice this controversy is adding to judges. this is the same hysterically -- hysteria in salem and the communists and the flying saucers. i am so glad hillary did not get elected president. host: off of twitter, aren't

there 20 more people on the list for potential scotus justices? john in north carolina says testifying.rd ain't she penned the poison letter for her agreement and she is done. twitter is available @cspanwj. in the politics world, even the events of the nomination process playing out in various senate races. a televised debate for the virginia senate and this is the incumbent senator, tim kaine, going back and forth and commenting on the nomination, bringing it up in political context of these senate races. [video clip] >> i think what is important is a serious charge has been leveled and it is a charge that is essentially a sexual assault and even could be construed as attempted rape and we have got to get to the bottom of it. this is a vacancy that just opened up july 31. we are seven weeks into this. the gop majority held a vacancy

14 months for political reasons. if we care about sexual assault and think it is serious, we should do everything to get to the bottom of this and that would obviously involve hearing from dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. it would also involve hearing from witnesses. there are a couple of witnesses who have been identified. one, mark judge, who the allegation says was in the room when this happened. why wouldn't we want to hear from these witnesses? why wouldn't they reopen this particular charge? the 11th hour, whether you -- all thisan or time goes by and on the week of the senate judiciary committee is set to vote, then this comes up. i find the timing highly suspect and i am not the only one. i think most of you do, too, and

many got senator feinstein. she knew about this weeks ago. why didn't she come out with it back then? why did senator feinstein not inform the fbi or other law enforcement officials? why did she do nothing? why did she sit on this allegation until the week the committee was set to vote on it? i find it -- and frankly it has become typical of the left to do this. a very dirtyour in trick to take down a good man laweven the dean of yale school, not exactly a conservative, who is said is an imminent lawyer and a minute judge and someone eminently qualified for the united states supreme court. that is corey stewart challenging senator kaine for the virginia senate seat. you can find that full debate on our website at c-span.org. the texas senate debate you can

see with beto o'rourke will be at 7:00 tonight. watch that on c-span and you can watch at c-span.org and our radio app as well. that will be 7:00 tonight as part of our coverage. for events in houston texas who support judge kavanaugh, you are next. hello. caller: this is alvin. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: ok. i am for judge kavanaugh. i am a democrat. aneally think there is understood -- misunderstanding. this woman should've come out earlier. men better start standing up for their rights. thank you. host: for someone who is not sure, jenny is in michigan. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, america.

i have three points, if i may. the reason why i am withholding my judgment. why theunderstand hearing is only going to be between the accuser and the accused. i think there are witnesses that should possibly be subpoenaed. i always thought that was the way the system worked. rushcond point is with the to hopefully see to this guy -- seat this guy by the first of october when we only had 8 supreme court justices for over a year before gorsuch was nominated and put into his position. thirdly, because i am a fiscal conservative, i don't understand

why the republican senators are -- because i assume this will be with taxpayer dollars, why are they going to hire someone to ask their questions? we are paying them to do that job. host: that was a topping point that came up, there is no indication of outside counsel for dissipating as far as we know. it just so you know. >> i thought yesterday i had heard they were definitely -- i just don't agree with them doing that if that is what they are leaning toward. i think they should sit there and have the back and forth with the questions themselves, especially because a couple of them aren't going to be senators after this next election. host: that is jenny in michigan. jim is in florida.

jim joins us from there. caller: i don't understand this. we are going back 36 years from some girl who may be a drunk, i don't know. i don't like this whole thing for the country. every other president -- 25 years ago we had five women that have come forward today and say what he did to them. one said she got raped by this man. trump got to be our president. host: what do you think about the actions of the judiciary committee? how do you think they are performing? particularly republicans? caller: republicans are trying to be gentlemen. this is a disgrace to the country. women included. women should be outraged what is going on here. it just happened to me what is happening to this man. the girl won't go to the police. i wish she would because then i

can sue her. just because somebody doesn't like somebody. this is about trump. host: that is jim in florida. he mentioned cory booker. a story when it comes to connection with what has been going on over the last week. thec stanley becker in washington post, the headline, cory booker admitted to groping a high school classmate and issued a call for sexual respect . when he was in high school, cory booker groped his classmate, whened for her breast and she swatted his hand, he made another attempt. the incident resurfaced as the senator joined calls for an fbi investigation into the accusations of the high school era sexual assault, leveled by christine blasey ford against brett kavanaugh. the senator himself chose years

ago to air the issue, marking a notable contrast with instances of which accusations of impropriety burst forth as a result of media investigation or opposition research. wrote in a992 booker column for his college newspaper in which he recounted the groping and used his behavior to underscore how his views shifted on gender and sexual respect and credited his work as a pure peerelor with his -- counselor with his transformation. about him and others calling for an fbi investigation in the washington post. one of those people on capitol hill again calling for the fbi to look into this matter. the new york democratic senator kierstin gillibrand asking why the judge himself, judge kavanaugh, had not called for an investigation to clear his name. [video clip] >> i believe her because she is telling the truth.

she is asking the fbi to investigate her claim. she is asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. someone who is lying does not ask the fbi to investigate their claims. who is not asking the fbi to investigate these claims? the white house. dr. kavanaugh -- excuse me, judge kavanaugh has not asked to have the fbi review these claims. is that the reaction of an innocent person? it is not. we have to get to the bottom of this as americans before we put someone on the supreme court for life. my senateconcerned colleagues on the republican side of the aisle -- those on the judiciary committee are unwilling to get to the bottom of this, don't want the facts, even the anita hill hearings had an investigation -- an fbi

-- even inon to the the anita hill case, she had 22 witnesses. those things are not being afforded dr. blasey ford. they are the basics and this is not something that is debatable or negotiable or we only do it sometimes. a background check is required for all judicial nominees, especially the supreme court. they cannot complete that investigation if they don't investigate these claims. we have an incomplete background investigation by the fbi. she is not asking for extraordinary measures. she is asking for basic fairness. this is about basic fairness. i do hope the american people -- i hope every woman in america is calling -- paying very close attention to what is happening in this body, in the u.s. senate today. how dare them not even afford the basic courtesies afforded then.

host: the judiciary committee twitter feed highlights the work they have done on this and backgrounds since the allegations came forward. within hours of learning dr. ford's identity, it was chairman grassley who took swift action making contact with the alleged witness. democrats sat on dr. ford's allocations for months and did nothing and they still haven't turned over the original letter they received from dr. ford. why would democrats sit on the allegations and the not participate in the investigation? it was on monday the staff -- the client to participate and judiciary twitter feed goes on to say staff contacted mark judge. the staff contacted third person and obtained a statement under

penalty of fennel -- felony. it goes on from there. that is some of what is going on as far as defense, both the sides and what they are bringing in on politics, especially capitol hill. you can follow that on the senate judiciary twitter feed. agee in michigan, not sure. go ahead. caller: i believe every single caller should be calling in on the not shoreline. this point should be sure. this is such a joke and a circus, i cannot believe it. host: if that is the case, if no one should be sure, how should we proceed or how should this proceed? caller: we need an investigation that is the only way. every single person in this thatry should be alarmed

people are already saying one person is guilty and the other person is innocent. that is not how it is supposed to work in this country. it is scary as hell to me. host: here is david from georgia, a supporter of judge kavanaugh. hello. caller: i listened to your last caller after laughing at senator gillibrand and she makes a good point, we should all be not sure. i did call on the support kavanaugh line. it is ridiculous. senator feinstein needs to be brought up on some ethics charges. this is clearly unethical. it is a dirty trick. they are destroying this man's life and family's life and they don't care. they don't care about this professor, they just want to create their identity politics. it is another dirty trick all

about identity politics. host: how should republicans on the committee go forward? caller: they should go forward and they have given her many chances. on monday, they should call a vote and give her one more chance. you say you are going to talk to us next week, give us a day. it is their committee. it is their job to do. it is not her to mandate the circumstances around it. if she has made an accusation, let's hear her accusation. senator gillibrand hasn't sit down and talked with her, how can she say she believes her? host: nancy in minnesota, a supporter of professor ford. hello. caller: yes, i thank you for that word, support, because that is what i am. i am supported of her. not prejudging that kavanaugh is guilty. that is not, to me, the issue.

that i thought i lived in america, where we have a right to be heard. . think that is very important that the waycerned that this has been done is not professorpport of ford. there are women's issues. host: ok. richard in california, also a supporter of professor ford. go ahead. caller: i just read her letter and this sounds exactly what what would happen at a high school party and i think mr.

kavanaugh may be deeply embarrassed. he may remember -- he may remember all the details, but at this point, he cannot man up to caught -- unless he wants to let go of his , i don't believe he became a serial greatest. he and his -- became a serial rapist. he and his friend may have learned from that experience. it was high school, that is what men do, they learn from mistakes. host: if it did come out to be true. i am not saying it is. if it did come out to be true, should the judge be refused the supreme court because of that? yeah.day's world,

just go to the next person on the list. yeah. host: and the previous caller made -- distinct it she was supportive of the professor, but i don't know if she 100% believed that story or to the extent she believed the story. is that where you fall or do you believe her story wholeheartedly? caller: it makes perfect sense and the professor -- professor ford's reaction after all of this seems consistent with somebody who is just trying to provide senator feinstein with information. i am a republican. listen, i am totally a republican. i believe there are a ton of witchhunts. this seems like something that happened in high school and she

doesn't seem -- the professor doesn't really seem to have an ax to grind, she wanted to provide information confidentially because maybe there were other victims. she wanted feinstein to look into it to see if other women had come forward, but maybe judge kavanaugh and his friends learned the hard way, as boys have to do. host: what do you think about the continued support from republicans for the judge? caller: i support the judge. i wish, in today's world, the judge could come out and say, yeah, i remember that. than dr.r more details ford and i will tell you exactly what happened, but i was embarrassed by that. i am glad she got away. you cannot do that in today's world.

host: that is richard in california giving his thoughts. other news to share with you. not all of it, but at least some headlines prayed from the wall street journal, saying the white house said it rescinded a classified obama era memorandum dictating when the u.s. government can deploy cyber weaponry against adversaries, publicly acknowledging the move for the first time. john bolton confirmed during a press, -- briefing that the new rules had been replaced by guidance with -- mr. bolden provides -- did not provide specifics about the new set of rules, which remain classified, but described them as "very different from the obama era guidance." the new directive is titled national security presidential memorandum 13 according to people familiar with the issue

and in the washington times, en saying it was abc reporting investigators for robert mueller's team have asked about interactions between the president and russia, including business transactions and whether president trump ever discussed a n whon for mr. coher pleaded guilty last month. robert in florida, who is not sure. you are next up. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you today? host: i am well, thank you. go ahead. caller: judging from a situation aat happened a quarter century ago, high school kids at a party without the hall and probably drugs that many of us out the hall and

probably drugs, many of us can relate to that. it seems both of these people seem to lead successful lives and have gone on for their lives and if it was a learning experience, so much the better. she should begin at her time and he should be given a chance to respond. i don't see it as a major issue. i feel against violence -- i feel against -- i feel violence against woman is a big issue and we are making an issue about the vast majority of people in high school have somehow or another been involved in these types of parties. host: james in texas, a supporter of professor ford. go ahead. caller: i am not 100% convinced. i tend to give her the benefit of the doubt. i am a marriage counselor professionally trained and i have heard this story so many times. the vast majority, it seems victims do not come forward until it is brought back to

their base and the trauma the rest ofgoes on their lives. 35 years doesn't make a difference. i am not as passionate as gillibrand, but i want to know the truth. the only way to know the truth is to send professional investigators from the fbi and go back and do this. they do it all the time and if the republicans who support judge kavanaugh are afraid of an investigation, that tells you they are playing a political game and not paying attention. the last thing i want to say is she has no reason to subject herself from having to hide her children from death threats. she tried to remain an ominous -- anonymous. i hear people talking about what it has done to judge kavanaugh's

life, but look what it has done to her life. why would she subject herself if she did not have a reason to do it? host: james in fort worth, texas. next up is the wii south carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning. next up is louise in south carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning. they have grilled judge kavanaugh in every way possible. this situation is just like all of the other well orchestrated trump. on president they have done it the last not hisnd if it was choice -- you would not have any of this. all of this investigating things, you need to look back

andtake your piece of paper all of these things that have back.ug up and look have gotten a big payoff to come up for something. i am not referring to this lady. host: the last caller mentioned the death threats against professor ford. fox news highlighting several -- similar threats against brett kavanaugh and his wife also are receiving these death threats. this is part of the fox news had lied about this story. ofphen in indiana, supporter faster forward. go ahead. caller: i will tell you what. already perjured about four or five times in this lady is telling the absolute truth. you people who listen to fox news, you better listen to something else because fox news

crappylyingest bunch of people i have ever seen. host: what leads you to believe she is telling the truth? caller: what does she have to not? she did not want to be out there and they forced her to come out and say because of the news and she has no reason not to tell the truth. host: one more call, chris in montana. a supporter of judge kavanaugh. hi. caller: hi, pedro. the last caller, it's a shame he even got out on the air. i think -- first of all, she wanted to remain anonymous. i think what happened -- i believe she is being used. i don't think she wanted to talk

about it, but it got away from her and i think the democrats have taken it to a point where now she is cornered. she doesn't want to talk about it or she would have committed herself to talk about it. was just another ploy by the democrats to try to stop this confirmation of brett kavanaugh. host: i will put the question i asked last caller. why do you believe judge kavanaugh? caller: why not? host: meaning what? caller: why believe her? why believe judge kavanaugh? nobody knows and they are not going to find out. judge kavanaugh has a witness who was there and said nothing happened. it does she have one? host: do you think that witness should be called up as well to testify? do you think mark judge should be called up to testify as well? caller: sure.

mhm. absolutely. i think it should be a public hearing. host: ok. that is chris in montana, the last call for this topic. we will continue on kavanaugh nomination with a need up ride who served andy george w. bush white house to talk about the nomination and the latest. later on in the program, the trump administration wants to limit the cap in 2019. we will speak with adam bates about that. when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> american history tv is in

prime time this week on c-span3. america, theeel world war ii film series about why we fight and the rise of authoritarianism in germany, italy, and japan. watch american history tv this week in primetime on c-span3. weekend, on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on america -- real america to witnessrivileged tonight a significant achievement in the cause of peace. and achievement none thought possible a year ago. or even a month ago. and achievement that reflects the courage and wisdom of these two leaders. "framework form

peace." and a look at on the 1998 bombings of the u.s. embassies. >> we were meeting with the minister of commerce. we heard an explosion. most of us went to the window. a freight later, of highunding impact energy hit all of us. 213 people were instantly killed. were employees of the united states government. of american history tv. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, anita

mcbride who served on the bush administration. she also served as chief of staff to first lady laura bush. good morning. could you tell the audience how you know brett kavanaugh? guest: sure. although i served as first lady laura bush is a staff, i was with the george w. bush the entire eight years. the first year and a half in management and administration, transitions are always very difficult. they take a lot of time. there are a lot of late hours. -- getting the systems in place the weight that you want them to be and brett kavanaugh was the associate counsel in the counsel's office and was the attorney assigned to management and administration and i was white house personnel. we worked very closely on setting up the systems in place. , very,always responsive

even in the long hours and difficulty of a first year of a transition and particularly that first year, after a disputed election. we had a lot of catching up to do because we had lost so many weeks in the transition. brett was a go to person for me to help me reestablish some administratibive processes. host: what do you think about the charges laid against him by professor ford? was deeply course disturbed and i would be disturbed for any woman who faced this paradigm not suggesting this did not happen to her, but i am suggesting this is not the brett kavanaugh that any of us know. i think that we have seen that with people from his childhood, from early school years, and from his professional life and his life as a judge and as a teacher that have attested to that personally. i think we were all shellshocked

. i know brett and his family are two. host: nothing from the interactions then and the white house with women that would cause you to question or at least professor ford's allegations? guest: absolutely not. the opposite. i spent a lot of time working with him but also a sack -- as staff secretary. our seats were next to each other on air force one. you get to know a person on long flights like that. busy, whenys very you are the gatekeeper to the documents going in and out of the president's office or in front of him, he never really had a relaxing time to sit on those trips. he was always busy and he was working. our interaction was there were a few of us catholics on the staff that in foreign countries we would find catholic church to go to four masked. that is my frame of reference of the judge. host: how do you think about the

preceding set have been going on, the back and forth between the two parties on how this is laid out and the performance of the senate judiciary committee? guest: this is a big test for all of our institutions. they are under duress right now. it really does require very cool heads to prevail and give the trust back to the american people. fair, open,s are honest, and transparent. i can see where all the tensions and sensitivities are on all sides. that we can -- and i think we are getting there in some of the requests that have been made by dr. ford, which i think are fair. for brettr her kavanaugh to testify first is probably the one that is not as fair. in what system in our legal or wroteal or -- to just

process to someone testify on behalf of themselves first before hearing what the allegations are? host: this is our guest anita mcbride and if you want to ask her questions we have kept the lines from the last segment. if you support brett kavanaugh, it is (202) 748-8000 if you support professor ford, (202) 748-8001 and if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. is it out of the ordinary to have so many days in preparation, and can you describe what goes on? guest: that is a great question. i have had -- even though i worked in the george w. bush administration, i worked all and iears of bush 41 worked six years of the reagan administration. so all the way back to antony nomination. i remember one of the controversies about that and his nomination, not so much as

background, but the fact that he was italian and how italian-americans had to mobilize in the country that we need to move forward from this perception of who we are as a nationality and ethnicity. clarence thomas is nomination of course, that was -- we all know that. it has been playing out this week. george h w bush did make the request for the fbi to reinvestigate that allegation and it took a number of days and then the nomination process got back on track. of course, to supreme court nominations during george w. bush, justice roberts and then harriet miers was nominated and that had to be pulled back. i remember watching the alito hearings in my office and seeing the alito cry -- seeing martha alito crying and then mrs. bush

calling her and saying this will be ok. this is politics. this is what people who go into public service have to put themselves through. i hope that it doesn't keep people from being willing to serve their government. when you hit a crisis in a nomination, of course it is important for all hands to be on deck. everybody needs to be in the room together. it is a war room situation. but, the one thing that has been absolutely consistent, both from the white house and that dr. ford should be heard. the other point is that brett kavanaugh has said i want to uphold my integrity. twitter available to you if you want to ask our guest questions. you can do that by reaching out on our twitter feed @cspanwj. if you202) 748-8000 support judge kavanaugh, (202) 748-8001 if you support

professor ford and if you're not sure, (202) 748-8002. again, our guest is anita take yourd it here to questions. walter, in indiana, it a supporter of professor ford p you are on. caller: i definitely support ms. forde. mr. kavanagh that did it because after 35 years with a therapist talking, and then she remembered his name when they told her she was going to go for the supreme court, this is a wonderful new world we live in. all you have to do is make an , it is the no proof same playbook from the left. i hope i get the same kind of dignity and support for men when men say something like that and it has to be supported. obviously, i am being facetious. it's a show from the left.

it's a last ditch effort. host: does to clarify come you don't support professor ford? caller: no, it's preposterous. host: well then you're calling in on the wrong line but i will ask you the question. what goes on from here, how does it affect future nominations? guest: absolutely. i think it goes back to the point i made earlier. we are at an inflection point where americans don't trust their institutions and the system that are set up to protect them. that is the incredible responsibility that i think the senate has and anybody involved on this on both sides to get that back on track. that someone who has faced a trauma like this, that dr. ford says she has, should be in a place where she can get her a fair hearing about this, but also that someone who has now

been publicly, through 36 hours certainly canony, question his knowledge, his expansive knowledge of history and the law and the constitution . he has passed that test. now, i think brett kavanaugh what a great this is the biggest test of all, the question is character and his integrity. he deserves a fair hearing on that too. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio here at mary, from cleveland. you support professor ford? caller: yes i do pay it i want to thank you for your program there it, because individuals are heard, even if they have , and there isons no over talk on the person who is speaking. , roger cant to say off gives me much hope and how he would allow this process with

dr. ford to ensue. it has good psychological airing -- psychological bearing. then i would've have to hope president trump would reconsider -- and invited the fbi or it i would truly trust the ongoing with dr. ford or professor ford. lastly, this event, if not handled properly, will haunt cavanaugh to the end of time and it will leave a terrible unrest among the american people if professor ford is not given a wholesome process. host: mary, thank you. guest: i agree with her. the first point, that is why i like to come on the showpiece give people an opportunity to share what they know that the viewers and you get to hear from both sides in a

civil war -- in a civil way. and there's not enough of that right now. we have reached an instability across the board and i think people like myself who have worked in the united states government for almost two and a half decades want to see that restored. host: have you had a chance to talk with judge kavanaugh about that? guest: i have to and with ashley as well. of course, i know them both well . actually was president bush's secretary. she came with him from texas. they are strong people. they knew it was going to be hard. not quite as this hard, but they are going to be fine, because they are strong, decent people. host: how would you characterize their demeanor during this? home, strong,ll resolute, and amazingly, the one

thing i always remembered about ett, and the stresses of the white house and those were eight stressful years, still maintaining a calm demeanor with a bit of humor, which always helps your particularly when you have two little girls as well p i understand, this is happening to dr. ford's family. i know that family peripherally as well. washington is a small community. washington is a great place to live, until it's not. not is one time where it's here at it is being stressed and it's being tested. host: have you heard from the bloody family? -- blasey family. host: guest: i have not. host: any indication that he is interested in giving up? guest: absolutely not. i think both of them are not going to give up its certainly not under conditions like this.

host: let's go to auburn, alabama a supporter of judge kavanaugh. joe. quick, i sat here and i watched this from the start, when he went in front of congress, they questioned him for hours and hours. they left made a circus out of that, and then she comes up with dianne feinstein, and that's been all over the new spirit she took six weeks to get it out there. that was suspicious. with, ielieve to start really believe this junk going on now, this is sickening to our country. they let her get up there in front of congress, let her explain what happened, and let -- that's what we elect these people for. this lady in the left keeps

putting it off and off. the head of congress, he'll come out, he says all right fine, will move to go. host: all right, thanks. guest: well, i think there are questions about the timing of when this all came forward, and therek that certainly were some sensitivities around protecting her identity, to which she is entitled to. i'm sure dr. ford -- who wants to put themselves through this? and i do think the senate the congresswoman who received the letter at first really need to examine that whole process on how that was handled. particularly, if senator feinstein had had the letter already, even before she met and had her one on ones with judge

some of justw did not come up, even protecting the identity of the accuser? again, it does stresses our trust in the institutions and we all have to ask ourselves, what if the shoe was on the other foot? what if we were either one of these people, dr. ford or brett kavanaugh? how would we want to be treated by the institutions that we elect to serve us? institutions that we pay for just to know it has been treated fairly and with dignity p i'm not so sure that's happening right now. host: texas, rachel who is not sure. caller: yes. you know, they are always talking about they was teenagers, they was drinking, it doesn't matter. you either have it in you or you don't. people don't do things like that just because they're drinking. another thing, all these other

women who came forward like with clinton, and roy moore, and trump, why would these women come out and say something -- they went after these women instead of going after the person that did it and they say well, i met this man, he doesn't seem to be that way. act --ld predators don't or not going to let you know they are. a lot of people are focusing on this judge because he's going to ok.rse roe v. wade, abortion and 73, we had supreme court justice rule on this and people need to find out how many republican judges and how many democrats pushed this bill through. host: ok, caller we will stop it there. well, one of the interesting things that your call established, talking about

teenagers. and underage drinking and of course, anybody who is a parent worries about that. i think one of the things that i have seen happen over this last week is attacking the schools that kids in this area have gone to. school, whichh's is a 227-year-old institution, catholic institution. , preparedall accounts him for a life of service and intos also being called question on what kind of boys does it produce? i really hope people can take a step back from that and not demonize boys who choose to go to an all boys school. or girls that choose to go to an all girls school. host: you talked about this being a big test. what do you think were the lessons learned from what he was

on the nominations play out for other people? guest: how hard it can be and knowing you have to be prepared for things to come from left and right and center field and that you have to stay firm in what you know about yourself. obviously, the knowledge for him as a supreme court nominee, the knowledge of the law and the knowledge of who he knows he is as a person. he is standing ready to defend that. i think that is important. that is a lesson to learn. you cannot -- as we remember with 9/11 with george w. bush is famous words we cannot fault her cannot waiver, cannot fail. host: with these new round of preparations, who are the key players, what is in fault and what is the context of what goes on daily? guest: for any supreme court nominee, there will be a team managed by the white house counsel's office. in this case, it is managed by

the counsel to the president, don mcgann. i'm sure there are communicators in that strategy session. as there were in other supreme court nominations during the bush administration and other administrations. it is managed by the counsel's office. it is a team of lawyers who know the process. also, it would be people from the legislative affairs team, because they have to manage their relationship and what they are hearing. the vote counting and vote to getting on the hill. obviously, there would be direct contact with the senate judiciary committee and both .ides, ranking and chair obviously with the leader's office. host: particularly, when it comes to the sessions themselves will summon a pose as democrats questioning and the questions that might come? guest: all of that would have happened during the murder board period and preparation for the

hearings. of which, he showed amazing composure, and composer based on the fact of having deep rooted knowledge in the law. i think -- i knew brett kavanaugh was smart, even i was blown away after all these years of how wickedly smart and the expansive knowledge of constitutional history and law. host: but in this new round, you would suspect that the proposing of democrats to the story? guest: absolutely. absolutely i would imagine this process now. they're not going to reopen his knowledge of the law, i don't imagine. host: from wisconsin, bob is next who supports judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. i would like to know when america lost innocent until proven guilty. it's a very sad commentary for our people. why is it this lady has just

come out now? why not under bush, when he served under bush at the very first time he took office? i find this very disturbing by the democrats. can you get someone to ask these questions, why is she coming out now? thank you. guest: well, i think two points that i would like to make to your questions. all ofthink when has this started to happen and deteriorate? i personally think we have been chipping away at the study of our civic education and our democracy for years. age, studentsung are not learning about our institutions of government and how they operate and how they affect them. i think we have got to get back on track in that. because now, when there is something like this, like a nomination. a democratic president or

republican president that nominates them, the other side goes nuclear without really understanding the full process and due process as this caller said. we have lost a bit of civility again because we don't understand fully and we are questioning our own institutions. other point, i think as to why this did not come earlier when judge kavanaugh was ininated for his judgeship the middle to thousands, but even prior to that, to get a background investigation done when he came to work at the white house. the fbi questions are very probing. it raises questions about these types of things. i don't know why it didn't come out. certainly, i remember going through investigations myself it all of your neighbors come all of your friends, your teachers, people are asked questions about

you from when you were a young person. didn'ton't know why this come out. of course, we are living in a different environment now, where the me too movement has made it more possible for people to share their stories and feel that they have some protection in doing so. guest: supporter of professor ford from norfolk, virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to first thank you for your needed responses, because if this democracy experience is going to get any better, i think people like you have to have restraint instead of buying in to the aching in of one side or the other. about wanted to say, how the idea that both of these individuals can be credible and have high levels of integrity? the problem that i see is that

unfortunately, as one of the other colors who was a family counselor, he hit dead on. it would be nice if this was the environment where judge kavanaugh, if these allegations are true could say that look, i was 15, i was 16, and i apologize. or, if he could have given her a phone call and said look, i see that you came out, and i do remember what happened, and i sincerely apologize. i would hope that you could let this go. that really should be the environment by which human beings live. but, no matter how great judge kavanaugh is or people say he is, one think that every caller cannot deny, not of us are perfect. host: ok, caller thanks. guest: you're very right. none of us are perfect. and our nation is not perfect either.

right, we are constantly striving to be better. we need to feel confident about that as a people and as a nation. to your other point, why wouldn't he say, you were 15, i was 17, we made a mistake? i think what he wouldn't do that is because he categorically says it was not him. be the only reasonable answer that i could give you on that here it he says it is not him. host: one more call from north carolina. lynn, a supporter of judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. well, all the last two colors have really took my question out of my mouth, because i would like to see cooler heads. because, sometimes women do lie, sometimes men do lie.

but, everybody is so mean to each other anymore. really,st getting really difficult. can you imagine what our children will grow up to? they do not teach in school anything about how things works anymore. .t's just so mean, viral next thing you know, they will be hanging people out in the street like they did back in the old days for absolutely no proof. you don't like him, will just hang them. host: ok, thanks. guest: here's what i was thinking of when you are making your comments. this is part of what happens in a highly technological social media world. people do get to say mean things and awful things in an anonymous way. they vent all of their ugly frustrations and it's not very productive. but, that is a blessing and a

curse of social media, right? you get to participate in the canes of the day, but you be protected by saying things that are really ugly and unfair or it i agree, i worry about our kids. if this is the frame of reference they have, on how we treat people are it i like to live by the golden rule. treat others the way you want to be treated. i think that should inform the weight rerun our government. , who workedmcbride in the george w. bush white house and other administrations and who knows brett kavanaugh, thanks for your time. host: thank you for your time. host: coming up, we will talk with the international refugee assistance project adam bates. this is reducing the refugee cap and what it means for those wanting to come to the country. later one in the program, michael beckel on dark money

spending and campaigns. those coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> this weekend, on american history tv on c-span3, on (202) we are privileged to witness tonight a significant achievement in the cause of peace. non-thoughtent possible a year ago. or even a month ago. and achievement that reflects the courage, and wisdom of these two leaders. "framework form peace" on the cam david peace accords. look back on the 1998 bombings

of the u.s. embassy. and tanzania.nya >> we were meeting with the minister of commerce per we heard an explosion. most of us went to the windows. 10 seconds later, a freight impact of high energy hit all of us. killedple were instantly , 48 of whom were employees of the united states government. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> sunday night on q&a, chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book "mr. trump's wild work ride." >> i think it transcends party.

i describe donald trump as proto-partisan. emotional dynamo that he spends within people. he does it intentionally. sometimes he doesn't even know he's doing it, but it happens. it is influencing every aspect of american life. culture, economics, politics, , then ways you've detected way journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. with this is adam bates the international refugee assistance project. he is here to talk about a proposal by the administration when it comes to the refugee cap. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you tell us about your project? guest: the international refugee

assistance project was founded in 2008 as a project of five-year-old law students. -- five yell law students. they were serving as legal -- providing legal services to iraqi refugees. over the past 10 years, the mission statement has broadened to refugees from all walks of life, from anywhere in the world. we provide directly services to refugees and litigate on behalf of refugees and we have a lot of law student chapters and pro bono law firms who help us with our work. host: one of the topics that came up earlier this week was the idea of the united states when it comes to a refugee cap. can your display what that is? guest: the basic model for our inugee program was begun 1980 with the refugee act. under that act, each the school year, the president makes a presidential determination, how manythe cap on

total refugees will be admitted to the united states for that fiscal year. over the past 38 years, that average has been somewhere around 95,000. when president trump took office, his first presidential determination for last year was 45,000, which was the lowest determination and the history of the program. this new announcement is a cap for fiscal year 2019 of 30,000, which is obviously a one third reduction from the lowest cap in the history of the program. host: we have secretary of state pompeo talking about why he did it, but before, what goes in to determining the number? produced by the department of state, department of homeland security, health and what is in the national interest and what they think is in the strategic interest. this is really an executive process. the president is obligated to consult with congress about this. but it is really up to the

prerogative of the administration to determine how and why they set the number where they do. host: 30,000 is the proposed number for fy 2019. here is mike pompeo describing the justification of that number. >> the total assistance worldwide was more than $8 billion in fy 2017, more than any other country. refugeer's proposed ceiling must be considered in the context of the many other forms of protection and assistance offered by the united states. moreover, the refugee ceiling number should not be reviewed in the expanse of he military programs. some will characterize the ceiling as the so barometer of america's commitment to vulnerable people around the world. this would be wrong. host: adam bates, what do you get as far as justification? guest: it sounds like the administration wants to turn the discussion away from the refugee question and more to other programs that are designed, at

least ostensibly to help people around the world. it is important to note those programs have always existed. the refugee problem -- the refugee program has always been part of a broader strategy to help honorable people around the world. even in that context, we still have the history of the refugee program that we should be assessing this against, not just the other things we are doing, but the refugee program in the context of the history of the refugee program. that is where this is simply a historic low. host: it sounds like he is casting this in economic terms as far as what the u.s. does spend in terms of helping refugees and those seeking asylum in the u.s.? guest: sure. one of the arguments from the administration is that refugees are a fiscal burden to the united states. that conception was rebutted by an economic study that was commissioned by the trump administration and done by the trumpet ministration that found that the refugee program had

netted the united states economy about $63 billion over the last 10 years. the economic argument really doesn't work. even compare to the administration's own findings. with so this is adam bates the international assistance project about the proposed refugee cap. if you want to ask them questions, it's (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans, (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. (202)'re a refugee, it is 748-8003 and you can also reach out to us at twitter. what is the process of negotiation from this cap announced by the administration to what has to go on with legislators on capitol hill? guest: at the end of the day, the administration is required to consult with congress. congress does not have the veto power, the consent such as for

supreme court nominations or things like that. and, we have heard him senator grassley and represented of thete, the chairs committee over this week that they feel the trumpet ministration not consulted with them at all. there has been strong language about the administration not meeting its statutory mandate. whatever the historical negotiation process is, it appears that at least as of pompeo's of pales -- announcement. host: how are they vetted and how does it affect the number of people that ultimately make it into the united states? guest: it is important for people to understand. the program has operated quietly for many years. areas taken for granted republicans and democrats that the refugee program was beneficial to the united states in our strategic and monetary and interest. not a lot of people know how the program works. for the typical refugee, they

are first vetted by the united nations, the high commission for refugees, and after all of that setting takes place, they are referred by the u.n. to the united states. once the referral happens, it triggers all of the security and health checks for the united states. it is actually a long and laborious process. they are extensively that it. they're the most vetted travelers to the united states out of any category of foreign traveler to the u.s. guest: and for sensitive countries like syria or anything else, is there enough affecting -- enough vetting. arguments fromhe the administration, is that an elevatedresent security rest to the united states. the data simply runs the other way. the cato institute ran a study chancear that found the of being killed by a refugee

terrorist in the united states is about one in 3.6 billion para just for context, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice then you have a being killed by a refugee terrorist or it is obvious that the setting works. what we see is that the vetting process, which was completely successful, is taking much longer it in the cases of many middle eastern countries, like syria, the process has simply ground to a halt. since january 1, and calendar admitted 20e have refugees. there are about 6 million syrian refugees and 27 have been admitted. host: and the web side, you want to check out their work. counseles serves as the for the project. the first call is from the independent line.

this is from ohio, dave you are on. caller: top of the morning to you. i am one statement and one question. york thattue in new on the base of it it says give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free tempest lost to me. i lift my lamp beside my golden door. i think that mr. trump should make an executive order to dismantle the statue of liberty, and sanded to canada. my question is, we are living in a time when it is abnormal amount of refugees out there because of wars and famine and that. why is it that the united states cuts back on their refugees? it doesn't make any sense. host: ok, caller. guest: i agree. i agree it is difficult to make sense of what is going on right now. on the poem appeal

on the statue of liberty is valid. this is a country from its inception that was founded as a refuge for people fleeing wars and disasters and other parts of the world. rather than dismantling the statue of liberty, and sending it to canada, which they have done a good job with refugees. i think we need to have a serious conversation about the refugee program. it is generally supported by the public. something like 57% of americans still believe that we should accept syrian refugees. by comparison's sake is much higher than the number of people who thought we should accept jewish refugees during the holocaust. the public support is there. but what we have is an administration that is openly antagonistic toward immigration, legal and illegal to the united states. if you are looking for explanations for what has happened, it is really just the administration and its own

has really that started to dismantle the refugee program. the popular support is still there. host: republican line from maryland, michael is next. caller: hi, how is it going? i wanted to say something about this too. question, comment. the people come here from the third world, trying to escape poverty, what they need to do is fight in their country for the freedoms that our ancestors fought here. hereoing to -- they come and they get half of what we get. they get all the same rights that we have, but our ancestors are the ones who fought for those rights. not these people who came here. i think it is quite unfair to have the speed become here and treat them just like everybody else here. the ancestors of the descendents of the people who fought for this system. host: thanks, caller. guest: a couple points.

one is 70 who simply is having a hard time economically cannot become a refugee to the united states per day in order to be a refugee, you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution or have been persecuted in your country. harde that are having a time economically are not coming to the u.s. as refugees. broader, philosophical question, i would say america was founded by people who fled europe. that is who came to the united states in the first place. that is where our ancestors came from. when they founded this country, they wrote in the declaration of independence that all men are created equal, our rights come from nature, from nature's creator, they do not come from the government. the response to that would be, these rights are universal. there are universal human rights and it is not for us to cut off the only lifeline that people have when they are in a desperate situation. it doesn't make sense from a humanitarian perspective, from an economic perspective or a

strategic effect appeared. host: when it comes to other has anic, mike pompeo op-ed today. he says we are putting a new focus on increasing assistance to refugees as coast to their home countries as possible we can house, feed, provide medical care for refugees closer to their homes and do so more rapidly than in the u.s.. for one some of the goals are not mutually exclusive. aid, we do not receive the benefits of refugees who are housed in other countries. those benefits i talked about, the $60 billion that refugees have netted the u.s. economy doesn't happen if they are not here. i would also point out we have a program called the special immigrant is a program that exist to provide visas for

afghans and iraqis who served with u.s. forces as interpreters. over the last year, admissions 90%.hose have dropped those are people who are still in their country and they can't be helped in their country. they need a safe third country to go to and the administration has made it clear that those people are not welcome here. host: tacoma, washington, independent line. i have a couple of questions and i want to run past. how these programs are affected. i have heard that in the college system, colleges make an incredible amount of money off of foreign students. that is one question. why would that be that way in this country? the two programs, medicare and social security,

that americans have worked for 40 years to pay into, is that going to be affected by all of these added people coming into this country? programs andthose you are bringing in some many people? i think you have a lot of immigrants already here and i think that program needs to be tightened down, especially the craziness that is going on out otherin the way of factions that want to come into this country and take it down. host: thank you. guest: so, in terms of college, from my understanding some states have initiatives that allow people to get in-state tuition and things of that nature. in terms of colleges making money off of people, i think that is generally true of students at those universities across the board. in terms of the economic

argument for refugees, i would first say we are not bringing in so many people from other countries we are at historic lows, especially in terms of the refugee program. i would cite back to the study that the data we have suggests that the refugee program is a net gain or for the u.s. economy. the people who come into this country who are young, who work, who pay taxes, they actually help support programs like social security that may not be solvent on their own but are receiving a boost from having young workers come into the united states. host: when it comes sent to monetary support from the united states, what is a refugee debt or entitled to once they make it to the united states? are given initial assistance for about eight months from the office of refugee resettlement, through the department of health and human services. a receive eight months or can receive eight months of support. after that, if they still require it, they can transition like temporary

assistance for needy families and things like that. expensive, i think their budget over the last 10 years was somewhere around 600 $2 billion. the variation is on how many icon being -- unaccompanied children. they are generally not coming in as refugees. that is more of a problem at the border. it is between $600 million and $2 billion per year but that is not taking into account the benefits to the economy and the added tax base of the same people. host: what about health benefits ? guest: they are entitled to care andths of medical then depending on income level, they can transition over into federal programs. host: from alaska, independent line, matthew for our guest adam bates. ifler: just a question,

30,000 refugees is not the correct number or decreased, what is the correct number and why? thank you. host: guest: it's a good question. the historical average for the presidential determination is about 95,000. historically, by and large, administrations have come close to that cap. there are basically two craters in the history of the refugee in missions. one was 9/11. were admitted,000 with the cap state where it was. this year, fiscal year 18 that is just ending, there will be about 21,000 refugees admitted of the 45,000 cap. less than half the cap, but less than even what was admitted after 9/11. the other big crater in our refugee program is the trump administration. 100,000 would be a good place to

start. historically as the average. the united states can plainly accommodate that many people and has in the past. limits, we areer trying to keep the program viable. so much -- when the cap is drastically reduced, resettlement agencies lose money, they lose jobs and it becomes more and more difficult to process even the small number of refugees that we take. at this point, getting back to the historical average would involve a three-time increase in the program. host: in canada earlier, we have two questions on twitter. jim is asking what canada's number of illegal immigrants is asking if they required documentation to legally enter the country? guest: i'm not sure what canada's immigration numbers are like. know they have refugee programs the united states of heaven maybe should, such as private sponsorship.

canada has a pretty robust private sponsorship that allows private citizens to come together and say, we want to sponsor a refugee and provide support for that refugee. that can't happen in the united states currently. the other thing with canada, they have admitted somewhere between 40000 and 50,000 syrian refugees. that is about twice what the u.s. has admitted over the course of the syrian civil war. the number of syrians this year in the united states is 27. canada is doing a good job, but obviously they are not capable of replacing what is being lost with the united states ebbs from its response ability. the state department talked about not only the reduction cap being proposed of 30,000, but that there are 280,000 asylum-seekers to be processed, 800,000 already in

the u.s. and 1.5 billion refugees and asylum seekers. when it comes to generosity, we are still at the top? , u.s. has refugee historically admitted more than the rest of the countries combined. is important to distinguish countries like turkey, lebanon, and jordan where refugees flee to from syria. 20% of the people in lebanon are refugees right now. in terms of permanent resettlement, the u.s. typically has taken in more than the rest of the countries combined. lester was the first year that that had not happened. the rest of the world took in more refugees. i also think it is important to understand that in terms of the capacity to take an refugees them and as a percentage of economy, as a percentage of population, the u.s. is not the most generous.

of the faction of refugees as a percentage of the population. with tremendous capacity to accept people. in $19 trillion economy, but in terms of absolute numbers, historically, the u.s. has taken in more refugees than other countries. host: this is janice from florida, democrats line. caller: my question is, these organizations -- it's wonderful orgive people financial where they can get free lawyers and that and free assistance and free everything, what about the people right here at home? -- is hisffering organization offering free trials, free economics, and that other people can get? they do it for all the immigrants. they have free medical, free everything to make sure they are safe healthwise to be in our country, but what is it costing us that the taxpayers are paying

for? guest: so our organization provides legal services to refugees. care on theovide backend. we are not paying for housing, medical expenses, we are trying the veryhem navigate confusing and laborious process of becoming a refugee to the united states. we don't offer to pay for their housing for further education or things like that. the overall economic impact of refugees in the united states is positive. refugees,nity of these are people who are paying more into our system than they are taking out of it. in terms of providing these things for americans, sure there are organizations out there who do that but that is not the focus of irap. host: what are the common hurdles a refugee has to face coming to the country? guest: the typical refugee

presents themselves to the united nations and then they are trying to have their status determined as a refugee. months to years. once that happens and they are referred to the united states, they start with our vetting process per that can take years once again. there are medical checks they have to go through that are time limited, security checks that have to go through. if the security checks take too long, the medical check can expire. people can have the refugee applications denied based on mistakes by the government are based on regions -- reasons where the refugee has not told -- the reasons. we try to find out why they were denied and help them navigate the appeals process. the interpreters, they have to prove to the united states that they put in their two years of mission inh the u.s.

iraq or afghanistan. that program is rife with difficulties in terms of finding contractors to prove they worked for the united states and those people are in country, under threat or do it is important that people understand that refugees are under threat by definition, these are people whose lives are at risk. in the midst of all of this, there being asked to check all of these boxes, jump through legal hurdles, and it is a harrowing and difficult process. that is where we come in to try to help them through. host: a viewer from twitter asking about the vetting process. if people flee a failed state, how do we get records from the state persecuting them? guest: that can be very difficult. for instance, syria is a police state. police states are pre-and keeping records. the u.n. is the job of in the vetting process to if we verify their records,

who they are with extensive biometric checks and that is why the process takes so long. it is only with this administration that the process has ground to a halt for people from a whole raft of countries in the middle east. it can be very difficult to get this information, but the u.n. program has refugee been doing this for quite a while. they have gotten pretty good at figuring out who people are. host: terry, from florida on the independent line. caller: thank you. i'll get straight to the question and then a slight comment. refugees coming into directly -- are that america is directly responsible for creating that situation of them being a refugee?

how many are the refugees that come into america? our american creative with war or whatever? host: caller, thanks. caller, thanks for you caller: this is one of the arguments -- guest: u.s. interventions and a lot of countries have helped to create refugees. the iraq war and the chaos that theled over into syria, invasion of afghanistan, u.s. operations in places like somalia and yemen, the u.s. has its fingerprints in a lot of hot war zones and these wars create refugees. u.s.'sar as the government's foreign policy, we have a higher obligation to accept the people who are fleeing the conflicts.

i do believe that our humanitarian and strategic ceed -- the u.s. has fromited tremendously refugees from completely organic conflicts that had nothing to do with yours foreign policy. host: republican line, this is sonny. caller: i have a unique perspective. havea latino, and what i noticed is when the refugees come over, they all have the same story, that their lives are in danger. when they come here, they always put down six dependents so they any taxes because i know -- and then they get pregnant so they can have a kid hears of and get medicaid and housing from us. what do you have for that?

a refugeedefinition, is someone who is facing a threat of persecution or has already been a victim of persecution or war, so it should not be surprising that refugees have stories that involve them being persecuted. that is what makes them a refugee and allows them to come in to the program. refugeesir dependents, tend to be young and have families. that is just true of who refugees are free i -- are . ees data suggests that refug are an economic benefit to the united states and of a pay more than they take out. our responsibility to people fleeing goal war and persecution in the world should supersede the idea that these people are looking for handouts or things of that nature.

if a refugee is pregnant, we should look up more harshly at her persecution or her need to simply because we are concerned about the potential of our using public benefit. joining us fors, discussion on refugees and united states, thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much free will hear a, we year longer report of groups looking into "dark money" especially when it comes to spending in campaigns and elections. we will see the result of that report, next. ♪ >> saturday, two retiring , senator bobngress corker corker and the democratic congresswoman niki tsongas talk

about their experience in congress. >> it is so important for us as a nation to continue to be a begin in the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best and what we stoop to do discord, we stoop to pettiness. the entire world looks to us. >> i am deeply concerned about our president on many levels on veryy, i think he has been -- not been very helpful to long-term relationships across the globe and you can only read about that on a daily basis, long-term allies who question the support of the united states. thatggest -- he suggests the united states should go it but we need partners around the globe to achieve the goals we seek. >> join us for our conversations

saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen with the free c-span app. >> what does it mean to be american? that is this year's studentcam competition question. we are asking students to answer it by producing a short documentary and explain how it defines the american experience. we are rewarding $1000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> c-span where history unfolds daily.

in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies. continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by michael workl, a new body of taking a look at this topic of "dark money" use in campaigns. good morning. guest: good morning. host: define dark moneuy. means secretive organizations that are spending tens of millions of dollars and elections without disclosing their donors.

host: how do we get to the point where the organizations can do that without disclosure? guest: the world changed dramatically in 2010 when the supreme court issued the citizens united versus federal election ruling. are a political office our political action committee, one of the rules of the road is you have to disclose your donors so that voters can assess candidates, people might see which industries and interest groups are helping fund a candidate and that is helpful information. after citizens united, there were corporations including nonprofit corporations that were allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements that expressly calls for the election of candidates. registered those are

and these are social welfare organizations or trade associations by law that generally do not disclose their donors. people are being bombarded by ads that they do not know the providence of who is paying for them. host: organizations and dark money, what is the main take , the line thatay gets people the most? guest: there's been an explosion of dark money. more than $18 million has been spent by all of these dark money groups. our new analysis found that the top 15 organizations account for 75% of that surge of secret money and elections. we were really shocked that it was such a concentrated play. e groups that are

supporting democrats, republicans, neither side want to be left behind and we have seen a surge of opaque organizations now active in election after election, year after year at, and most of the 15 organizations are still active in the 2018 midterms. host: if you have questions for our guest about this topic, his investigation, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. you said 15 organizations, the top of the list, the u.s. chamber of commerce. how much of their interest in getting this money? guest: the chamber of commerce plays in politics in a number of different ways. they have a political action as theee and they ranked number one dark money spender since citizens united. the chamber alone has spent about $130 million on ads that

are independent of any candidate. helping gore criticizing a candidate and a report the spending to the federal election commission, and the chamber accounted for about a one dollar and every six dollars of dark money spending. dog on thise top list, and they advocate for a lot of different business interests. they were the number one spender -- the number two spender on that list at $110 million was crossroads gps, one of the biggest nonprofits that formed in the wake of citizens united. this was put together by a handful of republican operatives to support republican candidates. at the time they formed, they had a sister super pac called american crossroads and then this dark money groups and parts because donors

were telling them, they want an avenue to be involved in elections but not have their name attached. four.formed a 501(c) fou host: so the americans for prosperity -- guest: that organization is connected to the network of billionaire industrialists charles and david coke, it has emerged as a very big player in the post of citizens united worrall and has been active in the still active in a number of elections. unitedhe post citizens world and has been active and is still active in a number of elections. they fell one this list -- guest: about two thirds of the were conservative and republican leading and one third -- democratic leading meaning.

-- leaning. , thereriot majority usa were groups that exclusively supported democrats when they were spending in politics. the dangersot about of dark money and the evils of dark money, but there are operatives on both sides of the aisle who do not want to be left toind and they want fight fire with fire and they are trying to use every arrow and that includes forming dark money groups to support democratic or republican candidates and one of the main thrusts of this report is that at the federal level and state level, politicians are getting frustrated with this dark money. citizens are getting frustrated with the spending, and there are bipartisan concerns and solutions. host: you talk about the idea of the difficulty of transparency. how did you connect the dots to come up with names and figures? guest: all of the spending is

reported to the federal election commission. we analyzed the data that was , and we werehe fec able to look at this list to come up with the 15 biggest players. these 15 organizations do not disclose their donors. we have figured out that there are a number of backdoor avenues that sometimes you can find information about who is funding these groups through obscure public records. the research team at issue one look at filings with the department of labor, the internal revenue service, the fec, and a number of other records to try and figure out do we know percentages of the money coming into these groups, and over the course of a year, we cataloged every transaction that we could find.

ultimately published a searchable database online that contains about 1200 records from about 400 unique donors and the donor organizations. these donors contributed about $760 million to these 15 organizations over the last eight years or so. that only represent one in every nine dollars that these groups have raised. a dollars of every nine dollars, the public has no idea what that money is coming from. is still darky the spite our best efforts are trying to understand the sources. information, and our guest referred to it, issueone.org, this research is available in a searchable form. michael beckel is here to talk about it. our first call comes from tom on the independent line. caller: good morning. one of the most important things

for you people to illustrate is how many people get influenced by these dark money ads and fail heck it is where the coming from. for example, there is a national touting howpe ads wonderful a man brett kavanaugh is. this is for a supreme court justice, it is like he is running for president or something. the next question, common people -- how many people are too lazy to bother looking into it, whether or not they question the center that insular is being put into their elections without them or even

-- without them even knowing about it. host: before you answer, we're going to show you an ad for erik paulsen. [video clip] hiding. good at when erik paulsen comes along. of have tens of thousands people looking for you all the time and the not one of them find you. -- did erik wonder paulsen really -- where is the proof? some photo taken from miles away? i had to come up with a plan. aulsen takes money from big pharma and devotes to he wrote health care regulations. so the best place to find him that a big pharmaceutical company. and that is where i went.

i was prepared to stay there for weeks. it took seven minutes. i was so shocked when i saw him walking by, i will stop the camera. but, i got him. proof. gfoot, erikm me, bi paulsen really exists. when it comes to the adser's caller for the overall, talk about the dark money. guest: thank you for that question. in of the things that we see so many of the ads that people are being bombarded with is that people are not necessarily aware of who patriot majority usa is or americans for prosperity.

many of the groups on the top 15 list have names that are not household names and the new groups are forming all the time postive connotations that people see these and they want to trust them because they do not know, are they being funded by liberals or conservatives, are they being funded by special interests or not, and we see that over and over again. the research says if you are a viewer that does not have any connotation our preconceived judgments, you are going to trust that message more than if he saw that ad with a group that you had a negative connotation with already. that is why you see groups constantly branding themselves with positive and uplifting sounding names and it speaks to the fact that we think there should be more transparency for these dark money ads.

with more transparency, voters would have more information to address more credibility and assess the information they are seeing. host: bill in south dakota. caller: yes, i am calling to ask if your guest has never read the book "the intimidation game." by author argues that opening up people to threats of themidation -- she notes in 1960's, the naacp had to list donorsonors, and the may be up to threats for people who did not the -- did not agree with the naacp. it is a way to undermine free speech. guest: thank you for that

question. gain, whene and time a it comes to the most political of activities, there are rules say candidates need to disclose their donors, the spenders of these overt political advertisements need to helpsse donors, and that people assess the information that they are seeing in tv ads. we know the supreme court has said repeatedly that transparency helps the public assess the information they see in these ads. they want the public to be a will to assess the credibility of the message and the messenger. one of the things that former supreme court justice antonin scalia said was that when it comes to per -- to publicpation in the arena like this, speaking out

for your viewpoint that demonstrates the courage and having that engagement makes america the home of the brave and the land of the free. being able to get up in public and defend your beliefs and that basic tenant is something that liberal justices and conservative justices on the supreme court have supported. host: oscar in virginia, democrat line. caller: hi, good morning. i want to ask a question and i have a comment. when citizens united back in 2010, what is their relationship partyht -- with the tea -- when i came around, with the tea party affiliated or had any donations like ted cruz? thatecondly, my comment is , religion. scalia was trying to separate

-- separation of state and church. we had a lot of christians. week said i amt not religious, i am christian. host: we will leave it there. guest: to your first question, 010, a lot was changing and a lot was happening. you had the citizens united decision from the supreme court groups on you had the right and left trying to take advantage of these new campaign-finance rules. of conservative groups, some affiliated with the tea party and do some not, and a host of liberal groups that were andciated with candidates everyone was trying to make sense of these new rules and

take advantage of the contours of the way campaign spending was changing. usa on patriot majority the left or americans for prosperity on the right trying to adapt to the new landscape. our report goes into the fact that you have liberal groups and conservative groups who have tried to take advantage of this ruling over the last eight years. one of the other things we found was that regardless of whether it was a liberal group or most darkve group, money organizations were spending overwhelmingly on attack ads. some of the worst of the worst that were poisoning our politics. 14 of the 15 groups on our than half of their spending on political ads went to negative ads. in six cases, more than 90% of their ads were negative attack ads. that was another huge key take away of this report. host: of you are off of twitter talking about the unions and whether they have a role in this. guest: they definitely do.

the report details a number of liberal groups, conservative groups, and donors to the organizations. ultimately, labor unions are funding some of the biggest dark money groups. our report found over $13 million from labor unions like the national education association, ask me, and we searchable in the database that you can find at issueone.org. democratic groups traditionally have received money from labor unions and some of the biggest dark money groups on the left are getting money from labor unions. we found money from labor unions, trade associations, publicly traded companies, and all that is outlined in this database that is searchable and available. florida,y ellen in

independent. caller: my question is that our campaign-finance laws it seems to be antiquated. when we have facebook and google with the ability to sway public opinion towards one ideology or another, however, they are not covered by the campaign finance laws. the other question i have is about transparency. we know that people who were involved with the tea party were actually targeted by our own government, by the obama administration irs. there is a point to be made that perhaps having some privacy might be a good thing because your own government could use political affiliation against you to investigate you for the irs.

industryhe technology has not been addressed as far as campaign-finance laws and that is really dark money. host: thanks, caller. guest: thank you for that question. one of the things we have been focused a lot on his how to make sure that the 21st century campaign environment keeps up with the laws and regulations. we know there is bipartisan support for it a bill called the honest ads act that would address a lot of those questions about facebook, twitter, google, and the ads people take out. we want to make sure there are not foreign actors using those influencetforms to our elections and we know there is bipartisan support in congress for that commonsense legislation. the other prong of that question, one of the central this report was that

15 organizations have accounted for so much of the dark money spending in elections. the teawent through party targeting scandal a few years ago, it was unfortunate that so many citizen groups got weret up and these organizations, some of which you were trying to get tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3), charity like the red cross, and some were trying to get tax-exempt which isder 501(c)(4) the social welfare designation so groups can be more politically act this -- politically active. asked different questions of different 501(c)(3) organizations, 501(c)(4) organizations, groups on the left and the rights, when they apply for the tax statuses. one of the things that we came back to was how rare really the irs took action against any of these major political players

who have been spending tens of millions of dollars are hundreds of millions of dollars in our elections. we found one example in arkansas , there was a group that the irs said was to political for .ax-exempt status by 501(c)(4) it had spent over a million dollars helping out the senate democrats who is running for reelection in that state, and they told irs that they got 45.9% of their spending was political in nature. 501(c)(4),on is a you can not primarily be involved in elections. they had a very aggressive interpretation in that. the irs said, no, 85% of your spending was during the election periods, and they revoked the group's tax-exempt status. these are the types of aestions that the irs is in

position to answer, and we raise the fact that these organizations have accounted so much of the political spending and a driving political spending. whatever regulatory decisions are being implemented should take this pattern into account. host: the legal decisions on this matter are reflected in the editorial of the "washington post." the ruling that dark money ofups can hide the identity donors. -- added added to that the supreme court refused to block the decision. number ofknow that a the groups are top 15 list have complaints filed against them with the federal election commission alleging that they are masquerading as a nonprofit when they should be registering

as a political committee and disclosing their donors and so the public can assess who is bankrolling these ads. one example of that was crossroads gps. deadlocked 3-3 on whether to require them to have some additional disclosure. in the wake of that, there was a lawsuit filed by another watchdog organization and that has been proceeding through the courts of justice week, the supreme court -- through the courtd. -- that has been proceeding through the courts. ruledhis week, the court and there was a big win for transparency that people are going to know more information about who is bankrolling the political expenditures of these organizations regardless of whether their primary purpose is social welfare. if they are spending big bucks on politics, the public has a

right to know who is funding those ads. the lawsuit is ongoing. this was a big win for transparency. host: let's hear from anne in washington dc, democrat. caller: good morning. i do not know if most americans know, but i remember when the president obama castigated the supreme court at the state of the union address. what is the reason that the supreme court allowed this n ondisclosure? from a commonsense point of view, it seems to be an awful thing for you -- thing. why would they choose to put the american public at risk in a political life like that? guest: thank you for the question. one of the things we outlined in the report is that the citizens united ruling did two different things.

they created this avenue for corporations including certain nonprofit corporations that do not disclose their donors, to spend without limit in elections. at the same time, part of the citizens united ruling was decision in8-1 favor of transparency. you had justice kennedy writing for majority opinion that we live in this internet age it will be disclosed in real-time and shareholders and the public could evaluate it. report,he things in our that is not to disclosure rules. it took us a year and we were only able to account for one dollar and every nine dollars that these groups are raising. the transparency rules that we have in place are not adequate to capture most of the eight information that the public needs -- most of the information that the public needs to assess

these ads. we want to help the public get more information about who is monitoring them with all of the attack ads. host: more information is available at issueone.org. serves as the director of research organizations. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: open phones, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) republicans,in (202) 748-8002 for independents. >> american history tv is in prime time on c-span3. america," iseal about the outbreak of world war ii to pearl harbor and authoritarianism. watch american history tv this week in prime time on c-span3.

this weekend on book tv, eastern,at 4:15 p.m. bob woodward's interview on "fear." was somebody in a position in office now on called me and said, everyone knows what you have in this book is 1000% correct. >> at 9:00 p.m. eastern, former independent counsel ken starr discusses his book. about theam saying clinton experiences we learned from our history as a free people and impeachment was not the wise the way to go. at 9:00 p.m.day eastern on "afterwords." former secretary of state john kerry discusses his book and

interviewed by a former congresswoman, jane harman. flying to go were wait on an airplane, we did not know each other very well, but we were seated opposite. brought us together and we had a conversation into the night talking about annapolis and his father and his grandparents and family, and his time as a prisoner. he wanted to learn more about what happened with us and how we fought than what it was like and so forth. we pledged to each other right then that the country was still too divided over the war. we felt we needed to find a way to not only make peace at home. >> watch this weekend on c-span2's book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: again, open phones until

the end of the program. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can reach out to us at reach out to us at @cspanwj and on facebook.com/c-span. illinois, democrat line. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: well, thanks. caller: my question is philosophical more than anything because citizens united saying makedark persons can contributions and also the idea, one man, one vote. if i'm a person, i get to vote. if i'm a corporation, i get to vote. of a corporation, i get two votes. that is a question to ponder. illinois, in

republican line. justr: your prior visitor stole my thunder. no voting rights, no contribution right. groups cannot go to the polls on election day and demand a ballot, so they should not be able to contribute. no voting rights, no contribution allowed. citizens united should definitely be revisited, and there should be public financing of campaigns and a limited time to campaign. money is not speech. host: a couple of stories off the paper this morning, this dealing with north korea. the united states ready to recover more remains from that country saying that the operations would be carried out troops with north korean and mark a form of progress between the nations that the trump administration can tell wild attempting to negotiate the denuclearization.

the pentagon believes that the remains of 5300 servicemembers are still in north korea. there remains covered and july according to a spokesman, they ultimately could belong to significantly more than 55 people. that is in the washington post, if you go to the "new york times", more stories about north korea and the denuclearization process. writing out of south korea, one of the first steps that mr. kim wants to take before moving towards denuclearization according to mr. moon is secure a joint statement the glaring the end of to the 1953 korean war which was halted only with an armistice. givea declaration would mr. kim reason to demand the united states withdraw its troops from the south on -- while north korea still at a nuclear arms state.

mr. kim said it was a political statement and not affect the status. west virginia, good morning. ernestines, i am and i was not able to get through in the very beginning the -- beginning on whether you are for kavanaugh or the professor. ibelieve the professor, believe she was correct in saying that perhaps the justice was drunk and i believe that a lot of drunks do not know what they have done and cannot remember it. i believe the professor because #me too movement and the catholic molestation, all the people come out after

the fact, many years after, and i believe the professor. for justice am not kavanaugh. virginia, republican line. caller: oh, hi. i'd do, and a question about immigration. an amazingution is document and we all do understand the human right and the contents about it. but the immigration law is so old and i think we need to vet some immigrants -- our immigration law was written like 100 years ago. we are letting everybody in, but now, times are changed. we do not need everybody. there are constitutional rights for innocent citizens like us, when he did change our

immigration law to better our country. topicwhen it comes to the of professor ford, the tweets from the president's, he said this this morning. kavanaugh is a fine man with an impeccable reputation was under assault by radical left-wing politicians who do not want to know the answer is, they just want to destroy, delay. facts do not matter. i go through this with him every single day in d.c.=. wasve no doubt that if it as bad as press or ford said, charges would have them easily iled with local law-enforcement authorities by either her or her parents. caller: we do not know the people are but we do not have any assurance that there are not

foreigners, possibly russians affecting our elections. it is something that might mueller is looking at? host: annette in utah. caller: hello. i would like to encourage all to contact their senators and encourage them to preserve the endangered species act. there only a few more days to accept public comment. they can also contact the department of interior that will to theposing this senate and tried to save our endangered species act. without it, we would have lost so many of our important species, even the national bald eagle. the trump administration is trying to gut it. i would like to encourage all t -- it would tha be horrible and the devastation would be enormous. host: open phones until 10:00, the phone lines are available to

you and you can post on twitter @cspanwj. up until election day, we will elections, joining us for discussion, brian lowry, the kansas city star joining us via skype. we are talking about missouri, good morning. guest: good morning, thank you for having me. host: the president heads to missouri, what is the purpose? guest: to get josh holly over the finish line. he is the gop nominee. visit torump's fifth missouri in a few months. the next time he went, he has lly,rsed the josh ho so this is another rally and another fundraising push. the president has been very focused on this race. repeatedly gone after

claire mccaskill in speeches and on twitter. this shows you that the race in missouri is very important to the white house. they think control of the u.s. senate hinges on this race. little bit about josh holly and particularly why the president supports him so much. ly, it is ironic since a lot of the people were skeptics are critics of trump who recruited holly, and one who wrote a blistering op-ed about trump saying to -- but holly has fully embraced and very reluctant to disagree with the president on policy. one reason he was just a top gop recruit in general is holly, he ran for attorney

general in 2016, he was the top vote getter in the state. he was really seen as a rising star in the republican party. he is a social conservative, has clerked for chief justice roberts before he returned to missouri. he has got some social conservative credentials, but seen as a young face, fresh face, and republicans see him as a contrast to claire mccaskill. host: claire mccaskill came out against the kavanaugh nomination. talk about that and talk about that in the larger context of where claire mccaskill is in regaining the sea. guest: it is pretty significant she did that. had been pressure on her from both sides of the aisle, republicans had been attacking

her on this since justice kennedy retired before the writ even a nominee. there was a lot of expectations from progressives that she needed to vote no on kavanaugh. she had been receiving a lot of calls from groups on that. her reasoning had nothing to do with roe v. wade or the assault allegation against judge kavanaugh, she cited specifically his views on dark money and campaign spending to concerns that he will further loosen the campaign regulations that became loose with citizens united. she took a very specific policy position to explain it. to support thed nomination, she would have offended a lot of people that she needs to get out on the polls in places like kansas city and st. louis, but she also has to do this delicate dance

because she is going to need trump voters to win. at the end of the day, this shows that senator mccaskill is confident she can win with the vote, maybe because kavanaugh's nomination has been weakened, or it shows you that she needs the progressive vote to get to the polls to stay competitive. host: what is polling suggesting about the winner? guest: it is a coin slip. every poll has been deadlocked in a head-to-head race. there is also independent thatdate that in the race could pull some votes that could help senator mccaskill. but the national trend of the democratic wave that a lot of people are expecting happens, that may help lift up senator mccaskill. if there is anti-incumbent

energy, that could lead for her to be ousted. isis going to be a race that decided by a single digit margin. host: let us show you a couple of the ads airing. [video clip] >> two years ago, i beat breast cancer. like thousands of women, i do not talk about it much, but those who face cancer and other illnesses, have a pre-existing condition when it comes to health coverage. unfortunately, josh holly filed governmentetting the the night coverage to those with pre-existing health conditions. that is wrong. i am claire mccaskill and i approve this message. host: put some context to this. guest: hawley is one of 20 state officials who have signed on to this lawsuit seeking to overturn the affordable care act after congress zero doubt the individual mandate last year.

if that lawsuit succeeds, it would strike down the entirety of the law including the protection for pre-existing conditions which are popular. this is become a problem for hawley and a lot of republican officials throughout the nation mccaskill has and seized this issue. in addition to this ad which is powerful because she is talking car personal story, her campaign has been releasing a series of whoads of 30 missourians have pre-existing conditions who are concerned. supports, but this has become really difficult for him because of his name. he signed on to this lawsuit and he put his name behind it, this lawsuit that if successful, would overturn the aca. host: let's see the response ads. [video clip] >> what a hypocrite.

received theill second-most contributions from insurance companies and the entire senate. -- in the entire senate. host: what is the strategy? guest: the strategy is a part of the larger strategy of the hawley campaign to paint mccaskill as a hypocrite. we mentioned dark money earlier, they had used her of -- while she talks about being against the dark money, her campaign material is often ending up in television ads paid for by democratic leaning dark money groups. on this particular thing, it hinges on how you define insurance groups. they are taking this number from the senate for responsive politics which, when that did

not bracket out between car insurance, health insurance, , iterty insurance companies does get to the fact that hawley realizes he needs to combat this attack from a gaskell about pre-existing conditions -- from -- from claire mccaskill about the pre-existing conditions. host: get the details for tonight. guest: you will see the president, hawley on stage. as far as the lineup, i do not know if that has been disclosed. the president was scheduled to go to missouri last week but had to postpone because of hurricane florence. i think, and every time trump has come to missouri, it is quite a show. what i will say is he is going to springfield, missouri, which is going to be very important for this race. missouri, cities in

kansas city, and st. louis are likely to lean towards springfieldskill, is a republican country and the big turnouts there is going to be key for hawley. when trump was there about a year ago, i had met the guy who wrote trump on his glass eye. it was one of the first-hand that president trump shook when he got up air force one for you this is going to be a very friendly territory for the president. to talk he is going about this fight over kavanaugh as your party mentioned on the show, the tweets this morning and the context of which claire theskill came out against nomination this week, i believe this will be a centerpiece for the president's's speech. the "kansas city star",

thank you for your time. guest: thank you. at 7:30e event is live this evening the, you can watch it on c-span or c-span.org or a seized on radio -- or c-span radio app. karen, go ahead. caller: yes, i was calling about the earlier issue with dr. ford. and i want everybody to consider that an assault victim could suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. that turns of years later. it is -- that turns up years later. it is an ongoing issue. asetimes turns up postpartum depression or even suicide. it is not a light matter and she needs the be thoroughly supported because her inquisition and court is going

to be a similar thing where she accountdown and her will be limited. the guy held his hand over her mouth, so to speak, so it is going to be very dramatic. host: we will go in walnut creek, california. democrats. caller: yes, is this me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: as a blue. the -- as a blue dog democrats, i would like to express my total disappointment and senator feinstein. the fact should bring something in the last hour and be supported by the democratic party is absolutely ridiculous and you look at democrats who have been charged, and yet she had defended all of them. made a the senator has big mistake and the reason she did what she did is to satisfy her base in california because she has a very liberal, democratic opponent running against her.

so, i am totally disappointed in the senator. host: john in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to know why the accuser of brett kavanaugh has been allowed to scrub her high school yearbook showing all kinds of binge drinking, wild parties, and a male dancers in g-strings. she is the wind bringing the accusations and all of that should be out in the open. host: in chicago, illinois, independent line. we will hear from christopher. caller: thank you very much. some of theue with programming on c-span. i wanted to express that today. yesterday, today you had two people who are pro-admin

istration, pro-kavanaugh and when we pulled out of the iranian nuclear deal, you had three days when you had people who were against the deal, and it just seems as though some of the programming on c-span has gotten to be incredibly, conservatively biased. i do not feel like it is fair on your part. i would like to know what you can do about it please. host: we always try for a sense of balance in what we present, depending on the topic and the day. since i do not have total recall of everything we have done on certain topics, i will have to leave it there. california, nancy on the democrat line. caller: hello, think you for c-span. i love you. i wanted to talk about voting in the united states. i know it is in the constitution, the day and everything that we vote.

i have been to other countries where they have voting and they have it all weekend and they shut down the bars, and they open up free transportation for everybody. votehave all weekend to instead of a single working day. something should be done in our country to modernize our voting system and to make it more normal. host: from west virginia, republican line, barbara. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i support justice kavanagh and when this it said that the was was 15 and kavanaugh 17. people were drunk, what was a 15-year-old girl doing in a place like that. this should tell her parents did she tell her parents

what happened and if she did tell them, what did they do about it? theyey did anything, if are ported it to the school or the police, there should be a record of that. host: maryland, independent line with jose. caller: -- host: we will go to terry in washington state. caller: i just wanted to make a couple of comments. algeria ulurun are taught -- algeria where to believeght nothing you hear and what you see. i try to checking -- i start checking my ip addresses in my aol account and a lot of them literally came from every place in the world, and what you would do is you would try to disengage

is somehow, and i got nailed a couple of times. but to be super's scrupulous about what you end up wanting to believe or here -- here, you just have to be maybe 1950's in order to survive today. host: that is terry in the washington state. view go to our website, c-span.org, a lot of information concerning the kavanaugh nomination and the hearings that took place shortly. , particularlyit as the senate judiciary committee might respond to these requests from professor forward on her testimony next weekend what might happen. to go.org is the place for that including the president's rally tonight and the senate debates that you can monitor. that is it for our program

today, another program for you tomorrow at 7:00. we will see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> senate judiciary committee chair chuck grassley has called a hearing for this coming monday to get supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh along with blasey for thes chance to testify. miss ford istold willing to testify next week if they are willing to work out terms. the hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. eastern and available on c-span.org. you can listen with the free c-span radio app. president trump tweeted about the issue this morning, saying,

attackno doubt that the on dr. ford was as bad as she said, charges would've immediately been filed to local authorities by her or her loving parents. i asked that she bring those finally forward so that we can get date, time, and place." part in as and takes signing ceremony for legislation appropriating funds for energy, water, military construction, veterans affairs, and the legislative branch. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. c-span2 will have live coverage this evening when president trump hold a rally in support of senate republican candidate josh holly. live coverage starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. c-span -- your primary source for campaign 2018. cbs newsght on "q&a," chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book, "mr. trump's wild ride." >> it's not just about

partisanship. i think it transcends party. i described donald trump in the book as part of partisan. he is bigger than partisanship. dynamos this emotional that he spins within people. he does it intentionally. sometimes he doesn't even know he's doing it, but that it happens is influencing every aspect of american life -- culture, economics, politics, and in ways you've detected, the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." saturday, to retiring members of congress, republican senator bob corker of tennessee democratic congresswoman niki tsongas of massachusetts, talk about their experience in congress.

>> it's so important for us as a nation to continue to be a beacon to the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best. when we stoop to uncivil discourse, we stoop to pettiness, we have to remember that the entire world looks to us. they do. >> i'm deeply concerned. i'm deeply concerned i our president on many levels -- on policy. that he's not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. you can read about that on a alliesasis, long-term who question the support of the united states. he suggests that we in the united states can going alone. i don't think that's the case by any means. we have extraordinary power in ourselves, but we need help to achieve the goals that we see. >> join us for conversations with senator bob corker and niki tsongas on

c-span and c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. virginia senator tim kaine and his republican challenger, corey twoart, held the first of town hall events, answering questions from virginians. they focused on domestic issues of the economy, hosted by liberty university and hampton university. good evening and welcome to tonight's u.s. senate town hall between democrat senator tim kaine and his republican challenger, corey stewart, brought to you by liberty university and hampton university. events like tonight's are extremely important as we head into a crucial midterm election. remember the vote is on november 16. tonight's townhall will focus primarily on domestic issues. the next townhall atlantic university will focus more on foreign policy and military. we are