a look at our live coverage thursday on c-span. vice president pence speaks at the hudson institute about u.s. policy toward china. president trump hosts a company rally in rochester, minnesota. c-span2, larry kudlow talks about the new trade deal between the u.s., mexico and canada. in the senate returns for more debate on the supreme court nomination of brett kavanaugh. government officials testify before the senate banking committee about efforts to prevent money laundering. coming up on today's washington journal. nextgov talksth about preparations for the november midterms. also, the latest on the fbi investigation into allegations of sexual assault against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. we hear from prosecutor nelson

cunningham who served as white house counsel for the clinton administration. also, michael cohen's ferry from the hudson institute joins us to talk about president trump's recent accusation of election. of brettmination kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court. motion toyour cloture the nomination. ♪ majority leader mitch mcconnell starting the clock on a planned senate vote to confirm judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. political reporting today says if all goes as planned, -- as planned, a vote could be saturday at 5:00 in the afternoon. senators will spend today examining the background report on judge brett kavanaugh and there's a question on if jeff flake, lisa murkowski, and susan collins will support the

nomination. your thoughts and what you think on the starting of the whole process to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 if you use social media, you can post on our twitter feed @cspanwj and also our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. when it comes to the fbi report, the washington post talks about how the process plays out this morning, saying once the report was sent to the hill, it was -- a securele to room to review sensitive or classified material. just one physical copy of the report will be available and only the senators and 10 committee staffers cleared to

view the material. the parties will take turns having access in shifts. that's according to a senior senate official. here with more on the process of how this plays out and joining us on the phone to talk about that is kyle cheney with political -- politico. good morning. guest: good morning. good to be here. host: spend a little time spending the torrent -- the story between the receiving of the report and where we are now with the start of the process. guest: sure. it appears the report was received overnight in congress. heirman grassley announced got it, so members will have a chance to look at it around 8:00 a.m. and the way they will do it is they will alternate. republicans will get a look first for about an hour or so in this secure room at the capital and senate -- then democrats

will get to their turn and alternate in reviewing it. aboutats are very upset how the investigation played out and republicans think democrats are looking for anything to complain about. it is not going to be a particularly pleasant review of the report. host: mr. cheney, why is it set up this way? what is the protocol for that? ofst: this is sort unprecedented and how they treat classified information a lot of the time. the intelligence committee, when they would deal with sensitive information, they go into these secure rooms. they are extremely locked down, that's why you only have one copy. members aren't bringing it out and sharing it and potentially leaking it out. host: with senator mcconnell starting the process last night, what does that suggest or what can you report as far as his confidence getting enough votes to even start a formal vote?

guest: he doesn't have 50 votes yet, that is the big take away. starting the process and putting that in motion to get a vote, procedural vote on friday, which will tell you where things stand. they want to move on this thing. come out oflicans the review and say there is too much in this report and we cannot move forward, he seems to have the confidence this will get the votes by friday. by tomorrow. host: you said this process wasn't going to be pretty. what have we seen specifically when it comes to democratic reaction to the fbi report and senator mcconnell's procedural move last night? guest: they are frustrated because they think the fix is in from the beginning. mcconnell is setting up the votes even before the fbi report reached the hill.

the fbi interviewed a very limited set of potential witnesses. a lot of witnesses did not get interviewed and complained publicly and said we have information that is relevant. than this question about did the white house play a role in to interview abi very limited set of people? they will not be satisfied. theyuestion is can convince republicans on the fence that they should continue to be frustrated and demand more out of the f guy and the white house? -- out of the fbi and the white house? as of yet, they have been completely clammed up. susan collins, jeff flake, lisa murkowski buried there is a sense they will be able to get those votes. joe manchin also very much on the fence. as on the fence as you can be. they seem to want to support the nomination.

host: there was reporting last night, some back-and-forth about previous fbi investigations or background checks into brett kavanaugh with senate democrats questioning the claims made by -- claims made. guest: there was sort of situation. republicans said -- sort of insinuation. republican said there is no with of impropriety or misconduct three democrats said, that is not true, but we cannot tell you why. maybe there was more in the earlier reports we had not learned about. republicans rejected that and said this is innuendo and an attempt -- a last-ditch attempt to mess things up. we still don't really know the crux of that. host: walk us through a timeline of this moment on in the process and when we might expect the final vote. guest: if there is nothing in the report that causes another

back, we will have this and forth today and it will get very ugly and partisan and presumably some of the members on the fence will announce support or opposition. a procedural vote what happened friday morning and a final vote could happen as early as saturday afternoon. people will be in town for the weekend finishing this up. host: kyle cheney reporting for politico on this move to start for the vote to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. mr. cheney, thank you. guest: great to be here, thank you. host: for the remainder of this hour, your thoughts on the move by the senate majority to start toward the process. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. in akron ohio, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. god bless everyone.

each hour, more and more people are aware of kavanaugh's record. he sided with a slaughterhouse owner sent to jail by other judges. in 17 rulings, kavanaugh allowed trophy hunters to slaughter endangered species and he probably supports the 51 republican senators who voted to allow the murder of their cubs and wolf puppies in our national parks in alaska. something that not a single democratic senator voted for. host: what do you think about the start of the process that took place and what it means if it goes to a final vote? caller: i think the fbi interviewed only 6 people. christopher wray and brett kavanaugh were yield classmates -- yale classmates and it is very unfair. we are the only country

allegedly democratic that allows lifetime appointments to unelected justices and it is a way the plutocracy controls our government. miami, florida, independent line. robert, hello. caller: hello. i would like to say the real question on the vote for this gentleman for the highest court is whether he can administer the law unbiasedly and i believe this man cannot. i believe he has preset ideas and beliefs and his behavior in the hearings showed some of his one sidedness and his inability to administer the law unbiased like. i think -- unbiasedly. this is the main question we should be asking. host: what do you look at personally when you say he has preset beliefs? caller: he believes the president should have unlimited

power and not be able to be looked at or questioned or judge or -- drudge -- judged or brought to court your it i believe he has already exhibited a lot of those biases and i believe this gentleman should not sit on the court. he cannot bring an unbiased administration of the law at all . i believe his behavior clearly shows that in the hearings. host: our next call, diane in massachusetts, independent line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i think he should be confirmed. host: why so? caller: because if this country has fallen so low where all you need to do is point a finger at someone and say they are guilty of something and that is all that is needed, the president was right when he said men need

to be really scared in this country right now. schoolteachers, coworkers, if that is all it takes to bring a person down, there is no evidence, there is nothing. host: that is diane in massachusetts calling in on talking about the starting of the voting process. off facebook "a lack of judicial temperament and self-control. for this reason, he should not be confirmed. on twitter, the fbi voted for the senate to peru's, let the parsing begin. whateme of the day -- contrived drama will happen remains to be seen. saysfer -- on facebook "confirm, confirm, confirm." "the gop stole the

supreme court seat from merrick garland and will now give it to someone most americans strongly oppose." facebook available to you at facebook.com/cspan in our twitter feed @cspanwj. you heard a portion of senator mcconnell starting the process late last night to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. [video clip] >> assuming the senate will receive the results of the supplemental background investigation for judge brett kavanaugh. this is now the seventh, seventh looked into has judge kavanaugh's background and this information comes on top of what has already been one of the most thorough and exhaustive senate reviews of any supreme court nominee in the entire history of our country. five days of public hearings. 65 private meetings with

senators. more than 1200 responses to written questions from members. more than 500,000 pages of documents were reviewed. the most produced for any supreme court nomination in our history and the 300 plus opinions judge kavanaugh has issued during his three years on .he d.c. circuit now senators will have the evidence collected by this additional background investigation for their consideration as well. members will have the opportunity to reveal -- review investigators records read judiciary staff members with the required clearances will be authorized to brief members. there will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on the supplemental material before our friday cloture vote. i am filing cloture on judge

kavanaugh's nomination this evening so the process can move forward. host: here is some of the tweets from senators in the senate, democrat and republican, for the latest in a process. chuck grassley saying supplemental fbi background filed for judge kavanaugh has been received by the committee and ranking member feinstein and alternate equal access to senators to study content for additional background information gathered by the nonpartisan fbi agents. the fbi's supplemental request -- judge kavanaugh and dr. ford had the opportunity to testify under oath. the material will be handled per a memorandum of understanding signed by president obama's white house counsel and the senate judiciary chairman senator leahy, saying the latest

agreement of this material -- did not object back then and we have the thoughts of chuck grassley, amy klobuchar also filed cloture and starts the clock on the confirmation vote. we have not seen the fbi report yet." senator john cornyn, reporters are going to stake out the room where senators read the report as each republican senator exits, they will be asked about the contents of the memo and whether it will affect their vote. this will likely go on all day. that is some of the legislators on the committee themselves. michigan is next, democrats line, doris. caller: good morning. this is a continuation of the republican's war on women. that never ended. as far as judge kavanaugh, even

if you omit the material and the lies that have come out of him, his demeanor coming out the way seen any i have never court candidate act like that. he yelled, he screamed, he cried. a woman could never be able to get away with that type of behavior. he talked about a clinton conspiracy and a left-wing conspiracy. this man should not even be on the appeals court, which he is, let alone for a promotion to the supreme court. host: that is doris in michigan. henry in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to use two words and they are not profanity, they are descriptive. and i have a point i would like to make without being interrupted. -- he wasening to the

blabbing away a few minutes ago and that is what came to mind. , obscuration, to obscure -- root -- kavanaughs how did ever get by a character committee when he was applying for membership in the bar? he was in his early 20's and he had regular public any variation, brawling, profanity, and a salt on women. women.ult on how did he ever get admission to the bar? i would like that answered. host: mark in tennessee, republican line. caller: yes, it is mark. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: when i was a young man, i was 18 years old and i got a

job at a fast food restaurant and there were numerous women who assaulted me, who harassed me and i did not know what to do. i was a young boy. i had no idea how to deal with the situation. they were relentless. eventually, i changed jobs and went to another restaurant and there was another woman, assistant manager who harassed me. host: how does that apply in judge kavanaugh's situation and the confirmation process? caller: i am not sure how it applies. tore are women who will try sexually harass you. i was young, i was a lot better looking than i am now. there is a lot of women who attack men as well. int: ok, that is marked

tennessee. william in california, republican line read caller: who are you asking for? host: william in sandy miss. -- san demas. caller: yes. presentedng in -- you a question. i don't exactly know what the question is -- if i think he should be confirmed. host: we are asking thoughts about the start of the confirmation process and what you think about it. caller: it is the procedure. i don't see what is so controversial about following procedure. is that supposed to be a controversy? host: what about judge kavanaugh himself? caller: i think he is a good man . the man had a spotless record going in and coming out, he has had his character destroyed by an all out campaign.

when the left says we want to necessary, i means take them at their word. smearing,includes besmirching, mischaracterizing, slandering. host: that is william in san dimas calling in this morning. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002 .our capitol hill producer craig caplan sending out tweets on what might be expected on the senate floor saying the senate returns at 11:00 for more debate on judge kavanaugh and the nomination. senator mcconnell filed cloture tonight, setting up the vote to limit debate. hope there will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on supplemental material. with tomorrow being the intervening day for the cloture

petition to ripen on the kavanaugh nomination, it will one hour after the senate convenes on friday. other tweets this morning off of our twitter feed, edward stephens saying what could the fbi have found thus far? they need more time. this is nadine bowers off facebook, 4 days is not a weeklong investigation. stopping an investigation is not fair play. they seem to believe this satisfies us. from facebook, terry donovan saying his appearance showed a lack of judicial temperament and self-control and that is one reason he should not be confirmed. rusty saying all the comments on judicial temperament. he has been on the d.c. court for nearly 10 years, give me a break. no mention of any problem. if you are buying into this farce, they will do it to him

and eventually they will do it to someone you did -- you do not think deserves it. joshua, democrats line in new york. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. host: you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call and giving me the opportunity to speak with you. i think all 100 members of the will limit the fbi investigation. agree with our president's --ice and i want to ask [inaudible] thank you for taking my call. host: the topic on judge

kavanaugh and the nomination process. larry in tennessee, democrats line. what he said, what goes around, comes around. he needs to go back and apologize to klobuchar for threatening her. have a nice -- day. host: check next in dundalk, maryland. hello. caller: i am commenting on this. upot of this is a staged set between the left and the right. this is not really a matter of temperament or who is trying to get on which side. this is really about who is telling the truth, ok? there is only one person who can possibly be telling the truth and there is no other mix. all these other staged things being set up for whatever reason. i have been interviewed by the fbi. the fbi is very good at what

they do. they can find out anything they want about anybody at any time. they have the power to extricate the truth. they don't make the judgment, but they have the ability to do this. the truth will come out and i am hoping it will be conducted in the manner it should be. host: republican line from texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. god bless. i was calling, judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. the democrats are nothing but just like president trump, obstruction. they do not want this country to thrive. they will send us into oblivion. they already said by any means necessary. they don't mind lying to get somebody to come in. mrs. ford. . feel sorry for her i am not saying anything did not happen to her.

needs to tell the right person and not just accuse an innocent man to destroy his life and keep him from being on the supreme court. it is all about roe v. wade. that is the first thing they said. we are not going to forward before they even -- ford before they even knew. they do not care about the united states. the only thing democrats care about is destroying the united states. host: walter in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you all doing? let me say this. kavanaugh, brett is as guilty as the day is long. wouldwere not guilty, it not take this long for the fbi to investigate. him.sick and tired of

these people talking about destroying his reputation. he destroyed his own reputation. all he had to say was i want the fbi to investigate this. he refused because he is guilty. this lady would not have donned in front of millions and millions of people to tell a lie . this guy is a sloppy drunk that changed in the last 10 or 15 years and all he had to do was admit i was a drunk and this may have occurred and i am sorry. i hope he is not approved because the only thing he is going to do is make sure young girls don't have the opportunity to have an abortion if they choose to. georgia.t is walter in it just of the new york times reports the white house concludes overnight the fbi's supplemental interviews show no corroboration in kavanaugh

allegations and based on the limited review requested, the fbi does not make conclusions, the view of four senators is critical and heidi says the statement from dr. ford's council on failure to interview ford and those her corroborate her, we are disappointed after the sacrifice she made coming forward, those directing the investigation were not interested in speaking to her. this plays on a political level as the november elections, up. a debate in virginia featuring tim kaine and his challenger, both of them asked about the current process into confirming judge kavanaugh and here are the responses. [video clip] >> are you confident there will be enough information with the fbi investigation? >> i am worried about it because the investigation was announced last friday and it is wednesday

and five days have gone by and we hear there is a report ready and many witnesses have not yet been interviewed. i will look at the fbi report as soon as i get back to washington and my expectation is we would be voting within the next week. >> i did ask you if your opinions have changed. >> my opinions have changed of the members of the judiciary committee behaving like the phones and embarrassing the entire country over this despicable act of taking down the character of a good man after accusations of 36 years ago. that is how my opinion changed. host: joanne is next, washington, d.c., independent line. hi. caller: good morning. my name is joanne and i am so glad you have this program. i just have a couple questions. the fbi report went to the white house before it went to the senate. how do we know it is the same version they received?

that it was not edited? aam wondering if like maybe third party, a news organization should get a freedom of information request to see, is it the original report and they would not have to print, just look at the number of words or hold one up to the other. also, why not have all the previous background check reports available to the senate if we already have those. i think it might be good to say the more information, the better. just my thoughts. host: let's go to jim in north carolina, independent line caller:. good morning. host: morning. obamacare,ant to say

we were told, go ahead and vote and we will tell you what is in it. they are doing the same on kavanaugh. vote for him to be the judge and later ron, you will find out what he is -- later on, you will find out what he is up to. host: why do you think that is a good way to go? caller: in my own mind, i know what kind of person he is. he is a whole lot better than his accuser. she is carrying my last name and i don't like that. host: when you say you know what kind of person he is, what do you base that on? caller: testimony. host: from the testimony he gave recently and before during the confirmation process? caller: during the confirmation, yes. is -- his and hers. that what did he say convinces you of your support

for him? caller: the one thing i liked was his mannerisms. i like the way he stood up for himself. i am sickened tired -- sick and tired of politicians. instead of standing up for themselves and saying what they are supposed to say. host: but hear from suzanne in -- let's hear from suzanne in texas. caller: i don't think kavanaugh should be confirmed. when i watched clarence thomas, i believed every word anita hill said. clarence thomas, he was mad, but he behaved with dignity and got his point across. kavanaugh through a baby tantrum and cried and screamed. have -- he does not have what it takes to be a supreme court judge and he threatens like you wait until i

get on their bank. i believe every word that woman said. 10t: tim being a judge for years, do you -- him being a judge for 10 years, do you think that factors in at all? caller: as far as the supreme court lifetime, this was a job interview and he blew his job interview by screaming and crying and insulting. one of the ladies asked him, did you drink to black out and he said, did you? how rude is that. host: what particularly about dr. ford's testimony did you believe? caller: every bit of it. every timeoo person -- many times over. i was one of the first women in the air force and i can tell you every detail of stuff that happened 30 and 40 years ago to me.

there is little detail you cannot remember. i am a me too person and i believed every word she said. host: jody off of twitter says after what we have seen and heard from brett kavanaugh at hearing,omination -- replace the nominee, he is not good enough. there is a few more tweets. if you want to post on twitter, you can do so @cspanwj. you can also post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. fort worth, texas, is next. go ahead. caller: good morning. listen, my son was a roommate of a young man who was getting a promotion in the air force. two fbi investigators came to him on his job and interviewed him for more than an hour because he was this young man's roommate.

when i saw the roommate of kavanaugh speak yesterday on cnn, he said in all of the 6 interviews he has had, no one ever came to him and asked him about kavanaugh. i think that is suspect and i do think the fix is in. when they decided not to let everybody who knew something contribute to the information about this man and i am not saying he hasn't been a good man for 10 years, but he lied. he lied. i am 80 something years old and i have known people who would drink and drink and get drunk and the next day, they did not remember. he may not remember it, when he

was a teenager. host: let's go to matthew in pennsylvania, democrats line. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. sir, we know that you are american and have to be respected. brett kavanaugh is a liar. i don't know why trump elected him for supreme court and i don't know why trump always tries to threaten the iran regime. host: excuse me, only because we are talking about the kavanaugh nomination. in your opinion, particularly, where did he lie? caller: energy without benefits. we have to accept iran as a superpower. host: we will leave it there because not to the topic we are trying to make. deborah, independent line. caller: good morning. i am stunned so many people, the mob rule is trying to take over

on this country and so many people without any knowledge of due process are making an assessment like the lady before. he lied, he lied. what does she know about any of it? there has not been an ounce of evidence. i had a sexual thing happened to me, too, and therefore, he is guilty. it is outrageous. yes, something happened and it is awful and our hearts are breaking for people. i have had multiple people come on to me. i am 5'3" and a buck 10. it did not ruin my life. i am beyond where she was in situations and we all respond differently. let's not remember in the moment of the emotion that there is a process and the next step that he has a bad temperament, people have to be kidding me on that aspect.

someone's life is being torn apart and kids being threatened and they will never have a normal life after this? baddad will always be the guy. if you are not upset, democrats would have said he is indifferent, so he must be guilty. we have the other issue nobody on the left is mentioning, the would need a broderick -- juanita broderick coming out with evidence and even though -- it seems like now we are all super hyped up about it. once upon a time, we were not and we should have been then. host: that is deborah in maryland. "she has lied so many times, i cannot even keep up. hold of the vote."

lockstepadical liberals know anything. caller: good morning. i wanted to call to identify with mrs. ford. judgeody is talking about kavanaugh, he has been serving on the court for so many years. we don't know what he did and what he did not do. i watched the hearing and if anybody can be confirmed with the attitude and the things he did, what is this country coming to? was i was 10 years old, i raped over and over and over by my pastor of my church. my mother and my sister,

everybody. i finally had to run away from home. denied6 years old and he everything. even wrote a letter and sent it to my mom and my sister. to talk aboutou it or say anything about it. you never forget. your life is turned upside down. i am 65 years old today. that happened when i was 10 years old and my sister was 9. more girls in the group, 7, 8, 9. he is dead today, but he was never charged with anything. all of the girls i know in the church that was raped by him, we are getting along, but you never forget. how do people get away with that? kavanaugh, i do not believe him. he is not believable because i

can see why because donald trump nominated him. donald trump had 14, 15 women accuse him and they let him get by with it. host: that is patricia in texas. republican line, hi. caller: two things i want to point out. when your callers call from the left, they are either a victim of rape or hate donald trump. she is not a victim until she is proven a victim. as heinous as rape is -- and i would be the first to hang somebody upside down for an act like that. if we are going to start calling out people based on an accusation, we are headed down a slippery slope. he'd don't have the demeanor or temperament for the job -- if somebody wants to sit there, --

if you are going to tell me i am a gang rate this -- rapist and call me everything in the book, i am going to get upset. utmosteated her with the respect and when it came to him, they treated him like garbage. wrote anday, they even op-ed about her story and credibility is falling apart. host: in maryland, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. thank you for picking up my call. kavanaugh should not be nominated for supreme court judge because supreme court is the highest court in the land. word she said is the fact. kavanaugh loves beer so much, he

was drinking so much he could not remember. everything the lady said against kavanaugh is right. look up bill cosby. to jail.ken --that happened to mr. cosby the fbi was allowed to investigate properly. host: speaking of the fbi and the investigation off of twitter , what happened to interviewing all the witnesses? people are trying to reach the fbi to tell them what they know and the fbi is not talking to them. the confirmation investigation is a sham. kavanaugh is not qualified. this is kathleen off facebook. confirm him now. he is a good man with an impressive record and he does not deserve the mental anguish

he has been put through. thiseft has overstepped time. facebook and twitter available as well as the phone lines. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 in south carolina, we will hear from hank, independent line. caller: yes, thank you. was sitting there and they had accused me of gang rape and i knew i did not do it, i would have been matter than what -- madder than what he was. fbi --ther thing, this they are saying the fbi did not investigate him. how do you know they did not ask ford's questions? ford's lawyer said they did not ask any questions. you are going to believe ford's

lawyers? they are the ones that probably leaked the report. when he was in high school and college, they said he was valedictorian, head of his class. who in the world can stay up all night long and get up in the morning and still have top grades? host: that is hank in south carolina and some other news on the senate side. work being done to pass authorization for the faa. it was on wednesday the five-year authorization was passed and will be sent to the desk. it comes after the house passed a bill last week and the senate needed a one-week stopgap to get passed the september 30 deadline. this bill also includes $1.68 billion in disaster relief or areas impacted by florence and includes better utilization of investments leading to .evelopment act, the build act

that is on the hill reporting. also on the senate side, washington post reporting another bill being passed looking at opioids, saying this bill passed creates, expands, and reauthorizes programs and policies across almost every federal agency to address different aspects of the epidemic, including prevention, treatment, and recovery. another change to a decades old rule that required -- prevented medicaid covering substance abuse disorders. the bill left the rule to allow for 30 days of residential treatment coverage. that is from the washington post. from john in new jersey, democrats line. caller: first of all, thank you for taking my phone call and thank you for having c-span air my opinion. my opinion on this judge is that

he is supposed to be a neutral guy. give me a break. all those people out there in trump land and trumpites making fun of this woman at a rally, give me a break. i am a vietnam veteran. i do not need to have some trumpite come up and say i believe this judge. i don't believe him because two thanks. one thing is he is a man and he is supposed to protect a woman. he is not the -- not supposed to defend a position of where he was an adolescent kid and had all these high grades and accolades and everything else. that is not going to buy it with me. i was republican and i turned independent and now i am a democrat. do you know why i am a democrat?

it is because i am tired of being lied to, tired of being forced down my throat, and opinion of a public that probably would not send their sons and daughters to war because they are too much of a coward. host: that is john in trenton, new jersey, calling on the topic for this first hour has been the judges of confirming kavanaugh. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell going to the floor starting the vote process if it does play out during the next few days, a final vote could take place saturday 5:00 in the afternoon. peter alexander reporting when it comes to the fbi investigation saying the fbi contacted 10 potential witnesses and interviewed 9 of them. that is according to a source briefed on the finding. it is unclear why the 10th was not interviewed.

>> rubio saying witnesses denying knowledge -- allegations against judge kavanaugh, no independent corroboration of allegations has emerged. i will read the report. evidences not include -- corroborating evidence, i will vote to confirm. orrin hatch saying this will be one of the most meaningful votes of our lifetime. it will senators vote for the politics of personal abstraction vote touction or confirm an eminently qualified nominee? caller: i would like to say the american people better wake up and remember the constitution ands everybody due process we are innocent until proven guilty. if we want to screw around with

that rule, we are going to pledge -- plunge this nation into chaos and another civil war. law -- mob rule if the democrats get their way. host: peter is next in california, independent line. caller: i went to catholic school -- high school in the 1980's and there's a couple of things people do not know. i wasn't really interested in this until i thought the judge walking the hallways saying he i startedin and laughing and said if this guy probably went to a party and got drunk and did not remember what he is doing. a lot of times, girls and boys are separated. it is common to go 30 or 40 miles away to a party. you can go to any party of another catholic school. saying i am not even from the area, he started making me

disbelieve him from my own .xperience life unfortunately, i actually had to make claims against people for sexual harassment of women. i actually stopped a rape one time. when i saw that lady, ford, the face she gave was the only face i can remember when i saw those women suffering. this thing of they are pushing things along. i have been a republican for over 15 years. two days ago, i reregistered independent because the republican party made me sick. if this guy has had so much trouble, get somebody else, restart. i heard from the nsa of the bush administration that said the same thing. get another person that is more acceptable. people say due process, but the more important thing is -- this

guy is going to make us break in half and become two groups fighting each other. he is not the man. host: we will go onto walt, republican line from lakeland, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. if this man is such a monster, how come back in 2003 when he was put up for the second-highest court when he was put up and it took three years to get him confirmed because democrats kept posturing, why didn't anybody come forward. understand, i cannot relate to a woman being rape. d. i really cannot relate to it. if it happened to her, which i do think something did happen, why didn't anything come out in 2003 when he was put out by george w. bush for that office

and all of a sudden now it is like maybe people knew this wasn't a big enough fish yet and they saw where he was headed and could hold it later? women coming forward later in life -- i understand sometimes details can be sketchy, but why wasn't something investigated harder than by the democrats that are so empowered for women, only if it is to further their agenda. host: diane moore off of facebook this morning saying confirm, confirm, confirm and another tweet "i am not surprised to see them moving forward. we will see what happens next." the wall street journal adding senators from both parties saying they would like to see the findings eventually made public in some form. governing agreement background investigations could make that difficult. precludese memorandum

release of documents -- disclose contents without authorization can be punished. white house lawyers concluded a similar memorandum dealing with the privacy act bars them from making contents public either or commenting on them with any specificity. wallis this morning's street journal. robert in new mexico, hello. republican line. caller: howdy. how are you doing? i am embarrassed for my whole country because of all of this going on. we are so divided, i have never seen it like this before and it is all because of the tv. everybody is watching television thinking they are telling you the truth. i don't believe in donald trump. i don't believe in hillary clinton. i believe in god and our country. stand together. host: what do you think about

kavanaugh? caller: i like him. when he was interviewed by the senate, he did a great job and he was a compelling individual. saidgal that stood up and she got touched after all these years, bull crap. i don't believe that. how come she did not stand up when it happened? i am not taking sides here. i am seeing men and women separated because of the politics right now. vladimir putin is smiling from ear to ear. host: let's go to sammy in massachusetts. caller: i am a big fan of c-span. i truly appreciate your efforts to the nice lady who answers the phone's and you, pedro, you are doing a great service to our country. the fact the senate has decided to do so is preposterous. it is a big collusion with trump.

they are promising his stay at the white house. this is so embarrassing having a sexual predator in our highest court. it's no longer about sexual assault, it is about truth, honesty, and respectability. i come from a region that has always been -- as i was speaking about truth, what has been given 33nd only seconds of coverage not on c-span, cnn, the missile strike on the saudi coalition targeted isis-held territories. it was an attack in response to our military -- that killed innocent people. 6 ballistic missiles, and operation which has unfortunately gone unnoticed due to our relationships with the government of iran. host: ok.

you made the statement. because we are talking about judge kavanaugh. caroline in texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to say you cannot ford'st both ways on mrs. testimony. everybody said she was very believable and something definitely happened to her, but when it came to the faces of the two men who were on top of her, one she kept looking at in the eyes to get his attention and new who he was. on knew kavanaugh and he was top of her trying to cover her mouth and all of this. you just cannot say she got that wrong. they don't go together at all. she is either credible or not. hear from william on the independent line. the last call on this topic from neapolis. caller: i just wanted to say i

keep hearing people call in and talk about due process. i met african-american male and we get accused of stuff all the time. it is so hypocritical. of these republicans call in and saying due process and he is innocent, give me a break. women died based on white looking at them, talking to them. host: that is william, the last call on the topic. we will take a pause talking about the confirmation process to talk about election security. recent statements from the department of homeland security about issues and what they are doing about it leading up to the november election. nextgov for with

that discussion. we will also he or from nelson cunningham, who has experience looking at matters of judicial nominations talking about the latest confirming brett kavanaugh. up. conversation, coming ♪ on constitution day, c-span visited the national constitution center in philadelphia where we asked folks what does it mean to be american? >> i am home, you know? when you feel like you are at home, so you feel like you are comfortable to live here. >> for me, what it meant was i was blessed to have been born in countries one of the

with the most freedom for people, for all people who push through happiness and life and joy with families and a living. >> to pursue your dreams -- freedom to pursue your dreams and opportunities. friendship, getting along with everybody here in america. family and love. yourmply doing responsibilities, both civic and family and things like that. as a daughter of service members and as a former servicemember, i felt it was my responsibility under the constitution to go ahead and do my duty and serve the country. >> the freedom to pursue your

happiness and really, there is a lot of opportunity for me. i have been able to be whatever wantt to be and do what i for a living. in the country i come from, this would not be possible. >> we are asking middle and high school students to produce a 5 to 6 minute documentary answering the question, what does it mean to be an american tell us, what does it mean to be american? the deadline is the very 20th -- is february 20. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. josephoining us now, reporterber security joining us to talk about

.lection security what is nextgov? security do set of operations inside the government. host: what is the government currently doing when it comes to election security, and who is leading that charge? guest: it is being led by the homeland security department, which has really been trying to ramp up its contact with states. it was a mess in 2016 when they knew they were issues but did not know who to talk to. wanted toeople they talk with were secretaries of state. they didn't have security clearance or know how to talk to them. it's ultimately took almost a year.

since the 26th election, the monarch none opening those lines of communications. they've installed sensors on networks across the u.s. so they know who is doing what with elections. they are opening up chat room style communications on election day where if they see one thing one place, they can tell everyone about it. host: what is the main concern of dhs as it stands when it comes to the november elections on cyber security and election security issues? guest: one is the straight up cyber security issues. best the possibility of a foreign power hacking into either a voter database and removing names so that people show up to the polls and aren't recognized, or conceivably changing votes. there's no evidence that happened in 2016, but there is a lot of concern about it. so you are trying to improve

security of election systems across the united states and improve communication with those officials. the other side is social media influence operations. a lot of social media companies have tried to ban bots from their systems and so forth and get ahead of this but that is another concern, that operations could spread misinformation, try to promote some candidates over others, etc.. host: when it comes to actors might be doing that, who is top on that list? who else is the federal government concerned about? guest: the top of the list is always russia. according to the intelligence departments,most they launched an operation like this in 2016 for the 2016 elections. the trump administration recently -- and president trump himself has been talking about china trying to influence the election. he said at the un security council last week he's concerned china will try to influence elections. since then, homeland security officials and others in the

government have said there is a broad influence operation in china trying to promote china's image on the world stage and in the u.s., trying to back down criticism of china. it is not clear how much of that has to do with actually promoting certain candidate or harming other candidates. officials have not answered those questions very clearly since trump's comments. host: we will talk about election security matters. if you want to ask questions about the current work on that, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. t yourn also twee @cspanwj. the homeland security secretary kristen nielsen --

secretaryo nielsen -- kierstin nielsen. >> we are tailoring information, getting it out to those who need it. we are also helping state and locals understand their networks from an intrusion perspective. about 94 sensors deployed to date. to put that in perspective, but the midterms, more than 90% of registered voters will live in an area whose infrastructure is protected. host: can you elaborate? guest: secretary nielsen outlined a lot of what will happen. system forent's sensing efforts of intrusion is

called einstein. it has been going on for a number of years. when they wanted to install sensors in various industries across the country, they could do the same sort of thing, they call it albert. -- new all nuisance 2016 sense 2016. their goal is to improve communication to the point where they can, if they see something in one place that ought to be of concern, tell everyone about it as quickly as possible. host: is there an instant response available for something coming up in the days leading up to the election or election day itself? there will be incident response capacity don't forward. for at least the last year and a half or so, homeland security has been doing the pre-version of that. doing penetration testing at any of the states and localities

that every western it -- that have requested it. a lot of them have not. doing other kind of scanning to see what they have to be concerned about. host: when it comes to the in the user experience, the voting inhine itself, where are we terms of the susceptibility of them being hacked or at least interfered with? guest: there have been significant improvements. congress allocated $380 million that theyto states have been using to upgrade voting machines, test machines, etc.. a lot of the machines do retain vulnerabilities. inre was an ethical hacking las vegas every year. they had what is called a voting village that bought these machines on ebay. they are not hard to find. they are from four major vendors, which is a problem in itself.

they search for vulnerabilities on a machine just like in an iphone or a laptop. 2018eport from the conference in august came out a week and a half ago, and they found what they called staggering volatilities across these systems. the goal is for something really totical like voting systems be not reached on the internet. in a lot of cases they could do that by being on the same network. a voting have you later used in 23 states was vulnerable to remote hacking. another machine in 18 states was able to be hacked in about two minutes. that wirelessly recalculating, that is a real concern. the --e to be present in

if you have to be present at the that is not as great a concern. host: our first call comes from west virginia on our line for democrats. jim, go ahead. caller: hello, mr. marks. i seen on the tv last night that the british intelligence agency has proved that the russians have interfered worldwide with people's elections, and they've also penetrated our electric and went so far into our system that they could actually throw the switch is an cut the electric off. all of our intelligence agencies have said that the russians ,nterfered with the elections

but we haven't heard one word -- he shouldout have told our intelligence agencies to do everything they possibly could to stop the russians or any other country from interfering with our elections. there's not been one word from him. i want to call mr. trump what i think the russians call them. comrade read -- i think trump doesn't what to do anything because he knows they helped him get elected or other republicans get elected. host: mr. marks. guest: just to clarify, the president has at various points at your beaded the 2016 election meddling to the russians. he has wavered sometimes i said it could be china, someone else, a 400 pound person in their basement, etc. the intelligence agencies did attribute the -- the election meddling to the russians.

one technical issue was that cyberattack's are a little tougher declassified and conventional physical attacks. the obama administration had outlined the kind of attack that might happen that would cause us to respond in a serious and retaliatory way, either in cyberspace or in physical space. here's a list of critical industries where that is the case. election systems weren't on that list in november 2016. they were added by former homeland security secretary james johnston in december 2016. the broader administration has been if this happens again, this is very serious and on the list that would prompt retaliation from the united states. host: in new york, independent line. leanne. caller: hello.

couldd like to ask if you help clarify some information about the presidential alert that went out to some 200 something million phones yesterday. does this mean the president could potentially use this for campaign announcements or use it in some way that would questionably influence people? guest: this is not my field. i believe not. i believe the goal is to use this in actual emergency situations. this was a test. i'm not quite sure how successful it was because i did not get one. host: when it comes to the federal government itself, they group of money for election systems. guest: it has been used largely to upgrade old machines in some states, used to hire outside consultants to penetration testing.

basically what they were doing in las vegas. and to bring consultants and to look at how you set up your systems. isn'tof time the problem so much with the system itself, but the way it is set up. that someone has a computer that is connected in a way it shouldn't be that leaves things vulnerable. host: $280 million in new grants this year. 40 states say they will use that 34 statesmprove -- say they will use that money to purchase new voting machines. 41 states will improve elections ever security. some states have decided not to work with dhs on this, sometimes because of federalism. of angst amongt states because this has generally been a state issue. they don't like federal

overreach. there was a comment from the national association of secretaries of state saying we oppose this designation. communication has improved significantly since then. in a lot of cases, states have decided to work with rival vedors, -- private this rather than dhs to do testing. secretary in charge of this effort appears at these conferences. he was at one just yesterday. host: part of the story you wrote saying it was about this issue of security clearances, he spoke about that. what did he say? guest: security clearances are slow in developing. anyone who apply for a job with the federal government knows there is a big backlog in granting people security clearances. it takes months, if not years,

put togetherthings for a federal employee, let alone someone in the states. officials didn't want to go through the process of getting the clearance. even once you have the clarence, it is still difficult to share classified information over longest and's. --t's long distance long-distance. the point he was making is if we can't get clearance, we can still make this work. i have the authority to give people temporary one-day clearances so i can sit them down, tell them what i need to tell them. he made a slightly different point yesterday which is i can make this work regardless, so that even if someone doesn't have a clearance or i can't get declassified information to them , we have built enough trusted that i think i can say here's what you need to do. i can't tell you why for a couple of days, but here's what you need to do, and i believe they trust all my security

enough that they will be that. host: sean in kentucky, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how are we to protect against cyber security when i live in the 16th largest city in the united states, and we are still using paper ballots? how can you block that? like you said, you're going to be sending out grants and stuff like that. but this is the 16th largest ,ity for almost decades before when you demand recount of a boat, how are you able to get that done with paper ballots? actually, paper ballots, according to most people who look at this, are really the best thing you can do because you can't hack paper. competing bills in congress right now, neither of which are going to pass, at

least before the lame-duck session, if not next year. one explicitly requires either paper ballots or a paper backup trail for all voting machines across the dates -- the united states. the other would create a commission for recommendations. everyone has set a portion of that is very likely to be that we ought to have at least a paper backup so that you can see the vote you cast, a readout that says here is who i voted for coming you can verify that is correct so that we can manually check these things afterwards. for those states replacing machines, how many are using that type of system? guest: there are currently five states that do not have a paper backup. georgia, louisiana, south carolina, delaware, and new jersey. it is unclear if they are going to have those installed by 2020. in virginia, john democrats line.

go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say that usually when i hear people complain about russia attacking us and china, i'm just laughing. those countries know exactly what they want. they don't have to do anything anymore. our security is getting very weak. look what is happening on facebook today. it is a joke that we are saying we are going to do something about it. unless we regulate so many things,bout this, i.t. we will have more problems. the reason america is suffering right now is we put something out there we have no control over anymore, and we are behind way that. and we are going to tell russia, don't do this. we are going to tell china, do not attack us. their job is to dismantle american elections. that is what they do. thank you for taking my call.

guest: you are fundamentally right. most internet and cyber security experts will tell you the internet was designed with trust in mind. initially forgned the scale of what is happening now, and we have not caught up with that. there's a program inside the commerce department now card the -- now called the cyber security moonshot to look at some of .hese long-range issues another top cyber security official has said our goal is coming 10 years from now we should not be dealing with these minor issues about passwords and vulnerabilities. we should figure out some way to make the broader internet more secure. but we are not there yet, which is why you're seeing what you are seeing from facebook and new vulnerabilities discovered everyday. host: pauline in massachusetts, and an online. question.just had a

i was wondering if you happen to know who was arrested by the capital police -- the capitol police yesterday, a sever xpert.ty e i think he was a democrat in turn? guest: i don't know him or the details about that. i know that someone, a democrat ,n turn, -- democratic intern was arrested for what is called theing, publishing private information of republicans during a hearing. --t: trump: in my remarks

yesterday to the united nations general assembly, i laid out my administration's commitment to building a more just and peaceful future. regrettably, we found that china has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election coming up in november, against my administration. they do not want me or us to win because i am the first president ever to challenge china on trade , and we are winning on trade. we are winning at every level. le don't want them to medd or interfere in our upcoming election. host: what does that mean for dhs? guest: it is not clear. it is not clear precisely what the president was referring to. all my security officials have said since those comments that , we have not seen

from china or any other nation and efforts to this point to actually probe or hack into election systems as we saw in 2016 from russia. ist we are seeing from china broad, ongoing, not new influence to promote china on the world stage, trying to bat back against china's critics. that is not new, nor is it necessarily counter to international practice. does, what other organizations do. it is not clear the extent to which that is actually focused on the election and promoting , goinglar candidates against other candidates, or against the trump administration. we have not gotten any details from homeland security about that or from the intelligence community. host: let's hear from janet in

washington state, and an online. -- washington state, independent line. caller: yes, i think the most important thing is in the past we had very dishonest people. won butflorida, al gore when bush was running against al gore's votesw al away. when they recounted, of course they didn't have all of al gore's votes, so al gore didn't have enough. but because he threw them away. that was illegal, and bush got to be president illegally. so the most important part would be to have people who can be honest. guest: one interesting result of recount after the campaign in 2000 was that was

where the election assistance commission and the help america ,ote act initially came from which is where the 380 million dollars covers has appropriated so far has been funneled through , and states have been requesting more money from congress, which so far they have not appropriated. host: you talk about legislative efforts. what has congress done to actove this other than the granted initially? guest: there's been a lot of interest in the vehicle that most people hoped would pass, the secure elections act, sponsored by senator amy klobuchar of minnesota and james lankford of oklahoma. it really looked as if that was going to pass before the elections. it was going to have a hearing on the rules committee. that hearing was suddenly canceled. it seems largely because of white house and republicans concerned about some of the mandates it would put on states.

again, there's big concern about federal overreach on the states. senators klobuchar and langford have both said they are very helpful the can get that back on track. they are working on a new version right now and are hopeful something will happen during the link that session. host: we've seen executives from facebook and other social media companies on capitol hill with this topic in mind. what is ultimately the result of that? guest: social media companies, largely on the influence operation side, not the cyber security side, has done a lot of work on removing bots from their networks, removing relabeling fake news. not perfect, but that is a really tough problem to identify who is genuine, who is not. on the interest, -- on the internet, no one knows you're a cat. announcer: let's hear from peter in virginia. caller: hi. i'm just wondering if there's been any discussion or thought

in the voting space about using the existing system of voting that's used electronically to 's sharesions of people for proxy holding globally. thanks. guest: i'm not entirely familiar with that system. if you are referring to online voting, that is a thing people used to talk about theoretically in the u.s. prior to 2016. it has really gone out the window since then. we've gone a very much the opposite direction, focusing on paper ballots and paper trails. -- i are a handful of believe is tony a has done online voting and figured out a has-- i believe estonia done online voting and figure out a way they believe it works. host: a viewer on twitter saying "here have machines

remote software and a modem." guest: it is very concerning. georgia is one of those states that doesn't have a paper trail. there is actually a lawsuit in georgia brought against the secretary of state trying to force systems with paper trails prior to election day. the judge ultimately ruled there was not enough time to do that. . history of has a actively mishandling and releasing voter data, etc. that is a real battleground for this issue. host: hector in san juan, puerto rico. caller: good morning. question.mment and election andn

influencing an election, i would like to know what is the difference. for example, i know russia has been accused of hacking the dnc and releasing the fake emails. but what would have been the difference between if a domestic person did the hacking and released the emails? secondly, what is the difference informationuencing and basically hacking or meddling with voting machines? there's a big difference, and we cannot put them together in the same paragraph. host: thank you. guest: yes, those are two different things running on sort of parallel lines, and the efforts on them have been somewhat different. the government has spent a lot more work on the actual hacking of voting machines side, less on the influence operations.

social media companies have done something on that. klobuchar, a sponsor of one of the major election reform bills, joked yesterday that she doesn't like that word when i "meddling is call my daughter on a friday night and asked what she is doing." the homeland security department will tell you we are much better prepared. think that is fair to say. the relationships exist. they know who to call. to have people with security clearances across the united states, and lines of community edition set up -- of communication set up. is that enough? we don't know yet. with theeph marks publication nextgov.

if you go online, you can see his work on this. thanks for your time. coming up, we hear from the former white house general counsel in the clinton white house nelson cunningham. later, michael pillsbury of the served astitute, also an agent for special affairs under president bush, on the relationship between the united states and china. those conversations coming up when we continue. ♪ announcer: sunday night on the book "good and

mad: the revolutionary power of women anger." >> i am a feminist journalist. part of my work, as long as i've been doing it, has obviously been rooted in anger. you wouldn't be a journalist writing about inequity, about gender inequity, racial inequality, if you weren't mad about those inequities. so obviously there's been anger undergirding my work for a long time. but when i decided i was going to write this book on anger and thought about how it has played into my work, one of the things i could do when i looked back was see the pains i had taken early in my career to obscure that anger. i had absorbed the notion that if i was too angry, i wouldn't be heard clearly. i wouldn't be taken seriously. i would sound hysterical. i would sound radical. even some of the most anodyne writing i did 15 years ago that

is not very good is like the most mild pop feminism. when i think about the comments i got back then, a lot of them were rooted in you sound like a crazy sex starved woman who's just mad because men don't like you. when i was writing pop commentary about paris hilton, the response automatically was you are too angry for me to take you seriously, even when i was covering up that anger with jokes and a general good cheer. sundayatch "afterwords" an eastern on c-span2's booktv. announcer: this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at eight if a pm eastern on "lectures in history," wake forest university professor david lubin on 19th-century artist winslow homer. easterny at 8:00 p.m.

on "the presidency," a look at how the fashion choices of pat nixon and betty ford reflected the politics and culture of their time. and atlantic rpm eastern, the ceremony marking the one and 25th anniversary of the u.s. capitol cornerstone, where president george washington and area freemasons -- the 225th anniversary of the u.s. capitol cornerstone, where president george washington and area freemasons gathered. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. "nnouncer: "washington journal continues. host: our next guest is nelson cunningham. he served as the former white house general counsel in the clinton administration, here to talk about the latest concerning the confirmation process of judge brett kavanaugh. good morning. guest: pleasure to be here. host: could you remind people about your previous experience with the court nominations?

24 years ago i was chairman of the senate judiciary committee come up and working for joe biden, and i handled the nomination of stephen breyer. at that time it was hardly controversial, but can back it was a cakewalk. from there i went to the clinton white house. prosecutor, white house judiciary aid, and white house lawyer. there's a lot that is not understood about the background check process. i wrote a piece this week in thought because i i should lay it out as someone who's been on both sides of this . background checks are not full-fledged criminal investigations. the fbi is a tool to look into

the background of potential nominees. they serve a double purpose. first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate. everyone has a basic fbi background check. of documents, and the fbi takes those, interviews people, and produces a background report. the president uses that, whoever the president is, as part of his dossier on who to nominate. then that file goes to the senate and forms the basis for the senate's advise and consent function. it's never a full-fledged criminal process. you can't use a subpoena. you can't compel people to interview. it is all voluntary. in this case in particular, the investigation this past week was clearly run from the senate judiciary committee. they set the terms because it is assisting them in making their

decision, and the white house served as a conduit from the senate to the fbi. to the white house and the senate have a lot of conversations on the scope of this? that is certainly the way i've seen this work in the past. host: what do you think about the vehicle the senate majority leader employed to have senators roomat the document in a and closed, saying it was a previous agreement done with republicans when they controlled the committee -- i'm sorry, when democrats controlled the committee? guest: it is not unfair of him to try out this process -- to trot out this process, but it is a little strange given we are not talking about national security issues. we are talking about something that was the subject of hours of public testimony just a week ago today. we all know everything that happened in that room because we heard both sides talk about it at length for hours.

the notion that there is anything in this report that should not be in the public eye given that is pretty unusual. the process that's been set up is that they have one hour for republicans. there is one copy of the document in one room. republicans get to look at it for one hour. then the next hour, democrats get to come in and look at. democratic senators, only senators, and a very small number of staffers. you can't take a copy with you. it is going to alternate back and forth all day long. one hour republican, when our democrat. the crucial vote is tomorrow. we have to get 100 senators in and out of that room between now and tomorrow if you want them to have an informed vote on judge kavanaugh. ast: is there a sense redacted copy could have been distributed to senators at large and speed up the process of reviewing the document? guest: there are certainly ways

to inform the senators. senators have clearances. alsourse, many of them have good relations with the press and let's talk to the press. i understand the sensitivities. but nothing is going to keep senators from leaving that room and sharing what they know, even if they promise they won't, with the press and the public. frankly, it is too important a public matter for this to happen without some notion of what is in that report. again, we spent hours last thursday listening to this. this is a natural follow line. , atpublic needs to know least the outlines of what is in that dossier, i would think. host: nelson cunningham joining us for this confirmation. you can ask him questions at (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independentss --

at (202) 748-8002. people outside the capital building holding protests and signs. we he reported that there will be people coming in from maine, from alaska to talk to senators collins and murkowski. somef the criticisms people had is that there was no follow-up fbi interviewed with christine ford herself. should that have been a part of that, considering her testimony last week? if this had been a terrorist incident or a terrible shooting on the steps of the capitol building, there would have been dozens or even hundreds of fbi agents combing the country, tracking down every lead they could possibly find. served in with whom i the u.s. attorney's office in new york many years ago when we both worked for rudy giuliani, wrote a piece this week in "the new york times" that said the

fbi is up to the task if you let them do it, but they were not unleashed to go track down every lead to fund the fact. they were given a carefully circumscribed list of witnesses, as i understand it. they interview those witnesses. there was, as i understand it, in a follow-up, no effort to collect documents, no effort to get corroborating evidence. but we have is quite a limited report, even in the course of a week. there could've been a lot more with the resources the fbi has. as somebody who believes in process, and getting the facts out there and letting people make decisions based on actual facts rather than hearsay or supposition. it is a shame to me that we are not going to have this nailed down in a way that would give the public some sense of certainty one side or the other. call's stephen dennis

saying it was the white house spokesman that said there was a list of only four for the fbi to interview that expanded to 10. guest: it is a just the facts document. the fbi goes in and just lays out the facts. we interviewed so-and-so. this is what the person said. they summarize it in a clear, crisp fashion. there's no editorializing. there's no attempt to say this person was shifty, this person appeared to be lying. it is very much a just the facts summary of what was said, presented in a concise fashion. not nearly the same as seeing upfront and being able to cross examine them to cross examine them emojis the way we

typically find fact in our system. host: we have calls lined up. the first is from matthew and alabama, democrats line. good morning. caller: yes sir, thank you. i'm just wondering. there's 350 million american citizens. on theist one man we put highest court in the land? i don't understand this. like he says, he enjoys alcohol. he likes beer. i like beer, too. i've drank beer myself. but he was sober during that hearing and acted like a drunk, in my opinion. caller.rry about that, guest: you asked a good question. there are lots of people the president could have nominated to fill that. talking to my republican friends in washington, they interpret judge kavanaugh's testimony very

differently than i might as a democrat, and then you seem to. rancor, strong partisan sharply divided over judge kavanaugh's testimony and the current situation. as i've seen in the last two years in washington, even in a superheated environment. testimony last's week, this controversy, the way republicans feel that democrats unfairly brought these charges forward at the last minute as an effort to block judge kavanaugh, that has united republicans in a way we haven't seen. there's actually some polls in the last couple of days that show republican enthusiasm as we head into the midterm elections has increased as a result of the controversy over the last two weeks because republicans have been reminded why they need to get out to vote. not just to support trump, but to support things they have in

common with president trump, which includes conservative judges. there are others that could be chosen at this point, of course, but right now it is all about this man. host: from maine, dean. republican line. hi. caller: hi. , one of the big problems we hear about, one of the democrats' reasons for being so stalwartly against judge kavanaugh, is they claim merrick garland was so mistreated and abused. now, i know that there was a president set -- a precedent set for nominations to the supreme court done some time ago by the democrats. they agreed, i think, not to nominate supreme court justice in an election year. as far as i know, the

republicans abided by that. the reason for the anger is because obama went ahead and nominated merrick garland regardless of this agreement. could you talk about that a little bit and enlighten people who don't know about it that talks, nobody ever about obama doing this, but he did this? he broke the rules and made it look like the republicans had been so mean to merrick garland. host: thank you. guest: ma'am, i will respectfully disagree with your understanding of what the precedent is on these matters. over wheno precedent supreme court justices can be nominated and when they can be acted upon. we've had, in fact, justice kennedy himself confirmed in an election year. we've done it in the past.

i think what you're referring to , back in 1996 senator biden, my old boss, made a statement on the floor in the summer a few months before a midterm election . there was some concern that one of the republican justices might step down at the last minute to permit republicans to fill it. senator biden said i hope republicans don't do that. that would be gaming the system. that has been interpreted by some on the republican side as some kind of binding precedent. i think that is quite a stretch to read it that way. this seat opened up not because of any easement ship -- any gamesmanship, but because justice kennedy died. under actual precedent, the court should have handled -- the senate should have handled that

hearing. every other during an election year has been processed by the supreme court. that one, in fairness, should have been processed also. but you ask a good question because it is based on what i must respectfully say is some misinformation out there about what the actual history is on these matters. what happened to the merrick garland seat in the senate's refusal to even get him a hearing is, in fact, unprecedented in modern history. we simply have not seen that. host: independent line from michigan, christina. caller: thank you for c-span. it is great to be able to talk. i am an independent, but i tell you, what the republicans are doing, i've had it. i'm listening to people say, well, he had six background checks before, and none of this came up. i want everybody to remember what happened to dennis hastert,

who was speaker of the house, a republican for seven years, eight years, and what happened when they found out he's a felon. he went to jail for molestation of kids when he was a high school teacher. and that's fact. look it up. it's history. i get tired of hearing these talking points and the facts aren't put out there. mr. cavanaugh, judge kavanaugh, the way he acted thursday, if a woman had acted like that, she would have been called hysterical or she's got hormone problems, everything under the sun. i'm really triggered, the republicans with their hypocrisy. the more you pay attention, the more you find out that this is just a scam done by the republicans and their wonderful oral president mr.

trump, who doesn't have any morals in his bones whatsoever. and here's the family party, the religious party you are all about trump. host: ok, thank you. guest: you know, your question reflects what i have seen so much in the last couple of weeks and the last couple of days, which is the intensity of division between those on one side of the issue and those on the other side of the issue around judge kavanaugh. the piece i wrote in politico is part of a series that i've written in politico, "the washington post," and some other places as i tried to lay out, as someone who has experienced these small worlds of investigation and judiciary committee hearings, to try to give people an objective sense of how this normally happens and what the rules are. i try to be very fair-minded about it. the piece i wrote this week in politico i thought was pretty fair-minded about why these background checks are different,

and in particular, why chris wray, the fbi director, and rod rosenstein come in deputy wereney general, who longtime colleagues of judge kavanaugh, why we could not expect them to push back on instructions for a background investigation by the the -- by the fbi. so your question really reflects what so many people out there are feeling right now, incredible intensity on both sides. very few people are able to actually look at this with any kind of dispassionate objectivity. i can't pretend i can come about -- pretend i can, but wow, i see a lot of anger on both sides. first of all, they've known each other a long time. chris wray was two years behind

brett kavanaugh at yale and yale law school, which is tiny. it has less than 200 students per class. there judiciary committee questionnaire showed that they schoolrived at yale law and joined the federalist society, and have been members ever since. rod rosenstein was a member of the federalist society, but at harvard, where he went to law school. comeederalist society has over the last 30 years, become an incredibly influential, conservative group of lawyers advancing conservative legal principles, judges, and justices. president trump famously, during the campaign in 2016, held up a list given to him by the federalist society of 16 conservative judges and said these are the people from whom i will pick my supreme court, and

the federalist society, the list included neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. is the've seen federalist society very jurists,ive group of aimed at shifting the judiciary to the right. kavanaugh was an active member. wray has been an active member. rod rosenstein has been an active member. i am not saying that wray and rosenstein would throw the investigation at all. they are men of great integrity. but they agree with the mission of putting men like brett kavanaugh on high courts, that has to affect the way they look at their supervision of the fbi in this matter. host: "the wall street journal" editorial talking about the itderalist society, saying " is the gold standard for legal

talent that believes in the original meaning of the constitution." guest: their version of the original meaning of the constitution, yes. host: let's go to the republican line. susan, hello. caller: hello. just wanted to say thank you to c-span and the rebel -- and the ability for republicans, democrats, an independents to come on and talk about this issue. have respect for mr. cunningham, and anybody who will come out and talk about this in less than what i will call a very crazy manner. but i want to point out some facts. one, judge kavanaugh came onto the hill for his hearing, and the democrats came on board to talk about how they will block this at any cost. two, every democrat has drawn out the u.s. constitution and everything that makes america wonderful and different from the rest of the world, which is we are innocent until proven guilty.

there is not one democrat the canal even talk about those issues. three, dr. ford had so many that nod so many facts one in the mainstream media even talked about, except if you listen to fox news. they did talk about some of these holes on that aspect. fourth, the lady that just spoke about what happened with the leader of the house, yes. circumstances like that can happen. yes, there are terrible things that can happen to people. but i have seen too many women out there -- i know too many things that are going on right now in some of the independent schools in the d.c. area -- and sayrls participate they are sorry about the spitting in things when they are high school students, but we are in a time and our country where only men are raked across the coals for something they are doing. not saying mr. cavanaugh did any of these things, but just as a general. i just want to throw some of

those things out there and let viewers know some of these facts that i think are being misrepresented, although i do appreciate you, mr. cunningham. i do have respect for your opinions. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: you lay out very well, i think, the conservative case for judge kavanaugh and the way this has been handled. i will note this. last thursday, when many of us watched the testimony or exerts of the testimony, after spoke, theresey was no when that day saying she looked like she was lying or question what she said. i turned on fox news and watched chris wallace and others shaking their heads saying, wow, she seems quite truthful. we need to really take this extremely seriously. at that time, nobody was questioning dr. ford's testimony. after judge kavanaugh spoke, he of course came forcefully,

angrily, pushed back very hard. you did hear a lot of people questioning his veracity. and i am at the same people on the left, but people on the right who said that wasn't quite the approach that i think i might have taken. so i have to say i'm as somebody who watched the testimony of both, i personally found it hard not to credit dr. ford hearing her testimony. whether something that happened 36 years ago when people were 17 and 15 ought to be dispositive on the supreme court nomination? i think that is a question that can be asked and discussed. somebody can be shown to have lied before the senate judiciary committee, i think that is coming that clearly should be shown. we will never know because the fbi investigation has been, frankly, shortened, and is not as full as it should be. i will end with this.

oftt kavanaugh was a member ken starr's impeachment team against bill clinton. he's the one who wrote the final report that when out under ken starr's signature recommending impeachment. let's remember, what they run that's what they wanted to remove the president of the united states for his because he lied about a central allegation. it is kind of a rich irony that judge kavanaugh finds himself 20 years later being accused of having lied about a sexual encounter. host: from arizona, republican line come at jerry. caller: good morning. just a couple of things. number one, you mentioned earlier that trump is stuffing the judiciary with conservative judges. isn't that exactly what obama did? guest: i didn't use the word stuff, but he is putting conservative judges on the court. caller: yes he did.

number two, let's just say that with these republicans controlling the senate, let's just say they took obama's nomination. what if they had put him through the same process and borked him? i would be willing to bet all the democrats out there, their hair would be on fire and it would be going crazy. thank you. guest: what this is really about, i think, is the direction of the supreme court. the reason why there is so much intensity about this right now is because kavanaugh would become a based on background, his history, what we know of his , would be a reliable extremely conservative vote on the supreme court, and somebody who would come on issues of marriage equality, reproductive choice, voting, discrimination, and others could very well

change the direction of the that iscourt in a way very different from what we've seen over the last decade. , truly on the democratic side, there is such intensity here. i personally, as somebody who believes in process and all the fact being on the table, and letting people determine them in as objective eight fashion as thatble, i regret the fact his nomination is turning now not on issues of the conservative voice he will bring to the court, but rather on charges of a personal existence. i would feel that way whether it were a democrat or a republican. that is not to minimize at all the seriousness which a lot of people view the allegations that have been raised against judge kavanaugh at all. i've heard with great passion women talk about what has happened to them in their lives,

including one very close to me, and it is shocking and disturbing and depressing. but i wish we were talking about his judicial views and not these allegations as a determinative factor on whether he should be on the supreme court. host: a reporter saying senator feinstein, the ranking democratic member of the senate judiciary committee, has now entered the room to read the fbi report in that room that we heard our guest talk about. what previous investigations or background checks with a have shown instances of what is being asked to look into judge kavanaugh? typically a background check, and i have been submitted ,o a number of them in my time and given statements to a lot of background checks for friends being nominated to be ambassadors or assistant secretaries of state or white

on both sides, republican and democrat. when the fbi comes to ask you these questions, they are broad ranging, thorough. they touch on every aspect of someone's life. financial, professional, personal. does this person live beyond their means? do they appear to have assets not explained by the income they get from their job? do you know them to use drugs, alcohol? is there something in their background that can cause embarrassment to the president is nominated or moved forward? it is wide ranging. and then at the end, they say can you give us the names of additional people who can give us evidence or statements about this person so we can do a thorough background check? that might have been done in the past of judge kavanaugh.

i expect it was in his earlier background checks, but clearly no one asking at that time about the earlier allegations of both drinking and difficult behavior when drinking, and certainly not issues involving women. it is a shame we can't have the kind of broad ranging, definitive look at this right now, just put this to bed one way or another. he's going to have a shadow hanging over him for the rest of his life because we do not have and myss this week, view, that allows us to get to the bottom of this and determine if she telling the truth, is he telling the truth, what happened to the best as we can determine it now. host: what this clarence thomas's presence on the court say about that cloud hanging

over? guest: given judge kavanaugh's frankly fairly extraordinary opening statement last thursday, where he said i am subjected to a hit job by left-wing groups putting millions of dollars into an effort to do me in, and it is revenge by the clintons, that was really quite an extraordinary statement by somebody who is being put arbiterto be a neutral of law. the concern that i have here, lefthat many have on the is that any group that comes from the left, maybe the aclu that is been running ads criticizing judge kavanaugh, they are frequently before the supreme court. how is he going to feel when he sees the aclu's name on a brief? the concern is he is going to

reflexively rule against them because they were against his confirmation. justice thomas, although he is famously silent, his opinions are reliably extremely conservative. i can't help but think that is shaped in part by the experience he went through in his confirmation hearings. withy well see the same justice kavanaugh he gets there. host: one more call. this is hank in new york on a democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. brett kavanaugh is the worst nominee ever for the supreme court. he had a terrible past. he's unreliable. he's a man we can't send to the court, i believe.

you worked in the white house .taff under president clinton john kerry into the reservoir. guest: i see you -- in 2004 on his presidential campaign. guest: i see you googled me. thank you for doing that. caller: i appreciate your doing job. world'syour view on the military response to latest terrorist attacks? --

i don'tdon't -- guest: want to be flip, but the nation will return to its regular programming in another week or two. this has been the white-hot center of public attention, the kavanaugh nomination. will be back with the midterms just a month away. as soon as this is behind us one way or another, he's confirmed back is we will be discussing the broad range of issues facing the country now and that people will be voting on next november. there is way too many people who sit back and do not vote and wonder why the country is not heading in the right direction. if you want to read his thinking about the current investigation, mr. cunningham

thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we will hear from the forer special assistant foreign affairs. , (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. those, we come right back. announcer: geraldine brooks is our guest on sunday at noon eastern. include march,s caleb's crossing, people of the book and the year of wonders. watch in-depth fiction edition

with geraldine brooks sunday from noon to 3 p.m. eastern and be sure to watch it next month with jody pico. book tv on c-span2. >> sunday night on q&a, joanne freeman on her book, the field of blood, violence in congress and the road to civil war. >> you end up with scores of congressman in a mass ball, in and of itself it is a dramatic scene. punches, massive encounter, what was interesting to me was, people at the time looked at it and what they saw was a group of northerners and southerners, lots of them armed, running at each other in the house of representatives and several of them said -- this does not look like a normal congressional

fight. this looks like a battle, north against south. that is striking. it looks like a battle and it is not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. washington journal continues. , the numbersones if you want to call -- (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can also tweak your thoughts -- tweet your thoughts. at houston chronicle looks of a senator, a -- looks athe off

the arrest of a staffer in the office of sheila jackson. were doxing restricted information on authorized access of a government computer burglary and other violations of federal law. the chief of staff told the chronicle it was a staffer who had worked in the washington saysessional office, and "he is no longer with us." mary is in massachusetts. independent line. regardsi am calling in to judge kavanaugh and christine ford, last week in the senate. that was like totally ridiculous. people havepinion, to make a decision. do they want that craziness in the future or do they want what is going on with great stuff

that is happening? that is what this country, in my opinion has to decide. i was a republican. i was a democrat. i voted for different people, clinton, carter, bush, all of them. i think what happened last week was so discussing. waypeople would react that in government -- i mean, that is ridiculous. georgia,hael in democrat line. already hadfbi had information that came out during the hearing, from the previous investigations. president trump is a he gave othersse

the benefit of the doubt, maybe because they were black or poor, i don't know. host: manchester township, new , republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am in favor of confirming judge kavanaugh. i just think things were not handled properly by government. they could have done some research on this issue waiver before the last minute, i think it is appalling. i was a lifelong democrat. i am no longer voting democratic. things have gotten out of control. host: what is it about judge kavanaugh that you support? caller: he is conservative. the has a good record. -- he has a good record.

democrats held onto it too long. they were searching for something to not have him confirmed. i think it is appalling. things have gotten ugly. things need to change in government and they need to confirm him because we need a conservative judge and he has had a good record. i do not believe they have been able to prove her allegations, either. host: our capitol hill producer sending out a tweet this morning, 17 republican senators, limiting debate on the nomination including deb fischer and cindy hyde-smith, starting the process of what will eventually, is things play out, anothervote on friday, procedural vote in a final vote possibly on saturday afternoon with reports saying it will be

at 5:00. that started last night on the senate floor. senate majority leader starting the process of this nomination. here is mitch mcconnell yesterday. >> this evening the senate will receive the results of the fbi supplemental background investigation of judge brett kavanaugh. this is now the seventh, seventh time the fbi has looked into judge kavanaugh's background and this information comes on top of what was already one of the most thorough and exhaustive set of reviews of any supreme court nominee in the entire history of our country. five days of public hearings. 65 private meetings with senators. more than 1200 responses to written questions from members. more than 500,000 pages of

documents for review, the most produced for any supreme court nomination in our history. the 300 plus opinions judge kavanaugh has issued during his 12 years on the d.c. circuit. now senators will have the evidence by the additional background investigation for their consideration as well. members will have opportunity to review investigative records and as is standard procedure designated, judiciary staff members with required clearances will be authorized to debrief members. there will be plenty of time for members to review and the briefed on supplemental material before a friday closure vote. eveningng a vote this so the process can move forward. host: lewis in california, go ahead. caller: good morning, how are

you? host: fine, thank you, you are on. caller: there is the problem. when you turn on the television, everyone is talking about brett kavanaugh's jigging. the facts -- drinking. the facts are there are no facts. christine for claims there was a everyone she claimed was at the party said there was no party. there is no fact. brettird accuser, julie, kavanaugh was right about that. that was a joke. i'm from california, i am in my early 50's, i went to parties. devils triangle was a drinking game. this is all roe v. wade. they do not want him on the supreme court because of that issue. there are a lot of women out there that have been sexually assaulted.

you feel for them. the bottom line is, you have to look at the facts. you cannot judge this man's life based on emotions. the whole country is emotional about roehis thing versus wade. . no one can backup christine ford's allegations or the second one's allegations and this julie -- brett kavanaugh was right. that is a joke. there is no way that woman went to 10 different parties and witnessed a gang rape at every party. that did not happen. i do not care what decade you are in. what country. that does not happen. host: let's go to ohio, independent line. i am seeing c-span get left-leaning as msnbc. you have not said a word about the domestic violence on keith

ellison. you keep on putting brett kavanaugh down. you have not said a word about cory booker's sexual discretion -- indiscretion when he was in high school. you never say a word about the democrats when they are involved in anything. host: we did mention both of those incidents. caller: that is the operative word. host: you mentioned it. you have had brett kavanaugh rates over the coals -- raked over the coals for the past week. host: we present a balanced view, go ahead. caller: c-span is not the c-span i used to know. i'm so disappointed you have leaned so far to the left, you have more liberal socialists on their, they would turn this country socialist, the democrats would, just because they hate trump and they do not want the

to kill themen babies they do not want taken away from them. host: mark in orlando, florida, democrat line. perspective.rical there was a gentleman from virginia 40 years ago who said conservatives and republicans are under attack from labor and organized groups and one thing they had to do was take over, get more conservative judges on the courts. he later became a supreme court justice himself. i cannot remember his name. secondly, asked to lying in confirmation hearings. people have wondered whether judge rehnquist, clerk for a supreme court judge, if he lied when he was asked if he helped contribute to the guy he clerked

for opinion against brown versus the board of education. he denied he had anything to do with it and a lot of people doubted that. host: mark in florida. it was one of the white house spokespeople today talking about the latest concerning judge kavanaugh's confirmation. >> are you confident based on findings the white house is seeing this does not corroborate sexual misconduct allegations? >> i want to be regarded, there are restrictions on how the white house can talk about this information. privacy regulations, memorandums that go back to the department of justice and the senate judiciary committee, we want to be precise. we are fully confident after reviewing this information, senators will be comfortable voting yes. host: the daily feed reporting that britney kaiser, former employment of data analytical,

speaking with congressional committees today, planned interview as part of the continuing investigation, potential coordination between the trump campaign and the kremlin. source according to a did not, an attorney dispute the reporting. that is at the daily beast. rich in ohio, republican line. caller: a lot of good conversation. seems on roe versus wade, it is a bright line of who will pay for additional abortions and who will take a minute from the people that want to make it legal to do additional abortions. if they choose to do it in the united states or around the world. the other problem is, the white house counsel for the clintons

forgot to mention about the 25% --nium they gave the china they gave to china or the missiles they got approved for china. the other thing is, stephanopoulos said they were foster'sng for investigation. the only thing foster says is we have to, tear people up this much and put his life on the line, just give it up. take care. host: annie is in california, independent line. caller: i guess um it is kind of a circus. i feel like there is a lot of issues out there and i understand why you focus on this and at the same time it feels h, a redt um, u

herring from things we should be talking about. on the other hand i am antiabortion and i know that is a crazy position to have but i cannot help it. i think that is what it is all about, the big fight. anyways, thank you for taking my call. host: international stories. the new york times -- iraq has new leadership. on wednesday, honor guard stood at attention as the new president entered the palace in baghdad, a day after designating a prime minister. both leaders chosen by consensus of parliament on tuesday, they are widely seen as capable technocrats. a choice suggests iraq could be

moving away from the sect system and has fomented bloodshed since the american invasion. in the washington post, south negotiations between the united states and north korea, saying that in exchange of dismantlement of nuclear facilities, the united states would have to declare an end to the korean war. what north korea has indicated, that they will permanently dismantle nuclear facilities, which is a big part of the ingram and if they do that return for the end of the war declaration, that is a huge step forward for denuclearization. in 1953an war ended with a truce but a formal peace

treaty has never been signed. nathan, ohio, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: going back to brett kavanaugh, i wanted to say, that allegation thing is a load of -- ex-girlfriend had allegations against her. she had a next boyfriend, of ford, has a restraining order against her. [no audio] conservative judge, democrats do not want that. host: from tacoma, washington, mary, last call. pedro, thank you for taking my call. i want to propose a theory as to why president trump all of a sudden in the campaign changed

the doctor'st testimony. as much as i dislike him as a human being, i think he is a master at thy version and manipulation -- diversion and manipulation. he is good at changing the subject when he does not want another subject talked about. tone changes directly related to the tax about hisat came out family's cheating on taxes and all this other stuff. think how well he succeeded. here we are talking again about this subject as opposed to the article, the newspaper about his taxes. host: that is merit in washington. keith ellison -- mary in

washington. keith ellison saying when it comes to interactions with the previous girlfriend, he admitted he once called his ex-girlfriend an expletive during an argument in 2014. he was hired by the minnesota democrat party to investigate ellison'sm allison -- former girlfriend that he physically and emotionally abused her. we will talk about relations between china and the u.s. our guest is michael pills very for that discussion. the huston institute and a former special assistant for asian affairs. we will have that when we come back. >> c-span, where history unfolds

daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfilthered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the c-span bus was recently in honolulu, hawaii for the 39th stop of 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 at 7:00 a.m. eastern on washington, journal, the director of hawaii's office of planning will talk about homelessness and lack of affordable housing. on book tv, on c-span2 at noon,

stuart coleman on his book, eddie would go. on the wife of legendary native hawaiian surver eddie. then the university of hawaii at west oahu for the extensive book collection of late u.s. senator daniel inouye. sunday our hawaii weekend continues on c-span at 9:30 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." jeff, executive director of the blue planet foundation, on renewable energy efforts in hawaii. own american history tv on c-span3 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 documentsries about hawaii. the 1956 film "soldier in hawaii." the 1924 silent film "s the hawaiian island." nd the 1952 film "long genes

kronoscope." 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 the honolulu mayor aturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is michael pillsbury, at the hudson institute, serves as the senior fellow and director of the center for chinese strategy. also a form special assistant for asian affairs in the office of the secretary of defense under the george h.w. bush administration. good morning. also president trump saying were leading authority on china. can you expand on that? guest: no. he's obviously the president of the united states so he's the leading authority on china. and my fear is this will cause -- further jealousy and envy by my fellow chinaans. we all write books and try to

explain china to our various audiences. host: explain your background on china from the previous administration, particularly what you offer to this administration when it comes to input on china. guest: i have been working on china either inside the government or being paid by the government for 40 years. my book, 100 year marathon is about that experience. a memoir of how shall including me, had a lot of wishful thinking back 40 years ago that china would not quickly but eventually have both a complete free market and also a democratic form of government. roughly 10 years ago that proved to be almost impossible. the chinese policy has been getting worse ever since for the past 10 years. i kind of confess that i was wrong. and i'm sort of sorry for the advice i gave a lot of presidents. president reagan went all wait. he sold weapons to china.

he created the largest c.i.a. covert action in history. by authorizing c.i.a. to buy $ billion, with a b, weapons from china and have them transferred by c.i.a. to the afghan rebels to get them more power, to encourage soviet withdraw in the cold war. that's a lot. sophisticated weapons to china. we did a lot more. so kind of a paradigm shift going on right now, i'd say, pedro. we're moving from china as our almost best friend cooperative partner, number two economy in the world, what's wrong with that kind of cooperation? we're moving toward a much more antagonistic relationship with people in america not quite knowing who to believe anymore. host: the vice president will be at the hudson institute tate to talk about china. there are excerpts of his speech. it says in part that the president trump's leadership is

working. he's going to add -- in his speech, china want as different american relationship. going on to say beijing has mobilized covert actors, fronts groups to shift americans' perceptions of chinese policies. as a senior goes goes -- goes on from there. what would you say now is going forward is the positioning with china? what are we going to be? guest: initially the leadership on this was the democrats. as long ago as 20 years ago there was a very famous law passed by nancy pelosi on the house side, george mitchell on the senate. and force bill clinton to take strong actions against china. as i say in the 100 year -marathon, the chinese mobilized against that and got what we today call globalist who defeat pelosi and senator mitchell. that attitude is coming back now that we really have let china get away with too much. and this underground influence is just a small part of it. for example, there's a law called the foreign agents

registration act. it gives something of value when you lobby you are supposed to tell the f.b.i. and d.o.j. about it, otherwise it's five-year prison term. we're finding a lot of people lobby for china for something of value and not registering. so the public doesn't know when they are hearing somebody who is essentially being funded, if you will, by china. that's what vice president pens is talking about. host: that speech at 11:00. you can see it live on c-span3. c-span.org, and c-span's radio app. michael pulse bury with us until 10:00. if you want to ask him questions about the u.s. china relationship. 202-74 -8001 for republicans. independents, 0 -74 -8002. i think you were being 340dest. the -- modest. the president did speak about your influence. here's what he said. president trump: i like china. and i like the president a lot. he may not be a friend of mine anymore. i think he probably respects -- from what i hear, if you look at

mr. pillsbury, the leading authority on china, he was on a food show, i won't mention it. and he was saying that china has total respect for donald trump and for donald trump's very, very large brain. he said donald trump, they don't know what to do. never happen. one thing they are trying to do is trying to convince people to go against donald trump because a normal regular political person that has no concept of what the hell he's doing would let china continue to take $500 billion a year out of our country, and rebuild their country. they were building 29 massive bridges like the george washington bridge, they are building things that we don't build anymore. but we're starting to build them again. host: what do you think about what he said? particularly about china. guest: i think the president's right.

he is this topic of really major studies and analysis in beijing. they never seen a president like this before. and on balance, some chinese analysts predicted he would win the election. books, they 14 have translated them into chinese. they given me -- i have been over to china twice recently. they like to ask me about president trump. then i ask them. and the kinds of things the president is saying is, in fact, accurate. that's what they said. they respect him. some of them even fear him. they are trying to get a handle on him, you might say. what is the minimum concessions they can make to call off the tariffs and potential trade war. and they can't figure that out. they also can't figure out who is in charge. they think steve ma nuchins has -- ma nuchin has one mol -- mnuchin is has --

one. they get the idea of power struggle for the emmel porer. what exactly is the minimum concession they could make. and call off all this pressure. and they just don't know. a chinese expression when he says very big brain, there is a chinese expression that's called literally your brain is big. that's meant to be a word like brainy in american english. he's a very brainy, smart, against guy. they use a word which means crafty. they also use a term, that means brilliant. this is the general idea they have of president trump. host: you work for the hudson institute. do you formally advise the trump administration on china affairs? guest: i don't. host: we have calls lined up. go to our line for democrats. jean, up first with our guest michaelle pillsbury. you are on.

caller: good morning. i'd like to suggest the technical aspect of american can enhance our relation was china trade, they have a major air pollution problem in their city. m.i.t. has developed in collusion with chinese engineers a ethanol engine that replaces both for cars and diesel trucks that's sufficient. they also need a source of nonpollutants of methanol fuel. they have asked us to use our natural gas to convert to methanol and ship to china. we're actually shipping -- we're doing this in louisiana. no one has mentioned this. shipping it through the panama canal to china for methanol for purposes for the fuel and to also make -- they can refine it into petrol chemicals.

guest: he's in line with something president trump's trying to do. president trump and the commerce secretary, wilbur ross, are trying to increase our exports to china. articularly in the area of gas and green technology. in fact, china has dangled public not too long ago, they plan to invest $200 billion or more in green technology. they set up some funds to do this. this whole area he's talking about is actually -- president trump is trying to do. get more of our exports to china. so this trade balance is not so unequal. they have $375 billion. we have $135 billion. this kind of idea is really quite useful. i hope it's on the web somewhere where we can find this. host: republican line from louisiana. hello. caller: hi, mr. pillsbury. for the last several years i have been fascinated to hear

social yol gists talk about the fast -- social yol gists talking about the fattest growing christian reifal in the history of mankind is occurring in china. guest: there is a book called jesus in beijing. written by a former "time" magazine correspondent. just about this revival you are talking about. -- r: host: r.k., are you still there? caller: yeah. host: go ahead with your thought. caller: i'm just listening. thanks. guest: one theory is china will be the nation with the most christians at some point in the fuhr. all they have to do is surpass american number. i think it's $300 million for so -- or so. if you have a 1.4 billion country. the author of this book is forecasting that could well happen. host: when it comes to the recently -- negotiated u.s.-china -- u.s. canada-mexico trade deal, the president used

-- also spoke about what that means as far as what he would like to do for china in terms of trade. listen to what he had to say and get your thoughts. president trump: the big trade deal. largest deal ever made so far in trade. i expect to top it with china or e.u. or something. but this is the largest ever made. and as you know now we're working on china. we're working on japan. we're working on e.u. but these are great deals for our nation and great deals for our workers. host: the previous trade deal give him leverage especially when it comes to china? guest: very much. the chinese are very worried about. as i mentioned they see the president as crafty and brilliant and master negotiator. they think his plan, i think they are right about this, they think his plan is to set up a kind of encirclement of china, if you will. one of their strategic games. they don't like chess or checkers so much.

it's force on force like an nfl football game. they like a game called the encirclement game. each side has black and white chips and you try to encircle each other's positions on the board. i should bring the board down here and you and i can can play. it takes about 300 moves to win. so they see this to success the president's had with mexico and canada as another step in the game. they don't like it. they feel they are being pressured more than before. i think the president's on the right track because china is still not negotiating. they have made no real offerle to president trump at all. he has -- offer to president trump at all, he has said. this is embarrassing. the first exchange of requests was back in early may. we're supposed to be so strong, and our economy is going up so fast. chinese are supposed to be weakening and the stock market going down. but their regime's survival depends on keeping their promise that our sort of system will not

be changed. and president trump is asking them to change their system. more of a free market. buy more american exports and stopping the technology theft, which has got to the point of outrageousness. host: do they have leverage if they respond with tariffs of their own on u.s. products? guest: not so much. as the president says we have more bullets. our quantity of amount of chinese products is about three times higher or four times higher. so a tariff war is going to be won by america. chinese don't see it that way. they see this -- as i mentioned this see this debate in the white house. they see the american business community to be on their side. they see the american economyingses with the exception of one -- economists, with the exception of one, peter navarro, ph.d. in economics and be at the president's side. he's a real demon for the chinese. they see most economists saying this is bad. we shouldn't worry about the

deficit. technology theft really isn't government. it's private sector. as long as they see this hope in beijing, they are probably not going to make an offer until the pressure is really ratcheted up higher. host: were you surprised by the president calling out china at the security council meeting with the involvement of elections? guest: no. i think it's something that's been known by our intelligence community. vice president pens -- pence is quoted to preview his speech an hour from now, he's quoted as planning to o say that an intelligence community official, very senior one, told him that china does this much more than russia did. that's a real eye opener. host: go to jennifer in westphal beach, florida. independent line. you are on. caller: yes, hi. i appreciate your candor in saying i'm wrong, but all i can say is i'm wrong. wow. ok. guest: that's why you shouldn't

listen to me now, jennifer. i might be wrong again. caller: all of 10 years old when i would travel to western massachusetts christmas to visit my grandparents in the 1980's, actually early 1980's, i could see the devastation of skeleton factories that used to be textile mills and things. my father grew up in high school working in the textile mills. and that was a good job for him back then. and he grew up to be a senior corporate executive. but going back there and seeing no lights at christmastime stores had all closed. the only people with jobs were people working for the government. as a 10-year-old i can see that is was a bad idea to get rid of the factories. i went to actually become a champion debater. i was the only person in my high school who went to debate at

places like penn. guest: you and ted cruz was a very famous debator when harvard law school. caller: it's funny you mention that. because ted cruz's wife, heidi, was one of the drafters for the council on foreign relations for the nafta concept of the north american union. i would say that he and i probably would have issues with what the conclusion that you came to. host: caller, sorry to interrupt. for the interest of time. what would you like our guest to address? caller: frankly, oops is really late. i'm just not even sure how we can come out of this. it's not funny, actually, because -- guest: will you read my book? that's all i ask. the book explain why i and others went wrong. there was an element of chinese deception in all this. we weren't just stupid. the chinese more or less promised we're going to move toward a free market. we have elections now in our villages. i went with some other people to

see these elections and find out they were phony. i don't mean to say that we made that big of mistakes. we saw if china did not reform, we would be facing a really nasty rival, co-equal to us, who wants to surpass us in the future. this is really dangerous. and the book -- c.i.a. took some things out. f.b.i. took some things out. i tell the story of how this still might be going on with many people. still have this kind of blind faith that china is our friend and we shouldn't hurt their feelings. i wish you would buy my book. 100 year marathon. china secret strategy. host: arizona, independent line. caller: that was a great call. i'm -- sir, i want congratulate you for saying you made a mistake. many people aren't up for that. my question is, many people believe that the factories were moved to china for the sole political benefit of breaking the unions.

if we bring those jobs back, how -- what is the expectation of the companies staying nonunionized? guest: that may be a factor. i think the much larger factor was the way our privately held companies focus on quarterly returns. and they have to. their shareholders are expecting profits. the chinese have a different system they can afford to look ahead 100 years. they can afford to ask themselves, do we want this chinese company to be private or remain under government control? do we want them to go steal resources notice congo so we can make cell phone batteries? if so, we'll make them do it. we don't rely on quarterly profit and loss returns. our system has a disadvantage. when any country is a ruthless, mercantilist predator, we're defenseless against this. we think it's -- 200 years ago, actually it didn't.

mercantilism and technology theft works really well. the chinese grew 10% a year for more than 30 years. no other economy has ever done this. we now understand better the role of technology theft in that growth rate. host: our guest served on the trump transition team, assistant undersecretary for defense in policy planning. served as the special assistant for asian affairs, office of the secretary of defense. with all that in mind how concerned are you about china's military? guest: concerned, but in their strategy as i lay out, they consciously played down the military role. they see a lower percentage of spending on defense to be a plus for their economic growth. target number one is not a big military buildup. they have done something very strange compared to the soviet union. the soviet union wanted equal number of nuclear weapons and nuclear missiles to america. we had this dangerous nuclear arms race for more than 50 years. it's still dangerous.

the chinese keep their number of nuclear weapons probably -- very secret, probably under 300. they few icbm's. this is strange. an economy almost our size but minimal nuclear weapons. they are not in the big conventional arms race with us in the sense of building b-2 bombers. they have zeerrofmente building nuclear missile submarines. we have a lot. they have one. in a force on force comparison, china's still relatively weak. i would say 10 to one maybe globally we're more powerful than china in the military sphere. but in growth rate, we average 2% or 3% a year and they are up at 10% that. will pay off over the long term. that was the chinese 100-year marathon strategy. they got it from the world bank. the world bank opened its largest office in the world in beijing. 3,000 employees at one point. and much of the ideas for what to do came from world bank experts. host: joyce next.

woodbridge,ished pent -- independent line, hi. caller: hi, pedro. thank you. three little points to make so i hope you will allow me to make them. first i would like to say that the chinese are really brilliant people. they have -- guest: i certainly agree. caller: yes. what they have done as far as m concerned is they have gotten so much u.s. technology, they are at the point of being like number one, right now. and they didn't have to fight a war to get all of this. they got it just by allowing so many of the u.s. companies to go over there. guest: you have read my book 100 year marathon it sounds like. atler: i think the u.s. have some point put some brakes on and said, you know, let's make sure that we don't do this. and then the thing is that the

worst part about it is that so many of the products that are made in china, when they come over here, we the consumers have to pay the same amount for these products which are very inferior, they break very ease aly, and we're hurting from all of this. host: joyce, i want to let the guest respond. guest: she's not even through her first point. host: matter of time. guest: technology theft as i say was not just identity deof the world bank. they would probably condemn it in principle. but what the chinese learned, especially under ping in the late 1970's, they came up with a theory that science and technology is the most important productive force for growth rate. so they mobilized their scientists, they sent a large number of students, this year it's reached 350,000, pedro, chinese students in america. they focus mainly on technology.

base -- basic science technology. they often have access to laboratories where they are doing state-of-the-art research. there is a story this happened in nanotechnology where the grad student from china went home from los angeles. after there's a huge success in china of nanotechnology manufacturing. he gave a press conference. i learned all this in california. and i brought the nano very first ones, home with me. this is legal. there is no obstacle to doing this. when a society is -- caller says as brilliant as the chinese, as numerous as the chinese, with as much very excellent advice from the world bank does all this, shouldn't we have to decide and aplauded the whole thing the last 40 years what we have done? or should we have been more, shall we say, concerned about our own role in the world, our own economy, and jobs? i think that's the mistake. that's why i wrote the book. it's a wake-up call. look what they are doing.

i'm praising them. i don't think their products are as jabby as the caller says. i think some of their products are quite good. host: republican line, minnesota. cindy is next. caller: hi. i'm just curious, you worked with both bushes? guest: yes. caller: ok. kissinger was what part of that? guest: a big part of it. he still is. trump sees him from time to time. he was my boss at one point. caller: when president trump was in da vose, switzerland, january 25, he called the brewed which i refer to as a deep state together to give him a big seminar and history emphasizing history. 200, 300 years and the plans to go ahead. now, i'm -- guest: president xi did this? at davos? caller: no. president trump was in davos.

and kissinger immediately called together the troops here. he basically emphasized the point of the plan for the last 00, 300 years we need educators, only a few ambassadors, and a few key positions. he was joined with two other eople. i was not impressed. i thought it was very game plan for the deep state. which i believe is the one world church and one world government. host: ok. cindy, what would you like our guest to address? caller: i would like to see if he could expose this. i think there is two states of the deep state battling it out right now in washington. host: thank you. guest: the deep state, my point of view, used to be called the bureaucracy. we didn't have such a fancy name for it. we called it the permanent government. and the permanent government has

been changing its collective mind about china. again this is one reason why i wrote 100-year marathon. some people would consider me a member of the deep state, deep state one as you are calling it. some people would say president trump used to be in the deep state. he's a billionaire. he's been involved in advisory capacities with presidents for a long time. he's freand of henry kissinger. he has him in the white house. the deep state used to be quite pro-china. again weapons sales to china. c.i.a. cooperation with them. looking aside at their technology theft. we were the biggest investor in china. we also took -- the biggest purchaser of their products. that's all changing now. i sense the deep state, if we can call it that, or just the bureaucracy, slowly shifting. nd they realize they got china wrong. and they better take a more cautious policy toward china. still cooperation, yes. but competition now is by far

more important. host: let's hear from georgia on our independent line. david, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for this segment. i came into it a couple minutes late. actually two questions, i don't know if mr. pillsbury knows of china's attempt to buy our excess energy, energy being electricity. and be careful how i word this because i'm privy to this in a nondisclosure. guest: you're scaring me now. don't disclose anything classified, please. caller: i'm not. i'm just saying are you concerned that china is making an attempt to buy out excess nergy? and might affect our electrical grids? guest: i'm concerned about

improving increasing our exports to china. as president trump's goal. to really double our triple our exports to china. he's demanded that in these negotiations. he wants $100 billion in the first year of additional chinese purchases of our products. exactly what that should be, what the mix should be, it should contain some energy. but i'm more concerned about is either penetration of high technology or actual outright forcing american companies to transfer our most advanced technology to china. i draw the line between we want exports but not everything. host: about the debt that the united states -- china -- the united states holds with china. is that a source of leverage ultimately from the chinese government? guest: a lot of friends of china and a lot of chinese say it is. they kind of threaten us and there are many jokes. i think hillary clinton made a joke you don't get in a fight with your banker.

i think it's overblown. i think it's exaggerated. they need to buy safe treasury bonds somewhere with their massive $3 trillion with a t foreign exchange reserves. it's pretty safe to buy american treasury bonds. i think it's a a question of mutual need. i doubt very much they would sale of their treasury bonds. there are other countries in line waiting to buy them. it doesn't panic me. it's a sign of the cooperation that's gone on and the mutual dependency to economies. host: let's get one more call in from cleveland, tennessee, independent line. jump in with your question or comment. caller: good morning. china's a communist country. guest: proud of it. caller: and we're moving towards socialism. can you explain to the people the difference between socialism and communism and how they are linked?

guest: sure. the communists are clear about it. the communists are pretty clear about it. a communist country has a communist party. communist party is in charge of everything. it has the commanding heights of the economy. it controls all major corporations. every companyture and government unit there's a communist party cell that gives the orders and response to the .ommunist party at the very top as i understand socialism it's a broader concept. it means more socially quality and rich people should be taxed more heavily. it's a more philosophical concept, without the leadership of a very disciplined communist party. today's new york times has a front-page story on how far they are pushing this. they changed the last 10 years moving more toward communist party control of companies inside china and less towards

old socialist philosophical attitudes. host: what evidence do you point changeo eads between our countries if the president is try to get leverage over china? guest: it looks like it began about 10 years ago. one thing i'm very proud of, the people i worked with in china on cooperation in afghanistan, they were the hawks of china. the dedicated communists. no free markets for them. relationshipshose . they're the ones who warned me over the last 10 years we are changing now. we are going for number one. he will be pushed aside by other countries as well as china so you better prepare your friends in washington for this new world leader, china. that's kind of a wake-up call. in the book i distinguish between the moderates and what .ou might call the doves

we know they are from the foreign ministry, china's universities. president xi seems to have pivoted toward the hawks. after he took over in 2012 he began to use terms like the china dream. that is kind of a dog whistle for this extreme nationalism in china, including racism by the way. host: michael pillsbury, the author of the hundred year marathon. thanks for your time. host: it is at the hudson institute that the vice president, mike pence, is set to make a speech read you can see that on c-span 3 and our c-span radio app. another program comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the fbi report into allegations of sexual assault against brett kavanaugh were delivered to capitol hill overnight. for senatorslable to review. the senate is expected to hold a vote tomorrow on limiting debate on the cavanaugh nomination. a final nomination vote possible this weekend. senate floor debate on the nomination will continue today. we will show you speeches on the nomination tonight on c-span2 starting at 8:00 eastern. senate democrats are holding a press conference to talk about the allegations against the nominee. that begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. watch it live on c-span. later today on c-span, president trump at a campaign rally in minnesota for republican candidates for house-senate and

governor. set to begin at 7:30 on c-span. your primary source for campaign 2018. >> the c-span bus was recently in honolulu, hawaii them up for the 39th stop of our 50 capitals tour great 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 come on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern on washington journal, director of hawaii's office of planning will talk about homelessness and lack of afford housing, on c-span 2 at noon, stewart pullman on his --k, the life of legendary like of a legendary surfer. the extensive bulk collection of -- our hawaii

weekend continues on c-span at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the molina, director of blue planet foundation on renewable energy efforts in hawaii. on american history tv on c-span 3, we visit the valley of the priest along the north shore of wahoo and the pollinate -- north and the polynesian voyageur society. three's short documentaries about hawaii. soldier in hawaii, the hawaiian islands, and long jeans cronut scope -- long jeans chronoscope. hawaii weekend on the free c-span radio app. featuring honolulu mayor curt caldwell.

>> on constitution day, c-span visited the national constitution center in philadelphia where we asked what it means to be american. when you feel like you are at home so you feel like you're comfortable to live here. -- one of thent countries with the most freedom for people. for all people to pursue happiness in life. families.th their freedom. to pursue your dreams and opportunities. friendship. getting along with everybody here at america.

family and love. >> simply doing your responsibilities civic and family and everything like that. as a daughter of service members, as a service member myself, or former service member, i felt it was my responsibility under the constitution to do my duty and serve the country. pursue yourom to happiness. this is a land of opportunity for me. i've been able to be whatever i want to be. in the country where i come from this would not be very possible. >> we're asking middle and high school students to produce a five to six minute documentary answering the question, what does it mean to be american. according $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000.

tell us, what does it mean to be american? the deadline is january 20. for more information, go to our website, student cam.org. >> in virginia come at democratic senator tim kaine is running for a second term being challenged by republican cory stewart. the candidates met at a town hall event hosted by liberty university and hampton university. the topic was foreign policy and defense. ♪ >> good evening. welcome to tonight's town hall. the second in a two-part series brought to you by the hampton university center for public policy. the center for law and government at liberty university and the