tv Washington Journal 11232019 CSPAN November 23, 2019 7:00am-10:03am EST
legalize marijuana. as always. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is saturday, november 23rd, 20 19. following a week of impeachment hearings, the democratic presidential debate, and president trump's forceful criticism of democrats' efforts, how is that affecting your 2020 vote? we will spend the first hour talking about that. 20 274-8000. onependent and all other
twitter send us a tweet at c-span wj and facebook or facebook.com/c-span. couple of the polls that have come out since thursday since the last of this week's hearings and let you know about some of our political coverage starting with the intersection of the debate and the impeachment hearings. jerry simon writing impeachment invades the democratic primary. for the good portion of the campaign, it sounds like -- it feels like an intrasquad basketball game. the same side scrimmaging against one another. outside forces began to muscle into the presidential primary -- primary contest. the first force was president taught -- president trump, not of his own accord. the biggest was hearings on the possible impeachment that paid out -- played out in the house of representatives, in particular a hearing on
wednesday dominated the news and stole much of the spotlight that otherwise would have gone to the democrat's presidential debate. not surprisingly, the first question was directed towards elizabeth warren was whether she would try to persuade republican senators to convict mr. trump if he has impeached in the house and put on trial in the senate. "of course i will," she responded. some democrats have long worried that impeachment process will distract the attention from their primary process. this week showed concerns are valid. i want to take a look, there are a couple of pulls out since thursday. the first one we are seeing is in the washington examiner, and their headline on this as support flips against impeachment as trump approval rating jobs. this is according to a poll showing support for the impeachment of president trump has declined for the impeachment since the public hearings have started.
the emerson poll released found support has dropped from 48% of 43% since october while opposition to impeachment has risen from 44 percent to 45%. washingtonexaminer.com is where you read that. how is the impeachment proceeding affecting your vote? democrats.0, for 202-748-0001, for republicans, and all others 202-748-0002. tom emmer joins us this week on newsmakers and was asked about how the impeachment effort against president trump might be a drag on gop candidates. [video clip] >> he is going to be an advantage to us. there are 8 million trump voters did -- that did not show up. this is a phenomenon that people do not understand. people not on the northeast or the west coast, they are
frustrated with what happens here, and they have somebody who they believe is fighting for them, regardless of style or anything else, and again, this new socialist democrat majority in the house, they have let this thing become all about impeachment, whether it was the russians, we have collusion, you 32 millionears and dollars, no collusion or obstruction and you move into this and you have not gotten anything done, reduced prices on pharmaceuticals, take care of surprised medical billing, past the usmca. we have agriculture industries that are struggling, this would be great news for them, get the stuff done, that is what people want to see. [end video clip] national chair of the republican congressional committee. he is our guest on "newsmakers."
watch it at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. to your calls on how impeachment is affecting your 2020 vote. we will go to lewis in alabama, democrat. caller: yes. thing, our president was a draft dodger, so that is one thing that i do not like about him. the second thing is that he is pooing on our constitution, that is not a good thing. with the republicans, they are more or less interested in it. violatedrats, the man the constitution. if we have a president, i do not care if it is a democrat or republican. someone who is a draft
dodger who does not pay taxes -poo our poo constitution and republicans to vote for him, it is all about the money for the republicans. cannot see that they are losing. they lost in virginia, they lost in mississippi and new orleans, they are losing all very where -- everywhere. they keep on saying that the democrats are pushing impeachment, democrats are pushing the right things. host: we will go to tyson and carlsbad, -- in carlsbad, california. republican line. caller: to respond to the gentleman, the economy is doing fabulous, jobs across the nation are up. plants are being reopened, and people are working. so, down in mississippi are down south, people are actually working and they have jobs. thank you for c-span.
on your topic, in a civil -- theyif you really will be a lot of pros and cons and people angry and happy and giving their opinions, and that is the beautiful thing about c-span and the folks being able to call in. but, in a stable matter, if this youcivilly brought against or your brother, whomever, it would have been thrown out a long time ago. does this affect me voting for the president? not really, because it is kind lack -- it isy not warranted. what is warranted is the state of the economy, the dow jones is at 24000 and people are working across the nation. that is what really matters. do you understand?
host: i do, i appreciate your call. he had speculated at looking at it if it was a civil matter. a similar tone on twitter. representative impeachment is like an investigation on the job where the wrongdoers are found guilty. the senate is like a jar, they -- hr they decide on the punishment. it does not exonerate the wrongdoer." aggie tweeting that " impeachment only affects me in that trump is removed from office sooner rather than later." in new york, "impeachment does not change my vote, i will not vote for the democrat -- for democrat, especially when they have wrecked the state." this is ron, baltimore. caller: it is amazing that we can say a lot of negative things about trump, which has a lot of
substance. that the republicans have is that the democrats have always had their sights set on impeaching trump. as of an independent today, if you watched a democratic debate, every single one of them is really too far left. these are borderline radical leftists. i say to hear this but this. unfortunately, i will have to vote for trump, at least his -- i think his position on a lot of our social issues, for example with the immigration crisis which we have in the united states, at least he is trying to do something about it. i will have to vote for trump, as farsomething changes as their candidates. word,you said you use the
unfortunately, it sounds like it is reluctant for you. there is nobody on the democratic side or elsewhere that would appeal to you? caller: i do not to say that. i do not use the word as far as unfortunately. we will see what bloomberg has to bring to the table. i know he put out about 26 million dollars in campaign ads. so, i am looking forward to hear about his position. but we really do not have anyone that is more towards the center. every single one of the candidates -- are too radical. they are not going to beat trump. at least trump is doing something, and i hate to say this, to make america great again. host: ron talked about michael bloomberg. this is the front page of "the new york times." "bloomberg will flood the
airwaves. the former mayor spent at least $30 million on friday for a single week of television ads, a show a financial force that signals his willingness to use his vast personal fortune to reshape the democratic presidential debate. the 62nd biographical commercials begin monday in more than two dozen states and news media markets from california to maine. a preview of a budget that could easily stretch into the nine figure range. that is from "the new york times" entity -- i will pull that off as it is graphically important to see how much spun -- how much money he is spending in relation to the other candidates. there is just no comparison. a $30 million ad buy. the next closest one is tom steyer. two hot springs national park from jb on our democrats line in
arkansas. welcome. caller: hello. i was smiling a while ago when the man was talking about how great the economy is. i was at the barbershop last week and overheard one guy saying that trump has created all of these thousands of jobs. and the other guy said i believe it, i have three of them. i do not think it is good. i think people just believe it. that is not what i want to say. i am curious about why these republicans still support the man after hearings -- hearing all of these things last week in the hearings. i think what he did to the ambassador is a shame. a think a woman who spent her whole life in pursuit of foreign policy, and just dump her for no reason at all. had a neighbor who told me 13,000 lives over the last four years and he called me
up this morning and said i had something i want to sit tell you, do you think i would believe what the guy says? but these people believe everything he says. i do not understand it. , i thinkuld say this this is a step above marie's mother. theyalso have -- burisma, also have obstruction objections -- of justice. whatever happened last night, they are still trying to do it. that is all i wanted to say. i appreciate you taking my call. host: victor, and maryland. caller: good morning. i did not bother listening to the hearings. it is like watching a test pattern on the tv back in the 60's and 50's. i would rather listen to rush
limbaugh, at least i can get my information from him and other talk show hosts on the radio. , you know why i am going to vote for trump? speech,y freedom of thought, and i want to do what i want to do. i do not want someone telling you what i can and cannot do. i have had it. all of these women like elizabeth warren and everyone, they all remind me of my former wife. i have had enough yelling and screaming from my former wife. so, i will vote for trump. i am blind, and every time the imocrats ask me for my vote, ask what you have done for the blind? nothing. you pretend to help us, you do not. at least trump has made the economy good again, and i am
able to invest and make money, so i do not have to depend on people for anything. host: we will cover elizabeth warren today. our political coverage with elizabeth warren in manchester, new hampshire. coming up on 3:45 eastern. tomorrow we have a rally with bernie sanders at 5:00 p.m. eastern. patricky, deval campaigning in new hampshire, and that is live on c-span two monday morning at eight: 30 a.m. eastern. how is the impeachment affecting -- how20 vote, how much would it influence or change it? hudson, florida on the independent line. youer: good morning, thank for every day your news, and everything. let me say a few things. one, i do not understand the guys calling in with these 13,000 lies.
they are more honest that could not even named 13 lies. i agree with another individual is that the left, i cannot vote on them because they are not americans. they are radical left. i agree with him wholeheartedly. watching all of these, absolutely. trump is the only american running that cares about america, as a veteran and independent, he has my complete support. host: thank you. cherokee village, arkansas, lloyd, democrats line. caller: how is it going? host: fine. caller: this is not going to change my vote. i would've supported impeachment as soon as the democrats took control of the house. i want to keep my freedom of speech. he calls the press the enemy of the state.
i just think he is a foreign agent for putin. yahoo! news has a look at where people stand on the impeachment process. a poll with most voters saying that he committed offenses but are split on impeachment. wall-to-wall coverage came to close and a new poll showed that a majority of registered voters agreed that donald trump abused his powers of president, but the country remains divided on whether he should be impeached." -- the poll was conducted november 22nd. we hear from mike, republican line in marathon, ohio. good morning. go ahead. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: actually, the name is
frank. host: sorry. you are just as welcome as mike. i have two comments. my wife and i watched the hearings, and neither one of us has seen anything that has been done wrong. as far as giving ukraine the ide, somebody came to me and would want to know what they would do with it before i gave it to them. we pretty much lost confidence in congress and speaker pelosi. how could she be removed from office, and thank you for taking my call. that is all we have to say. host: we have been talking up -- about the presidential race. in the congressional races i want to show you the ads
running. veterans ands of national security group's called defend american democracy is running an ad against john cap co.. here's a look. [video clip] >> in the army we took an oath to defend this country, to put politics aside and do what is right. i am sick and tired of the congressmen putting politics over country. president trump abused his power for his own benefit, that is wrong. as a former prosecutor, the congressman should know that plain and simple. thing,m to do the right because no one is above the law [end video clip] host: other news, a headline from reuters. navy secretary backs the expulsion review despite a trump objection. they write in a story reported overnight "that richard spencer said a navy seal convicted of
battlefield misconduct should face a board of tears weighing whether to oust him from the elite force despite president donald trump's assertion that he had not been expelled." your thoughts on how impeachment is affecting your 2020 vote. comments on facebook welcome and you can send us a text at 202-748-0003. a post from randi that says " helping understand that trump is the way he is. since day one everyone around him has been out to get him because he is not one of the establishment. if anything, he has solidified his chances for 2020. caroline says the impeachment -- "impeachment not changing it all -- at all. voting for jobs, health care reform and judicial reform, voting for draining the swamp." am voting bluei across the board, i do not care is who -- he was on the democratic ballot." libertarian, a
successful impeachment and removal will be -- will result in me voting republican. otherwise i will vote libertarian." our independent line is 202-748-0002, and sherry is on it. caller: i am going to be voting for trump also. i sat and watched the political stuff day after day, and trump politics --of the regular politicians. he is keeping his word, they have been fighting him ever since he got in office. like he says, before. and i sat back and saw how hateful and evil the democrats and the left is. this is what turns me off with them. they just are hateful and evil.
that guy cannot do anything right. in the news -- and the reporters and them are in the tank with the democrats. they do not tell about anything that trump has done. i switched to different stations. give the guy credit to what he -- for what he is doing. he does not even take pay. they gripe about trump did not go into the service. obama did not either, clinton did not either. you never heard them go on and on. they are just evil people, and i will change from independent and go republican, and i will definitely vote for trump. i am with him all the way. host: news from iowa this morning on an horse meant for joe biden with the former governor -- an endorsement for joe biden. "and one of the early episodes
of wolf hall, one of the characters lament that england is in disorder. -- that comment struck home as i made a decision on who i would support. the choice for me and for others was a difficult one, made so by the number and quality of candidates from which to choose. my wife and i made the decision that we would try and help anyone who asked, and as a result we traveled to events for individual candidates and invited them to our home and offered them policy advice. i am proud of all of the candidates who put out comprehensive and thoughtful plans to improve life, economic opportunity -- in rural places. that will ensure our nominee has much to say during the general election about a rebuilt rural economy." and he is endorsing joe biden. to pennsylvania, we hear from judy on the democrats' line.
caller: good morning. trump is aear that president who is a businessman. i think people should look at his business record. when i listen to the impeachment thing, and see how chaotic that time was when it could have been very carefully planned and executed, and yet this person is running around doing something, that person is running around doing some. he is working behind the back of the people who have been paid and working on this for years. he wanted her resignation and she gave it. as for the tax cut, my great-grandchild will be paying for that because it is not bringing in enough money to pay for it. he keeps cutting the interest rate, but i have savings so my interest rate at scott also.
i understand that they were a lot of documents released last night and i do not know about them yet, but i will be interested to see because they deal with how many of his administration and how many republican senators have been involved in this. i think it is going to be more things needed to be looked at and people need to look with an open mind. host: anaheim, california. steve on the republican line. caller: good morning. crazy train for a minute with a housekeeping request. i am glad that pedro is back, i appreciate that. -- my brain shut off for a minute. host: take your time. caller: i would like to ask steve if he could possibly
the gate rule for weekends so you could get in on certain segments. and bill, i think you are part polar bear. all of these segments that you had during coverage of the impeachment hearing. back from the crazy train. people have got to realize that trump is an opportunist, and a connive or, -- conniver and has been that that his entire life. i do not understand about my party is that they are allowing a president saying how a president could act. could not allow an impeachment of some sort or some kind of sanction. shutting off here.
so i am not being clear. host: it is early and anaheim. we will go to maine, and this is joe on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you so much. thisally wants to get out one point. about, what i think will happen. obviously he will be impeached and it will go to the senate. it will come to a vote in the senate. 66%, ie law says is believe. of voters in the senate that vote for impeachment. getting 67 votes is not the object. happenthink is going to is that these republican orators who have been lying whatever you want to call it, they are going to have to vote and what is going to happen is
just like this past week with the impeachment, donald trump comes out and every republican is behind me. please fax check this. three republicans did not vote. ones that you saw last week, all of these crimes coming out saying that i do not want to know anything, but that is what is going to happen. they will have to vote one way or the other and cowards will not vote. they do not have to. there is a word for it and i do not have that right now. they can abstain. so,0 republicans abstain or if they do not vote, that means this -- there are 40 senators there and 50 democratic senators could outvote them. that is my theory on what happens.
i am no political person. i do not care who you vote for. every american has one vote, that is our constitution whether it is you, me, or whoever. the only other thing i would like to say with all of these people with trump personally being attacked. his administration have two or three people already in jail. has proven to have thatto congress, and prevented trump from being impeached. america, the other thing i said the other day, i have never heard trump say this and maybe he has, a lot of political speeches have always started with my fellow americans. not invade our election. that is a lie, when everyone in
the narrow -- in the world knows it is not. even putin. god bless america, thank you. host: spending this first hour asking you how impeachment is affecting your 2020 vote. 202-748-0000, democrats. republicans, 202-748-0001. independents, 202-748-0002. c-spanwj. or at thatis willing to testify representative nunes involved in dirty tricks against the bidens. what is that about? the story published early this morning and they writes that a lawyer for unindicted associate of rudy giuliani tells cnn that his client is willing to tell congress about meetings that the republican had
with a former ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on joe biden. theattorney represents recently indicted soviet born american who worked with giuliani to push claims of democratic corruption in ukraine. he said that he was told directly by the former ukrainian official that he met in vienna with representative devin nunes. he learned from a former ukrainian prosecutor that noon as -- nunes had met with him last year. he was ousted from his position in 2016. he tells cnn that his client and nunes began communicating around the time of the trip. he worked to put nunes in touch with ukrainians who could help to go up dirt on biden and democrats in the ukraine. that is at cnn.com. we go next to bradley in washington -- clear fork, west virginia. go ahead.
caller: i am glad you are getting that right. anyway. good morning. --ten, i agree with that lot with a lot of other people. all of these politicians pull dirt up on each other, and everything else through the years, this goes on on both sides, democrat and republican. it is just sickening and it is no wonder people do not want to get involved. number one, the lady out of --nsylvania was talking they were going to charge me 6% interest on buying a camper. i got .4% interest on my money. you wonder why all of the banks have the bid -- the big buildings? crookednesstruck --
that trump is trying to stop and keep from going on. fbi, they ought to investigate all politicians, pelosi, see how much money she is worth when she first got elected and how much she is worth now. schumer, the same thing. pocahontas, the same thing. all of these politicians ought to be investigated and go to jail for all of this undercover monday -- money soliciting and money market making. c-span, you do a great job. host: bradley, and west virginia, glad to have you on. the next caller, on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i listened as much as i could to the hearings, i had to listen at night because i worked during the day. but, it has not changed my mind.
when i heard on the first day one of them asked how many of you would impeached the president and these were their star witnesses, not one said yes. they said, no. andas not impeachable, these were their star witnesses. hill.d misses -- mrs. i thought she was great. and then solomon said that the not once didts -- he ask him if he should do a quid pro quo. not one time he asked them to investigate, and it has come out that there was no investigation on vice president biden's son, and no money exchanged. he was able to go ahead and get the military weapons that they wanted, and he got the money,
and they said whenever they were holding the money up they were holding it up from sweden and other countries. and then finally they got the money for them. everything they are complaining about, he was able to do. and, that just kind of shocked me that this is not going to go anywhere. even if they impeach the president, from what i understand it will not go anywhere in the senate. they are wasting taxpayer's money. i work hard for my money and i hate to see our taxpayer money being spent like this. host: independent line from tennessee, lakeland, florida. caller: good morning. i used to be a democrat, i am not -- i do not like what they are doing. i went to independent. --oted for trump last year not last year, but the last
time. i will vote for him again. i do not see a problem with what he is doing. everyone has different ways of doing things. thank you, timothy. we played one of the ads running in congressional districts. district inbigail's northern virginia. the club for growth attacking her over her stance on impeachment. [video clip] >> al -- abigail spanberger got elected promising moderation. it was just talk. these days it is just about impeachment. one party pushing for power by any means necessary. cancel the next election. >> if we do not impeached as president he will get reelected. >> control is the goal. >> bipartisan power grab overturning the will of voters. the impeachment, start solving problems.
[end video clip] thanksgivingthe recess the house intelligence committee will be working on a report to be delivered to the house judiciary committee to show what they have found. one of the steps down the road, a senate trial. the caller was talking about. here's the headline in "the washington post." the republicans discussed limiting the trial and right " several publicans have been divided on how long a senate trial should be. some align with trump's view, while others have sought a middle-of-the-road option. still others have toyed with a more drawnout trial that has the potential to scramble the schedules of half a dozen democratic senators running for president that would be be jurors. jason from san diego on our democrats line. host: good morning. i really appreciate you guys. want to all, i
appreciate donald trump for going to virginia in this last election and he can paid so hard -- campaign so hard, and the people in virginia said no, you should have stayed away. he tried the same thing in louisiana, went there and campaigned so hard for this guy, and the people said no, we are voting against you. mustered the democrats together to vote against him. trump -- you know, i remember at the g8 meeting when one, and this prince who was charged with chopping up the journalist that happened not long ago, and they
met, i do not know how they arrange for those two to sit together. they walked up to the sheets -- to their seats, they were high-fiving each other. putin and this murderer just slapping their hands and they could not control their laughter or their body. it was amazing. cut,hen trump had this tax he went up to mar-a-lago and was sitting around the 30 foot mahogany desk and he said, how do you guys like that? tax cuts, i just made you guys a bunch of rich dudes. this man is incredible. host: we go to our republican line in -- with mark powerade your thought -- with mark. taking myank you for call. to be totally honest, i am a republican. donald trump is a businessman.
he has been that voted in as the president of the united states, but he is not looking at things from the people themselves. he is looking at things with what he can do with respect to his movement or where he wants to go. it is amazing to me that the american people can see that some -- somebody is doing so many blatant things but can still find a way of saying it is because he is a businessman. was -- when obama was in office, the movements that he did set trump up to make it look like he is doing something with the unemployment. make it look like he is actually working hard, he came in on something, he did not create it. if donald trump create something from a businessman perspective, he will probably get more respect. he is probably not doing that. he says i am the president and i will use my rules. i do not care about what people
feel about it, i am in office, that is the way it is. the political scene has become a soap opera and it is sad. when i am listening to democrats and republicans finding some of the smallest words just a blowup. the united states has become a soap opera, and it is sad that we have not come back to understand that this is about the people. this is not about one man. i am listening to callers, and they are missing the fact that this has become about one ego, one centered person as opposed to the whole united states. when has russia ever popped up into the picture to this degree? never. how do the americans push that to the side? if obama had something to do with the russians, obama would not be in office. host: that is mark in the bronx.
a couple of comments on twitter, and you can send us a text at 202-748-0003. will be from wyoming, " voting for trump. watching that circus has turned me into a full-time trump supporter." from catherine, "makes me want to vote for president trump all over again. watched every minute, and it sounds like it is a bunch of bureaucrats losing their power. they serve at the part -- at the pleasure of the president. it sounds like he needs new staff in the ukraine." willmocrat, "impeachment not affect my vote, and if any democrat is against it i will not support him. ." politico is writing about the potential effect on congressional races in particular. vulnerable democrats spooked by gop impeachment onslaught. "vulnerable democrats are watching as gop impeachment
--dleuge ddes --deluge their districts. some of those democrats raise concerns with party leaders as they prepared to leave, fearing that voters will be bombarded as families gather around the tv for parades and foot all. according to local -- according to many lawmakers and aides." steve on the independent line. caller: hello. this is affecting my vote. i am jumping parties. before you get the wrong impression, everybody leans on republicans and democrats. guy, iconstitution party voted into thousand 16. but, the shenanigans of the democrats have really just turned me off. i have an open mind, i was around during the nixon impeachment process and
hearings, and i was a big nixon fan. to this day i am confused to why he did what he did because he in 70.68 and won he did not have to do anything. after three days of testimony by john, i was republican and said they need to put that guy in jail. the point i am making is i am talking about nixon. the point i am making is that i have an open mind, and i was not a big trump fan. he is a bully, and when he goes into a meeting, he leaves collateral damage. he is able in the china shop -- is a bulll in the china shop, that is not good. he does not have diplomatic skills. but when i hear people like demand, it was not used, but can i go into the ukraine election briefly? host: share.
caller: you can look this up. to run in theed ukraine. they weeded it down to 40. they had to put the equivalent of $90,000 apiece to run in the first round. they have a first round and goes to round two. here is what happened. when --, the president wins. the next day he immediately dissolves the parliament. we know that there is a country in disarray, the government is in disarray. in the middle of july he withholds the aid. a new parliament is elected around the same time frame. from the middle of july to september 11, that is not a long time to withhold to see if that government will emerge in our favor. i do not get it.
i will go back to the kavanaugh thing. up, i willd is made not have to vote for trump, he will win. i am voting for trump. thanks you for my time. host: front page news about the ukraine. the republicans have sought for weeks to shift attention to president trump's demands that ukraine investigate any 2016 election meddling defending it as a legitimate concern as democrats concern -- say that they would -- that she was perfuming -- pursuing fringe hearings. fiona hill, a respected scholar and former senior white house official added a harsh critique during testimony. she told some of her fiercest defenders in congress that they were repeating "a fictional
narrative." it likely came from a disinformation campaign by russian security services which propagated it. in a briefing that aligned with the testimony, american intelligence officials inform senators and their aides that russia had engaged in a years long campaign to frame ukraine is responsible for moscow's hacking of the 2016 election. according to three officials, the briefing came as republican stepped up their defense of mr. trump in the ukraine affair. revelations demonstrate russia's persistence in trying to sow discord among its adversaries and shows that the kremlin succeeded as unfounded claims seeped into republican talking points." line, in texas. welcome. caller: good morning. i have watched as much as i possibly can of the hearings,
and it has only bolstered my support to dump this man in 2020. i do not understand how people can watch, listen, and still say that they will support him and his cronies. he has how many people in jail now? how many investigations going? we have nunes with everyone remembers was in one of the skip rooms reviewing documents and then going back and telling trump what was in the documents before the mother investigation or doing --mueller investigation or during it. i do not understand how people can hear the truth and not understand it. apolitical diplomat who will go up the pleasure of this president and any president and serve this country to help bolster our image around the world. i have friends in many parts of
the world and they are laughing at us and they continue to laugh at us about what this president has done to this country and will continue to do. operativerepublican from early on. when he talked about the democratic party, and told -- and called in the socialist party. the things that this president is doing and the people he has allied himself with, if they want to call us the socialist democratic party, then we need to start calling them what they are, the nazi, communist, republican party. deborah, on the republican line. caller: yes, good morning. can you hear me? host: just your television set and go along with your comments. caller: i am a republican, and president trump is my president,
and is also these others' president. i find it highly offensive for people to slander our president. the whole world is watching when they slander him. and, it is not right. but all to the point of russia. you know, president trump has put more tariffs on russia than any president, and the ukraine -- he supported the ukraine by sending them money and weapons. as far as the phone call goes, it was perfect. they have not proved otherwise. they do not have nothing for ff whohment, and mr. schi is a liar and has been caught up , i believe he won an oscar at the hollywood movies. i believe he had vindman on it
too. the democrats bought the dossier from the ukraine and hillary clinton. as far as african-american people, i cannot believe that --e of them stand right by whatever color, saying this is obama's economy. i wish they would know more about politics, and the news, the real news. will continue our conversation about how impeachment is affecting the 2020 vote. 202-748-0000 for democrats. 202-748-0001 for republicans. independent and others, 202-748-0002. we covered an event with the chairman of the republican national committee. if was asked by reporters the impeachment inquiry has affected fundraising?
[video clip] >> i am dealing more with major donors. from an online fundraising perspective. of thethe first 24 hours impeachment being launched or being announced we raised $5 million online. on the first day of the hearings, we raised $3 million online. smallis an influx of dollar donations. senseesident has had that the beginning. on the major donor side, we have continued to see that expand as well, and we have expanded major donors from 33% of our overall rates. i have not seen a drop off i have seen that continue to increase. so, that attributes to the large fundraising numbers that we have posted, just have a $25 million october is unheard of at the rnc or across any committee,
especially in an off year heading into an election. [end video clip] host: there is already reaction to the cnn report. this is "newsweek" reporting this. giuliani fixer alleges that nunes met with officials. the congressman threatens to sue the media. "devin nunes is reporting to threaten cnn and "the daily publicationsthe reported damaging allegations that could implicate him. nunes has one of donald trump's fiercest defenders where ukrainian quid pro quo allegations are being considered. he refuses to recuse himself or be investigated after it was alleged that he met with ukrainian officials in order to discuss digging up dirt on former vice president joe biden." on the independent line, ray and
california. go ahead. caller: good morning, i definitely think that the president deserves to be impeached. it is outrageous that he has been asking a foreign governments to investigate a private citizen who would probably be his political adversary. that whole thing about digging up dirt on biden was for trump's own benefit. it had nothing to do with something that would benefit the united states. that this has all affected how i am going to vote is that i am going to be looking for a candidate who has is -- you someone who understands the constitution and the position of power. someone who does not lie or use bad language. someone who respects women and
other people. and, whenever trump is on tv, i turned to another channel where he is not on tv because i do not my grandchildren to see him. it used to be, when i was in school, we would look up the president as an example of what america stood for. i do not thanks america stands and vulgarion behavior. , someone can try to rob a bank, but they do not get any money. they still go to prison for trying to rob a bank. host: this is jessica in florida, democrat line. caller: good morning, thank you for doing this. wasst wanted to say that i
not a democrat previously. trump has unfortunately encouraged me to vote along party lines, which i have never done in my life, in voting for democrats and against -- what he has brought us to, unfortunately -- i hear a lot of people throw around this derogatory term of pocahontas, which i would ask please stop. stop using that term in such a flip way. terrible.ur, it is which brings me to my next point about just us being divided as americans. sowingr putin's goal of discord in the west and having the sitting president of the united states of america encouraging or retreating --
waritting threats of civil is such a sad point when we align ourselves with a red or blue team. united we stand, divided we fall, it is a simple principle. we all as americans need to get back to it. ofe the last caller or one the previous ones had said. donald trump is the president of all of us. host: republican line, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the two previous callers comments -- i was calling in because i will talk about the impeachment thing, but i am 56 years old and i have voted since i could vote. i never participated in primaries.
unaffiliated, and then in connecticut in 2018 we had a gubernatorial race. i was interested in participating in the primary, so i have affiliated myself with a party. supporter.trump their environmental policies are horrible. they are restrictions on health care for women and lgbtq people are horrible. when bill weld announced that he was going to challenge the president in the republican primaries, i registered as a republican and i am going to vote in the primaries, and i'm going to vote for bill weld. i do not know what i will do in the general election. as far as the actual impeachment thing and how it affects my vote , it is just kind of confirming
what i have been doing all along since trump took office. but i want to say is you guys showed a clip with representative lewis speaking to his other counterpart in georgia. i'm sorry, i am not from georgia and i am not familiar with their names. of those the respect two guys. host: was the one on the house floor with senator johnny isakson? caller: yes, that is exactly right. that, immediately i thought about a few months ago there was this trending video of these two children in new york city running up and greeting each other with a hug. clip, that ist
exactly what i thought. this is the same expression of love that different stages of life. host: i cannot be for certain, it is part of our house coverage, but i think somebody has pulled out of as a clip. out as a clip. one more call on this topic. it happened tuesday. mark in massachusetts, to ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for all your coverage. i was able to listen to most of the testimony the past couple of weeks. i want to go back to something when i called in a month ago, i was talking about facebook, its impact on the 2016 elections. i said a lot of people think
facebook is the internet. i just found a story that references it in the daily mail. two thirds of the users of facebook globally think it is the internet. that is in 2015. in regards to the impeachment, isn't it against the law without executive order for the president to withhold funds to ukraine that congress has allocated? i will let you go because i know you are short on time. i was disappointed with will hurt. i know he is retiring. and respect to devin nunes jim jordan, those guys have a lot of audacity to go in front of the american people and do and say what they are doing when they are under investigation and as shady as anybody in america.
host: there is more "washington journal" ahead. coming up in our next segment, we will talk to the confederate enterprise -- competitive 'sterprise institute on efforts to regulate big tech companies. later the marijuana policy project's don murphy will discuss efforts to legalize marijuana federally. announcer: this weekend, booktv features two new nonfiction books. national review editor rich lowry talks about the positive contributions of nationalism. >> a more nationalistic and populist republican party that
has thought through the aspects of a new agenda and has implemented it thoughtfully would have more chance of jumping racial lines than a stereotypical mitt romney republicanism would. african-american latino, male middle-class would find this program more appealing. host: sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, a warning that looks behind the scenes at the donald trump presidency from an anonymous source. >> president trump is the one who is the ultimate decider. that is the job of any president. he really follows his own instincts on everything from marketinglicy to the that joe was just talking about. he is his own press secretary. he is his own national security
advisor. >> people in congress have given away their power and authority to the other end of pennsylvania avenue the last couple of decades. one way is to not complain anonymously and do something about it. c-spanh every weekend on two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to talk about efforts to regulate big tech. joining us is patrick hedger, who is with the competitive enterprise institute. i want to ask you about a proposal andrew yang put out this past week regulating technology firms in the 21st century. the proposal was actually released about a week ago or so. what is he proposing, and what do you think about it? he is calling it
regulating technology companies in the 21st century. a lot of the framework comes from the 20th and 19th century. we are talking about overly prescriptive government regulation in which we are talking about managing the minutia of the policies of these technology companies. he is talking about very prescriptive regulations in terms of how these companies use data, and there are some good things about the policy. things like empowering congress through the office of technology analysis. there are good parts of the proposal in terms of wanting to create more education and knowledge in washington in terms , butw these companies work there is a lot of things in this plan that resemble what we see in a lot of plans that are coming from both sides of the aisle.
this plan shares a lot of similarities with wings that have been proposed by senator josh hawley and some senators in terms of regulating how you interact with the platforms, the amount of time you can spend on the platform, and things like autoplay. challengesare the that federal regulators have, regulating not just technology companies, the challenges that are different from regulating other sorts of businesses? guest: i think the challenges are not so different. what we see in trying to regulate these companies, to pretend as if these companies are so different because we are on the frontier of a new type of technology, the principles of regulation are still the same.
competitiveset up a dynamic where these companies are competing with one another, and you are allowing customers to decide which platforms work best for them, which privacy settings work best for them. assign atry to one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme in these areas, which we have seen in the past in other areas of the economy, looking back to the airlines and things like that, you tend to see the competitive effects diminish because of the issues of regulatory capture and the barriers that regulation can create to competition. the challenge is making sure whatever regulatory structure is put in place does not diminish the competitive effects within the sector because that is going to hold the companies accountable.
big techsays the companies are the winners of the 21st century economy. powerave amassed too much and unaccountable responsibility. we have reached a point where the government needs to step in. digital giants have scale and renders them more quasi-sovereign states. they are making regulations on speech and safety. they are keeping people engaged driven by algorithms that are supercharged by technology to predict our behavior. data,eed off of our creating an asymmetry of power without any accountability. what are your thoughts in terms of the use of personal data and what did tech companies do with that data? that is why we want to have as many companies in this space as possible so consumers
can make that decision. the problem i have with plans like this, whether they are coming from the left or the right, they tend to assign political preferences. i having as many companies as possible in this sector, you allow consumers to make that choice. right now we are seeing facebook and apple trading barbs publicly over who has the better approach at protecting your privacy. apple offers services where you can pay a little extra and pay for the service instead of having the service compensated by advertising that funds the service and is reliant on the data. i would point out a couple challenges to that quote from mr. yang. apple,tioned facebook, amazon, and google. not long ago, it used to be facebook, apple, amazon,
netflix, and google. now netflix faces almost unlimited competition. we just saw the launch of disney plus. government has kept a light touch revelatory framework to streaming, and we have seen a lot of new market entrants. these companies have grown large because they provide services that consumers find valuable. nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head saying you have to use facebook or apple products. another part i would like to challenge mr. yang on is that these companies, this idea of rights, these companies have rights as well. the government does not assign or create rights. the government is limited. .e have inalienable rights the government's power to regulate those is limited. theseou talk about
companies regulating speech or things like that, they are exercising their own speech rights and association rights. when you have a government challenging those, essentially the government is challenging, is at risk of breaching the first amendment when it is talking about regulating speech and association rights. host: patrick hedger is our guest. we are focusing initially on the proposals by andrew yang. we want your calls and comments. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others (202) 748-8002. as you have pointed out, as users, we have already made that decision. as users of facebook and google, we have made that decision. is there a responsibility of government to ensure a safe environment for that? to ensure that individual
privacy is not compromised? guest: absolutely. there are a lot of regulatory structures that are already in place that ensure this. it comes down to a basic dynamic in terms of regulating any technology, whether it be these technologies or the railroads or airlines. you want to have a regulatory framework that encourages competition and new market entry. you tend to have this knee-jerk reaction when we have an economic frontier like this where we want to have regulations that control outcomes. government is bad at predicting outcomes. we want to have a type of regulation that encourages permission less innovation instead of a mother may i approach. the economy and the tech sector moves a lot faster than the
regulatory process in government. we see areas of the economy where businesses have to ask for permission, and you tend to see restricted competition, lower customer service and higher prices. not something we want to see in the tech sector where services are often offered at zero price to the consumer. we don't want to be so cautious with our regulation to the extent that we smother technologies that we may not even be able to predict that have been founded in a basement somewhere. plan wouldw yang's establish data as a property right. ofwould create a department attention economy, establishing guidelines and age restrictions, and there would be a new tax on digital advertisements, requiring disclosure on
advertisements and regulating algorithms. this past week, google made a policy change in terms of political advertisement. what is your thought of a -- on that? guest: what we are seeing with google and facebook and twitter is they are all taking different approaches to political ads. that is the effect of competitive market regulation. that is happening without any sort of formal government intervention. you are seeing these companies respond in different ways to social and market pressures. i think that is the dynamic we want to keep encouraging. when you set down overly prescriptive regulations, you get rid of those options. you get rid of that experimentation, which i think is really voluble. we will see if google or twitter or facebook, which one of these companies has the best approach.
the ultimate issue with these regulatory proposals is they assume they will create the best outcome. the problem is we only have one option when government creates something like overly prescriptive regulatory proposals. we want to have as many options as possible and see which one works best. the other issue is that we cannot assume that the government regulatory solution is going to solve all the problems or be the perfect solution. when we approach regulation in any sector, we assume the government regulatory solution is going to be some sort of perfect solution, and this kind of approach you make perfect the enemy of the good. host: we are talking about regulating big tech. patrick hedger is our guest with the competitive enterprise institute. you are welcome to call.
democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. 2.l others (202) 748-800 mostly republicans have been raising this issue about the search results, particularly from google, but also on facebook in terms of the content that is biased against conservative views. is there a role for government in regulating that? guest: absolutely not. i think the first amendment is pretty clear on that. these companies have their own speech and first amendment rights. i would caution governments about taking that approach because trying to regulate speech on these platforms, you are essentially making the government the arbiter of truth. that is something that i think is probably counterproductive to things most americans would want to see and particularly conservatives.
you are talking about empowering government. kratz to decide what is and what is not truthful and biased. are upset, ives would encourage them to find other options, which is much better than a one-size-fits-all approach from government, which may be worse for conservatives in the long run. host: do you think companies like facebook and twitter are reacting to that criticism in terms of the type of content they deliver and the views they express on those platforms? guest: i do see that. a good example of that was the recent new approach to speech on facebook outlined by mark zuckerberg recently at georgetown. i think he is striking a pretty good balance for his platform. that is ultimately up to the users to decide. twitter seems to be taking a different approach.
i am happy to see these companies taking differing approaches. it shows they are still accountable to their users, and they are facing competition from one another. that is a sign of a healthy and functioning market sector. mark zuckerberg was on capitol hill testifying in front of a house committee, and house ocasio-cortezia questioning him. [video clip] >> could i run ads targeting congressional republicans saying they supported the green new deal? if you are not fact checking political advertising, i'm trying to understand the balance. toi don't know the answer that often top of my head. >> you don't know if i will be lifted do that. you see a potential problem here
with a complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements? >> i think lying is bad. i think if you were to run an ad that has a lie, that would be bad. it beingifferent from the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you had lied. >> so you will not take down lies or you will? i think it is a simple yes or no. >i'm not talking about spin. i'm talking about actual disinformation. >> in a democracy, i think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for -- >> so you will not take them down. you may flag it as wrong, but you will not take it down. >> it depends on the context when it shows up. host: back and forth on the idea of fact checking on these
platforms. guest: again, it is trying to ask these companies to do the impossible. politics, onen person's truth is another persons live. do we really want to centralize fact checking within one particular company? i would like to see as many voices as possible counter and one another with varying arguments. to essentially have fact checking going on inside of a black box at one of these ,ompanies or in government really, who is deciding what is the truth? the best way to approach this is to have as many voices as possible. if someone is putting out something that people decide is a lie, they can decide for
themselves. i don't see how facebook, whether it is an employee of any tech platform or a bureaucrat in washington, everybody has their own personal bias. i don't see how we can have these perfect arbiters of truth or what is and isn't a lie in politics. host: we welcome your comments on facebook. we are on twitter. you can send us a text, (202) 748-8003. in chicago, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment. most normal people don't know how important it is to keep their digital identity safe. there are a lot of scams. i take offense to this concept that regulation oppresses competition.
regulation is about public safety. i know these tech companies want to offer free apps. nothing is ever free. contextt access to your or your location or device id number. they want your isp address. it is not free. they are collecting data. you can go online and find a website that shows the list of usernames and even passwords. regulation is about safety. it is not about oppressing competition. thank you. guest: i understand those concerns. the only counter to that i would certainly i, and think americans should be vigilant about how they are using their data and what they are agreeing to when they use these services. if they don't like the terms of these services, they should opt out and choose another.
the counter i would have to that is regulation is not a perfect solution. when we assume that regulation is a perfect solution to some of the risks that occur in this sector, you tend to create issues of moral hazard where people may not be as cautious or vigilant as they should be in terms of using their own personal data if they assume the government has it all covered. we have seen many examples in the past where the government does not have data privacy covered. int hethe worst hacks world was when 20 million files of government employees was believed to have been leaked to hackers in china. what we are trying to do is balance trade-offs. we want to make sure there is policing of wrongdoing, but we
don't want regulation to the extent that it is controlling the business practices of companies and limiting competition. competition is what holds these companies accountable. host: another take on giving up data. this is frank in iowa. people that use those platforms agreed to give up their data freely when they sign-up. if you accept them without reading those terms and conditions, that is not the problem of big tech. good morning on the independent line. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: doing fine. thank you. caller: i appreciate the lady that spoke prior to myself. it is not so much regulation of big tech as it is regulation of social media in general. because you don't
necessarily have to regulate in that way. , what you see on the internet is usually what a lot of people younger than myself believe. if you are not putting up anything that is true, and obviously with the republicans in this instance, they have a lot more money to go ahead and go through. they will be flooding the nation with a lot of false narratives, which is only going to be looked at. nobody wants to sit down and take the time. i watched over the past few days myself different proceedings and everything else. obviously people are not going to look at all the things. looking at what they see on the internet is what people believe. at some point there has to be something you are going to do. this is not even so much
regulation of big tech, just in general taken into effect. all these people we look at for from our country that schools and up churches, all of this needs to be looked at and regulated to some degree. how we look at it is going to depend on everybody is going to look at it in a different way. what are your thoughts on setting aside overall regulation but government's responsibility in regulating the use of the internet for children? guest: i think there is certainly a role. we want to make sure kids are protected online. i would raise the issue of moral hazard. if we create regulatory frameworks that are overly prescriptive and claim to really
solve all these problems, you take responsibility away from parents, which needs to remain there. we want to make sure parents are still vigilant. they are the first line of defense for their kids. worry,re saying, don't this regulation is going to protect your children no matter what, we don't want parents taking a backseat because they think there is some perfect regulatory framework out there. they're going to be flaws with any system. we are trying to create a system where the policy can balance trade-offs. we want to make sure whatever system is put in place doesn't throw out more of the good when it takes care of the bad. we have seen a lot of regulations narrowly targeted to protect children online that are well intended. we have seen unintended consequences come from those regulations.
you see a chilling effect on new businesses and new voices coming online. there has been an issue recently on compliance with one of these laws designed to protect children online where you have lots of content creators on youtube that because of a recent agreement between the fcc and that a lot of content creators are creating innocent content on youtube and they are simply taking a step back and saying i am now hesitant to engage in my business, publish this content. what drove that agreement between the fcc and alphabet? guest: there was a lot of content on youtube being viewed by children. the context of a
law that was passed that was well intended having unintended consequences because it cast such a wide net of preemptive regulation that you are throwing out a lot of good to target very narrow bad. host: here's a snapshot of where americans are running to gallup. they say americans are split. 48% of adults favor more regulation. 47% say regulation of tech companies should not change. 10% prefer a decrease. we go next to michigan. this is joe on the democrats line. i do a facebook live show every single day. i really think that it is not right when we have the right to forly speak in america
someone to go on facebook and do a live show and do a speech and for them to report you. they take that, and i think that is crazy. are allowing they people to freely speak their mind. i feel like they are regulating what is being said the content. they will say things about community standards when i am a diesel mechanic, and things like that. i am kind of a roughneck. my community might want to hear something more rough. host: what is your show about? what do you do? i basically talk about politics, religion, my thoughts towards life. there is one garrity, things like that. i live in michigan where marijuana is legal. i smoke marijuana. anytime someone gets a problem,
i get reported, and i just feel like it is already regulated, but only regulated by facebook and the big tech companies. host: they haven't shut down your show yet have they? they have once or twice. i go to what they refer to as facebook jail. seven days later, i go back and do my show. guest: what i loved hearing that that because it reminds me we take for granted a lot of the good that has come from big tech. i think it is fantastic that you have your own show. think about 10 years ago, that was not possible for any american to get on facebook or the internet and have their own show and challenge big media companies and provide their own views into a wide audience, and people can subscribe to that as they want to.
i think that is great. i want to see that to continue to happen. we have to remember that facebook may not get it right or any of these companies may not get it right in terms of an individual perspective in terms of regulating the content on that platform. what they are trying to do is regulate the platform to the extent that it works for the most people. that is their business. their business is driven by having a platform that is as safe for as many people as possible. if they allowed any type of protected speech allowed under the first amendment, there would be a lot of stuff on facebook that people would not want to use facebook. there is a lot of protected speech that people just don't want to see or hear. this is the trade-off that we have. -- and thent alternative we are talking about
with these regulatory proposals is to get government involved in terms of what can and cannot be on these platforms. that is problematic for the first amendment. you create tiers of protected speech. i would rather have a system content you don't like moderation on one platform, you are free to choose another. there are types of content you cannot see on facebook that you can see on twitter and these various platforms. you see that from google and netflix and other platforms. you are not going to find pornography on netflix or facebook. there is that on twitter. you are seeing differing approaches to content moderation. i think that is the correct balance to strike because that is a balance we can strike within the framework of the first amendment. host: let's hear from richard in new york on the republican line.
caller: thank you to c-span. they are patriots, americans. they have cameras in the house and senate. it is great to hear what our representatives are saying. i heard google wants to get 90 million american medical records and use them for whatever reason. what is happening with that? where is our privacy? guest: that's a great question. there is a lot of concern with that. that question gets to the heart of some of the other issues we are seeing in this debate about big tech and what is being done with your privacy and what business practices these companies are engaged in. those records are already protected by existing laws. protects your medical records. many medical companies contract services to all sorts of companies. we were not having this conversation when we begin
wiring hospitals with the internet. we were not talking about how internet service providers would have access to your health care records because we understood these companies, because they are subcontracted by a medical provider are subject to hit but -- hipaa. if there is a violation of hip aa, it should be prosecuted as such. host: you mentioned mark zuckerberg earlier. you wrote an opinion piece in the chicago tribune, mark zuckerberg summed up the predicament. right now, we are doing a good job at getting everyone mad at us. you wrote that the problem is that facebook will not be able to appease all critics, which include many members of congress,
academics, and journalists. i want to play this for you, josh hawley and his call for
some regulation of big tech. [video clip] >> social media, the pathology associated with social media, the data that comes to us about the correlation between social media usage and teenage suicide, depression, loneliness. we need more information. what we are seeing so far is very worrisome. we know what the business model is of these giant social media companies. the business model is to get us to spend as much time online as possible, to take as much information as they can without telling us, and then sell it and otherwise profit from it. that whole business model is based on the exploitation of consumers, families, individuals, children. that is something we should be concerned about. host: what do you hear from senator hawley? what
direction do you think he is going in terms of regulation? guest: what i hear is a
remuneration of the moral panic -- reiteration of the moral panic we heard for technologies in the past from video games to music to novels. this is an echo from moral panics have heard in the past. i think it is right to be concerned about issues he has raised. we don't want to lose sight of the benefits that have been provided by these services. exclusively negatives that are created by big tech platforms. these companies have created a lot of good. anecdotalny number of examples that come to mind, from towd sourced fundraising having access to information that may greatly benefit people's lives. i was having terrible vision
problems over the last year. many doctors told me there was nothing that could be done. because i was able to use google, i found a doctor that saved my vision. when i hear these stories about all the bad things big tech is doing, we have to remember that the reason we become so impatient with these companies is that ultimately we live in a world where these companies have created incredible conveniences. you are talking about companies that can deliver information to you instantaneously that is narrowly tailored to exactly what you're looking for or even deliver tangible physical products within not just days but ours. ghtdon't want to lose si of the positives. if we took this josh hawley or andrew yang approach to any technology, we would not have the automobile.
this is a product that creates untold economic wealth and benefit for people. unfortunately, a lot of people die on the roads. policy is about weighing trade-offs. we don't want to throw out all of the good because of a few narrow that's. host: we're talking with david. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. with your0%, 90% guests. some regulation is needed, but all you have to do is watch the impeachment hearings, and you realize you don't want congress, to people in those hearings control your freedom of speech and ability to use internet. the american people love google. they love amazon. they love facebook. they all deliver good services. the only thing i would say is
andrew yang has proposed a value added tax of purchases through maybe on the ads from google, etc.. that could be an approach where the government could regulate things through the value added tax, and the general safety concerns that your guest has provided is just about right. i will hang up and listen to the response. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate you agreeing with most of what i have to say. that is nice to hear. as far as the idea of a value added tax, that has been floated as something to challenge this information we are seeing on these platforms. we are tracing this meant for that this misinformation to foreign political actors. they tend not to be responsive
to economic pressure. you have an unintended consequence with a value added tax on digital ads where the people that are actually producing genuine advertisements for a product or legitimate political cause and not creating disinformation tend to get shutout of the market whereas a foreign actor, a marginal digital ad tax is not going to dissuade a misinformation campaign from a major power that is looking to disrupt our elections. it is a well intended policy that is probably going to have unintended consequences and actually tend to narrow the market more towards disinformation. host: we will go to boston and hear from mark on the democrats line. caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. very interesting topic. i agree with your guests. -- thatthere should be these are private companies. they have the right to control their content. i disagree. i see a difference. they have a complete monopoly. that is where it is different. we have antitrust laws. they are designed to go into trust,here standard oil bell telephone, we broke them up because they had a monopoly. it is the equivalent of the invention to the printing press. if only one company was allowed access to the printing press or the telephone, if only one company could grant telephone use, people would see that as restricting free speech. that is where it gets difficult because they are not allowing competition.
google or twitter comes in and crushes their competition, buys them out or smears them, which they did with gab, the competitor to twitter. it is all a smear campaign. they are not allowing competition. latforming them de-p all kinds of people. it is authoritarian in nature. it is scary. i think the antitrust not leave part of this is the problem. now the left is in control of those corporations. in the future, you will not see them as liberal. they are not liberal at all. they are authoritarians. you have to realize that this could get ugly fast. host: i will let you go. we got your point. guest: very legitimate concerns. i find it interesting that you mentioned the bell telephone
monopoly. the bell telephone monopoly was government created. the government saw the need to step in on an emerging technology and regulate it. that is what created the bell telephone monopoly. one of my favorite terms that i hear in the debate is people use the term monopolies. if you have monopolies, you don't have a monopoly. we are seeing these companies, although they offer marginally different services. google offers search engine, and facebook's social media, these companies are actually competing because they are competing for your attention. that is one point andrew yang is correct about. it is about keeping your attention. in that way, they are huge competitors with one another. recently, and a reference to this earlier, facebook and apple, which you would not think our competitive companies, were trading public barbs over how
they treat user privacy and -- subtle social shots at one another. they were having press releases and various statements. companies that compete with each other don't consult with each other. goodyearsee tires and coca-cola criticizing each other. we exist in a scenario where these companies are ultimately accountable to competition. we don't know what the new technology that could come online tomorrow could be that could disrupt any of these companies. it was not that long ago, 2007 or 2009, there was an article in the guardian. to headline is it is time
break up the myspace monopoly. i fear that 10 years from now we are going to look just as ridiculous talking back to allergies that have only had this market share for about a decade. the next facebook and google may have already been founded in a dorm room somewhere. we want to make sure that the regulation that some are calling for does not smother that company in its infancy. we appreciate you being here and sharing your views and helping us to understand it. more ahead on "washington journal" as we open up the phone's. we talked about the impeachment and the effect on the election earlier. the president's comments from yesterday regarding a potential vaping ban. there was a forum at the white house. we will talk about that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.
independents (202) 748-8002. >> tonight on american history tv on lectures in history, gettysburg college professor timothy shannon on colonial area diplomacy. >> they had to conduct diplomacy with native american people. the protocols and customs and languages to govern that diplomacy were not european in origin. they were native american in origin. distant969 film the from her. and marijuanacs problem. >> amphetamines and barbiturates ripped at the family and social life at every level.
rehabilitation centers across the country. >> caroline fraser on the life and work of the little house on the prairie author laura ingalls wilder. >> when she fell ill and nearly was and became line, laura really thrust into this role that she had never contemplated for herself, which was to become a teacher. >> at 8:00 on the presidency, we continue our work looking at cap holla bend, looking at cartoons on president bush to obama. explore our nation's past on american history tv every weekend on c-span three. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will open up our phone lines to hear from you on your
top public policy issues this weekend. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans (202) 748-8001. independence and others (202) 748-8002. we started off talking about the impeachment hearings this week and the democratic debate that happened wednesday in atlanta. also some news this morning from the white house. we have a tweet about vice president pence just in from the pool. he has traveled to iraq for an unannounced visit with u.s. troops in advance of next week's holiday. is actually- this from an interview with fox. we will get to the vaping issue in a second. trump sees hong kong as confiscating factor in trade. the president saying calling antigovernment protests a complicating factor in his hid
for a trade deal with china and did not say whether he would sign a bill passed by congress this week supporting the protesters. he says we have to stand with hong kong, i am also standing with president xi. he is a friend of mine. he said we are also in the process of making the largest trade do in history. if we could do that, it would be great. the wall street journal writes a senior administration official said friday the president had not indicated whether he had made a final decision on the bill, which risks further angering beijing at a crucial moment in the trade dispute. south carolina, independent line. good morning. greenville, south carolina, you are on the air. caller: i want to talk about the impeachment inquiry. is the man is not
guilty, he needs to let it play out and quit interfering with the people trying to do the investigation. let it play out and let them finish. we have so much stuff going on in the white house. nobody can get along or do nothing. you know, there is so much stuff going on, we are not concentrating on the big things in our own country. carolinad is in north -- excuse me, david is in north carolina in time, north carolina. commenti want to make a on the lifetime civil servants. had the discretion not a residentte
grievance all the way through court, this discretion that gives status to dope dealers to trap high school and college kids on the county level, we need to start addressing the county level corruption where our freedoms and liberties keep on stopping on our ability to earn commodities that would enable us to procure our personal medical treatments the medicalpursuing administrators salaries over our needs. we should not have to have double jeopardy and have to do commerce with insurance companies. we need to get the legislators from obstructing our personal procurement of health and happiness.
host: that is david in north carolina. byare joined on the phone paul steinhauser, who is with the concord monitor in new hampshire, joining us to talk about the democratic race in that state. good morning. welcome to the program. the news from new hampshire this week was the jump of pete buttigieg in the race there. what is behind that? guest: we saw a poll from saint in some college that indicated buttigieg ahead of elizabeth warren and joe biden, bernie sanders, by at least 10 points. that made a lot of headlines. it followed a few days after a poll in iowa that showed the same thing. i will say this. if you average the latest polls in new hampshire, buttigieg is not in the lead, but now part of
that top tier of candidates along with warren and sanders and the former vice president. what is behind it? what is happening in new hampshire and iowa is buttigieg got a boost out of not this debate but the one in ohio a month ago. that helps him. he has built a strong organization on the ground in both states. he is having a moment right now. he had a moment earlier this year in the spring when he went from a long shot to a middle tier contender. he has jumped from that middle tier to the top tier of contenders. englander didnew join the race this past week. former massachusetts governor deval patrick has an event coming up on monday that c-span will cover. we hear from news reports that michael bloomberg, former new york city mayor, now has filed
in a number of states. what do you think that does to the already crowded democratic field? guest: let's start with deval patrick first. he came to new hampshire eight days ago with one day left in the filing period to get his name on the ballot. check and got the his name on the ballot. he is coming back to new hampshire for a second visit within 89 days. he will be here on monday. deval patrick is pretty well known here. most of new hampshire is in the boston media market. he is known here.
he was looking at the field and just felt that another voice was needed, his voice. third majorhe african-american to jump into this race for the white house. as for bloomberg, my sources tell me that announcement could come as early as next week. i had the store yesterday that bloomberg starting monday will be going up with a massive ad buy, over $30 million from coast-to-coast. tohas filed in five states get his name on the ballot. he filed thursday with the fcc to add his name as a candidate. that announcement all but certain to come in the coming days. i guess it makes that more moderate centrist lane in this democratic primary race a little more crowded. both of these candidates are not
progressive. host: certainly new hampshire was one of those five states. guest: actually this is interesting. bloomberg's top adviser about two weeks ago announced if his boss would jump into the race for the white house, he would not be campaigning in the early primary states. why? his reason is getting in the race this late, and this is very late in the process, he says the other campaigns have already built up huge staffs in the early voting states. that is true. the top four or five candidates, they have plenty of boots on the ground in iowa, new hampshire, nevada, and south carolina. they said we will not compete with that. we will run a national campaign. that is something bloomberg can do. he is a multimillionaire. uy of $30 million is
mind-boggling. it is almost pocket change for bloomberg. host: one more quick question. the name we have not mentioned yet is joe biden. what is his campaign machinelike up there? guest: biden has probably one of the top four campaigns in the state of new hampshire. he is a little smaller than what sanders and warren have on the ground. it is a formidable machine. he remains one of the top tier candidates here. his events are a little smaller than the ones you will see from buttigieg, warren, or sanders. he has a steady stream of support. providing it is not like south carolina, where he has the favorite. he is one of the top contenders in new hampshire. host: paul steinhauser, political reporter, we appreciate you joining us this morning. guest: thanks.
host: lots of political coverage this weekend on c-span. we will start this afternoon with senator elizabeth warren in manchester, new hampshire. bernie sanders also in new hampshire tomorrow, rally in portsmouth. he will be joined by actor susan sarandon, who supports his campaign. on monday, deval patrick, we just talked about. at 8:30 a.m. eastern over on c-span two. let's get back to your calls with anna in south windsor, connecticut, looking at public policy issues you are focusing on. , -- morning c-span caller: caller: good morning, c-span. thank you. i would wonder if you could pull up in your archives where the president was -- hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i was wondering if you
your archivep where the president had the conference with the ukrainian president? the famous handshake? host: the ukrainian president? caller: yes. the ukrainian president said to president trump, i never got my date. i never got the date of the office visit. importance tosome the impeachment. they said he never got the date and they both laughed over it. thank you. host: birmingham, alabama, next up. albert on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been waiting for some time for the issue you had discussed about the ongoing situation in hong kong and china. now, i find it quite hypocritical that the united states congress and senate can say they want to pass a human rights violation bill, in
support of the protesters in china, with their human rights violations of people of african-american descendents he is an ongoing crisis in this country. a few weeks ago in "the washington journal," china responded by some statements made over there about america needs to come to itself and deal with its own problems of human rights violations -- i think they hit the nail on the head. we have all these mass shootings and all of these rings happening happening inhings our own society, and the audacity of a congress and the senate to say they want to pass a bill about something happened in another country -- let me close on this note. for notd the president signing this, because if he signed it, he would be as hypocritical as they are. host: our republican line, cliff from maryland. caller: yes, i am a republican, i am 80 years old, i am a
how peopleetnam, and can really stand behind this president is unbelievable to me. if you just go back and look at some of the things that have occurred under this president, we talk about pushing things towards russia, you know? the first thing that we can talk about is the position that he took on nato. we took a position on syria and we took a position on korea -- ukraine, and what we have is a situation where all these countries are being pushed korea -- i mean russia. , hereg about south korea is a country that we want to push to somebody else. i don't know what we are planning to do.
i can't think of anything that he has really accomplished in this country. he talks about trade agreements -- none of these trade agreements have gone into effect, you know? he has lied to us about who was going to pay for the wall, he has lied to us about his tax returns, he is lying about this ukraine situation -- it's unbelievable how people in this country that are supposed to be far danced in a lot of places -- far advanced in a lot of places have just fallen behind this person. when you look at everything that he has done or accomplished, it really doesn't stand up to the smell test, as they say. host: a caller earlier had asked about the presidents meeting with the ukrainian president at the united nations, that took lays on september 25, 2019. to date, there is not news about an additional meeting at the
white house or elsewhere with the ukrainian president. there was a meeting yesterday at the white house, bringing in health officials and members of the officials of the vaping industry to outline the reporting of the new york times flavor ban, which would lead to poison of a legal vaping products, president trump says. one of those participating was utah senator mitt romney, who talked to one of the vaping industry executives during that session. [video clip] 2018, the number one most popular product on the market, and they are attractive to kids. how about the children? 6 millionot almost kids addicted to nicotine, and they are getting addicted to nicotine because of flavors. 66% of the kids addicted to these products are saying they did not even know that it had nicotine and it. -- in it.
it is a health emergency. isolate the fact that jewell has said we are taking the products off the market, because we care about our kids. the adults have access to menthol products, tobacco flavored products, but putting up cotton candy flavor and it?orn poop flavor, what is these are kid products and we have to put the kids first. host: washington journal and for the next 10 minutes, we are talking about your public policy issues. an update from the vice president, in iraq, just tweeted this. second lady and i are so honored to be with our soldiers, sailors, and marines here in iraq. we are proud of you and thankful for you all. in ohio on our democrat line. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. a comment about the assault rifle's. anannot understand how
18-year-old can go buy a mass murder weapon and take out as many people as he can. the nraground of it is, pushed to have these weapons really legalized. i think they should be sued for each and every murder they are responsible for. united we stand, that is all i can tell this country. if we don't start being united, we are going to tear it apart and it is going to fall down. michael next in jacksonville, arkansas, independent line. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: is this bill? host: yes, go ahead. about ai want to talk personal encounter i had with donald trump about 25 years ago. host: ok. caller: i was sitting in a casino in gulfport, mississippi and off to the right, this guy comes walking by me. feet behindseveral
him is a gang of suits, and i'm thinking, what's going on there? he is strutting, head up in the air, nose up in the air, i am thinking, who is this dork? people are calling out, donald, donald, and he is unmoved. he keeps walking, they go by, and 25 years later, i see this guy come down an escalator, talking about how mexicans are horrible people, rapists, murderers, and three years later, same dork, different day. carolina,rson, south republican line. next up is monica. caller: i have a comment and the problem. my first comment, i support president trump. benghazi will never go away. clinton was in the white house having sex with a young woman and on and on -- obama, all he
did was come on late-night tv programs. anyway, my concern with a lot of these public servants -- my mother is 92 years old and she is in a nursing home. she had to go in because she quit walking. ,he has to pay $7,000 a month small social security, half of my father's pension. they saved their money, unlike a lot of these young americans are doing now. you never hear these candidates say anything for the elderly folks, senior citizens, what they are going through -- a lot of them have to buy their dog food over their medicine because of their little companion, and all you hear, affordable housing, affordable housing. ok, fine. build that, but pay more attention to our elderly folks who work and strive and saved
their money and now they are having to pay it out in pots. i wish that is what a lot of these so-called public servants would think more about our elderly people, in their 80's, 90's. it is not fair. donald trump is not being treated right and again, benghazi will never go away and epstein did not commit suicide. host: that's monica in south carolina. your comments, calls, and texts as well. (202) 748-8003. we want to hear from eric in seattle, talking about the new democratic candidates coming into the race. no real progressive democrat wants corporate democrats, like deval patrick and michael bloomberg, wall street republican like democrats put them in the race to attack warren. why?
she actually has plans to help the
masses. next to bismarck, north dakota, to john on the democrat line. hello. i wanted to talk about media and its fairness and its discussions of impeachment hearings. i've been a democrat all my life. ronald reagan and i did vote for donald trump. wayomment was regarding the that i have been hearing the various news media outlets discuss the outcome of the last two weeks of the impeachment hearings, and i just cannot believe that all of them, including npr, one of my favorites, who are my favorites because they used to be no usingsed, but even npr is
wordings that of cnn, cnbc, and all
the other media broadcasters use, and it is just not right. i get all my news now from and i never watch fox. everyone says oh, you watch too much fox. i get all my news directly from the source, from c-span, and i think c-span for their coverage. that's all i have to say. edward on the line from jersey city, on the independent line. good morning. a caller stole my thunder. i am calling from new jersey and i cannot wait to vote in the primaries. i will be voting for bernie sanders -- why? all theest issue of
issues is campaign finance reform. we need to get big money out of our election process is, even down to the locals, on our school board and mayoral races. iam here in jersey city and would have to have $1 million, $2 million, $3 million if i am dissatisfied with my mayoral administration and i would like to run for mayor. it costs so much. look at michael bloomberg, for example. he has so much money to put down to run a campaign and i really believe in the sanders vision for our country. thank you. host: thanks, edward. ocean springs, mississippi. republican line. we will hear from george. caller: my name is george from biloxi, mississippi. what adam schiff be compelled to testify if this does make it to the senate? bet: what adam schiff
compelled to testify and a senate trial? caller: yes sir. host: good point. i couldn't tell you. i know they can call witnesses -- caller: there are some things he is protected from having to do, but the impeachment inquiry, if they do bring articles and they can call witnesses, would he be compelled to testify under oath? good question, but i can't tell you the answer. keep watching. from politico, this story is also elsewhere, bolton claims white house blocked access to his twitter account after departure. the former white house national security adviser john bolton accused his former employer from blocking access to his twitter account since leaving his position two months ago, a charge the white house denied. "they attached software to it and twitter unattached software the former trump a left
the administration in a wave of confusion in mid-september. trump was adamant that he fired bolton, while bolton has maintained that he resigned. his last week on his personal profile prior to friday had been his rebuttal of trump's claim that he had been fired, but has come under renewed scrutiny as the impeachment inquiry into trump heated up and as democrats trouble to secure a testimony from trump's inner circle about why hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for ukraine were put on hold this summer. anthony in trenton, new jersey, democrat line. go ahead, anthony. yes, i'm just calling about the republicans and trump always claiming that ukraine interfered in the 20 16th election but in 2016, the president of ukraine was
a puppet for putin. aren't they really saying the russians interfered? even if it did happen, it would have had to be controlled by russians. a caller asked this earlier, but here is a response from senator lindsey graham. graham says ship should be a witness in the trump impeachment trial. this article from about a week ago with the senator from south carolina saying that the house intelligence committee chair should be a witness. he was asked during an interview with fox news sean hannity. this was midweek last week. senatorors recall, graham says this. as a matter of oversight, i will not call a house member, but if you impeach the president of the united states, i wants to find out if in fact ship and his staff met with the whistleblower, graham said. that is from the hill.com -- .com.is from thehill
from the marijuana policy project, talking about efforts to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level. ♪ >> our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country, visiting key battleground states in the 2020 presidential race, asking voters what issues they want presidential candidates to address during the campaign? >> one of the most pressing issues we are facing is poverty and income inequality. with the richest in the country it is cliche,, but the poor are getting poorer and something has to be done to equalize things. not necessarily take money away from rich people, but make sure that our votes on the lower end economic spectrum have an
opportunity to better themselves, get better education, and the country start creating jobs for people so that they can get out of poverty and their children can get out of poverty and we can continue to build a middle-class, which is being affected by this massive inequality. question -- my question, how would you tackle the climate crisis without coming off as partisan? >> i would like candidates to focus on the black agenda. it was not discussed during the democratic primary, and the fact that there is a black agenda proves there is not enough eating done. this is only one part of reparations that needs to be taken seriously in america, so i would like to see some things change. >> what are the candidates doing right now during the campaign to attack issues on global warming? we are seeing changes in the weather, but also issues of forest fires and drastic changes in the climate. what is being done right now to
address these issues? >> voices from the campaign trail, part of c-span's battleground states tour. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by don murphy, the director of federal policies for the marijuana policy project, looking at congressional efforts to legalize marijuana. there are a number of legislative proposals out there, most recently the one that passed through the judiciary committee in the house, the more act, the marijuana reagan -- marijuana opportunity reinvestment effort. what does that do? guest: the title really explains what it does. it would de-schedule marijuana at the federal level, it would create a grant program funded by 5% excise tax to help
communities most affected by the war on drugs, and it would create expungement for those who previously had been caught up and arrested and prosecuted. the push ons behind the federal level to regulate marijuana? guest: actually, the people. congress is very late to the game on this one. there have been a few champions on capitol hill, but this is sort of the first time they have really listens to the voters. the marijuana policy project for 25 years now has run ballot initiatives and effort in the states to legalize marijuana for both medical purposes and for adult use purposes. there are 11 states now that have full-blown retail marijuana and 33 that have medical, and -- the rest of them, all but a few, have cbd oil, low thc, sort of like medical hemp for children with epilepsy.
host: explain to us why federal regulation -- 11 states have approved it for full-blown legalization and i expect more possibly in the 20 20's -- 2020 cycle, 33 for medical marijuana, what does the federal government needs to do or what would proponents have the federal government do to move forward on legalizing marijuana? guest: the problem with federal prohibition, even though most people don't get arrested at the federal level, it causes all kinds of problems for those people who are providers of the product, of the medicine or of cannabis in some form or fashion. colorado, for example. the folks that are in the business have a difficult time getting banking access. they do not get to write off their taxes. veterans can't use it and you can't get it at a pharmacy. there are plenty of things the federal government gets in the way of, but they do not mean the federal government arrests most
of those who are incarcerated, but they stand in the way of the states doing what they have chosen to do. host: legislation proposed with the state banking act, a measure that would prohibit a federal banking regulator from penalizing a depository institution for providing banking services to legitimate marijuana related business. currently in the states where it is legal or illegal for medical purposes, what are the challenges those dispensaries, those businesses have? guest: they have to engage in commerce mostly in cash. there was a testimony at a hearing where one of the cultivators had to deliver $3 million to the irs to pay their taxes in cash, which is one of the things that is very disingenuous about congress maintaining federal prohibition. they say no to legalization in the states, yet they accept the money and appropriate it for the various things that they
appropriate things for. ribbon-cutting for a new bridge or a roadway which in part, a very small part, but in part was funded by marijuana sales and taxes. it is difficult for me to look at a member of congress who says no, yet is on the appropriations committee and takes that money. the problemact, with the banking issue, they wanted to get at money laundering. the real money laundering is when congress takes those proceeds and buys votes with them. host: don murphy is with us. we are talking about the efforts on capitol hill and elsewhere to legalize marijuana. (202) 748-8000, the line to call if you are a democrat. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. and are you the lead lobbyist on this in terms of interaction with capitol hill? guest: basically yes, because i
am the only lobbyist on capitol hill for our cause. we are bringing other folks on board. there are plenty of other lobbyists who have come to this space because industry is hiring lobbyists because they want to be viewed as credible and legitimate. visit industry is credible and legitimate. i always tell the industry, you need to make sure your elected officials at the federal level and elsewhere come to me your facilities, because unless they get a chance to see how regulated and legitimate the states are creating this industry, they do not know. they know what they saw on the wire, but other than that, they do not know and they think everything they remember is from the 1980's or the 1970's. host: what is the trump administration's current view of ization of marijuana? guest: he has sent mixed signals, and that is
not a bad thing. at first people were concerned, because jeff sessions was very much opposed to marijuana legalization, decriminalization, and was very much a drug or your. when he became attorney general, he repealed a memo that had an understanding that the obama administration put in place, saying if you do or do not do these things, the federal government will largely stay out of your way. when he repealed that document, that caused great concern among the industry and among advocates. but the good news is, it caused congress to act. the status quo was no longer able to be maintained and congress knew it, and members of the senate like cory gardner, who represents colorado, jumped into action and said from the republican side and said, this has to stop. the president meanwhile has said that he supports medical marijuana across all the states, sense,s basically makes
because if you believe marijuana is medicine, you do not believe that some people should get it and others not, but you also believe that states should have the right to create a retail regime based on their own wishes. veterans push a for marijuana legalization? guest: yes. i believe two ends of the spectrum are going to move this, veterans and bankers. not your typical advocates like myself. this is not so much about marijuana, this is about the problems drug war has created, and i think it has created a problem for veterans with ptsd who want their doctors to be able to recommend. the a doctors cannot do that. the more act would fix that. host: and the cannabis banking bill, the bill we were talking about, getting the senate ok still looks tricky. the house is expected to bank the safe banking act in its vote on wednesday. this was in september. what are you finding in terms of
support for advancing marijuana legislation? marijuana legislation, there is a lot of support for passing it and very little opposition. that is the other thing. in a place like congress or any other legislative body, when you have one opponent who is in a high place holding a gavel, you're not going to get a bill. by the way, you learn in civics you need 50% plus one. you really need one plus 50%. if you do not have the chairman of the judiciary committee, which is the way proved out last year for republicans, controlling the house judiciary committee, they failed to bill forward that spring a bill forward. one of the discussions had about the more act yesterday, this was rushed through without a hearing. representative ken buck of colorado's credit, he said republicans failed. they failed to act when they had a chance. now democrats are moving
relatively quickly in terms of congress, not quickly in terms of this thing has been going on for 40 years or 80 years, depending on when you start the clock, it is time we move forward now. i think there is a relatively decent chance that this thing could actually move through the senate in some form or fashion and even the democratic chair acknowledged there will need to be amendments. if you support marijuana legalization -- we are talking about at the federal level in particular --(202) 748-8000. if you oppose legalization, (202) 748-8001. we will go first to rocky in florida, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: i fully support the legalization of marijuana on the federal level. it is an archaic law that i really do not understand where it came about, other than during
the rockefeller times because of the paper industry, hemp being the cheaper, more ecologically sound alternative to what paper -- wood paper. it was a whole political thing, they made it illegal for that reason, that's what i understood. it is at the point now, 2019, it has tremendous medical benefits, it has helped a number of people that i have seen in my life, and it is time. it is time. rocky is from florida and florida just past the ballot initiative in 2016 with 71% of the vote for medical marijuana. he might get an opportunity in the upcoming election to support a full-blown legal marijuana effort. host: how many other states do you think will put that up for a ballot vote? caller: for adult use -- guest: for adult use, probably three.
for medical, another three. we are getting down to the point have the issues available to run, we have already done it. host: how active was your group in those ballot initiatives countrywide in individual states? guest: we have passed the majority of them. birmingham,go to new jersey. caller: alan is opposed to legalization. tell us why. good morning caller:. alan is opposed to legalization. tell us why. caller: good morning. i have been around a lot of people in my life that were commonly referred to as potheads, and their individual people that are hard to deal with. potheads are zoned out. now, mr. murphy, you mentioned the fact that you are a lobbyist . then you mentioned the fact that you work on behalf of something that is creditable and legitimate in terms of
legalization of marijuana. is just lobbyist absolutely contradictory to the words credible and legitimate. lobbyists work in a twisted way to ensure they can achieve their goals, or the goals of their employers. they are the most wealthy people in washington. lobbyists pervade our system and ruin our system. guest: if i might just response to that quickly, is it rocky? host: it was rocky, yeah. guest: rocky had the lobbyists working on his behalf on capitol hill in opposition to this effort. host: how long have you been involved in this? guest: 20 years. i started off as a legislator in maryland. maybe to rocky point, i am not pro-cannabis.
i am not pro-cannabis anymore than i am pro-bourbon or pro-alcohol. i do not think people should be arrested and incarcerated and have their lives ruined for something as ample as maybe even making a bad decision. if we will agree that using drugs is not a smart thing to do, the funny part is, one of the members who voted in favor, a republican member, said he did not believe that marijuana -- i do not approve of marijuana, has no redeeming societal benefit. but i believe that about a lot of things, about stamp collecting, but you should not be arrested for it. that is the point, rocky. the federal government has no business in this. decide.e should your state will have a chance to do that as well. so i appreciate his comments. grant is on the support line from illinois. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this morning?
host: good, go ahead. caller: i fully support this. i believe this will be a major change for us as a country. as a medical aspect of it, we have been in this war on drugs for over 50 years and it has put a detriment on our country as a whole. i am a medical marijuana patient in illinois, and it has helped me daily. i have had two back operations and it helps me get through my pain. the people that think this is a gateway drug, they are far from right. we have seen this is not the case in a lot of studies. know, the, you financial ability of this and any state that does this, the tax revenue they would get -- in my state, we are in a very, very bad place for taxes. illinois is one of the highest taxed states in the nation and this would help us out a lot, maybe possibly do some infrastructure around our state
or around our towns. i think this is the best thing for our country right now. i think it really is. what has been the effect in states in terms of the tax revenue, either from the medical part or the full-blown legalized? guest: in colorado, they passed $1 billion in tax revenue, but i might point out, i do not come at this from that perspective. i actually believe the government wastes a lot of our tax money to begin with, so giving it more is not my interest here. my interest here is perhaps the tax revenue that is generated because people do not get arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated, have their lives ruined, and be unable to get gainful employment and generate income tax revenue. thatk at it from perspective. as a taxpayer, i do not want to fund welfare programs that could otherwise, for people that could otherwise get gainful employment if it was not for the fact that they have this blemish on their record. host: you were a maryland
legislator from 1994 to 2003. what is your home state's stance? guest: my home state has medical marijuana at this weight. it was largely started by a gentleman named darrell putnam, and that is why i am here 20 years later. veteran who was using medical marijuana with his doctor's approval. a senator, i me to hope she is watching, and says, i am using marijuana with my doctor's approval. criminal?nk i'm a i was running and voting to lock up everybody, but with he said that to me, i said no, i don't believe you are. i'm ad, the law says criminal. unless you do something to change the law, you really do think i am a criminal. that stuck with me. as a legislator, if you do not believe laws are just, you have the responsibility to do
something to change them. that is how i ended up here. host: let's hear from mary in wisconsin. caller: good morning. i have a question. you have to worry about the child's brain and the brain does not stop maturing until people are 26 years old. the doctors have proven that it maybeause psychosis and is a reaction to violence in the children in schools nowadays. i think the doctors are the ones that probably should be on here talking about it, because it is affecting them, like alcohol destroys lives. if they legalize marijuana, that is going to destroy people's lives because it is a gateway drug and i think it's really important not to legalize it only for medical reasons. only for medical reasons. i hope you don't have grandchildren. once they know that it is going to be legalized, they are going to try it because it is legal, i
am not going to get into trouble for it. guest: as a matter of fact i do have a grandchild, and i should have brought a picture, i suppose. he is eight months. my concern for my grandchild is not that he will use marijuana, because i believe is not to just ask, half the population uses marijuana and most of them go on to productive lives. my concern is he will be caught and arrested and have his life ruined because of one indiscretion or an attempt to satisfy the curiosity. i will also point out that when we talk about children, no one on capitol hill anywhere at any level is suggesting that 18 --en even as young as it is not a child, but we are talking about 21, should have access to this. this is not a children's issue with that respect. but i will wait out that the international drug caucus of the senate held hearing yesterday and talked about three things -- drunk driving, pregnant women using marijuana, and they talked about the children.
we agree on all of those points. the fact that the congress is only talking about that part of the spectrum is good news to us. host: how does the recent deaths by the vaping -- many reports from the cdc are people using the marijuana oils, apparently. how does that complicate your efforts or has it complicated them? guest: it is complicated for this reason -- because it made news, and the headline was, marijuana vaping was a problem. it was it was it marijuana vaping. they finally proved a later or weeks later that it was marijuana oil bought on the black market, not in a regulated market. so when they talk about your grandfather's marijuana, this is marijuana laced with encinal and people are dying of it -- fentanyl and people are dying from it, all the more reason to have it regulated and have your
retail cannabis in a regulated container where you know the thc content, you know where it came from. the states do this in a seed to sail away and you know where this product has been and where it came from. host: and has this been effective in getting rid of black market or illicit sales? guest: yes and no. for people who want to do this the right way, they have another option. for people who want the lowest, cheapest, they can still continue to buy it from their black-market dealer. some of those folks have changed to other things, like opioids. next caller is in seminole, florida, who supports legalization. go ahead. seminole, florida. you're on the air, go ahead. caller: i apologize, it was muted. i have some issues with my pacing. was thelem that i have
medical marijuana in florida will cost you upwards of $1000 or more a year before you have even begun to buy the product you are prescribing, octors offered you. having had a spinal injury and then in chronic pain for 15 years, i could give you the exact date, but there is no point -- the point is, 50 years formed the controlled substances act and put marijuana into the first category, which halted any testing on pain relief or any of the other syndromes affecting people, and that is the medical side. by legalizing it, they would move it down or off the schedule and from there we would proceed to have testing, to see if this
product can be refined, regulated, and dispensed at reputable dispensaries and tested in real labs. it is an economic boon in all of those ways. the patients have an effective alternative to opioids. don murphy addressing points on the controlled substances act. guest: there are studies that show that states that have full-blown legal medical marijuana programs, the opioid use is greatly reduced. that is one thing that sadly congress is not really focused on. opioids are a big problem. a lot of folks, veterans included, could use marijuana as an alternative. i also wants to point out two things. we use the prescript shouldn't -- we use the word prescription wrong. you cannot be prescribed a prescription 1 -- a schedule one drug.
congress puts it on schedule one, you cannot research it and determine whether it has medical value or not other than anecdotal evidence, and millions of people have found this brings them relief. they should not be arrested for it. the marijuana justice act of 2018 would remove marijuana from the controlled substances and automatically expunge the conviction of those who have served real-time for marijuana for use, possession, and reinvestigation through a community funds, from senator cory booker. let's take a look at the response senator booker had to wednesday's debate in atlanta about crime and about his legislation. [video clip] >> i have a lot of respect for the vice president. he was sworn into my office as a hero. this week i hear him say that we should not legalize marijuana. i thought you were high when you said it. [laughter] marijuana, marijuana in
our country is already legal for privileged people. the war on drugs has been a war on black and brown people. [cheers and applause] with more african-americans under criminal supervision in america than all the slaves in inh it the, do not roll up the community and do not speak directly to issues that are going to relate to the liberation of children, because there are people in congress aret now that their kids smoking marijuana, while our kids are in jail or those rug crimes. senator booker is the author of some legislation that we mentioned that would and some of those sentences. don murphy, your take? tvst: i was cheering at the while i was watching that. i have been very disappointed that we have had a dozen hours of debates, five debates now, this is not a topic that has really been brought up.
senator booker had to make a joke to get the attention of everyone here, but he is absolutely true. vice president biden seems to be way behind the times, not just his political spectrum, but certainly within the democratic party. survive know how he can this nomination process with a position on marijuana that goes back to the -- host: what is his position? drug. it is a gateway and it is a gateway out of the criminal justice system, off of opioids. that has been a critical problem. i'm disappointed he does not the at that way. host: douglas in virginia, who opposes legalization. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for mr. murphy. is he a paid lobbyist for marijuana? guest: yes. caller: ok. guest: do you do -- caller: do you do marijuana? guest: no.
caller: why would you be a lobbyist for somebody who does it and you don't do it. is it for the money? guest: for the same reason i would be a lobbyist for the nra, even though i do not own a firearm. i believe in it. i would do this for nothing if i could afford it, and i will one day come down here when i retire and still do it. it is disappointing that you believe because i am paid and the l word is such a dirty word, that -- yeah. it is what it is. we all have a job that we do. i think i am doing this for the right reasons. i am a nonprofit lobbyist, for what that means, i am probably the poorest cannabis lobbyist on capitol hill. hagerstown, indiana. matt is on the line. good morning. yes, good morning. i have had spinal surgeries and issues constantly for the last 10 years. i do not take opioids.
i get them for 30 days and then i cease them. they are horrible to get off of. virtuallymarijuana lets you be able to get through without the sickness that comes from taking pills. and we're not allowed to take pills anymore. doctors will not just give them out. need statendiana access to medical marijuana or recreational marijuana so they can help self regulate when they cannot go to doctors for their help or know what's going on. this drug is wide and vast for what it can do for certain individuals, and that includes cbd. that is mind blowing for some people. for others, it takes something different.
.uest:, matt i feel your pain i spent some time in a pain clinic for back issues and ended up with 16 shots in my back which did no good. i ended up resorting to physical therapy. i did not use marijuana, but i understand the pain you are dealing with firsthand. republican has two u.s. senators who i consider my exhibit a and b, that you can support a states rights position on marijuana and win a republican primary. senator braun just beat out two -- in 2018 -- and senator todd young with a great record in the house got elected in 2016. i appreciate those guys being here. they are walking endorsements for this position. host: a page in the financial times about cannabis experience.
mountain asabis demand forecasts go to pot. warehouses or canada are piled high with unsold marijuana after producers overestimated demand for the drug, which was legalized a year ago across the country. cannabis inventories can't almost 400 tons at the end of august. meanwhile, the price of the drug has slumped as distributors grapple for market share. one year after canada became the first big economy to allow nationwide recreational use of cannabis, the industry has potestimated how much the smokers can burn through and underestimated the illegal markets ability to respond to competition. it is not marijuana that is the problem, it is the illegal status that is the problem. legal marijuana and push out the black market, you find that what the free market s -- the united states
should consider that as well. host: chris, calling us from florida. good morning. caller: i have a couple things on my mind. i think the whole vaping argument is ridiculous. i wish there were more important things to talk about. on the subject of marijuana, there are vape pens with marijuana, i have tried them, they work. went tonology professor congress to give his expert opinion on whether or one of -- whether marijuana should be legalized or not. he gave his opinion that it should not. i thought that was interesting. i might go along with that. whether you are for it or against it, i do not think it really matters.
the cat is out of the bag. one thought i had, why not slap a 50% tax on all marijuana sold and maybe after a decade or two, our federal deficit would be reduced significantly? guest: one problem with attacks of that size, it would allow the black market to continue. there is a price differential people will pay for regulated know is that they coming from a credible source, but a 50% tax, i do not think that would work. host: emmett calling from ohio, who supports legalization. welcome. caller: good morning and thank you for talking about cannabis today. i have been advocating for the last several years. i have a 15-year-old special-needs daughter with seizures, so once i found out --ut this harlot's web cbd the charlotte's web cbd, i had
to research it more. opposesne who legalization and ending prohibition on cannabis, i pray to god they take the time to reeducate themselves. we are a generation of information and there is so much information out there that debunks the stigma and the lies that we have been told forever. it was very hard for me to even theset to go here with means to help my daughter, because there is a stigma of it eating bad. for so many years i was told it was terrible, but once i got older and i see people drinking and taking pills and things like that, i thought, this is what is legal and these people who are smoking pot are happy and healthy and that is what is illegal? it made me question everything. and when i found out and did research, i find out that here is this natural or, cannabis, that has centuries of safe,
proven benefits, and is a natural herb. it is not a chemical people are concocting in their basements that is killing people and harming people, our fda approves things that are more harmful and deadly than cannabis. show me where cannabis has been detrimental to society, except by it being made prohibited and being illegal? him for want to thank her advocacy. we always talk about oh, the kids, the kids. , one ofcase, the reason the reasons we're moving in the direction we are is because of young mothers pushing strollers of sick kids to their state capitals. even in the south, where medical marijuana is not legal, cbd for kids with epilepsy is. elected officials cannot say no to mothers pushing strollers with sick kids. they just can't.
if cancer patients were on capitol hill in the same way, we would have a similar position for medical marijuana, but congratulations to kim. thank you for your work. host: what has been the viewpoint of the american medical association? guest: they have largely slow walked us. host: why? guest: it is not viewed as credible to science for the most part, legitimate science, in their view, is not there. and the research is not there because it is not allowed to be there. the only science they ever wants to do is on determining the harms of marijuana. look, i am not here to tell you that marijuana is safe in any aspect, but it is safer than the alternative and better than the alternative of radiation and chemotherapy. those are all bad for you too, but if you have cancer and your doctor says i think this might help, you should be able to use it. you set the science is not
there. kim mentioned the fda. hinder theent laws fda or cdc from doing research? guest: because marijuana is on schedule one, along with heroin, by the way. i like that marijuana is almost schedule one for this reason, because it shows how absurd the federal laws are. just to be clear, there is plenty of research, anecdotal and otherwise, that shows the benefits, but it is not the kind of research that congress will except and the fda will except. host: a call next from ohio. yke, go ahead. caller: i want to address -- we have legal, medical marijuana in a cardut you have to get
, which is an exorbitant amount for some people, some people just can't afford it. your -- youcase of need someone to help you out to go to the dispensary, they have to pay for a card to go in with you are always going to have a black market because you are continuing the kind of shakedown. people will be able to get it cheaper elsewhere, and i was wondering if you ever think it will be available in pharmacies? medication is there that you have to go to a doctor and then go get a card for it, you know? none that i can think of. there has to be different approaches. host: we will get a response. guest: he is absolutely right. the history is, the way this
would be done in the past, he would have to be subject to arrest and by this from a street corner dealer without any idea where it came from. it is a situation that is better than the past, but not great by any means. if the act were to pass or something at a federal level that would remove marijuana comedy schedule it or move it to a different schedule, that marijuana would not be able to be purchased at a pharmacy with your prescription card and all of that, you would not be subject to all the issues you have to deal with now. host: and each state can set its own process, have their own cards or processes for purchasing marijuana. guest: if it became a medical issue with respect to retail, each state -- by the way, we talk about this act or any other bills, lifting bread or a prohibition is the same as legalization. it is not. antes could still have illegal market and a legal law.
would not change at this point. i think it would change over time, but not the immediate. todd is calling us from o'brien, florida, opposing legalization. go ahead. to 1988, august 11. time was suedone because they put their label -- warning, this is dangerous to your health -- the point is, treat the body like a temple. cigarettes before you consider passing marijuana laws, and they did the act opposite. this is what they have done. a three strikes -- if you get arrested for a felony three times -- for a misdemeanor three times, it becomes a felony. what that did was caused overcrowding. this is what the drug dealers all caps on rated to do. now the fact that you have
overcrowding in prisons, so they can pass these marijuana laws. this is a well thought out plan that would interrupt treat the body like a temple, along with trying to act like you are concerned about everybody's andth with r.j. reynolds giving them money after the fact, ok? you areanother problem happening. they also made 21 to 18 gun laws. 21-year-old drug dealers do not care if 18-year-old can carry a gun or not. trust me. guest: the same people who do not care about drug laws do not care about gun laws. i think that would make a bad tuition even worse. baseball,t of insight this is part of the overall spending bill the congress is trying to move through. this would prohibit the department of justice from using funds to prevent any american
state, territory, and washington, d.c. from approving and implement in laws authorizing marijuana use, distribution, possession and cultivation. why do they think this is amendment guest: this , and it is funny, because tom mcclintock, a man who says no deeming value, is supporting a states rights position on this. if your state says yes to marijuana, federal government will not enforce federal law within that state. if it is a retail marijuana plan, it would not force it there either. colorado and those various states, retail marijuana law would not be enforced by the federal government there either. host: do you think we will see president trump signing or congress passing and president trump signing some marijuana legislation by the end of the 116th congress? guest: i absolutely do. president trump is a populist if
nothing else. he knows the american people want this. it makes sense politically for him. he has pushed criminal justice reform, something which is republicans are not necessarily known for. he believes people should not be in jail unjustly for long period s of time for criminal acts they have committed in the past, why do you think they should go to reason for using marijuana? it is inconsistent. host: what about the white house? how often have you met with the policy advisors for the trump administration? guest: that's a bit above my pay grade. don murphy, we are glad to have you here. director of federal policies for the marijuana policy project. thanks again. that will do it for this morning's washington journal. glad to have you here and we will be back tomorrow. we will be here at 7:00 a.m. eastern, as we are every day. thank you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,
which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, highlights from the impeachment inquiry meeting, jennifer williams, advisor to the president pence, and national security council. and finally, president trump will react to what colonel ben then told the committee. testimony from kurt volker and timothy morrison. >> c-span's campaign 2020 has
live coverage. c-span, senator warren speaks at a town hall in manchester new hampshire. sanderssenator bernie holds a rally in portsmouth new hampshire. c-span2, deval the politics at and eggs breakfast in new hampshire. on tuesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, president trump holds a campaign rally, his first in florida since changing his residency in late october. live coverage on c-span in c-span2, watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> the house intelligence committee held its third open hearing any impeachment inquiry
against president trump. in col. alexander vindman jennifer williams, russia and europe advisor to vice president pence. here is a portion of the hearing. you can watch all of it at c-span.org. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record show that witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you you may be seated. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. ms. williams, you are recognized for your opening statement. you are vindman recognized after for your opening statement. miss williams? chairman ou,