monitor american communications, but that allows them to adopt the technology themselves, which could give them a military edge, a technologically edge. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. just as anthony kennedy's retirement brings a significant change to the supreme court, follow the story on c-span from president trump nominating a replacement, the senate confirmation hearings, to the swearing-in, all on c-span, www.c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. roundtableporters discussion on roundtable discussion on the news of the week and the 2018 midterm elections. this is about an hour.

our sunday roundtable here in washington, andrew egger, he is a reporter for the weekly standard. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me on. host: and jamie stiehm. we want to talk about the news begin week, -- we want to at the shooting in annapolis maryland and the death of your colleagues. -- friendly colleague that had a smile for everyone and wonderful insight into stories and characters. host: how do you explain this kind of tragedy? in the last year and a half, there has been increasing hostility to the press as has been stoked by president trump. this is not related to that directly, this was just journalism catching up with the rest of the mass shootings we are seeing and i guess it is our

turn. host: one of the issues we were talking about, the suspect was not cooperating with police and law enforcement and the use of facial recognition to identify him. guest 2: that is a new development. he was the first suspect since he had been making threats for years. it was not surprised the suspect -- a surprise the suspect turned out to be mr. ramos. i know he had no personal grudge against the five slain i had a dreadful feeling rob would have been one of the victims because he was -- would literally stand out. host: what do you remember about him as a former colleague? guest 2: i remember he saw a life as a comedy. he had this southern, jen teal way about him. he was not a news reporter, he was a columnist at the annapolis

capital. theried to look beyond obvious. now.""it is trump's court we will know a week from now who the president will select to replace anthony kennedy. what can we expect in the ensuing five -- 8 days? it will be insane. the president has quite a flare for thedramatic -- dramatic. we know around who he will pick from, kind of evocative on his days from "the apprentice." it will be knocked down, drag out in the senate as senators, especially red state democrats are scrambling to figure out whether this is a similar case to when we saw neil gorsuch's confirmation, whether they should treat that differently, whether they can run the risk of

opposing one of president trump's nominees when they are going home to run for reelection in a couple months. it will be crazy and we will have to see what happens. that politico as a story two key senate votes will be lisa murkowski and susan collins of maine. therehose two women out and the debate over abortion and whether or not this will be roe v. wade all over again. those rights are very much on the line and those two women are the only republicans who are pro-choice. neither has said that would be their one and only criterion. it could be a very close 50-49 either way and neither one of these senators has tipped their hand. host: do you want to respond? host: i think -- guest 1: i

think that is absolutely right. you will need every republican, most likely. last time around with gorsuch, there were three democrats that ended up siding with republicans .o vote for his confirmation question obviously here as opposed to last year, the question of roe v. wade is a lot more front and center because it is an essential flip for the court and if republicans do not break rank, we will probably see whoever president trump's wants in there. host: you also read about claire mccaskill, how will that play out? guest 1: she is one of the red estate democrats that did not vote for the corset nomination -- gorsuch nomination. i don't see a situation where this plays well for her. i think it was helpful for her last year.h happened

it will have been 18 months by the time her reelection campaign came out and she is running against the attorney general right now. it is hard to see, there's a lot of things here. she will have to grapple with this while facing down a state of that went very hard for the president and does not want to be seen as a check on his agenda. democrats who are still smarting after mitch mcconnell blocked the nomination of merrick garland in 2016 to be barack obama's selection on the court now says mitch mcconnell should wait until the elections are over and republicans say we will move through this quickly. guest 2: it is really brazen showmanship and democrats, especially dianne feinstein, who is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and chuck schumer of new york are making that pitch right now as hard as -- but mcconnell

and the president are hard thatiners and i will think i think they will get their hearing whether democrats like it or not. host: this is what chuck schumer said about that and talked about hypocrisy by senate republicans. let's watch. [video clip] course, if republicans were consistent, they would wait to consider justice kennedy's successor until after the midterm elections. time and time again, leader mcconnell justified his unjustifiable blockade of merrick garland i claiming the american people should have voice in deciding the next supreme court justice. of anas in february election year. it is now almost july. if -- it is the senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent is just as important as the president's right to nominate, which the commerce -- constitution says it is, why should a midterm election be any less important than a

presidential election? leader mcconnell is simply engaging in hypocrisy. host: that was chuck schumer after the announcement that justice kennedy will be stepping down and he told the president in the white house on wednesday in responding to it, chuck schumer said -- [video clip] >> the senate will vote to confirm anthony kennedy's successor this fall. this is not 2016. they are not the final months of a second term constitutional lame-duck presidency with a constitutional -- election fast approaching. we are in the middle of this president's very first term in to my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the senate should only process supreme court nominations in odd numbered years. host: what is going on here? guest 1: i think there is a compelling case from the democratic side.

this is an issue that motivates democratic voters and the base and the idea the supreme court seat was stolen from merrick garland. at the same time, i think it's mcconnell has a strong port, that nobody on the republican side was year saying no election -- the argument was this was the last year of a presidential term and it was always about the president, that he was outgoing and voters should have a say who appointed that. argumentee whether the carries water, but i think mcconnell and his allies will have no trouble getting that process to the floor. host: justice kennedy was confirmed in february 1988 and that was an election year and nomination -- confirmation began -- guest 2: that is right. appointed by president reagan so this so-called rule that mcconnell introduced

into public discourse -- political discourse is a rather strange bird, something he invented. he is extremely crafty, very shrewd, and i mean that as a compliment and he came up with an excellent argument as to why this should proceed. host: let me fast forward with a hypothetical. if in 2020 democrats have control of the senate and there is another vacancy on the supreme court, is this now standard procedure for both political parties? my goodness. it is hard to bet against the breakdown of norms. it seems like any time one of these institutions has come under the chopping block, we have seen either side tends to go with the short-term victory rather than the long-term institution and i don't think that is surprising given that especially when it comes to the supreme court, publicans and

democrats are operating under two different ideas of what the court's role is and how it should function. i fully inspect -- expect in 2020 to see whichever side wields as much power to get their version of the court, whether that is through stalling or not. that this is just one ad will affect many, how this is shifting the midterm elections. let's watch. [video clip] has proven herump wants the best of the best on the supreme court. he appointed neil gorsuch, a fair and independent justice committed to the independent and now there is another opening, a choice to appoint another great justice just like they did before, extremist will rise and attack the nomination. president trump's list includes the best of the best in with your help, america will get another star on the supreme court. host: that is from the judicial crisis network, a conservative

organization and liberals also attacking whoever the president nominates, so this will be a political football. guest 2: the battle is on right now. as soon as summit democrats come to the four and say -- senate democrats came to the floor -- he made his intentions there he clear and never has this seat been so criticized so quickly with perhaps the exception of clarence thomas in 1991. host: this is from "the washington post," colling this and other robert bork moment. is that a fair analogy? guest 1: that seems to be fair. it will be a question of whether or not an originalist judge like gorsuchill be the 1 -- will be the one nominated this year. it was less contentious last year because gorsuch was seen as replacement, kind of

one-for-one. them treat -- whoever the new nominee happens to be, in much the same way as bork was treated. host: joining me at the table is andrew egger and jamie stiehm. this is from "the washington post," barack obama planning a bigger role in the midterms. unlikely to stay quiet for long according to mary jordan of "the washington post." guest 2: i think that is appropriate because the party is undergoing a reckoning and they need all men to come to the aid of the party. barack obama has stayed in the shadows mostly and he can make a margin of difference in a few races like the one in missouri, wisconsin, michigan, there are 10 senate democrats up for reelection and face -- in states that trump won. host: bramble joining us from

texas, independent line. good morning. caller: i have two questions of the guests. are they aware of any services that violate the freedom of information acts on kennedy's son and the bank loans and connections there? the second one is will the president be asking putin if he plans to return the 14 russians that have been indicted by the american grand jury and if trump himself plans to pardon 14 russians. we have been asking that and we have been wanting to know and as far as future elections come up is simple, 2020, it i will vote against russians and republicans. host: the president cannot pardon foreigners and you need

to explain what you were a referring to with regard to kennedy's sons. caller: justice kennedy. host: justice kennedy. guest 2: i think the caller is referring to justice kennedy's son was a banker that had dealings with the trump company on the floor of the house at the state of the union, trump data point of going up to justice kennedy and saying give my best to your boy and that has recently been revealed as the tie between them we were not aware of before. host: we want to go to a story you wrote, andrew egger, because he is in the spotlight following the shooting in maryland. larry hogan, the governor of maryland seeking a second term and he will be challenged by a democrat. guest 2: the spotlight -- guest 1: the spotlight is on him right

now and there are no good things about a tragedy like this, but a guy like larry hogan is well-equipped to handle a tragedy like this. he is a very capable leader. he got a lot of popularity in his first year in office for the way he'd -- he handled the rioting in baltimore following the death of freddy gray. i think he is a pit -- capable guy. host: why are these governor's races so important in terms of congress? guest 2: because the congress is kind of, hopefully, away one way or the other that governors or senators rise and fall together and this is such an important election. it might be the most national midterm election we have ever had. host: you also have congressional -- up in 2020. guest 1: it will be interesting how all of that is. host: joining us from columbus,

georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: we are fine, thank you. caller: here we are with democrats raring up to go against trump's nominee for the youeme court and so far, see the liberal media going against him, too. the liberal media can point out some terrible stuff against people and you see it all over the place. do you all see any bias on media and the both sides -- on both sides are just one side? most biased people are the liberal media because they come out of their skin and almost like a snake, they come and allstart to strike the women in the liberal media seem to me are drama queens.

they get up there and talk nonsense and you cannot get any anymore unlessm you go to a conservative network and i appreciate you all hearing my comments. host: who don't you trust and who do you trust? cbc, abc,don't trust and nbc and i don't trust very many of their offspring's. i trust some of fox's news and some of the other conservative people, such as the people online and stuff. i just don't see the liberal media being unbiased anymore. host: do you watch programs on msnbc and get the other point of view? caller: yes, i do. i try to get the other side and when they start telling people trump is a monster and will have everybody in the states locked up or killed or whatever and

they are just awful. you cannot sit there and listen because they scare you to death. host: thank you for the call from columbus, georgia. andrew egger. guest 1: i think you are right on one account, which is that as we in the country get more politicized, get pulled further apart, it becomes harder for anybody in media or elsewhere to have sort of an objective take on things. pulled tod to get their ideological side of. as a member of the conservative media, i think there is a lot of slant on both sides come on our side as well. you can find people who are less interested in giving you the straight facts than they are into deceiving and try to push a particular partisan point. i think your point is well taken that happens on both sides and even sort of amount -- among mainstream publications.

it is hard to be a reporter and try to get straight facts the people. host: jamie stiehm, in your piece "ohio: both sides of the political river," it is already july 1 and you write i look across the ohio river and i sigh. explain. ohio rivere hot -- is a dividing line between historically north of south, the slaves would cross over from slavery to freedom. it has a place in our mythology, but also in our politics today because north and south are still pretty polarized and when i sat with -- saw it with my own eyes, i can picture it all happening back in the 1850's leading up to the civil war and right now, we are in a comparable mood, we are angry.ng, we are polarized, as you said on both sides of the whole.

into the house of representatives, and you can feel it. it is like a seething mass. host: we will go to stephen in connecticut, independent line. caller: good sunday morning, everybody. thank you for taking my call. judge judges -- picking a insomebody who is not set up an ivy tower. it would be great if they could pick a woman. that goes back to the midterm elections. the one lady from had really gety .ut the vote efforts

i think companies like facebook and apple and google, even our allies like in london or germany, with social media, you can really mobilize get out the vote. host: andrew egger? guest 1: to answer the first part of your question about the supreme court, i think you are really getting at something which is that, because the court has gotten so powerful and become such an answering body to the degree that a lot of the law that exists in this country exists because it has been decided one way or another at the supreme court, it becomes a problem sort of that people who are appointed to the court tend to be cloistered from the upper crust, they are all lawyers and nerds and i think you get right at it. when the court serves in what i would say it's appropriate role essentially sort of an interpretive body settling questions of what the law says and how the law is supposed to

function and whether that squares with the constitution, that matters less that those people are a bunch of harvard lawyers and you are absolutely right that now that the court has become a body that determines policy a lot of the time, that becomes a much more present host: problem. this is the editorial from the new york times, bring on the young democratic leaders, in reference to nancy pelosi and jim clyburn and -- both in their late 70's and talking about the defeat of joe crowley. the leadership disarray it caused was predictable because of the regime's failure to foster new talent, the caucuses lack any bench of members ready to assume this pelosi -- mrs. pelosi's mantle. -- a younger replacement can be groomed for the job. what is going on among house

democrats? guest 2: i think nancy pelosi is determined to hang on to her place in leadership for at least one more term. a deal might be made that she serves until she is 80 and she strategic, soand i think she may bargain for one more term, especially if democrats take back the house. host: she is also an issue in this midterm election. guest 1: that is true. republicans will be happy to campaign on opposition to nancy pelosi and support of donald trump. they see those two as the two big fichter -- figures. if you are pelosi, you have to make that decision whether it is too big of a trade-off. host: with the win last week, rtesander -- alexandria cot

defeating joe crowley -- this is the headline from "the washington post," "a working-class woman speaks the bronx's language." caller: good morning. you guys have a great show. my comment is that you can't get in touch with the news agencies anymore. msnbc, you have rachel maddow, chris matthews, which i watch every day. the new york times you have michelle goldberg. i tried to email them or contact them through their news agency and you cannot do it anymore. there is no way of doing it. no matter what you do they say, we will get back to you. i used to be able to email and make comments and i am wondering what happened to contacting your people anymore? the reporters and the journalists? this is important for the working people, anybody who

wants to make a comment and they wonder why people are screaming at the politicians in streets. that is the only way they can comment anymore. everybody is either working for somebody and they will let the news come through, but the little guy in the street gets no reporting at all. host: aren't you glad you can just give us a call and talk to us and you are right there -- we are right here? caller: you are the only ones, it is wonderful. i tried to make a comment to them, i said, why don't they russians who messed up our elections, why don't they call them terrorist? every time somebody in this country does something, they call them terrorist. there are ecoterrorists, peace terrorists, but the russians are out to destroy our

democratic election and they worst they call them is the russians or cyber terrorist. cyber terrorists are often -- after my credit card and not the russians -- all the russians are doing this. jamie stiehm, you were shaking your head when you -- he talked about calling them terrorist. guest 2: the word terrorist is so overused in our culture, i don't think it would be helpful. we have not gotten to the bottom of russian -- the russian interference, the investigation is not quite over with. it would be premature to call russia terrorist. host: andrew egger, fox news is in the building, below us on the fifth floor. every weekday afternoon we would he this gentleman come in, died last month after a battle

with cancer. he was 68 years old. what is his legacy? guest 1: he basically has enormous shoes to fill for people in the conservative movement and writers who want to make a sharp point in a respectable and illuminating way. there really aren't a lot of people around who do what he did as well as he did it, just a handful of people and a lot of them are also getting up in age. of as sort of a relic bygone time in american politics where it was possible to make a case to both sides even though it was -- he was clearly a conservative. i certainly hope we will be able to see a return to the kind of environment that he helped bring about and the kind of writing he helped to make famous across the country. host: he told foxnews he loved being on television, but especially loved being a writer

because he could edit himself and make sure when his essay appeared, it was his opinion in full thought. guest 2: he was such a master of -- argument of the diatribe he was almost unequaled in terms part of hiselegant viewpoint and washington can be a small town and i have heard from both sides with a kind, sweet, generous soul he was. essay, heis final basically said i lived the life i intended. those final words in which he talked about his life and admitted he was going to die. guest 2: and to go back to that previous caller -- guest 1: and to go back to that previous collar, a lot of things we have heard about him since his death, a lot of people who knew him about how they cared about

him and there was one story on twitter about a guy who's father suffered a spinal injury about a year after he met krauthammer and he sent him a very kind letter. he never really lost that common touch for speaking to regular people, which meant a lot to a lot of people. in thee would see him building and he never wanted to be in the way of the elevator, always a smile on his face and a quick wit. guest 2: he also went to harvard medical school and he made a shift in his life to this line of work. host: joining us, andrew egger and jamie stiehm. on the democrats line, good morning. caller: hello. it is nice to be on your show today. i had a comment to two of your previous callers, a gentleman from texas and a gentleman from georgia.

gentlemano tell the from texas he has renewed my faith in the south and the gentleman from georgia, i suggest he get his news from a reputable source. i find it interesting he says he does not get nothing but fake news from the top three abc, nbc, cbs news channel. when one of those stories report a false story, reporters and newscasters lose their jobs on a regular basis, but sean hannity can spew lies to the nth degrees and foxnews keeps putting him on and on. i would suggest people in the south tried to get some facts. i live in tennessee and i can tell you racism is alive and well in the south and the politicians down here as well as in washington whistle call to opinion,e -- in my

uneducated, and i will put that kindly, on a repeated basis and all you have to do is live in the south and you will understand how trump got elected and it is sad, but i think they had it right in the 2016 election. there are some people who are deplorables. people who listen to foxnews don't listen to news, they are listening to state-run propaganda and it is not news because it keys into their emotional state, their biases, their colored glasses they are wearing, be they religious or whatever. i am tired of living in a part of the country and getting elected officials who don't do what is best for this country, that do what is best for their pocketbooks and what is best for their lobbyists and i would include trump in those politicians. host: tracy, thank you for the call.

this is the headline from the new york times front page and in the a section. fox and if trump, it is a friendship without equal. the president tweeting he will be on the business channel this morning. bill shine is in line to become the next white house to medications director and more often than not when the president wants to be interviewed on television, it is on fox or fox business. a romance, is almost sean hannity and the president speak often, so there is no pretense that -- of a neutral distance covering his observers. there is very much a slant trump plays that for all of the world. host: that's go to tim from indiana, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know if they can answer this or not, but are there any

recusal standards for supreme , he hasstices, such as got to go to a senate hearing, but is that a question that can to aned -- if it goes indictment to the supreme court of a sitting president, is there a refusal product -- recusal process for that? host: there is a background check, but do you want to respond? yout 1: i am not 100% sure -- i understand your question whether you are talking about recusal for senators or for justices. i think you were talking about justices appointed by the president whether they would recuse themselves if an indictment came before them. i don't know the answer to that question. i imagine that would be unlikely given the role the senate plays

in terms of consent, that is supposed to be a check that the basic competence of a justice and obviously, the ability to serve in that kind of role would speak to competence. at the same time, i think the question that reason is worth , if itat all is because were to come to that. if robert mueller were to come out with an indictment against the president. do not know it is going to happen, but if it were to happen, it was -- it would be the biggest test to our institutions we have ever seen. that is when we would find out whether or not these institutions we have set up to preserve our sort of equal justice under the law would be able to hold. host: we saw a this past week before the house judiciary committee how republicans trying to discredit the justice department.

rod rosenstein and the molar investigation. guest 2: that is very heated and tempers flared on both sides. there is an accusation, a suspicion the justice department was holding documents that the committee wanted to see and still interested in hillary clinton's emails as far as i know. of a sense ofpart the various branches of government. federal, congress, between --rts and rod rosenstein himself rather well. it is the first time we saw him really speak up for himself in public. host: wisconsin, tim, you are next. democrats line. good morning. good morning, c-span. i think the way we bring the country together has to start at

abortion, it is the new civil war. how we do it is let's say a couple from your state goes to florida, has a vacation, comes six, goes toe gets the doctor, he says you are pregnant and says you also have zika virus. no matter which one of your families out there would go through this situation, the basic question is would you want them to make their own decision or taking care of someone who will be tremendously damaged through their lifetime, bills they would not be able to afford, no quality of life to that child? the basis of abortion has to begin at the extreme, yes, i would agree with and then work toward how many weeks. it needs to be re-debated in a large -- logical way, not a

religious way. thank you, c-span. host: senator chuck schumer saying whoever the president appoints, roe v. wade is on the line. guest 1: i think you get at a really good point and this is sort of a fine point, but a lot of people beyond the issue of should abortion be legal or illegal. a lot of people have previously taken issue with the way roe v. wade settled that question by an all ory making it nothing proposition. that makes it very difficult for there to be any kind of compromise on this issue. obviously it is inherently a thing that is hard to compromise because of the blatant ideological disparity between what motivates the left and the right on this issue. you are absolutely right that most people in this country believe there should be some restrictions on when abortion is legal and for what reasons abortion is legal. there are not that many people

who think it should be illegal in all circumstances and not that many people who think it should be legal all the way up to birth. i think it will be difficult to have a national conversation on that, especially with roe v. wade on the books, and i say that as a conservative republican. host: that goes back to our earlier point about these two senate republicans, lisa murkowski and susan collins of maine. guest 2: it is really all on them because all senate democrats will hang together on this and they will do their level best to bring one of those two or both of them with them. i have a feeling it might not happen. roe v. wade has been settled law for 45 years. reproductive rights have been a given and i think the threat they mean may be endangered this month and next month and the month after that will energize voters in november. host: let's go to danny joining

us from north carolina. with the started out conversation about the fake news , ok, let's get to the facts here. out there -- news everything out there is fake news to a certain extent. everybody wants to push to the left, pushed to the right. info wars, he leads the ay on the truth 6 months to year and advance. he will tell you about how the government is going to take everything from everybody. this is not a right or wrong situation, this is a god versus satan thing and the sooner america wakes up and realizes color and cover -- no only love for everybody. host: b is also the one that

claimed the shootings that sandy hook, that they were actors and did not really happened. do you believe that? caller: i believe a lot of things like the 9/11 situation where you have 200 story buildings that collapsed directly down on one city block they would build on instead of around the world, you can see them falling sideways, it is impossible. we know the government done this and we know george bush and the clintons have been in the drug cartels for years, that they are the leaders of the drug distribution to america. we know obama is just a flunky of theirs and is not even an american. it is time people wake up around this world and get to the straight facts. host: let me go back, how is barack obama a flunky? caller: are you kidding me? anybody that spent $7 trillion on black ops or whatever they done with their money.

this is your money, the american people's future, this is my great grandkids they are taking advantage of here. how you can sit there, anyone of you three and not realize what the world is coming to an you all are fostering that in. one man to sit at the top and claim he is the ruler of the world. host: why would the government want to bring down the world trade center and kill 3000 americans? caller: to be honest with you, the buildings were junk. how do you get rid of junk buildings, you blow them up? at the same time, you can create a war overseas that hillary clinton wants to bring a pipeline over syria. read the books, do some research rather than talking sometimes. host: why do you believe info wars that sandy hook did not happen and what do you tell the families that buried their children? caller: i tell them the

government sent shooters in there. host: why, why would the government do that? why do the rich do anything? to keep you from being somebody that can replace them. they want their bloodline to succeed and your bloodline to die. it is that simple. host: what is your background? caller: i started out in the united states military, ok. after five years, i saw the brain watching that is done in the military to make you rush into a bunker with a live ammo shooting at you and you are going to take this man out. i recognized my entire life how intelligent people -- they think, intelligent, can twist you into doing things you would never do, jump off a building, jump out of an airplane. there are systems just like technology hid from the average

american. host: we want to get a sense of where he is coming from. do either of you want to respond? guest 1: i will say briefly you are right that god has no color, god is love. i think there are plenty of things that -- to be upset and angry about about the way the world works. i think one other place you are right is if there is something -- some way people today are hurting your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, you might look at the national debt and the way that is going down, but you might want to turn off info wars and there are plenty of thing stopped of -- occupy your time and energy beyond that. conspiracythink the the caller outlined is a real alienation from the government and the u.s. government, we see the citadel of democracy behind us, is not that bad.

difficult time, but never what i ever imagined those scenarios could be true. host: and often not that competent. it takes them years and years to pass little pieces of legislation. it would be a whole other thing if they were running the country behind the scenes without any of that leaking and a whole new shadow government. host: and the fact that 20 children, preschool, children, first and second graders and 6 children's were killed at sandy hook and 6 more family members are filing more lawsuits against alex jones that it was put on by the government and those killed were actors in hollywood. athens, georgia, independent line. caller: good morning, thank god for c-span and the weekly standard as well. i would like to express the opinion that when donald trump

was running for president, he kept claiming the education, the schools in this country are terrible and falling apart and worthless and i did not believe him when he said that, but then he got elected and now i think the schools in this country are falling apart. my other opinion is i tried to start an anti-hate group, but everybody who joined hated donald trump, so i had to give it up. thank you for your time. host: thank you. ironic, that is kind of isn't it? i think the caller did something noble, very commendable to try to start a group like that and i would urge him to try again. host: let's get next to hyattsville, maryland. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, steve. i was calling -- i always listen

to c-span and sometimes the comments are very difficult to take. there was a white woman a little while ago and i think she said it she was in tennessee talking about the deplorables and things of that nature. a nasty woman because that is what all the organizers -- i am a nasty woman -- because trump said something about a nasty woman so i decided to be a deplorable. out here in maryland, they have --s going to bed bathroom bathrooms with girls, everything the democratic party is for. every single thing that is disgusting and nasty, they are for. girls going to the bathroom with girls, sexy changes sex changes you want the american public to pay for --

that is a personal thing. i know it is supposed to be, it is no longer a mental illness, i think it is. a deplorablebecome because i do not want girls in the bathroom with my daughters. i do not want discrimination and democrats are the party of hate. everything they say trump and the republicans are for, they are the ones that are for that. anything they say you are doing, they are doing it. who wants open borders? now sacred.hing you cannot make a decision on your own or you are a horrible person because you do not want a man in the bathroom with you. host: andrew egger? guest 1: i think what you are referring to with the comments about taxpayers paying for it would be the recent change just now going into effect about transgendered people in the military and now it is no longer going to be military funded sex

change operations -- if that is what you are referring to, that is happening and i could see why if that is your issue, that would bring you on board the trump train. host: andrew egger, if people want to follow you on twitter, how can they do so? caller: they can go to my page, eggertws.om/ @jamiestiehm and i always welcome a dialogue with readers. reading,s is from jd referring to the caller from north carolina saying it is the elements in the government, not the government itself. goodness. keep those tweets coming. you,r: good morning to steve, and happy early fourth of

july for america. earlier some guy called up wondering about if a supreme court justice could recuse themselves. the answer is yes and i believe it was sotomayor or kagan who recused themselves and the -- in the aca debate because one of them had written some articles or wrote something for president obama on the affordable care act so when it went to courts, they recused themselves. i remember reading that in the paper. host: thank you. guest 2: it is up to the individual justice whether or not to recuse himself or herself and the caller is right to point that out and for future new justice will have a dilemma may be a vote of conscious whether or not to recuse himself or herself. host: what role does the

federalist society play in the -- selection process? guest 1: i think they are clearly a vote -- group that has the president's ear when it comes to legal theory. the president has never been a legal beagle himself and from the first weeks of his presidency, he has made it clear he sort of is outsourcing that particular side of things -- maybe not outsourcing, but taking it it very seriously, groups like the federal society and heritage foundation and these conservative think tanks that have a lot of ideological firepower behind them. i think they will probably play a large role, he says he will select from that short list. host: we know some of the nominees are meeting with him. robert is joining us from rhode island, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve.

i want to thank you for c-span. i used to watch msnbc, cbs, all the different news channels. the only ones you can get a fairly good -- even keeled with what the news is is fox news, one america news and sky news. the rest of them -- and this is the truth. the rest of the stations, cnn, nbc, abc, msnbc, there has been a coup . they have been working with -- they are all jewish owned. the news is so slanted, it is disgusting. they cannot put anything true about president trump. it is all skewed and i tell you one person i feel sorry for, you --e mueller and horwitz three people, secular jewish and the one i feel sorry for is horwitz because they must have

pressured him so much cannot bring out the full truth of what happened in this investigation. host: thank you. guest 2: i don't have a comment. host: we will go to john in silver spring, maryland. democrats line. caller: i want to say this previous caller, exactly. people are so confused and i really want to say the gentleman you gave him more time, that ex -military guy, he needs some help. this country along star all of us. when we are attacking each other like this, we are not going to get anything succeed. donald trump divides and conquers and that is what he is doing right now, dividing people against each other. sometimes people have an economic issue and they are angry and i understand that. i travel here all the way to indiana and i have seen a lot of people hurt because people get

respected when they have jobs and most of american don't have a job. my call is this. i think mitch mcconnell is very smart. chuck schumer, if he thinks he is counting jeff flake or anyone will stop this judge, he is dreaming. the democrats always attack and before they even get a judge. i believe one thing, wherever come a supreme court, they will not overturn anything, they will let things go. host: thank you for the call. let me take the first part of this call and respond to the second part. the tone you heard from the calls this morning, what is your take away? guest 1: i agree with most recent caller and think that it is true he have come to a point in the country where the town has gotten very divisive and people do not know who to trust and they have lost their faith in their institutions, even the places we work for that try to present things down the middle

as much as possible and i think there is a couple of reasons for that. one thing is when there are so many people who have sort of gotten so angry and distrustful and suspicious, part of that is the fault of demagogues like alex jones who capitalize on that so they can sell herbal supplements or whatever. there is also blame that gets assigned the national institutions for that. can't beil -- if you accessible, as news organizations or governments or whatever, if people feel like you are insensitive to their of that you don't understand the pain they are in for various reasons like the caller was saying, that makes people more susceptible to listen to anyone who says i get you, i understand your pain whether that is alex jones or donald trump or whoever.

a lot of people have seen success through little s -- else other than saying those people don't understand you, but i do. guest 2: -- reflects the impact of what we are here -- in here in washington and it is only the beginning of july, but it already feels like a very long, hot summer. abraham lincoln said a house divided cannot stand. however, that house over there is divided and divided again, republicans cannot even agree on .n immigration bill i think the resentment we heard this morning has been reflected here in washington. back to ant to go 51-49 senate and and or john mccain, who has not been in washington since before christmas. how important will his boat be to mitch mcconnell and if he continues to be in poor health, do you think there is pressure for him to step down to make sure there is someone who can

vote for republicans? guest 2: there may already be pressure on senator became. he -- senator mccain. he is gravely ill and that effectively makes it 50-49 in the balance. host: and the vice president cannot vote in those circumstances. guest 2: the vice president can only vote if there is a 50-50 tied. mccain, he will do precisely as he pleases. guest 1: it is ultimately going to be up to john mccain. of the senators who could be in this circumstance, i think he will make the right decision for himself and the country that he has been serving for a very long time. weeklyndrew egger of the standard. his work is available online and jamie stiehm, her work at creators.com.