tv critic discusses his book on donald trump use of use of telen business and his political career. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to the "washington journal" on this september 17, 2019. constitution day in america. we will mark the signing of the constitution back in 1787 with how you would change it. republicans dial in at 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also text us your views at 202-748-8003 or join us on twitter at @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. amend the u.s.

constitution? tore have been 27 amendments the u.s. constitution. the first 10 compromise the bill of rights. the 21st amendment repealed the the sale ofbanned alcohol in the united states and the 27th amendment permits members of congress from receiving a pay raise until the next election had been held. how would you amend it? start dialing in now. it joining us on the phonies jeffrey rosen. let's begin with what was happening on this day in 1787 and the history of marking this day with constitution day. 87, september 17 in independence hall was the day the constitution was formerly --

formally approved and proposed. it was not the day it was ratified. the convention authorized president washington to send out the approved constitution to the states for ratification. after months of deliberation between may 20 fifth and september 17, the constitutional convention proposed the constitution. congress passed a law requiring public school kids to learn about the constitution on constitution day. that is why it is the biggest day of the year here in philadelphia and we are looking forward to a wonderful day of learning. host: how will you mark the day? guest: we are launching the most amazing new online educational platform and i cannot wait for c-span viewers to check it out. it is called the interactive constitution and you can find it at constitutioncenter.org/

interactiveconstitution. it includes early drafts of every major provision. you can see the amendments james madison proposed, but were never adopted. it includes videos of elena kagan and neil gorsuch and others to teach kids about the constitution. it includes lessons plans the college board is encouraging advanced placement high school students to study and learn about the first amendment and may be the most exciting provision of all, it includes classroom exchanges so students and teachers can sign up online long constitutions moderated by federal judges and teachers. it is moving to see kids from philadelphia connecting to those in ohio or california and

kentucky and see people agreeing and disagreeing not about political issues, but constitutional issues and that is what the framers hope for. host: we are asking our viewers how they would amend the constitution. why hasn't it been amended in 27 years? guest: it is very hard to amend. there are four ways to amend the constitution. you can have an amendment proposed either by two thirds of both houses of congress or by a special convention summoned on application of two thirds of the states. then it has to be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures or special conventions. that is a really hard hurdle to meet and that is why we have not had an amendment for a long time. host: what are some proposed amendments that are the furthest along in the process? along ise furthest

actually the equal rights amendment, which was proposed in 1972 and came within about three states of ratification and some states like virginia are reconsidering weather or not -- whether or not to ratify. the original one had a time limit, so it is not clear those old ratifications would count. other proposals that have a lot of support -- probably the one with the most support is the balanced budget amendment. there are quite a number of states, more than majority, that have called for the balanced-budget amendment. that amendment is within fighting distance of getting the three quarters necessary to call a convention to propose and then there are amendments on all sorts of issues ranging from amendments to overturn the citizens united decision to amendments dealing with religious liberty and reproductive rights and so forth . those are some of the ones out there. host: is it easier to amend the

constitution, in your opinion? guest: it is a tough question, but my instinct is no. look at what happened in britain which made a fundamental constitutional decision with a single one-off vote, a referendum and a constitutional crisis emerged. the framers want to slow down that because they believed popular passion would inflame people and you needed second thoughts and to jump through hoops in order to allow the constitution to speak in the name of "we the people." that is the argument against making it easier and james madison opposed having a second constitutional amendment -- convention. he thought it was a miracle the first one went as well as it did. he did not want another convention. thomas jefferson disagreed and

thought the constitution should be renewed every few generations. host: is there anything in the constitution you would amend? well, my job at the constitution center is to lead america's nonpartisan center for constitutional education so i can describe the arguments for and against amendments, all sides. that is the remarkable thing about the constitution. even the most controversial provisions. let's take the electoral college . the arguments against it are that it is anti-democratic to have a president that loses the have a president that loses the popular vote, but becomes president. the argument is it allows the president to represent all states geographically, not just the most populist states. it is exciting to be -- for the center to convene these debates.

i encourage listeners to look up podcast.he people" the more i listen to these debates, the more convinced i am that there are good arguments on both sides of these constitutional questions and it turns down the partisan heat and it is an exciting opportunity to learn. host: viewers can learn and access all those resources if you go to constitutioncenter.org. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for c-span and everyone, happy constitution day. host: yes. we welcome our viewers to call in and say how you would amend the constitution. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can also text us at 202-748-8003 or go to twitter and facebook.com/cspan as well.

let me begin the conversation by showing you justice neil gorsuch there to talk about his new book "a republic: if you can keep it." here is what he said about the bill of rights and the separation of powers. [video clip] , ithe separation of powers can sound pretty dry. everybody understands that the first amendment contributes to your liberty. we all get that. the fourth amendment, we understand that. i don't think we understand or appreciate may be everyday as much as we might how the separation of powers contributes to our liberty and the genius of it. madison wrote the constitution, did not want to write a bill of rights, the first amendment through the 10th. he thought if we got the structure right, we would not need a bill of rights and he thought a bill of rights at the end of the day was a list of

promises and promises are only as good as the enforcement mechanism behind them. here is how to test madison in the real world. bills of rights, which one is your favorite? the united states bill of rights is pretty good. my favorite is north korea's. yes, i said north korea. it promises everything our bill of rights promises and more. you get a free education, free health care, and my favorite, the right to relaxation. it sounds pretty good, doesn't it? i am not sure how that fairs with the political prisoners over there, but there you are. the truth is that bill of rights is not written -- worth the paper it is written on because all power is in the hands of a tyrant. that was madison's genius and he recognized that. what am i? i am 1/9 of one third of a

federal government, which is one half of our federal system. divide power. that was the wisdom of madison. that all sounds pretty academic and maybe a little walk issue -- walkish. that,mber when i learned like when i learned physics, it sounded pretty dry. as a judge, i came to realize and see the real impact leveling up the separation of powers has on your liberty. host: neil gorsuch last night talking about his new book "a republic: if you can keep it." if you want to see the remarks, you can go to our website, c-span.org. how would you amend the u.s. constitution? that is our question for you all on this constitution day. a democrat, you are up first. good morning. .onathan, you are on the air turn down the television and talk and listen through your

phone. caller: okay. thank you. thank you. what i would do -- okay, hold on. i would get rid of the electoral college. it is outdated and it needs to be changed. by 3 lost the popular vote million votes and he is now the president. there is also a ruling in the federal court that the electors were not bound by the federal vote. that would mean essentially an end to democracy. here we talk about constitution day and we have a president that has stomped all over the constitution. the separation of powers is gone

. thank you for taking my call. host: jonathan was referring to a case out of the tent circus dealing with a law in colorado where the 10th circuit deemed it unconstitutional to bind the electors to the popular vote. take a look at a gallup poll done recently on this issue. americans split on proposals for popular vote and they found 55% among -- prefer amending the constitution to base the winner on the popular vote. we are asking all of you this morning how would you amend the u.s. constitution? let's go to joe in massachusetts. caller: good morning, conrad

citizen. the electoral college should definitely go to read if we cannot get rid of it, at least make it so the electoral college votes of the state are proportional. get rid of the winner take all -- i would certainly i don't think they will ever get rid of the electoral college like wyoming and north dakota and south dakota would never give up the uneven implements they have in our process -- uneven influence they have in our process. host: here is a piece by the albuquerque journal about -- to end gonna stalemate is their headline, amend the constitution and this is what they write. the situation need not be hopeless. some believe a policy could be hadeved if gun enthusiasts

a new, indisputable constitutional protection of their rights to have guns for protection and hunting. you you agree that is where you could see some middle ground? , i think there is some room to deal with it. i think the way it is right now, it is flat out that almost anyone can get a gun. i think maybe we could discuss it in some ways. host: greg in virginia, independent. how would you amend the constitution? caller: i definitely think we need a balanced budget amendment . we are $22 trillion in debt and something like that to me would have the best chance of passing and included in that should be something about not allowing them to raise the debt ceiling because obviously it looks like

they just can't get a handle on the budget. they are not able to control it themselves. i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment. floor, bently on the mcadams was talking on the house floor about efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> it is not as if we woke up this morning to suddenly face this fiscal calamity. it has been building up for decades. both parties and republican and democratic administrations have contributed to the problem. the question is what are we going to do about it and win will we start to get our borrowing and spending addiction under control? the blue dog coalition of which i am a proud member has a well-deserved reputation for talking the talk and walking the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. at the blue dog priorities

on fiscal sponsor ability and you will see a comprehensive list of pragmatic steps we can take, some of which we have already taken. blue dogs support the house pay go rules. it is one of the first things the blue dogs fought for. i was proud to see the house keep those rules. we don't want those rules to be waived. if they are, there should be a vote held on a waiver. require a balanced budget every year except in times of war. in times of national emergency, or recession. i was proud that my first bill introduced in this congress was this exact balanced budget amendment the blue dogs have endorsed. we want to return to regular order, passing a budget every year and on time and avoiding omnibus appropriations packages that do not align with the budget. host: ben mcadams on the floor talking about his efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment

to the constitution. bob in tyler, texas, your turn. how would you amend it? caller: i would like to amend it by requiring every person that gets on the ballot to first pass a test on the constitution because we are totally ignoring it. and jeffrey rosen, i think he was wrong because we had the guaranty clause, article 4, section 4 requires we have a republican form of government. our founders desperately feared a democracy and majority rule. adams was explicit about how deadly and short-lived a democracy was. that is absolutely antithetical to our accounting. i wish that you had called senator brian hughes.

he is the one in 2004 who established the constitutional week law and robert byrd unconstitutionally spread it across to. each public school we see in america that receives government funds, which is unconstitutional, by the way, is to have a program on the constitution today. i would encourage your listeners andind their nearest school ask them what program are they having on the constitution today? i would like to participate. there is so much being ignored about the constitutional -- constitution in our history that it is just appalling and jeffrey rosen sounds like a nice guy, but he does not know the guarantee clause for the constitution. for a republican form of government and to protect each

state against invasion, which everybody -- nobody has paid attention to that. that is the reason the constitution was written. article 4 and 5 words in the preamble "provide for the common defense." thank you for doing this. i love c-span and have a great constitution day. host: crystal in tennessee, republican. good morning to you. caller: i have to agree with the gentleman from texas. he nailed everything i was thinking. in south carolina, you are next. caller: good morning.

people were angry when kanye west suggested the 13th amendment be abolished. i kind of agree because slavery criminallegal activity, so the 13th amendment was redundant to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude. one of the key components of the 13th amendment is slavery was legal when it was a punishment for crime. with thatdid provision, they immediately made vagrancy a crime. if you were a slave with no job, you could be arrested, sent to restitution, you had to sometimes work for the that had youster

in the first place. what are you driving at? since: i am thinking slavery was illegal in the first place, to have an amendment to abolish slavery was redundant. they should have abolished slavery and let it go at that. englishmen when they came slavery was not allowed in the kingdom of ingham -- england and once you set foot on american soil, you were a free englishmen. -- thisis morning afternoon, 1:00 p.m. eastern time, before the house judiciary committee, corey lewandowski, the former campaign manager for the trump residential campaign

will be testifying about possible obstruction of the mueller investigation. he played aou know, part in the mueller investigation. he was questioned by robert mueller and as the new york -- end scrutiny of president trump's campaign. is also fiercely .oyal -- not allowse is other officials to testify today and we will be talking about witha little bit later on

congressman raskin. we will talk to him about today's hearing. you can watch that 1:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span 3, or download the c-span radio app if you are not near a screen. host: how would you amend the u.s. constitution? anthony, democratic caller, you are next. caller: good morning. i would look at -- there is a song by a group called maze. it is called color. opportunity if .ou have not heard this group

we talk about separation of power, religious threats. impacts all of us and we pay for it in multiple iterations. courtroom lawyers, personnel, judges. if we are charged with a crime, we pay to defend ourselves and lose our wages going to court and if we win that case, we don't get any money back. that is one point we need to look at the separation of powers. the other one, we look at .eparation of powers at birth, everyone should be

immediately registered to vote. host: dave dotson says the u.s. should amend the constitution to put an end to gerrymandering. he says the practice of drawing congressional district lines to isor one party over another a serious problem in the united states. to stop the practice, the u.s. should add an amendment to prevent it. do you agree? disagree with his analysis? jerry, how would you amend the constitution? caller: good morning.

i don't think i would amend the constitution. i think these people more or less should have studied physics in high school. host: james in tennessee. caller: that last caller said learning anything in school. brown.ns really are people who came here decide others can have a right to vote were not really humans.

host: all right, james. recently on the "washington termal," we spoke to u.s. limits whose group is pushing to a national convention to set congressional term limits. [video clip] >> under article 5, there are two ways to propose an amendment or you can get a two thirds vote in congress. we call that the turkeys voting for thanksgiving method or you can go back to the state legislatures and get two thirds of state legislatures to call a convention to propose an amendment. this was inserted by the framers at the constitutional convention runive states an end around washington, d.c. and the states for congress to do right

when it was not in their best interest. there are states that have called for convention term limit congress. there have been 15 that called for convention that would include term limit in congress as well as other issues like a balanced budget -- amendment. host: does that open up a pandora box of changing the entire constitution? singlere talking about a issue convention to propose a single amendment. if you look at the legislation the states passed, they all say the convention is only operative if it focuses on term limits for members of congress and no other subject and there are many safeguards built into the product -- process. the biggest safeguard is any constitutional amendment in america has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures to become part of the constitution. that is why we have a firewall against constitutional amendments and we have only had 27 in our history because it is

exceptionally hard to do. host: we are talking about the u.s. constitution and how you would amend it on this constitution day, which as the washington post notes, has its roots in a holiday known as i am an american day -- third sunday in may to commemorate citizenship. -- renamed it constitution day. it wasn't until 2004 that congress took action, approving a resolution to require all schools that receive federal funding for education program on the constitution law does not define what those lessons should be and there is no penalty for doing it. this morning, we turn to all of you to get your thoughts on how you would amend it. let's get your thoughts -- james in tennessee. good morning.

let's go to elizabeth in ohio. democratic caller. elizabeth, good morning to you. to you.good morning thanks for taking my call. have neverold and i seen a president like this in my life. host: how would you amend the constitution? caller: i would say to get rid of him. host: john in ocean city, new jersey. republican. caller: good morning, greta. how are you? host: morning. caller: i would amend the constitution with the 27th amendment. the threat to the constitution today is language changes as time rolls by and informal language has affected the

interpretation of today's constitution that we don't speak colonial american english anymore. congress and the supreme court and presidents have taken such broad liberties that frankly, more than half of the taxes taxpayers pay, if you use language science to interpret the constitution adequately cannot be justified. they are conducting fraud on the american taxpayer public claiming things are constitutional, which cannot be rendered by the constitution. thank you. pete.hi, caller: how are you doing today? host: doing well. how would you amend the constitution? caller: great. thank you for letting me on the communist socialist party against nationalism. i would have an amendment to where no other president can weaponize like mr. obama did and

plus, it is pathetic how all racistlack callers are calling in your station. you let them put down white people to read i don't understand how any white man in america can vote for a democrat. host: during one minute speeches on the house floor this summer, california democrat jerry mcnerney discussed his effort for a campaign-finance constitutional amendment. [video clip] >> the way we finance campaigns in this country is a truth that threatens our democracy. -- 40% of hundreds

of millions of dollars. citizens united and related decisions, this number is even greater today. the massive amount of money flowing into our political system corrupts the palooka process and stymies effectiveness. reform a broken campaign-finance system. eliminate political action committees and dark money. funding for a balanced measure would be limited to the use of a public financing system for donations given directly to the campaign by individual citizens. this would end much of the corruption in washington. i urge my colleagues to do everything possible to help limit corruption in washington, including supporting this constitution. host: we are asking all of you, tell us your thoughts on how you would amend the constitution.

we will go to william in jefferson, township -- jefferson township, pennsylvania. caller: i would amend the to make it a must to have a balanced budget. it would end the spending spree in washington. .e are $22 trillion in debt also, i think term limits would be great, if they could somehow put that in an amendment, to limit the terms in office. i don't believe that the founders of this country would believe in career politicians. -- a chance to serve in office and without pay.

because of the federal funding should -- they should be required to teach the constitution. host: hi, byron. how would you change the constitution? caller: i would not change it at all. i think it is working fine. calledple that call in it a democracy. it is not a democracy, it is a republic and we should keep it. thank you for taking my call. host: art in virginia, independent. caller: how are you doing? thank you very much. the amending of the constitution on campaign reform. i think it is needed, there is a lot of money going into the political system. the lobbyists have control of

our congressmen and senators. i do believe we do need to have .ome type of campaign reform lobbyists are hired to write our bills. it should be changed. host: john in manchester, connecticut. hi, john. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i guess i am a little bit of a hopeless cynic about the constitution. no matter what kind of change you make the constitution, it is not going to be respective as long as you have the left as it is in this country. there judges interpret the constitution to serve their

political ends. says in in this country the constitution whatever they want to see. for example, the first amendment guarantees free speech. the left says it does not mean free speech, it says hate speech is not guaranteed. there is nothing about hate speech in the constitution. the second one is the second amendment. the left sees not the right to bear arms, but the right for militia to bear arms. 25thhird one is using the amendment to get rid of president trump by interpreting is.i amtal instability very hopeless about the constitution. itlong as people do not read as it is, nothing is going to change. law: congress shall make no

respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the peaceful to -- or the people to assemble. the second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the 19th amendment, the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of sex. the 27th amendment, no law bearing the compensation for the services of senators or representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. those are some of the amendments to the constitution. how would you change it? ? pueblo, colorado. you are next. caller: good morning, america.

aane a disabled -- i am disabled veteran, served in the vietnam war. be second amendment should amended to deny weapons of war. the reason being when the constitution was written, the second amendment was included to allow the citizenry to defend foreign invaders from england, france, spain, the dutch, portuguese, and others. theunited states now, in 21st century, has one of the most powerful war machinery in the world. well-funded and organized. we are turning the guns on each other mostly by races, mental health cases, drug cartels, and terrorists. in the military, all weapons are

locked except when going into a combat zone. soldiers do not walk around with a gun. ar-15's or ak-47. they are locked. the same should apply to citizens in the united states. thank you very much. phil inll in burke -- vert, virginia, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. if i were to make an amendment, it would be to get rid of the electoral college. our values have evolved since the framers created a mixed government system that really massesot of fear of the and mass democracy and we have seen that change in nearly every other way we elect leaders. in addition to that, i want to

comment a lot of callers are pointing out the problem with how people interpret the constitution. i would like to point out there has never been a political party in our history that has not interpreted the constitution to their own interest. the framers themselves interpreted the constitution as they had to deal with issues of their time beginning with the federalists and alexander hamilton national bank. even the political party that was jefferson's party that was afraid of loose interpretation of the constitution, they themselves interpreted their own powers to their benefit. the louisiana purchase, nothing suggested jefferson had the power to buy that much territory from a foreign government. i would just like to point that out. i really think we need a more civic education that allows people or encourages and teaches

people to talk about these issues outside of a partisan lens. this is evidenced from a lot of what i hear from your callers. if we cannot talk about issues today without thinking about our own opinions and our own interest in the political system . i think if we really want the constitution to serve its purpose, we as a society need to look at how we educate ourselves regarding the constitution and civics in general. host: following up on your first thet about changing electoral college, gallup did a poll and found 55% prefer amending the constitution to base the winter on the popular say awarding the popular votes to the electoral vote winner. democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning, greta.

the calling to rebut previous caller who says the left-wing runs roughshod over the constitution. it is the right wing. the second amendment is not an toolute right not able possess a bazooka or grenade and to say somehow we need ak-47s print -- protect ourselves from the government. the government is going to come in with drones and tanks. some callers don't want democracy. they are anti-democratic by saying they want to retain the electoral college. host: billy's thoughts in new york. i want to show you all on may 21, the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment

occurred and members of congress spoke about the women's right to vote. many of the women wearing white that day. this is cathy mcmorris rodgers from that day. [video clip] >> that was 100 -- it was 100 years ago today this body passed a constant usual -- constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote . inspired generations of women to live their dream, toby courageous and be risk takers. they fought in search of a more perfect union to make sure the promise of america was available to women of all walks of life so that we, the people are able to make our voices heard. madam speaker, i am grateful for them. i am honored to stand here today 100 years later. their legacy reminds us of why we are empowered to do our right and write the next chapter of america's history.

host: that was cathy mcmorris rodgers. also want to show you a recent event at a she the people forum earlier this year. senator bernie sanders was asked his position on an equal rights amendment. [video clip] >> do you believe this country needs a constitutional amendment enshrining the rights of women? >> i do. we have had, as a nation, a troubled, troubled history in terms of racism, in terms of sexism, in terms of homophobia and many other injustices. i think it is appropriate to say in the constitution of the united states that women will be equal to men. host: do you agree with senator sanders or do you have another idea of how to amend the constitution? , twin falls, idaho.

independent. what do you think? caller: first of all, i would eliminate the 17th amendment. called forendment popular elections for the senators. that threw off the balance of power in our government and made the senators free agents to represent themselves. the next thing i would do is limit treaty power. what the senate has done with all these treaties, they have gutted our economy through what are called trade agreements. actually, they are agreements that change our domestic law. they negotiate internationally and that -- then boomerang back to where we have to change domestic law. they have abused treaty power. i would greatly limit, greatly restrict treaty power and what

can be negotiated and what can be called for in treaties. in germantown, maryland, good morning to you. agree with the last caller, the lady about the senator term. if we start doing the amendment for all of them, we will not end up with anything. we will change the constitution. we start with a basic, which is a term limit. if a president can have two terms, why not a senator or congressman with the previous caller about .he campaign-finance

what he has got his money from, we know where that is coming from. -- i amd thing is sorry. one more thing. host: you brought up an interesting point about trying --do too much when you amend if you try to amend the constitution. i want to show you what former senator tom coburn from oklahoma, republican -- he was on the program earlier this year talking about what he is doing now that he is retired from congress to try to call an article five convention to force congress to deal with things like medicare. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> that is how this place has

degenerated. it's always the next election and then we will do something. it has been that way 10 or 15 years. the reason i am doing the convention of states is the only real solution for the problems we have is article 5 convention for amendments that forces the government to make decisions to fix medicare and social security, that puts term limits on members of congress and limits the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government. host: back to our calls with all of you. bill in florida, how would you amend the constitution? caller: i would agree with the previous caller, ray. first thing would be term limits , republican or democrat. either way if they get in there and make a career out of it, i don't think that is what the framers had in mind. the balanced-budget amendment isnds great, but my fear

they would print their way out of it and you are in the same mess. host: regina in virginia, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. first, i want to make an observation that maybe you can clarifying the speech that goes on. people who run on and say left versus right, liberal versus conservative, they don't realize thomas jefferson is a liberal. if you were to put socialism on one end, on the other end, you would have fascism. when people are talking about judges and what they are talking about in the courts, they need to be specific and not fall into that little stuff into the little buzz words they have been taught by listening to talk

.adio as far as the constitution is concerned, i have a problem with basically having a constitutional convention because those things can kind of get out of hand. if i were to make any changes or suggest changes i would say as far as electoral college is concerned, i believe it like it is. if you have a situation where you don't have the popular vote going in with the electoral college where they don't agree, you should have a runoff. ohio,maranda, columbus, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. if i were to recommend an amendment to the constitution, i would put in that no law will be tosed that does not apply

all members of the federal government. some of the laws have been enacted, that congress is immune to them. to laws must apply congressional members as well as the general population. that would include salaries, medicare, include , and otherrance things along those lines. if it is good enough for the general population, it is good enough for congressional members. that would be my concern. host: in manassas, virginia, republican. i could do anything, it would be to enforce the over the federal

government. peopleent closest to the governs best. when people have government in their states that do the large share of doing what government is supposed to do, they have a greater -- their vote matters more, their voice matters more. the federal government is taking over responsibilities previously left to the states. it was the country has grown -- grown from 300 million to a hundred million. they created an administrative state that is unaccountable and opaque and corrupt and they are essentially passing laws and judgment on america that has nothing to do with the constitution. we need to get back to founding principles, restore power to the states and take it away from the federal government, which is hundreds and trillions of dollars in debt and over $20 trillion in debt right now. host: we will go to

pennsylvania. eric is watching, independent. hi, eric. caller: good morning, greta. that last caller, i would have to echo what he said. we have to be careful on states rights when it gets into discrimination. as far as the over bloated administrative and regulatory state, that caller was spot on the money and i would agree with the voices saying abolish the electoral college, set strict term limits. definitely public funding and pretty much a total tax and pretty much an evolving door between the regulators and the regulated. a lot of those offices observe like a 2 or five year coalition of not going to work in the

private industry that you were formerly regulating. for me, the number one amendment i would push would be an absolute abolition on any and verbiage,ous language, influence, or scriptural inclusion in what happens in our legislature. -- gives people to practice those on whatever is their holy day. people can raise their kids in culture. public, weve the need to get religion out of it. we see things like schools blocked up by writers in amendments and cords that writers want to preserve their

-- these little groups that sector off in america that has as much to do with religious admonition -- religious affiliation as it does with party affiliation and we can look at our history and know that wars that have been fought for territory and resources, those are wars to command. wars fought along religious lines, they never end. host: let me get in a couple more voices. tony, santa fe, independent. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing? host: morninghost:. caller: the only thing. since americans or politicians in our court systems don't seem to realize would be to put no law shall be made or enacted impactan environmental

-- people forget they need to go back to the declaration of independence to determine the constitution. in the complained about declaration of independence and the 28 or 27 different grievances we had there and bring it into the constitution come nobody talks about amendment 9? -- we have had our court court system corrupted. certain people on the supreme court have owned their own

allegiance to a foreign country. they are not allied to this country because they have already said it and certain of them have admitted it in court, in public, in their opinions. host: jack in new hampshire, independent. caller: good morning morning, greta. host: morning. caller: i would like to see them and act a 28th amendment, congress has to abide by any laws they pass that we have to abide by -- that they have to abide by. like exempting themselves from obamacare. everyone thect same on term limits. years should be max. people who have been they like bernie sanders and nancy pelosi who keep going on and on and a previous caller said they keep

going to a $200,000 a year job and come out with billions of dollars. it doesn't seem right and they should not be able to give themselves a pay raise. it should go to a vote on the people to authorize themhost: te calls. we will take a break. when we come back, jamie raskin will discuss the latest on house democrats efforts to investigate president trump and white -- what might come next. later we will talk with matthew gunsiere and talk about violence prevention measures. we will be back. ♪

>> c-span is back in des moines, iowa for life campaign 2020 coverage of the polk county annual steak fry beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern, where 18 candidates will take the stage for questions. >> president trump and first the -- the first eight lady will host the second state dinner as he welcomed scott wharton. scott morrison. arrivals and dinner toasts. live coverage begins friday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or on the free radio app.

>> the house will be in order. this -- c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of the white house, supreme court, and public policy event so you can make up your own mind. created in 1979, it is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. washington journal" continues. table, jamie our raskin, serves the eighth district and is the amount -- is a member of the judiciary committee. let us start with this headline, the white house will let the former campaign manager testify before your committee, but two others, rob porter and wic --

rick dearborn are not allowed. guest: look at the grammar of that sentence. the problem is that the white house thinks that it is up to them who testifies before congress. in the united states all of us owe congress are honest and truthful testimony. lewandowski was never a white house employee. constrain andg to limit his testimony based on an assertion of executive privilege or immunity, and they keep making up these new phrases. it is not up to them and congress is the lawmaking branch of government. the president's job is to make sure that the laws are executed. thatis a presidency increasingly behaves like a monarchy. they think that the president is a king gets to decide what happens. congress is the lawmaking branch and it was put in article one for a reason. host: these two other officials were subpoenaed by the committee. guest: again, it is not up to

the president. the sovereign power of the people passed through the preamble of the constitution right into article one. we the people in order to form a more perfect union is followed by the legislative power is vested in congress. the power of the people goes to congress and congress has the right to get the information that we want in order to pursue to truth, and legislate, and pass the laws that america needs. it is a very critical power that congress has to conduct oversight over the executive branch. the founders of the country did not want a king, they wanted a president to work with the people in congress. host: if these two gentlemen do not show up, what will happen? guest: as i understand it, they are not showing up. they are in direct defiance of congress, and they are acting in a contempt of the american people and the contempt of congress.

we will act accordingly. the problem is that this is a president that ordered everyone not to cooperate with the lawful requests of congress, not to cooperate with subpoenas. they tried to pull a court -- a curtain over the presidency. i ask my friends, imagine how they would be reacting if this was barack obama or bill clinton who said we will not participate in any congressional investigations. the democrats did not love the benghazi investigation and went on forever, but it was the power of congress to do that. we think this affects everybody in congress and everybody should be standing up for our prerogatives. host: you said the committee will act accordingly, what can you do? guest: we can hold them in contempt and go to court to try and enforce orders against them. if you go back to the 19th century, we would have to dust off some of the old cases, but it was clear that congress has

the power directly itself to hold people in contempt and compel their participation. we can compel people and hold people. i know congress can arrest people because a lot of my young constituents in high school were arrested for sitting in and office.-- and speaker's we do have the power of arrest. witness,re will be one corey lewandowski. they said he will come before the house judiciary committee. that gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern, and you can watch on our website at c-span.org and download the radio app. what are you going to ask? guest: lewandowski has already testified to the special counsel that he was ordered by the attorney to go to

general sessions who had recused himself over the russian investigation to tell him that he had to shut the investigation down or dramatically curtail it. this was totally outside the normal chain of command because lewandowski was not a white house employee who reported directly to the president. we want to get the details of that, and we want to figure out if he is not testifying, why is he not testifying? make something he is covered by executive privilege, someone who has never worked in the executive branch and someone who has never been a white house employee. it is unclear where they are getting that notion. host: the president had a rally in new mexico, and this is what he had to say about democrats' efforts in the mueller investigation. [video clip] pres. trump: let us impeach president trump.

the mueller report came out. , 18 trump haters, liberal democrats, some work for hillary clinton and they found nothing. think of it. after two years they found nothing and spend $40 million. there is not a person in the room that i could not find something on with that. think of it. nothing, no collusion collusion, no obstruction, no nothing. [end video clip] host: congressman? guest: the president stayed on message when -- with that mueller found nothing, when he found 10 areas of obstruction of justice. i would like to underscore that the mueller report was limited in its scope and definition. president trump said that if they began to look at its

finances that he would blow the whole thing up and terminate the thing. he would use all of his powers to destroy the investigation. that tells us where we need to go, and that is the story that america can understand, and that congress can understand. this presidency has been a moneymaking operation in direct defiance in violation of what the founders wanted. foreignon we have the clause, and the domestic laws is that the president is not to use the presidency as an instrument of self enrichment, and that is exactly what this president has done from the very beginning, collected millions of dollars through his hotels, the office tower and finances -- and other areas without requesting the consent of congress. abraham lincoln came to congress when they were two elephant tusks from the king of siam that he wanted to keep. congress said no. andrew jackson came to congress

when he wanted to keep a goldman italian from simone boulevard -- a gold medallion. congress said no. no other president has come remotely close from the emoluments clause. this president pocket some -- pockets millions of dollars from around the world. you name it. dictators,theon of kings, and princes. the framers wanted the present -- the president of the united states to have undivided loyalty to the american people, not to foreign agents dangling cash, and not to the president himself and his business making money. the domestic emoluments clause says that the president is limited to his salary and office. he cannot collect compensation. had is the president who

military stopovers organized to benefit the trump hotel and to locate military personnel at the trump hotel. we see that this president is doing everything he can to enrich himself and pocket money from the u.s. government. becauseign emoluments says no payouts from foreigners, and the domestic clause says no ripoffs from the taxpayers. this president has been engaged from day one. host: let us get to our viewers. we should note on this constitution day, a constitution professor for over 20 years. just knee in indiana, and -- jesse in indiana, and independent. go ahead. caller: i was hoping to make a couple of comments. it has to pertain to what you were talking about earlier with noncontrol. i think that congress makes a huge mistake whenever they try to legislate something that the

average law-abiding citizen will not abide by. i think that's what a gun control bill is. somethingd up being reminiscent of prohibition where they legislated against alcohol, and it just drove it underground and made it one of the largest moneymaking opportunities for the black market that this country has seen. made aewandowski, you comment about his testimony, and executive privilege. we would wantthat our presidents unable to accept any advice from anybody unless they were paid by the white -- it is ambers of stupid position to take. as americans we want our presidents to have honest conversation with anyone they would deem a counselor on any given subject that they believe that person is an expert at.

host: let us take that point. guest: the caller is right about the president, he can receive whatever advice that he wants. tos president has spoken lots of people from fox news like lou dobbs, he caucuses with them, and he has a right to do it. the point is he cannot engage in criminal conduct with those people and try to insulate them from investigation and from cross-examination in court or before congress. he can talk to whoever he wants but he cannot engage in criminal conspiracies and think that the president is somehow above the law. on the second amendment point, you are right that the core of the second amendment according isthe supreme court majority that people have a fundamental right to a handgun for purposes of self-defense. they have a right to engage in

hunting and recreation with a rifle. and yet the conservative majority said that that does not prevent either the states or congress from limiting firearms outside of that description. nobody has a right to a machine gun, no one has a constitutional right to carry assault weapons or weapons of war, and that is supported not only by the supreme court doctrine but by the vast majority of the american people. core of thethe second amendment protected and we can have a reasonable safety regulation so we do not get the massacres we have seen recently in el paso, dayton, charleston, parkland, and so on. we can live in a civilized way consistent with the second amendment. host: ray, from maryland, and independent. good morning. caller: yes.

offink that we need to lay of the president. a president to have like we have right now. we finally have someone -- the problem with donald trump is that he is rich. that is the problem. he may or may not be rich, we do not know, he is the only president who has not turned over his taxes despite his promise to do so. we are in the process of enforcing a federal statute which now requires the president to turn his taxes over to congress, and we plan to see that through despite his intransigence. the problem is not that he is rich, one of the great things about america is that he can get rich. the problem is he is trying to get rich off of us and he is

directing federal dollars directly into mar-a-lago. every time they go down to mar-a-lago, it costs the taxpayers $100,000 that is written in checks to the trump hotel from the fbi, secret service, department of defense and all of the agencies going down there. in the house we passed legislation to prevent departments from allowing the president to violate the domestic emoluments clause. the senate has not acted on it and it is part of that stack of 175 bills that we have sent over to the senate that is just sitting there on mitch mcconnell's desk along with prescription drug reform to lower prescription drug prices, begun safety legislation, universal background check, which is supported by more than 90% of the american people. they are not acting on that and also enforcing the basic constitutional guarantees that keep the president from turning the government into -- of the

united states into a get rich scheme. host: ron, new hampshire, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. question,sk my regarding your segment on amending the constitution, there is a crowd source constitutional amendment called the uniting amendment, and it incorporates almost all of those suggestions that your callers had during the first segment. i just want to get that out there. i do notion i had, we -- why we are not pursuing treason charges. i have compiled a list of more than two dozen specific acts that the president has done to provide aid and comfort to russia, and russia, under putin, is our enemy. our generals defined russia under putin as our enemy.

if i can just take 30 seconds to give you a few of them here that have not been covered in the news. aidp has blocked military to the ukraine, which helps russia fight ukraine, which is the opposite of what congress has mandated. he turned over territory in syria over to russia, valuable pipeline routes, oil pipeline routes, he just turned that over, free. information,nated classified information including information that caused us to have to extradite one of our highest level assets. he is allowed russia to land troops in south america without any objection or response at all. he has halted efforts to -- that have been moving cuba and turkey pushed our orbit and

them more towards russia. host: i have got to jump in because i want to get in more calls, and i will let the congressman respond. guest: i know you only have time for a fraction of the president's conduct which advances the interest of vladimir putin and his toppers -- autocracy in russia and cuts against the traditional alliances of the united states. we could go on. get around sanctions that were put on russia. the is very much part of crimesgation into high and misdemeanors, and misconduct. the molar report did find that there was -- the molar -- mueller report did find that there was direct collusion and conspiracy with vladimir putin.

i never thought that they would find that because the russian government did not need donald trump, jr. and eric trump to perpetrate their conspiracy. they just went into the dnc and injected the poison and propaganda into facebook, and twitter. they tried to get into the websites of 50 different election systems and state boards of election. all that trump could do was mess it up, which they did. they brought the scheme to light because of their characteristic incompetence. i think the betrayal of the united states, opening the door and throwing open the windows to foreign intervention is very much a part of where our investigation is. the betrayal of the american people through violation of the emoluments clause is and the conversion of the government into an instrument of self

enrichment and moneymaking is at the heart of our investigation. host: i want to bounce this headline off of you from "the washington post," about the new allegation that surfaced over the weekend against brett kavanaugh. judiciary chair signals immature andent is they are against the idea of impeaching cavanaugh." guest: it is hard to impeach an entire administration. that is the goal. the goal is that we have to replace this reckless administration by getting them out of office. mitch mcconnell prevented supreme court confirmation mayor garland, nominated by barack obama, which allowed them to protect the supreme court.

the republicans who run the senate who refused to take up any other legislation on -- prescription drug reform on health care are packing the courts, that is the name of the game. it is a very serious matter, but chairman nadler is right that we do not have enough information to know. ae republican shot down proper background investigation of kavanaugh when he was nominated. it was inevitable that journalists and others would retrace the steps of all of the people who were trying to testify about the things that kavanaugh may not have been fully candid about the course of the background investigation. the fbi basically let him off easy. i think they were ordered to do that by the white house. ralph, inus go to georgia, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a couple of quick points. number one, it appears to me

are afraid torats challenge the president or mcconnell. he is fast tracking all of these judges and we are sitting back and waiting for when the law, and disobeys the we will take action. i do not know what else he can pelosi says well, we are going to let it go through the court. he is stacking the courts. he is going to put us back so far. are you advocating for impeachment right now? caller: i think it should have been done the -- a long time ago because he has put his -- putting these judges in who are fast tracking.

i marched for the right to vote. those days are going to stop. we are not doing anything to put a stop because nancy pelosi says wait. what he is doing during that time where mitch mcconnell is not moving the senate. by the time he is out of office, he has done the damage. it will take 15 years to repair. host: heard your point. guest: an excellent question. all over the country people's voting rights are under attack i voter suppression and schemes like we saw in georgia or texas to throw tens of thousands of people, mostly african-americans and hispanic americans off of the roles. when we try to live just late -- legislate to protect the cybersecurity of our elections, which mcconnell refuses to act on it. that is what earned him the nickname of moscow make --

moscow mitch. he would not allow us to protect our elections the next time around. we need teams of lawyers to try and defend ourselves against another mangled election like we saw in 2016. i am with you. we have to be aggressive in conducting oversight against this most lawless and reckless president. there are impeachment investigations underway in congress, in the house judiciary committee. short of impeachment there are a lot of things to do. i will be introducing a resolution within a week or two with 150 cosponsors to disapprove every foreign government payment that president trump has talkative -- pocketed. he has never come to ask for consent and he must do so. his not having done so means that we have to reach out to tell him that he cannot keep that money, he has to turn it over with interest to the u.s. treasury. every other president has come to congress with a request to

keep emoluments and this is the only president who thinks he can stick it in his pocket. host: what do you think would trigger a formal impeachment proceeding? will it be the emoluments, financial misdeeds? muellernything from the investigation? guest: the whole idea of a formal impeachment proceeding does not exist. we are the judiciary committee and we are involved in investigations. that is going on. but what america needs to understand is that, i am hearing the frustration of the last caller. even if the house were to vote to impeach the president, that does not remove him in any way, that goes to the senate.

at that point the senate conducts a trial and two -- two thirds of the senators must convict him. that is why there is so much ambivalence, because everybody knows that mitch mcconnell will not take up a bill for universal background check on firearm purchases which is favored for more than 90% of the people, will not take up an impeachment investigation coming from the house, and he will do everything in his power to block it. that is why we are in a confusing situation about how to deal with this presidency, which presents an onrush of evidence on a daily basis of their disrespect for the law. tennessee -- host: tennessee, mike is watching from there, a republican, and you are next. go ahead. caller: this is a comment. you are a representative for the united states in congress, right? guest: yes. caller: if you are, why is all

of this coming down on trump. ain't nobody going after hillary and we know what she did. guest: i beg to differ. you know that the republican controlled congress impeach bill clinton over telling one lie about an affair. we have a president who engaged in massive federal campaign finance violations in order to cover up two affairs, one of them with stormy daniels and the other with karen mcdougall. what they did was they funneled conduital corporate and contribution when president trump reimbursed michael cohen. then they cover the whole thing up and did not disclose it. you could compare those to incidences, an episode where there were deliberate violations of federal campaign finance laws to cover up an affair. bill clinton was impeached for telling one lie. you may have a post that, i congratulate you.

if not, think about the just up exist -- the juxtaposition of events, and that does not go to the heart of the problem with this president, which is that he is looting and pillaging the money of the people while he is betraying his oath of office. host: david, in new york. a republican. caller: good morning. i have a few comments. there is a lot of smoke on the democrat's side, but no evidence , in my opinion, of anything. , she got 3nton million more votes in the popular votes, but lost the electoral election in that vote. so, if there was collusion and cheating going on, which is what this investigation was supposed to be about, how is it morphing into foreign campaign money and

-- all of the smoke that you are producing is really confusing, because i have been watching all of these democrats create all of these allegations without any evidence, and in the report of the $40 million comes out saying that there is no evidence. guest: thank you for raising that important point. no mueller investigation what -- the mueller investigation was a republican investigation. robert mueller was a lifelong republican. rod rosenstein had a sharply omitted's go up -- limited scope. the president said he would blow the investigation up if he looked at the finances. that shows us where the trail of corruption is, that is with the president's finances. the president got wrapped up

with the russians because he had gone bankrupt six different times and turned to oligarchs for money. they conducted a money laundering scheme through the trump office tower and the hotels. that is how the russians got their claws into donald trump. it was their scheme to interfere in our election, and they considered donald trump a useful immediate, -- a useful idiot and stooge. they have been laughing all the way to the bank. onneed to focus attention finances, because that is where the heart of criminality is. that is a legislative investigation. you are talking about the executive branch. if you do not like that you have to complain to the republicans who created that investigation. host: you are going to

participate in a spelling bee contest. guest: so i understand. i think i am a sitting duck. they killed me last year on pi not grigio. i thought it was two words and i did not think it was an english word. i think there may have been alcohol interests behind that competition. i hope for a fairer set of judges. host: it is taking place tonight at 7:15 and we will have coverage of this. the press versus politicians. can watch where you it. with james will talk who discusses donald trump's use of the television in his political career. we will be back. ♪

>> the students experience is valuable to me. >> it is really helped us grow as people. >> four past winners of the studentcam video documentary competition, their experience spark their interest in documentary production. >> i attend drake university in des moines, iowa. i get to be right in the middle of the caucus season and i got to meet so many different candidates. because of c-span i had experience in the equipment and knowledge to actually film some of them. >> this year we are asking middle school and high school students to create a short documentary asking the question, issued you want presidential candidates to address during the campaign. include c-span video and reflect differing points of view. havee ordering one -- we $100,000 in cash prizes.

>> be passionate about what you are discussing and express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will perceive it to be. in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> for more information go to studentcam.org. >> president trump and melania trump will host the second state -- dinner of his administration as he welcomes scott morrison and jenny morrison. watch arrivals and toasts on live coverage beginning friday at 6:30 p.m. eastern. , or listen-span.org on the free c-span app. washington journal" continues. larosiere is here

and as a policy director with firearms policy coalition. what is your group and goal. guest: it is an aggressively nonpartisan civil rights institute. it is not just about rights for us, it is about all of your civil rights which is why our slogan is all right, all the time. our slogan is to fight for the restoration of the civil rights of all people in this country as they have already been eroded. we want to see people's freedoms and liberty restored. host: who funds you? guest: are members. all of our money comes from individuals. host: where are you on the current negotiations between the white house and the credits in the house, and the republican-controlled senate on having some sort of bipartisan legislation to address gun violence. host: we do not inc. -- engage in anyot

negotiation. that said, we have had plenty of meetings in the past couple of weeks, i think 60 or more with various members and with the white house. but, we are discussing and educating on these matters, on the hidden costs of these measures, because they -- none of these managers -- measures are common sense as people are suggesting. negotiationgage in or use rights as bargaining chips. we are the aggressive civil rights advocacy group. host: the president is supposed to be unveiling gun legislation this week. can you tell us what is in it? guest: about as much as you know. we have heard a lot of buzzing from the white house, and various sources. we have heard the president being interested in domestic surveillance programs when it comes to this issue. talk about using

amazon alexa and home assistance to be evolved -- assistants to be involved in this. the interest of the president is blending technology with this issue, there has been -- i do not think anyone aside from whoever is in the closed-door meetings can tell you what the president will come up with. gun: we are talking about violence and we ask you to participate as well. in the eastern and central part of the country, 202-748-8000. .ountain pacific, 202-748-8001 if you are a gun owner, call in at 202-748-8002. i want to show you about what our previous guest had to say about the second amendment and preventing violence. [video clip] guest: on the second amendment point, you are right that the core of the second amendment according to the supreme court majority is that people do have

a fundamental right to a handgun for purposes of self-defense. they have a right to engage in hunting and recreation with a rifle. even the conservative majority said that that does not prevent either the states or congress from limiting firearms outside of that description. nobody has the right to the machine gun, those have been banned. no one has the right to carry assault weapons and weapons of war on the streets of america, and that is supported not only by the supreme court doctrine but by the vast majority of the american people. the core of the second amendment protected according to the supreme court, and reasonable gun safety regulation so we do not get the massacres we have seen recently charleston,dayton, parkland, and the pulse. we can live in a civilized way. [end video clip] host: do you have a response.

guest: i have a lot of respect from the member. unfortunately, he is wrong on every point. i can go through if you want. first of all, machine guns are not banned and they have never been banned. they are highly regulated. i own four of them legally. that is completely wrong, and it is problematic when people cannot get the most basic of things right. number two, as far as what the supreme court said, that is not what they said. they did not limit their holding to a handgun in the home. also, the supreme court was not necessarily right. in my opinion, the ruling was narrow due to the politics going on. that said, what the court said was that you have the right to keep any firearm for lawful purposes. and what the member was talking about, he was speaking about dicta, which was not part of the

core holding as far as dangerous and unusual weapons. gun rights advocates like to take that language which is not actual actionable law, it is just words, it is side speech for the members of our audience who are not familiar with court writing. they take that, dangerous and unusual language, and try to extend that to what they call assault weapons. -- it iserjurer to just a term. it does not have meaning. i will not get into the argument. i know what americans are talking about when they say assault weapon. there is nothing in the decision that suggests that those can be regulated. that sayshe language all commonly held file -- in are presumably protected means that weapons like the ar-15, ak 74, and all weapons which are in

common use are presumptively protected. i do not know how you get from one of the most common rifles in america, and the court saying the weapons in common use being protected to we can ban this. i would be more than happy to have that discussion, but it is not true. host: why do you own four machine guns? guest: i am a collector, as far as anyone else would own them, it is none of my concern. do you own a car? if you do, i do not think he would feel comfortable with me deciding how many gallons your gas tank should hold, how much horsepower it has. that is up to you. it is your responsibility to use that automobile responsibly and safety. it does not matter what kind of car you drive, you cannot run people down. it does not matter what kind of gun you choose for whatever lawful purposes you have, i own machine guns, i am a collector.

somebody else may own machine guns because they believe that is the best way protect their home. it is not up to you and i to decide this. it is up to them to make those decisions and they have to be within the lines of the law. host: john in texas. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. my comment is this. thatr the democrats saying they want to ban the ar-15. they are not going to get mine. no one has talked about the virginia tech massacre. that guy used two handguns. handgun in the classroom and sandy hook. we seem to forget that a gun does not kill anybody, it is the person behind it that pulls the trigger. this idea of mental health, how would that work? if a person is deemed that because someone does not like them, that individual will spend

the rest of their lives trying to get their license or writes back and it will cost them a lot of money. why should a person might be presumed innocent have to go through that mess? those are my questions. host: ok. guest: i appreciate what you are saying, as far as the ar-15 concern goes, it is a victim of its popularity. with trafficsessed accidents, which kill more people every year. both gun deaths or suicide, i believe i have a graphic about this that breaks down the amount of gun deaths. yes, that first one. the fact is very few violent crimes are committed with a rifle of any type. inexpensive, reliable, and available, which is why they are popular. it is the same reason law enforcement uses them in the

military uses them. if you are interested in ballistics you know that there is not merely -- really much difference in the terms of lethality between a handgun and these compact rifles. they are pretty similar. i think you are completely right. a firearm is an implement designed to project force over a distance. it does not matter what the shape of it. if it is going to be used for evil, it will be used for evil. the same things that make a self-defenseul for are the same reasons that that actors choose them. it is just like somebody was using a car, it would not pick a car that breaks down all the time if they wanted to commit a crime with the car and use it as a getaway vehicle. it is the same thing. the ar-15, the reason why we are obsessed with it is because it is popular. it is a victim of being a good design. host: on universal background

checks, our guests said that it was supported by 90% of the american people. chuck schumer talked about a phone conversation that he and the speaker had with the president over the weekend. i want to get to your response to it. [video clip] >> we have a responsibility bestowed on us by the american people to do something meaningful to -- to address the epidemic of gun violence, the save american lives. and to save as many lives as possible, the senate must consider the bipartisan universal background checks bill. this is a critical moment for president trump, and for the nation. the president can provide the kind of leadership on this issue that is -- that his party has lacked for decades. he can break the grip that the nra has held on congressional republicans by supporting the policy that well over 90% of americans already support.

such a commitment would historic, be popular, and most important it would save countless lives. speaker pelosi and i told the president that if he endorsed this legislation and got leader mcconnell to act on it we would be happy to join him in the rose garden for the signing ceremony. on the other hand, the president could cave to the nra again this week and announced that he is supporting only the kinds of policies that will not offend them, policies that will not make a real dent in the problem. the american people have waited long enough for congress to do something about the decades long nightmare of gun violence that seems to get worse and worse. [end video clip] host: your position? guest: let us take a look at the pie chart that i handed over. when people talk about an epidemic of gun violence they are being -- they are not being

honest about the problem. this data is from -- not exactly from a source friendly to my position. people are obsessed with mass shootings. are possessed with mass shootings, that is all they want to talk about. all of these proposals, they claim to be aimed at addressing mass shootings. the average american, and we have a study that will break down the data and will be making that available soon. the average american, the chance of being killed in a mass shooting is one and 15.5 million. those are not epidemic numbers. it is an incredibly rare, horrifying event. when you respond to that by writing policy to a country of 300 million people, you are going to be really binding average people more. as far as 90% supporting it, that is garbage. them --sters will pay

will say whatever you pay them to stay. when they pull and states where they will have a ref -- when poll in states where they will have a referendum they will say pretty much the same thing. the majority of them were defeated in the election. that is not true. as far as what universal background checks are about, people look at the name and think it is a good name, they think what could be wrong? this is what happens when you just want to do something, when the push to pass new policy is to do something. you get laws like the patriot act which seemed like a good idea but a few years down the line it seemed like an erosion of civil liberties. let me make a quick illustration. son orthat i have a daughter, whatever and they moved into a new neighborhood and something weird is happening

every night, there is something knocking on their door and they are freaked out. i know that person, they are close to me, i know they can own a firearm. i say, i put a gun on the table and slide it over and say just hold onto this for a little while. i know that you know how to use this, just in case. me ask a question. should i go to prison? if the answer is no, then you might see the problem i see with universal background checks. anything universal that applies to all situations will be broad and catch people in the net. people most likely to be the victims of violent crimes are americans who are minorities and below the poverty line in every way. they are the most likely to be targeted and the people most likely to have a need for a mechanism of defending themselves. i do not think it is a moral answer to make it harder for these people to work covert -- to get these weapons. host: we are talking to matthew

larosiere. we are going to jason in alexandria, kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. asregards to what you said, far as anybody having a gun, look at recent events in cincinnati. we had a high school graduate on the way home from work on a local bus hit by a stray bullet. we had two children in the last month in cincinnati hit by stray bullets. when i get narcotics from my doctor, i have to have in order, i cannot keep refilling that same order. handgun -- have one i am all for civil rights and the constitution. i have friends i talked to on a regular basis in canada, australia, south africa. they have the same law, unless you have a reason, or you are in law enforcement, unless you have a reason, you are not allowed to

own a firearm. said is oneing you of the biggest problems with america, so you on machine guns, you are a collector. some yachts has machine guns, that is none of my business. that is the problem with america. you have somebody with mental health issues that knows you are a collector, you leave one day and they break into your house, they steal your machine guns. you do not care where the rest of america is going. if someone else collects, it is none of your business. it should be your business. how do you know the guy across the street is not going to go off one day? host: let us get a response. guest: i appreciate you coming out with your concerns. candidly, you said a lot of stuff. aner countries, this is

apples to oranges comparison. we made the decision at our founding and decided that people in this country will never be without the right to determine their own bodily farming. that was a decision made and it was after the founders had fought a bloody and horrible war against people who wear there brothers before. they decided that there was never going to be a time, unlike in other countries where you can be in a situation, let us say the police as far away and you get attacked, you do not have the right to defend yourself. in that country -- in this country it is your right. the second amendment was not written to protect collectors or people like me, because i live in a good neighborhood. serious threats every day, like many people in this country deal. it was written to protect people like them, and that is what it was about. i do not doubt that everyone supporting the gun control has

the best intentions. i do not doubt that. i doubt that they have done enough research to look at what the enforcement looks like, it looks like locking young and poor people in cages for no reason when they -- this is just about gun control that i am talking about. murder has been illegal since forever. and making the possession of it a crime, all that does is result in locking people in a cage when they have decided that they do not want to be victimized and they want to have a chance. i understand your concerns, but wantingthe response of to strip your neighbors of their right to control their bodily autonomy because you are uncomfortable, i do not think it is consistent with national values and i am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but it is what it is.

host: john, in houston, texas. caller: thank you. i want to focus on mass shootings. everything that is being talked about in this most recent episode is reactive. ban guns, restrict rights. shooter,y mass parkland, sandy hook, el paso, all of these individuals were known by someone, either a family member, neighbor, a schoolmate, columbine. they were known to be troublemakers or have issues. the mother of the gentleman from sandy hook was afraid of her own son. here's my point. until the people who know about these individuals report, and summing up the chain does not

take action, like in law enforcement and local police. got a call, but we did not go out there. not seeknew, but we did him that much it parkland. that was a great example. those are the individuals that need to be held responsible. those of the people that need to be held responsible and brought up on charges for not handling. we say say something, say something. name them. every of these individuals was known. do something that will work. host: let us take that point. guest: you raised a lot of good points. law enforcement does not want to please communities anymore. always asko -- they for some new tool in the toybox. they do not use the tools that they have got. if they have too many tools they can arrest you for a lot of things that they have not thought about. there are some estimates that the average american commits

three felonies a day. what they want is a new law so that they can have a crime to go after you. it seems like what law enforcement wants to do is chase prosecutions. they have a tip, they do not want to do preventative policing, that is what they are supposed be doing. they should be keeping an eye on that person and not saying a law that we can go to a victim of a crime or take serious action after we get a tip. they are supposed to dedicate resources to keeping an eye on that person and putting more officers net area. -- in that area. maybe assigning another resource officer to the school, that is preventive policing. that is what most police departments seem to back right off. host: from new jersey, jim. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my

call. first of all, thank you for the work you do. i am 65 years old, and i have never owned a gun, but this morning i got a note from the police board that my background check has been completed, and i felt compelled to take this action. number two, a lot of this is based on politics or how they view the world should be. it does not matter for a large amount of people whether they take your gun away, or tell you the size of drinks you should be able to drink, or use a plastic or paper straw, it your personal freedom. going back to what you were talking about. they talk a lot about gun violence, but of the 30,000 that they say, most gun violence is suicide. we have a suicide problem. 25% of that is in four cities, and they are sanctuary cities. we have a mental health problem.

the thing that you are caught up into, or this is just a ploy to force one issue and extend a political view. thank you for what you are doing. you are part of a bigger fight, and it is about individual freedom. unfortunately, i think the country is split down the middle , and the past speaker that talked about impeachment and how he would handle it, referred to things like moscow mitch. thank you for what you are doing. guest: it is important to get on the level with people, and we do our best to actually sit down and talk with people who want gun control and we do not assume that we have -- that they have bad intentions. we hope that they will come to a better solution. i have a chart that shows total gun violence, or total violent crime in the united states when compared to the rest of -- it is the third one, the line graph. host: i'm sorry. guest: anyway, violent crime is

going down and has been for a long time both in this country and around the world. so, the sharpest decline was from the early 1990's, a time when everybody is really nostalgic for, that was a violence time. it has been steadily going down year-over-year, including gun violence and everything. what has increased from the 90's? people want to blame guns, and violent video games. two things have increased, sales of firearms and video games. minimum, i'mu at not saying correlation equals causation. but if the presence of firearms and violent video games were causing violence, that could not be true with the fact that violence has gone down sharply and continues to go down in the same period of time that those factors have gone up. do notdo not listen to that kinf stuff. it is nonsense.

host: we will get erica from laurel, maryland. -- eric from laurel, maryland. caller: how are you? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i have two comments. applaud all african-americans to not get a felony, and get a gun license. young man, you speak of rights. anyone should be able to get a gun if they have a felony or not, if it is a right, it is your right. do you want to pick and choose who has a gun. even though you had a felony, with the second amendment, when they done that, they did not say everyone but felons can have a gun. guest: this is interesting. in the founding era, there are

only a limited number of felons known to not have arms, and those are people who had shoes -- proven themselves to be seriously dangerous. those kinds of convictions that all the way back to the founding, everyone said, you gave up the right. i think you are completely right. we have an insane over criminalization in the united states. you can get a felony for almost anything. i do not think that someone that got caught with a big bag of weed or cocaine has proven that they do not have the right to defend themselves. i think you are completely right, and this problem disproportionately affects minorities. i think you are completely right.. refers to amendment the right of the people. everyone has the right to control their own body, autonomy, and not be the victim

of on -- unlawful force. larosiere,ew appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a break but when we come back, we will talk to the author james poniewozik, discussing the use of donald trump's use of television in business and political career. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] >> this experience is really, really valuable to me. >> it has a huge effect on our life and it really helped us grow going into our college years. >> for past winners of c-span's studentcam video documentary competition's, they sparked their experience in video production. meet so manyten to

different candidates and because of c-span, i've had the experience and the equipment and knowledge to actually film some. >> this year, we are asking middle school and high school students to create a short video documentary answering the question, what issue do you most want president of candidates to answer during the campaign. $100,000 ining total cash prizes including a $5,000 grand prize. >> be passionate about what you are discussing to express your view no matter how large or small you will receive the audience that you think the audience will receive it. your view does matter. >> for more information to help you get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. c-span is back in des moines,

iowa this saturday for live campaign 2020 coverage of the polk county democrats annual were 18y, presidential candidates will take the stage for speeches. ore on c-span, c-span.org, using the free c-span radio app. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york is james poniewozik, the author of "audience of one: donald trump, television, and the fracturing of america," and he is also a chief television critic for the "new york times." thank you for joining us. i want to begin with this moment from president trump's first cabinet meeting on january 10, 2018. listen to what he says as the cameramen and reporters enter the cabinet room. [video clip] pres. trump: welcome back to the studio.

you heard the president say, welcome back to the studio. what do you make of that? guest: i'm sorry, i was not sure if it was a question. it is very revealing, in "the new york times," one of the political reporters reported early in the administration that president trump, who was not only a reality show, but a figure in many ways created by television throughout his advised his staffers to view each day of his ofinistration as an episode a reality show and which he defeat his enemies. i think very much the mindset of showas a production, as a of actual real-life locations as

a set, that has not left him. i am not sure if the clip you are showing was from the same cabinet meeting that i recall from 2017, but there was one particularly telling live tv cabinet meeting that he held in june 2017, carried live on cable assembled the cabinet members, they went around the table and competitively competed against each other to out praise him. what an honor it was to serve for the president. watching that as a tv critic, i said that is "the apprentice" boardroom, and that is a dynamic we have seen produced with "the apprentice" with the candidates at risk for being fired would go around and attempt to ingratiate

themselves with the host of the show. they were the ones that were who emphatic a= with him deserved to stay. so this presidency has very much been a tv show. and it continues. host: where does this come from for the president? in your book, what did you find out? well, donald trump has always been focused on celebrity. he has always been interested in media stardom, in getting in front of the camera. this goes long before he was the host of "the apprentice." going back to the 1980's when he was the author of "the art of the deal."

when he had the unfortunate timing of elevating himself as was pop-culture figure who this swaggering personification of the have reagan 1980's. he had said, i am going to go into the real estate business but i want to bring show business into real estate. he told playboy magazine and an interview in 1990, when they asked him about a lot of his expensive acquisitions, the yacht he bought, the helicopters, and the planes with his name on the side -- all of the fancy pictures and fabulous accoutrements, he said, these are props for the show. he said the show is trump and it has sold out performances around the world. he has always viewed his life as a production because he has always had this intuition that in a media age, what matters is the image that you present to the camera. if you look like peoples' idea

of a successful, flashy businessman, that is more important than being the most successful businessman because it creates an image that lives on in people's heads. that accruesimage your brand and you can leverage it into branding success, you can leverage it into further entertainment success, and ultimately, political success. host: you right in the book that in august 1980, that is when donald trump, the television character, was born. at this moment, i want to show our viewers. [video clip] >> what happens to some of the old buildings in inner-city, that were works of art? a subject of ay lot of controversy because you ordered some buildings destroyed with a lot of art -- why did you have those buildings destroyed? pres. trump: we purchased a site with an old department store on fany, andis next to tif

we had to take the building down. the building was really not arth as an art building or deco building, it was not worth as much. there was an outcry. but that has subsided and people like what we are doing unlike what we put in this place. host: that was from "the today show." explain what you say that is when donald trump the character was born. guest: that was his first, major national television appearance. the donald trump who has emerged fourperformance across decades, that was basically his debut. found really telling going back and looking at that first interview is that this does not sound exactly like the donald trump that we are used to spilling out of rtv's. tv's every day.

the confidence, this swaggering man of business. it is much more soothing, reassuring, less confrontational tone, which, in many ways, it has to do not only with the evolution of his public persona or his personality himself, but as i explore in great depth in the book, this has to do with what media was like back then, compared to what media is like now. television in 1980 was a three network medium. abc, nbc, cbs. any show you put on or any performances had to be palatable to a broad range of audiences. what has happened in broad strokes from then until today is

that we have developed our thousand cable channel, millions of social media outlets, very fragmented, very niche oriented media environment to which is much more polarizing and often confrontational performances. donald trump, with a great hasinct for the camera eye, evolved and modulated his self presentation over the years to fit the media. host: we are talking with james poniewozik who is the author of the new book "audience of one: donald trump, television, and the fracturing of america." he is also the chief television critic for "the new york times." let's talk about what type of television appealed to president trump and how did it chase him? trump, while he has always had an intimate relationship with television, he has tended to be a figure of a

particular kind of television. -- a creativegs medium on one hand, so scripted ,rama, comedies, and so forth and an art medium the broad lee speaking -- the art medium. news, shows like this, sports, things about presenting live images from one place to another. donald trump has always been much more a creature of that whether it is news, where there is talk, whether it is reality tv and pro wrestling -- these areas that are sort of nonfiction entertainment with artificial elements where there is a fuzzy boundary between truth and fiction. that is the kind of television that rewards confrontation, it rewards conflict, it rewards excitement. light ofget the red

the camera focused on you if you can give it something more provocative than you gave it the last time. clearly inou can see the ark of donald trump. first as a pop-culture figure, character whotous plays tv cameos in the 1990's, then certainly as "apprentice" host and fox news figure. you see the evolution to the more and more in-your-face case -- character that excites the camera interest. host: let's go to calls. joseph is first in albuquerque, new mexico. republican. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: good morning, greta. president trump is president trump and even before he was a president, he was trump. you knew this, so there is

nothing new about him. he is who he is. you had to change his platform when he became president because that is what he is now. everyone should be happy for that because he is the only one. i don't know exactly that i would argue with except for changing his platform. maybe that is a political reference which, i would not necessarily comment on, but i actually think the thing that is striking since he became president is that there was this theme that, the presidency changes everyone. he will become more quote unquote presidential, he will reach out to more of america because that is what you do. the institution of the office has the effect on everyone and it is greater than any individual person. instead, he has continued to be in the way he deals with media,

in the way he watches in response to television and tweets about it, the same way but much, much more. the influence of the institution of television on him has been far greater than the institution of the presidency. host: let's go to tom in hollywood, florida. democratic. caller: good morning, thanks for having me. i disagree with the last caller. trump has been the same all his life. i have observed him for over 40 years. when he was younger, he was a little bit more toned down because it is the same story. he was playing to the crowd which is what he has probably done all his life since he was a child. he tries to show the demeanor and face that he wants people to believe, but as soon things do not go his way or someone says anything to disagree, the monster comes out and he is mean and nasty. and vengeful.

he has done many mean things over the year. look how he treated the people in scotland and the town next to the golf resort that he was building -- he terrorized them. all know he iswe a narcissist. psychiatrists to work him up, i would be really surprised if at least two of him did not write him a sociopath. he has gotten nastier and meaner since he became the president. look at what he did with the press corps. poniewozik, what do you make of people calling him a narcissist and how does that play into "audience of one,"? psychiatristot a or therapist, and i am not in a position to diagnose him. the traits that people are

talking about when they use those terms are certainly an evidence with donald trump that we have seen on camera over the years. those are also traits that particularly in the media he is engaged in, the camera kinds -- kind of rewards. particularly reality tv. i talk a little bit about this and i go into it in the book, one thing that is important to remember about being a performer on reality tv, which donald trump, up until he was just about the presidential run -- it is different from being an actor in the movies the way reagan was. plays fictional characters has to cultivate radical empathy. you have to believe other people are valid and that their thoughts and cares are valid, because you have to be able to embody a fictional character or that are aligned on the page. reality tv is a performance.

it is a performance that you are yourself but more, more aggressive, you accentuate the most provocative and attention-getting, and often belligerent parts of yourself createsthat is what conflict and conflict create story, and the camera rewards it. the caller was talking about playing to the crowd and that is an important point. i do think that although conflict and aggression have been key to the trump brand, there is an element of him wanting to play to the crowd in front of him. one thing we have seen from "oing from the "you're fired guy on "the apprentice" to being a political commentator on fox news, to the presidents, he has been in front of crowds and cameras that reward aggression and assertion. meanness and anger.

up and going to amp that you will get what we have now. host: we are talking about the president's use of television. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. a caller in hyattsville, maryland. democratic caller. caller: good morning. feel about donald trump as a show figure, an actor, or whatever he is in regards to media, it is what it is. before we elected donald trump, knew he was a presenter, and we can see him carrying the customs and habits of the show business into the administration, which is based on principles, and that is why he does not follow the principles. we, the american people, are to blame.

whether he follows the rules of the party or not, he does what he wants, and it is now our turn to make sure we put him straight. host: several callers have made this point. we knew who he was before he was elected president. guest: i think that is true to an extent. i think it is very true what the caller says. this is a big thing i focus on in my book. thinkingthis line of -- i have read pieces over and over about donald trump sort of getting at the question of, who is donald trump, really? what is he deep down? is this actually what he is like or is it a performance? i think the surface donald trump, the evidence that we have seen on the screens is more imaginary, deep down secret donald trump that a

therapist might probe. i would agree in so far as that goes. whether everybody exactly knew who donald trump was, the evidence was all out there, you know, in thousands and thousands of hours of tv footage, but on the other hand, a lot of people apprentice," they kind of react saying this person is mainly a media personality. no, no, he was a businessman. and because he was such a successful businessman, he was cast on "the apprentice." he was cast on "the apprentice" because he was tremendously successful and talented at presenting the image of a businessman. that is what reality tv needs. it need someone who embodies the picture that you have in mind of, what does a rich guy look

like. that was the point of donald trump for years. service for a great him in that it took all of those symbols that he had aggregated and that presentation of himself, and it polished it up and applied production values to it, and it put it on tv for 14 seasons on a show whose premise donald trump is super successful, super rich, and super accomplished, and inflated the extent of his holdings, and = hisccess of businesses, and that has affected some people who have watched the show because the point of the show was to try and present him and polish him up as not just an entertainer but extremely legitimate. host: how did that assist and his presidential campaign? well, there is a long

history in politics of -- that predates trump of promoting the idea that the company should be run like a businessman. therefore, a businessman might be the best person to run the country. mitt romney made versions of that. russ perot made versions of that. trade with a soundtrack -- so being portrayed with a soundtrack, with excitement, with america's popular businessman on nbc news, that is a valuable asset. host: susan in hampton, virginia. republican. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: hi.

world's ae said the stage and we are all players on it. so that is basically how we go through life. we have to live in these certain purse on as. -- personas. even the bible speaks of you portray yourself, you do not see yourself that way, but you act that way, and then it will happen. those are my comments, thank you. guest: it is interesting your caller mentions that because it is true -- everyone performs in one way or another. she says, going back to shakespeare and throughout history, this idea of life is performance. one thing that is interesting in donald trump's early biography is that he was a follower of -- a congregant of norman vincent

peale, the power of positive thinking. and his father was also a follower. reality tv notion in "the power of positive thinking," which is that it encourages people to sort of perform themselves into as if successful, and then you will become successful. ingis kind of a notion of liv your life kind of like a reality tv performance. him carryy helped that forward into being an actual reality tv performer. host: a caller from lakeland, florida. republican. kudos: yes, i want to say to the gentleman that called from new mexico. addresswould like to

the gentleman speaking. he says he is not a psychiatrist or whatever, but nevertheless, that is all he is doing. playing like a psychiatrist or whatever. diagnose donald trump. he is who he is. we voted for him. he was not the normal politician. like the gentleman to explain how well he knows donald trump before he wrote the book. did he personally have knowledge whoonald trump like many do stand up for him? host: let's take that question. guest: first off [laughs] i think i am arguing the same extent that your caller is

saying which is that donald trump is who he is, and the evidence is in front of our eyes. that, maybe she feels it is disrespectful to camera, how he is on how he is as a media figure, but show me the lioness. i do not see what is wrong with acknowledging that this is a person that has created what he has done through the media. , the notion that donald trump -- again, who has been a famous public figure for decades -- that he is a good --ticl], that he public figure for decades, that that he isstical, braggadocio is, it is

ridiculous. that everything i am saying here is backed up with the ample evidence that he is given through his performance and his words and his character. host: why it write the b -- why write the book? guest: i think that television is the nervous system of the democracy. tv is the way we communicate with each other. i think tv is probably the main means for the spread of ideas in our country. in which main form political campaigns are played out. i think that while tv has been important to elections going back to the 1960's with kennedy against nixon, it is a significant change when you get to the point where tv is not just a tool that a politician election,to win an

but it is actually the means of gaining power. donald trump is not like ronald aagan going from being hollywood actor to governor of california for two terms to ultimately the white house. . his last episode of "the celebrity apprentice" aired four months before he declared his candidacy for president. that is a big change in this country. i think that someone who has studied and understands that change in television over the years can make a fair amount of sense of it. i think a lot of analysis i was seeing a donald trump after he won -- how we got trump, how trump won sort of treated his media career as incidental to his other pursuits, to his business and political interests, but it has been the main thing about him from the beginning. if you understand tv, then you understand trump.

to understand how we got to a point where the star of the -- of "the apprentice" got to be elected, you have to understand how tv changed over those decades. host: james poniewozik is the author of the book "audience of one: donald trump, television, and the fracturing of america." next in safety harbor, florida. independence. caller: good morning, thank you. i do agree with your person, the way he is talking about donald trump. but what he has exposed and now is we have people that are -- -- he has bought brought out first in china, and the border. the border is a problem. i am from massachusetts, originally. and they want to make illegal immigrants with licenses, that is wrong. but you put a donald trump

sticker on your vehicle, and you are in an area where south americans are present, they will destroy your vehicle. host: how do you know that? guest: i had a person that had a pick up and they had a restaurant, and they had written over the vehicle with some kind of soap. host: what is your point? caller: my point is the country is divided. he will not bring it together. he will try -- bridge this -- businessman, he was not that successful. and wea divided nation cannot let everybody in, and he tried to stop it. but i like the way you wrote your book about tv. you want to look at violence on tv, that is the problem with our kids. the other problem is, the shootings, the lawyers -- why should we keep someone 28 years in jail. why can't we get rid of them after 90 days because the

lawyers have a thing going called money? host: ok, a lot there to choose from. guest: it is interesting that your caller brings up violence because one thing that again, watching donald trump as a candidate, and the way he , apaigned through the media very recurrent theme and a lot of is talking, particularly in the 2015 campaign was speaking approvingly of violence or nostalgic for violence. when there would be protesters, he would say, i'd like to punch that guy in the face. when talking about football games and how football is better in the old days, when you could hit harder and there were not 15 yard penalties for it. commented,lly, he that is the problem with america, nobody wants to hurt anybody anymore.

i think that is significant to unpack. this is someone who has worked in entertainment format particularly in "the apprentice," that are about conflict and fighting in zero sum games as being the greatest, most productive state of humanity. in hist manifests campaign. it manifests in the way he talks about how people deal with each other. often, there are people who are trying to take your stuff, there are enemies that we must defeat, so i think your caller is right. america is very divided in ways that go beyond donald trump. he is not want to bring it together, but also, he does not have interest in bringing it together and is very adept and conscious of using his media platform to intensify divisions. host: what are you getting at when you write and the title "donald trump television and the

fracturing of america"? ? the fracturing of america, i am not necessarily speaking about something that donald trump has done. again, there are divisions in this country that have been going on a long time that will continue after. really talkingis about, and i think this is understandably, collars are more interested in the politics callers are more interested in the politics aspect, but we have moved into mass circulation publications and agreed on bases of fact the situation where people are watching more or less the same things and had more or less the same experiences. , i have myion where

facebook feed and you have yours, and they tell us different things and they both tell us that our views of the world are universal although they are very small bubbles. we have cable channels that are targeted at this micro demographic or this particular interest, and we have political media that are increasingly catering to partisan audiences and partisan niches, and reinforcing beliefs. it creates this fragmentation that in some ways, by the way, as a tv critic, has made for great television. the fact that you have more media outlets means we have been able to have great shows like "the sopranos" that could not have existed 50 years ago. but it has much more fractured public discourse. and that is something that has all sorts of effect on the election of donald trump as just one of those, but it is a pretty salient one at that time,

specifically considering his connection to media. host: we will go next to jack in maine. independent. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: my lobster, china is not buying them. this, our commment is product is democracy. and we need a salesman. trump is the penultimate salesman of all time. his name is known more than coca-cola. everybody knows that. fdr's fireside chats. that is why people like his tweets. tv is a cool media. like computers and other things where it is interactive.

so some people get their information from cool media, but many more are getting it from hot media, nowadays. guest: that is true. i do not know which part of that i should address first, although, you sold me on the lobsters. presidency, i do not think it is insulting to say that the president is a salesman. i think your caller is right. it is a job of persuasion. politics is a job of persuasion. show is an element of business in persuasion. problem and the point where it gets dicey to me is when you then get into this area of where there is this sort of moral compartmentalization and this rationalization or cynicism where it is, well,

there is hype and there is a andain amount of bow everything, so what does it really matter what is truth? i am not saying that ca ller is saying this, but it is our time.e of everybody is lying, who knows what is really true. doesn't really matter if the guy that i am behind -- does it really matter if that guy that i am behind is honest or trustworthy, or does it just matter that he is on my side? is it so important in a cricket world where everyone is out to get you that somebody is good or decent, or cares about other people? or is it just a matter of who advances your interests best? and that is an argument that again, it is kind of a philosophy of a lot of reality tv shows.

you may backstab, you may deceive, but it is a part of the game and it is about rewarding the person who plays the game better. if you apply that too much to public life, it creates this moral permission structure where support goes and i can whatever behavior by whomever but still tell myself i am a good person because i am not a part of the game. host: richard in california, democratic call. caller: hi, good morning. there is a whole bunch going on here. think trump is actually playing a role as president. he is like reality show president. --was not qualified and in any kind of direction to be president. he was a failed businessman was propped up by the show to make it look like he was successful.

fraudulenttcies and lawsuits, bankrupting people out of millions, and blue-collar workers being bankrupted, and then bailed out by the russians is not a successful businessman. and i do not even think he thought he was going to win the presidency. and i hate people to say that we elected him. he lost by 3 million votes. it was the electoral college that elected him. he was the most unqualified, unstable person to be president. if we really knew who he was, it would be scary because he is playing a role at all times. if he is a salesman, he is a poor salesman because he has lost all the confidence in our allies, 60% of the american people, and divided the nation even more. the problem with someone like him is he has no moral integrity by which to direct himself, and we are talking about the most powerful person in the world i can start a nuclear war by touching a button.

an impulsive person who has , demeaned, bullied, character assassinated, and attacked every institution with someone disagrees with him because he is a super insecure, narcissistic personality. host: richard's opinion of the president there. you, how has cable news coverage of the presidency changed during his tenure as president? ways, i think it is a complicated answer because it depends on which cable news coverage you are talking about. if you are talking about fox news, there has emerged this

almost surreal symbiosis between the network and the president to his watching it all the time that basically gives it the biggest title. one" is a reference widely used to donald trump as the viewer and chief of fox news to who if people want to get their attention, they need to get his attention by going on the tv program. for fox news, it has become the royal court. it is where one goes to petition the president and to reach him and influence him, and it often sets the agenda of his morning and his tweets and therefore, our days, and therefore, the life we live in whether we watch cable news or not. and msnbc, ratings wise, it has been a boom. constant excitement, constant provocation, constant shock whether your audience likes or does not like trump, that is generally, ratings.

have they changed their approach? i think that there is undoubtedly a lot of tough coverage of the president, even adversarial coverage on cnn and msnbc. on the other hand, he still very much drives their narratives. by its nature is about chasing the shiniest object. if someone is emptying a bucket of shiny objects for you every -- on twitter, those shiny objects are going to be chaste. host: what do you make of the president's use of twitter? guest: what do i make of? [laughter] that could be a whole other book. it is fascinating because in one sense, it is like a real time

feed of what is going through his head often. i say often because i think some tweets are more planned and strategic than others. one thing that twitter has been important as for public figures whether it is celebrities like kanye west and kim kardashian, or whether it is a politician, or a celebrity is a politician is that it allows them to be their own press agents. donald trump famously impersonated his quote, unquote press agent john baron in the 1980's, and now he can be his make his ownn, announcements, spin the story the way he wants, or just when he is angry about something.

it has been very powerful, but it is nothas also, just independently powerful. his twitter feed, it has not affects thatching it has because it is amplified by tv news. designed special graphics that said "trump tweet" in big letters. him to ways, it allows be the assignment editor of american media. ,ost: beverly, tampa florida. independent caller. things ies, i have two want to hit on. i am not a real articulate person so i will not pretend to be. i remember being a young girl and my father, i lived in western new york, taking us to anything where the president or

the people running for president or vice president, and he wanted us to be a part of history. our commander of our country is someone we should respect as he should respect us. today, i would not have taken my child or my grandchild to any of that debates or anything president trump was involved in. why? because he is crude, rude, i would not have wanted my children or grandchildren to grow up thinking that the commander of our country, that was how he displayed himself. the next one is guns. my family originally came from pennsylvania. man guns.guns, hunts i think we have been in other countries for years and years to bank atrs, trying

countries and not hurt each other. host: i am going to jump and and we need to stick to the topic. i am going to move on to jim in redline, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i think the reason that trump administration so successful is that trump is the first republican to fight back. if i can recall the 2012 election in which henry reed identified mitt romney for not paying his taxes for 10 years from the senate floor, and then falseon a proved to be a story, nobody fought back. the stories continued. i just read "the new york times" story that is fundamentally false about a supreme court justice, and trump is fighting back on it. elected himwe because fundamentally, the republican party has been too polite, and politics is a blood sport. we have treated it as a sport gentlemen.

the democrats are not gentlemen. i do not agree to what the previous caller said that he is a racist. i cannot find any statement that president trump has ever made to show that he is a racist. -- gook, mr. poniewozik ahead. guest: first thing i was going to say was that your republican caller right now, i 100% agree with him, with trump, the fighting is the point. the fighting is the big part of his appeal to this base that he connected with when he became a regular commentator on fox news, appearing on fox and friends we "fox and friends" weekly. that was largely one reason his campaign was underestimated. people saw that he was leading the republican primary in the polls but believed that would fall apart. they missed that there was this base of theked off

party that was cultivated by fox news and others for whom fighting and being a fighter, that was a part of the argument. he would go into a debate and to do something like launch an attack on rand paul, and would allt be like a, why would mr. trump launch into this debate? cases,ity tv and in many on television today, no fights is pointless. it is a way of making a meta-argument to the audience saying, i will do this for you. i will be merciless to your enemies and the people that you do not like, i will make them upset and sad. that gets your previous caller's comment which is that i do think we have lost a kind of poignant thing -- and this notion that

whatever disagreements there are , at least the presidency is something sort of greater and the concept of it is something that unites us beyond our individual struggles. valorizedave fighting from the highest place in the state ofn the highest humanity, obviously, you are going to lose that. and that changes us. anthony in south river, new jersey. democratic caller. anthony? good morning. caller: hey, thank you for taking my call. love the show. i am a democrat, registered democrat and i am leaning more towards independent. what you guys are talking about is the media coverage. dirtymocrats, it is so

and the talking points, on and on and on, spinning it around, it is really disgusting. and name-calling. i will give you two examples. one example is the new brett kavanaugh story which we have a person that did not even say anything happened, but someone talks to somebody who talks to somebody who said something happened, and we have no record of it or anything like that, similar to when dr. ford came and said, i do not know when it bigened, it is all a show. host: what is your point? is in new point externale have the ledger and that is a political that is so slanted when you read the editorials, it is all for the democrats. i will give you a new jersey example, that is why i am

calling. we have something that did not happen years ago. our senator, the honorable cory booker says, in peac -- impeach and mr. kavanaugh, mendez came out and said, i believe her. in new jersey, we have a woman who worked for governor murphy, a democrat, who accused one of the campaign people of raping her. she went through the trouble to go to the hospital -- to ouran you tie this conversation about television? caller: well, because we do not hear anything about that in the news. i would suggest that your caller heard everything he heard from the news. that is generally the case when someone makes that sort of complaint -- why isn't this something that i learned about in the news in the news? i do not have much more to say about it than that. there always stories that are under covered, but i follow the

news and i heard the stuff he was talking about, and i am assuming that your caller does not have all of that as firsthand, personal information. it is probably in the news. host: will go to tennessee, rick te creek. guest: i would just like to comment, all shakespeare said all the world's a stage, and everyone is putting on a roll. what they have tried to do with this president, it is unbelievable when you look at snbc and the coverage of president trump. the disgraceful rhetoric. the attitude, the tone, the way they talk about the president of the united states is turning people off. guest: i think we have a lot of

issues with tone from a lot of people in the media these days. it is notk it does -- disrespectful to comment that one of those people with who there is issue with tone today is the president of the united states. host: how did previous presidents use television compared to president trump? that onethink of difference, how did previous presidents use television -- that is the thing. ,ith previous presidents television was not sort of the totality of their toolbox. gurus ormedia whatever who would teach them how to use the medium to have a moment or create connection. richard nixon, when he was running for president again met up with roger ailes who convinced him to go on a show

, and helped humanize him produce tv specials where he took questions from handpicked panelists. bill clinton went on "arsenio himself byumanized blowing the saxophone. there have always been moments where presidents have studiously and candidly and sometimes cynically use television as a means of sending a particular image and connecting with people. just a clear difference with donald trump is the extent to theh television has been whole basis of his success and been such a controlling force of his presidency in other words, as president, again, getting back to that symbiosis with fox news and the rage tweets and so

forth, he has been used by television as much as he has used it. host: jose and tampa, florida. republican. caller: actually, independent. how are you doing this morning? i want to know why they keep calling him a great salesman, just like a caller said, he has been bankrupt, he was supposed to build a building in downtown tampa that has never gotten bill. he is a racist. he says things that no other president has ever said, he is dividing the country --elievable unbelievably. had gone on obama tv and said half of the things that he has done -- he is not my president. he knew that it was set up. if obama would have said or done half the things that he would have said or done, they would have lynched him in front of the

white house. that man is showing what this country really and truly is. tell anybody to go back to their country unless you are indigenous to this country. eight years ago, saying "making america great again" why would you have to. host: heard your point, jose. point, iat latter would agree with. there have been any number of things that we have seen with donald trump that one of the top previous-- if any president had gone on twitter facealled a woman a horse like donald trump did to stormy daniels, and i am not making that up. why do people call donald trump a great salesman? media branding, media image, he wrote a book called "the art of the deal."

there has been a calculated media effort as a part of his persona that he has created and is a part of his performance, it has been to associate his name with deals, deals, deals. you do not get elected president, the electoral college ,f popular vote notwithstanding you do not get in that position without being a salesman at all. clearly, it is a sales job. but why does he have an image as a salesman? because he created in the media a character who was a salesman. and that has been people -- people have been hearing that connected with his name for well over 30 years now. that is not nothing. host: james poniewozik, the book is "audience of one: donald trump, television, and the fracturing of america." chief television critic for "the new york times you for yous morning. guest: thank you so much. host: that does it for today's

washington journal. the senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing on holocaust era insurance claim star live coverage here on c-span. [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]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> live this morning, waiting for the senate judiciary committee to hold its hearing on holocaust era insurance claims. they did just gavel in a few minutes ago on the main floor. you can watch that live on c-span2. senator mitch mcconnell speaking right now as we wait for the senators to convene here this morning. the chair of this committee is lindsey graham. about me years ago, a commission was established. we will hear some of those results today.