are sold. on the c-spanay networks, president trump speaks at the air force academy commencement in colorado springs at 12:30 p.m. on c-span. and then a discussion on russia's growing role in the middle east at 4:30, the house performs a pro forma session were democrats may try for a third time to pass a disaster relief bill, and then standards and oversight for artificial intelligence and then a form on athletes and activism, and on c-span3 at noon, a look at state budget priorities and tax revenue. at: 30 p.m., the acting deputy of defense talks about the current budget request. on washington journal, your reaction to special counsel robert mueller's statement on the russia

investigation. at 9:00 a.m., afghanistan general on his latest report on u.s. reconstruction efforts effn afghanistan. [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] [video clip] >> if we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. ♪ host: that was special counsel robert mueller, part of his former closing of his two year probe into russia involvement in -- 2016 election . highlighting concerns about rush up influence -- russia? influence -- concerns about 2016.'s influence in your comments on mr. mueller's presentation and what congress should do now. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet us at @cspanwj and you can also go to our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. minute presentation yesterday, you can see the whole thing at c-span.org. as part of his events, it was special counsel robert mueller talking about why he filed no formal charges against president trump. [video clip] >> the order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. we conducted that investigation the office ofkept the acting attorney general apprised of the office of our work. that had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have

said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. the introduction to volume 2 .xplains that decision it explains under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that is prohibited. the special counsel's office is part of the department of justice and by regulation, it is bound by that department policy. charting the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. host: just one of several things he discussed yesterday. after it was done, president trump got a tweet on his -- sending out a tweet saying

another -- nothing changes on the mueller report. more follow-up from the white house coming from press secretary sander -- sarah sanders. [video clip] >> there was no real news, he ritter rate -- reiterated points he already made. we agree with him, there was no collusion or conspiracy. he completed his investigation and now he closed his office and it is time for everyone to go on. the president and you both said it is case closed, but robert mueller was clear that if he was confident no crime was committed, he would have -- would say so. >> to put that into his report, he did not -- the whole purpose he had in investigation, the purpose of the -- the special counsel existed was to make a

determination whether there was collusion. he came to a very explicit conclusion on that front that there was no collusion and no conspiracy. he could not make a determination on whether or not there was obstruction. it is up to the attorney general. the attorney general, based off the exhaustive information, laid out in the report that there was no obstruction. he worked with the deputy attorney general to make that determination. to the attorney general made that decision without the olc opinion factored in, he was very clear about that. host: you heard mr. mueller's comments yesterday in the report, specifically volume 2 page 182. if we had confidence after a thorough investigation that the president did not clearly commit obstruction of justice would so state. we are unable to reach that judgment.

that prevent us from determining no criminal conduct occurred. up until 9:00 we will take your comments about the events of yesterday. you can call us at 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to tweet, you can do so at @cspanwj and post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. daniel up first in washington, d.c., independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. to thing i know we need learn from this experience with robert mueller's investigation is that we need to reform the presidency itself. the office has become way too powerful. donald trump should have been impeached for separating those children and traumatizing them

at the border. host: back to the topic at hand, why did you conclude those things from what mark -- what robert mueller said yesterday? caller: apparently he investigated 10 instances of obstruction and documented them. i think that is enough. it donald trump's environmental atrocities are enough. host: did that draw you to reach those conclusions as well? caller: the special counsel and the democrats should be challenging the justice department's so-called ruling. it is not in the constitution. we have a presidency out of control. a sick man in office. very sick. host: from new york, democrats line. caller: good morning to you. job and he did his

finally said he is not sure that he is innocent, not sure if he is guilty. the bottom line is the president is not guilty, case closed. politics.as become you can go through the house and senate through the process, but this is not going to change anything. nown't know why we are still talking about the same thing we talked about after the election. it is a political process, which is beyond anybody's control. host: when you heard robert mueller, we referenced the euler report, that last line even saying from the conclusions that the report does not conclude the president committed a crime and also does not exonerate him. -- thosee those cases conclusions, how can you say the case is closed? caller: if he is guilty, he

should have found something. it is difficult for a person to be involved in these things. -- what i am saying is for ordinary people, what we are seeing in this country has to move on. we cannot continue playing this political game, it is beyond anybody's control. i am not supporting impeachment or the political process at all. host: teresa in dandridge, tennessee, you are next. caller: what i don't understand is they keep saying it is up to congress to act now. why was mueller hired to begin with? why did we go through two years of the media democrats saying wait for mueller's report, wait for his report, his investigation.

they led everyone to believe that his investigation was going to be a conclusion of crime, they said. it took two years and $38 million for this man to come out and say i could not find one way or another. can star made his conclusions that bill clinton committed crimes in his report. why couldn't he? everybody lied about what mueller was going to do. infuriatede yesterday was when mueller just said you all gave me $38 million, don't ask me to testify, i am too good to testify. i am walking away to private life and i am too busy to testify. host: do you think he should testify, then? caller: absolutely. democrats and republicans.

democrats do not want robert mueller to testify. they don't want him under oath but for republicans being questioned about this case the proof is everybody has been given a subpoena but robert mueller. bill barr, hope picks. ask yourself this question, why haven't they subpoenaed robert mueller? host: that is teresa in tennessee. she talks about democrats and how they may react in all of this. it was the head of the senate judiciary committee, lindsey graham saying this, without an collusion offense or and the overwhelming cooperation of the trump white house with the mueller investigation, the attorney general's decision is sound. it will be the final word in my view. other committees could call up robert mueller if they wish, but that is the one aspect from the

senate judiciary committee head. nancy pelosi in california yesterday speaking at an event, but also speaking about the conclusions and the statement from robert mueller and what it means for congress. [video clip] >> i completely disagree with the fact that it is in the constitution that the president cannot be indicted. the inference to be drawn by what he said is he was an employee of the justice department and the justice department policy is the president cannot be indicted. the inference to be drawn from that is if you believe that is in the constitution, which i do not, but if you believe that, then you believe the alternative is to impeach. you don't bring an indictment or you do not bring an impeachment unless you have all of the facts, the strongest possible case so that the president is

held accountable one way or public in the court of opinion or the court of law or the congress of the united states. host: we will hear next from mark in baltimore, maryland. independent line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. aside from the "russian collusion" and no collusion and now the claims obstruction calls have been clay -- made, it is time to move on. the american people are really not concerned about it when you get on the ground level and i just think it is a political game being played and trying to buy time so democrats can come up with a plan to get things back to the agenda they are trying to push before trump came in and won the election. i think there are more pertinent

issues, such as the voter frauds in some states and california, people double voting. host: aside from those issues, what leads you to conclude the american people are not interested in this particular instance? caller: i don't no one single person, college-educated, i have a pretty wide sphere of people medicine into construction to law, i don't no one person who agrees with the fact that congress takes up most of its time trying to focus efforts on building a charge against the president, to get him out of the office when there are a lot of issues that could be focused on and taken care of. host: that is mark in maryland. democrats line is next, new york. this is henry, good morning.

caller: good morning. if i remember correctly, the house of representatives indicts -- takes evidence that has been gathered, which i think was directive -- director mueller's -- gathered evidence in the form of his report for congress and filters it through the committee and then eventually it will go, hopefully, to the senate floor, vote on contention or acquittal. that is the process. it is a lengthy process. politics is quick, the legal side is long. regardless of ones opinion because a lot of people voted for this man who do not want to be disenfranchised. regardless of my opinions or thoughts on the matter, it is not right to just protest

someone by rushing through this. it is a deliberate process and it will take time and people will be able to awaken fully to what the director said which is, if it was a civilian case, he would have indicted him already. host: in the context of his role as special counsel, should he have made a conclusion one way or the other? isler: now, the conclusion up for congress and the american public. throughthe decisions the ballot box and contacting our representatives. host: it is the attorney general's report, not congress' report. caller: he is acting, isn't he. he needs a little more practice. host: actually, bill barr is the attorney general. tom on republican line, hi. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: the last guy is wrong.

mueller should have said one way or the other. basically they were investigating a crime. there was no collusion. in my opinion, democrats -- not just democrats, they would all do this. they are trying to fabricate a crime, work around some thing that was there. i just think they are pushing the limit. host: did you see mr. mueller's presentation as a call to congress to do something on this matter? caller: yes and he is basically saying the same thing as the report said. he does not want to go any further in and there is a problem with that because the thing is even if they had said presidentad said the is guilty, but we cannot do it, that is one thing. he is not saying either way and that makes it difficult. host: this is renee off our

facebook. an investigation wasted on a report americans refuse to accept. one viewer saying the mueller report is the starting point. he clearly believes trump committed a crime. impeach proceedings must begin. clear congress has worked to do to exonerate the president. post highlights this opinion from the office of legal counsel and gives a little bit of the back story and when theaying department first consider the question of a possible criminal indictment of a president in 1970 three as prosecutors were weighing nixon's role and whether the vice president

accepted bribes at the white house. of the council issued an opinion declaring while the vice president could be indicted, the president did not. tofound prosecutors needed seek to balance the demands of specialal system with a " responsibilities" of the presidency and concluded criminal proceedings against the president should not be allowed to proceed to the point where they would "amount to incapacitation of the office and that the mere indictment of a sitting president would damage the office's reputation in a way that boggles the imagination." more about that in the washington post this morning. john in georgia, independent line. caller: back in the 1970's when beingnds of war were generated by the democrats , gerald ford, who

was in the house, was asked the question of what constitutes impeachment. his reply was whatever a majority of the members of congress at the time deem it to .e that is where we are today. host: meaning what? caller: history host: does repeat itself. host:what should be? done in light of history? left toit should be congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and if the majority of the bebers deem impeachment to the appropriate process to begin the removal of the president, they should do the articles of impeachment. under the present circumstances, say no because it has

not moved to that area yet. the democrats would do themselves great damage, i think, at this time if they proceeded to formerly -- articlesbegin to draft of impeachment against the president for what we have heard so far. host: that is john in georgia giving his thoughts. a section of the mueller report. we will read you sections throughout the morning. robert mueller concluding the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful. largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or tod to his request -- cede his request. a line for democrats, hi. caller: thanks for c-span. it is obvious as we go on -- i

am on the democratic line and i am a democrat, but i am an american first. is obvious the facts will come out in time and it is things this man has done that an ethical man, a moral man would not do if he put country before himself. the reason mueller could not equallya conclusion is stated he could not come to a conclusion. he had to get that from the top, somebody told him he could come to a conclusion and he clearly stated he did not charge the president and he did not exonerate the president. you see this president, which i have no bias on, i wish him to do the best job for all the people, but he is doing things we have never seen before. he is acting a way any normal person acting -- they would all

be in jail. they don't want to come forward because they do not want to show what is going on. thoseif he made conclusions in the report, which he cited yesterday was the final word for him, what do you think the point of yesterday was? caller: it is to clarify that barr -- what barr said was not correct. he wanted to correct his own word to give it to all of us and i guess the next step should be congress going forward with impeachment. i was raised democrat. i am not really democrat, i am american. i have grandchildren and children, they are my concern. we have to move forward with impeachment. if they convict him or not in the senate, it is the right thing to do for the record, to educate the people behind us. host: that is william in

chattanooga, tennessee. this is the miami herald this morning, the headline showing mueller speaks and declines to absolving trump. the dallas morning news using the headline no exoneration. the kansas city star, mueller refuses to clear trump of obstruction. the guardian, mueller breaks two-year silence to say i have not exonerated trump. this is some of the papers and how it plays out when it comes to this event yesterday. that event is available to you at c-span.org. you heard the previous caller bring up the attorney general, william barr. you heard mr. mueller talk about those references to the office of legal counsel. let's play you a bit from when the attorney general, before he released to the report to congress, talked about his discussions with robert mueller, his conclusions. this is back from april. [video clip] >> we don't have the report in

hand, could you explain the reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's --g-standing advice on not what did you disagree with him on? i would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction of fence. i will say when we met with him, deputy attorney general rosenstein met with him along with ed o'callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy on march 5, we specifically asked him about the olc opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the

existence of the olc opinion and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. he was not saying but for the olc opinion he would have found a crime. he made it clear he had not made a determination that there was a crime. host: the president on his twitter feed commenting about the events of yesterday adding the grandest presidential harassment in history after spending $40 million over two dark years, resources and cooperation highly conflicted. robert mueller would have brought charges if he had anything. there were no charges to bring. this is from bedford, virginia. we will hear from joseph, republican line. caller: good morning. not only is it over, but it never should have happened in the first place.

all the corruption and hatred and division is coming from the left.d they cannot stand that we finally have a president that cares about america's people and america's problems. they want to drag them down anyway they can. you look at the -- weapons used against our law enforcement, our citizens. back to the topic at hand. what was it about the special counsel's presentation yesterday that drew the most interest for you? caller: i believe if there was any problems with russia, it was the democrats doing it, not the republicans and they wasted all this time and money for nothing when they should be investigating actual corruption

or working for the people in our country. they do everything to bring down the best president we ever had when all the corruption is on the democrat side. host: lionel is next in baltimore, maryland. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. what i want to talk about is this thing between conspiracy, collusion, and whatever these people are talking about now. bob mueller has set during -- said during his investigation into conspiracy, somewhere along the line the president and his people was kind of interfering with that, right? he said he could not come to no collusion. -- trying to block him from finding out information about conspiracy.

if you understand what i am the president-- looks very wrong. i am not saying that because i don't like him. i don't even really know the man. the only thing i can remember is in the 1970's or the 1980's he had to go in front of the house or senate committee on organized crime. host: back to the report yesterday when you hear the report -- the president talking about the access he gave robert mueller and investigators, what makes you think there is still something to hide? caller: you can give me all the i want, but if i tell those people not to say anything. likeey are loyal to him cohn said he was, right?

it is a little tricky. it is more than just the russians involved. there is a lot of other people. if we don't get this part means forthen that some reason if somebody gets locked up by the fbi, he can lie to them. host: let's hear from jerome in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: my opinion is mueller put up all the information for donald trump to be impeached. we are not going to impeach him, but that would not be a problem. host: when you say mueller put up all the information, clarify that. what are you pointing to? caller: he pointed out there are grounds for collusion. host: when you also say he won't

be impeached, what leads you to that conclusion? isler: what leads me to that because he would not be impeached by the senate. host: that is jerome calling from pennsylvania this morning. it was that presentation by robert mueller that is going to be the focus of our topics hearing from you for the next hour and a half. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independence, 202-748-8002. -- and independents, 202-748-8002. some of the editorials on this process playing out across the nation. .com.is from wral i believe it is in north carolina. while robert mueller could investigate the actions of sitting president, he could not charge a sitting president with

wrongdoing. where his office may have been prohibited with charging the president with a crime, the process requires the criminal justice system of former -- formally accusing the president. he left it to the republic to read the report. it is up to congress to determine the necessary efforts to thwart foreign interference in our elections. congress must consider what action, if any, should be taken in regards of allegations regarding obstruction of justice. ,ou go to the boston herald their editorial, mueller has spoken, the case is closed. with the exception of a few diluted members of the # resistance, the american people have little stomach for endless investigations. congress has far more important matters to work on then continuing this charade.

immigration, infrastructure, trade, and more. some democrats will never be satisfied and will persist into words. --into mueller's north carolina, independent line. caller: hi. am i on the line? host: you are. caller: i am disgusted with the mueller report. i think he got up there and dirtied up the water and that he should have taken and addressed court and the other charges brought against the president. he did not investigate any of that. to take and wanted make it clear that he was not going to take and go away

without leaving the democrats with something they could charge. and why did he take and have nothing but democrats on his committee? republican.t one there was not one independent. it was a slamdunk from the beginning that he was out to get the president. jaren in's hear from jackson, missouri. caller: good morning, sir. i wanted to lead with a little quote mr. mueller said. he said if we had confidence trump had not committed a crime, we would have said so. everyone keeps saying they come a they come of a meaning the democrats like the democrats committed this. the department of justice was

investigating for two years. they came up with a 400 page report. most americans have not even read the first page and they need to read the mueller report. all americans need to wake up. all americans need to wake up. host: i am assuming you read the mueller report? caller: i go to the library and day,o read 20 pages a something like that. i don't have internet. host: did you see anything from the report that you have read so far to what mr. mueller said yesterday? did you see anything different as far as those two versions? caller: no, it is all pointing that there were crimes committed, but he was not put there -- he was not told to arrest or convict, he was told

to investigate and that is all they were told to do and they investigated. and people try to say the democrats did it. we did not do it. democrats did not do it. host: are you satisfied with all arehave seen and read -- you satisfied with the conclusions mr. mueller's reached? caller: i am satisfied with the conclusions, but something needs to be done. it was proven that russians interfered with the 2016 election. we need to protect the 20 elections, no matter who is running and when. we need to protect it. host: let's hear from john in covington, georgia. you are next up. goes back to how roots.l got started, the

mueller making his decisions -- it was a waste of taxpayer money. it was a sham investigation from the beginning. host: why is that? caller: why is that? host: why was it a sham from the beginning? caller: because many individuals just tried to come up with this fluke, but it was just wasting taxpayer time. they should be dealing with the problems that really exist on the board. that is john in georgia. if you go to the hill website, they have a piece about 5 lingering questions after bob mueller's report. one of the things they ask is what will william barr do next? barr is likely to come under additional fire from democrats,

some of whom took mueller's comments as proof the attorney general inaccurately portrayed the findings. acknowledging that the attorney general preferred to release the report of "while we appreciate the attorney general made the report largely public, we do not question the good faith in that decision." reminding folks barr faced widespread criticism over his handling of that report. democrats center their criticism of barr, claiming the attorney general had no right to decide not to charge trump with obstruction of justice. william barr already moved to investigate the origins of the russia probe. he said he had concerns about how investigators began efforts, saying they thought there was "spying" on the trump campaign. that all available at the hill.

milwaukee, wisconsin, independent line. you are next up. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. putting all the noise aside, both sides should take heed in what bob mueller had to say in closing yesterday. there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. that allegation deserves the attention of every american, republican or democrat, russians tried to interfere. people who called and said nobody forced me to vote for donald trump, that is correct, but the russians influenced and only had to influence 100,000 people in 4 states for donald trump to win. for me to see whether the president is guilty or not or should be impeached, i don't know until the president's tax returns are released. there are efforts behind the scenes with deutsche bank -- the

house subpoenaing donald trump's records from deutsche bank. a law was passed in york state to release state tax returns from the irs. when these come out, then we will know, but democrats call about fast and furious, hillary clinton's emails, why don't we go back to iran-contra, oliver north -- you cannot go back that far, this is the sitting president. hush money to porn stars is high crimes and misdemeanors. host: that press conference yesterday -- not even press conference, statement from robert mueller took place shortly after 11:00. the new york times highlights what happened after that when it comes to the special counsel announcing he was stepping down. mr. mueller often stood apart from his own investigation.

during the day, he could be found alone in his office, but he met with morava staff around 5:00 p.m. and he would occasionally slip into the windowless conference rooms where witnesses were interviewed. glenn kershner who worked alongside mr. mueller as a homicide prosecutor in washington said he reminded him of how he controlled 15 minute daily staff meetings. it was factual, brief, there was an economy of language. after mr. mueller left, he office two the same blocks south of the national mall. several members of his team met for a formal goodbye. the offices are considered sensitive compartmented information facility. besonal electronics must deposited in small lockers. michigan, linen

for democrats, hello. caller: good morning. it has been a while since i talked to you, pedro it i think it was the kavanaugh hearings. i am embarrassed. i am embarrassed for our country . this has happened. to be honest, i just ordered the mueller report, i have not read the whole thing, but i watched may 16- i think it was on c-span, congress read it out loud. that is how i heard it and i realize people -- lindsey graham said i have not finished reading it when he was talking with the attorney general. i think mueller was amazing. statement to your about being embarrassed. specifically, why? caller: because we, as the american public, are choosing sides based on what somebody

else told us. we need to read it, it is already out there. i ordered it. i was waiting for paperback. it cost me nine dollars on amazon and it will be here by friday. i will read the whole thing. i just think we need to read it and stop picking sides. i think it is embarrassing on all sides. plus, the democrats did this. after the can starr report, they changed the rules on special counsel. they got rid of filibuster in the senate because they could not get anybody through and now mcconnell is running crazy. host: we will leave it there because it goes farther than the discussion we are having. the president saying russia, russia, russia, that is all you heard at the beginning of this witchhunt hoax and now russia disappeared because it had nothing to do with russia helping me get elected. it was a crime that did not

exist and now the dems and their partner, the fake news media -- this false acquisition and he should not fight back, he should sit back and take it. mueller did not find obstruction. presidential harassment, finishing that with an explanation -- exclamation point . don is next in nevada, republican line. caller: yes, good morning, pedro. case was over before trump was even elected. the delirious democrats, socialists have a methodical plot to badger our president out of office. a renowned attorney alan dershowitz last night critiqued

mueller's nine minutes on television and he stated that mueller overstepped his authority and also showed his bias toward the socialists to continue badgering our president out of office. host: aside from mr. dershowitz's opinion, what did you think of the presentation yesterday? caller: it was the same old thing, wishy-washy. hill ofot amount to a beans. there was no collusion that started with russia and it went to obstruction. there were no crimes committed, period. what else are they looking for? hands,ow it in congress'

nadler, pelosi, and shifty schiff? i am a barest at this country, we have major countries around the world and look what is in this country. we have our head in our sand -- in the sand about trump. mueller'sr robert statements yesterday, chairman nadler talking about conclusions and what happens next. [video clip] nothe special counsel did exonerate the president of the united states of obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice of which special counsel mueller found substantial evidence, is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system. the constitution points to congress to take action to hold

the president accountable for his misconduct. unfortunately, special counsel mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president because department of justice policy prevents a sitting president from being prosecuted. that policy, in my opinion, is wrong, but it prevented special counsel from pursuing justice to the full it -- fullest extent possible. as mueller highlighted this morning, it falls to congress to respond to crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of president trump. we will do so. make no mistake, no one, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. on twitter says they want us to move on, republican saying russian meddling is something we must accept as a fact of life. another viewer says the case is not closed until mitch mcconnell

says it is. i am waiting until mcconnell .olds his press conference an additional viewer saying it cannot be closed until the follow-up and exit interviews are done. wondering why some want to go against standard procedure. you can make comments on twitter if you go to@. .-if you go to @cspanwj our facebook page is available to you at facebook.com/cspan. go to our website at c-span.org and you will find robert mueller's presentation. you can go back to the william barr hearings before congress, his statement after the release of the mueller report and everything associated with that. you will find all that information. michigan is next, independent line. we will hear from john in harbor woods, hello. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am listening to

everything going on this morning ways many voted both .imes and i do my homework no man is above the law, just like the gentleman said. we need to change that law. mueller did say the only reason they did not bring charges is because of that law. we need to change that law. i am tired of republicans sticking their head, just like the other man said, opposite their heads in the sand looking at what is going on. the other part is i am tired of republicans at this point forcing their beliefs on everybody else. i am a christian. i am not a nondenominational christian or a baptist or whatever, but the people in the beliefse forcing their

on everybody else. host: back to the mueller report, there was a statement from robert dixon. this goes back to the 1970's and he said if that were to take place, it would amount to incapacitation of the office. do you think that could be a play if the law is changed? caller: no, you have a vice president. why do we have a vice president? if the president is convicted or charged with a criminal act, you have a vice president stand in his place. why do we have a vice president if you cannot do that? if the president gets shot and killed, you have a vice president, there is a reason we have a vice president. i don't agree with our vice president, but there is a reason we have our vice president. host: go ahead, finish your thought. caller: there is a reason --

there is enough there that we should be convicting the man. to me, we are looking more like a dictatorship than anything saying you cannot touch him because he is up there. a dictator is the one you cannot touch because if you try to touch him, he will kill somebody. host: we will hear from linda, democrats line in mississippi. hi. caller: hi. that is not a law. that doj is a rule. i think we need impeachment inquiries. isublicans are thinking it democrats. mueller was a republican. republican.team was we are all americans. donald j. trump has done things -- ask republicans, would they

have let obama get by with this? russia interfered with our elections. butld j. trump knows this, he is just spreading and spewing lies and republicans only hear his lies. host: when it comes to next steps from the report -- the release of the report, what do you think those should be from congress? caller: i think they should do impeachment inquiries. those that do not want to appear themhe subpoenas, fine $100,000 a day. trump is not going to pay those fines. i think it is obstruction for him to be able to tell his team not to appear, that is obstruction within itself. if he is so innocent as he says

and the case is closed, why is he trying to keep people from telling the people in this country the truth? host: let's hear from larry in hollywood, florida. republican line. caller: yes. first of all, mueller is a crook, like most lawyers, there is nothing different. trump did nothing wrong. it trump is probably the best president we have had in 40, 50 years. look what he has done with unemployment. look what he has done all around the world making america great again. host: why do you characterize the special counsel as a crook? caller: he ripped us off for two years, $40 million. he did nothing. not -- cannot say trump is guilty, so he said he could not prove his guilt. i would like to hear one thing from the democrats, mostly brainwashed by their grandparents and their parents.

why could you be a democrat today? they are ridiculous. trump is going to win easily. he is a great president. he is bringing back american jobs, helping so many people. everybody is doing better because of trump. host: that is larry in hollywood, florida. we will continue until 9:00 with your comments on yesterday's events featuring the special counsel. he spoke for 10 minutes about the conclusions found in his report, as far as what congress gave whatbut possibly congress could do not only because of the report, but that statement yesterday. he talked about the elements, what informed or guided his investigation. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a

sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators that could be charged now. second, the opinion says the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a .itting president of wrongdoing beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. it would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. that was justice department policy, those were the principles under which we operated and from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

host: rosemary is next in scranton, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: i did not read the report yet. as an independent, i don't like the idea of impeachment. what i would like is for lindsey graham to issue a subpoena to mueller. i want him to appear before democrats and republicans to answer questions that our leaders need to know. thank you. host: from illinois, donald, democrats line. morning, pedro. good morning to the american people. most democrats stated my comments, but i will say -- so i will say one thing. mueller should be brought in front of congress to testify and all of the witnesses so the american people can hear the truth and investigation is done

.o gather evidence not to decide guilt or evidence evidence but to gather and have the evidence looked at by a judge or the house or congress to give a verdict. let the american people see the truth. from mueller and the witnesses and decide for themselves. host: mr. mueller said yesterday he would not go beyond the scope of this report even if he were called before congress. do you still think there is value having him here? caller: yes, i do. the leaders can ask him questions pertaining to the report. i have not read the report, so i cannot say -- host: even he said yesterday the report is my testimony. caller: i still think he should

come in front of the house and senate or release the entire report and testify. [no audio] host: robert mueller highlighted -- if you go to the box website, they highlight some. you can check it out at the website yourself. the president asking jim comey to let michael flynn go, there was the president's reaction to the russia investigation, the firing of james comey was another potential obstruction being looked at. robert mueller's appointment and efforts to oust him, efforts to curtail the russia investigation. attempts to stop the public from seeing evidence, president trump trying to get jeff sessions to

take back control of the presentation and don mcgahn -- this is referring to paul manafort saying it was the president's team asking michael -- you can read the details if you go to the vox website. they highlight those things found in the report. you have heard people online saying they ordered copies of the report in book form to read. if you have read the report, you can let us know your thoughts. we will do this for about the next hour. you can call us. 202-748-8000 free democrats. for748-8001 -- 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .nd independents, 202-748-8002

we will start off this second , southth mount holly carolina. kenneth, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe this whole thing is stalinish. they would say show me the man and i will show you the crime. they have been badgering this president. mueller's job is not to exonerate the president north to find him guilty. it is to investigate, gather the evidence. democrats have been stuck in 2016 going on now for three years. this is a political stunt for 2020 that the president is under investigation, continue these things going on and it is never going to end, it is never going to end. host: if you say it is a political stunt, do you mean the report because the report was

under the trump administration? caller: the whole russia interference began under the obama administration. this did not happen under donald trump's watch. this happened under the obama inry country has interfered other foreign countries' elections. trump is an outsider who was brought in. the american people voted him in. they cannot get over the fact he was elected our president. they want to keep these investigations going on because 2020 is coming up. there is no end to this impeachment. bill clinton was impeached but never removed. these democrats keep holding on to hope that he will be removed from office. it will never happen. host: that is kenneth in mount holly, north carolina. he highlighted the 2020 election.

a sampling of editorials, the chicago tribune making it clear that the russians did attack american democracy. the san francisco chronicle, toert mueller's charge congress. the charleston gazette male, saying, mueller, read the report. the courier saying it was his principal decision that led him to make the statement yesterday. those sites for the editorials. albuquerque, new mexico, independent line. debbie. caller: hi, pedro. i am listening to all this. conspiracy and that. it would say that all of the -- what people do not understand is that pfizer core judges are

appointed by robert. they are only sitting there for seven years. they have to be changed out. rubberthe judges that appointed were in on -- that -- appointed were in on the conspiracy. host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: do you really think that roberts appointed a liberal judge to the pfizer court? host: what do you base that on? caller: base what on? host: what you just said. caller: that the judges have to be turned over every seven years? host: the fight that is a conspiracy. -- the fact that it is a conspiracy be caller: i am not saying it is a conspiracy. it is ridiculous to think that it was. it is insanity. people do not understand the facts everyone who was involved. senate hass and the

to make an important decision. host: what decision is that? caller: that is what it comes down to. host: when you are saying the decision, do you mean an impeachment decision? caller: yes. host: do think that should happen? caller: it has to. host: there is -- based on what? caller: that is how point of the constitution. he did obstruction. he did it in plain sight. everybody seen it. they are like, i cannot believe he is doing it. he cannot be doing it because he is doing in front of us. he was. have a great day. host: thank you for calling. that is debbie in albuquerque. jamie in mount vernon washington. caller: could -- good morning. i just wanted to say that it is hard to understand how people can misinterpret this if they read it. the report is out there showing

there has been obstruction. me how people are ignoring the stated facts. it bothers me. the investigation has recovered more than the 40 million that was spent on it. much more than that has been recovered. there is what -- there is lots more to go. the case is going to be in court for years. you look at trump, he is acting guilty. he acts like a little kid trying to deny everything he has ever done. att: so -- he looked potential obstruction in the report. we just read a story on that. he said the reasons he cannot file a formal charge of obstruction, you make these conclusions as far as obstruction actually happened? caller: absolutely. mueller cannot come out and say one thing or another because

that will be taken as point of law. court, heo be, in cannot be saying stuff in the public where it is going to sway the jury. the jury has to be independent. he is trying to keep that, he is trying to keep the integrity of the investigation as much as he go.without letting it it is ridiculous that william barr has come across with his four page summation that was ridiculous. this will go forward. i am happy to see that. the american public has to wake-up and take a look at what is going on. host: that is jamie from washington. this is the document that enacted the special counsel by rod rosenstein. it is the -- it highlights the scope of the council.

the special counsel is authorized to conduct the by jimgation conducted coming. -- jim comey. healings are coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign to donald trump. section three, other matters within the scope of the law. if the special counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the special counsel is up -- is authorized to prosecute crimes in relation to these matters. this was signed by rod rosenstein in march of 2017. you can find that at the department of justice website. this is a document that lays out the scope of the special counsel. we are talking about the statement from robert mueller yesterday. a 10 minute presentation also highlighting facts from the

robert mueller report. philadelphia, pennsylvania. the republican line. caller: this is howard. host: go ahead. washington journal, i love y'all. robert mueller is a republican. trump is a republican. the truthful people are coming. this thing with trump. he is a -- it is a bigger fish to fry. you have opec. you have 1800 people being arrested everyday. host: let's start with the robert mueller report. what'd did you think about the statement? -- what did you think about the statement? caller: it is pretty controversial. is he supposed to be resigning. i'm trying to keep up with everything. host: wait, wait.

he formally closed his investigation yesterday. he announced he was resigning. what did you think of yesterday particularly in light of what he said with the report? caller: the honest truth i want to bring out, i personally enjoy the politics going on. i appreciate it. i am ready to expose everybody. host: back to yesterday, do you think it was a politically motivated move? caller: yes and no. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i just believe that there is a bigger fish to fry. on --d to stop focusing we need to get them focused on the problems going on currently in this country. host: ok -- let's hear from brett in nevada. independent line. caller: hello, pedro. i would like to first say hi to

george in georgia -- joe in georgia and pushes you in minnesota. the question i have -- host: go ahead. caller: oh. robert mueller's speech if theay, he said president had not committed a crime, he would have said so. whether not have been the same as if he committed a crime, i would have said so? that is where i get confused. host: what is confusing about it? did he commit a crime or not? that is the question. if president trump had not committed a crime, he would have said so. but if president trump did commit a crime, he would have said to. host: are you saying the special counsel should have come to one of the conclusions with the -- with the finishing of his

report? caller: yeah. that is what he was hired to do. if there were crimes committed, it should have been in his report and going to the doj. ag is in charge of the investigation. democrats are beating a dead horse. excuse me. host: excuse me. i was just going to ask, it sounds like you were underwhelmed with the conclusions reached by the special counsel. yeah, i do not think he did his job. if there were crimes, it should have been in his report. i have not read all of it. clear that either he committed a crime or not. host: that is brett in nevada giving his thoughts this morning

on the release of the report. also, the conclusions or the statement from the special counsel yesterday. that is available to you at c-span.org. , new jersey, our line for democrats. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i want to clear up this conclusion. he is saying he did not commit a crime, i would have said so. that tells you he did something. he cannot tell you he did something because that is the way the law is written. congress knows he did something. you know he did something. lindsey graham, all of the republicans, y'all know he did something. host: did you think what he said is different from what he had in the report? caller: no, he did not say

nothing different. he criticized what william -- what william barr said was a lie. he came to that conclusion because of the law. that is a lie right there. he should have been charged. also, lindsey graham and the rest of them for turning their back on the country. that is what they did. the red arrow park and turn their back -- they read their report and turn their back. they lost the house. they do not know what to do when it comes to checking the president. they turned there. they know what is going on. host: we will hear next from ronald in virginia. republican line. caller: good morning, mr. pedro. i think the case should be closed. i think they should get mr. obama there and let him testify

and stutter and stammer why his administration investigated a candidate for president. host: so aside from that, what makes you think this case is closed? caller: because there is no crown. the man was not president. the man was a candidate for president. it was all pending on whether he became president or not. host: some of those things robert mueller looked at, those potential obstruction things happened while the president was in office. caller: correct. let me ask you this. and policeman stopped you you had to get a lawyer, would you tell three or four different -- would you toth three or four different stories -- would you tell three or four stories before the right one came?

host: i do not know. the point of time -- what is the point of the hypothetical? presidenttil the became president, there is no crime. dy in anyalk to anybo country. until you are president, that is not a crime. correct? host: ronald in virginia making his thoughts on the statement yesterday. you can do so as well. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002. robert is next on the independent line. caller: yes, sir. basically told us everything we needed to know. he is obstructing justice.

he lies to us every day. in office,he has put they are a bunch of grifters. prince, he is thinking -- at one time was thinking about making him a viceroy and subcontracting him going to work for us. host: robert, back to the first statement. you tell us the report tells us everything we need to know. how do you draw that conclusion when it comes to obstruction? caller: we have watched him obstruct on tv every day. we are watching this in person. we do not need mueller to tell us. when he is intimidating witnesses and trying to get witnesses not to testify, that is obstruction of justice. host: did you draw those things from the report itself or the statement yesterday? caller: both.

mueller did what he had to do without being political. host: what you think the point was yesterday was if all these things he said yesterday was laid out in the report? caller: i think he is asking congress to do its job. the republicans are not moving. there is only one publican that is -- one republican telling the truth. host: that is rubber in north carolina -- that is robert in north carolina talking about the statement. nine minutes in length. we will show you the full presentation concerning the release of his report. [video clip] >> two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. the appointment order directed the office to investigate russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

this included investigating any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the trump campaign. i have not spoken publicly during our investigation. i am speaking today because our investigation is complete. the attorney general made the report on our investigation largely public. we are formally closing the special counsel's office. as well, i am resigning from the department of justice to return to private life. i will make a few remarks about the results of our work. beyond these remarks, it is important the office's written work speaks for itself. let me begin where the appointment order begins. that is, interference in the 2016 presidential election. as alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, russian

intelligence officers who are part of the russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. the indictment alleges the use of sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the clinton campaign. they still private information and release that information through fake online identities and through the organization wikileaks. the releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private russian entity engaged in social media operation where russian citizens posed as americans in order to influence an election. these indictments contained allegations. we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any

specific defendant. every defendant is presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty. indictment alleged in the other activities in our report scrub efforts to -- report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. they need to be understood. that is among the reasons why the department of justice established our office. it is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. the matters we investigated were of paramount importance. it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information for every region we questioned -- from every person we question. when a subject of investigation obstructs the investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. let me say a word about the report. it has two parts.

addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. the first volume details numerous efforts emanating from russia to influence the election. -- thisliam included volume includes a response from the trump campaign as well as our conclusion there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. in a second volume, the report describes the analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. the order appointing special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct investigation. we conducted the investigation. we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. as said in the report, after the investigation, if we had

confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. the introduction to the volume two of a report explains -- of our report explains the decision. it explains that under long-standing the part of policy, a present president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is primitive. -- is prohibitive. is special counsel's office part of the department of justice. it was bound by the department policy. turning with the president -- charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider. the written opinion of the department explain the policy make several important points that further informed our

handling of the investigation. those points are summarized in our report. i will describe two of them for you. first, the opinion explicitly permits investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence will memories are fresh and documents are available. that evidence could be used if there are co-conspirators who could be charged now. second, the opinion says the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accused a sitting president of wrongdoing. beyond the permit policy regarded by principals of fairness, it would be unfair to potentially accused somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

that was justice department policy. those were the principles under which we operated. we concluded we would not reach a determination one where the other about whether the president committed a crime. that is the office's final position. we will not comment on any other conclusions hypothetical's about the president. we conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general. as required by department regulations. the attorney general concluded it was appropriate to provide our report to congress and to the american people. at one point in time, i requested that certain portions be released. the attorney general preferred to make the entire report public at once. we appreciate the attorney general made the report largely

public. i do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision. i expect this to be the only time i was speech you on this matter. i am making that decision myself. no one has told me on whether i can or should testify or speak further about the matter. there has been discussion about an appearance before congress. any testimony from this congress -- from his office would not go beyond a report -- would not go beyond our report. it contains the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully. the work speaks for itself. the report is my testimony. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress. producto our underlying is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

here andat i have said what is contained in our written work, i do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or comment on the actions of the justice department. i will not be taking questions today as well. before i step away, i want to thank the attorneys, the fbi agents, the analysts, the professional stuff who helped us conduct the investigation in fair and independent matter. these individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. reiterating the central allegations of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our collection. that allegation deserves the attention of every american.

is the complete statement from robert mueller yesterday. about nine minutes or so in length. you can see all of that at c-span.org. the president right after that sending a tweet on the statement there are no changes from the mother report. in our country, the person is innocent. the case is closed. thank you. you may agree or disagree. you can call us on the line or reach out to us on social media. and in florida. thank you for -- andrew in florida. democrats line. thank you for waiting. prosecutor, mueller, is not a political person. he resigned from his job because it is done. he completed a comprehensive report, which they are expected to read, the congress. it has been made public even

though there are reductions. it is 400 pages long. all of the smart devices can make it easy to navigate. there are several locations where you can access it. to reiterate some of the things he said, the special prosecutor cannot tonight -- cannot indict the president because he has a sitting president. there is a doj rule that says -- there is an attorney general's office rule saying you cannot do that. cannotplies that if you get accused of a crime, you can only present evidence of a crime. because the president cannot be at a trial or answer his accusers because there is no trial, he cannot be indicted. that is another side note. it is not really highlighted. said,with all that being

what is the next? -- what is the next step? caller: the actions need not be proved by reasonable doubt. this is not a civilian charge or indictment. powerngress article one includes reviewing evidence fully and voting on impeaching. they indict. that is what the impeachment process is in. the house of representatives that is what has to happen next. most people have not even read the report. and you have read the whole thing? caller: i have not read the whole thing. it is gigantic. i just retired from a difficult job. i have read passages from it. host: the conclusions that the special counsel talked about report, didrsus the

you see any great differences? caller: no, that was his report. from what i have read regarding the evidence of the intrusion and the interaction between the trump campaign and the russians was fully there. it did not rise to a criminal conspiracy. host: that is andrew in florida. john in pennsylvania. republican line. caller: how are you doing, pedro? i would like the public to know that since 1947 when the cia was founded, the united states has interfered in more elections around the world than any other government. we did under the guise of we are helping them establish democracy. theecond thought is, democrats that really listen to william barr and what rosenstein said about asking mueller three

times if this is a criminal charge or not, listen to the tape. william barr said this on several trips. thank you -- on several tapes. thank you. host: dominique. independent line. caller: i have a relative who was a lawyer who read the report twice. on page 12 or 14, there is a line that says, no one from the -- no onevernment from the trump campaign colluded with the russian government. on the following page, no other american colluded with the russian government. obstruction of what? what is the obstruction? he wanted to fire mueller. that is not a crime. he could have fired him. the only thing is, they would

have replaced him with another investigator. democrats are heading down a dead end. if they go with impeachment, people are already angry. program and said, we have to vote republican. or we are going to stop trump's agenda. power, as they come in they tried to crucify him. donald trump, jr., 20 hours of investigation. host: got your point. for their part, the white house not holding a formal press conference sarah sanders addressing reporters outside the white house about the statement. [video clip] >> there was no real news. he reiterated the point he made

in the report. we agree with him. there was no conclusion. there was no conspiracy. we consider the case closed. he has closed his office. he is going back to his private life. we think everyone else should too. statedpresident and you it is case closed. robert mueller was clear that if he had confidence no crime was committed, he would have said so. >> if he determined there was a crime, he would've had a moral obligation to report it. he did not. the whole purpose he had an investigation, the whole purpose the special counsel existed was to make a determination about whether or not there was collusion. he came to a very explicit conclusion that there was no collusion or conspiracy. he could not make a determination on whether or not there was obstruction, which means that is up to the attorney general.

the attorney general, without regard to the olc opinion, based off of the opinion, laid off a report that mueller himself put together. the attorney general made that decision without the olc opinion being factored in. he was clear about that. host: stephen is next. he is from again. line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-span. feel like i am living in a different universe. night is day. day is night. this guy is as corrupt as can be. helsinki did not send the message that he is standing on foreign soil putting down our putin andhinking meeting with him in private with no objections from the republicans.

host: we are talking back yesterday with robert mueller statement. what did you think about the statement? what did you get from it? caller: his hands are tied. that is why i say that nobody is above the law. not him, not anybody in this country. ow can you justify all of this? he is still on the phone with putin. host: kirk in michigan. republican line. caller: thank you for taking the call. i wanted to apply to a woman who called -- reply to a woman who called. she was from albuquerque. it was talking about how not possible the judges in the pfizer court would be part of a conspiracy. . the reason i called right away, it perked my interest.

sidee on the republican has made any claims that the pfizer court itself and the judges were part of any conspiracy. the problem is that the court was wide to buy the upper echelons of the intelligence where the intelligence people about what went into their ruling. i hope she is still listening. it is important for her to understand. she seemed like she was well read on it. the fact that the pfizer court was lied to and gave out the is a crucialn lies factor for everyone to consider. and the restueller of the people will eventually be called to testify in order to clear that up. host: that is kirk in trenton, michigan. jackie is in jacksonville.

independent line. caller: hi. i would like to hear from at least one person who said they changed their vote because of the russians. if they are out there, let's hear from them. statement, the whole investigation is from the russian hacking. what does that have to do with trump at all if the russians did it? why would they spend millions of trump? to investigate host: gregory from richmond, virginia. democrats line. caller: this is amazing. shows white privilege to the max. --ller has already, and said has already come out and said,

he does not excuse trump. there is the point he made that he cannot say he is guilty. -- that he is not guilty. the next step is congress is supposed to pick this up. whether this president was democratic or republican, if you did something wrong, he should stand before the people. not see where congress has such a problem with a person with so much deceitfulness in him that they cannot question him on his actions. it amazes me. host: from pennsylvania, mark. republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. when you listen to the press conference, you can see how he does not want to tell the truth. you cannot comment on whether the russians are guilty or innocent. he did not keep the same standard for the president because he did comment on the presidents innocence.

he said he would have said it if he could. if you look at all of his obstruction claims, four of them had to do with james comey. he is a liar, the weaker, -- the leaker, and one of his friends. cohen was in ther. enot one person who calls in says anything about those 10 instances. none of those 10 incidents. none of them played themselves out. when he describes them in the report, he said by the time he explained the whole thing, but he did not do this. it is probably not. everyone one of them is like that. there is not one of them that follows through with logic that makes sense. host: that is market in pennsylvania calling this money.

the associated press reporting president from has signed a federal disaster declaration for the louisiana before the opening of the organza spillway that could have flooded the basement -- flooded the basin. it will be open for the third time in its history. releasing about 9000 taupe on 50,000 cubic feet of water -- 9000 to 150,000 cubic feet of water. reportedngton post when it comes to the debates featuring the 2020 candidates, a new role in place saying that to appear in the third debate that will be broadcasted by abc news, candidates will have to earn a in a party pole. they will have to show they have

attracted 130,000 donors since the start of the campaign. there are more implications for those rules if you go to the washington post. the new york post highlights an incident took place in front of the white house. a man set himself on fire. he died of his injuries on thursday. marylandrom bethesda set himself on fire at the ellipse, north of the washington monument. the flames were extinguished, he was rushed to the hospital for treatment. by the evening, he had succumbed to his police. --hington post a story saying that while president trump in japan, he wanted the titling of the uss john mccain to be covered.

--rick shanahan covering traveling, was asked about the incident. here's part of that statement. [video clip] >> to the white house indeed request that the uss john mccain be hidden from view or camouflaged in any way? what you think about this? -- what do you think about this? >> when i read it this morning, it was the first i heard about it. in terms of ship movements, the only ship that moved was the uss abraham lincoln. i need to find out a little bit more. i have just had the first limbs of the this morning. host: let's go to indiana. clint, independent line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to your callers. it seems like there is some misconceptions on the mueller report. president ora whoever does not have to be

convicted of a crime. ok? his, trying to figure, what it boils down to is his intentions. he does not necessarily have to be convicted of the crime itself. it is a matter of being -- of using his office to interfere with thanks. secondly, some of the colors are saying -- some of the callers are saying it is a democratic coup against the president. a republican. a is a republican. i do not know where they get the coup at. that is clint in muncie,

indiana. marine one is the helicopter that shuttles the president from place to place. that at the andrews air force base. the president heading to deliver a commencement address at the air force academy commencement ceremony. you can see live coverage at 12:30 eastern and c-span. where youc-span.org can listen on the free c-span ready app. we will hear from philip in total, oklahoma. -- in tulsa, oklahoma. democrats line. caller: the last caller was wrong. democrats and no republicans on his team. and his team took their evidence to a grand jury. the grand jury said there was no evidence against trump that he

tried to stop the investigation. starr against clinton, he took his evidence to the grand jury. the grand jury came over 11 indictments against clinton. there were charged. the same could have been done against president trump. host: ok. philip in oklahoma. the line for democrats. to show you contacts for everything yesterday. we will take you back to april. attorney general william barr appearing before reporters. this is poor the -- this is before the release of the robert mueller report. how he treated the report. [video clip]

>> we do not have the report in hand. can you explain the reason for not making an incision on the obstruction object -- a decision on the obstruction of justice? you say you disagree with some of his legal theories. what do you disagree with them on? i would leave it to his description in the report. the special counsel's own articulation of way he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction. when we met with him, deputy attorney general rosenstein met with him and ed o'callaghan who is the principal associate on.ty march 5 we specifically asked him about the olc opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the

existence of the olc opinion. several timesar that was not his position. he was not saying that but for the olc opinion, he would've found a crime. he made it clear he had not made the determination there was a crime. page,off of her facebook alan says mueller's job is done. he gave congress a map to continue from where he left off. it is time for democrats to grow a spine and do something. gary saying the case is closed. democrats lost the election get over it. to satisfy a heated electorate demise -- the matter was taken seriously. three, set up the president for any for even take as a citizen post-presidency. this is lauren from facebook

saying case closed. what is still going on is the investigation of who, what, where about the fake dossier that led to the charade in the first place. mr. mueller making his statements. the president saying the case is closed. you can give your opinions on how those things. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents,- (202) 748-8002. caller: allow me to make a few quick points. i would like to establish that the department of justice can abuse power. look at the case of ted stevens were a judge literally went through and told him how much the abused their power. look back to the seventh -- to the 1970's the intelligence has abused their power. there was a church committee

that looked seriously and found a number of abuses. they set up a permanent committee to oversee the abuse of the intelligence committee. i want to remind my fellow americans in high school, most of us were assigned the reading of arthur miller's the crucible. in that story, it is a cautionary tale. it was covering the mccarthy era. said,omebody came up and what is going on? they are claiming all this witchcraft. of course the witches are going to lie. host: all that being said, how does that apply to yesterday? caller: this investigation started off with the firing. who was fired? peter strzok. he said, i dealt with people who had integrity. he does not mention that peter strzok, one of his first acts was to fire peter strzok.

with haddossier dealt intelligence that was acquired from the russians. if we are going to look for fairness, we need to look at whether justice was the act that was being promulgated from the beginning. if you're going to have obstruction of justice, they want to have, make sure that the whole system was fair. host: that is mario in ohio. we will go to north carolina next. independent line. caller: hi. i would like to make a few comments regarding the mueller report. -- number one, i'm embarrassed to be an american right now because the politics are taking over my life as a citizen to have the people who work for me to address other

things besides trump or who is at fault and this, that, and the other. i'm embarrassed we spent all this tax money and are back to square one. number two, i would like to say this to all the american people. start working for us together. if i went to watch a so proper, i would watch general hospital. did not see it the first time around, it was the house speaker in california. she took time to talk to reporters about the statement from yesterday. [video clip] i completely disagree with the fact that is in the constitution that the president cannot be indicted. he was an employee of the justice department. the justice department policy is that the president cannot be indicted.

the inference to be drawn from the is, if you believe that is in the constitution, which i did not, but if you believe that, then you believe the alternative is to impeach. you do not bring an indictment or impeachment unless you have all of the facts, the strongest possible case, so that the president is held accountable one way or another in the court of public opinion or in the court of law or in the congress of the united states. host: doug collins is the representative of georgia who serves as the ranking member on the house judiciary committee. after the statement, he made this available. special counsel robert mueller confirms what we knew months ago when the. report was released. . there was no collusion or re-investigating the special counsel's findings

will only further divide our country. he has a full statement available. lenny in collegeville, pennsylvania. democrats line. morning.ood i think the case is not closed. there are a lot of loose ends that have to come in. i personally believe mueller felt forced to come to the conclusion that he did, that there was no obstruction. he left the case open on the account. obstructionere was on my own opinion. it is just one of many. host: you are satisfied with his conclusions overall? caller: yes, he did what he had to do. there is more information to come in. host: let his lenny in collegeville, pennsylvania. we showed you the video from marine one, which will take the president to colorado springs.

before going on marine one, speaking to reporters at the white house talking to the statement from yesterday -- talking about the statement from yesterday. [video clip] >> it was the same as the report. to me, it was the same as the report. there was no obstruction. you see what we are saying. there is no collusion. there is no nothing. it is nothing but a witchhunt. it is a witchhunt by the media and the democrats, their partners. it keeps going. it goes on. same as thes the report. he said basically it was the same as the report. host: at the white house this morning, you heard him make the comment about the statement. he was asked by reporters about the topic of impeachment. [video clip] >> i do not see how they can.

i cannot imagine the courts allowing it. i have never gone into it. i never thought that would be possible to be using that word. to me, it is a dirty word. impeach. it is a dirty, filthy, disgusting word. it has nothing to do with me. i have not -- i do not think so because there was no crime. high crimes and misdemeanors. there was no high crime. there was no misdemeanor. how do you impeach based on that? it came out there was nothing to do with russia. the whole thing is a scam. it is a giant presidential harassment. honestly, i hope it goes down as one of my greatest achievements because i have opposed corruption like nobody knew existed. host: the president in his part will deliver the commencement at

the air force academy at 12:30 eastern. it can see that on c-span.org. james in alabama. republican line. caller: yes. i am a democrat. i will be changing. i would like for everybody to look at the things that relisted -- that relisted that he is saying he committed. host: samantha. caller: he has a right to fire james comey. [indiscernible] host: that is james in alabama. samantha i know washington, d.c. independent line. samantha in washington, d.c.. independent line. caller: it is very evident there has been a major russian programan bring motion

-- brainwashing program for americans to be willing to accept it is not conclusion -- not collusion. it is conspiracy to undermined and not to do what the oath of office says, to protect and defend against all enemies, domestic and foreign. get in bedme you with them, you when your political party are undermining the u.s. constitution. were tied by a policy. no policy should override the u.s. constitution. donald trump as number rights whitehead living in appalachia. host: when it comes to this idea

of conspiracy, how does that address it? caller: it addresses the fact people working with him and probably some of his business interests tie into these russian oligarchs who were indicted. anytime you are violating what the u.s. constitution and the laws of this country say, you should be held to the same standard as a person who gets involved in any kind of crime. his is a high crime and misdemeanor. host: that a samantha in washington, d.c. we will hear from olivia. she is in birmingham, alabama. democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. the lady you just got to speak .c., she stole my

thunder. i agree with your -- i agree with her. this is america. it is a shame what is going on in our country. i really am ashamed. i am so ashamed to stand up and be proud. i'm proud of being american, but it is a shame also that we are allowing this man, donald trump, to say anything. you have people calling on here that is believing this. come on. host: let me ask you this. to the report yesterday and mr. mueller's comments, what led you to believe that things were wrong and that he committed actions that are criminal in nature. caller: let me say this. special counsel mueller, let it be known that the russians did interfere in our election. some people on the trump campaign benefit appeared he

said these words, he did not have insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy, but he --t on to say about he could not rule him out because of the doj guidelines. congress has a constitutional duty to look into impeachment or whatever the congress come up with. i'm saying this, let's not be ignoring. -- let's not be ignorant. i understand that some people love donald trump. we have to protect this country and this constitution. host: we will leave it there. we want to hear from bobby from pennsylvania. republican line. caller: i wanted to let people be aware that james comey and

mueller's wife go to the same bible study. something. coveringueller is for,, his best friend. the democrats are projecting their wrongdoing on president trump. we have the best economy in the world. he has had many achievements in the presidency. all the democrats did was sit on their hands, go to work every day, collect a paycheck and nothing is done. finally things are being done in our country. i think it is all a charade of lies on the part of the democrats. they wanted to go into full-blown localism. he'spresident trump won, protecting our sovereignty and our constitution. host: we have to leave it there. appreciate all the calls in the last two hours. if you want to see mr. comey's

statement from yesterday, go to www.c-span.org. sorry, mr. mueller's statement. also read the mueller report and find information there. we will change topics in the final hour and talk about afghanistan, particularly reconstruction efforts financed by the u.s. and other countries. joining us is the special inspector general looking at that effort, john sopko. he will talk about what is going on and take your questions on it. that is when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> watch commitment speeches all week on c-span. tonight at 8:00 eastern, speakers include president trump at the u.s. air force academy in

colorado springs, colorado, california democratic representative maxine waters speaking at the university of the district of columbia, former deputy attorney general rod rosenstein delivers remarks at the university of baltimore law school, and we will look back to may 2013, within fbi director robert mueller speaking at william and mary. watch commitment speeches tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch online anytime at www.c-span.org, and listen on the free c-span radio app. we have been called the biggest little city on the map starting in 1910. there was so much excitement and culture and action happening in reno that it was the biggest little city around. >> there are not very many cities in north america that have what reno has. we are right on the edge of this vast wilderness. i think of the natural

environment as being a crucial determinant of what life is like in our home city. >> the cities tour is on the road, exploring the american story with the help of our spectrum cable partners. we take you to reno, nevada. >> reno 100 years ago was the place to come get a divorce. then reno became known as a place to go gamble. that has been basically drying up for the last 25 years. but we still have this reputation. having tesla come to town and build basically the world's largest factory, the giga factory, that changes the narrative. the story is now not dying casino town, but the town reinventing itself as something new. >> watch the c-span cities tour of reno, nevada this saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book p.m. onunday at 2:00 american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore the

american story. journal"ington continues. host: this is john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction to talk about the efforts. good morning to you. guest: it is a pleasure to be back. host: what are you tasked to do? guest: i am the inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. what that means -- it sounds $132icated -- but we spent billion over the last 18 years trying to rebuild that country to make it self-sufficient so we can keep the taliban and the terrorists out and never be a launching place. i don't do the reconstruction. i have a staff of about 200 auditors, criminal investigators, accountants, et cetera. 30 are in afghanistan. the rest are here in the united states. we try to prevent fraud, waste and abuse of all the money.

host: the money we have spent, are we closer to that goal? guest: we are getting there. not as good as we would like it to be. we have accomplished a lot over the 18 years. i have only been there for seven. eventually the agency will go out of existence when the assistance ends. we could have done a better job and i think i have been here before to cite examples of the four stories. -- horror stories. i think our staff does a good job of trying to prevent the fraud. host: part of your job is to put out reports on the status. one report has this line. when it comes to the possibility of peace in afghanistan, you resumptionhanistan's of its fighting season between the afghan government and the taliban insurgency.

spring 2019, macy a break in the clouds." -- may see a break in the clouds." guest: this is the first time we are close to a negotiated peace. we support it. i think all americans and all afghans would like to have a lasting and fair, sustainable peace. we have negotiators negotiating with the taliban for the first time. they have met a number of times and are working on it. the difficulty is that the afghan government is not participating because the taliban don't want them there. there are a lot of tricky issues that have to be resolved. we highlight them in a report. risks for the first time to reconstruction and also to peace if we don't take care of some of these problems we have identified. host: when it comes to the taliban, is the idea of reintegrating them into

government and society? guest: we list eight or 10 of them. one of the first things is there will still be a need for security forces in afghanistan. the afghans have been fighting hard but they have been losing territory. they have been fighting for years over there. you will have security even if you have peace. the taliban is not monolithic. it is not one organization where everyone follows the rules. you also have other terrorist groups out there. the other thing you alluded to is you have to reintegrate those 60,000 plus taliban who have been fighting the government into society. that will take time and cost money. us until are with 10:00 to answer questions about efforts in afghanistan. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

maybe you are a veteran of the afghan war. if you want to give comments on reconstruction efforts, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. there are headlines about the process with the taliban. some saying no breakthrough yet. they are also taking place in moscow. talk about russia's part in this. guest: my office is not involved in the negotiations. i don't really know what is going on other than the press reports. that kind of interesting the russians are involved in this. we all know the former soviet union invaded afghanistan and had to leave. i have to defer to our negotiators on what the significance of that is. host: the report be put out includes high risks that you identify. you will expand more widespread into security. 30 terroristare groups operating in afghanistan.

even if you negotiate with the taliban, you have to deal with isis. the other risks we talk about is you have a problem of corruption. you have a problem of narcotics. it is the largest producer of heroin in the world. we have to deal with the issue of how the taliban are going to treat women. us in the key goal of coalition, to improve the lives of women and girls in afghanistan. today aftereven spending billions of dollars is still a very poor place to be if you're a woman. the taliban, and we know from their terrorist activities in the past and how they treated women, this could really destroy everything. if they go back to very evil ways. that is one of the risks we highlight. the coalition is not going to support -- in my humble opinion.

they may not support financially the afghan government, even if the taliban is part of it if they are allowed to go back to their evil ways of how they treated women. host: under the topic of security you talk about the civil policing capability. where are we with the investment we have? guest: the police in afghanistan is one of the more corrupt agencies. we devoted a lot of time and effort to training the police to be paramilitary police, not really to do normal policing. they are going to be the face of the afghan government. that is one area where you have to reform the policing. host: what is the biggest hurdle? guest: they did not get the training. rampant corruption. do your are not able to simple law enforcement functions. the military is a little better but they just really have not been trained in the rule of law and governance, et cetera.

host: is that the job of u.s. forces to help them? guest: it has been a function of the u.s. government. we have a report coming out. the problem is nobody handles police training that well. this is a nato operation. there are some countries in nato which actually can do it better and have done in the past but they have not been involved as much. that is a difficulty. it is not a deal killer, but it is something we have to focus on. viewers,listeners and what we are saying is don't allme once there is peace these problems disappear miraculously. you still have to deal with the security situation. he still have to deal with corruption. you still have to deal with narcotics. you have to deal with the women issue about how they are treated. you still have to deal with oversight, which is very

difficult for the u.s. and the coalition to oversee how the money is being spent. not the day after the peace treaty and say lo and andld what happened? -- say, lo and behold, what happened? we hear there is planning being ,one and we are glad to hear it but congress has to be involved. congress appropriates the money and how it's being spent. we think everybody needs to focus on these high risks, plan how to handle them. peace, aal is lasting lasting, fair peace treaty in afghanistan, you have to address these issues. host: our guest with 10:00. the first call comes from silver spring, maryland. this is mr. john sopko. caller: i have a question for mr. john. the united states decides

to leave afghanistan, who will control the billions of dollars? guest: i did not hear that. dolla -- billions in billions of dollars in minerals. guest: we hope the afghan government will. what the caller honed in on is an important risk. that is economic development. those minerals are in the ground. they are not worth anything in the ground. you have to get them out and you have to process them. the problem is most of those minerals are in areas where the terrorists control the terrain. that is why we talk about security and we talk about economic development being tied together. could be a wealthy, self-sufficient country if it could controlled minerals and allow foreign investment in.

right now many foreigners do not want to invest in afghanistan because of the security situation, for loss, corruption. if they can address those three, those minerals will help afghanistan pay for their peace. host: they don't have the infrastructure currently. guest: minerals are heavy. you need railroads, roads, safe roads, laws that protect investors. investors have to come from somewhere else. who was going to invest in afghanistan if your rule of law is very precarious? your investment is very precarious. taxation is very precarious because of corruption and poor laws, as well as the security situation. they are all interconnected. those are some of the high risks we identify that we have to take care of. there is not as much oil. it is more heavy minerals in afghanistan. there is some oil and natural

gas, but that is not the big one. host: let's hear from steve, and afghan war vet. and i wantd morning, 2008-2009as there in as part of reconstruction. the civil affairs side. -- i admire your work. i have read your work since i left. he reported some of the abuse and fraud and waste to your team. i appreciate your work. that being said, what i carried back which taints me today and haunts me are the 35 people we lost and 158 wounded trying to do what is nationbuilding, supporting the military-industrial complex. generals get more stars because they spend more money at the state department gets more powerful because they spend money.

i regret that and i came home with a great anger towards my government that my guys died for trying to build a nation. i used to ask my department of state, what do you want this department -- country to look like? 1950's america, 1920's america, 1980's america, or 2010 america? what year to want this to resemble for its industry and i will tell you how many trillions of dollars we will spend. we need to come home. ien it came to the taliban, had cease-fires with the taliban and my third tour having come to understand what it is we need to do to the point that general petraeus was sending his people to find out what i'm doing. as i told them,, if he understood his enemy the taliban are one of two parties. i did lots of deals with the taliban. i would trust them immensely more than the karzai gang in

power. at least the taliban would give you a straight answer. if they don't like you, they will shoot at us, but you could count on it. host: i apologize. we will have to let our guest respond. guest: steve, i want to thank you as a fellow american for your service. dedicated service for the number of tours you did. i also think you had a lot of important points. i can't really address the issue of the military-industrial complex. i don't think i agree totally with you on that, but i am concerned and i think our report highlight the problem of poor planning. that has been a problem from day one. and not really knowing what we wanted to accomplish. the third thing is we may have

tried to turn this country into little america. you talked about if it's 1880's america, 1940's, 2010 america. go in with aally true understanding of what we wanted to accomplish and devoted our resources. we spent a lot of time looking at programs which make absolutely no sense. part of it is because there is poor planning. part of it is because we started spending the money. once you start spending, it is hard to stop it. i understand your feelings. i understand why there is a desire to get out. you expressed that. i don't do policy. my office does not do policy. we get the policy from congress and the president. and then we see how well you are doing to meet that goal.

to get a peace treaty with the taliban and the other terrorists so we have a lasting peace in afghanistan. we can start to withdraw our troops more. so we can maybe cut down the amount of assistance. we are looking at that and i think we all agreed that is a good goal, a lasting peace in afghanistan. i know the afghans want it. host: you talked about planning and preparation. what does that mean for the response teams that are there? is there job hobbled by that? guest: to some extent. what do you want me to do? i know soldiers who went out there, people in the a busy. -- embassy. we have a program but it does not quite make sense. contractors said this is stupid. i will perform it but it makes no sense for where we are.

there was one case where we talked about millions of dollars spent trying supporting rare white italian goats by airplane, to have them breed with afghan goats. that made no sense. we talked to an expert that breeds goats and he said this is ridiculous, but somebody had this idea. it sounds good on paper, and we spent the money. we should have spent more time talking to the afghans and more time listening to the afghans before we spent all the money. maryland, stephen, hello. caller: thank you for all your work. i have seen you a lot of times on c-span so i appreciate everything, you testifying before congress and whatnot. i was wondering how effective has the money that has been spent to eradicate the opium sure or control -- i'm not

how they are defining it -- how effective has that been? has there been fallout from the child sex abuse and pedophilia report they came out a couple of years ago? guest: two good questions. i hate to say it but probably our counter narcotics programs have been the greatest failure. we have spent over $8 billion and we have little to show. i will say this. the government will come back and tell you that we have made arrests, seizures, but that is great but ultimately the amount of opium that is produced in the event of heroin which is exported is bigger now than it was when we started those programs. i look at inputs, outputs and outcomes. the outcomes have been horrendous. we have failed miserably. i am not pollyannish about

this. this is a tough job. i worked on the hill with senator sam nunn and carl webb and others that looked at fighting drugs down in columbia and mexico and ecuador and peru. those have taken years to do. it is a failure. issue, a report we issued at the request of 140 members of congress. they wanted to see how well the lahey act was being implemented in afghanistan. act is named after senator lahey, current senator from vermont who said, and i think rightly so and congress passed it some time ago that no money could be spent, no federal u.s. desistance money -- assistance money can be spent by foreign military units or police units who violate human rights.

in afghanistan there is this horrible practice, which most afghans hate but it is a practice and unfortunately in the hinterlands it is very prevalent of sexual predication creditor -- preditation of little boys. i think they have improved. know whether that is still going on, i can't really say. presencee don't have a in the countryside where many of these actions occur. that is how i can answer that question. i think it is a very good statute. it should be enforced. our military is trying to enforce it as best they can, but

ultimately it is up to the afghans and the afghan government to enforce this. this is a human rights the elation, the rape of small boys in afghanistan. host: how much money have we invested in that? over $1 billion. the coalition has spent that much or more. i don't think we ever came up with a figure of how much being spent -- is being spent. most of it is to train soldiers and the state department and officials that if they see it, reported and investigate it. it is a minimal amount and compared to the $132 billion we have spent totally. host: what does that go to? guest: the biggest chunk of money on women went to a program called promote. that was the name of the program. by the prior out administration with great fanfare that it would be the largest women's program the

united states has ever conducted in the world. it was going to train tens of thousands of women to improve their lives. we did an audit and i highly recommend anybody he was interested to go on our website and look at the promote audit. it basically was a failure. it oversold. it did not really focus on the afghan women. i remember talking to missus gh -- mrs. ghani, the president's wife. she was besides herself about how foolish some of the program was. it was designed by americans in northern virginia and did not reflect reality on the ground. the reality on the ground is an afghan woman in a village once the right to walk out of her house by herself. sayset a certificate that you have attended a training program. the main focus was to westernize women, afghan women in the major

toies and not to wear 70% 80% of the afghan women live in the countryside. if you want to do a women's program in afghanistan, you should train the men, not the women. the men are the problem, not the women. the women want their rights. the vast majority of them do. they want to be lifted up. it is the men who are suppressing the rights of women in afghanistan. host: how does it get that far in the sense going into the planning for the program maybe will not result in the end result? how does somebody not say, wait a minute, we are missing something? guest: that is the question we ask every time. the problem is the decisions made in washington -- a lot of it is the way our government works. the two-your budget cycle. you come up with a program. , ithe time it is designed was a good idea then, but two

more years have gone down the pike. nobody considers asking the afghans. that was one of the first things. i have been doing this for seven years. i was amazed at the number of projects that we built where the afghans did not know about it until he gave them the keys to the building. that is how ridiculous it was. part of it is our reward system. the individuals designing this get rewarded for designing the program whether it works or not. i have had a number of contracting officers, u.s. contracting officers, dedicated contracting officers. if i can pause for a second. contractors.o poo but we get more contractors killed in afghanistan who work for american companies than american soldiers. they are the ones that carry this job. they are on the front line a lot. i've had american contractors rewarded byn't get

raising concerns about how stupid a program is. i get rewarded by implementing -- whether it's succeeds or not. host: this is john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. thomas in maryland on the independent line. you are on with our guest. caller: i'm a retired military officer. the reason i'm calling is ended behavioral therapist. you talk about who gets rewarded. why are we not relentlessly linking the programs we think are of value, if we are able to pitch them, to either their economic reward or the contingency of something they want? there is that question. the other one is if they say we are not interested in improving

women's welfare in afghanistan, and i say this as a social worker trained in this theory, why don't we put on the big boi bridges and say there seems to be a cultural or religious difference of opinion and we are probably not going to do well here? why don't we be honest about the fact that if we don't continue to stay in afghanistan, china will be glad to take over that territory and not give a darn about human rights? there is this allusion we are rebuilding nations. iraq, ieen to iran and agree with that caller we need to dispense with nationbuilding and go behavioral earlier regarding what we want from that country. the difference is we are not as honest as the british were. we are not into imperialism and colonialism, but we have this photo allusion we can democratize or make it something they are not interested in.

itself thatreligion does not promote the idea of being straightforward with somebody they consider current or future enemies. thank you for your service. agree withve to almost everything you said. you remind me that the new head of difd, the british aid program, the gold standard on a member ofis parliament named rory stewart. he wrote a book called "the place between." afghanistanross right after the taliban were kicked out. if you read that book, and i'm not getting a percentage of his royalties, but read that book at he raises every issue you do. it is a little bit of this hubris we have. we can turn another country into little america.

and there is a second point and that is the mendacity. those are the two words i would describe our experience in afghanistan. hubris and mendacity. the mendacity is we lied to ourselves and belied to the american people. we came in and oversold what we could do in a short period of time. it is like that thing with the goats. we sold congress we would change the industry for raising goats. six months, nine-month, whatever. because we have a two-year appropriation cycle. you have to show success. the person we interviewed who was an expert on it who was hired by this program and quit out of discussed said -- digust said it takes 20 years to do that. if you go to afghanistan, you go for six months a year, that's about it. you have to show success because

you want a promotion. every year somebody will go over and say this program before, my predecessor was horrible but it will succeed because i want to show it. the problem is, and this is why i go back to what i said before, many problems we see in afghanistan or problems that we create. we shoot ourselves in the foot because we have an hr system, human relations system, how we hire and fire people that is broken. how we procure things is broken. not justin afghanistan -- just in afghanistan. how we design programs is broken. how we reward people is broken. we just do it again in afghanistan. it is like on steroids, all these problems. host: 130 billion we have slated for reconstruction. guest: we spent $700 billion on the war. host: how much goes to the

government or how does it get to the government? is it cash? guest: that's another good point. cashof the money we spend we do the contracting. money that we call on budget where we cut a check to the afghan ministry of finance and they do the budgeting. if you think we are bad in our contracting, if you think our incentives are bad, go to afghan government contracting and holy mackerel. you have never seen anything like afghan contracting. the government is improving. but still, we lose visibility. i, because we have law enforcement authority -- i think the viewers should know this. , fbi and irse agents who can make arrests. but i lose my legal authority to do that if the money goes on budget.

one of the risks because of the afghans committing crimes with u.s. money, that is the way the law is. one of our risks are. as we go into a negotiation and pieces developed, -- peace is developed, there will be fewer americans to watch the money. there is a tendency that we will ship more of that money on budget to the afghan government. to me, we don't have the controls in place. i think i testified before a house committee. why don't you just pilot the money in the circle and burn it? it will be totally useless or almost useless, except we will feel good we gave them money, but totally useless to the afghans. host: jack in davenport, florida is next. caller: john, i appreciate your spirit. why is it the words you say do

not get eliminated -- illuminated? i'm back from afghanistan become trying to get money owed to afghan from government contractors. moneyvernment contracting that was not given to the afghans. please, can you tell me why we are hurting ourselves, shooting ourselves in the foot why not allowing the money that is owed thefghan young guys, builders who did not get paid by the contractors? how can we get the money to them? every day we do not give a penny to them is a data become a bad guy. we went there to make good guys. we are making more bad guys. guest: jack, i think you had a good point. we are doing some research on that. we have done some investigations in the past about afghan

subcontractors not being paid. jack, i would love to talk to you more personally. i think if you want to go on our hotline and just mention my name and mention this, we will get back and talk to you about how we can help. you are correct. if an afghan contractor does not get paid, if he is screwed by an american or foreign contractor, and everybody assumes there is an american involved, we just turned somebody into a taliban recruit. you are absolutely correct about that. let's see if we can do it. the hotline is s igrhotline.mail.mil. we don't have a monopoly on good ideas or monopoly on facts and information. if any of your callers have

facts, have information, served in a guinness tin, solve problems, or are suspicious because a colleague came back and all of a sudden he's driving around in a mercedes and he should not be, call us. we can try to do something. we will reach out to those people who have stolen money from the american taxpayer. of information from that tip line, and a lot of information from afghanistan. host: give me an instance from the tip line. guest: a soldier came back and all of a sudden his neighbors saw him driving a fancy car. and buying aguns new house. somebody pick of the phone and called us and said this is suspicious. spouses talking about the money they came back in the mail, or came in

different occasions like that. we had a guy sending some ill-gotten gains back. hundreds of thousands of bribes. he would hide the money and electronics and ship them back. it look like he bought a hi-fi or some type of radio. it was full of cash. you want to find out something, and we did. this tip line is really good. we have thirtysomething people in afghanistan. we are better known in afghanistan that we are here, and we get a lot of tips and afghanistan that try to help us protect the money on budget. host: this is from marion in virginia, democrats line. caller: hi. you talked about afghan women. i am an afghan woman. before talibanfe as a child. teenager and young

woman --a teenager and young woman. that women aret not going back. yes, they would not go back. --y are trying so hard to you guys hear them that they don't like this piece talk. they are not even being part of it. no one hears them. you spent soime, much money on women and children. how much did you spend on education? of any successful situation in any country. you spend ony did women's health and hygiene? how much money did you spend on stopping child marriage? -- how much focus

did you put on women's equality and running the government to be part of the government? at the same time, asking government and saying if you don't even involve them in the talk between the u.s. government and the taliban. and now with the military, do you know who supports the taliban? where do they get the military support? the money, the guns? i just want to know about these things. host: thank you for your call. guest: let me just correct the caller's question a little. i don't give out money in afghanistan. we oversee it. the real question is how much money have we spent, the united

states and the coalition has been for these things? we have spent billions of dollars on education and health care. those have been two key elements .f the usaid i don't have this figures offhand, off the top of my head. if you go to our website and look at our quarterly reports, we total those numbers up. it is into the billions. we spent a lot of money on infrastructure, but we are spending money on paying for doctors, nurses, paying salaries for teachers. that is a big portion of the assistance. quite a bit of money was spent. whether it was well spent, we have some questions about that. the other question i think is where do the terrorists get their funding? they get a lot of funding from extortion, kidnapping and

narcotics trading. they do get funding from outside of afghanistan. they get support from other organizations. i don't really do counterterrorism per se, so i think you could probably find those numbers in testimony that comes up from either the military or the state department or our intelligence agencies who have broken down those numbers of where the money comes from. nda from chico, california. caller: they say that afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, since alexander the great. i guess that is where america is heading as long as we stay there. they also say when we build a road, they blow it up. when we build the school, they blow it up. give always be like this. as far as the boy think is

concerned, that is a reenactment. a aou read the koran, it's version of the islamic hers in a parody voice -- version of paradise. virgin boys are highly prized in paradise. host: we will leave it there. guest: i don't know the question is. host: we have a comment off of twitter. she talked about afghanistan women in the future of the country. discussions about their future. guest: again, i'm not part. of the negotiating team my office does not do that. afghans when im go over there and from the press is they are not at the table. that is a concern. i know a lot of afghan women and

men have expressed they are not at the table. the afghan government is not at the table either. host: when it comes to data collection from afghanistan, one thing that will not be part of that is how much control is by the taliban. guest: that's a concern we have. this quarter in the quarterly report we noted this is the first time the u.s. government is not collecting information on the number of districts or territories controlled by the taliban or the afghan government. nor are they collecting any information on the population under control of the afghan government or the taliban or terrorists. why is this significant? this is significant because last year or the year before last, officer,r military

general nicholson, a great guy, great military leader articulated to congress and to the american people that the two tests for success or failure in afghanistan are the amount of territory controlled by the afghan government and the population. he said based upon -- you can judge our work in afghanistan by looking at territory and population. he said by 2019, the afghan government would be controlling 80%. that was the goal and that was the test to hold us to. all of a sudden they are not clicking the data on it. -- collecting the data on it. somebody in congress asked me the same question that the caller did. what does this mean? to me, you have to ask the government why they are not collecting data. it is like going to a football game and halfway through they

turn off the scoreboard and say never mind. the score is not really important. what really causes us concern, and i believe in transparency and i believe in what lincoln said. give the american people the facts and we will be free. i think the american people have the right to know how well we are spending your money. my money. that is fair, too. indications of success or failure are now either classified or were not collect -- we are not collecting it. when they read the quarterly reports or they hear testimony, the american people don't know how well we are doing a job. in the the fault of us american government because the american taxpayer has the right to know how their money is being spent. i'm a firm believer in that. host: from fort lauderdale,

mark. caller: hello. i love mr. sopko. it's kind of love-hate. speech about the boondoggles and the money thrown but, it makes me sick i'm glad to hear about it. the women's subject has come up a couple of times this morning. do you remember back before the when we choseon the taliban where the guys that were fighting the russians tooth and nail as our allies, prior to that, at least in the cities, afghanistan, the women were getting modernized. they had jobs. they did not have to wear those hoods. they were making progress.

russians camethe in and destroyed the society and we kind of handed it to the taliban and let them run wild that the russians were gone -- after the russians were gone, the religious people in the modernizen't want to to an american-style democracy. any place that did modernize, -- theyy it was with were getting pretty secularized but we did not like the guy redoing it. you take a look at our allies. saudi arabia. they don't give women any there and we just handed them billions of dollars in arms because they support us. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: here is my main question. how is it this agency keeps running considering how our government hates whistleblowers

and does not like it when they get exposed for doing stupid things like throwing billions of dollars into wasteful projects? that is my question. guest: mark, i'm glad you asked that question. it is something you should be proud of and it is something we should all be proud of as americans. i'm inspector general. i'm an independent inspector general. i may be more independent than others and that is because of the statute that created me did not house me in one government agency. we should be proud. i go overseas and i talk to ambassadors from england, germany, switzerland, whatever, japan. of ourl are in awe inspector general act. 1978. congress passed the independent inspector general act that says there shall be independent inspectors general, nonpartisan,

apolitical inspectors general whose job is the day they are nominated and confirmed, they immediately start investigating congressional actions as well as executive actions. you don't know how many foreigners and journalists in particular say this is amazing. i wish we had an ig act and germany, the u.k., in norway or sweden. we should be proud of that. how do i stay in existence? since 1978, inspectors general, if they do their job correctly and stay in office in a medical the president is -- i was appointed by president obama, but i'm not an obama appointee per se, i continued under president trump. there are many ig's appointed by

president reagan who went through the democratic administrations, republican administrations, it does not matter. i would tell the viewer thank god we have a forward thinking congress and they passed this bill. i'm glad you support it. the reason i'm still doing what i'm doing in the 70 other ig's are doing it is because we have support of people like you. host: how often do you get calls from members of congress directly asking about your work? guest: on a weekly basis. we get briefed by members of staff all the time. i have a team briefing some staffers on this high-risk list. i just had people briefing on the women's issue. a number of senators and staff are concerned about women's issues. long-term doing a lessons learned report on raising all these issues that the last callers have raised about gender.

erw do you hinder gend issues in another country? we are trying to come up with best practices and what works and did not work in afghanistan. host: john, hello? caller: i think you're doing great work. we question i have is spent almost $1 trillion in afghanistan. thousands of lives have been lost. i know it is a different culture. they don't seem very grateful. lithium tolot of chinese contractors, but don't spend a nickel in afghanistan. should the u.s. be requesting the afghan government that their ministers not give these contracts to china and th give them to the u.s.? guest: that's a good question but i can't answer it. i don't do policy. that is a real policy issue.

there were some contracts given to some chinese companies early on. that are also allegations there were bribes paid for that. that goes back to the rule of law issue i raised about that. that is a policy issue. i would recommend you raise it with your local congressman or senator about that. decide, they can put conditions on the money we give. that is an issue somebody else raised. we should be brave enough to say no to the afghans. if they are doing something we don't like, don't give them the money. that is one of the things we early on criticized the administration, the last administration, about we are doing this and putting no conditions on it. little boys, we

didn't care. you want to steal the money, we did not care. it was only around three or four years ago that there was a general who ran our programs that told me the first time the department of defense put any conditions on the money they gave to the afghan military. can you believe that? after being there for 18 years, it took us the first 14 years before we had conditions. you would not do that with your children. do whatever you want. this is just common sense. you put conditions on giving the money to somebody. this is not something they have a right to. the american taxpayer wants to book. b bank for his buck.g for his you should do that any time pico

into a development field. host: david from maryland -- michigan. democrats line. caller: i like the comments in the questions from the previous caller from florida. my question is, you said the taliban has received some funding from the opium trade. i always heard the taliban had all but destroyed the opium trade because of their fundamentalist islamic beliefs. which is the truth? guest: the truth is both. when the taliban was in power for one season, one growing season, they stopped all production and export. people don't really know why they did it. was it because of their religious fervor or did they want to drive the price up? opium, you can buried in the

ground for 20 years. the price obviously for raw opium and heroin went through the roof. the next year they made a ton of money on that. or the third reason given was they wanted to try to impress the international community to get assistance. we don't really know. i don't have an answer about the motivation of the taliban to do that. since then, since they got kicked out of power, they are taxing the growers and more importantly the producers who run the labs and export it. we hear estimates and don't know for sure. i think dea may have the best numbers. anywhere from 30% to 60% of their operating budget comes from the taxing of opium. this is one of the things where he is correct on both sides. host: terry from florida on the independent line.

caller: good morning. thank you for coming on and educating america. what you said about the lahey sorry, any country that is still doing this? we should not be sending money to countries that are doing things that we don't like. especially in violation of human rights. that to todayly and what the military is sending onward to other countries. i appreciated. -- appreciate it. guest: good question. i wish i could answer it. i only have authority to look

into afghanistan when we did that report. what you are highlighting is the lahey act is one of these statutes that puts conditions. and that is what we should do. it is a great statute. it is something used around the world. it applies everywhere, but i have not looked at what is going on in other countries. i have read newspaper accounts but it is just anecdotal. that is smart conditionality. that is what we called for in afghanistan and we hope it is being done elsewhere. host: indiana, independent line. go right ahead. terry from lafayette? caller: yes, sir. the chinese are getting contracts. as soon as we leave they will be

right back. we have given millions and millions to pakistan and i would not give them a dime. heroin comes from afghanistan. 80% of the world's hashish comes from afghanistan. host: we will leave it there. guest: i don't know what to say. host: when do you estimate your job is done? what is the timeline? guest: whenever congress tells us that. the statute says we go out of existence when the amount of development, redevelopment, reconstruction falls below $250 million. i believe it is three months or six month afterwards. congress can decide before then. we are a temporary agency, and i believe in temporary agencies. i think there should be more temporary agencies in the government. we still have a mission for a while because as we note peace

will cost money. is that 70% of the comes fromrnment donors. so if you want lasting peace, you are going to have to support the afghan government. now more than ever, you need oversight because there will be fewer soldiers and fewer state department and aid people there, so you have to protect that money, otherwise, you are burning it up. our guest is a inspector general for affix to -- afghanistan construction. thank you for joining us. that is it for our program. another addition of "washington journal" come jewelry at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> president trump this morning spoke to reporters on the south lawn of the white house as he was departing for colorado. here is some of what he had to say. [indiscernible] president trump: i don't see how. possiblyhey are allowed, although, i cannot imagine the court is allowing it. i never got into it. i never thought that would be possible to be using that word. to me, it is a dirty word, the word impeach. it is a dirty, filthy, disgusting word, and it has nothing to do with me, so i don't think so because there was no crime.

aura, it is high crimes and misdemeanors. there was no high crime and no misdemeanor, so how do you impeach based on that? and it came out that there was nothing to do with russia. the whole thing is a scam. it is a giant presidential harassment, and honestly, i hope it goes down as one of my greatest achievements because i've been spoke corruption. -- i besoke corruption. >> all of the president's comments at www.c-span.org. those remarks from the president as he was about to board marine one, but beginning his trip to colorado springs, where he is delivering the commencement address at the air force academy ceremony today at 1230 time p.m. eastern. we will have that live on c-span , online at c-span.org, and on the free-speech c-span

radio app. russia'srnoon, look at growing influence from the middle east. that is live on c-span at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative. plus, information about committees. state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. the chicago council on global affairs recently posted four former ambassadors about the future of the nato alliance under the trump administration. this is just over one hour. >> thank you, everybody, for joining us and thank you to the