-- and then mona charen and zoe carpenter with the nation magazine join us to discuss the supreme court nomination of brett kavanaugh. host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing this week with brett kavanaugh and the of sexualaccused him assault when they were teenagers, christine blasey ford. negotiations and details are still being worked out today. this comes about one year into the me too movement, which started out as a social media hashtag.

movement.ned into a has the me too movement affected your life or those you know? we want men to call in at (202) 748-8000. women, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. you can always reach us on social media. and on facebook. onotiations have been going for the last couple of days about the upcoming hearing with brett kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford. before we get to our question, let's get a little information about what is going on in the latest about what is happening this week from natalie andrews. good morning. guest: good morning. host: can you tell us what is the latest on what is going to be happening this week for the

senate judiciary committee? guest: we have a tentative agreement for a thursday hearing. we expect to hear from judge brett kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford at the same time. one of the things that has been agreed to is that dr. ford would not have to be there when judge kavanaugh is. some of the things that are not agreed to are the order at which they want to appear. ord wants to come last. senate judiciary republicans say that is not ok. it is also not clear who is handling the question. there is talk of bringing in outside counsel. only twol he be the people testify? will there be other people related to this case or not?

guest: so far, senate judiciary committee republicans have said that outside people are off the table. host: do we know how long these hearings are going to last? guest: so far, senate judiciary committeewill this just be one r multiple days? guest: i would expect several hours, but it seems they want to limit it to one day. republicans are anxious to move forward on this and bring him up for a vote. they are operating under the deadline of this session that starts october 1 for the supreme court. ford to we expect dr. speak for herself, or do we expect lawyers to speak for her? what kind of details do you think she is going to provide? guest: she said yesterday through her lawyers that she accepts the invitation to share her experience. i would expect her to be there. how much she says, her attorneys say, that is still to be determined. negotiations are continuing today. host: earlier in the week, one

of her conditions for testifying would be that the fbi does an investigation before she comes to the senate. has that been put to the side completely? guest: that seems to have moved off the table for now. it seems as though dr. ford is willing to testify without having an fbi investigation. host: what are we hearing from the white house and how they are going to prepare judge kavanaugh for this hearing? guest: he was at the white house last week preparing for this hearing. they said last night that he is eager to testify publicly to defend his name. they have put out statements from other people that dr. ford said was at the party that these people say they don't remember this happening.

her attorneys countered saying these people were not sexually assaulted, salud probably do not remember a gathering that happened in high school. that is kind of the story on both sides of how people are looking at these statements. host: what are the political ramifications we are looking at for this hearing for judge kavanaugh and the upcoming midterm elections? guest: if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, it would change the balance on the court to be more conservative. the deadline that is rapidly approaching is the november 6 midterm elections. democrats feel this has energized their base. people are talking about this and watching this. is notne blasey ford heard in a way that is deemed acceptable to voters, voters may be energized and vote for democrats in election. it is a really slim chance that

democrats can take control of the senate, but there is a possibility. there are enough states in contention that could happen. we could see that. republicans feel the supreme court energizes their base already, so voters could turn out for them. count int is the vote the senate looking like for judge kavanaugh? guest: the balance in the senate is 51-49. it is a very narrow majority. republicans can only afford to lose one vote. you have republicans like susan murkowski, who have said they want to hear from the nominee. 1e judiciary committee is an 1-10 balance. they are not on the committee. jeff flake is. he has said he wants to hear from dr. ford and has not said

how he plans to vote. there are a few republicans that we don't know how they would vote. if all democrats vote as a bloc, these republican votes will matter. host: tell us the timeline if the thursday hearing goes forward. ise the thursday hearing over, when does the senate judiciary committee expect to vote up or down? guest: if the hearing is on thursday, then they can schedule a vote within 24 hours. they could vote on friday. friday doesn't often happen in the senate. they may vote monday. votes a day notice after the hearing. we could see it will happening on monday, and if the democrats required all the time for procedural votes, if the

committee voted on monday, judge kavanaugh could be confirmed next friday. that could change. generally, it would take four days from the first vote in the senate to the final vote in the senate if democrats insisted on all the time for debate. we will like to thank natalie andrews for updating us on judge kavanaugh. thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: we are going to start the show by talking about it has been one year since the me too movement. what has changed? how has it affected you? men, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. women, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. you can always reach us on social media, twitter and facebook. let's go to our first call from

jim in rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning to you. the me too movement really hasn't changed pretty much at all. by far movement funded left liberals and even some of these far left liberals could be outright communists, wealthy communists. it has not changed because you look at the people they primarily go after. granted, they went after harvey weinstein because his alleged crimes are many. they had to. i find it strange there is one person no one touches, ted kennedy. he killed the woman. no one talks about him. that got is the biggest hypocrite of all. he killed a woman. he was allowed to stay in the senate. host: do you see any good out of

the me too movement? caller: that's a good question. overall, makes us talk about it more, but i don't really see any good of it. i think the strategic objective is to further break apart the nuclear family. host: thank you. let's go to walter from new jersey. good morning. caller: as the father of three grown daughters, i am appalled at the way society is treating women. host: go ahead. caller: that is with the me too movement has highlighted. host: do you think that any of the complaints of the me too movement is just a political movement just to target wealthy or conservative men, do you give any credence to those? caller: i don't think it is partisan. i think it crosses all kinds of lines.

host: thank you. caller: men are using their male privilege. host: go ahead. caller: men are using their male privilege. host: to do what? using ml privilege to do? caller: subjugate women. host: thank you. let's go to pastor calling from new york. caller: good morning. thank you first to everyone who is behind the scenes and puts all of us on each and every day that gives the endowed chair in atmosphere -- egalitarian atmosphere that we can all engaged on these subjects. i don't have cable right now. i am listening on radar. i don't even know your name, host. i can tell it is not steve by the sound. thank you for taking my call. this is pastor michael.

my human rights ministry, you can look it up with www.oneworldolifesystems.org. we will see me outside the vatican protesting the sexual 007 with members of the italian parliament and the peace group after dr. king and gandhi. it is the transnational party, not a political group. the me too movement came to light last year. i think the founder in her efforts for the last 10 years thisssential as much as this toy also reported

her psychologist in counseling over six years ago. as to the ad hominem attacks against her as well as anybody having been assaulted, i think are very egregious. in my situation, i am going to court because i did a silent protest when senator gillibrand spoke at cornell university, my alma mater on march 19. i had a sign. me too, both of you never responded. like the teacher would have had. i had been raped in the new york seminary after leaving for now.

i had been accosted at the st. paul's college at the bishop supporters in washington -- bishop's headquarters in washington, d.c. i was fired when i confronted a priest who was having sex in the rectory. when i went to the cardinal of washington at that time, his secretary laughed at me. he ended up being the spokesperson for the bishop's ad hoc committee. he is archbishop of baltimore now. mccarrick knew what happened, though he never responded. i walk for over eight blocks from right around the corner from you on first where the marriott is an talked about these events and did nothing.

i have had two popes. priest or pastor, over 150 priests know what happened to me, and no one did anything. to the point of what we are talking about today, first, people have to know one to four or one to six, depending on your study, which means one out of every four men at some time in their life have been violated. they are not speaking of because we are taught not to speak up and not to cry and not to talk about these things. even knowhan 75% who about it or don't know about it at all who need to learn. the listening you have given me

and that we need to have is essential. i want to add one more thing. host: go ahead. caller: i have been working for human rights courts for over 25 .ears on this basis on black lives matter, i was director of fellowship at a black catholic church in from the stretching editor, virginia, all the way to -- vienna, virginia, all the way to baltimore. put something out in 30, but we cannot bring in a hater in 15 days. we cannot bring in an employer who pinches your wife or sister or brother at work and then gets paid less.

why can someone like in my hometown get choked, and now the dan donovan,sman but no one is held accountable. we have always put property and privilege in this country before people. ofneed to have a vehicle arrestee with the capacity to uphold those self-evident truths. the thing is for human rights come from your -- host: let's move on. let's go to shelby from tennessee. you're on the air. caller: thank you. thought is why not have an undisclosed place and time, no close allowed except very family and witnesses for

, justugh and ford someone likeld do me, a common person. duty.ury why not treat them just like everybody else in the world? .ury duty to decide host: you are saying they should not have this conversation in public? caller: i don't think it's because of may be trauma -- is -- havea if ford all this damage and trauma done that was a life thing because you don't forget those things

even if she doesn't say that they're saying that she doesn't remember the place and time. she could have blocked it from her memory because of emotional safety, stability. she had a lifetime of trauma. it is not a one night thing to get over to say that kavanaugh's life was ruined because of the damage or shame in front of his family, but he is the one that shows the left his children come as a parent. i don't see why you would subject them to all those hearings unless it was a ploy to get sympathy.

right. just not that.arent, i cannot see due process. host: ok. caller: should be forever. host: ok. trump, i cannot say asking ourhe is area. i would not go to see him 10 minutes away from me. host: let's go to cap the from california -- kathy from california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling because i am very conflicted about this particular controversy regarding judge kavanaugh. i want to say that i am part of the me too. 1961. was 15, it was

i cannot tell you how many boys 1964 tried tond force me into situations and things like that. i think we just regarded it as normal behavior from boys. i did not want up feeling traumatized. i certainly never told my mother. i would not have dreamed of it. in the ensuing years, i guess i am kind of tough because i did not look back on it. i cannot remember a single name. i am not justifying his behavior. good for her that she does remember. i don't. i have to say, one more , the perjury he has

committed in 2003 and 2006, lying in front of congress. i think that is well-documented. i cannot understand why he is in the position he is in. i think what they are not doing for dr. ford is absurd. she should have a thorough investigation. she should have the fbi talking to witnesses. she should have all of those things. i am a democrat, so pretty much the eminently antirepublican at this point. the one-year anniversary of the me too movement is featured as the cover story for time magazine this week. here is one of the things in the article, all this comes against

the backdrop of an election season that is already shaping up as a referendum on male impunity and female empowerment. the major issues and hearing were how he might rule in cases related to abortion and trumps susceptibility to prosecution. from hear from mark pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i will make this brief unlike the previous callers who were incoherently droning on before me. as a democrat, i think this me too movement has got to be the stupidest thing we have ever come up with as a party. i am always amazed at how idiotic my party can get. i think this is all about victimhood, making women out to

be victims and all this stuff. i don't put too much credence in it. i think if we don't concentrate on economic issues this november and in 2020, we are going to lose again. host: do you believe any of the women who claim they have been assaulted under the me too banner? way,r: let me put it this i do believe that, but if you listen to the me too women, it acts like all of us met out here are sexual predators. between my first and second marriage, i have been married 40 years. i have never assaulted anyone, even when i was a single man. it may be true, but it may be a small minority of men doing it. bobby calling to from texas. good morning. caller: yes.

host: go ahead. organizatione too is run by liberals. do they not think anybody tells lies? host: do you think even if one person in the me too movement is telling lies, does that invalidate the rest of them? caller: no, sir. but there are some people that live in order to get attention -- lie in order to get attention. shouldhat do you think happen when someone brings up an allegation like the one dr. christine blasey ford did? caller: let me say this. they have already checked him six times. the fbi has already had investigations six times. why is she asking for an investigation? hello?

host: go ahead. we're listening. caller: why is she asking for an investigation? i am going to tell you something. if you have been assaulted or raped, you will remember exactly who it is, where it was, what time it was. i know. i have been there. host: let's go to frank calling from new jersey. caller: good morning. i would like to bring some clarity and sanity on this whole situation. my personal opinion on the me too movement as a republican, a wifer, and i have a loving , and a man that loves women. i think the me too movement was excellent for women.

i think you should continue, but i think that democrats and d.c. had eviscerated it, absolutely destroyed the movement bringing this woman forward. you have to understand brett kavanaugh is a fine man. if you look at photos of his family with his two daughters, you know this man is a good man and loves women. i don't think he has ever mistreated a woman or any person life other than bill clinton. he took bill clinton's law license and ripped it up. host: is there anything dr. ford can say in this hearing on thursday that would make you believe her? caller: there's nothing -- if

you look at the public lynching of clarence thomas, anita hill was a woman that has never kissed a man in her life. host: let's go back to this week's hearing. is there anything she could say that would convince you she is telling the truth? caller: there is absolutely nothing she could save because she -- say because she went to the doctor in 2006, during an election cycle with the clinton's and obama, and brett kavanaugh was still out in the wings. brett kavanaugh is a man that ripped bill clinton's law license up in front of him and him.each h -- impeached this is a complete set up from the liberal left. they held on to this in order to

delay the hearing. it is a complete scam. it was a typical scam thrown together at the last minute. they knew this was out there in the wings, had this girl in 2006. it is awful what they have done to the me too movement. jane froms go to north carolina. caller: good morning. i am glad to talk to you this morning. i just wanted to mention something about the me too movement. lifet think people in this need to grow up. host: what do you mean by that, jay? caller: you look at the left. you look at the right. we, as a country, are divided in many ways. not just by women. not just by men.

oman in the w ribnning of time, when the was taken from a man to make a woman, that woman, the way i believe she should be, by the man's side, stand by the man's side. age, shen 15 years of is wearing eyeglasses so she can't let you see her eyes. eyes are behind the filled with lies. host: do you plan to watch the hearing on thursday? is there anything dr. blasey ford could say at that hearing to convince you she is telling the truth? caller: nothing. why did she wait all this time?

host: let's go to joe from connecticut. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i have been following this me too movement from the beginning when it started with weinstein charlieranken and on to others that were obviously called out for past indiscretions and crimes. i think it has been a good movement. i think it has been a successful movement. somenk it is well based in very good points and focused on

obviously committed crimes and get away with abusing women and forcing themselves on them and so forth. i think it is good. the women have spoken up and made a difference in society at this point. host: is there anything judge cap. can say thursday -- judge kavanaugh can say thursday that would make you believe him? caller: i believe in this particular instance, the withrats starting elosi and and p chuck schumer, i believe they have taken grasp of this thing and concocted this accusation. i don't believe the judge has done anything wrong.

i believe this is a last-minute, hail mary pass to try to sidetrack and destroyed his estroy his -- d nomination. host: what do you need to hear from dr. blasey ford to believe her? caller: i would like to hear the accusation she was going to make against gorsuch. host: where have you heard that? i have not heard anything that said she was going to make an accusation against gorsuch. caller: i have seen it on the internet and read it on some sites, on some of the twitter feeds that there was talk that she was going to make an accusation against gorsuch. host: i don't think that's been reported anywhere. caller: you don't think that's

true? h i have -- host: i haven't seen it reported anywhere. caller: i don't think any of the mainstream media has reported it because obviously the mainstream media are biased against this nominee and the republican leadership and trump. host: let's go to marry from -- mary cuyahoga falls. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: good morning. what i want to say about the me too movement is it is an excellent movement. as a woman, which we have a lot of history of sexual abuse from men, while to make sure that everyone -- i want to make sure that everyone that makes an

accusation, it is the truth, nothing but. host: how do you prove the truth of something that may have happened 20 years ago? caller: in a court of law. as most women, and i work in the academic field as a professional, most women, especially children do not report. shocked from a psychiatric professional like this woman is that she has made unrealistic demands. i am sitting in a courtroom under this side, or i am going to go through the judge. how can you go in a courtroom yourself, and i in the accuser.

it is you. you need to go first. for what? you need to answer my accusation. some of the demands seem to me totally unwanted. kavanaugh, the judge's mother -- host: that story has been proven false. note kavanaugh's mother did foreclose on dr. blasey ford's mother. caller: i'm glad you clarified that. i am always willing to see the other fact. i was saying in a court, this woman should go first, but use the judge, and then vice versa -- accuse the judge, and then

vice versa. then we can see. host: friday, kellyanne conway came out and spoke about the connections between the me too movement and the kavanaugh nomination. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> let's not conflate the larger me too movement with whatever did or did not happen in the summer of 1982, 36 years ago, that was not spoken about until 30 years later. judge kavanaugh has completely denied. >> comparing a 17-year-old to les moonves s, no one is doing that. having a conversation about why it takes women a long time to come forward with allegations. you can appreciate that. >> i can. let me say one more thing.

i think for dr. ford, these conditions on the testimony could work against her. if she wants to tell her story, thingd say the most pure to do would be for each of them to tell their story. host: we talking about the one-year anniversary since the me too movement. what changed? we want men to call in at (202) 748-8000. women, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8001. you can always reach us on social media on twitter and facebook. let's go to karen from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a mental health professional. on balance, the me too movement in the last year has done a terrible disservice to men and women. it has collectivized and weaponize male-female

relationships, tried to turn all women into victims and all men into perpetrators. that in-known thing is the last year there has been 31 state legislators around the country that were booted out of officesly elected without due process, but nobody wants to investigate that. pedia, and you will see two men were expelled from their posts as lawmakers, and the rest were forced to resign without due process. the me too movement is another political battering ram to use on the part of the liberal establishment. his current case is preposterous. what missve to hear ford -- blaseyzy

ford has to say. commands?rs make such the double standard is mind-boggling. host: is there anything she could say that would make you believe her? caller: i know you have asked that question of most people. yes, there is something she could say. give us an explanation as to why she is making demands on a committee that she claims she wants to testify, but she keeps pateing, which is ntly obvious what the democrats are doing. , ther they are using her democrats should know you cannot investigate. the fbi, it is not under their jurisdiction. they are not going to come up

with anything new after 36 years, what happened to to high school kids 36 years ago. this is being used. it also may that the republican apalls me that the republicans are not setting limits on these adolescent behaviors. caller: i cannot believe you are a woman and making this political. they get past -- let me get past you. the me too movement started back in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's. it has nothing to do with being a democrat, republican, or independent. it has to do with women that are sexually harassed no matter what they're doing. you are standing at the bus stop. you are trying to take your

child for a walk. you are on your job. you know that happens all the time. llers that ca are calling that are women, you are enablers. what if that was your daughter or son? you want to ask our that took so long. she will tell you of his hearing. that lady that just called, that mental health person, you want to get out of it. you are an enabler. this is ridiculous. all of you men that act like you don't understand, that means you probably are out here groping women yourselves. host: we go to jim garrity at national review. he writes that the allegation against kavanaugh is almost certain to get lumped into the unlession about me too more women come forward.

this will be exceptionally unfair to the judge. iraq calling from -- rob calling from oregon. caller: good morning. love your program. i am a survivor of both male and female, that whole process. happen wheng to areh ellison, the democrats going to be in charge of saying he is going to represent them as attorney general? i think this'll thing is political. but 36 years ford, ago, judge kavanaugh will be on the supreme court. i think allison gets his comeuppance. -- : let's go to hell and

helen. caller: good morning. from the very beginning i thought there was money involved. ford ady had paid ms. lot of money to make these accusations. that is my viewpoint from the very beginning that as far as the me too movement i know some women that i have worked with years past, they ask for it. short skirts, low-cut blouses, and flirting. abused, but ire think at least 75% ask for it. i don't believe in that me too movement either. that is my viewpoint. host: let's go to denise from maine.

caller: good morning. i would just like to say that this happened in high school. are we willing to sacrifice our sons, our grandsons or something that happened in high school when we are all sexually curious? the timing of this is so wrong. it has definitely become political. i would like to know, where are the persontoo with ellisonaccusing keith that those people are not believed? we have to believe this about kavanaugh, not one other woman has come forward to say he has ever done this. usually moreit is

than one. if the guy is a jerk, he does it all the time. james calling to from south carolina. good morning. are you there? calling fromob missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is just as simple as has taken ard polygraph. i think it is kavanaugh's turn. i think that will prove real quick what happened. this is just like the donald trump, james comey deal. it can be ended with a polygraph. ford has already taken hers and passed. if kavanaugh is half the good man he has been put forward as,

he would take this test to prove his innocence. he has something to hide. host: is there anything kavanaugh can say on thursday that is going to change your mind? caller: yes, that he would take the polygraph. that would change my mind completely. say that donald trump has said why didn't she come forward, it hasn't been so that. any sexual abuse is bad. if he wants his answer, he can idntcomeforward. womenl find over 100,000 who will tell him why they did not come forward. hill exactly the way anita was treated and the way professor ford is being treated. nicole is a contributor,

here's what she had to say. the me too movement coupled with third wave feminism wants to eradicate significant role manhattan society. this is not only obvious, but sad and dangerous. are women so insecure in their radicalism that they must silence men completely? let's go to teresa from michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. if people were paying attention, they would know brett kavanaugh has already been caught for lying several times to the committee just to get where he is at today. something about stolen emails and spies. senator grassley, somebody working for him had something to

do with that. i think there should be a full investigation. if brett kavanaugh is innocent, he should not mind waiting for the investigation. this should be done right if it is done at all. he does not belong on the courts. host: the white house put out a statement from brett kavanaugh. let me read what it says. "brett kavanaugh has been clear from the beginning, he categorically denies the allegations and intends to defend his integrity." on monday, brett kavanaugh met with committee councils to answer questions. since then, we have heard about ever-changing schedules. today, we appear no closer to a fair hearing. brett kavanaugh remains ready, willing, and eager to testify as

soon as possible. let's go to jan from oregon. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have to say that a previous woman who called and was absolutely right about the fact that this sexual harassment and sexual abuse against women has 1960's,ng on since the 1970's, 1980's. i am 66 years old. with sexualounter harassment was when i was in fourth grade, and some fifth-grade boys decided they needed to stop me on the street as i was walking home from school and tell me that did you know that you have really big boobs. that is not what they said. i told my mom about that. she said that is just how boys are. boys don't have to be that way.

they can keep their opinions to themselves. throughout my career, most of it spent as a professional public accountant, now retired, in international accounting firms and private industry, i have been subject to harassment. client's personnel took me into a dark room, turned out the lights, and came out me -- at me. this was in 1978. i had this happen a couple more times. this is not ok. i went and told my male coworkers this had happened to me. there were just kind of like get used to it, you are a woman. that has happened to you before get this kind of attitude -- before. this kind of attitude is

pervading. the me too movement, we are resisting this, that is just what boys do. host: is there anything judge kavanaugh can say that will make you believe him? caller: you know, i was thinking about this. he purports to be a good catholic man. he may have been or may not have been an altar boy. i know, as a catholic myself, part of being catholic is you go through the various rituals. one used to be called confession. reconciliation. he could talk about how he went to his priest and at no time did he ever confessed during this to this girl. on the other side of it, he may have been in a blackout when he did this. he may not remember it. if dr. ford says that it

happened, there is no way she would go through what she is going through now unless it really did. that is why women don't come forward is because an example is what is going on with dr. ford. men do not want to believe this happens. some of your prior women callers have indicated by their denial or dismissing of this treatment of women that they are in fact enabling that kind of behavior. if they have sons, enablingey are not that kind of predatory behavior in their sons. host: let's go to michael from connecticut. caller: good morning. i listened to all these people calling up and saying how she doesn't know what she is doing. trump who is in there

who had 16 people accuse him of sexual harassment. he says they all lied. it is just insane. we have this one woman. these people saying the mainstream media, do they understand that is what most of the people in the country believe? what you believe, the other stuff, is craziness. it is all insanity. women not to be behind this is crazy. this judge, he is the tastiest iest white guyast i have ever seen. host: is there anything judge kavanaugh could say to make you believe in? caller: a lot of people have been saying lie detector test. that will be something. ,e admits he actually done it

donald trump would say that is ok. donald trump is a real scumbag. have a good day. fromalet's go to linda arizona. caller: good morning. i agree with the women that are calling in better say it is about sexual harassment and professional environments. i feel it has taken away from the black lives matter movement. somehow that has become political and a sin against the flag and the military, which it is not about. black men are still getting shot in the streets. me too has taken away from that movement. i feel kavanaugh will get in, but if you live long enough, things just come around. this is so similar to clarence thomas and anita hill.

it is just deja vu. thank you. host: let's go to jeffrey from new york. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to point the me too direction in this direction. repealing statute of limitation for rape and child molestation. , the repeal these laws point is moot that this happened 35 years ago. fact that the 17-year-olds are charged all the time as adults in rape cases. i worked for the county jail. i know what i'm talking about. a 15-year-old is a child. that is a child molestation, attempted rape.

if these born-again christians and catholics are so bad on repealing roe v. wade that they would allow a child molester, ,apist as a supreme court judge they're going to hell in a handbasket. from let's go to ty washington. i wanted to call because i have been watching since your show started. i am disgusted by all the men and women that are saying all this stuff is absurd, that they agree with what this person is saying and the fact that kavanaugh has had all these things, and the need to think -- me too thing. i am going to be 57 next week. -- being in army

the army, i was molested. or 30, up until i was 25 by friends and people and being shy and not discussing it with people. i totally understand what dr. ford is going through. the fact that all these men are talking about it because they don't know, i so don't understand why all these people are calling and saying they agree with kavanaugh when i have watched everything on cnn and c-span about kavanaugh and when he was going through the spring justice -- supreme justice. they hide all these thousands of documents that they consume. the fact that he will not allow any of these people to testify

to to testify to say they've known about what is going on makes me upset. host: we have a call from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that both men, women, aisle, young, old, irrespective of racial or religious ethnicity, it is important that we set examples for our children, and these types of public venues where people are bitter and unethicalhateful and /nothe point where believing believing, polygraphs/lies, it does not set any type of admirable or any type of true example as to where we want our children to be. host: let's go to frank from new

haven, connecticut. caller: thank you for taking my call. awesome subject. this is basically all hate, because the proof, there is none whatsoever. i have eight sisters. have gone through worse things than this, and what this is happening is they are stopping the truth from coming out. this is a made up story, otherwise her herself, miss ford, would have came and went to legal services first before going to cnn or whoever. next, council for foreign relations, stewart patrick, who will talk to us about president trump's meeting in front of the u.n. general assembly later. then syndicated columnist mona charen and zoe carpenter will

talk again about brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination. this week, interview with house majority -- charlie kelly. he talked about issues playing out in-house campaigns this fall , especially about the issue of corruption. >> i think that corruption is in the ether. it is something that people are surprised by. obviously with trump and the investigation around russia. the issue with a number of republican incumbents, whether upstate new york, hunter in southern california, scott taylor. even the lieutenants within the government -- within the republican caucus are facing scandal. but the main focus is these economic issues.

>> one of the tactics we are seeing from republicans is to try to tie democratic candidates across the map to nancy pelosi. we are seeing that virtually everywhere. his nancy pelosi a political liability for democrats? if so, how should they respond to the ?ttacks question mar >> this is somebody who did a great job as speaker, would do a great job going forward. the real reality is that paul ryan is the single most unpopular lyrical figure in the country. trump's numbers continue to drop , and those are falling fast, but paul ryan, in district after district, survey after survey, is the single most unpopular political figure. >> washington journal continues. host: we are here with stewart of -- , author

president trump is in a go to the u.n. general assembly. what do we expect to hear? guest: a second helping of america first. i think at this point, the audience knows what it tastes like. i think the big issue in terms of controversy is likely to be the u.s. relationship with iran. i think that after a rough year of u.s.-u.n. relations, they want to see if the president has a positive agenda for the world browbeating. the -- besides the browbeating. host: he said a big issue would be iran. what do you expect him to say? guest: initially, at the beginning of the month, nikki haley had to build this as a at iran'sto look

destabilizing regional activities. it got a lot of pushback from russia and other members, so they expanded it to nuclear nonproliferation affairs. but then the president just tweeted, looking forward to the session on iran! the united states controversially pulled out of the joint comprehensive plan of action on iran, even over the objections of allies. it would be interesting to see whether iran is isolated, or the united states is. france and britain sit on the council and are opposed to the american step. host: last time president trump's spoke in front of the u.n. general assembly was his famous rocket man speech. do you expect fireworks like that? guest: according to the way ambassador haley has laid it

out, there will be, i think, a controversial speech. last year, i think the president benefited from low expectations in the sense that people really expected a controversial speech. you mention rocket man, but the first half of the speech was well received, we are protecting our interests like each of you are. he got a lot of applause for that. i think there's been so much controversy over palestinian/israeli relations, the president i'm sure will hit that. he will try to explain why the united states left the u.n. human rights council, not doing anything on climate change. i think that overall, he's going to try to explain why the united states has not just in exceptional list, but exemptionalist, pulling itself out of several u.n. bodies. a recent wrote in article that you think president

trump might get some blowback. what do you mean by that? what exactly do you expect from other countries? guest: there will be other leaders there like emmanuel paris, who probably feels a little insulted or aggrieved that the united states has pulled out of the climate accord. he has called for more effective multilateralism aired that is at least an indirect attack on the united states, because the u.s., in his view, is abdicating its responsibilities area i think the idea that the united states is being so transactional under president trump. there's no discussion of american leadership, a word he hardly uses. i think there will be criticism of u.s. policies towards the human rights council, toward the fact that it has not signed up for a global compact on migration.

there will be some support for the ongoing negotiations with north korea, which are sort of trundling along. think he'll hear that you can't just have america go it alone. host: we are hearing from stewart patrick. we want you to join this conversation. democrats can call at (202) 748-8000. republicans can call it (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call us at (202) 748-8002. twittercan reach us on at http://twitter.com/cspanwj. every time president trump's speaks in front of a global look at theders, we side conversations. do we expect him speaking

one-on-one with any leaders? guest: the big question is if you will speak to president rouhani of iran. because he has -- focused on iran, under protocol, that president has the ability to attend the session. if so, president trump, the optics are going to be pretty wild. one would expect, president , so he willtheater really take that opportunity to lay into iranian behavior. he may or may not stick around to see if president rouhani responds. the white house has been ambiguous on whether he will even shake his hand. there's a number of world leaders who will not be there. vladimir putin is not going to be there. probably just as well, given the continuing controversy over russian meddling. is also not jinping

going to be there, and in the midst of a trade war, donald trump has doubled down, probably also useful for both parties, at least the chinese leader, that he won't be there. he'll be meeting with the south korean leader who has just met with kim jong-un to deal with the north korean program, those are the big meetings i expect. host: richard is calling from rhode island on the democrats line. morning, thank you for accepting my call. i am a 78-year-old man, and i have seen this country changed so radically in my lifetime that i believe we are not the greatest country in the world anymore. country has got some internal and external problems , go into these

big leaders and trying to get something straightened out. but you have a man like donald trump as the executive of this asntry, puts a damper on, donald would say, big league. immoralhe is an individual, and i'm surprised people think that legality supersedes morality. makes someink he very interesting points about the nature of american leadership under donald trump. it's interesting that the phrase, global leadership, which we've seen from both democratic and republican predecessors of donald trump, something that came off the lips of george w. bush, barack obama. there's always been a sense of american exceptionalism, as in ronald reagan's phrase, the shining city on a hill.

the sense that the united states is the indispensable leader, to use madeleine albright's phrase from the clinton administration, the question is, do those catchphrases really matter in an era of america first? donald trump represents a very , a group constituency of folks who believes, look, we've been letting a lot of people free ride on the united states for a long time, we've been at lists, trying to hold up the world -- we've been atlas. i don't want to minimize the constituency that believes that, but it gets into problems when you have something like the town hall meeting of the world, what happens this week when all of the leaders to send on new york. the question is if the united states doesn't lead, who will? , like in thees

paris climate accords, saying we will continue. maybe you are more dispensable than you thought. and other countries like china might fill the vacuum. we must think, is that what we want? the united states relationship with the u.n. right now? is it a rocky relationship? are we still talking about money that is owed? in his first trump year exceeded expectations, had a good working relationship with antonio guterres, about as good as you could get from the u.s. perspective. but in the last year, i mentioned a number of things the united states would pull out of. john bolton, in his private life, has often said the united states should not only cut back its funding for the united nations, but in certain cases, particularly -- and peacekeeping

budgets, those are legally binding. he says there's no reason these shouldn't be voluntary. so going forward, there's a chance -- cutting back on the amount of money we spend on the u.n., which in some views might be a violation of international law, something we might see coming down the pipe. host: richard on the independent line. caller: i was wondering, with president trump's poor relationships around the world, including our allies, is there a consequences the of the united states losing the dollar as world currency? host: ask your question again, you cut off a little bit in the middle. caller: with donald trump's relationship with the u.n. and the world, including our allies, chance,ering is there a and what would be the

consequences, if the u.s. lost the dollar as the world currency? point,that is a great and it is something that people raise every once in a while. there's a certain amount of resentment around the world about the advantage the united states gets from having the world's key currency. whenever there's a crisis, there is a flood toward quality, safety, toward the u.s. dollar. occasionally, people think other countries will start to diversify their holdings. have, they will hold currency in british sterling or euros or the japanese yen, and the question of the chinese morency getting internationalized, will countries begin to do that? and if they start to dump their dollar holdings, obviously the united states would be in great difficulty. it would have less flexibility in terms of monetary policy and running deficits. because if we run these budget

deficits, we would depend on others to hold that. the difficulty with that, at least for the chinese to hold an amazing amount of american debt is if they were to, in a sense, spark a run on the dollar, the value of their equities would go down. there, but forut the chinese, it might be like holding a gun to your own head. host: janice calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. i would like to say i love president trump, i like nikki haley, i love that they cut money to the u.n., but i would like us to kick the u.n. out of them.s., stop paying anything, get them the heck out of th. the countries don't like us, we don't really like them, and that's it. [chuckles]

guest: janice is expressing an opinion that is quite strongly felt among i would say a minority of americans, but a significant one. space, that trump is a catch phrase hear among sovereignty minded americans, trying to get the u.s. out of the u.n. and the u.n. out of the united states. sometimes i think it would be easier if it were held in geneva, because being in new york probably sticks in the craw of people. frustratingup to be for at least a few reasons. if we are at loggerheads with the chinese or russians, they can veto any action we would like to do and we can do the same to them, and frankly, that was the price that was paid for the u.n.. and within the u.n. general

assembly, i think this is in part what janice was getting at, it is sort of a one country one-vote thing. but a take on aruba, small country like aruba -- the united states -- could bash the united states. but it might be overdoing it to say they all hate us. we do have a lot of friends and allies. the obama administration has shown that while it's not perfect, if you do a little retail diplomacy and use some shoe leather, you can get some stuff done. the final point i would make is on things like u.n. peacekeeping , not that that is perfect, there are a lot of conflicts around the world where horrible things will happen unless there are so-called blue helmets. the great thing about u.n. peacekeeping is we only pay about a quarter or even less on every dollar spent on that, yet

we get four times the amount of effort. the united states and american citizens deal with suffering in other parts of the world without putting u.s. troops on the ground. to me, that seems like a pretty good deal. that doesn't mean we can't be more efficient, and nikki haley has cut back on some of the peacekeeping, but she has said we will make what we can of the u.n.. that is a hopeful sign. host: what role will in u.s. ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley, have? has been quite outspoken, i will give her that. and she has not always been on the same page as the president, she is far harder on russia, i have to say. she is also far harder in the promotion of human rights. she has a little bit of a john mccain aspect, neoconservative aspect. so, she's carrying that flag.

i think that sometimes she's been, in my view, clumsy. we'll be taking names and if you us, will take note of that when we are doling support. quietly that might work, but if you say it out front, you end up creating political problems for those countries back home. ofn if they were thinking siding with the united states, now it would look like they are caving and i don't think they necessarily want to do that. this week, she will largely be facilitating. introducing the president, etc.. mike pence is going to be there, mike pompeo. this is her time, in a way, to facilitate introductions and be in the background. you will see her sitting behind the president of the un security council, but she will not be the front person.

host: call from massachusetts on the democrat line. there is an article in the new york times today stating that president trump gets his instructions on middle east policy from his donor, the arch sheldon adelson, and it is rumored that in 2024, nikki haley is going to do a run for the presidential nomination and that she is angling for funds from the same sheldon adelson. would you care to comment? guest: thank you very much. yet, so see that piece it is hard for me to comment specifically on what it says. there is no question that this administration, with respect to arab-israeli issues, has very

the aligned itself with netanyahu government in israel. in the view of some supporters hassrael, in some ways pursued counterproductive policies by sort of moving away from any possibility of a two state solution or any likelihood of one, and having undermined the u.s. aspirations, historical aspirations, of being a broker within the middle east peace process. it is hard for me to believe that simply the acts of one donor, sheldon adelson for instance, would completely dictate the president's policy, or nikki haley. i think there's a lot of reasons republicans believe that supporting a democracy in the

middle east, even one as imperfect as israel can be at certain times, is. there are a lot of things to debate about the relative merits of israel and the palestinians in terms of missing opportunities for peace and peaceful coexistence over time, financial contributions would probably be just one aspect. host: speaking specifically, how significant was it that the u.s. recently cut off aid to the palestinians, and could we see a meeting in new york with president trump and allies to discuss what happens then? guest: it's possible, but i don't see that on the agenda yet . i think the administration has taken a lot of heat for cutting off aid to the u.n. rehabilitation and works program. the argument for cutting it off on the part of proponents is that, in a way, the notion that

these palestinian settlements are still refugees is a fiction. they've been there for generations, etc.. also a lot of disagreement on that site about the degree to which this territory really belongs to the palestinians, etc.. and it is dangerous, the critics say it is dangerous that some of this money from the u.n. is being divergent to, say, support hamas and other extremist wings within the organization. the counterargument is that things are pretty desperate in the occupied territories, particularly in gaza but also the west bank. if you dismantle this apparatus, are you, in a sense, it is like a pressure valve in some ways. is this just going to put the pressure back in? could it lead to an explosion? internationally, it doesn't help out in terms of a more balanced approach from the rest of the u.n. membership. i think it really ramps up the

support for the palestinians. that being said, it's interesting with all that is going on in the middle east that the arab-israeli dispute, which in termse number one of what people are talking about. now there's syria, yemen, all these other conversations. the people that really want to put the screws on the palestinians are saying this is the time to do it. to barbara from gulf shores, alabama, on the independent line. ask mr.i meant to patrick, since i've heard about the council of foreign relations a few years back, i've been councilg, who funds the of foreign relations? who is the major funder, and how do you get your money? who pays your salaries, all of

the financials on that? host: i appreciate -- appreciate that question. especially since occasionally, on websites, the council for foreign relations is sort of put on as a conspiracy-based organization. the finances are transparent on our website, but i'll say a lot of it comes from membership dues and we publish the members on the public website. about 5000 members, give or take, across the country. democrats, republicans, independents. cfr was established in -- work with president wilson at ae time, it is basically platform of americans that now has a national membership. it used to be a particularly new york-based, now there's one in d.c. and a national program with 40% around the country.

in terms of money, we have an endowment which is pretty significant. dues, andmbership amount of member pays whether they are in the profit or nonprofit sector. we get some money from corporations, though it is rather modest in terms of our overall share. we sometimes get money from philanthropic organizations. i certainly get money from foundations. the foundation i get our money from is a nonpartisan, minneapolis based one. but other people from the macarthur foundation, the gates foundation, it is pretty transparent. we try to be as transparent as possible. thank you for your question. host: president trump speaks in front of the u.n. on tuesday. there is an international drone policy meeting on monday. who attends that?

guest: this is fascinating. it is by invitation. this is something that has happened in the last few years, with barack obama, and now donald trump, has thought to themselves, we are going to be there in new york. let's bring some folks in on an issue of particular concern to the united states. peacekeeping, trying to generate global support. so the united states didn't have to do everything on its own. last year, donald trump held the day before the big leaders meeting with antonio guterres, in front of the united nations, aligning the u.s. with those efforts. monday, basically this will be about the global drug problem. i think for the president, he invited a bunch of governments, i think more than 100 have sent member states out of almost 200, have said they would attend. the idea is to call attention to

the need to redouble counter narcotics efforts around the world. area whereis is an the president, with a few caveats, could get global support. and it provides him with a domestic way of highlighting what has been a signature team in his administration, getting after the opioid epidemic. the only thing i would say is potentially problematic is it used to be there was a pretty common front globally on fighting the war on drugs. it has gotten a little more complicated with respect to cannabis. you've got the canadians in the next few weeks, going to make right acrossal, the border. and you've got the situation in the united states, of course, somejurisdictions have form of that

taken a hardons line on this. when they go abroad, they get an earful. line, are doing a hard and your federal system, but the states are doing a thing. host: cody is calling from new york on the republican. -- on the republican line. caller: i'd like to touch on the portion where one of the gentleman had called in and wondered why we are going with legality over morality, to touch on that. , everyone has a different moral compass, so i think legality levels the playing field for everyone. it seems like a lot of people go on emotion now as opposed to the facts of everything. i think that would definitely be the best way moving forward. i love what this administration is doing on a foreign level as

opposed to what the prior administration has been doing. at a big fan of the u.n. all. can you really see any portion would really affect the united to honestly just leave the u.n.? i think we do so much for all of these other countries, not really reciprocating in return. but i understand, and when someone comes out and says they are going to put america first, it seems like everyone is shocked to see someone doing what they say they are going to do. i don't see any portion of it that would really harm us as asides benefiting us, from the military reasons and these other countries, to try to support them. i don't see what we get in return. guest: that is a fascinating question and one that gets to the heart of the debate as to what the united states is

getting out of this. if it disappeared, would that be a problem for the united states? if we weren't a member? we weren't a member of the league of nations, for example. the first thing is there's a sense that we are giving a lot, and i'll get to that. i think it is important to bear in mind how modest the resources of the united nations are. the regular budget is only a thele bit larger than annual lobbying expenditures at the national rifle association. largery a little bit than the annual expenditures of the new york city police department. it's a big police department, but still. it puts it in perspective a little bit. when you add in some of the spending for voluntary agencies and others, you end up doubling that amount for a bit more, but it is a reasonably modest amount

compared to, say, the pentagon budget. it's close to a rounding error. in terms of what we get out of it, there's a lot of u.n.'s. and there's so many different agencies, and it is daunting when you look at the organizational chart. it's fascinating, because it shows everything the u.n. does. international atomic energy agencies, a watchdog group for nuclear weapons around the world. you've got the u.n. high commission for refugees, which helps deal with refugees and internally displaced people. people have been driven from their homes, more than 67 billion around the world -- 67 million around the world. we want to help those folks, the world health organization helps the world deal with things like other newcrisis or

and emerging infectious diseases, or god for bid if there is a weapons -- a bio weapons attack. some of these are not as efficient as they might be, but i have to say there's many things the u.n. does -- another one is the civil aviation association. when you get on an airplane, you would like to know that your plane has permission to go through these different parts of airspace, and if there is an emergency, something coordinated is can i happen and people will share information about passengers, may be bad actors getting on the plane. aspect, ing, everyday think we need to distinguish what is going on in those agencies and programs versus sometimes that u.n. headquarters, there can sometimes be corruption. but i think we have to look at the entire picture. host: calls from anaheim,

california. perot-ianm very ross in my politics. my favorite truth, facts, and results. results, andby with c-span, i wish you would have more point/counterpoint, another guy there to counter what this young man is saying. it's a strange observation i make it my age that people you try to be nice to treat you like craft, and people you don't care nice to you.be i even see it in the u.n.. i understand world war ii we were the last country standing, we shouldered the burden, fine. all these countries have finally come up, time to say, ok. i agree with you, let's move the u.n. out of new york to geneva and get out of it.

say, what isuld the cost benefit analysis of being in the u.n.? he said he doesn't mind spending the tax money, but it's how the money is spent is what bothers him. america first, we are in the majority. the only difference is you have the megaphone and we don't, we have the vote. that is why donald trump is sitting in there. i don't care about his tweets, i'll never own a gun or have an abortion so i don't care about those issues. jobse about jobs, jobs, here at not just for me but the americans in the future. o obama,reagan and boz trillions of dollars of wealth we've gotcountry, now a man trying to bring it back. are bringing up a

very important point and perspective. got to some of the cost benefit analysis, so i think we should distinguish between the u.n. as the u.n. versus different aspects of u.s. attitudes toward globalization. i think you raise some good points about jobs leaving the united states, and here this gets into criticisms of organizations like the wto and should we have brought china in particular into the wto when it was not a fully market economy? sympathizeay that i particularly with your criticisms of globalization and what it has done in terms of helping to hollow out the u.s. manufacturing base. hasuestion that competition put huge pressure on, and often unfair competition, on american

and sectors, particularly high paid manufacturing jobs. some of those jobs have also left for reasons of technology, technological innovation as well. i think that is another factor. the problem i see is not so much multilateral organizations like the wto or the proposed transpacific partnership. the problem has been the government, over decades, has failed to provide trade adjustment assistance or worker to get theor efforts and helpworkforce up them get the skills to compete more in this economy. there say to you, though, is no question that there's a lot of bipartisan support for what donald trump is doing, at least in his desire to confront china. the way he's doing it is a little scattershot and hitting

our other trade partners, but there is a lot of bipartisan agreement that the chinese economy needs to be restructured because they are stealing our intellectual property and subsidizing to compete against american industry. host: daniel calling from melbourne, england. molbourne.he name is melbourne is in australia. caller: i'll bring the point, the biggest problem in the world is high number of sons per father. if you look at the muslim countries and many including central america, that's the problem. how can we solve that problem? women to havee first birth after the age of 20 or so. 12, theyet pregnant at have 12 kids. if they wait to 23, they have two kids.

theou did that, all of terrorism, crime, immigration would disappear and that is what the u.n. should concentrate on. but maybe that is a topic that say, hard to let's accept. that is a theory by a professor birmingham university, and i wonder what your guest thinks about it. aware of it, where at least in part, if you have a huge proportion of your country being under the age of 25, that you end up having greater chances, particularly in economically difficult circumstances, you have a much greater chance of social and people have said this with respect to china. as a result of the one child policy, but you have a little bit of this in india, too, where you have a disproportionate male

to female ratio because a lot of abortions have been done to ensure there was a male child. the one hopeful thing i would say is that most countries in the world are going through pretty significant demographic transitions, where they have populationbulge and boulge, but fertility rates decrease. well i think there are a few danger zones we could pass through, not least in the middle east, which is quite young, and sub-saharan africa is a little problematic, not to say that there should be a particular population target, but it is a heavily youth-oriented population. one problem is not just potential instability, but as automation comes in, where are these folks going to find jobs?

and if they don't, is there going to be a higher level of desperation? at a time when the country is taking off economically -- i'm not a fan of mandated population targets, etc.. i think that gets a little bit into social engineering, but i'm confident that as folks prosper, sometimes less is more. host: in closing, tell us about your new book, the sovereignty wars. of whatt's about a lot i've discussed today, how the united states can cooperate with other countries, including joining international treaties and organizations without sacrificing what most people think about sovereignty, our constitutional independence. the point i make is that joining in terms of treaties and organizations, as long as it is done through constitutional means, as an expression of

american sovereignty. we can always leave if we want to. the argument i make is that thetimes, we get to have benefits of cooperation. we do have to voluntarily give up a little bit of freedom of action. i think there's this conceit or ona where if we just did it our own, took our ball and went home, we could get what we want. the argument i'm making is that in an age of global challenges, sometimes to get what we want, we have to go along with others and it requires a little bit of compromise. want to thank stewart patrick from the council of foreign relations, author of sovereignty wars. next, we will open the lines to aboutd let you talk whatever public policy you want to talk about or anything we've talked about on the show today. in the kratz, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002

>> tonight on afterwards, former secretary of state john kerry discusses his book, every day is extra. he is interviewed by former congresswoman jane harman. >> john and i were flying to kuwait in an airplane and didn't know each other very well at all , but we were seated opposite each other in seniority. it brought us together and we had a conversation into the night, talking about annapolis and his father and grandparents, his family and his own service, and his time as a prisoner. he wanted to learn more about what happened with us. we pledged to each other right then that the country was still too divided over the war.

that we felt we needed to find a way to not just make peace with vietnam but makepeace at home. tonight at 9:00 p.m. on book tv.o's on the communicators, barry lynn discusses his concern over companies like google, facebook, amazon, and hoover, possibly becoming monopolies and threatening democracy. he is interviewed by ashley gold, technology reporter for politico. >> we might have to start doing things like separating mapping off of search, separating search from youtube. in today's radical environment, but this is something we've done many times in the past. we did it with at&t in 1982, in 1913. we have done it with dozens of large corporations over the

years. it is our right as the people of the united states to structure the political economy in a way that is safe for us. watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> what does it mean to be american? year's studentcam competition question, and we are asking middle school and high school students to answer by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right, national characteristic, or historic event, and explain how it defines the american experience. we are awarding 100,000 dollars 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. >> washington journal continues.

host: we are going to open up the phone lines again. once again, let me give you the numbers. democrats, call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and if you are calling from outside the united states, (202) 748-8003, and you can always reach us on social media on twitter and facebook. oklahoma,o sean, from on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentleman who was just on, stewart patrick, i believe his name was. i've been sitting here all morning and i think he's one of .he logical thinking people

all these other countries, they don't have our best interest at heart. china is taking -- for weakness. they want to chain us down with environmental, global warming and all of that. in oklahoma,ry boy and like this me to think. they are weaponizing and politicizing the whole thing. court of law, a she would've gone to police instead of senators. i don't see how the senators up there with the big slush funds, the ethics departments, where everything goes and dies and gets covered up. notas far as jeff sessions doing his job as attorney he knewmakes me wonder,

everything about everybody and makes me wonder, what did they have, what does rosenstein have on jeff sessions where he's just lying down? that's a joke. from let's go to diane pennsylvania, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to discuss the me too movement and the professor ford allegations. of women,ere a poll and i'm 70 years old, you would probably find the vast majority of women at some time in their teenaged or young adult life have experienced some kind of unwanted groping or assault from a man. it is humiliating and can be emotionally devastating and there are a lot of reasons women don't want to speak out. maybe they were not supposed to be at the party, or are ashamed of being in a dangerous situation or don't want to

become unpopular. so the need to movement -- the hope itovement, i encourages young women to speak up. i understand why there are people who ask, why would she keep silent for all these years? i think there is probably some political motivation, but in any event, perhaps it shows rotatory men that getting away with it at the time doesn't mean it won't come back to hunt them at some time in the future. i have a question. i wrote to my pennsylvania about this asked particular topic, and his letter back to me said that the committee investigators have statements under penalty of felony from two alleged witnesses. i thought there were letters that came from this mr. judge, but i didn't know there were statements made from witnesses

under penalty of felony. thank you for taking my call. host: we are actually going to be bringing up all of this in the next hour at our roundtable, so i'll hold your question until then. brian calling from maryland on the republican line. caller: good morning. brian, ok? i'm part of the republican party, ok? i've been basically running the republican party, the main part -- since aboutl 2003. i was trying to get in touch with somebody in my republican them tocause i needed help me get a car in my possession, that i had worked for and earned here, but all of business,le are in my

trying to get in the way of things i should be able to get, mad because i be helping in the a mored the world, being secure and righteous place. running the house of representatives, kind of. you know. host: let's go to sandy from west virginia on the democratic line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. program,ginning of the there was a caller from maryland , speaking regarding the professional woman from colorado , and i just want to say -- are you still there? caller: oh, no, can you hear me? host: you are cutting in and out. say that i'me just

57 years old, and when i was 16 years old, i went on my first date. the boy had lived just down the street. and he ended up, at one time, taking me to his home. his brother was home and we were hanging out. , rememberingg man he was 18 and his brother around me.he ended up raping t.d it was with his fis and while i was screaming and screaming, and yelling, stop, and help, because i knew his brother was upstairs, he kept raping me until i was not a

virgin anymore, and he was proud of that. his brother ended up leaving the home and slamming the door as he left. i didn't tell anyone. that's when i was 16 years old. i didn't tell anyone until recently at 67, and i went to a psychiatrist. , suffered with years of ptsd not only due to that experience but others. because ms. forde did not come forward for many years, i can understand that totally. it does not mean that it didn't happen. i did not tell anyone because i thought it would be hurtful and worse for the people in my neighborhood, it

would cause additional problems if i said anything, so i didn't. say, at that also age, it doesn't matter the age, because all of us know what is right and what is wrong, and anyone who is hurting anyone andically, even verbally mentally, they know what they are doing, and years later, they know what they've done and how wrong it was. and lastly, i want to say this young man who raped me with his fist, today, if i saw him running for any kind of office, especially the highest office in our land, the supreme court, don't think that i wouldn't come forward now, because he would

not have the right to serve anyone in this country, no matter how good he might be as , what he did is in him. anyway, i think that is all i wanted to say. persons inthat the this world who have not had the experience of sexual abuse or theyshould not voice what are not able to understand. the negative remarks are , andhtless and hurtful mostly born of ignorance, so please try to have some bothstanding and hear

sides, and i thank you for taking my call and have a good day. , calling's go to mike from tacoma, washington, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to thank the last caller for sharing, that was very important and puts all of this in perspective, and i want to thank you for your straight face in giving people like her dignity in that way, and also less opinions. i want to talk about kevin are briefly because i don't -- about kavanaugh briefly about how we are even letting it get to this point. there are so many other things that are problematic about his nomination. andle condemning feinstein dr. ford for bringing this up as political just don't understand the history of the supreme court. theep going back to

nomination in the 70's. he was already on the court, so it wouldn't have even shifted the makeup of it. he was being nominated for chief justice. , how theally republicans killed it from the minority, was strom thurmond, who did something -- film festival, where he played these pornographic films that the supreme court had ruled not porn, protected by free speech, and the republicans played these constantly. he's a pornographer, while playing pornography in the senate building. , in that case, they didn't even have any real reason? it would not have changed the court's composition.

with kavanaugh, we have the documents, we have the lies, the evasive answers. it is hard to say that feinstein was wrong to bring this up when there's reason to it. on a more broad point, as a job seeker right now, i sure wish every job interview gives me the of aitutional right criminal, in the face of the jury trial. about dueas talking process and all of these other things. it's a job interview. no one is asking for him to go to jail. all she is saying is she doesn't want a second person on the supreme court being accused of these sorts of things. host: let's go to vicki, calling from indianapolis on the democrat line. name is vickie, i'm

calling from indianapolis, indiana, i'm 61 years old. byyears ago, i was molested a family member. it does happen. you hold it in for 30 or 40 years. the only thing i've got to say about the kavanaugh thing is if she can take a polygraph test can't?s, how can he and if he doesn't, there is no statute of limitations in the county where she was taken advantage of. go back and file charges on him. set the record straight for all of us, please. host: let's go to maxine from new baltimore, michigan, on the independent line. thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about the kavanaugh situation. going on in washington is sad, sad for america. this is not the america i grew up in.

i'm 79 years old. , i agree.ssor i believe her. she was assaulted. and i believe him, when he says he didn't do it. him, but he did not do it. they are both innocent until proven guilty. and most of america has drawn up their sides. she's innocent, he is guilty. thing is, a woman claim something, naturally, she is telling the truth and he must . lives haveof their been totally will end by this whole affair -- have been totally ruined by this whole affair. kavanaugh who has had an impeccable history in the judicial system, and now this

stain is on him, and his family is going through death threats, and her family is going through death threats. this is terrible. this is not america. a thinkingo we have that even resembles the american -- the america i grew up in. i thank you very much. will keep thee dry and wait until the hearing. and wait to see what he has to say what she has to say. have a good day. host: next up, we will continue the conversation about the upcoming kavanaugh hearing with syndicated columnist mona charen and zoe carpenter. we will be right back. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> what does it mean to be american? that is this year's studentcam competition question and we are asking middle and high school students to enter this by producing a short documentary about a constitutional right, a national characteristic, or a historic event and explain how it defines the american experience. we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information, go to our website. studentcam.org. tonight on q&a, cbs news chief white house correspondent

major garrett talks about his book "mr. trump's wild ride." >> this transcends partisanship. i describe trump as proto-partisan. he is bigger than partisanship because there is this emotional dynamo that he spends within people. , andes it intentionally sometimes he doesn't know it is happening. culture, economics, politics, and in ways you have detected, the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." afterwards, john kerry discusses his book "every day is extra," and is interviewed by ceo of the wilson

center, john harmon. >> we were flying together on an airplane. we were seated by seniority. but it brought us together and we had a conversation into the night, talking about annapolis, and his father and grandparents and family and his own service and his time as a prisoner. he wanted to learn more about how we. fought and what it was like and so forth. and we pledged to each other right then that the country was still divided over the war. and we thought we needed to try to find a way to not just make piece of their but at home. onwatch afterwards tonight c-span's booktv. >> "washington journal"" continues good charen, what is the

latest on the hearing? guest: the latest news i heard christinewoman that ford identified as being attendance with the party does not have any memory of it. she says, -- it does not provide collaboration. none of the people who are known who had been at the party, or accused of having been at the party, none of them says, none of them confirms that. that is where we are at the moment. host: zoe carpenter? guest: one interesting thing to add what that woman will supposedly at the party said, even though she doesn't recall the party or knowing kavanaugh is that she still believes christine ford. that is an interesting issue.

that may be a reason we want to hear testimony from the people who were supposedly at the party to explain why she believes her friend even though she doesn't have a recollection that the party. how much do we trust statements that are not given under oath? should we just believe statement said by their lawyers if they are not being brought in put under oath, mona? >> a statement under oath carries a lot more weight. , but ado lie under oath lot more reluctantly because there are legal consequences, or can be. but look, in terms of who to believe, what to believe? this has become so caught up in peoplesoft -- have been so caught up in peebles identification. you have people believing in christine ford or in brett kavanaugh. talk about a rush to judgment.

factsave decided that don't matter and that evidence doesn't matter, and they are picking their side and basing their belief and the truthfulness of these parties based on other factors other than the evidence. partisanthink that entrenchment is another argument for why there should be these like on thursday. i think until we have a process for collecting evidence that is neutral and not being conducted by republicans on one side and democrats on the others, we will continue to have this problem with judgments. we are talking about the upcoming hearing in front of the judiciary committee with brett kavanaugh. we want you to join in on the conversation. democrats can call 202-748-8000. republicans can call 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

if you're outside of the u.s., we want to hear from you at 202-748-8003. and you can always reach us on social media on twitter at c-spanwj or on facebook. do you think that judge blasey-fordd dr. are being treated fairly in the process? [laughter] guest: no. we don't live in a kind of country right now. we live in a place where we have twitter moms that descend on people for the slightest offense. we have an unbelievably iliticized judiciary, which believe began many decades ago when the supreme court began acting like a super legislature and the late justin anthony -- andthe said these late justice and tone and scully of said they should make policy

in terms of interpret the law. and of course, there are people or attempting -- there are people who are attempting to do that. dr. ford has had to move out of her house due to death threats. americatep forward in regarded as politically disadvantageous, you will get the most awful abuse online. and unfortunately, that is the one we are living in. becauset is a tough one we are not in a court of law with the processes are spelled out in black and white. trialkavanaugh is not on in a criminal proceeding at this point where you would have certain presumptions of innocence and burdens of proof. there is a lot more gray area when it comes to what does a fair process look like before a senate committee? me obviously, it seems to

and to many people that in the ,stimation -- to many people that in the beyond investigation would be a much more fair process rather than the accuser and accused being grilled by democrats and republicans. guest: one other thing about the nature of the accusations on kavanaugh that i find really troubling is, you have people saying, he must be guilty because so many men have done things like this. you had a piece in the atlantic by a good writer, but i thought the headline was very unfortunate. she was describing her own attempted rape when she was in high school, and she said, i faced my own brett kavanaugh in high school, assuming brett kavanaugh is guilty. that is irresponsible. it is true that many men commit these kinds of acts, but that does not mean all men do.

and you could never when you are trying to determine an individual's responsibility or guilt think, members of his or her group commit these kinds of acts. for example, you could say, you arrest a young african-american and a lot of african-americans commit crimes. but did this young african-american male commit a crime? i don't think people are saying he must be guilty because this stuff happen to me. i agree headlines can be misleading because you are encapsulating something complex into a few words. but i think there is a lot of nuance. what i am hearing from women as many people saying, this type of thing has happened to me or two people -- or to people i love, so we should ask for these

allegations. guest: i would differ so slightly. when people raise these things, they can say this is a moment to talk about the larger societal problem of behavior. i just wrote a book called "sex matters." have a say, we need to discussion on behavior, responsibility, but to say, these things happen to a bunch of that i know, therefore, he must have done it. i think that is prejudice in the conversation. guest: i don't hear a lot of people saying that. guest: it has dominated a lot of the discussion on television and radio. host: let's get america into the conversation. if you support judge kavanaugh, call 202-748-8000.

if you oppose judge kavanaugh, i want you to call 202-748-8001. if you are not sure either way, we want you to call 202-748-8002 . let's go to our first call who is gail calling from california and she supports judge kavanaugh. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you all? host: we are doing well. caller: great. i am in support of judge kavanaugh. i notice a pattern that goes on it every time it republican is job,r a nomination or a there are sexual innuendos and mudslinging at that person. most often, not warranted. i absolutely -- i am absolutely

appalled that we are going back 35 years to try to pull something out that somebody did when he was 17 years old. i can tell you as a woman, you do you know how many times men have been fresh and have done things inappropriately? that is the nation of the beast. -- that is the nature of the beast. everyone needs to calm down. we are going to be fine. we are going to get through it. and we need to get through it together. host: does it matter how long ago something happened? does the distance any age of the accusation --the accuser and accuse the matter? case ishe age in this right on the cusp of adulthood. when 17-year-old commit serious crimes, they are often

tried as adults. so that is tricky. from my own personal perspective , i would have to say, that i have drawn, i have an open mind. i believe that if there is evidence, if there is more evidence that comes out, like some corroboration by dr. ford of her account, then it would be credible, but for now, you know, i'm sympathetic to the idea that kavanaugh may be innocent. having said that, i would say, that if it is true that everything in her accusation happened the way she described it. that is, at a party, 17-year-old boy turns up the music in the bedroom so no one can hear her scream with an accomplice, jumps on her, covers her mouth to make her fear that she may suffocate and laugh and tears her clothing

, that is notbra--- that is not bra-snapping. that is a serious crime. assuminge way i am not it is true, but if it is to -- but if it is true, it would be enough to disqualify someone even this many years later. guest: again, he is not facing a criminal trial. you know, he is essentially applying for one of the most prominent jobs in the country. is, is something you did at 17 should disqualify you? if you didferent of something at 17, should he get you 25 years to life. ? i think we have heard a lot of trivialization of these kinds of incidents that this is just boys

being boys. that speaks to a certain culture of looking past all of the many ways in which women have been harassed and abused over the years and have become so normalized. i think part of what the me too movement has done a shift that question in and raised awareness that this is not just bra- snapping. that: let's bear in mind trial and does not have fear of going to jail. and the legal standards of the burden of proof do not apply, but we are looking at the possible distraction of the whole man's character, which is a devastating blow. we have to be awfully careful about leveling the sturgess we are seeing. and also careful about evidence. involve at does not

criminal prosecution, the results could be like shattering if it is a false -- could be life-shattering if it is a false accusation. guest: sure, but we are talking about nominating him to the supreme court. this should be part of the process by which he is judged. and if there isn't hard fast evidence, questions about his character do apply to the process to which he is judged. guest: glad you mentioned that because i agree. , i have been generally supportive of the "me too" movement. but one thing we have seen what the "me too" movement is that men have been serial abusers, and women come forward and say, the same thing happened to me. we are looking at judge kavanaugh, we have to take into account his whole life. he had one accusation of terrible conduct, and you have

to look at the entire rest of his life and everything we know about him, and all of the people who vouch for his wonderful character. people who i know who know him say he is a sterling person. i don't know anything about dr. ford. maybe she is telling the truth, but -- the rest of kavanaugh's for a lot whennt we are trying to determine whether he is a man of low character. host: i posed this question to my callers and i will post it to both of you. is there anything that that would could say make you believe her? guest: i can imagine, yes. i can imagine so. it is more when you -- look, juries have the job of the time of evaluating the legal ability

of witnesses. fd they base that on settledueds -- and they base it on settled feuds -- and they euds betweenettled f human beings. it could be she will provide more details that are proof. it could also be, so far, every, single other person involved in this has denied it. host: i understand they said they don't remember. guest: or they don't support her version of events. they either said it did not happen, in the case of one friend, or that kavanaugh denies it, and a friend says he denies it, and then the two other people being involved that say they don't have any memory. for now, there is not much to go on. host: is there anything that

judge kavanaugh could say it would make you not believe it? guest: it is difficult for me to go through all the possible things he could say and decide which one would convince me. forward to what both of them have to say. it is not what each of them say individually, but the whole circumstances and what the suppose it witnesses would say -- and the supposed witnesses would say. i don't have an answer of what he could say that would make me not worry about this allegation. gene for's go to michigan. go ahead. certainly feel that kavanaugh, if he wants to wasn'that happened, he involved, should not impose

taken a polygraph test. by come from an industrial military background, and there are people we would not hire if they would oppose taking a polygraph test. our fbi does it, the cia does it. i have gone before both law enforcement agencies as well as talking to the fbi, and the first thing i have said is that i waive my miranda rights and will take a polygraph test, you can record anything i say, when i have faced opposition, or faced something illegal. and i just don't get it. particularly for a supreme court justice that is helping, or , allsedly supporting our of our constitutional rights.

of the radio or tv stations ever talk about it supreme whether court justice, who is going to be controlling our future for 30 or 40 years, should have a right not to take a polygraph test. has judge kavanaugh talked about taking a polygraph? peoplei certainly heard say he should take a polygraph test. we should remember that polygraph tests are not 100% accurate all the time. point is, if judge kavanaugh and republicans are certain of his innocence in certain that this incident never happened, then you would think they were be eager to participate in a nonpartisan

process to clear his name. it could take just a few days. it did in the case of anita hill's allegations. i think part of the reason why dr. blasey-ford's allegations have struck many being so credible is that she has asked for an fbi investigation, and has shown herself willing to participate in a process that if ,he were proven to be line could result in -- proven to be lying, could result in criminal charges. guest: the late, great william safire made his -- made it his great causes for the use of polygraph. he said they are totally unreliable. some of the worst spies in history have failed through polygraph and they are not accepted in courts of law for very good reason.

good people can beat them and people can fail them and back people can beat them. dianne feinstein was in possession of this accusation. and she handled it very badly in a professionally. as an article in the weekly standard pointed out, there are procedures in place, in the in vettingfor use nominees for judgeships and for the justice department officials, where these kinds of accusations are made anonymously or otherwise all the time. they are referred to the committee. staff of the committee investigate, sometimes themselves, sometimes with help from the fbi in it is handled confidentially and the results are kept in a locked safe. to be a sense of comedy between the two site that

these accusations, which are inevitable we are investigating this background that someone will say something negative. there was a certain expectation and confidence that neither side would attempt to use these accusations that come up for political purposes. i think dianne feinstein violated that. she held onto this and did not share it with the committee and there was no opportunity early in the summer for a fair and quiet investigation of these charges. instead, she held it to the very, very last-minute. now, there are calls to the investigation the should of taken place weeks ago. guest: i don't think dianne feinstein could have had a feeling that if she had feeling that if she had turned over this information, it would have been kept confidential. [no audio]

she has received death threats. part of her consideration was to truly, what is truly the thing to do is respect this request to maintain the information confidentially? i am not saying the way she handled it was necessarily the best way, but i do think it was an extremely complicated situation where sharing it with the committee might not have protected dr. ford's identity ultimately. and so, i think that we should fortrivialize the dilemma senator feinstein was under and how to handle the letter. host: let's go to mark calling from buffalo, new york. he opposes judge kavanaugh. mark, go ahead. caller: i am opposing judge kavanaugh just under the idea that, if you are under

consideration to be appointed to a lifetime position to the supreme court of the united states of america, you should beyond -- you should be beyond reproach. that means, there should be no -- there should be no one coming forward that can say, he raped me, he abused, that he did this or that to me. i think that in america, we have lost sight of our basic ideals. longer, we are almost like hypocrites now because we do not ascend to excellence. though hisaugh, even judicial record could be considered to be sterling, the fact that someone came and said, hey, this man raped me 35 years ago, and now you have judge

kavanaugh saying, hey, i did not do it. i don't remember. iss is something, this casting doubt. if there is doubted that the american people, we should not even be having this conversation. if the american people continue to allow the standards of to have any idea that this person is not of good -- that this person is not a good person, that this person did something bad, that this person has not admitted this saying, hey, when i was a kid, i was foolingound -- i was around, i made a mistake, and i am sorry.

judge kavanaugh, that would have lifted him. is that enough to disqualify someone from the supreme court? guest: that is a reason to have the full investigation. the public's perception of the supreme court is trust. and its ability to properly judge our nation's law is key to its power. it is public legitimacy. if there is a public perception that the process was somehow undercut or rushed, or there was an effort to cover things up, we have already seen some sloppy work on the part of the republicans in trying to blame this on a classmate, and naming this man publicly. that casts a lot of doubt into the process. , again, that is another argument for why the needs to be a full and

transparent investigation. ,uest: so, here is the problem and i agree with the caller that we should always look for the highest, ethical and moral standards on the part of nominees for the supreme court, or any other positions of trust in the united states. risk that ifa real you say, the mere accusation leveled against someone is enough to sink their entire reputation with nothing more, you are creating an incentive ar somebody, who has say political problem with a nominee, to come forward, make in that decision, and sink it because now that person -- because now that person is under a cloud. that would create all along incentives. we don't want to have a system where a mere accusation is enough to sink someone.

podcast that i a do, when papal -- when people say, why would people make in that position that is not true? look at the way east germany was run. there was the secret police. if you had a problem with your neighbor, or you had a grievance against somebody, you could anonymously inform on that person, and suggest that they were disloyal to the party, and they would have a midnight knock at the door and be dragged off by the secret police. it is really, really important and we do not have a standard that says, mere accusations supported by anything else or any other accusation, is enough. by the way, if brett kavanaugh was the kind of person who does this, i would think, absolutely positive, but it would seem very likely there would be other women who would say, yes, i experienced similar treatments.

guest: but why would they say such a thing and if those women exist and i am not saying they do, but what incentive would there to be to come forward when they see how dr. ford's safety has been threatened. ? there would bee multiple accusers, but there are not always. guest: i don't need to assume. i am saying in cases where people have been found to be guilty under the "me too" standard, there are usually multiple accusers. we find out that are multiple accusers because there is a month-long process. reporter been a working on that story for 12 months or longer who has been making calls in trying to get those people to come forward on the record. it doesn't -- it doesn't just happen overnight that you multiple accusers. let's go to maria who was

not sure about judge kavanaugh. go ahead. caller: i have a problem with the timing of the whole thing. i did not really care about judge kavanaugh one way or the other, except to read a few of his judgments in the beginning. my problem is, senator feinstein is the ranking senate judiciary committee head. she could have held the knowledge, she could have given out the knowledge that she has in privateate july to the committee to be investigated. from my understanding, judge kavanaugh has been vetted six times or more for various positions in the judicial system. something should have come out to show a pattern of his character, a pattern of his behavior. 87 women apparently came out to show a microcosm of his life

from high school to present day that about for his standard of character. so far, there has been one accuser. areif you are like me, and on social media, people have already taken sides very quickly. as far as being beyond reproach of character, in that case, every man who comes into political view should have to be afraid of anything he did in high school. i read the letter that was supposedly redacted on cnn. and from what i read, there was no rape. groping, a potential and it is simply an accusation. i am concerned about everybody listening to the, she took a polygraph. polygraph is not admissible in court proceedings because she does believe what happened to her, so she is going to pass a

polygraph probably. my question is, why didn't she take a polygraph he for the accusation came out just to see if she could pass it? and then half of america would think she is right. host: that is a good question. how did she end up taking a polygraph before this became public? do either one of you know the process of how this happened? and even if she did, like the caller says, there are a lot of americans who have made up their minds. is there a point of going forward seeing stark lyrical division in the country? guest: i do think there is a point, although i regret that we have gotten to the stage where supreme court nominations have become popularity contests and circuses. that hearing, for example, was a complete breakdown in the corum, which is important. important to is

hear from her and evaluate her credibility regarding the polygraph as you hinted, and i earlier expressed my misgivings about polygraphs in general, but for her to take one before going nouse was really r a proposition because if she polygraph, she doesn't have to release the fact that she took it, and if she took it in past, she could present it. become abe she could from her own point of view, telling the truth, but truth is also a complicated thing and people can convince themselves of memories being accurate, and it can happen. to talkf we are going about a breakdown of decorum, let's talk about merrick garland, someone who was

stonewalled. thatnk, let's not pretend this single accusation and the way that judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearings was the first time that deorum wasn't brought up in the court -- broken in the court. i don't see this as people treating this as a popularity contest. american people seem to be aware of the states that are involved and -- the stakes that are involved. some of the decisions the court is likely to make at have a profound effect on the well-being of the economy of millions of americans. personallynk, i don't think that judge kavanaugh is being judged based on his personality at all. based on his being conservative judicial record and what he stands for in that respect. guest: it all comes down to

abortion. that is what this is all about. the left is terrified that a court would five conservative votes on it would overturn roe v. wade. and that is the sort of beating heart of liberal opposition to many, manyand to aspects of conservative judges in general. i would just point out that there is no prospect, i should say no prospect but practically no prospect that in -- that a conservative-majority court would do what a liberal-majority make that the is law of the land for all 50 states. there is no prospect that a conservative court would say, we have found a right to life in the constitution, and therefore, that has to be the law in all 50 states. what we are potentially looking

at, if there are five votes to overturn roe v. wade, is a regime where it would be returned to the people's representatives in 50 states to make laws regarding abortion. and that is what the left doesn't want to tolerate. guest: a number of states will make it automatically illegal and women will lose their rights to abortion, unless they have the means to travel to a state where it is legal. of income women, women collar, women who are geographically isolated from areas will be forced to have a pregnancy that they don't want and that is unconscionable. host: do you think all of this is about abortion with brett kavanaugh? guest: i think the significant amount of the opposition is. guest: more american women consider themselves pro-life and pro-choice. guest: we can quibble with those

numbers. guest: but don't say you're speaking for all women are this reflects all women's views. guest: it will affect their autonomy and their ability to make decisions, regardless whether they think they could make that decision. it would effect their legal rights, because of what they think of those rights. abortion as a big part of this, but there is questions -- there are questions about executive power, environmental regulations. there are a whole host of areas on which the supreme court will rule and having a majority -- and having a conservative majority will be important. guest: doesn't it bother you that people the power to be in the hands of nine nonelected lawyers than the people responsible for making these tough choices about matters of conscience, like abortion? guest: you have to talk to the founders of that because there

is a reason we have checks and balances. the supreme court is there for a don't always agree with them. maybe they have too much power and we should talk about that. but we should not automatically give states the right to do whatever they want to do. calling fromis north carolina who is opposing judge kavanaugh. janine, go ahead. caller: yes. zoe?ur name guest: yes. you for saying what i want to say about judge kavanaugh. mona, i don't agree with you in any way, shape, or form, but that is not why i called. the need to movement started a year ago -- the me too movement started a year ago. marches, tens the of thousands of men were out there who were also marching in favor of the "me too" movement.

the young men, now adult men from the penn state issue years ago, finally came forward. the young men, now adult men, with the attacks by the priests, etc., going before the vatican. supporttoo" movement young men, men, boys, whether they are in church or in the military, or and the frat house, siblings orown parents or whatever, they do not have a voice because they were not allowed to speak up. movement has given males as well as females, a voice. do not forget that. conway saysnne

there was a connection with the "me too" movement and what is going on with brett kavanaugh. i think the me too movement has done good and is long overdue. about an additional view it and those interested can read my book where i talk about how it is a cry of pain on the part of women on the culture that the sexual revolution has spawned in america. not a "me too" moment. sure, it is true that the accusations don't always come out it wants, that is true, but most of the people about whom these accusations were made are not the kind of sterling people that everyone speaks highly of. they usually have a reputation

and there are usually rumors about them being rotten. they usually treat men badly, too, as well as treating women valley. we don't have that with kavanaugh. he hired more female law clerks than anyone else. girls' basketball team. he has been admired and lauded by thousands of people. seem like he fits the profile, even of a jerk, far less a potential rapist. fits: it is a profile that all perpetrators. that is a very dangers and misleading assumption that we have heard for decades. assume that as rapist is someone who jumps out of the bushes and holds a knife.

it is a holdover of a long history of not taking women's allegations seriously. guest: it is not that we don't take allegations seriously. i suppose there are some who don't, but it is unbelievably difficult to assess a rape charge. witnesses andh no almost every case and it is he said, she said. and it is such a serious charge and taken so seriously and so severely punished if a person is convicted. you have to be careful. guest: but we are not talking about a conviction here. guest: what you mentioned women are not believed, and i was saying, it is not that women are not believed, that it is hard to prove a rape charge. guest: but there are all sorts are not -- women believed because it is instantly dismissed, and there are many incidences of women reporting

rape and then the object of scrutiny. women feel like their claims were not heard to begin with and were instantly demonized. not that in the end, they cannot find enough evidence. guest: i do agree with you that that does happen and that is a part of life and to the degree -- and i think we have become more sensitive about how we handle rape accusations and people who have been raped. and i certainly have seen that over my lifetime. but there is no way you can reduce that to zero because of the nature of the crime, and the nature of evidence. ask,now, you do have to does she have a motive to lie? that has to be a part of the evaluation. fort is not, he could jail 25 years or lose his position, or whatever.

there are many cases of women, not most, but many cases of women lying about rape. it does happen. we have to be careful. host: one of the things we found out is that in a to senator grassley resigned because of an accusation that came from a previous job. garrett told nbc news and the washington post that he denied the sexual harassment allegation, but resigned from the committee as to not distract from what is going on with judge kavanaugh. mona, what do you think about this? guest: i don't know what to think. whether he is guilty or innocent, i just don't know enough about it to comment. i don't know if this allegation in particular is true or false. i do think it is remarkable and worth noting how many people connected to this administration, have been accused or convicted of violent crimes.

this moment does not come in isolation when we are talking about kavanaugh. it comes into context where there are all sorts of people and administration who have resigned, or who are working under clouded allegations about their treatment of women. host: let's go to david who is calling from almonte, california, and he supports judge kavanaugh. caller: i hope people are innocent until proven guilty. you keep citing the polygraph test. what questions were asked? we don't know. and this lady is accusing him. she is setting the rules on -- of how she's going to conduct herself. she flewen reported many times from california to hawaii. how would you react if someone accused you of sexual harassment

36 years ago? how would you react back to that? that judge reported kavanaugh's brother decided a case in which dr. ford lost her house. host: that story has not been proven. but what about the woman that doesn't remember what happened and has not provided any evidence? women can accuse anybody. and what do women say, he pretty much must be guilty. i see women attacking men and sexually harassing men. and then later on, we find out that the woman lied. we talked about this administration. what about the democrats who testify before

congress because they are guilty of sexual harassment? let's go to augustus. caller: good morning, c-span. think to ask you, do you -- [indiscernible] woman. more than 50 -- also, how well do we know [indiscernible] figures. public how well do we know public figures? was, the caller's question there are a lot of women who are ready to support judge kavanaugh. is that a political move to have those women ready? guest: it is hard to speculate. they did that awfully fast. but to the second point of the

fact certainly just the that he has friends in people who support him, doesn't necessarily mean this allegation is baseless. it obviously matters, but there are many examples of people who are well respected in the community and of lots of supporters who have later shown to have been abusive in one way or another. someone having a good reputation doesn't necessarily mean they're private life has always been flawless. host: mona? guest: regarding the women coming together and endorsing him, i think that is in the era of social media and email. it is easy, boom. look, we haven, gone over this and we're getting to the point of repeating ourselves now. it has to be evaluated. this one accusation has to be evaluated in the context of the

full range of what we know about the man and about the accuser and the instance. so far, i have not seen anything that is all that persuasive to me. especially because, the other people's names have not supported her version of events. so far, i think the balance tips in his favor. host: let's go to many calling from louisiana. go ahead. caller: ok. i am calling, no woman at this with should be going along this nomination of kavanaugh. women can see now, how this lady has been treated, you can see why they have not come forward. and you have to remember, when fbinomination came up, the

found a lot of them were taken out. and they have not turned over all of them yet. do you understand? this is deplorable. , like the one pushing this man through, they always had women under their footstool. and the reason why i am saying that is i am 85 years old, and i have seen this over and over again. he lied twice. no, nothingd, oh like that happened. then he came back and said, i wasn't even at that party until his friend came forward. need toink now, women step up, especially the two sitting there now. host: let's go to alfred calling

from louisiana and he supports judge kavanaugh. alfred, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. can you hear me? host: we can hear you. caller: first of all, mona charen, i have watched you for years. withave had a relationship the person you have a different view and i was always interested in the fact that you had different views and were such good friends. of zoey by the name carpenter. i want you to really listen to me. i am a black male. i him a democrat -- i am a democrat and i voted for ,linton, then gore, then kerry then obama, then trump. and the reason i voted like i did is because of what i am seeing right now. the democratic party scares me as a black male.

a manooking at possibly getting his career destroyed because of an accusation. i would like the democratic party to be what it used to be. thet of times, people and i amrvative party -- seeing democrats destroying it if you don't fit the mold or go with what they say you should go with. i'm looking at senator, let harris, and what you are doing right now. you really scare me. well, i do think there are a lot of men who are afraid of this new era in which these allegations are being taken more seriously than they had in the past. i do hear the caller's point about race, and i think there is a history of racist allegations being made against black men that proved to be untrue, and that is a history we have to grapple with, so i understand that nuance. but i think the democratic

party, would i -- my interpretation is different. i don't think what senator, let harris and the others he mentioned, i don't perceive them as being on some sort of vigilante witchhunt. i think they are part of a group of people that say, it is time that we take these accusations seriously and pursue this investigation commenced at a belittling these women and brushing the claims aside. point ine caller has a , some ofparty has gone the members of the democratic party have gone too far. from the state of the mattressured girl and brought her to the state of the union address and published things on the website. that story turns out not to have been true.

columbia university issued an apology to the man she accused. published also, i statistics on her, one in four college women being raped and so withdrawd had to those, too. there is a bandwagon here of, you know, [no audio] withdraw those, too. guest: i think the point to believe women is to take the accusation seriously. and at least investigate it. guest: they should change that slogan then. host: that seems to be a good place to wrap up. i would like to ask -- i would like to thank mona charen and zoe carpenter. we want to to join us in the morning at 7:00 a.m. when we

will have lisa from the associated press and our chief correspondent will be here to talk about the brett kavanaugh's up in court nomination. and we will have two former senators discussing their work with the bipartisan policy senate and task force unpaid family. thank you for watching us today, and be able see you in the morning. have a good day. ♪ >> here on c-span this morning, able to take a look at the upcoming midterm elections with charlie kelly. he is executive director of the house majority pack and our guest this week on newsmakers.

that is followed by a hearing with justice department and immigration officials testifying on the current procedure for detaining migrant children and families along the u.s.-mexico border. and later, a discussion on refugee resettlement in the u.s. >> this week on "newsmakers," charlie kelly, the director of the house majority pac. they're help us with questions this week, sean sullivan of "the washington post," and alexis levinsohn from buzzfeed news. mr. kelly, let's begin with, what is the house majority pac? what is your goal this midterm election? and how much money are you spending? charlie: we started in 2011. our main focus is supporting house democrats running for office. we have been in existence for three cycles now. our goal this cycle is to win back as many seats as possible. there are a number of