>> pulitzer prize-winning author geraldine brooks is our guest with our live call-in from monday -- sunday at noon eastern. she talks about her most recent book. watch in-depth fiction addition live sunday from noon until 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. be sure to watch in-depth fiction addition a month with and author picot brad meltzer in december. morning, bloomberg reporter previews the new supreme court term that begins today and a fox news interview talks about his book.

later, thomas gibbering from the heritage foundation of with the latest on brett kavanaugh's nomination. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ it is the first monday in october and synonymous with that is the first day of the latest term of the united states supreme court. one of the perks of appointment is a justice receives a lifetime appointment. some argued instead of that, why not impose term limits for those on the high court? we want to get your thoughts on the idea of term limits for the supreme court, whether you agree or disagree. we ask you to pick the lineup best represents you and give us a call. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for independents.

if you want to let your thoughts be known on if term limits for the supreme court is a good idea for those justices serving at the court and you want to tweet, @cspanwj is how you do that and if

host: in harris c-span poll, a different question on this take. some say that instead of lifetime appoint was, it would be better of supreme court justices served an 18 year term when possible reaffirmation by the president which comes close to your view on u.s. supreme court justice terms. preferred that an 18

year appointment, 63% of those responding in our c-span poll in only 22% say they prefer a lifetime appointment. that question and others is available on that c-span poll. you can go to our website at www.c-span.org. let's start in the bronx, new york, democrats line for term limits for supreme court justices. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the idea of term limits? caller: i agree with it, there should be term limits. they have way too much power. host: how long should the term be? caller: i say every four years because it's like reelection. host: let's go to sharon in ohio , republican line. i justre-thought it

and i think term limitations would be fine but is the same as the president, 4-8 years. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] host: why do you think that should be? caller: because you really don't know what a person is capable of in four years. some of our least publicized decisions are from the supreme court and i think if we do that, we should also put it on the senate and congress. host: do you think that much turnover in the supreme court would be a good thing to have them rotating every eight years? caller: it's something that has not been tried. nobody can really answer that. of an 18 yeardea term limit, the new york times argues

from maryland, democratic line, hi. caller: hi, i think it's a great idea to have term limits for the supreme court justices. limits, the president that gets to choose them has an unfair advantage. not all presidents have the opportunity to choose a supreme court justice. therefore, the supreme court .ustice has the opportunity do you think there is a

danger for lack of institutional security if you have such a large turnover? think the court would be diverse and would incorporate views of more people. maryland, om againstmeone arguing the idea ofthis was from septeme argues this saying most critically, and 18-year term limit would make the supreme court an issue in every single campaign cycle. donald trump and hillary clinton promised judges who would vote their party's preferred way. nothing in politics suggests this would change. with two justices on the line every term, similar pledges would be forced on every

candidate. senate candidates would likewise be pressure to pledge their vote for only the most ideologically pure nominee. charlie in new york on the independent line, term limits for supreme court justices, what do you think? caller: i think that would be a good possibility, but i think would be more possible to be past by congress is increasing the number of supreme court justices. i think you might see some moderate republicans and democrats agree for something like that. i think it is so funny that history -- it is so important that we get somebody on the court who is going to not change something that is so significant. roosevelt tried to eliminate supreme court justices over the age of 70 and got feedback.

those court justices, if it wasn't some reaction back, they might have shutdown or reversed social security and a couple of other things roosevelt put .hrough i think increasing the size of the supreme court would be more effective than term limits and has a greater chance of being achieved. host: is there an ideal number in your mind with 8 currently on and typically 9 until they figure out who is going to take place for justice kennedy, what is the ideal number? caller: then why not make it what a court would be, 12. 12 jurors. whatad they can't do roosevelt tried to do, illuminate the age of 70, can't that we can't do that with regard to our representatives in

congress because frankly, people are orrin hatch, i think over the hill a long time ago need younger you people. -- peoplecould get talked about ginsburg, let herbert hyer and there are people over the hill. host: one more question, if you number, isn't it possible that you would have 6-6 decisions all the time? caller: you could have that, here is the thing. some supreme court justices that came about or appointed by democrats have not followed the line completely of those who .ominated you have more possibility of a larger group having an open mind because they are free to think of themselves and the fact

the matter is that is why it is so important to go through a full investigation in terms of character, motives, or integrity and authenticity. host: that is charlie in new york giving his thoughts on term limits for the supreme court justices. 12his case, it is the number . maybe you agree with charlie or disagree or want to give your thinking on this idea. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents and then you can tweet us @cspanwj and post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. barbara, pennsylvania, republican line. hi. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i think they should keep it at the number nine, but they should limit the age limit to

like 70 and they should limit congress, too. and the senate and all, too. after they reach 70, they should be retired. host: why arbitrarily retire them at 70? caller: because they are not keeping up with the times. you need youngblood -- young blood in there. host: what makes you think a 70-year-old judge is incapable of making decisions based on the cases they hear? caller: do they read all the law books and journals -- do they keep up with that? you don't know. host: independent line, we will hear from lisa in idaho. hello. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. i agree with everything the guy iom new york said because

don't know how ruth is, but i think she ought to wake up and retire. i think they should have term limits on people like orrin hatch and chuck grassley. host: when it comes to the justices themselves, why do you think there should be a term limit on them? caller: well, it is like the lady said before, we need new people. new ideas floating around because it does seem stagnant and everybody just votes their party or votes however they get paid from special interest. host: should it be an arbitrary number? the previous caller said 70 years old. should that be automatic retirement age? caller: maybe not go with their age, but go by -- like you said, 18 years and go from there.

that is what i think. host: we will hear next from anna in a, lancaster. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i think our country is coming apart from inside. everybody is trying to redo our constitution and i am wondering about immigrants that are illegal coming in here and trying to take over. far, before you go too supreme court justices and if they should have term limits. what do you think? caller: let's stay with the constitution. i am too old to start learning spanish. i don't want to insult you, but i don't know why people are calling you pedro. host: we will go to twitter,

matthew allison. ur-year term, fo the laws will not go into effect properly. it will be anarchy every four years. if you notice the poll above it, 68% when it comes to term limits saying yes, term limits should be on supreme court justices and 32% saying no. this is jan saying no, if we had term limits, we would never have had the treasure that is ruth bader ginsburg. that is some of the arguments on twitter and you can add your thoughts on @cspanwj. derek on the democrats line from maryland, hello. caller: it is eric. have termey should --its and i think

host: hold on, why specifically for justices? caller: because like the other --ple host: why would you think an older justice would not be able to keep up with current situations? particularly when it comes to matters of law? caller: all the older people -- some are stuck on old-school, is what you call it and they did not want to come up .ith that time

just like -- that is what i think how people are and also, the presidency should be -- primarily they keep talking about how they want to reach across. host: we got that point already, thank you for calling. a couple of more people off of twitter this morning. this is from a viewer that said people live much longer than they did when the lifetimes for justices were created and this is liz who said no terms on the supreme court. 8 years would be a disaster. twitter available, facebook available, you can call the phone lines and term limits for supreme court justices and you thoughts known. this is the wall street journal reporting there has been agreement between the united states and canada when it comes to issues of the nafta accord.

a situation reached last night. we will delve into it later in the program. that is some of the other news taking place. it is the first day of the first term of the supreme court. the current 8 members set to work on a variety of cases. still is anugh issue when it comes to the future of the court. we will take that up 8:00. chris in virginia, democrats line. caller: hi. i think the easiest alternative courtreasing bias on the is to institute a 75% approval the house and senate votes on a particular judge. increase the threshold of passage, that is what you are saying? caller: yes. host: why is that important, do

you think? caller: that will decrease the bias. this lifetime appoint its being an issue is someone in their with a-- there disagreeing viewpoint and they don't like that person having power that long, then you get someone on initially that is vetted with less biased by making the threshold for the vote higher. host: republican line, sylvia from durham, north carolina. good morning. caller: hi. limitt think they should the judges on the supreme court. they know the constitution. they stand by the constitution with judge kavanaugh. thank you. they know the say constitution, they stand by the

constitution, there were callers concerned the judges are maybe not keeping up with the laws like they should. caller: look at ginsburg. she has in her right mind and she is smart and straight up-and-down. host: if you want to see other programs we have featured with ruth bader ginsburg and several of the other justices, if you go to our website at c-span.org, all you have to do is type in their name in the box and everything we have taken in over the years on justices current and previous, you can find their thoughts and thinking on certain matters. if you go to time magazine, a piece -- i think it is this year, this is the argument this author makes, the supreme court doesn't need 9 justices, it needs 27. a much larger court would make the supreme court more comparably sized to circuit

courts. those regional circuit courts are comprised of anywhere from 6 to 29 judges. not all judges sit on all cases and in most cases, decided by smaller panels of three. the larger size of the circuits yields advantages. it reduces the influence of a .ingle swing voter like kennedy there is a variance in the panels, which are randomly drawn , even on supposedly liberal circuits, cases are sometimes heard and decided by panels of three conservatives. it prevents excessive entrenchment of say a 5-4 majority. the supreme court doesn't need nine justices, it needs 27. stephen in kentucky. independent line, hi. caller: good morning. host: good morning, you are on.

caller: thank you. i don't feel the supreme court because iterm limited think that would interfere with the overall plan of how a maintained.ld be we use a political process to select people to serve in what is supposed to be an institution that is above political politics appointmenttime gives the opportunity for people who are politically appointed to have a growing independence because they are no longer down, they can outlast the people that appointed them.

that is the short version of my opinion on that. host: you say if that is done that way, it better suits the management of the republic? caller: the republic over time, 10 or 20 years -- 100 year spurts. even if a court gets certain the abilityong, but of a later correction is still there because the court has the potential to be independent of the wrong views that cause the past mistake. host: what do you think of this idea of expanding the current number? caller: i am not sure about the number. i think that is something that roosevelt tried. not one of my favorite

presidents, but that was turned back because that would take ce offrom the independent the court if the current political structure can sweepingly change the court. host: that is stephen in kentucky giving his thinking on the limits or justices on supreme court. it's the first monday in october and today is the day the supreme court starts their latest term with 8 justices currently sitting on the bench, ninth to be determined. if you want to give a call on tweetnes or you want to us or post on facebook, you can do that, too. on independent line, hello. caller: hey, how are you doing today? term limits is ok.

70've got 45 and he is over and he thinks like a racing horse. he would be the want to bet on. host: when it comes to term limits, why is that ok in your mind? caller: it is not about term limits. it's about the money. you've got professional doctors, lawyers, high paying people, big businessmen in politics because they are getting the taxpayer money at $100,000, $200,000 already down to city council members. host: how does that deal with justices currently sitting on the supreme court? caller: they are no different than -- what we need to do is commission. if you do commission, term limits, the money situation, the justice department, all of that would take care of itself. host: on facebook, a couple of people posting.

mary parsons say life terms made sense when lifespans were smarter -- shorter. -- 5nting a 50-if person 0-ish person -- increase the number of judges so cases are dealt with faster. this viewer as term limits will make getting a spot on the supreme court less contentious and less political. you can agree or disagree with that. you can give us a call on the lines and our twitter feed @cspanwj. democrats line, terry from kansas city, missouri. caller: i am against term limits, but for a law being passed that you need two thirds majority from the senate to confirm, that way you would have bipartisan confirmation rather than this new situation where

only 52% of conservative republicans will pass the justice through. host: when it comes to cases the court will take up this year, brent kendall and just give a taste -- jess give a taste of what is expected. and coming months, the court may decide whether to consider the trump administration's cancellation of the daca program -- also weigh workplace protections for gay employees, and a new crop of gerrymandering cases. the first case up monday its environmentalists -- pits environmentalists -- endangered species act can go protecting. that will be the topic of our

first segment and a half hour from now. in washington state, republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you, pedro. good morning. i am against term limits for supreme court justices and i think, primarily because -- the reason i am against it is because there is a problem right thewith people within administrative and legislative branches retiring and going to work for lobbyists. i don't think it would be very good to have people that are judges for 10-15 years to suddenly leave that branch and go into the private industry working potentially for companies that they might have inadvertently or intentionally helped while they were in office. i am for more judges, too. more justices, that makes a lot of sense. it had something to do with the greater population -- it has to

do with the mathematical thing about a greater population of -- a sampling to get things right. host: we just read from a piece where the author suggested 27 of them. caller: yes, that would not be too many. there would be a greater turnover. there would be a greater turnover just by natural causes. less of anould have impact. each judge's disappearance or new judge's appearance would have less impact on the total effect of the court and yet, in the long run, when they vote, they might get it more accurate. whether it should be changed to super majority or not, i don't know. i have a head cold, i haven't thought that far ahead. calling on the lines, adding his thoughts. john, california, democrats line. caller: good morning.

this is john. thank you for c-span. i don't agree with term limits. this is the last stop in the judicial system. they make the most important decisions and they should be able to deliberate on all of that. you don't get much confidence as united states citizen when you hear the question asked of jeff flake if he would've made the decision to let the fbi go forward if he wasn't retiring and he said -- he laughed at that and when kamala harris walked out of the hearing and said they have failed as a deliberative body and we continue to see that they are on a partisanns -- i continue to believe in the system. i think these individuals are failing us and they need to look into their soul, including the

justices. they are supposed to be following the law. host: term limits will make it more political than? -- then? caller: term limits would go against what they originally thought -- that they should be a deliberative body and consult with each other. when they give their decisions, they do it in writing. i don't know that some of these votes in congress should not be secretive votes, that they should be secret ballots because we already know how they are going to vote before they make their decision. they already tell us it will go one way or another and its one side against the other and i don't want to see that happen to the supreme court. there are too many weighted decisions on the environment, women's rights and we have to depend on them for -- they are the last stop. as an american public -- and

way that hearing went the it went, how are we supposed to have confidence in that when somebody is questioned so vigorously about their moral character and the way the hearing went -- all of that. host: that is john in california. this is from twitter. termyour rights, "to set limits is politicizing the court. term limits for regions -- reasons of age is age discrimination. we should not change things because of political dispute. congress needs to do their job and make good laws. term limits jeopardize checks and balances." " constitutional amendments are nearly impossible as designed." we will go to karen in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i don't think we should

.ave term limits on justices i was reviewing this morning, i think it is a wonderful question and discussion and i was reviewing the oath that justices take and as a registered nurse, i took my own oath and i feel like term limits is limiting the american people. we should hold them up to those standards. we should trust the system and go for the ideals. saying a few callers ago, we should hold ourselves to a better standard and i believe it would bring politics in and i do believe the justices are going to make decisions based on the oath they took for our country. host: while i have got you on the line, hold on for a second because at supremecourt.gov, i

believe this is the oath you are talking about? -- that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and take this obligation freely reservation and faithfully performed the duties of the office to which i'm about to enter -- why did you take a look at the oath? caller: because it is a highly and id political time believe those oaths are important and it was important to me, as a nurse, the oath i took when i became a registered asse and i think we, americans, all of us need to hold ourselves up to those kinds of standards, regardless of politics. host: karen giving her thoughts.

she is from michigan. let's hear on our republican line in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't believe we are honoring -- theers who made these constitution for our future to be bright. we should go back to the original way it was where everybody, including the president, only got one year. after one year, the people should choose who they want to do their things for their town, their state. we are supposed to be in control. somehow, we have gone down this rabbit hole that no one knows what is going on anywhere. it is becoming embarrassing. the judge is out of control. the system is out of control. we need to go back to control. host: you don't think a one-year term would add to that lack of

control? caller: the people can say who we really want rather than the people who we elect who are not doing their job. we are electing these people to look after our benefit of our future, our grandchildren. our great-grandchildren. i worry about their future. host: in the case of the justices, they are appointed by the president, though. caller: and the president should go back to one term, one year and we should choose someone else. host: anthony mark am writing in the washington examiner from this piece and talks about the againstlife tenure and the idea of term limits saying life tenure gives justices a secure source of income and influence, leaving them with little incentive to step down. -- all thell

pressures and opportunities that follow like former presidents, they can make millions giving speeches about their time in service and like many politicians, they could join elite firms and offer guidance based on experiences behind the scenes. that is in the washington examiner from september 24 of this year. anthony markham is the author of that. nelson, democrats line, st. louis, missouri. caller: thanks for taking my call. could work. limits i think term limits could work. i also think we need to take the supreme court out of the hands of the politicians. another idea is maybe we should have three democrats, three republicans, three independents. maybe the court will work better that way. someone mentioned increasing the number to 12. that may not be a bad idea as

well. something has to be done, there is no doubt about it, because it is not working the way it is. we don't need a supreme court leaning to the left or the right. we need them to look at the facts of the cases presented before them and make a decision, -- they need to be fair to the process. the system we have right now is not working. in other news to show you, there are profiles in the paper taking a look at the mass shooting that took place in las vegas a year ago. massacre the worst shooting attack in modern u.s. history is a year behind. a man perched high above the mandalay bay hotel turned to the concert -- turned the concert

into a bloodbath. explanationll no for why the shooting happened and why the concert was the target. there's a profile in the washington post and other papers, including photos of one of those people present during the time jonathan smith -- shot while trying to drag others from danger and the bullet he took is still lodged in his chest. more of that profile available in today's washington post. karen is next in lake worth, florida, republican line. caller: concerning term limits, i agree with term limits. i believe in a retirement age. -- thee constitution average lifespan of a person was maybe 50, 60 years old.

now, ginsburging 82, i believe. not saying she is not capable, i retire.nk they should do, --er what you newspapers are political, everything is political. the number 12 would not work, that is an even number. you would need an odd number to break a vote and i think these their truly, truly devote life and we do have a constitution. tohink they should be able retire because people are living

longer than expected when the constitution was written. your time and i am sorry i have never been able to get through on the kavanaugh issue. have a great day and thank you. talk that topic -- we will about at least twice today, probably three times with all the segments we have planned. those will start at 8:00 on twitter. this is mark stone sang i would hate to see the senate go through the same process just like the one we had every two or three years. no thanks. are says if term limits ever imposed on the supreme court, they only get one term. -- wee enough scotus already have a scotus infected with politics now. hi.rt, massachusetts, caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: 20 years ought to be the

limit. when i grew up, you worked 20 years and then he retired. with the justice, we would need 15 justices, like the lady said. on top of that, the supreme court justices on the court right now, why don't we let them go -- vote to see who they want to be with them? we ought to have the supreme court, let them vote who they want to. host: they would have a final say on appointments that we are facing right now if that were the situation? caller: did you look at judge kavanaugh's face during that hearing? it was terrible. i thought it was demoralizing to women. i grew up with four sisters and a mother and a grandmother and all of them had something done to them and i was appalled at this character. thank you. host: before you go, you are saying that justices should be able to side with -- decide

whether or not someone is sitting alongside them? he is gone. let's go to clarence in kentucky, independent line. caller: i think we should have a national election. i believe in the electoral college, but for this one election, we should have a popular vote. that the american people decide whether we should or should not fire all the supreme court judges, all the circuit court judges, all the senators, all the congressman, and henceforth, whether we should or should not -- people who are in the government now, should or should not be allowed to run again. host: specifically, sticking to the justices themselves, why that process? why do it that way? caller: because the thing i just

said, our government is so messed up on both sides. they get in here and both of them -- most of them stay in here for decades and decades. they are corrupt and they should get rid of every one of them, start completely fresh and maybe we will get somebody in that will uphold the constitution of the united states. host: that is clarence in kentucky. the washington times, showing you their headline about that earthquake and tsunami in indonesia. 800 confirmed deaths. james off of twitter, when it comes to the topic we are taking on this morning adds this as a thought, why not offer the senate a choice between nominees? in nebraska, republican line. good morning, you are next up. caller: thank you, pedro. i love this show. it gives an american patriot a

chance to say what he thinks. i believe something should be ore in regard to age and tenure and length of service. i don't have any thoughts about that. someone much wiser than myself should discuss that. host: when it comes to the term limit itself, what should that be? caller: that is what i am saying. i don't have the wisdom -- someone were put on at this age, at that age. maybe a length of service could be involved. something like that. ageone lady mentioning the

of the justice could be worked in. host: what do you think is the limit?f a term the gentleman prior to these people that politics, i amof afraid that is detrimental to our country. george washington served and then went home. that is what those folks did in the early days. int: ok, that is boyd nebraska calling on the republican line about the topic of term limits for supreme court justices.

you can give your comment in the remaining minutes of this segment. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. the fbi currently in the midst of a background check for judge kavanaugh as was decided on the senate last week. two papers in the senate today about what is currently going on. this is the former fbi director. the fbi can do this, adding the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. time has very little to do with memory. they know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day no matter how long ago. significance drives memory. little lies point to bigger lies . once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences.

it is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf and a very different thing to sit aside from special agents and answer questions. the bureau will not have subpoena power. most people will speak to them, refusal to do so is its own kind of statement. the new york times is where you can find that and alec are show in the new york times saying this is no mere job if he is denying the appointment, it will be because he has been depicted as . sexual predator he may no longer be able to teach law, coach sports, or be treated respectfully. he could be forced to resign his current position because having a "convicted rapist" on the bench is unseemly. he has a right based on fairness to have the charges put to the test of clear and convincing

evidence. how -- had judge kavanaugh been rejected on ideological grounds before the accusations were leveled, he could go back to his life for it if the senate fails to confirm him now, his life will never be the same. alan writing in the pages of the wall street journal. term limitstexas, for supreme court justices, go ahead. caller: i think the supreme court justice should not be allowed to serve unless he gets three quarters of the vote of the senate and the congress. both parties. i don't think our government is working because there is a conflict of interest. there is too many lawyers in washington. prosecutors.are how about having three overlapping groups like jury duty, you go up and serve your country for 8 months and you get a one-time payment of $250,000

and you take a test to make sure you are literate and go and serve and come home. three overlapping groups into each a presiding officer in the group. depending on the population of the state depends on how many people will get to go and serve and watch. that would be by the people for the people. right now, we have nothing but lawyers. the government should be a simple thing to run. host: let's go to pat in new jersey, republican line. caller: i think we can do this a different way. lifetime appointments, but i think there should be a minimum age set, age 62 and that way you would have a greater chance of getting someone with a large body of work for the congress to judge on. judges are healthier, the job is and as taxing as running for

office every two years and if they want to serve into their 90's, let them. i think we should restrict the supreme court to at least 62. host: the minimum age for serving would be 62 in your mind? caller: correct. and to me, you don't even need to amend the constitution. president and the congress can agree that they are not going to nominate anyone for the supreme court who is under 52. host: how did you come to this conclusion, i am curious? caller: number one, i don't like the idea of justices getting younger and younger and younger. i think one of -- donald trump's nominees was only 49, 1 of the ones on his short list. i think that adds to the politicization. if they are older, they are seasoned and they have a greater

body of work for congress to judge on. slatesld not have blank like david souter. host: that is pat in new jersey giving comments on term limits for the supreme court. many people talked about expanding the court, retirement age, a minimum age -- hi.pendent line, caller: i think we need wisdom on the supreme court and younger people, they have not experienced what an older person has. they cannot comprehend or even imagine what an older person has been through. wisdomer people have the of not only making decisions, but they have seen what their decisions lead to. that is why i think we should have the older people on the court and they should stay.

i agree that it should be a two thirds majority to vote a supreme court justice in. thank you. host: the previous caller said that minimum age should be 62 years old. what that work with you? caller: i would say 50. 50 years old is half your life and i would say 50 should be the minimum -- minimal age. host: david in california, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, how are you doing? first of all, you can have term limits. limits, youe term have to pay these people when they go out of congress and they are saying people are getting older. like ryan is going to retire. he gets his check at 50 where people on social security have to wait until they are 66.

if you want to have term limits, you should not pay them until -- if a their term is up, you have to pay these people and give them retirement until they die. there is something wrong there. host: you are saying for the justices, lifetime appointment than? caller: if they are doing a good job, they can have a lifetime appointment. somebody has got to pay these people. if they all retire after two years and i get a paid retirement at 50. people on social security get like $1000 a month and they have to wait until they are 66. host: let's hear from jennifer in indiana, republican line. caller: hi, good morning. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: yes, i don't think there should be any limitation of them serving on the justice. this system has worked for years.

we did not really start having issues with this whole lifetime appointment thing until we voted our new president in, president trump and it seems like every corner he turns, there is so much controversy. our country is split in half and it is sad, sad. these people have worked hard all their life. they have earned their positions and with wisdom -- with age comes wisdom. our forefathers would be turning over in their graves if they had seen what our constitution has turned into these days and the way it is being interpreted. host: that is jennifer in indiana, republican line and the last call we will take on the topic. sunday into monday an announcement kaine where canada is joining on to -- announcement came where canada is joining into negotiations regarding nafta. a political reporter covering

this issue, good morning. guest: good morning. host: talk about that set up to this headline, what led up to it? guest: there was definitely a big push at the end of last week to wrap canada into the deal ,ecause at this point last week it seemed like the u.s. and mexico were ready to go ahead and it was very unclear whether mexico would be included or not and then, friday night, mexico decided not to publish the text of the language they agreed to with the u.s. -- canadian prime minister there was a lot of movement over the weekend to make this happen to get all three countries on board and you have the new u.s. mca. host: in the newsletter you put out in the morning when it comes to the bottom line you write this and your colleagues write this, canada made modest gains in the u.s. made significant ones.

can you expand on both of those. caller: the u.s. made small, but incremental changes. been pushing all along forgetting canada to open market and to get them to accept changes to the resolution mechanism in the original nafta, to allow a canadians to be able to do online shopping where a greater level could come through without duties and they won on a lot of that. a big thing for canada was chapter 19 survived, it is a way for canada to make sure there is an international panel that sees whether the u.s. sets duties that attacks its commercial sector or not. the u.s. got a lot of changes it was seeking in this whole thing.

host: with the state it is at now, where does it go from here? guest: it is still a long ways off until it enters into force because you need all legislators to approve it. on the u.s. side, that will not be until 2019. there is time on the notification clock for the u.s. to consider what has been put out. you may have a totally new congress next year, considering whether a not they want to sign on on what the trump administration has negotiated. host: i know you have been closely following this in the early morning hours. have we heard reaction from the white house or how the president is receiving these events? -- perceiving these events? guest: my colleagues have been covering this closely.

i am coming in on the early hours, but it looks like he is on board with this. on the canadian side, you will see the prime minister talk about this later today. theyides are touting wins believe they have gotten. everyone seems to be happy. what remains to be seen is whether stakeholders agree this is a win for all three countries. host: donald trump did send a tweet to this effect -- it just says congratulations mexico and canada. lauren gardner joining us to talk about the latest on the u.s. and canada reaching deals as part of nafta. thank you for giving us your time today. guest: absolutely. thanks for having me. host: coming up come a we will talk about the supreme court, the first day of the new issues. joining us, greg stohr of bloomberg, who covers the court. later on in the program, fox news analyst juan williams on his new book "what the hell do you have to lose? trump's war on

civil rights." ♪ >> the c-span bus was recently in honolulu, hawaii for our 50 capitals tour. this weekend, we feature our visit to hawaii on c-span, book tv, and american history tv, exploring hawaii's history and culture as well as public policy issues facing the state. saturday on c-span, i 7:30 eastern on "washington journal," hawaii's director of planning will talk about homelessness. on book tv on c-span 2, stuart

coleman on his book on the life of a legendary hawaiian surfer. then, a visit to the university of hawaii for the extensive book collection of late u.s. senator daniel inouye. on washington journal, the bluetive director of the planet foundation on renewable energy efforts in hawaii. on american history tv on c-span 3, at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we visit the valley of the priest along the north shore of oahu and the polynesian voyaging society in honolulu. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, three short documentaries about hawaii. the 1956 film soldier in hawaii. the silent film "the online islands. -- the hawaiian islands."

watch hawaii weekend this weekend on c-span, book tv, and american history tv. listen to hawaii weekend on the free c-span radio app. we feature honolulu mayor saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by greg stohr, with bloomberg news, and covers the supreme court. his latest story --supreme court opens new term surrounded by kavanaugh-driven uncertainty. expand on where we are at. we are now waiting for this fbi investigation that is supposed to take no more than a week. we have a handful of senators who have not decided whether they will vote for him or against him. not clear whether the fbi investigation will change any minds. the outcome is highly uncertain.

host: do we know what the current mood of the justices have over these issues outside of the court? guest: they have said in the past they do not like it, especially the justices who we think of as more towards the center. roberts does not like to see the court seen as republicans or democrats. processxtent that this has gotten more political than normal, that has to be something they are very unhappy about. host: assuming judge kavanaugh makes it to the court, what have we learned from clarence thoma'' experience about what faces judge kavanaugh if he becomes a justice in the future? guest: justice thomas is, if not the most conservative justice, is in the top two and probably people would say the most conservative justice. he may have been that anyway, but it is certainly the case that after his experience, his

view's hardened and solidified. that may have been in part and effect of the confirmation process, which over the years he has alluded to, suggesting it has still had an effect on him. on justice an effect kavanagh. hard to say because it is a personal thing. other justices have had more difficult confirmation processes and not been affected in quite the same way. very few justices have had the type of allegations against him that judge kavanaugh has had. host: we have heard of chief justice roberts' concerns. bigt: it is certainly a concern in the short term. this is always going to be an issue on the court. you will have the five most conservative justices on the court being republican appointees, so you have this dynamic where the supreme court

seems to be only a small extension of the political process. and the chief justice is concerned about the institutional integrity of the court, in addition to being a conservative guy himself. there would always be this push and pull. i would guess that this would put that dynamic on steroids, that there would be more of a reason for the chief justice to move slowly. he will be the key to this court, if judge kavanaugh is on their. -- there. host: greg stohr will be with us until 8:30. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. on twitter, @cspanwj. talkthe current eight, about the makeup and what this could mean for future decisions. guest: at the moment, you have for ideological

cases. most cases on the court are not that ideologically divided. it just happens to be the one that -- ones that get all the attention. --saw this about the justice court had tendency to reach a very narrow consensus decision, where you would stare at them and not be quite sure what the court decided. you may see a little bit of that. what we do not know how long this vacancy will last. it may be two weeks from now. we may be talking about this five conservative justice majority. for now, one thing that seems to be a parent is the court is not reaching out to take provocative cases. the caseload they have now is pretty low-key and may lend itself to consensus decisions than other cases might in the future. host: i read that when lawyers

prepare to go before the court, they seem to make arguments towards justice kennedy, because he was the swing. who gets particular scrutiny? isst: the chief justice someone who gets a lot of attention. to the extent we are still in an a justice world, they will look at justice kagan and justice breyer, because those three now, with justice kennedy gone, tend to be the ones who are the coalition builders. you can see their fingerprints that aredecisions frustrating because they are so narrow. but they are the ones who are able to reach across and bring somebody who may otherwise be on the other side into a broader majority. host: you said that caseload was low-key. what are they considering? involvese first case the endangered species act. it is a question -- an animal only lives in some parts of mississippi, and the question for the court is the fish and wildlife service designated this

other area where that frog does not live now but could potentially live in louisiana. they designated that as critical habitat, which has some consequences. the question is whether that was an overreach, to designate something as a "habitat," even though that species does not live they are now. host: was that classification done under this administration? guest: it was done under the obama administration, but the trump administration is defending the classification. which you do see, if not often. it is a matter of defending the federal corroborative -- prerogative. host: what does it say on the larger case of epa-related issues? there were justice kavanaugh on the court, i might have more to say, because this is the kind of case we have been

thinking about with him coming to the court, because he is somebody who, being on the d.c. circuit, has dealt with administrative agencies a lot. he has made it clear that he things agencies go beyond their authority a lot. with only eight justices right now and probably eight justices when they decide it, unless they are split, we may get fewer clues along those lines. that may be the kind of thing that lends itself to some sort of consensus of opinion. host: greg stohr joining us. our first call comes from new mexico. chris, independent line. go ahead. caller: the biggest winner out of all of this is the administration, because justice kavanagh would have gone along with justice thomas and there is other conservatives to rein in the power of the administrative agencies. and i have something to say on the kavanaugh matter quickly.

the nomination is done. in terms of this, they will not find any smoking gun, but what they will find are certain small inconsistencies that they can state that he lied, and then his jurisprudence and temperament in the confirmation hearing -- last was all ford's claim around judge. they are doing this to any possible nominee that may be coming up now. that is what they are doing. host: thanks. guest: there was a lot there. the first point is probably true. it may be a temporary phenomenon, that agencies will be the winner. do not know if the nomination goes down who the next nominee will be. ,t may be a reprieve

temporarily, for judge kavanaugh. the fbi investigation -- we will see what they uncover and see what matters to people. the focus is supposed to be sexual assault allegations, but if what comes out of it is more talk about inconsistencies in his statements, that may or may not matter to senators. host: democrats line, matthew. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is shameful that -- someone --rting our president was -- host: our guest deals with the supreme court. your question to that, please. caller: ok. it is shameful that our president is --

host: matters of the supreme court, what is your question or comment? caller: i think it is shameful for our president -- host: click on to p -- we go on to paul in west virginia. caller: you know the old saying follow the money. this lady said she was doing her civic duty. it turns out about three quarters of $1 million turned up in her account. it lawyers supposedly did pro bono. lady in thehat in theirt a check pocket. this stuff was all preplanned. they wanted to hold on to the letter last-minute. it was planned to delay this whole thing right up to the 12th

hour and try to figure out a way to keep this man off the court. host: can i go back in history a little bit with you in that we currently have a nominee to the supreme court under fbi investigation. clarence thomas had a shorter investigation. what did we learn from that case? guest: we did not get a satisfactory conclusion. expect, from not this investigation, a clear answer. not, for example, like a criminal investigation where the fbi will say, at the end of it, say we think there is probable cause. in other words, prosecutors to tok an end that meant -- seek an indictment. we may get more facts and more statements from people. that may or may not help us decide who is right or wrong. not that ultimate conclusion. host: paul in philadelphia,

independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thing,lling this whole republican-democrat -- i am calling as an american citizen. i care about the country. what these people did to this man up there, it is a disgrace. you have men and women up there accusing this man of things we do not know are true or not. but if you look in their background, they all have skeletons. to be blaming a man about something or trying to criticize him for something that they actually did themselves, with hat, itgroping, this, t is a disgrace. the american people better wake up and come to their senses. host: thank you.

guest: it is a very ethical situation. if allegations like this are not true, the caller is right. you are putting someone threw something at great personal cost to him, in this case. on the other hand, if this is true, do you want this person having a lifetime seat on the supreme court? at the moment, and our structure, there is not a clearer or better way to do this. it may have been better to do this behind closed doors. if it had worked out that way. whether that would have satisfied everybody that these allegations were truly given a clear.aring -- not but given how important supreme court seats are, this is the world we live in now. host: we heard some democrats insinuate that should just as kavanaugh make it to the court, then the possibility of maybe opening up impeachment proceedings, if democrats take power could take place.

what is the likelihood of that? guest: it is possible people will start to -- will start talking about impeachment. but in the absence of something that there is any hope of two thirds of the senate agreeing to, that could be an exercise in futility. it may be a political statement which may or may not be good for democrats. but in terms of actually getting him off the court, with the evidence we have now, there is virtually no chance that would happen. host: how many cases directly affect the trump administration? guest: i have not counted the number. it depends a little bit on what we mean by "directly affect thing" them. are cases where the trump administration is defending a policy it may not have agreed on. there are cases that the court either agree to hear or are on the pipeline that could be politically important to the

trump administration. one has to do with the double jeopardy clause and whether that -- there is a supreme court precedent that says there is a separate sovereigns doctrine, which says the federal government and state government can prosecute somebody over the same conduct, because they are two separate sovereigns that have separate interests. the supreme court is considering overturning that opinion. to, that would have implications for the special counsel probe and the state probes going on separately. it may limit the ability of the states to go after donald trump if heat part in somebody or pardons himself or if there is some other conclusion to the federal investigation. host: where are we when it comes to the travel ban or the future of daca recipients? guest: the travel ban is essentially decided. -- the policy of

deferring deportation for some people who arrived as children -- there is a good chance that would come up later this term. that is of the federal appeals court level. there is a good chance that would, before the supreme court later on this term. host: from arizona, republican line. caller: good morning. deeply -- let me mention why i even called. i am always in the public interest. our, suffer conservative because i pay my bills, aichi people with respect. but listen up, please. seven supreme court justices v. wade.put in roe seven republican conservative supreme court justices. voted for that.

why is it that they want to overturn this? this is a big issue. in order to give more than half the population the power that they deserve, which are the people who bring life to this planet -- women. leave them alone. do not grab them, grope them. give them power. the power of women is to become mothers. host: got you, thanks. guest: they were not all republican appointees, but the caller is right in the sense that there were a number of republican appointees on that opinion, including the man who wrote it. we have seen republican appointees to the court get gradually more conservative as the years have gone on. have had many more supreme court appointees than democrats have. part of the phenomenon is the people who pick them are better at getting justices who will

come a years in the future, continue to issue conservative opinions. host: from michelle in washington, d.c., democrat line. caller: i had a question about what would happen if we do find out a little late, meaning he has already been appointed to the supreme court, how would we address that? currently, it appears that once you are in, that is pretty much it. so we have -- , truly, whatknow happened. if we find out later on, after he has been appointed, that there was something to look at, maybe it was not a good decision , they have a lifetime term, what do you do? guest: that is what we were talking about before. impeachment is really the only remedy for this. ifmake a hypothetical up, someone had a videotape of

something that proved he did something that may have been a crime and lied about it, then you could have an impeachment receding. but because you need to thirds of the senate to convict somebody and remove him from the court, the political reality, given the type of evidence we are talking about so far, it is unlikely that happens. host: the democrat from hawaii said at one time if judge kavanaugh got appointed, he would have an asterisk next to his name. is that a reality? guest: if he gets on the court, this is something that will hang over him. i think it is safe to say a sizable part of the country will believe both that he committed the sexual assault and that he lied to get on the court. fair or not, that is something he will carry with him. and i imagine democrats will be talking about it 20 years from now. what arethe sense that the mechanics of how much you can participate since the court started today? someonehat happens when

joins midway through the term, the cases he was not therefore, they will try to decide. if it is deadlocked, they can reargue the case with him on the court. from from amir, joining us los angeles. independent line. caller: good morning. really quickly, you mentioned earlier that the supreme court are -- that this whole thing is political. in reality, isn't the whole thing political? i thought it was kind of sad that we have lifetime justices. it only seems like we have politicians waiting to see who will die or quit or who will be the president who gets to choose the justices for the lifetime. there is kind of a sadness there.

it is silly to say it is not political. one thing that really irked me about kavanaugh is he will not be honest. listen, you are getting a lifetime appointment. be real about who you are. we want to know who you are. what is the big deal? and it is all about precedent, f ine. you do not want to talk about future court trials or whatever. but the real about who you are. you're getting a lifetime appointment. and really quick, on term limits, forget about term limits. it always seems like we have nine, four, four, and one. a swing guy and four on the left and four on the right. why not make it three? a republican, liberal, and independent? or maybe just have one of each party. host: got you.

you said a lot for our guest. we will leave it there. guest: on the last point, having more provides more opportunities for different approaches. there is something to be said for a diversity of viewpoints. on the first point, he is right about the fact that justices understand this is a political process to get somebody on the court. but they also understand it has gotten more political over the years. whether you talk clarence thomas or read bader ginsburg, they would also say -- or ruth bader ginsburg, they would say even though i have political ideas that i do not generally express, when i am making a decision, i am basing it on the law as i understand the law to be. they are not grounding their opinions in i am voting this way . they are writing an opinion because they think the voting rights act does or does not

cover something or the constitution allows or prevents something or another. that is an important distinction that i imagine they are word is getting lost -- worried is getting lost. are they vocal compared to previous courts you have covered? guest: we have had a few cases -- justice ginsburg infamously called donald trump a "faker," among other things, and then apologized to getting involved in that. in part because the dynamic is what it is in the country as a whole, it is a little harder for them to bite their tongue. yet seen justice thomas go up to the edge on some of his public comments on the other side. it is a tough environment, not to say what you think about politics. host: if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, he has to get clicks together and all of that. how long does that take?

guest: he said that he provisionally hired clerks already. he says they will be all women. it may seem presumptuous, but i would be surprised if he is not familiar with what the court is hearing right now. when justice gorsuch joined the court in the spring, he joined just in time for the april sitting. he did not jump in right away. he did not take part in the court's first private conference when they discussed what cases to take up. there may be some of that with justice kavanaugh, where he is a little less involved than he might read. is i expect as soon as their an argument after he is concerned, he will be on the bench. host: linda from new york, you are next up. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about the government and the

judiciary. all, wee that, first of need -- senator grassley, specially, and perhaps senator graham really need to stop and look at senator feinstein's defamationa case of of character, assassination of character, and libel. because whether or not judge kavanaugh is confirmed, his character has been assassinated in front of the american public. that there should be penalties to ms. feinstein's office. and stop this madness, because there is nothing there. host: thank you. guest: there is still a lack of clarity as to how information from dr. ford became public.

senator feinstein's excavation has always been that she was asked to keep it confidential, and she kept it confidential. the first time we saw dr. ford's name was in a "washington post" story, because she had also reached out to the "washington post" and gave them permission to use her comments on the record. there is a lot going on in this process. it will take us all a long time to digest various inconsistencies in what all sorts of people said. host: one more call. texas, independent line. to tell everyone in flooding areas to get a water testing kit. but on the supreme court, the heritage foundation gave trump a to do list. get citizens united, tax breaks,

the whole nine yards. so what is on the heritage foundation list is what is up. and why is the bloomberg stock market so different than the fox report? host: i think we will leave it there. guest: i was not aware they were different. the american bar association. can you break down what was said and who wrote it and what that means as far as comments made about judge kavanaugh? a.b.a. -- i have not studied it closely -- deemed him to be highly qualified going into the process. they have not changed that. but as i understand it, a separate committee on the a.b.a. has endorsed slowing down and taking a closer look at the allegations. host: what are you watching for most as the court gets to business? guest: at the court, it will be interesting to see whether there

is -- i suspect they will be even more collegial on the bench then usual. i think there will be a certain amount of closing their ranks. i could be wrong about that. i do not expect early cases to be especially divisive on the bench. but maybe i am missing something about either the cases or the dynamic of what is going on in the court. they may be as divided over this as the rest of us. host: greg stohr covers the supreme court for bloomberg. as always, thanks for your time. coming up, we will hear from juan williams about his latest book, taking a look at the trump administration and civil rights. later on, heritage foundation senior legal researcher and former counsel to the senate judiciary committee will join us to talk about the current investigation into judge kavanaugh. thomas jipping joined us later when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> was a prize-winning author geraldine brooks is our guest on "in-depth: fiction edition" with her most recent book, "the secret chord." watch "in-depth: fiction edition" with geraldine brooks live sunday on book tv at noon. and be sure to watch next month with author jody p go -- author jodi pico.

-- picoult. administrator -- discusses the trump administration's spectrum policy. he is interviewed by howard busker. >> they wanted to shift gears to spectrum. we all have to talk about spectrum. 5g is the headline almost every day now. is the u.s. going to win the race to 5g? >> we are in it. the trump administration are spending a lot of time looking at the data and seeing what we can do to help the private sector get to where it needs to be to make sure america retains leadership in wireless. if you ask people around the world, we're the undisputed leader on 4g-lte. to mobile broadband subscribers across the country. now we are trying to leverage

but weancements made, have competition. china and korea are trying to be there festive the the first have nationwide, ubiquitous 5g. but we are confident american industry is doing what they need to do to push us forward. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. joining us is juan williams, the author of "what the hell do you have to lose? trump's war on civil rights." also serves as a fox news political analyst. good morning. guest: good morning. host: it seems i have heard this phrase before from the president. is that where you got the idea? guest: exactly. this was the president on the campaign trail in michigan. the way it is reported is that he is making an appeal to black

voters. but he was not in a black community, not speaking to a black audience. blackat he says is these immunities are filled with poverty, filled with violence, they are worth then -- they are worse than afghanistan, so what the hell do you have to lose? the reason i chose the title is it is a response. here is what we have to lose. i am 64. he is 72. but in my lifetime, so many have -- games -- gains taken place for civil rights and equal rights for blacks, latinos, asians, women. that is what we have to lose. when i look at my lifetime and say i have seen a black secretary of state, a black president of the united states. a black billionaire. you think of people like bob

johnson, oprah winfrey. you think of these tremendous changes that have taken place, increases in terms of high school and college graduation rates. we can talk about mayors, about in the building behind you, the capital, we have a record number of african-americans and latinos today. this took place as a result of a great movement in people striving and making sacrifices to achieve these gains. that is what the president should know. when you say "what the hell do you have to lose?" host: you said he intentionally put blinders on because he sees -- he wants to see black failure and misery. some might say it is racism. he locks eyes on the worst of latin america life, because -- that is what i think was

happening. recently, he has even used this phrase in reference to native americans. what he is doing is pushing a button -- a "fear" button in white america, especially people who do not live in the city, who live in suburbs of the country. it is a distorted edge of the reality of black america. 20% of black americans live in poverty. and there is a high level of violence in areas like chicago. but in terms of the broader picture, 40% of black americans earned between something like $50,000 and $100,000. if you add another 12%, they earn between $100,000 and $200,000. so the majority of black americans are either on the edge or in the middle class or beyond the middle class. but trump does not talk about people who get up every morning and go to work and are trying to

get their kids through school, despite continued racial bias in society, despite a history of everything from slavery to legal segregation in american society. and he does not talk about the fact there is a great differential in terms of wealth between white and black america. instead, he focuses on the poorest and makes them the direction of all black people in the way he does to immigrants. all immigrants being numbers of gangs who are killing white people as opposed to people striving, working two or three shifts, to try to make it in america, people who believe deeply in the american dream. host: he looks at the black unemployment rate -- is there some credit to be given to the president on that? guest: sure. it has dropped one percentage point while donald trump has been in office. when you look at that 6% unemployment record low, most of that took lace under the administration of president obama. but president trump uses that as

a beard when he is accused of racist behavior. he says what kind of thing is that the say about me, look at the unemployment rate. again, he does not give credit where credit is due. and the unemployment rate in the black community is still twice what it is in the white community. --addition, he is all about you have to look at this. he is not about programs and efforts that encourage the growth of that black middle class i was telling you, a prime achievement of the civil rights era. instead, he is saying i do not believe in these programs. everything from financial aid programs in terms of people going to college to programs intended to boost black entrepreneurs and this is his in the country. he has withdrawn support in those programs, community development or financial programs. host: juan williams is our

guest. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. issues, youolicy mentioned a lot of historical names. robert moses is one of them. who are these people and why are they important to the context of the book? guest: for a lot of people, they get caught up in the rhetoric of the moment. they say to people like me, who are critical of the president when it comes to race relations and said he is a divisive and polarizing figure, they say you are a snowflake. the president speaks about people in that way all the time. if you calls omarosa a dog or says congresswoman maxine waters says lebron or lookmakes don lemon

smart -- they say that is just trump, it has nothing to do with race. but he is sending racial signals, playing to racial stair types in terms of lack of patriotism, women as dogs, all of that. playing to pernicious stair types. and it is important to understand he is ignoring so much history. those stereotypes are born of historical reality in our country. when you talk about someone like bob moses, it is important for people to understand there is a real effort at voter suppression taking place in this country, and people in the past had to fight to establish the right to vote for minorities, one of those people is bob moses. bob moses was someone who went to mississippi in the 1960's and was going into very rural, difficult situations -- got beaten in jail frequently -- to find a way to help black people

vote, defying authorities who were trying to limit the hours for them to register. here he is, working. he was there as one of the ofance people in terms freeman summer. people were killed by the klan and police. trying to get people to register to vote so they could have a political voice. we were talking about how this was a record moment in american life. so much of that is based on the idea of black clinical power grid -- black political power growing over the last 60 years. life, but herump's does not honor it. instead, he seeks evidence of voter fraud and turns a blind eye where you see some republican majority state legislatures going about closing polling places, increasing requirements for voter id

without any sensitivity to the idea that it has a disproportionate impact on people who are minorities and their right to vote. host: to some of the themes and people you will see from the book, juan williams' "what the hell do you have to lose? trump's war on civil rights." republican line, you are on with juan williams. caller: good morning. why do you continue to make a full -- fool out of yourself? how toi do not a respond. it is kind of sad that people do not respond to the substance but engage in some sort of ad hominem attack against me. i guess they find some sort of pleasure. to me, that is not what we are here to discuss. we need to discuss the substance and what is taking place in the country. that kind of thing is so divisive, and it continues.

it is not about simply attacking trump for being trump. "makesaying when you hear america great again," when you hear "what the hell do you have to lose?" -- these messages have real impact on the way we see each other and how we go about private enterprise in this country. when i say he is having a negative impact on the black middle class, i and talking about things like opposition to having federal contractors reviewed in terms of their minority and female hiring records. they say that is overregulation, we do not need it. but where is the hiring in the private sector to come from unless you are holding people to a standard and encouraging them? this is a guy who says let's do away with minority business development agency, let's cut that on community development finance. again, black entrepreneurs, small black businesses are impacted by this. host: is this --

guest: his administration. host: let's go to baltimore, democrat line. caller: good morning. i want to thank you so much for holding up the truth, for doing all of the wonderful things you have done. as a journalist. and i want to rebuff that last statement the gentleman made. some people think that when they say mean things, it does not have an effect. it does have a small effect. if we were to be more positive in this country, and even when we disagree, be civil and find a way to be nice to people, we would be much better off. i want to thank you again. guest: thanks. i appreciate that. especially after that last caller. causationthe devolving into figure pointing and name-calling -- i do not see much point to it. it seems to be encouraged because of our leader, the

president, engages in that kind of schoolyard bullying. host: kevin on our independent line, new jersey. caller: hi. thank you. i read your book "enough." i always admired your outlook on things. a couple of things i want to bring up. first of all, i think a lot of your concerns that the president probably is not even aware of, because he is not sensitive -- i think if you ask for an interview with him to discuss a lot of things, it could bring him more into your mainstream thinking. the second thing i want to bring up -- it seems like a lot of black leaders have ignored this. inoached for many years junior college. many of the players i had, their biggest concern was driving while black. cops would follow them around for a half hour or so for no

reason at all, especially if there was more than one driver, more than one black in the car. it is a terrible feeling they had. to me, nobody brings that up anymore. and this is something that should be driven into all police forces in the country. host: thank you. guest: this, again, comes the substance. i appreciate the call very much. we were talking about things taking place in this administration that are adverse in terms of consequences to the black community. we were talking about things that diminished. equal opportunity growth. but the callers talking about police relationships. and we live in a black lives matter moment. but since the president has been in office, you see the federal government, the justice department, pulling back and say they will not anticipate in consent degrees in local police

departments, even when police chief's are saying we want this, seeing it as a way to stabilize this relationship that is difficult and tumultuous. a consent degree between the local community or the state, city government and the police department in terms of steps that are to be taken to make sure either you are hiring more people of color or you have more -- you have steps in place or reviews of police activity. it can go on and on. the point is you have a working relationship. it is a pact between community and police. somehow the trump administration says we do not believe in this. instead, we will give the police more military equipment and tell police you do not need to be so nice, from the president's own lips. it seems to be encouraging or aggravating a problem rather than trying to heal it. host: and you write about the work jeff sessions does on that. guest: i do not understand it.

you think about criminal justice reform. remember that before the trump administration, you had a group of republicans on capitol hill who were working with the obama administration and local localities in terms of saying we need to do something about all of these mandatory minimum jails.es, over packed we think there is a better way to handle these issues. the trump administration comes in, that all effort is tabled, gone. you have to stop and think what is going on? there is why i wrote this book. people have to get away from saying i watch this cable channel or that cable channel or think why do we have to pay so much attention to racial issues? it is having a divisive effect on how we conduct our lives as americans. host: robert from maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. mr. williams, i want to say i am

so pleased to see you out there with a sense of dignity. and an ability to try to remain calm, have logical arguments. that is so needed. the comment i wanted to make -- i grew up in the heartland. farm kid. conservative area, the whole nine yards. -- it is such a difficult thing to hear. ormatter what type of calm educated discussion you have, if we are talking about brown and b lack people, what i hear, it is difficult not to get infuriated. there this, because, one, is a lot of us will have family over there. it is so difficult to try to rectify a love with people and then these views.

but one thing i truly do not believe anymore is that education and dialogue -- there is just a certain group i do not think you can break through. i think trump has provided that justification to be public about views you simply cannot change. i certainly believe this is a fight, may be similar to the old days. i was born in 1968, so i cannot tell you what civil rights is like, but i certainly think we are in a similar matter. host: thank you. guest: this is such an important comment. it was sensitive to a lot of these issues. when you understand that the president seems indifferent to this history, it is so troubling. you spoke about emboldening people on the far right, they o-nazis,lt-right, ne

white supremacists. for people like the first caller who said i and making it fool of myself, you should think -- you should look at what the american people think. two thirds of the american people think that president trump has emboldened the racists to be more outspoken, to march in charlottesville. david duke has said he is our candidate. you talk -- you hear anti-semitic expressions. and the president says both sides have fine people -- how is that possible? what signal is that sending and how is that helping us to bond as american -- as an american nation? look at the polls. it is not just that he is emboldening racist speech and actions. they are real actions.

but right now, 49% of americans say trump is an outright racist. productive to engage in that type of labeling of people, because i think that shuts ears. are saying i do not want anyone to think of me as a racist. but here is a curious fact. half of the american people think of is a racist and say that to pollsters. it is not just emboldening people who make racist expressions, they think the man in the oval office is a white to premises and has racist views. you think this is 2018. 10 years after her at this country elected a black president, we are in a moment where we see people of caller holding -- women holding positions of power, and yet that is who is in the oval office, it is shocking.

that is why i wrote "what the hell do you have to lose?" we have a lot to lose. host: doesn't the fact that we have elected a black president twice show that we are on a different path? guest: i think we are, but i think it was president obama who said it was not necessarily a straight-line path. you can take dips and curves. case, this is something to pay attention to, because it could take us into a rut. i sometimes think -- the russians interfered in our election. one of their tactics was to divide us, to find ways to fracture the american people, to fracture our political process, to make it impossible for us to compromise. when it comes to race, that was one of their key point of leverage. that they wanted to divide us by race. i think president trump is the filling their agenda. host: you write that it is often

forgotten that the civil rights act was -- how did you come to that conclusion? guest: you look around him and do not see any top senior adviser in the white house to president trump on race relations of the caliber of people in the eisenhower administration. when you think about kennedy or johnson, you think about people like cliff alexander. you think of people like all brown under president -- like bob brown under president nixon. these are people have been in the vineyards in race relations and trying to help the president understand and get the message in terms of what is going on. but in this white house, instead

we see people like omarosa, police officer -- who we subsequently diminished. torosa was telling people accept him before she turned around and said he was someone who was racially insensitive and using awful language. it is not only the absence of black top people to direct -- with direct access to the president. you think about the white people there. in previous administrations, you ,ave people like bobby kennedy talking to people in order to get that better sense. there is not that type of white person around president trump. instead, you get the likes of people like steve bannon or sebastian gorka or steve miller, who is so anti-immigrant. that is who is in the white

house, advising this president. that is a major change. host: you write about this, but how do you fit the h.u.d. secretary, ben carson? he hadhe is a part -- tremendous success in life before he came to this administration. was running for the presidency himself. but he is not an expert in terms of race relations. i do not think ben carson thinks of himself that way. is an interesting thing. the idea of self response ability, personal responsibility, for helping create change for your family, your community -- i celebrate that to the heavens. but that is not in terms of the policy, not in terms of the kind of rhetoric we are getting from president trump. host: from texas, republican line. caller: can you hear me? guest: yes, sir. caller: i was not going to call

until i heard that first caller. you are not and there is an yourself -- i do not even look at "the five" if juan is not there. geraldo is pretty good. but you bring facts. and come back with feelings -- you bring facts. you do your homework. i am a retired first sergeant. i was in the army 21 years. i did a whole career and required after 22 years after high school, and i see all of this stuff. and i am serious. america should be so much better than this. thank you. guest: and by the way, your experience in the military, you see a high percentage of minorities, especially african americans, in the military.

it has been a model in terms of improved race relations in my lifetime. that is why people say there is so much to lose by engaging in andkind of racial put downs divisions he uses to his political advantage. it is not just politics. it has real consequences on me, my family, the community, and you. i hope people do not look at it as if you are a democrat, your anti-trump. there are republicans out there -- when the president said an american-born judge whose parents were mexican could not be an impartial judge, it was paul ryan, the speaker of the house, who said that is the quintessential racist statement. at --you are your current thoughts over the date -- over the debate on judge kavanaugh.

guest: i do not know facts as regard to what happens in the episode with judge kavanaugh and professor ford. but i was struck by the testimony thursday, when judge kavanaugh seemed to me to be engaged in political attacks against democrats. i think that was unprecedented in terms of lack of judicial temperament, lack of sense he is asking us to trust him to be an impartial arbiter of fact. it looked like a political player. he is calling out the democrats opposed to him without saying, there is a federalist society quite invested in my my nomination. there are people on the right within putting money behind me. what an interesting moment in american life commit jurists. american life and

jurisprudence. it is often said the court has no army. it has no treasury. it relies on its credibility. if it boils down to it is a political institution like the other political institutions i think you're going to see americans don't put much faith in it. i think that is a terrible marker for our democracy. you think the fbi investigation is going to resolve things? >> no. i think there would people who say if something is found one way or another, it doesn't fit my agenda. one of the realities is we have come to understand that and people tune in or look at a situation most often they just want to hear or see something that affirms a pre-existing opinion or attitude and they get somewhat dug in despite facts. i was listening to your previous

guest from bloomberg. he said they may find small instances that are able to prove that something happen here, or there was a lie told. i guess there are people right now given what we have seen in the last week who will say i choose to look beyond it more it doesn't matter, or that is not sufficient to change my position. minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to hear you talk about the disparities between people of color and white america regarding educational and employment opportunities. will tell you as a republicans one of the greatest experiences i ever had in my professional career, one summer they gave me a young black man from high school to participate in a program of orientation towards

the sciences, engineering or you i had him for a whole summer. took him out on big construction sites. he did not know anything about how things are built in america. himi was able to inspire and tell him exactly how he would have to advance his education after high school to do what i do. engineering jobs pay real good money. i told him about that, salaries like that. that i inspired him and that was one of the greatest experiences i've had. privileged white boy from three generations of educated civil engineers. i felt i was able to bring him up. at the end of that summer i told , bekeep in contact with me determined with urgency and get this education going. can you comment on that?

>> hats off. disparagingt income, you point out engineers do pretty well. that is number one in terms of career paths for young people in the country. but there is so much to be said about education, and educational opportunities. in this administration what you see is the focus on failure. you have record numbers of high school graduation rates in the black and latino communities. disproportionate dropout rates. the emphasis, the effort to bring that up is what is lacking and what you see coming out of this education department is a move away from supporting young people in terms of gaining access to colleges and universities, famously president trump had the leaders of historically black colleges, it turned into a photo op. the lore was we were going to do more to support them.

it is never transpired. never come to reality. it was a photo op. when you look again in terms of elementary and secondary efforts, efforts to deal with higher rates of -- for example lack of literacy or a lack of achievement and higher dropout rates, you see a lot of those back, notow pull properly funded as they were jurorssly, angry at two unions. they see them as political opponents. lack of concern about the young people. you had real concern about a real human being who has dreams, who wants to fulfill his american dream. that is the way we need to see each other. williams, the president of the thurgood marshall college fund wrote an op-ed saying the

relationship they do have is paying off -- he says he talks about the pell grant maximum rising, including other things. he thinks there is some advancement being made. >> i think if you look at the overall picture you don't see it. stepse see is incremental that he is referencing but the bigger effort has to go to are you getting more people into college? this was an administration going after affirmative action in terms of higher education. they say they are fighting on behalf of asian-americans but i think they are trying to undercut the nation -- the notion that colleges should help to repair the racial divide bringing more people of color into those institutions of higher learning. a are it should all be on the basis of merit. it is fine, but merit in part has to do with what you have to overcome in order to achieve. you can't leave people behind

willy-nilly. it is not the case that every person with the highest ac t score is emitted to the best school. in this book i tell the story of james meredith's. in 1962 he integrated the university of mississippi. today, it sacrifice was all out war and oxford, you have to say it is like 13 or 14% of the population is black. 14%, population, black. those achievements did not take place without a great deal of effort by so many people who were committed to the idea that part of the american experience ,as to be more inclusion appreciation of diversity and tapping into people who have been left behind previously or discriminated against. thehe book is called what hell do you have to lose?

in maryland, dickerman estimate kratz line -- in maryland, them a kratz line. caller: good morning. i want to say thank you for this book. i have been following you for years. for people like myself. i'm a working-class mother and wife who wanted a better life for my children. fork you for being a voice me. when the president made comments like such, we have to respond to say we disagree. thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. we have gotten off with a strange foot with people calling but i think that there are lots of people like you who are hard-working, trying to do right. the president says what the hell do you have to lose? they portray black america as

around,shed, laying getting busy about getting out to work in trying to achieve. i think this is destructive. it is not just that it is and meng people like you but it puts notions and others minds, in white american minds about black america that are untrue. just untrue. i come back to those statistics, more than half them black america in or beyond the middle class in this country. president trump prefers to talk about people at the 20% who are .mpoverished young people. he focuses on those issues without attention to the idea that what an incredible story it is the how african-americans have progress in society, and what can we do to increase that an increase educational opportunities?

>> you talk quite a bit about the president's father. >> it is an intriguing story. he was someone who march with the kkk. and thegainst catholics idea catholics were coming into new york and would be somehow under the control of the pope, this anti-immigrant rhetoric and anti-catholic rhetoric at the time. then he is the one who i think teaches president trump in the housing business that good neighborhood still have people of color in them and it decreases property values when he allow people to come in. we trump business is sued by the federal government. they have to start advertising in black newspapers. offer aloe -- evidence they are opening doors to minorities seeking apartments in their properties. thisis part of where

president comes from. i could talk about the central park five incident where five young men of color are accused of a horrific crime, a rape and attack. president trump is aggressive, 13,ing them names, like ms then when they are proven to not be involved there is no statement of regret or saying i was wrong. you come to understand there is real damage and this guy has a real history that calls into question his ability to see people beyond skin color. fred trump was released from custody but was he attached to one of those groups? guest: i think that he was arrested by the police for this march. we don't know that he was part of the kk pay -- kkk. host: independent line. nancy. hello.

nancy from farmington? let's go fred in huntsville, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i really like you. when you think about all the things we have been through, out, wemp is bringing tried to be right and do what is right for this country. we try to do the good thing. when somebody brings you down like this guy does, what do we do? what do we say? what can you say when you are trying to support your country and trying to do the right thing , and be the right kind of person and you get put down over and over? what can you say? thank you for your support. keep it up. i am a retired military guy.

i still believe in america. thank you. what's this is typical. the idea that trump is trying to redefine american identity and american patriotism, in terms of being a trump supporter. if you are not part of his crew you are not a true patriot. i think it is divisive. we have heard from two african-americans who served in the military, we just heard from the last caller talking about believing in this country no matter who is in the white house. that is more reflective of the black community and democrats in this country than making them into people who are socialist or a threat to society. i just think it is craziness. like wallpaper. it is divisive and a place to the worst kind of stereotypes in

society. james, hello. james in san diego. caller: hello there. i had a couple of questions. i don't know if i should interrupt you. guest: i have stopped. you go right ahead. caller: i do watch the five. maybe you can convince the folks on the five to quit talking over each other. when that happens i go to another channel. i would like to hear some civility on those programs. that is beside the point. voter suppression in this , i remember correctly, the president appointed the vice president to look into voter suppression issues. -- zeroee a row cooperation from the states purging registration rolls. therefore i am sure that you

agree that only americans, american citizens should vote in the elections. if the states refused to cooperate to purge their lists of those that may or may not be citizens, how do we take and get only citizens to vote without that everyoned has to have if they get on an airplane, if they have a bank account or use a credit card? they have to have an id. how to we stop that? thate key point here is your right to vote is a constitutional right. we have to protect it. understanding it is the bases of our democracy is citizen representation. when you talk about the president appointing the vice fraudent, he also voted a

commission. they looked for evidence of aggressively because the president felt he should not have lost the popular vote. he blamed that on voter fraud issues. zero andch could find eventually disbanded. but you need this kind of voter id to go to the bank and get on an airplane, true. it is not constitutionally protected. and when you increase these requirements to the point where people have difficulty fulfilling them you have a disproportionate impact on poor lines, across all racial and minority voting. in this white house it looks like they think most of those voters are democrats and they are all too happy to close their eyes to what is going on with state legislatures decreasing the number of polling places, curtailing the numbers available to vote, making it more

difficult. ofto me it is not a matter we have so much voter fraud and it is corrupting our democratic process. findingat people are political advantage trying to push out certain voters they don't like because they suspect they don't support them. >> good morning. i wanted to commend you for writing this book and your courage and your ability to stay on fox news. i'm from onehings, of those countries that president trump referred to as a n s-hole. i'm writing my phd. i'm happy to be here. i have my own business employed of 15 people. most are americans.

white and black. everybody who can be part of the american dream that i have been aspiring for. let me ask you this. peopleorrect to say that who support trump would believe him when it is sunshine but he tells them it is raining? will they believe that? when you walk into the studios of fox news have you had occasion to speak with sean hannity? does he do what he does because of ratings, or is he really who he seems to be on tv? to leave it there. apologies for time. guest: sean hannity really is conservative. there isn't any question about it. he believes what he is saying. he is the top-rated cable show in prime time in this country most nights. the larger point that you may,

this is important. when you look at what is going on in the country and talk about your experience, how the president describes people coming from the caribbean, from -- very derogatory language. how it impacts the views of the larger society of those towards immigrants. immigrants as people killing, as youred to describing tradition. you are an example of the american people as a nation of immigrants and all that is written on the statue of limit -- liberty. that there is damage being done to us as a society and a country at a time of increasing diversity when we have a geopolitical economic interaction with the rest of the world that is unprecedented. he is pulling us back in making us more of an exclusive and

racist society. it is tragic. this several people saying this morning, one williams j williams. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for you and c-span. the latest on the bright kavanaugh nomination and what is going on with the fbi investigation of that nomination. we will get his thoughts when we come back. >> the c-span bus was recently in honolulu.

this weekend we feature our visit to hawaii on c-span, book tv in american history tv. exploring hawaii's history and coulter and public policy issues facing the state. saturday, on washington journal. wise office oful planning will talk about homelessness and lack of affordable housing. 2, eddie would go. the life of legendary native hawaiian surfer eddie high cow. hicau. and washington journal, jeff mikel lena, executive director of the blue planet foundation on the nubile energy efforts in hawaii.

on american history tv on c-span3, we visit the valley of the priests. along the north shore of a wahoo and the polynesian voyaging society in honolulu. documentaries,t soldier in hawaii, the silent film the hawaiian islands. the 1952 film long jeans kronos go. watch hawaii weekend this weekend on c-span, book tv and american history tv. listen to hawaii weekend on the free c-span radio app, featuring kirk caldwell saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. het: this is thomas jipping, serves as a senate judiciary

chief counsel for senator orrin hatch for 2015 -- 2013-2017. a little bit about your previous position at comes to judicial nominations, talk about what you people you were considering for courts. >> i have been working in the field of judicial appointments for 30 years in the private sector or the years i worked for senator hatch. this is the 11th supreme court nomination i have been involved in. the majority set of the committee relies quite a bit on the chairman's staff. he has a unit that works just on thenations that does vetting. ordinarily despite what is going on now the process proceeds pretty smoothly with little conflict. people should not get the wrong idea that every nomination is like this one. they chug along with hearings

and evaluate nominees. when the occasional controversial nominee comes up each member in their own staff will do quite a bit more evaluation on their own looking into specific issues and aspects of a nominees record and that type of thing. host: what do you think about the introduction of the fbi, what it does for the chances of finding out more about what we know about judge kavanaugh? guest: there has been a lot of misunderstanding in the confirmation process. the fbi is an executive branch. it has different approaches and purposes and objectives been in the confirmation process which happens in the legislative branch. it is limited in the confirmation process. they do a background check for every nominee. not just the supreme court. .t is information gathering

people who know the nominee from various parts of the background. investigative role in what people think of when they hear that word. they have already done this once for judge kavanaugh. they have been a previously for other positions. if this is what is necessary to move the nomination along, then that has to be done. so to speak recheck his way to cover the same ground the judiciary committee's own investigators covered. to dore only going interviews and gather information. it is up to the senate to take whatever information that is available, this confirmation is three months long. we are obsessing about this tiny part of it but it is three months long and it is all kinds of information and material about judge kavanaugh. the senate has to decide what to

do with that, what conclusions to come to. if it is necessary so be it. people should understand accurately what the fbi's role is and have their expectations shaped by that. host: we will continue with our conversation. you can tweet us at c-span wj. how is that digested, what is done with it? guest: the information the fbi will provide is people might have heard during the other hearing the word 302 mentioned. that is a form on which the fbi summarizes and memorializes interviews they do. that is what is going to be provided. the fbi does not give their own analysis. they do not come to conclusions. they simply give the information that results from their

interviews to the senate. decide whatr has to standard to use, how to credit that information, whether they think it is useful. that is the same thing they would do anything. host: will every senator get a copy of that? guest: i don't know those specific details as to who will have access to it. i assume they will. they should. iond that, as far as know they don't make them public information the same sense judges opinions on the court of appeals are. i am sure the committee members themselves will have access to it. that said the real question is

whether senator is more broadly will have access because the nomination has been reported the judiciary committee. it is a rare situation. they are going to do that as senators needed to be done. i have to credit charles grassley for a very transparent process, even under these difficult circumstances. every senator is going to have everything they need to make a decision for or against confirmation. >> the democratic senators, once this is received, they could call for another meeting or a series of meetings? guest: i guarantee that they will. no democrat on the judiciary will be satisfied with the fbi investigation they asked for. it will either be an adequate or they would want to take something they learned from the fbi and go further with the new

hearings. in my view that has been the strategy all along, to raise these issues come and get the fbi involved and use that as a springboard to demand further investigations. is the confirmation process. the fbi is doing exactly what its role is supposed to be in that process. assistance request for additional look at this. when it is done it is time for the senate to vote. host: one of the issues chairman grassley, what do you think about that call and keeping it to a week? that was a suggestion by jeff flake. he was the one who raised this as being a good step to take. he use that language, up to a week, limited to current allegations.

that is his suggestion. i think it is good. formally't a way to limit the fbi to those parameters. it is the president or the executive branch that asks the fbi to do this additional check. this is not a request or order for a demand from the senate. i expect it will be limited to that. people may not know in 1991 when the fbi investigated anita hill, that review by the f here -- fbi took three days. that is the only reference point we have. they are covering the same ground the fbi investigators already did. they know who to talk to. they know which allegations to look into. i don't expect it to take a full week. it shouldn't take beyond that. foremanr guest was the said judiciary pretty counsel,

our first call from west wayne youweighing -- are first up. feinsteins. forgave the information to be given to the fbi for an investigation. instead she held onto it for political reasons, obstructing .n fbi investigation is anybody going to bring charges against her? , as anond question illegally convicted felon, when i was released from prison, my life was turned back over to me, they have to sign your responsibility for your life -- do i or do i not have a right to a second amendment?

host: as to the first question, -- shegave her letter first contacted representative eshoo, then contacted senator feinstein with the expectation according to her her allegations would not be made public. she did not contact senator feinstein for the purpose of it going to the fbi. senator feinstein sent that letter to the fbi after it started becoming public that there were these allegations. that timeline is difficult to sort out. senator feinstein's role in this is somewhat controversial and has drawn criticism but i don't sent thatford information to senator feinstein with the expectation it would be sent to the fbi. would it be out of the ordinary for the republicans to call for an investigation of how that was handled? guest: i don't know what the

standards would be. i don't doubt that there is some individual senators who are justifiably upset at how this was handled from the perspective of the senate. there is the perspective of judge kavanaugh are certainly but institutionally, they are concerned at the way this was handled was not appropriate for the functioning of the senate or the judiciary committee. -- i don'tee to seek know what the options would be. an ethics committee review of it or there is always the possibility of censure. that is a complicated and rare process. this has to be worked out within the senate. all the information that any senator would need to fulfill their responsibility is now before them. it is time to vote. host: republican line from pennsylvania. caller: how are you doing?

i just wanted to call you, i can't find my notes. i hadd out what it was for you. she lied. i want to take this step by step. she goes up to the steps to go to the bathroom. she was pushed in the bedroom. she did not remember who pushed her. brett or mark. from there she was on the bed with brett on top of her. he was trying to get underneath her clothes. she did not go into details. she was lying on the bed with him. host: i hate to interrupt. have heard, what

would you like our guest to address? oh.er: host: what question do you have for our guest? i will call the fbi. i just want you to know that she lied. host: ok. you made that point. that shee conclusion lies, i don't think we have information about that to say one way or another. the question before senators is based on the information they have, base of evidence that has come forward, is there enough there to credit her accusation? the prosecutor that republicans brought on to help them focus of the questioning of dr. ford on the accusations, rachel mitchell , she has done her own analysis of that as a prosecutor. she identified eight categories

questions serious with dr. ford's allegations. although she said herself a judiciary confirmation hearing is not exactly the best bedding for a prosecutor. but to say dr. ford lied, i don't think we know enough to say. host: i do not think a reasonable prosecutor would bring this is for the committee. guest: she also said as i think most people know intuitively, a , or where he said she said largely accusation and denial are difficult to prove. she says this is even weaker than that kind of a case primarily because dr. ford did identify specific people who she said were at this gathering or participated in the assault and none of those people, not just

one or two, none of them did. that has to be considered. host: what about the strategy of bringing in an outside interviewer? republicans and democrats were doing two very different things. republicans were trying to keep this focused on the allegations. this is a confirmation process. not a criminal justice process. democrats wanted to broaden it out to focus on the issue, the implications of what was going on. ringing in a very experienced prosecutor who knows these issues and these cases was a valid way of trying to keep it focused on what was properly before the committee and that is dr. ford's accusations. democrats were not going to accept that a matter who it was. if it had been 11 republican senators to you would hear criticism in various ways of that.

i do think it was a valid choice to keep it focused. [inaudible] host: caller, hold on. i'm going to put you on a hold. i think you're going to have to try a better signal. if you could see if that would work. we will try mike and pennsylvania. caller: hello. all right. i don't understand why we are considering this guy seeing how he has been picked by the heritage foundation and the federalist group. from a list of people. they have an extreme right-wing agenda, which doesn't you people don't

represent me. you haven't been elected to anything. i don't understand why it is ethical to make a list of people they are going to follow their agenda for the rest of their life as is a print court justice. the constitution is for all the people in the knotted states. my question is why trump picks somebody to be a justice on his , based on his knowledge, and not had an outside group. guest: here at the beginning, i have been involved in the arena of judicial pointless for 30 years. every president no matter what liberal,ty, conservative, every president seeks and receives all kinds of input from their ideological or political allies, from all kinds of people ranging from specific recommendations of people who ought to be nominated, two

criteria that ought to be used. the list was the presidents list. the president -- it was the first time a candidate offered a specific list of names as a way of saying to voters this is the justice i hope to appoint. they certainly did get variable input from the federalist society, from the heritage foundation and others. it was the president receives all kinds of input. it would be a different program to go into all of this. courts, home state senators from certain states, they don't just suggest names. they demand names. if the caller is concerned about forces, itby outside

is the presidents list. host: how much input did you have of brett kavanaugh making it to the list? guest: i just joined in may. one of my colleagues started talking about judge kavanaugh as a good appointee of this president in 2016. he officially made the list in november before i joined. i certainly applauded the addition of that name and have been surprised judge kavanaugh wasn't on that list from the beginning. he is exactly the nominee that this president has said he wants. host: have you had familiarity before? guest: i did. i have known him since the bush administration. followed from afar, senator hatch and the judiciary when brett was appointed in 2006.

there was some controversy. not focused on judge kavanaugh but the appointment process more generally. opinions of his. i'm familiar with his approach to the job of judging. host: what do you think about the allegations made against him? guest: i'm evaluating them hopefully as best i can on the merits. i have no idea whether dr. ford is telling the truth or not herself but i am listening. there are specific allegations. the presumption of innocence is always on the accuser. that we have some senators on the judiciary committee saying that judge kavanaugh doesn't enjoy the presumption of -- i'mce, i'm some to ined a.c.l.u.

condemn that. theret think the basis is . as far as the confirmation process can address these things, i think it is done as much as it can. 10 and ohio. republican line. caller: i am just wondering, why couldn't they have the president nominate an alternate to the supreme court instead of having -- hello? host: you are on. , pick anhe president alternate for the supreme court retires,e of the guys as soon as one of them goes out he will step in and the ansident will renominate alternate to take his place? if the president coming in doesn't like that alternate he can get rid of that alternate

and bring in another one. this confirmation could be done prior to a need for justice on the court. guest: since federal judges don't have set terms, it is impossible to know when a vacancy on any level might occur. federal judges serve 20-25 years. alternates of an the vacancy they might be ready to fill with an happen until a different president was elected. the constitution gives present authority to make nominations. so i don't think that would be workable. the conflict down if we had a more modest view of what judges are supposed to do.

more powerful judges are seen to -- the more supreme court is setting the course of the nation and deciding our most important issues. of course the stakes are going to be. it wasn't designed to be that way. if the judiciary had more of the place it was designed to have we would not be having these conflicts. i might not have a job for all i know. i don't think we would befall -- i don't they would be fighting these fights. host: is there a better way to do this confirmation process without the politics involved? appointmentntire process, because it involves the president and the senate, does occur and a political process. there have been conflicts to one degree or another over some nominees. the believe as i was saying difference has happened as the consensus about what judges are supposed to do in our system of

government has broken down. 1930's, that the everand picked up steam since. the conflict is the conflict over judicial power. the fights over which group they belong to in their sophomore year, or a sentence fragment in a speech they gave 20 years ago, andink that is stupid doesn't help anybody. engaging the debate over the basic issue of what judges are supposed to do in our system of educatent would help the american people and contribute to the process. the current fbi investigation would a previous , would thosenced

questions have been considered? looking at him in these previous investigations? guest: previous investigation background checks that have been done for judge kavanaugh have been in association with each of the major government positions he has been in. those would have been more wide-ranging. iny would not have arisen the context of a specific allegation. they would have been what the first background check was for this nomination. they were a background check. undirectedeneral, mold wide-ranging. they may have been ventured that far. probably not. these are specific in connection with this allegation. do you know when the report is done, is it a large document? it take?time does

>> it depends on what they find. there be multiple agents involved. it is all like multiple-choice checklist. there's a lot of narrative and description. there will be a lot to digest. i want to emphasize this is covering the same ground the judiciary committees investigators have been covering for two weeks. unchartedt a new probe. chairman grassley tried to explain that 100 times during the hearing. democrats weren't listening. all they wanted was an investigation. this is what is going to happen and be available. senators have everything they need to make a final decision. host: i did not understand that.

guest: it is not like a checklist and they just need did they say this or this, as if they get a score. it is not that objective. depending on the nation -- nature of the questions and answers. it is information that the usete will be able to pre-those questions already been asked and answered. host: does the fbi solely shape those? the request of not come from the committee. there is no direction coming from the committee. the white house requested the fbi look into credible , according to the

press secretary at the white house they have not put restrictions on the fbi beyond that. say theare going to trump white house put the cub bosch on this to make sure it came out right. there is no evidence for that. it is not coming from the legislative branch. caller: they get for taking my call. comments.uick hill, this ista the same protocol that was taken back then. there has been differences. there have been three toegations, in reference , one of theements

-- she made the allegation against brett kavanaugh. the other two were conclusive. i just watched c-span this weekend. i found it to be credible. i found him credible. i think this warranted additional look at. host: what is your question? caller: what happened in 91 that you would change that you would like to see today? what would you like to see personally? guest: i will say with regard to , i did goer comments

hearings.e anita hill got out of hand. it was allowed to range to widely outside of what the was.rmation this is the confirmation process. the limits for what can be be shaped it has to by that fact. to pretend it is something like that, it just does not work. towould have been better focus more specifically on anita hill's accusations. it.ng a prosecutor do

just to stay focused on the issue before the senate. it wasn't the issue of sexual harassment generally. broad treatment of women in the workplace. it was one person's accusation against a particular nominee and should have stayed more focused on that. host: you were with the free congress foundation. which did you serve? that organization was the leading conservative organization. when it came to a nomination like that we were pretty visible in terms of analyzing the nominee and the public discussion. it is interesting to compare the

conversations -- the confirmations. when clarence thomas was nominated the internet didn't exist. it moved faster today. that can provide more questionable information. host: joe, go ahead. caller: listening to this gentleman whitewash a lot of things going on with this nomination. have the republican party refusing to admit to the democratic side sufficient information so they can make an informed choice. women, if they are able to have this particular man , voting themselves into slavery because women have their bodies controlled by some organization or government policy. you seem to be preferring. the gentleman

himself, based on the information and mannerisms, and things he was saying, i remember ,eing a high school student listening to football players , hestuff and their bravado is no paragon of virtue. the legal acts he might be quite knowledgeable but he seems to be bent in certain ways. host: we will leave it there. guest: not sure to answer part of that. as to the idea that republicans haven't allowed the democrats information they need, i have no idea what that is about. this has been the most transparent confirmation process in history. let's not forget every democrat

on the judiciary committee announced their opposition to kavanaugh's nomination weeks and weeks before the hearing happened. some announced opposition to kavanaugh before he was nominated. to me that demonstrates their view, and they are entitled to it, that no information about judge kavanaugh was relevant to their decision whether to support him or not. there was half a million pages of material available and thousands available of his judicial opinions. he provided 17,000 pages with regard to his speeches and teaching. amount ofow if that material would fill the studio and you have senators ignore all of it and said they would oppose his nomination. the only piece of information that a lot of democrats need to oppose judge kavanaugh is one word, trump.

the oppose judge kavanaugh because he is president trumps nomine. they don't need any information about judge kavanaugh to that conclusion. host: richard, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have got to say, i have been by a lot of what is going on. with jeff to agree flake when he said that this country is just been torn apart. what most of us are looking for is an objective outside evaluation of fact and evidence which is what we are looking at. everybody, fair and unbiased investigation by the fbi is about the only remedy we have at this point. guest: i would not agree that it

is the only remedy we have but it is what senator flake and senator collins and markowski asked for. felt wast they necessary to complete the process. it is being done. i think people need to understand accurately what that means i'm fbi investigation means. feel that waye and that investigation is being done. i think though once it is completed, once the investigation people said they wanted is done they are going to ite the same voices saying is not enough. we need more. we need more hearings. very same voices that were dissatisfied with the process before are going to be dissatisfied with it now. i suggest that is because they aren't interested in what the

process produces about these issues. they want to use the process for political objectives. from florida, independent line. running short on time. caller: good morning. ask the gentleman a question first and make a comment. the first is, the gop asked the prosecutor to come ask questions. so they could focus on the facts. mr.ent so beautiful during -- mrs. ford's interview. and it started off with early.gh ,nd then out of the blue sky when it was going to be asked about a particular question, naming other people who were on

,he calendar that was presented it went haywire. inator lindsey graham came with a slew of other people as if to say hand. apologize, we are just about out of time. guest: in my view, they chose rachel mitchell, who has been prosecuting these cases for 20 years to ask questions of dr. ford to try to keep things focused on what they were there to do, and that is to evaluate one person's allegations against the nominee. lots of politics involved, lots of things that might pull that off track. i thought that was a useful way to do that and that is why they chose her good she was named in 2003 by janet napolitano as the

outstanding sexual assault prosecutors of the year in arizona. janet napolitano was anita hill's lawyer when she accused justice clarence thomas. she knew what she was doing and that is why she was there. host: their heritage foundation and servedl fellow as counsel for orrin hatch. thank you for your time. for our program. another edition comes at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] hour,ing up in one

president trump on the trade agreement between the united states, mexico, and canada. the president is scheduled to speak in the road -- in the rose garden at 11:00. is later today jeff flake speaking in manchester, new hampshire. 6:30 p.m. ont c-span. and pennsylvania governor tom wolfe will debate republican challenger scott wagner in hershey, pennsylvania. we will have that at 8:15 eastern. the senate action for the nomination of brett kavanaugh is on hold for an fbi investigation . senate floor debate continues on the nomination and you can watch that on our companion network, c-span2. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour.

we recently stopped in springfield, illinois. we are asking folks which party should control congress and why. >> the party that should control congress is the democrats because it is obvious we need checks and balances on what is going on in washington. there is so much contrary to what i believe is best for the electorate in the united states. i think that with the democrats controlling congress, that will definitely bring checks and balances to the process, which is much needed. >> i would like to see the republicans retain control of congress in both chambers after this election. ,s a supporter of donald trump i think the republican party is going to do a better job of advancing his agenda. the democratic party is going to obstruct him. i want women to control congress.

i am tired of people who do not live my life telling me what i need to do. we need more women in powerful positions. president,, as the in our senate, state and federal. >> it would be bad for the country if impeachment theyedings fail, because will initiate if democrats control a house. we would like to see a sweeping democratic victory where they picked up enough seats in the senate to get a guilty impeachment. or to fall below that threshold in the house if the republicans keep the house, that album across -- that albatross would be hanging over the country said , impeachment proceedings going on for months, that would be bad for the country. >> voices from the state. part of c-span's 50 capitals

tour. abbotts governor greg debated his democratic challenger, lupe valdez at the lyndon b. johnson presidential library in austin, texas. the debate ran one hour. in the texas constitution, it says texas is a free, independent state. the governor holds the state's highest office. all political power is inherent in the people and it is up to texas -- from the rio grande to the red river. the panhandle to the gulf. when you cannot find a way, you make away. will decide in november who leads the lone over the next four years. >>