c-span.org/thepresidents. >> here's a look what's live today on the c-span networks. on c-span, the discussion on the pending court cases around the country concerning opiod use. then democratic presidential candidate joe biden campaigns in new hampshire. and the discussion for the process for decommissioning nuclear power plants in the united states. on c-span 2, a look at the army's recently published two volume history in the u.s.'s army in the iraq war. and the secretaries of the army and air force outlines their priorities and the senate gavels in to continue work on judicial nominations. >> this morning a reporter's roundtable on the week ahead in washington with politico correspondent anita kumar and political ed tore anna edgerton. and jeffrey rosen on the back

and forth between congress and the white house over the mueller report. as always, we take your calls and you can join always, we taks and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ good morning. it is monday, may 13, 2019. the senate is in this afternoon and the house begins the work week tomorrow. we are with you for the next three hours. we begin with a question about america's top military leadership. president trump announced he will nominate patrick shanahan to serve as permanent defense secretary. we want to hear from active and retired members of the military about how much confidence you have in shanahan and the rest of the leadership at the top of america's armed forces. if you are active or retired

military in the eastern or central time zones, the phone number, 202-748-8000. if you are active or retired military in the mountain or pacific time zones, it is 202-748-8001. us onn also catch up with social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good monday morning to you. just active and retired military in this first hour of the washington journal this morning. if he is confirmed, former boeing executive patrick shanahan would become the 27th secretary of defense. on friday, he talked about the upcoming confirmation process. [video clip] >> i have always heard confirmation processes are difficult. the confirmation process is important and the process of asking someone to demonstrate their credentials is critical. i welcome the process. i have had a couple years here

to familiarize myself with the department and all the issues. i look forward to working with the congress. predecessor, he has no background in military experience. the washington post going through a bit of his career. shanahan spent his time in the private sector with little foreign policy experience and no military background. he served as deputy defense secretary in addition to spearheading the driver president trump's space force. in the new york observer late last week after his nomination was announced, they take up the idea of a defense secretary without a military background. it is rare, but by no means unprecedented. of the 26 men who led the department, 7 have not served in the armed forces.

former president george h. w. bush of course appointed dick cheney -- in this first hour of the washington journal this morning, we are asking you to call in, getting your thoughts. if you are an active or retired member of the military, about your level of confidence in america's top military leadership. it is 202-748-8000 if you are active or retired in the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 if you are active or retired in the mountain or pacific time zones. if patrick shanahan becomes the next secretary of defense, he would be by no means the only one seeing a change in position. the article from the wall street journal last month goes through some of the other changes coming up in the coming months at the pentagon. the pentagon in the next couple months is expected to undergo

its matt -- it's most dramatic during whichnover top civilian leaders that are not serving permanent capacity, at least 5 of the 7 members of the joint chiefs of staff will .e replaced that from the wall street journal. they are reporting last month on the changes coming up. at patrick shanahan's right hand would be the joint chief of staff chairman, joe dunford. he is expected to leave in october. last week he testified before the senate and talked about his experiences over 40 years of serving in the military. [video clip] as a platoonnd commander during the vietnam days. when people talk about -- i was active duty when there was a hollow force and we had an in balance between our people, our training, and our equipment.

i have lived through the development of the force we have today and i give our veterans a lot of credit for rebuilding a force after vietnam. the single biggest change i saw was a qualitative change in the people we have on active duty for the 1980's, 1990's, and through today. the when and -- men and women we have in terms of intellect and fitness and commitment is the most important thing we have and i think we all know that, but i think we walk away having that lesson reaffirmed to me. host: joint chiefs of staff chairman joad on for last week at a senate appropriations hearing. more from that hearing as we go through this first hour. joe dunford testified alongside pat shanahan. you can watch the hearing in its entirety at c-span.org. if you click in the search bar and search either shanahan or dunford and you will come up with that hearing.

your thoughts from active and retired members of the military about your levels of confidence in america's top military leadership. bill is up first out of eureka, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. and now ilive in erie am in lewistown, pennsylvania. host: when did you serve in the military? toler: i served from 1968 1992. host: what do you think about its leadership today? a leadership in transition? caller: leadership starts at the top. i think this president is serious about rebuilding the military. the military was completely run iwn, 25%, 30% under obama and remember stories they did on c-span the last year or so of obama's presidency where i was hearing stories about the air pilotsnavy being 3000

short and they did not have enough parts to get their planes up and i think this president and it started under mattis, "mad dog" i think the military is in good shape. a lot better shape than it was when obama left. let me give a shout out to my va. i am in lewistown benzo vania college, is in state pennsylvania. i am an agent orange guy and they have taken care of me 110%. they follow up on everything i need and so i think even the leadership today under president trump has helped to improve the va. we cannot say enough about our troops, men and women. host: you mentioned jim mattis, a man with a lifetime in military service.

what are your thoughts about having the next defense secretary as someone from the private sector? from boeing originally before he joined the pentagon? caller: i don't know. he is continuing -- everybody said when mattis left that everything was going to fall apart. they sensationalize all these stories. every story they can, they sensationalize because they hate trump's guts. after mattis left, this guy stepped up. as far as i am concerned, he will go through the nomination in the senate and he will get the job and i can tell you, there is only one guy i would rather see have the job and that would be senator lindsey graham because lindsey graham would continue under trump and we would -- we got the best military in the world and some of these punk nations around the world that have been pushing us around for the last 10, 12 years, there is a new sheriff

and it is called president trump and he is getting things done for our military. host: that is bill in pennsylvania. aaron mehta is someone washington journal viewers are familiar with. he talked about what changes might be expected when it comes to a defense secretary shanahan. across speeches and interviews, shanahan has made it clear that if given the full job, he will largely stay the course. in particular, he has been vocal hew closelysire to -- dominated american focus for 18 years. officialstration familiar with his thinking said to expect little change from mattis' priorities. this is bruce out of fort george, mead, maryland.

are you active military? caller: man. host: bruce, are you with us? caller: sorry, yeah. as far as shanahan, that worked well when mattis was secretary of defense because you had mattis at the top for experience and strategy and i technocrat, shanahan, the engineer handling budget and i thought that was a good team. i don't think shanahan would be a disaster, but i worry he will not be influential at all when it comes to policy discussions in this administration and i think trump is happy with that. trump seems to think he is the be-all and end all and he can provide the military strategy or maybe john bolton can. i think he is happy having a technocrat and say, shanahan, these are your areas. don't talk about strategy and how we deal with adversaries

because i will do that. i think that is why he wants shanahan -- host: what about that team of shanahan and dunford? a team that would -- at least through october when on for his whented step down -- dunford is expected to step down? caller: the uniform service chief could only sit at the table and give one voice. it is helpful to have another defense secretary who is the top guy, the civilian chief to say this is where i think our strategic priorities should go. i don't think shanahan can sit at the table with pompeo, bolton, and trump and counter them for instance the way mattis could and very few people could counter all of that. jim dunford probably can, but you are losing one good voice because i think shanahan does not have the background to do

that. host: are you active or retired military? caller: retired. host: thanks for the call. the number for active or retired military in eastern our central 202-748-8000 time zones 202-748-8000,. zones,tain pacific time 202-748-8001. bob is in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: sure. good morning. all i have got to say is our military is in a lot better shape than it was when barack obama was running it and when he was in there, the caliphate in the middle east grew, took over three quarters of the middle east and mr. trump came in and squashed them, he turned our military loose and rebuilt it and took some fleets. barack obama destroyed our military. mr. trump made it worthy and it is in much better shape. i would like to see him talk with every soldier in the

military about the transvestite thing because i think a lot of guys don't want those people behind them. host: bob, when did you serve? we lost bob. charles in indiana, good morning. caller: yes. i am a korean veteran and i believe we should have a very .trong military i think president trump will do that done. thank you. host: president trump has made it known who he intends to pick to fill that role of chief of staff, that would be mark millie. him is the story about introducing him to their readers after president trump tweeted he will be picking him in december this past year. keith is next, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead, keith.

what are your thoughts on the leadership at the top of the pentagon? caller: i think as long as the new secretary coming in -- as long as he follows the advisors from his services, then he is going to do a good job. host: you trust of the advisors, why? caller: they are the professionals in each branch. host: what do you think about general mattis compared to patrick shanahan? caller: i really don't think there is much comparison. general mattis being prior military, he had a lot more experience. i think the tone and the new secretary that will be coming in, if he listens to the advisors, he will do really well. host: that is keith in tennessee. this is the front page of usa today noting foreign policy challenge around -- challenges

around the world. the president sees setbacks with iran and north korea. week,t same briefing last secretary shanahan talked about the u.s. responses in recent weeks to challenges both in iran and north korea and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> it is important iran understand that attack on americans for its interests will be met with an appropriate response. we are in the middle east to , fight --rorism security. ourselves andt that is very important. i won't really address what the iranians are doing, i just want to talk about what the americans are doing.

we will position ourselves and protect our interest, but we are there to build security. we are there to address violent extremism. that is our focus. >> can you clarify what was -- maintain atly combat posture. what does that mean for forces on the korean peninsula and what do you say to that? >> on north korea, nothing has changed in the sense we are pursuing full denuclearization of the peninsula and that is being pursued diplomatically. from a military standpoint, our operations, our posture will not change. we will focus on our readiness. i think what has been reported in terms of missiles and rockets is accurate. host: that is patrick shanahan

paris to the president has nominated him to become the 27th secretary of defense, taking over from general mattis. we are looking at a confirmation ahead for patrick shanahan. in the weeks to come, this morning, we are asking viewers on the washington journal your level of confidence in u.s. military leadership and we are talking just to active and retired members of the military. morning.ood i spent 25 years in military. two tours in vietnam. i heard the gentleman who said he is a retiree and made the comment he did not want to serve with gay people. let me make something straight. i was involved in the first -- in vietnam where we were almost re--- overrun with north vietnamese and out of all the people we had on the perimeters, the two guys that did not -- i

say again, did not abandon their position were two guys other soldiers from the ohio national guard were swearing they were gay. all those muscle men haule d butt. they just took off. there is absolutely zero that will stop a person from performing a job. that is saying you are gay and saying you can't drive or work. that is the craziest thing i ever heard. if we were in a position where we go around banning people who are 17 years old from buying cigarettes, who is going to fight your war? it is crazy and the people you have got in the military, not all of them, but the majority of them come in with this bigotry attitude and try to implement it trump should have said he

has the national guard, then he would have been more correct. host: your concerns about a bigotry attitude is what you say . do you think this leadership at the pentagon can deal with that? tie.jasper , your thoughts on the leadership of the pentagon. guy earlier, a a retiree who wanted to speak about the military under barack obama. the other guy talking about with the bigotry attitude. when barack obama took the military over, george bush had run the military into the ground. .e redefined the military you can look at the television, these leaders that is supposed to be taking over, they don't

have any kind of gratification. they are just opening their mouth. ofy don't have any kind military experience. where they come from, i don't know. get somebody up there that wants to do a good job. theon't have to wait for word to come down from the top. trump does not know anything about war. i have seen it. i lived through it. there is no leadership at the top nowadays. host: that is jasper in tennessee. jasper also bringing up the

differences between patrick shanahan and jim mattis. this is missy ryan writing in the washington post talking about the difference between mattis and shanahan. she wrote in her piece last week, president trump selected the offense secretary who spent his career willing to throw around his stature and buck other advisors to the president if he felt necessary. the president has found much of the opposite in shanahan, a corporate worrier who trained his sights on the pentagon and succeeded in speaking the president's business language, but has found himself unmatched. story want to read that last week in the washington post. from washington, d.c., good morning. military am retired and i think the uniformed leadership is very good.

what i fear is the top leadership and our president, who has never experienced any also -- when we were going to serve in vietnam, do you think i am a fool? and he did not serve and also said he knows more about isis than the general does. how can you trust a top leader who has no experience? when i served in vietnam, i was a fool. that is all i have to say. host: greg, you are next. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: are you active or retired? caller: i am retired. i retired 2005 due to injuries. i got hurt in afghanistan in 2004. i also have two engineering degrees.

i have no problems with the .ncoming guy i have been stabbed in the back a few times and just to make a long story short, i was one of the pilots october 1990 three, so i know what it is like to be stabbed in the back by politicians. i lost a lot of good friends that day. the: how long do you think united states is going to be in afghanistan? caller: i think they ought to get out and let them kill each other off. we are dealing with a culture who has no respect for human life. -- what would happen if the united states

withdrew forces from afghanistan. [video clip] >> there is about 20 groups in the region i would describe as violent extremist groups. a handful of those groups have clearly demonstrated the intent to attack the homeland and american citizens. i firmly believe the pressure our terrorism efforts have put on those groups over the last years have prevented another 9/11. difficult to prove, but from the time i spent in afghanistan, i have been a commander and i am confident. if you want to think about this in terms of term assurance, and you stop paying a premium, you no longer have insurance and what we are doing in afghanistan today is a commensurate level of effort to the threat. host: the new york times editorial board takes up the issue of the war in afghanistan. the american people are being capped more in the dark about the dismal state of the united states' longest running war now in its 18th year.

the mission has been badly in need of robust oversight. the least the trumpet ministration can do is be open and honest with the american public about the unvarnished reality of the situation. the pentagon has not held an on camera briefing in over a year. americans may have given up hope of winning the war long ago, but that doesn't mean the full public accounting should halt. we are hearing from active and retired members of the military in this first hour about your level of confidence in the united states top military leadership. if you are active and retired in the eastern or central time zones, it is 202-748-8000. if you are active or retired in the mountain or pacific time zones, it is 202-748-8001. rob in new york, you are next. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have zero confidence in the military because somebody said a long time ago, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks

like a nail. that is the philosophy our government has been running under for years. we need to quit meddling with other countries' affairs. look at the mess we made. when i was in the service, it seemed like it was a different time in the 1980's than what it is right now. it has gotten bad and i think things need to change. we need to concentrate on making things right at home. host: did we make less messes back then in the 1980's? caller: yes. i was in the navy from 1982 to 1986. host: tell me about your service then and u.s. involvement around the world then. caller: fact then, it is seems like we were just out and trying to protect our coastline and the shipping lanes and all that and now it doesn't seem to be the case at all. we have troops in 130 different countries fighting all these

wars and then the inspector's report showed the government, the pentagon misplaced or misappropriated $21 trillion. that, to me, is basis for a serious investigation. texas,ut of fort worth, this is austin. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead. caller: i am retired navy, vietnam era. i wanted to make comments on and the transvestites like serving in the military. i was privy to have these people help me when i was undergoing treatment. these guys, for the most part, don't want to be combat vets, necessarily, but they wind up as auxiliaryrious other helping in that way, helping in that way in the medical deal. i have nothing but praise for

these guys. they go in knowing they are going to be looked at differently, treated differently. in those days, it was you don't say anything or you could wind up dead. later on it became don't talk .bout it we have come along long way and now we are stepping back, i think. these people are patriotic. host: when you say we are stepping back, are you referring to the new transgender policy rolled out and developed under general mattis when he was secretary of defense, but has been implemented in the past couple months? caller: yes, sir. we go forward and we go back. i don't know about transgendered or those that wish to change is going to be a deal the military should not pay for, if that is what they want, but at the same time, again, these are just as patriotic

people as anybody else. give them a chance. i never found one i was ashamed of when i served. that is about all i have got to say on that. host: this is michael, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead, michael. caller: i would just like to speak about one thing and i have really been upset about listening to a lot of these military people call in. vietnam veteran and i am really -- hello? host: i am listening, michael. caller: i was really upset. i am a combat veteran from vietnam and i was really upset to hear our president talk about john mccain the way he did. i don't know -- i have not heard -- werson call in even

should have sent a letter complaining about the treatment john mccain received. our next heroes he disagrees with? what happens to the next person who gets their arms and everything amputated and pushed to the side? there is a lot of things we should think about even before we get started on some subjects. i just feel like it was really wrong for the way he treated john mccain and i think some of these military people calling in should respect that. that is all i have to say. host: that is michael in virginia. a few tweets as we have been having this conversation. we have been talking on the phones with active and retired members of the military. the tweets from all of those tweeting in this morning. cameron writes the commander-in-chief did not inspire confidence that decisions will be made in the best interest of the country. sherry says it is the best leadership in a long time. anna saying zero confidence in

the white house, follow the law, protect, defend the constitution, zero president -- zero confidence in 45. this is alan on that line for active and retired members of the military from louisiana. are you active or retired? caller: i am retired. host: what are your thoughts about the leadership at the top of the pentagon right now? caller: first, i want to tell you i am korean retired and i am 78 years old and i worked in platformtwo years as a instructor. i had to get out with my family. i have one comment from experience of two years living in a military -- muslim country surrounded by 1000 miles of another type of religion then i thatnd it occurred to me

we will never make the middle east part of a democracy, it is of theble because population of that area is muslim and we should leave the muslims alone. host: do you think we should still have troops in afghanistan? should we have troops anywhere in afghanistan? caller: go ahead. host: do you think we should have troops anywhere in the middle east? caller: what is the purpose of the troops? who are we protecting? we are protecting that country and we are against that, i think. i don't understand it hurried i never did understand why we have to be promoting democracy in a muslim country, that is what my complaint is. host: that is alan in the -- in louisiana. just after 7:30 on the east

coast. continuing this conversation with active and retired members of the military. we are getting your thoughts this morning about the leadership at the top of the pentagon. some news out of the pentagon this morning from the washington post. they write the pentagon will shift $1.5 billion for president .rump's border wall a plane that provides surveillance and communications to fighter jets while airborne according to a document obtained by the post. it includes more details about the administration's plan, which was disclosed friday to build 80 additional miles of border wall using defense department money. it echoes patrick shanahan saying there will be no negative effect on military readiness. that from the washington post. this was patrick shanahan last

week at the senate appropriations hearing talking about the u.s. military and what it is doing on the southwest border right now. [video clip] >> in terms of the border barrier itself, the army corps of engineers has the responsibility to build the barrier. we now have, on contract, sufficient funds to build about 256 miles of barrier. , 256to give you a sense miles. that represents dhs funds from 2018 as well7 and treasury forfeiture funds and reprogramming. how you will see this materialize in the next 6 months is about 63 additional new miles will come online. about half a mile a day will be produced.

as you described about a year ago, we received our first request and as of this morning, we have 4364 troops on the border, a mixture of guard .nd active the primary role is doing monitor and detection, which we 1167approximately performing that mission, but we have a broader set of missions from logistical support to aviation support, food service, a whole host of those. to more broadly answer your question in terms of readiness, we have seen no degradation to readiness. in fact, in some cases, it has enhanced our readiness because troops get to perform certain functions. host: that was acting defense

secretary patrick shanahan last week testifying before the senate appropriations committee and that testimony coming before the president announcing last week patrick shanahan had been nominated to be the permanent response -- permanent replacement for jim mattis, jim mattis having left the pentagon at the end of 2018. hearing from active and retired members of the military only about your level of confidence in military leadership in this country. ed in michigan, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i have been watching the program alli am just afraid that these strong secretary, who arey of defense, not allowing trump to overdo

militarilyu know, and then the foreign policy. doesn't seem to be the right guy for the office. he and othert hope joint commanders will be as thatg as the other guys and working for the country i just don't -- i don't trust trump. the nuclearhumb on button. now it is the last couple of years coming up, it does not havelike we are going to

strong people in office that will tell trump know, you cannot do that. host: this is ralph in wilmington, delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. i have absolutely no confidence in anything trump does when it .omes to selecting somebody like george w. bush, he went to campaign in alabama and got to the top of the list of 100,000 people to get the national guard when he should have went regular. my main concern is disrespecting veterans have allowed this man and his minions to express when it comes to john mccain, a true hero. i am a democrat and always have been. i admired john mccain for what he went through and the way he

refused to be released early because -- the way these veterans have allowed this to happen, i am ashamed of all of them and that is all i have to say. host: james is next from michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. i ama vietnam veteran and sorry to say, but i don't have any confidence in this president . you have to have a president who knows how to think. the president runs the country. he cannot even run america. all these other countries are --ing him we justwe just -- host:

played that clip talking about the deployment on the southwest border, what are your thoughts about using troops in that capacity? it.er: that is we have to have leadership for the people who are going to serve to believe in him. he cannot even run the country. how are other countries going to look at america as a strong, vibrant nation when he doesn't even treat americans right. he is dividing america. host: james in michigan, this is more from that senate hearing last week on this issue of u.s. troops along the southern border, patrick shanahan responding to questions from illinois senator dick durbin, a democrat. [video clip] >> there was a statement that has been made publicly by the

department of defense and others about a clear line of demarcation between the mission of the department of homeland security and the department of defense. the longer this southwest border mission continues, the longer demarcation starts to blur in terms of where we are drawing a line saying this is not a military responsibility, this is law enforcement, immigration, internal security responsibility . what assurance can you give us that this age-old line of demarcation will be respected? >> there will never be a blurring of the line in terms of law enforcement. we do not provide law enforcement. we never have and we never will. our role is to support dhs. >> i know it is, but let me ask you specifically. visited 8nd hhs department of defense installations looking for sites to house unaccompanied children. they include great lakes naval station in my home state of illinois.

in this relationship between hhs and the department of defense, where do things stand with their request for military housing? >> they have made requests to us to provide housing. our role in providing housing to them would be turnkey. if there is something that is identified that we agreed to support, we would prepare and hand the keys over to hhs. host: taking your calls in this first segment of the washington journal for just members of the military or retired members of the military getting your thoughts on your confidence in the leadership at the top of the pentagon. larry in south dakota, good morning. caller: good morning. confidence in trump, that is zero. the thing that gets me is we gave $963 billion. almost a trillion dollars to the department of defense to defend zerocountry and we gave dollars to defend the children

in this country. you hear about nobody from the department of defense saying let's put money into defending the kids getting killed and our towns and streets all across america. zero money. billion for the department of defense and our kids are dying. amnm sick of this whole god d trump thing. thank you and good luck. host: bill is next. kathleen, georgia. caller: good morning. i am retired navy. the discussion about confidence-no confidence seems to skew politically based on your political orientation. i have confidence in the process. i have great confidence in the way the system is working and it will take care of the entire gamut of operations and challenges in the future.

host: when you talk about the system and how it is working, one issue that has come up on capitol hill, a report about the rise in reporting sub sexual assaults in the military, certainly an issue that has been going on for a long time that congress has been trying to get the military do address. do you think the system is working on that front? caller: i think the system works at various speeds. it is a self governed conservative approach to social change. there are a number of military people i know who are quite concerned about this and there belowot of work going on the reported level to identify this and root out the cause. there is some silliness with how they approach these things. it is a much deeper, more systemic problem and you have to go in and find second or third root causes and that is happening, i do believe that. host: do you think it is getting enough attention from the top of

the military? caller: excuse me. i think there plate is full of a lot of things. i think it is on the plate and getting the same attention other things are. my daughter serves and so we had .his discussion extensively the attention is there. it might not be the first top order of business, but it is never the last order of business. dependings day to day on what the closest alligator to the boat is, if you will. host: talk about being a family of military service and what that conversation was like with your daughter when she decided to go into it. caller: she went in wide-eyed. she went through rotc in college and she is working on the history of militant -- women in the military reserve and she has interviewed a number of women talking about a lot of these experiences, not just sexual assault, but the challenges of being a female in what has been

a male-dominated ethos within the military. the change is glacial, or it seems. if you look back and say we have gone a long way, it doesn't make it feel like you are moving quickly in the forefront, it is only going in that you see things that offend you and may scare you. you have to be honest, forthright, and be willing to lose your job. you cannot let those stones go unturned. she and others are willing to call it went they see it and i think that is happening below the report level. it is there and still a problem. i am not trying to dismiss or minimize it. sooner or later, the right answer will come forward. host: thanks for the call from kathleen, georgia. this is senator kiersten gillibrand, a democratic presidential candidate talking about this issue of sexual assault in the military at a recent hearing with some of the members of the army brass. [video clip] >> what angers me the most,

general, is for the last 25 years, every secretary of defense has told this body, told the american public we have zero tolerance for sexual assault. i have been working with my colleagues for the past five years to change how we treat these crimes, to professionalize it, to make sure we have more senior ross acute or's who have more experience prosecuting the case. the most disturbing fact i received is the percentage of cases that are moving forward by 06 or above decision-making is going down. equally as disturbing, the percentage of cases ending in conviction are going down. i am tired of excuses. i am tired of statements from commanders that say zero-tolerance. i am tired of the statement i get over and over from the chain of command, we have got this,

ma'am, we have got this. you don't have this, you are failing us. the trajectories of every measurable are going in the wrong direction. ont: kiersten gillibrand capitol hill on that conversation about sexual assault in the military. we have about 10 minutes left to get your thoughts on the level of confidence in military leadership, having this conversation a few days after president trump announced his decision to nominate patrick shanahan to be the 27th secretary of defense. danny and georgia, are you active or retired? caller: i am disabled vietnam era. i see that our current administration really has degraded the attitude of active and retired veterans. my friends around the world look at what is going on here in america and it is a shame. our commanders are given certain

specific orders they must carry out and as loyal military people, we follow our commanders. what we are experiencing now is degradation of american values when it comes to protecting our citizens. the situation down at the border and sending troops there is a travesty. that is really not the answer. the answer lies in going into the other countries where these individuals are coming from and bolstering and building up their economies. we have plenty of room here in america when it comes to those who are seeking political asylum. it really hurts. it hurts as a veteran when we look at what is going on. in terms of the confidence we should have in our president. at this point, really, across

the board, is at an all-time low. that is my thought. host: this is joe in new jersey, good morning. joe, are you with us? caller: yes. i am retired navy, retired vietnam era veteran and i fully support and have confidence in the president and the military. i think our problem is we are spread too thin around the world . i give the president a lot of members,lding nato holding the fire to their feet and making sure they pay their fair share for their own defense . i think the problem is we are spread too thin and they need to start picking up some of the cost of their own defense. we can improve our relationship around the world and our presence around the world militarily. host: that is joe in new jersey. a few more comments from twitter . michael writing military

leadership has done what politicians asked for. michelle writing in this morning that she has confidence in the military, confidence is how congress wants to make the military a social experience, that is not something she has confidence in. patrick has 23 years in the military saying the leadership, like most things, depends on the person doing the leading. did they foster an environment of growth or was it toxic? i had a fair amount of confidence in my leadership, some more than others. i am a navy vet and i have more confidence in our military leadership then i had before. roy in las vegas, good morning, your level of confidence in today's military leadership. caller: yes. good morning. i was national guard during the vietnam and as far as going to .ietnam, nobody wanted to go

a lot of people who were drafted had no choice, of course. it is no secret that it is a very controversial war. president trump 's nominee, we should give him all the support we have. he has a very full plate about all the countries we are trying to negotiate with, they see outright hatred for our president. here we have our economy, everything is going so well, we are the piggy bank everyone is taking from and if we would just stand behind our president and give him support, it would help a lot in these negotiations. host: wyoming is next, gordon. good morning. caller: i am retired u.s. coast guard. i would like to say,. i think there are some good generals, some good admirals and

there are some admirals and generals who are maybe not so good. i would like to point out one exception. who was admiral thad allen took over the train operations when fema was having a tough time in new orleans. that is all i have got. host: before you go, we talked about some of the change happening at the top ranks of the military, especially when it comes to the joint chiefs prayed i wandered your thought about this being a good time to start a space force and the development of a new branch of the military. aller: the air force has had space command for decades. they are going to be part of the operation of the new .pace force may be some more studies should

be made on the feasibility. we are talking about defense. sometimes we have to move quicker. i don't know. i am not real familiar with it. host: from capitol hill last week, this is joint chiefs dunford and acting defense secretary shanahan on the developing of space force. [video clip] >> the fundamental proposition of the space force is given the change in the environment that space is now contested, is the status quo sufficient? it is not. the space force represents two significant changes. commandrovide the authority when it comes to protecting our economy and our defense assets as a fundamental change in mission, that we resource that and secondarily, how do we deploy new capability

that is not burdened by red tape and leverages so much of the commercial innovation? i have asked chairman dunford from his comments from the perspective of, he has seen the pentagon face problems before and our approach generally is we react after something negative has occurred. i really think we are on the front end of helping ensure we sustain our competitive advantage. i would say an organization singularly focused on recruiting people, training people, the path of capability development and doctrine of space has a better chance giving us the focus i believe we need. i have been on my own personal journey to make a recommendation . in 2017, i was not convinced we needed space force.

over time, i have been convinced based on eroding competitive advantage we have and what i see to be the future. the interdependencies we have in an organization that has that singular department would posture the department to deal with one of 5 domains we have in our war fighting doctrine. general dunford and patrick shanahan last week on capitol hill. if you want to watch this hearing in its entirety, you can do so on our website, c-span.org . you can search shanahan or dunford and that hearing will come up for you. time for a few more calls as we ask for your of love confidence in military leadership. ed has been waiting in jacksonville, florida. are you active or retired military? caller: i am retired national guard. also, i was active duty during the vietnam war. it did 2.5 tors as a combat that

and deployed to afghanistan and iraq. the way you value our leadership is look at the fine women and men and soldiers in the military. look at their morality. it is high, it is great. saying that, i would say the morality general mattis setting out new policies is great. of thehat do you think changeover since general mattis has left? caller: i would say you have to give that time. right now, i don't hear any bad comments any or negative comments or any comments at all about new leadership. host: before he joined the pentagon in 2017, patrick shanahan was an executive at boeing. if he gets confirmed, he will be a secretary of defense without military experience. is that something you think is necessary for that job?

caller: people in the military would understand that boeing is connected to the military. if you look at the -- a lot of the aircraft parts and tank parts and things that come out of boeing, they are connected at the hip with the department of defense. host: thanks for the call this morning. john is next from ohio. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call this morning. i am a retired vietnam -- disabled vietnam veteran and i have zero confidence in the commander-in-chief. dodger.ime draft -- the all volunteer army is really a problem with me . we had the greatest army in the world that was a conscript army. now you have this all volunteer army, they are all gung ho and

ready to go to war anywhere, anytime. if you had draftees in the army, you would have never had the fiasco in afghanistan. as far as women go, when i was in the marine corps from 1968 to 1971, we were segregated. only during working hours did you have any contact with women rains -- women marines. you are not around -- not allowed near their barracks. if you got caught near the barracks, you would found yourself in the brig. as far as gay goes, i served .ith a lot of gay marines they were outstanding marines. they did their job. we knew they were gay, nobody said nothing about it. they did their jobs and they did

a great job. that is all i have to say. host: you bring up afghanistan. what is the future of u.s. military involvement in afghanistan look like? think we should continue to be in the country? caller: no. we have to get out. you have to get out of everywhere in the middle east. it is ridiculous. the gentleman five or six calls ahead of me said you are dealing with muslims. their political outlook is completely different than ours. to say the fiasco in iraq, and afghanistan. intou had draftees going the military, you would not have this today because the people would not put up with it. they wouldn't put up with it. military.amily was 100%. , from myates marines grandfather to me and my cousins.

have five grandsons. i guarantee you, none of them will go into the military and go somewhere like iran or iraq and fight for billionaires in this country so they can keep their oil. it's not going to happen. i'm done with the matilda -- military. done with them. host: when did that change happen for you, as someone who comes from a military family? caller: ever since reagan, actually. ever since ronald reagan. clinton, allbill of the presidents before that were military men. all of them. they all saw what war was like. then you have these guys like in thew., he was national guard like the one general and said. he didn't have to go into

combat. this is no good. going down the wrong road. militarily, this country is going down the wrong road. host: you mentioned that you preferred presidents to have military service. what about the head of the ending on, what about the secretary of defense? caller: absolutely! how ridiculous is having somebody as the secretary of defense that was never in the military? it's ridiculous! it's totally ridiculous. i had a grandfather, my years in a spent 45 military hospital. in v.a. now, my grandkids, they are

not going. they're not going to serve this country. host: our last caller in this first segment of the washington journal. stick around. up next, we will take a look at the week ahead in washington from both ends of pennsylvania avenue. we will be joined by anita kumar and anna edgerton. later, a conversation on executive privilege. the tension between house democrats and the white house over the mueller report. we will be joined by jeffrey rosen. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, on the committee caters. -- communicators. pushback.mazing, the

our closest allies are probably the u.k.. germany and other countries around the world are saying you have not given us evidence of wrongdoing by while way -- while .ay -- huawei by geraldoined fitzgerald, a technology reporter. >> i have been able to be an advocate for a safer american cyberspace. i am basically saying look, we need to be able to compete. it is critically important that we address the risk. we believe there are risk mitigation measures. i've never been told what to say or what i can't say. when you look at the bigger picture, we don't speak through the china government and they don't speak for us. >> watch the committee caters tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. was simply three

giant networks and pbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given up way -- given way to narrowcasting. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. coverage ofisan washington is funded by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. the c-span bus is stopping at

middleton high school's across the country to meet and award the winners of our student camp dio competition. we were in colorado springs, competition with comcast where we met with first prize high school west winners, christian and gabriel. william j palmer high school. >> it did not take long to find the disparities in voting rights, especially with native americans living on reservations. that one was a shock to me considering we have been coexisting for a very long time and they still struggle with voting rights. gerrymandering too seems like an outdated thing. it still exists. it is still a problem. those are things that we wanted to focus on. the winnings,l of go to studentcam.org. washington journal continues. host: each week, when congress

is in session we take time to focus on the week ahead in washington. to do that this week, covering both ends of pennsylvania avenue, anita kumar is with politico. anna edgerton is a politics editor for bloomberg. good morning to you both. that and i, you are covering the trade negotiations between the united states and china. them not coming to a deal, what are you watching for on the next step for trade negotiations? guest: the president has been forecasting these trade talks so far. he has been trying to present this as we are where we need to be right now. we are putting the pressure on china. they are starting to feel it. the white house did go ahead with increasing tariffs that they had said they would increase. they were also saying they could increase tariffs on another $300

billion worth of goods. there is more to go in the tariff game as far as the president is concerned. i am looking at the political impact of this and how republicans pushback on the the ruraland how countries have been hurt by tariffs. put tariffs on this round of tears. we expect them to be studying the measures and looking at how it will affect their cut -- economy to pushback on the actions. host: anita kumar, trumps trade agenda on the verge of imploding. that was posted on friday, looking at the political impact and what president trump has promised on trade leading into 2020. can you talk to that? >> this is a campaign where he is running on, i accomplished things i said i would. immigration and trade are the

things he talked about doing and he has not gotten either of those done. on immigration, he is doing a few things but not everything he wanted. on trade, he is saying let's be patient, these things take a long time. we are in year three of his term. he is about to embark on reelection and we have not seen what has happened, the results. house, larry kudlow, the national economic advisor was on the sunday talk shows and had to admit that u.s. consumers are the ones feeling this. i think the president had pushed it off and said it was china that was going to hurt. you are seeing signs that americans are hurting. host: for folks who missed the interview on fox news sunday, this is the exchange with chris wallace. >> it is not china that pays tariffs, it is the american import. it is the american companies that pay what is a tax increase

and often times passes it on to u.s. consumers. >> fair enough. in fact, both sides will pay. both sides will pay in these things. >> the tariffs on goods coming into the country, the chinese are not paying. >> no. but the chinese will suffer gdp losses and so forth with respect to a diminishing export market and goods they may need. >> i understand that. but the president says china pays for the tariffs and they suffer consequences but it is u.s. businesses and u.s. consumers who pay, correct? >> yes. to some extent. i don't disagree with that. host: anita kumar on what you think president trump will say in the weight of that statement, tell me. guest: i don't think he will be happy about that. larry kudlow might be hearing from him. that got a lot of attention from what i was saying before. they have always pushed back and said china was going to supper. hearing that people in the heartland across america and

other people are hurting from this is going to take a toll politically on him or could take a toll. it tends to be, president trump, we think things will hurt him and they don't hurt him. news for himood going into his reelection. host: his schedule, he is meeting with the prime minister of hungary, why? guest: people have talked about him, the prime minister being very much like president trump. anti-immigration or however you want to say it, pushback on immigrants in their countries. maybe hee saying should not be meeting with him. president bush did not meet with him. president obama did not meet with him. it has been a while since he was here and had talks with a u.s. person. but, this is someone who has been wanting to meet with him for 2.5 years. on one hand, you could say he shouldn't meet with him. on the other hand, you could say it took 2.5 years. another reason people are

concerned is that hungary's prime minister is enamored with china and russia and people think that is not someone that president trump should be meeting with. headline in the washington trump, consorting with autocrats. anna edgerton, your thoughts on how capitol hill will react on this meeting. the senate back in today, the house in tomorrow. there was a letter sent to the president that set he wanted him to bring up democracy and make sure that he gets some kind of commitment from hungary's prime minister about reinforcing democracy in hungary. having an brags about illegal democracy where you have more centralized control over universities and institutions of learning over the judicial system. there was a quote in the

atlantic from david corn steam, the u.s. ambassador in hungary where he said president trump would like to have that. they are paraphrasing that trump would like to have more control over the courts and institutions of learning. you see some similarities. very different countries and very different traditions in democracy. week ahead ine washington roundtable. this morning, the phone lines are open. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. publicans, (202) 748-8001 -- .epublicans, (202) 748-8001 .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 let us know what's on your mind. we thought we might have a high-profile meeting and robert mueller might testify on capitol hill. he is not. what are you watching this week when it comes to some of the efforts by house democrats when

it comes to the trump white house. guest: it will be interesting to see when the house gets back on tuesday how this continues to percolate along the democratic caucus. we are keeping our eyes on the temperature on seeing how many people are joining their colleagues for impeachment proceedings or more aggressive investigation. you did see a subpoena for president trump's tax returns late last week. we will probably see some repercussions from that and how the ways and means and measures they can take to demand those tax returns and get that information to congress. it has been interesting to see who falls into what camp. especially the evolution of nancy pelosi. she pushed back against her members that wanted to begin impeachment proceedings already. now you see her opening the door. if not to impeachment, at least to some kind of consequence for the executive branch for not complying with russian oversight. the: anita kumar, we saw

intelligence committee issue a subpoena for the president's son, donald trump, jr.. will he be testifying on capitol hill? guest: we hear he might not be. they are wearing -- weighing what they want to do. that was a turning point. we are talking about senate republicans, richard burns of north carolina, a republican, maybe not the closest ally but you would think that senate republicans would not do that. we saw mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader say let's move on from mueller. this is not exactly the mueller probe. the senate intelligence committee is having its own investigation and they are still working on it. they are bringing people back they want to hear from again. you saw the president reaction which was surprise. they had chaired kushner come in and talk to them. he feels like all of these things should be winding down now that the mueller investigation is over.

say a lot of things about president trump but he is a father. having your son caught up in this, whether it is his fault or not is, he is going to take that personally. host: we will bring in your phone calls. eric is up out of san diego california, what is on your mind? was annoyed, having watched this program a long time . i don't understand is there a charm from his department where he make more money? [indiscernible] aboutdo you want to talk the trump organization? guest: i would dispute one thing. it is hard to get attention with anything because so much is happening. a lot of things have been written about the trump

organization and the president's daughter, also, ivanka ivanka trump who has her own line of clothes and other things that they have had ties to china and other countries. both labor practices and all sorts of talk about how he, his organization and business is not living up to the standards he is setting for the rest of the country. immigration is one of the things where they say he should not get foreign workers for his company in america and they have been getting foreign workers. there has been some attention. but, like anything else, it is hard to get a lot of attention these days. is a in the gulf coast, j republican in alabama. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say trump for 2020. host: is there an issue you want to talk about this week? we lost jay. president trump is headed to the gulf coast to louisiana to talk about energy. why? saying to theare

president that one of the things dot they want him to do is some campaign rallies. he is doing some of those. he should also be doing official events and issues that are important to him. energy, infrastructure. some of the things that we do not talk about every day to show what he is accomplishing or trying to accomplish as president. i think you will see him do those official visits for a while. host: the advocates for louisiana are reporting the president will visit the $10 billion facility in cameron .arish t back here on capitol hill, efforts continue to push through a disaster aid built the has -- disaster aid bill. what is the latest on that and whether it will see the light of the president desk. sign of the another

times and how contentious things have become. disaster aid is usually something everyone can agree on. people in puerto rico, people in the midwest and georgia who have been affected by terrible flooding and hurricanes and natural disasters this year. the fact that it has been so contentious and the squabbling in the senate has been over the portion of aid for puerto rico that the federal government should pay has been surprising. you have the president weighing in personally, saying puerto rico should pay part of this aid . the way they resolved that would have come down to how desperate members of congress are to get the relief that their community desperately needs. you have senators from georgia and the midwest that say we really need this. host: and how much are republican senators putting pressure on the white house to move forward and agree to something. ? guest: they are putting pressure. the president was in the

panhandle for a campaign rally. he looked at hurricane disaster areas and there were people on the plains, urging him to go ahead and go with the disaster relief and give florida what it needs. there was some reporting by some of my colleagues said -- sandy preston was not willing to give -- saying the president was not willing to give money but the floridians convinced him. host: michael is next. what is on your mind as we look to a busy week in washington, another busy week? morning.ood i was wondering if the ladies could update us on the security clearance issue. it has to center around jared kushner and his deep financial avenue's in with the 5th building. and the fact that he could read the presidential daily briefings. i was wondering if you could update us about security and who has the security clearance.

if you could just update us? . host: and adjutant, do you want to start? .uest: there is a process the house oversight committee has called on some former white house officials to come and testify about the process to see if there was any wrongdoing that happened there. that is something democrats have emphasized in the house. it is not just the mueller report. that is not the only thing we are investigating. it is also other elements of the administration such as the process for getting security clearances. that is very important for the security of our country. also things like the president tax returns, how he conducts his businesses and how that interacts with his official duties as president of the united states. guest: the caller is right. we have not heard a lot about what is happening with the security clearances at the white house since john kelly was chief of staff. there was that memo he put out saying they did a review.

it has been a number of months since he has left. they did a review and they did not feel like jared kushner should have a security clearance. he is still there and has a high-ranking. he is involved in a lot of huge issues, including trying to put out an immigration plan and a middle east peace plan. he is involved in many of the major issues going on in the white house. we don't have a lot of details with -- because the white house will not talk about it. they say security clearances are a security issue and it is not public. i think that is white house democrat want to get more information. just like so many other issues that pertain to the white house, not necessarily the agencies but the white house itself, they are pushing back and saying it is not something that they have to turn over to house democrats. host: you mentioned the efforts to come up with a new immigration plan. the overall legal immigration, what sort of details do we know at this point on that? guest: we know that jared kushner, the president's

son-in-law started briefing people on this plan. it is something he has been working on since january. there has been a -- it has been a significant piece of time for him. it is going to include that. the president saw an initial draft a few weeks ago and said it had to include border security. you will see two pieces. border security and legal immigration. the bottom line on that is that the proposal right now has the numbers exactly the same. it would increase the number of migrant workers that could come to the united states to work. but it would decrease the number of people that could come and be sponsored by family members. right now, you have extended family that could come in if you are a legal resident and you can sponsor them. the plan they are looking at was limited to spouse and children. they will increase in one area and decrease in another. a lot of immigration hawks

supported the president, because he said does that solve the problem, it just changes it. host: will there be a deal on that front? guest: people are exhausted on capitol hill about talking about immigration. you saw that in some of the proposals that came out last year. the republican push in the house where they had two different proposals. there was good luck one and good luck two. it had immigration measures where they would -- not reduce the level -- but switch around. there is a push from republicans to move toward a merit-based system. that will be resistance to from democrats, especially house democrats where they have the majority. democrats have become more emboldened in saying that they immigrationm of the customs enforcement in ice. they want a more humane border policy.

at an increasingly strong cost for republicans. they want border security. you have more families coming over, rather than more economic migrants that are looking for jobs in the past. host: about 20 minutes left in our roundtable, taking a look at the busy week in washington. ben is in plano, texas. what is on your mind? caller: there are a couple of things. i am a disabled vet. i was outside of baghdad. this whole thing sounds wonky to me. are fighting a non-war. we are fighting a war against the southern border in the united states. that is not a war. but, if you want to go and look at, hey, let's do some border

stuff, we have to look at the .ortheast, southwest it is just not going to the south and saying hey, this is the big border problem. we take up that issue on a morning the pentagon is looking additional $1.5 billion toward the border wall. guest: that is an interesting perspective for someone who has been in an actual war. that is something lawmakers have said. there is a crisis on the board. it is emily's coming over, fleeing -- it is families coming over, fleeing persecution. there needs to be a different approach in how you deal with this. you need more immigration detention judges and facilities that are suitable for children and families and not just single men who are coming --r for undocumented

legitimate economic reasons. there has to be a response on not necessarily building the wall. that was a point that a lot of democrats made during the government shutdown where you have the coast guard that is intercepting so much contraband and people coming in from the coast. the coast guard was not getting paid during the 35 day partial government shutdown. there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. as we have seen in this political environment, the ability to respond to any kind of complex crises that arrives either at home or abroad is really limited by the amount of partisanship we have in washington. guest: you see a lot of people saying to president trump that have supported him that the border wall cannot be all it is. exactly what you are saying. there are so many other problems with immigration country was,

like people often overstay their visas. you need to do other things. i think the color hit the nail on the head. there needs to be a more competent of approach. that being said, it is a year where people are running for president. and in a divided government, we will probably not have an immigration bill this year. host: jerry is next. turn down your tv. we will come back for jerry as we go to tony in detroit, michigan. go ahead. caller: hi. i just wanted to make a comment about donald trump with north korea. say this. what has donald trump actually done? in economy as i can recall 2006 and 2007, barack obama was elected. he came in. he straightened out the economy from the second greatest depression america has ever

faced. if barack obama went to north korea, like donald trump did, i believe he would have been impeached. then, we have the border security situation. host: let's take up north korea. anita kumar on the latest on what is ahead for the u.s.-north korea relationship. guest: the white house keeps saying they have been successful. you have seen headlines that north korea might have resumed their testing and perhaps not been successful. but, there have been two summits and the president continues to say that this is successful and that they are -- he is presenting -- preventing them from going forward with nuclear weapons. it is unclear what is going to happen. we don't know for sure there will be another summit. without anyaway specific deliverables. people in both parties want him to either do more or say we are not going to have those

negotiations anymore. host: the secretary of state will be in brussels and russia as well. can you check -- talk about mike pompeo's travel? tost: mike pompeo is going meet with vladimir putin. there are eyes on that because there always are. comes out after the mueller report is largely released and says there was no collusion with the trump campaign and the trump associates. but there is still a lot of concern that president trump has and strong ties to russia letting president prudent dictate things that are going on . people will be looking to see what the interaction is like. the president had a call with president putin about a week ago, a lengthy call. the biggest thing i think that people want to see from this is that secretary pompeo pushes back and says there cannot be interference in the next election from russia.

as the mueller report proves there was. host: you will be watching on capitol hill -- will you be watching on capitol hill? republicans and their response. it will be an interesting moment where you have, between this week and last week, pompeo meet witht to be -- angela merkel in germany. he had a quick trip to make to iraq, he said. that was seen as a snub by some people in germany and a moment where you have the president beaming with victor or been -- victor of hungary. snobsu have perceived from our morebs traditional allies. it will be interesting to see what comes out of this meeting

to see if there is a stronger pushback on election interference. that would be a good sign for democrats who are worried about -- the upcoming election in 2020 to make sure we don't have the same issues we had into a 16. -- into 2016. -- in 2016. host: in monroe louisiana, good morning. some thoughts on the elections that are coming. guy, old religious, right i am wondering how much of this might be christian and theologically charge. anglicanr a famous bishop said several years ago, he said america and the west is going to try every social medicine on the shelf and the last one we will take down are

the theological solutions. have the latest comment on that. host: i don't know if we have time for a theological debate or are you covering the e.u. elections? guest: i am not specifically but there are patterns to watch. because of the interference we have seen in our country and also the role that technology plays in the increasing calls for social media companies to play a more responsible role and how this is used and weaponized. that is something that will be looked at both here and abroad as the next round of elections comes up. jersey --d out of new out of new jersey, good morning. caller: i am directing this to the two reporters. when you talk about what the democrats are doing to investigate trump, everybody was going to be believing mueller's report. i guess that is not so anymore.

other thing is he was supposed to testify this week. i hear msnbc blame the president for him not testifying. i think one of the reasons he is not coming in is that he knows the republicans will be asking all kinds of questions about why he did not investigate the other .ide i think that will come out. another thing with the taxes and irs, don't you think if he did something illegal, that will come out already? the thing with jared kushner, that would have come out too. if the ethics committee found a problem, the democrats would have jumped on it. think a lot of this is just smoke and mirrors. the democrats are losing. they cannot win the election. trump is going to win and they are trying everything they can. are calling on our line for democrats, are you a

democrat? caller: i am. and i voted for obama. that was a big mistake. i'm sorry i did that. that is why i voted for trump. everyone says obama takes credit for the economy, what a joke! so sad. host: we were talking about the mueller hearing and him testifying and it turned out that is not happening. are we going to see him testify at some point down the road? guest: it sounds like the democrat will push that. they are not pushing it for this week. he is still on the government payroll so he is still working for the department of justice. perhaps he might be more comfortable doing it down the road when he is not on the government payroll. i think the democrats need to figure out how forceful and aggressive they want to be. we had not talked about it but they also had a committee vote on the attorney general, bill barr to see -- hold him in contempt.

we are seeing that the democrats are trying to figure out how aggressive and how quick to push back on some of these things in the white house. host: from cookeville, tennessee, republican, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. the democrats have demanded six years of tax returns from donald trump. i, as a taxpayer, demand i see the tax returns from nancy pelosi, judge schumer, and maxine waters. i don't know how in the world nadler got some quips in the last 20 years when he had no money. let me see your tax returns too. host: got your point. are we going to be in a tax returns fight? guest: we already are.

you see the democratic candidates for 2020, all 21 of them have already released their tax returns, most of them. they are setting an example saying i am being transparent about my finances. i will show where i made my money and how the taxes i paid and the amounts i have benefited to charity. because president trump has complicated business dealings, it is not to see whether something was done illegally. but also to see what kind of financial obligations he has and what kind of loans he has from deutsche bank or other financial institutions. or what kind of business interactions he has with entities and other countries that could be related to foreign government. it is not just to look for any illegal activity but also to see andhom he is doing business think more about his motivation for policy decisions. to see if that had any bearing on how he acts as a present.

host: less than 10 minutes left. we had not gotten to the point at the is a decision day supreme court. we could see some major decisions from the 2018 term start to come down today. what cases are you particularly interested in this term? guest: the census case to see whether or not the question about being an undocumented -- being in the united states without papers is going to be on the census this year. that has implications for how people will respond and also for the accuracy of the census in county, every person who is in the united states will want to look out for this. host: anita kumar, anything on your radar? guest: not really. there are a lot of things that could come up and we don't know what the schedule will be like. the new york times had a fascinating story about president trump pasta two new supreme court justices and how everybody thought they would be perfectly aligned and they are actually quite different.

thesestart to see some of decisions,, it will be interesting to see which side they come out on. host: a new york times reporter with the byline in the new york times. we will see when the supreme court comes in session, what comes down if something comes down. plenty of more decision days coming down in the weeks ahead. time for two more calls. nicholas from america -- maryland, republican. speak on would like to the attorney general and the critique from the democrats that he has performed as the personal attorney of the president. when he appoints judges and justices, they have a lifetime tenure. whereas, the attorney general has the -- the attorney general, the present has the power to hire and fire the attorney general. thedn't it be better if

president wanted to fire the attorney general, the senate would have to get involved to approve it? host: i appreciate the question. that might be a good question for our next segment of the washington journal where we will be joined by jeffrey rosen to talk about some of the judiciary. i will take some notes on your call and we will bring it up during that 45 minutes. we will go to jim in leesburg, virginia. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i have so many topics about china and trade. they have been ripping up this country for 20 or 40 years or more. trump is a businessman. that is nitpicking with me when you have joe biden's son having

business practices that put some communist country over there and you won't have the media bring it up at all. i am tired. comment.will take the we started the segment talking about u.s.-china trade negotiation. china saying they will raise $50 billion on june 1 after the friction in trade that we saw. any thoughts on that this morning? guest: it's not good news for consumers or anyone, right? the tariffs are going to be felt somewhere and they will be felt by consumers. perhaps not china or prison trump. talked about how they have this entanglement. i believe that with the people running for president, mostly

democrats right now, a little bit on the republican side, i think there is greater scrutiny after president trump on looking at people's -- after 2015, looking at ties that candidates have two other countries. i don't think we will shy away from that. i think we will see a lot of that. reporters and others are going to look closely with that after 2016 where we know russia interfered with elections. i think all of those ties are fair game and will be scrutinized. guest: the caller also mentioned wanted to be -- wanting to be top on china. a lot of people called on president trump to be firm on china. said to keep going. a democrat from california said china has been committing trade abuses. there do need to be consequences for this kind of activity.

most people in congress would say that a better way to go about that would be to join forces with our allies in multilateral institutions like the wto that are set up to deal with this kind of dispute. there is some pockets of bipartisan support for president trump to stand up to china and have a certain line against their trade practices. host: out of alabama, this is joe, a republican. cnn and iwas watching changed the channel on this fake news. host: what do you want to talk about? theer: the ladies know jared kushner security clearance was settled. trump did not ask him for the clearances. he investigated everything and he issued the secured clearances.

host: anita kumar, do you want to jump in on that? guest: i'm not sure what he is referring to. therly, as i said before, white house feels like they have dealt with it. they had an internal review. the chief of staff, john kelly put out a memo, not going into great deal -- detail about specific people because it is a personnel issue. the democrats feel it is not over and they should have more information and they are trying to get that information. the white house will not give that information. it is unclear where this is going to go. are they going to get that information or are they going to take a better look? that was a back and forth they have been accused of giving clearances to people that should not have them. that is why the democrats wanted to talk to him. the white house said we will not let him talk.

he has spoken privately behind closed doors. house democrats say they are getting some information. inot of what happens government, usually there is a whistleblower. someone said this person is doing something wrong. host: a minute or two left. we spent the first hour talking about the president nominating patrick shanahan to be his permanent secretary of defense. do we know yet when that confirmation hearing will be? guest: i don't believe we have a date. something that is sure to come t boeings employment a as the fa continues to investigate the 737 max 8 and the grounding of that play and looking into the relationship between the faa and the agencies that allow the planes to fly and the company itself. given the company lots of latitude to certify their own planes. shanahan was not directly

involved in that project. he was not directly involved in that plane. the fact that he was an executive at boeing, rather than someone who comes from a military background. pentagonng to run the and the military. s, even from aerne publicans that he does not have the experience with how you deal with capitol hill. host: patrick shanahan spent over four months as the acting secretary of defense. there were starting to be questions toward the end, before he got the nomination of what was taking so long if he was going to be the nominee. why did that take so long? guest: sometimes, you feel like prison trump, when he is acting, there is a lot of acting. he never seems to be in a hurry. even if he comes around to having the acting be officially nominated. there are some people that say, well, with acting he can have a bit more control.

be in aever seems to huge hurry. host: one more call. emmanuel has been waiting in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about andtrade deal over in china the backlash the president deserves for the russian activities he is having in foreign countries. i would wish that the republicans would stand up to the president and be honest about what is really going on. and that is to say that our president, i don't want to call him a traitor or anything like the, but he is not doing things i like from the united states. i wish president trump would visit african-american communities. he has not done that since he has been in the white house. thank you. host: a minute left in our segment. what did we not get to that you

will be watching for this week? guest: we touched on this but another deadline for president trump to talk about -- or for the administration to decide on the subpoena on tax returns on friday. guest: i will be watching development in venezuela. you had a strong push from the administration. elected andro was committed some human rights abuses in venezuela. i want to see how that progresses this week. host: and adjutant is a politics editor at bloomberg. anita kumar is at politico. up next, a discussion about executive privilege, congressional oversight and the tension between house democrats and the white house over the mila report we will be joined by jeffrey rosen. -- mueller report. we will be joined by jeffrey

rosen. ♪ >> tonight, on the communicators. the pushbacking by, our closest ally is probably the u.k.. but germany and other countries in europe and around the world are basically saying you have not given us evidence of cybersecurity doing -- wrongdoing by huawei. it will be used to spy on americans. he is joined by a wall street journal telecom and technology reporter. >> i have been able to be an advocate for a safer american cyberspace. i am basically saying look, we need the best technology. we need to be able to compete. it is critic important that we address the risks.

i have never been told what to say or what i can't say. frankly, when you look at the bigger picture, we don't speak to the china government and they don't speak for us. >> watch the can indicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. simply threeas giant networks and a government supported service called tbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since the length escape -- landscape has clearly changed. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports

c-span. its nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> washington journal continues. host: we are glad to walk -- welcome jeffrey rosen to our desk. joining us this morning after some democrats on capitol hill said congress and the white house are in a constitutional crisis amid a fight over the mueller report. here is nancy pelosi. >> [indiscernible] yes. i agree with chairman nadler because the administration has decided they are not going to honor the oath the process. that your thoughts of

term, constitutional crisis. guest: you need a definition of what a constitutional crisis is. conventionutional was a constitutional crisis. the rules had broken down in the articles of conveyed ration -- confederation. the civil war was a constitutional crisis. there was violence in the streets about the meaning of enshrining -- the enshrining of lincoln. some called the new deal a constitutional crisis because the threat of court packing was required for franklin roosevelt to impose a new vision of the constitutions broader federal authority. and maybe the civil rights movement, when there was flood in the streets and mobs and you need a military authority to resolve the conflict. what you see is constitutional conflict. we are seeing competing assertions of constitutional

authority. that can require the president to appear. the president is denying that. this is the conflict we have seen before in history when president jefferson attempted to defy a subpoena and chief justice marshall ordered him to provide it. he ultimately acquiesced. there is a conflict being resolved by accommodation. we don't know whether there will be accommodation or further conflict to come. host: this was susan glasser writing in the new york parity --. it is exactly what the constitution envisioned in such cases. this is the system working, not its breakdown. that includes all of the annoying and often hypocritical parts and speechifying from politicians in both parties that accompanies such a process. guest: i think that is extremely

well put. congress has oversight authority. recognized by liberals, libertarians and conservatives. it has the power to investigate and it has the power to impeach. three branches would vigorously check each other. the fact that congress is not just leading up to the courts but asserting its own independent responsibility to find facts is what they intended. host: what the president is exerting -- asserting is executive privilege. where is that derived from? guest: article two of the constitution. a qualified privilege, according to the supreme court in the decisive usb nixon case. listeners, if you want to make up your own mind, check out u.s. the nixon -- united states versus nixon. in the watergate investigation,

they subpoenaed materials, including tapes to turn over to the grand jury. the president said i don't have to do that, i am the president and this is privileged and secret. therefore, i don't want to obey the subpoena. the supreme court unanimously disappeared -- disagree. they said the president has a qualified interest in protecting the confidentiality of conversations when it comes to the diplomatic, military or other national security matters. that cannot overturn the need to enforce the law and the prosecutors need evidence. there will be a lot of complicated executive privilege questions ahead. the court said the general interest in asserted confidentiality is not enough. host: it was page 708 where one of the key passages came from. the president and those who assisted must be free to explore alternatives in the process of

shaping policies. many would be willing to express this privately. these are the situations justifying presumptive privilege. the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of power under the constitution. where did the limits of that come in? guest: it is so great you found that in quotation. it is important to read the decision. series -- the first and most important one is military diplomatic and national security interests. there is a deliberative privilege. the president needs space to consider competing policy points of view. and notattached to him to agencies in general. there is an attorney-client privilege. then there is an interest in law enforcement information not being revealed. sources and methods and so forth.

that is also protected by a grand jury privilege. we will be hearing a lot about what the president has a special interest in enforcing law as well. those are among the privileges that are encompassed. what is crucial is it is not absolute. you have to balance those interests against the interests on the other side. that is why it is so significant that in 1974, a federal district --rt did order a privileged the privileged grand jury material and it was turned over to the special prosecutor. it was said that it was important that you have secrecy but we need this information in order to enforce the rule of law. it was important during the congressmpeachment, demanded and received six material and the prosecutor turned that over on the grounds that congress needed not to perform its investigative -- needed it to perform its

investigative authorities. all cases.balance in what is important for listeners is to identify the interests on both sides and see. host: if you have questions about the constitution and about these issues, now would be a great time to call in. jeffrey rosen from the national constitution center. you can go to their website if you want to see their work. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8001. --(202) 748-8001. .oes --(202) 748-8002 does this apply to current executive branch employees or does it apply to former? formerit can apply to employees with regarding to conversations they have with the president while he is president.

they are getting the beneficiary of the privileges that are attached to him. but it can also be waived. if the president allows don muellero talk to robert , he cannot claim the privilege in that circumstance. -- of whethers the special counsel can be required to testify, the president said he would leave it up to the attorney general. he has no objection. it does not look like that particular privilege will be claimed. it is always a question of what is being protected and what content desk context. -- context. host: linda is an independent, good morning. caller: is an honor to have you on. , i think at least four or five times, he might not leave the white house when it is time for him to leave the white house. would like to know from you, we would all like to know, what

can we do to keep ourselves from this crazy man from not leaving the white house when it is time for him to leave? guest: if you wanted a definition of a constitutional crisis, it would be that. if the president openly said he would refuse to obey the constitution after his term was up and not peacefully surrender power, that would be a constitutional crisis not precedented in our history. no president has refused to obey the law and defied an open order of the supreme court. we have had threats before. famously said john marshall has made his decision, no let him enforce it involving the cherokee indians but no president has openly defied the law. that would be a constitutional crisis and that is way beyond my pay grade. host: rhode island, carl, republican. caller: good morning.

i would like to talk to mr. rosen concerning these issues that the president is resisting. he knows as well as i do that they are going to be resolved in the courts. ands going to take time congressman nadler is trying to create problems, saying that it is a constitutional crisis when in fact it isn't because the courts have not decided. i believe the trumpet administration -- the trump administration did commit some crimes, obstruction, but these are going to be close calls. here is what bothers me. hillary clinton clearly had crimes concerning obstruction of justice by busting up her devices,bleaching her et cetera.

what could be more obvious? that is a slamdunk obstruction -- that is at travesty of justice and they are scared of bill barr because they are going to get to the bottom of it. host: jeffrey rosen on some of the issues he brings up. guest: a couple important points. many of these issues will be resolved in the courts and it's wrong to say we are in a constitutional crisis until we see whether the judicial system can deal with them peacefully. we do have to see what goes on in the courts. obstruction is a complicated case. there are arguments on both sides. the special counsel said that. the only thing i would add to those comments is that not all issues are resolved in the courts. there is the impeachment proceeding under the constitution. congress has the authority to hold hearings and to find any

facts it thinks might reveal high crimes and misdemeanors. that aspect of what is going on in congress will not be resolved in the courts. the courts made clear they will not weigh in on anyway -- way in any way on congress pursuing impeachment. before congress gets to impeachment, can we talk about where congress gets the contempt , the power to hold people in contempt and what the different kinds of -- different kinds of contempt are. guest: if a witness refuses to abide by a subpoena, congress can hold the witness in contempt. that is what happened in the obama administration when eric holder refused to obey the subpoena. congress held holder in contempt but then the question is what happens.

ordinarily the justice department would have to prosecute but the holder justice department refused to prosecute and therefore that contempt .itation went unenforced it was embarrassing but not enforceable. courts can impose the ordinary penalties for people who refuse -- but if the court finds --tempt was necessary host: ed is next. caller: good morning. .hank you for taking my call i would be curious as to know report was not

but why we did not get a copy of the report from washere and the part that redacted was about 2%. i would be curious why you are not talking about that. host: is your question on redactions and what cannot be rejected? caller: the mueller report is available to about anyone. host: we will take that up. redactionsctions -- are really important. there is grand jury material, presidential communications and deliberations. there is the effort to protect sources and methods of ongoing investigations. there is the need to avoid

embarrassment to third parties who may not have been charged with a crime. you can check them out to confirm. it is not a huge percentage, about to present. democrats have demanded complete copies of the unredacted reports. that is what the president has claimed executive privilege to. the courts may conclude that don'tarts do but others like grand jury materials. these are some of the technical determinations the courts will be making. thank you for reminding us that not all redactions are the same. host: our next caller is a democrat. caller: i wanted to know if the administration continues to make

abide byre they can't the investigations, is going to keep going on and on until the election, trump would have to be voted out before he faces charges, is that correct? the justice department has said and the special counsel agrees that a sitting president cannot be indicted. this administration is committed to that position, as the obama administration and the clinton administration. in order to be indicted from an elite, a president would have to be no longer president. he would have to be voted out of office. the president is liable to civil suits, as positing clinton was when he was sued by paula jones for sexual harassment. the president is also liable to that are notharges

criminal. when it comes to pardoning, he can pardon others and some thinking be able to pardon himself from federal charges but not state charges. there are some technicalities. as long as he is in office, he cannot be criminally prosecuted. afterwards, he absolutely can be. host: yesterday, the washington post lift -- listed over 20 different probes happening right now when it comes to house democrats looking into various aspects of the trump administration. where is the power to conduct oversight over the executive branch? where does it fall in the constitution? here, ihe leading case learned recently is a case called crane versus darty. it was the teapot dome scandal. the attorney general's brother

is subpoenaed by congress to see whether or not the justice department is enforcing the law or whether it is allowing and administration officials to go unpunished. vehemence ration says congress cannot issue these subpoenas about whatever you want. that is a burden and it interferes with executive function. the supreme court says absolutely not. as part of congress jakey leslie to function, from article one of the constitution, it can pass laws and part of its laws may involve passing new laws constrain the justice department if it thinks the justice department is not doing its job. it is allowed to issue subpoenas to get information. it is a really important qualification that may be relevant today. the supreme court said congress can issue subpoena for any information that might be relevant to a legislative issuee but cannot just fishing expeditions about anything it might be curious about. it interpreted legislative purpose pretty broadly, anything

on current or future laws. information that might be relevant to impeachment because that is a quite essential article one function, articulated by the constitution. there are limits to subpoena power. in the case for president trump's tax records, there are going to be questions about whether a federal law authorizing congress to get tax returns clearly covers the case or whether in this case there is no valid legislative purpose for that subpoena and whether it is just a fishing expedition. with about 20 minutes left jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center. if you want to join the conversation, democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. on that line for independents, our next caller from west virginia. caller: i have a question because i recently saw a film

where they were doing the hearing in congress and the andring in of the witnesses when they take the oath, they say do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god, they limited to god and it was called to their attention and it made some of them uncomfortable that they were not going to do that. constitution, how they swear people in or how can they change that just because it makes some of them uncomfortable? guest: that is a great question. i don't know about that case and would love to see the transcript. some oath are in the constitution. most famously, the one for swearing in a president. i can see the capital from here at c-span. standing in front of the capital, the president swears an oath that is in the constitution, recited by the chief justice.

the oath for swearing and witnesses is not in the constitution, i am pretty sure -- swearing in witnesses is not in the constitution, i am pretty sure. i imagine it would be pretty similar to swearing in witnesses in court. i just don't know whether there have been exceptions in that oath for people who are religiously or otherwise scrupulous of swearing oath's. in many oath, you have the option to swear or affirm if your religion requires it. researchave to do more on the exact text of that oath. host: a question i promised a caller from the last segment i would ask you about, this caller with a critique of the constitutional system that we have set up, when it comes to the process of firing and attorney general, specifically, the caller said he thinks the senate should have to consent

before and attorney general is fired. what do you think? guest: this is an interesting question, it was debated in the constitutional convention, both about who should appoint inferior officers and it was just the senate that appointed both judges and made treaties and then the president was put in at the last moment. once the president is given the power to appoint inferior officers with the advice and consent of the senate, the question is who gets to fire them? the question about firing officers has led to some of the biggest constitutional conflicts in american history. we all know the nixon case where he fired the special prosecutor, which he had the constitutional authority to do but it led to the saturday night massacre that triggered watergate. it was written by u.s. chief

justice william howard taft who was a great chief justice and a great defender of executive power. he essentially said the president has the power to fire any official that he appoints and that cannot be constrained by congress in any way. opinion,ocess of this taft ruled unconstitutional the federal law that led to andrew johnson's impingement -- andrew johnson's impeachment. johnson is refusing to enforce reconstruction and congress does not pat -- does not trust him, so they pass the tenure in office act saying you cannot fire any official without our consent. johnson goes ahead and fires the secretary of war anyway and congress impeach his him for violating the tenure act. the impeachment failed by a narrow vote. taft says looking back on that tenure of office act, it was unconstitutional because the president's authority to take care that the laws are faithfully executed gives him

authority both to appoint inferior officers and to fire them without any oversight by congress. that decision was slightly modified in another important case. becausenow these cases of listening to the weed the people podcast. it is -- we the people podcast. i haven't looked at these cases since law school. the casedent says -- says the president does have the power to create agencies and congress can insulate the heads of those agencies from being fired without good cause. some people think that humphrey's executor case was unconstitutional. a long but interesting way of saying that the caller's suggestion that congress should

be able to stop the president from firing the attorney general would require a constitutional amendment because the myers case says you cannot constrain the president's power to fire the attorney general that is inherent in his article two with already. host: a might be a good time to remind people about the work you do at the national constitution center and what people can find at constitutioncenter.org. guest: the leading place to go is constitutioncenter.org and click on our interactive constitution. together the top liberal and conservative scholars in america. i want you to download this tool. leading liberal and conservative scholars in america to talk about every part of the constitution, what they agree about and what they disagree about. you can see what liberals and conservatives agree and disagree about with regard to executive power. you can explore every major text of the constitution, the evolution of article 1, 2 and three.

the bill of rights and state constitutions. you can click on educational videos including the one we have done with c-span, landmark cases and new videos with justices case gig -- kagan and gorsuch. launchingure we are in september is called constitutional exchanges and it classrooms across the country so kids in philadelphia -- and it links classrooms across the country so kids in ella delta 10 talk with kids in california, moderated about a master judge or teacher. it -- it is a discussion that brings together the republican and democratic lines. these are just students from different parts of the country learning about the constitution and figuring out what it means. finally those podcasts where every week i have the honor of calling up top liberal --

liberal and conservative scholars to talk about the top issues. in constitutional, not political terms. we don't ask what the government should do but what the constitution allows it or prevents it from doing. can't have an informed opinion until i hear from both arguments and i hope listeners are learning as much as i am. it is an amazing opportunity to be a lifelong learner. host: plenty of callers waiting to talk to you. harry is in hill illinois -- is in illinois. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i would like him to answer this question that a caller called in earlier about clinton, about her emails and everything, and that she did obstruct justice. can it be reopened since comey stepped over the line and said

he would not do this or do that but it was not his job? thank you. guest: that is a good question. investigation into secretary clinton's emails be reopened? it is a technical question and as long as the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice has not expired, my understanding is that this administration could in theory reopen that investigation. similarly for the mueller report, this attorney general determined that the mueller report did not have enough evidence to bring an obstruction charge after the president left office. a future attorney general at the statute has not expired the change his or her mind and a future democratic president may decide there is there is valid evidence and they want to charge the president. i bring up both examples because there are political high-stakes of prosecuting political opponents. in america, we tend not to do

that after an election is over, not going after the loser for crimes and that is why both of these possibilities of obstruction charges or investigations after an election of either secretary clinton or president trump would be unusual. host: columbus, georgia is next. michelle. you are on with jeffrey rosen. know,: i would like to and i believe that this fool that is in the white house has committed more obstruction charges than anyone i have ever seen. he has violated every rule of law under the sun. i don't trust him. i despise him. i think if you want to know the truth, he is the president of white america.

if you want to look into up thetion, go and look that were killed in south carolina when obama was president. people came and we kicked their butts. i hate this man. is one thing i heard you say, a very passionate statement about the importance of voting. the importance of african-americans and all people voting. had --ar we professor gates has done a great segment on reconstruction, check out my conversation with him

because he gave the most inspiring account about how all -- the 14th which extended equal protection to all persons and citizens in the 15th amendment which gave african-american men the right to vote, the most important was the right to vote and professor gates said frederick douglass believe that and you can get -- and said that you can guarantee all the civil rights you want, but unless people can vote on it, democracy has faltered. the right to vote was undermined by the jim crow laws and terroristic efforts to four it. -- to thwart it. host: hamilton, virginia, brian, independent. caller: good morning. i find this conversation fascinating. mr. rosen is a treasure. question, i have two

questions. ift does mr. rosen think mueller in his report had found direct evidence that the president of the united states had obstructed justice. what would have happened? only congress can impeach him or charge him. mueller cannot. the justice department cannot. does he think any of these court cases that are erupting out of this now will be fast tracked so that it does not drag on for years and years? thank you. guest: thank you for the good words and the questions. you are right. said i ameller had convinced without reasonable doubt that the president can meet -- committed obstructed, because mueller believes himself bound by the justice department, they cannot indict him and the only option available would be impeachment proceedings. that is why the house democrats

now are saying we have an independent obligation to decide for ourselves whether or not the evidence of obstruction which they claim was strong if not strong enough for mueller to make a finding, because he believed he could not ross acute , requires them to make an independent judgment. , requiresot prosecute them to make an independent judgment. democrats are going to want to ask mueller do you believe there is overwhelmingly strong evidence of obstruction but you did not feel authorized because you think only we, congress can act? whether or not he answers that question or how he answers it will be fascinating. will some cases be fast-track? they could -- fast tracked? they could. clinton and jones were fast tracked.

nixon was fast tracked as well. the usb nixon case. ixon case.. v. n i don't know which of these cases would be fast tracked. the subpoena about the president's tax returns could be fast-track to the supreme court. -- fast tracked to the supreme court. we have a duty to decide this or we want to stay out of this, generally we want congress and the president to resolve their disputes on their own and make a good-faith effort to do so. we will give them time to do that and we will not rush. host: out of michigan, this is tim, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, go ahead.

caller: before i get to you, i want to compliment you because you look like you could be the younger brother of one of my personal heroes, ralph nader. [laughter] guest: i will take that as a compliment. caller: i love ralph nader. guest: he's is a great looking guy. [laughter] thank you, i have a very simple constitutional question. i don't know the constitution. john, you just had this guy carl about 20 minutes ago. he goes by the name jack, jim, mitch, john and carl. i've got it documented, how many times he has broken the 30 day rule. the guy calls in five times a month. callers margaret in

texas, and 91-year-old lovely woman. you've got david in new jersey, a lovely man in his 90's. getou going to let this guy away with violating, please let these wonderful older folks waive the 30 day rule. how much youeciate know our callers. we try our best to keep people to that 30 day rule. we usually have a system on the phone lines next to me that you can't call into me from the same number more than once every 30 days. out anyr best to ferret people who violate that rule. the system works best when people just abide by it and are able to listen to as many people as possible. thanks for pointing it out. what isn your question for mr. rose -- what is your question for mr. rosen? caller: thank you for putting on

-- putting up with my little tirade. i have not read the entire constitution but the one thing i do know is the words welfare and preamble andin the i don't ever see the word capitalism. i don't see abortion anywhere in the constitution and i am tired of these republicans hiding behind a document that i haven't read but i know darn well they .ave not read it either guest: that is a really important observation. first you call our attention to withreamble which begins the words we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union.

that is the most important idea in the whole document. we the people have the sovereign power, not a king, not the president, not even the individual states. then you call our attention to the importance of text and say if a particular right or value or power is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, that we should not invoke it, like capitalism or abortion. it is a very contested question because on the others, pro-life people say because the word privacy does not appear in the constitution, than there is no right to reproductive choice. in order to decide how you want to resolve this, you need a methodology for how you want to interpret the constitution. do you want to beer -- do you originalist who only wants to look at the text in the context of its original understanding? do you want to be a pragmatist to balance his practical values like the great justice breyer?

do you want to be a living constitutionalist, but there are different varieties of that as well. liu think there are certain natural rights rather than government as justice kennedy did -- do you think there are certain natural rights rather than government as justice kennedy did? there is so much to learn every day. to educatetant yourself. choose a constitutional methodology. separate your political from your constitutional views and be moved to interpret the constitution that is -- anyway way that is consistent with your view on how we the people should be interpreted, rather than being guided by partisan politics. thank you for inspiring us all. host: fredericksburg, virginia, luis -- louise, republican.

caller: given the mueller report, didn't it specifically say they were basing their decision on the president not being able to be impeached? two, and i have read it, we've got this idea from the news media that attorney general barr cannot prosecute a democrat. if you're a democrat, you cannot be prosecuted on anything. how that curious stands up to the constitution. host: what do you mean the idea that if you are a democrat you cannot become -- you cannot be prosecuted? caller: that is what they are implying whenever he said he is going to look into the opposition. how does this whole situation come about? they areas if intending, very curious about the 14 cases that are still allowed. one of them happens to be the

chief white house counsel under obama. it seems to me like they are either trying to say that you can't prosecute anyone that is a i have heard this, and it's implied if not specifically stated. host: we got your point. guest: those are good points. thank you for reading the mueller report. it is important to read the primary sources. the special counsel did base his refusal to make a finding on obstruction on his acceptance of the justice department policy that the president cannot be indicted while in office, he can definitely be impeached but because he cannot be indicted, the special counsel said i will not risk tainting him with a criminal recommendation that cannot be executed while he is in office. democrat say the application was therefore congress has an obligation to exercise its oversight power about whether or not he should be impeached. i think what you're getting at

is there has been a norm that both parties have accepted that you don't go after the last administration criminally. the attorney general does not that thevestigations previous administration did not open because we might become an iron republic. it is not required by the constitution. the attorney general could prosecute democrats certainly. he has the power to do so if he thinks the law justifies it but it has been a norm that has not been breached so far. whether it will be continued is open for question. host: mike in florida, lying for linerats -- lying -- for democrats. caller: the secretary of the treasury, the irs commissioner and the irs general counsel are

all trump appointees. committee haseans asked to see the tax returns. it looks like they are not going to go along with that request from the ways and means committee, so how can we enforce that? how are we going to prevent the house of representatives from being ignored again? guest: a great question. a really important case heading for the court and out of all the subpoenas, that is the one that has clear legal authority. on the one hand there is this law that says congress can request anyone's tax returns. unambiguous, it does not contain exceptions and you can say it covers the case. theye other hand, there is refusal to provide them by appointees who are accountable to the president. the case the court made to begin

with, when he gets to court is the case from 1927i mentioned earlier where the courts would ask is the congressional subpoena for the tax returns justified by a legitimate legislative purpose? might congress passed laws relating to taxes or even oreach him over the taxes, is this just a fishing expedition directed against a particular individual with no legislative purpose and therefore the subpoena is too broad? the court might come up with some other ones but we have a situation where political appointees are refusing to obey congress. host: last call in maryland, go ahead. caller: thank you for accepting my call. do you know anything about dictatorships in the constitution?

constitutiond the back in 1958, and this constitution would take you three days to read and you have to sign for it. constitution,hat mitch mcconnell committed his nuclearnvoking vote because you cannot separate and equal branch from the government out of the process and it comes to tax dollars that is a felony charge and he should be charged. do you know that constitution? tost: it is an honor to talk someone who read the constitution in 1958. thank you for reading it then. absolutely the constitution is centrally concerned with dictatorships. that is the overwhelming concern the framers were intending to prevent. the president is not meant to be the king. the legislative branch is not meant to be a to radical branch.

is supposed to be the least dangerous branch. they are not supposed to rule us either. the system is designed to ensure that power is dispersed among the branches and separated vertically among the states and vertical -- and federal government so that we the people are the sovereign power. that is why these discussions are so important and why these clashes between the president arecongress and the courts an example of the constitution working, of a healthy vibrant democracy, avoiding concentrated power by having the branches actively asserting their oversight powers and competing with each other so that liberty and sovereignty can survive. host: the national constitution center located in philadelphia, pennsylvania. constitutioncenter.org. jeffrey rosen is its president and ceo. we appreciate your time.

about 20 minutes left in our program. we will have this question for our final segment. what should be the top priority of federal government? we will take you through some of the polling on that but we want to hear from you. you can start calling you now and we will be right back -- calling in now and we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on the communicators. >> it is amazing, the pushback. our closest ally is the u.k. but germany, other countries in europe and around the world are basically saying you have not given us evidence of cybersecurity wrongdoing by hua wei. >> concerns about u.s. efforts to convince other nations to not use huawei's equipment over fears it will be used to spy on americans. he is joined by the wall street journal telecom reporter.

>> it has been able to be an advocate for safer american cyberspace. i am not a defender of huawei. we need the best technology to be able to compete and it's important we address the risk. i have never been told what to say or what i cannot say. when you look at the bigger speake, huawei, we do not for the china government and they don't speak for us. >> what's the communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. the c-span bus is stopping at middle and high schools across the country to meet and award winners of our c-span video studentcam competition. we met with first prize high from williaminners j palmer high school. >> it did not take long in our research to find all of the disparities in voting rights,

especially for native americans living on reservations. that was shocking to me concerning that we have been coexisting for a long time and they still struggle with voting rights and gerrymandering seems like such an outdated thing but it still exists and is still a problem. those are things we wanted to focus on. >> to watch all the winning entries from the studentcam competition, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: 20 minutes this morning, we will take you to the bipartisan policy center for a discussion on the opioid epidemic. until then, our question for you, which be the top priority of the federal government? it's a question that gets asked often. here is a recent polling from nbc news and the wall street journal. 24% of respondents saying health care should be the top priority of the federal government. immigration and border security,

18%. 14%, jobs and economic growth. 11%, going with national security and terrorism. climate change, deficit spending, 5% say guns. trade at 2%. some of the responses from the wall street journal, this question gets asked a couple different ways in different polling organizations. the gallup organization for years has been having its tracking poll asking which is the most important problem facing the united states. in their poll, government and poor leadership came in as the most important problem. 23% saying that government and porter -- and poor leadership is the most important problem. economic issues has been a problem that has been trending down in recent years. you can see this chart from that gallup tracking poll on economic

issues as the nation's most important problem. 86% of americans into thousand nine said that was america's most important problem. today it is just around 13%. we will show you some other polls as we go through this last segment but we want to hear from you. what do you think should be the top or you're ready? aaron is up first in washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: i think that unity should be the top priority for the federal government. guest said on the last segment, we have a way to deal with conflict and i think the government should focus more on unity. we have a lot of ways people can be brought together. i don't think we act on this very much. host: what array couple of those ways, that you think the federal government could lead the way on? caller: there are a lot of specific issues that everyone can agree on.

the health and well-being of our veterans is one. the problem of homelessness is another. that is what i would say. caller: host: dean -- host: dean is next, from open -- from oklahoma, independent. caller: i think the federal deficit will cause us the most problems in the coming years. having a $1 trillion deficit every year but does not seem to be reined in is going to cause us problems in the next few years. host: the u.s. debt clock trillion and$22 counting. the real-time tracking of the u.s. debt and deficit. next from north carolina, republican. what is the most important problem? with us this morning? caller: this is terry.

host: go ahead sir. comment is all of this going on with the trade deals. if we would have stayed where we at, it -- where we was is a ghost town here. all the mills have been torn down. we have no textiles. could quit oneou job one day and before the end of the day you would have another job either in textile, furniture, on and on. the basic thing i want to say is, if we were to stay where we was at, the self-preservation and build our own textiles and furniture, taking care of ourselves instead of letting all of our trade go

overseas to all these different countries, we would not be in the shape. host: when did we get away from that? caller: i think we got away from when the nafta deal started and we started pulling all of our textile plants and furniture and now they are ghost towns. we need to start redoing for ourselves and our country again instead of letting these other countries do it. host: janet is next, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the top priority should be health care. here is how they can pay for it. they should use the medicare

model, the fee schedule. the fee schedule -- hello? host: yes. caller: the fee schedule should be adopted by all the insurance companies so everybody is on the same playing field. they can choose their insurance companies. , you don'td medicare have babies because you are older but they can tweak it like that. what people are not aware of and everyone thinks the doctors are getting rich and maybe they are, , an articleitals wealth of thecene hospitals and be careful going to the hospital because they are looking to do surgery whether i am notit or not and going by one person i know, i am

going by 13 people i know. host: how are you impacted by the affordable care act? older and ie i am am on medicare, i am not impacted and since i have my supplemental insurance which i hope everybody has supplemental my employer,om medicare is not what it used to be. i don't expect that it can be because -- that is how i'm going to tell you how to get the rest of the payment. somebody on your program this morning said congresspeople should cough up their taxes. yes they should and if you en, he is a congressman. he says that these politicians and i am talking both sides, they softball bills so they each

can pay off their supporters, their lobbyists who pay for their campaigns. that is why you need term limits. you know who is getting rich in this country and why they are cutting back on medicare? my kids are not getting education? who is getting rich? it is the politicians so wake up. host: this is arthur in michigan, democrat. caller: good morning. the greatest priority of the government should be health care. suggest the listeners actually think of what happens -- hello? host: i am listening. caller: i suggest the listeners think of what happens in their own homes when their health is in peril. everything else kind of pales in

comparison. i believe the health care issue in this country is because of the government we pay paysealth care, the nih for the development of medicine and drugs and then the same companies that receive the money from the government to develop the drugs charge us in the u.s. much more than any other country. all of these large conglomerates hmos, these are huge bureaucracies that should be gotten rid of because there was a whole lot of money going in just to keep it afloat. health care should be the priority. host: a few tweets saying we have had this conversation. sammy says automation is taking away jobs and both parties

ignore this problem because there are no good solutions. david is out of maryland, independent. what should be the top priority? caller: somebody could correct me if i am wrong but i think it is written in the constitution that there are two principal functions of government in the united states. the first is the defaced -- the defense of the nation and the second is the general welfare of the public. of broad and kind vague. i suggest in 2019 have a thatard of living so far we stop crying like little babies and get on with our lives. for the first, the big problem is that we don't know the ,ifference in our own country

we don't know the difference between an enemy domestic and a patriot anymore. sadly, the democrat party cannot even see itself as the enemy it is. that is pretty high criticism but that is my opinion and we are all entitled to my opinion. i would like to add that the greatest problem we face is that we simply have forgotten what the differences between right and wrong. we need to read our bibles began. -- again. host: asking what your top priority for the federal government is. a pew research poll came out last month. making the you are budget decisions, would you increase or decrease spending on various issues? when it comes to education, 72%

of respondents say they would increase spending on education. 72% also said they would increase spending on veterans benefits, 622% saying rebuilding highways and bridges would be a place they would increase. 55% on medicare and environmental protection. 55% saying they would increase spending. when it came to the largest numbers of respondents who would decrease spending, 28% said they ford decrease spending assistance to those needy in the world. 23% said they would decrease spending for assistance to the unemployed. at can see the research people-press.org. stephen in california, a democrat. what do you think should be the top or you're of the federal government? caller: i think the top oil ready is to protect the unborn

children because they are murdering babies before they're even born. take the bones of these potential leaders, what if they had aborted thomas jefferson or george washington or albert einstein or thomas edison? we are having a decrease in population. we are killing babies before they're even born. what about their human right to exist? what kind of people allow that to happen? host: chris is next out of texas, republican. caller: good morning. me, the government is the problem. care, wet run health are trying to get rid of it, it has ruined the middle class in this country. it has caused all the problems because of this government takeover of our melt -- of our health care which has decimated the middle-class of the country. everything,sum up

what i am fighting for is the countrytion and the against the socialists. a conservative constitutionalist republican against the socialist parties trying to take us into communism. we are fighting for our country. i thought i would let you know. thaty is saying that but is what's in everybody's heart. host: how are you fighting for our country? are you involved in any of these issues? caller: you bet. i don't want to be a socialist. vote republican. i've got that on my bumper sticker. home. my free life and my doing what i want to do. you can go out there and make your own way. it's not about government handouts to people.

they did not have that back in the 20's. if you didn't work, you didn't eat. medicare for all means medicare for none. indiana,ard is next in independent. caller: good morning. the wall. we need that wall. we have a crisis down there. we need to get this problem solved and quick. host: and how do we get there? caller: we just need to build it. we build these sound barriers for these interstates. poid drugs stop the o and cartels and get control of our border. host: in about five minutes, we will be heading to a discussion about the role litigation is

playing in response to the opioid epidemic, taking place at the bipartisan policy center this morning. there is a live shot of the room where that discussion will take place at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will hear from jesse in pennsylvania, democrat. what is the top priority for the federal government? caller: social security. i cashed in my investments. i was getting $900 a month from social security. because i cashed in my investments, i now get $600 a month. my medicare went up and i have to -- i can't live on that kind of money. if i cashed in my house, my social security is defective. if i cash in my investments, i get less. if i cash and $5,000 or more on the lottery, my social security

is defective. if i sell my farm, my social security is affected. bonds,cash in your annuity, and you are 65 or older , and you are getting social security, your medicare is increased and your social security is lowered. in 2020o do you think is someone you would trust with your social security? i don't know who voted in this law that when i am getting $900 a month, it should stay $900 a month whether i sell my house or cash in my bonds or win the lottery or whatever. what they do is they cut my social security, increase my medicare. month and ig $600 a

paid medicare over $3000 for the whole year. host: thank you for taking us through what is happening with you. kate is in michigan, democrat. caller: good morning. priority of the federal government needs to be finding out what is going on with the children who were separated from their parents at the border. -- heard as high as 47,000 children but it is at least thousands of children have been taken from their parents. we don't know where they are. we don't know what kind of trauma they are experiencing. we don't know anything about them. i think lots of times we don't even know their names. where are their parents? this is what i would like to call attention to as a national emergency and definitely a priority. host: this is steve in illinois,

republican. good morning. steve are you with us? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: my name is steve and i live in south carolina and i am very proud of living here. i believe the problem with the government is the government itself. it is too big. ande should be term limits what is going on is once people get to washington, they forget where they came from, what their grassroots are. they live in the white house and and they haves their own special features of medicine and insurance. host: when you say the federal government is too big, what parts would you do away with?

what departments, what agencies don't we need? all, theirst of democrats and the republicans are in power to long. years, 50 years. according to the way the , they werewas set up supposed to be there for a , and then gors back to farming or drilling before. next in wests virginia. good morning. caller: i heard the caller from indiana, talking about the need to build a wall. it would be nice and refreshing if my fellow americans would take some time to inform

wall,lves, and building a there is 90% the estimate of the illegals coming through legal means, like a tourist visa, and they come here legally and overstay their visas. a wall will not solve that. and then a gentleman commented on opioids. prescribed bying american doctoral is -- american doctors. the vast majority of opioids are not coming through mexico. they are being manufactured by our companies in america. people need to inform themselves a little more instead of listening to this rhetoric from this president, who has done

nothing but divided our country. that is what he has done. host: by informing the public of the opioid epidemic, we are going to take our viewers on the ofartisan center on the role the government on this opioid epidemic. we will see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we are waiting for the conversation about litigation in response the opioid epidemic. are miket on the panel hunter, discussing the problem with litigation and opioids. he will talk about opioid addiction. this iscoverage -- brought to by the bipartisan policy center, live coverage on c-span.

-- this is brought to you by the bipartisan policy center, live coverage on c-span. [crowd noise]

>> still a couple of minutes of theout the response opioid epidemic. this should start shortly. in the meantime, some other programming coming up. former vice president joe biden will be making a campaign stop in new hampshire at a local

pizza place. coverage of road to the white house begins this afternoon. and a look at congressional oversight of the nuclear power industry, hosted by the study institute at 2:00 p.m. eastern.