Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  October 3, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT

12:00 pm
>> it is in our national interest in our global interest to be the clean energy leader and the leader in solution. i can't comment on the candidate. >> let me ask about countries. as their leader out there that f we can follow or emulate and learn from. >> some countries in western europe have been investing heavily like germany, in clean energy technologies.s. japan has a much more energy-efficient economy than we do. the chinese are investing heavily in this. the united states is a power in these technologies. we need to stay there and get better and stronger at this. there are more people employed in clean energy than there are in mining fossil fuels. : this is the future and that's the past :. guest: steve, you and i live in
12:01 pm
metro ton, d.c., and our system fell way behind in but when it was running at peak and when it is picked up again, it takes of thousands of commuters off the roads and that pollution y, saves from the vehicles, we need to do more of that. good from georgia, morning, republican line with david doniger. caller: goo >> as to whether you know, the scientists are correct because it's been, only in history weather patterns, we may have gone through this many times and i agree with the one caller that in the 70s they talked about a new ice age but my other side of the coin is i read the
12:02 pm
farmer's almanac and they say global warming cannot be real because squirrels are no longerhiding their nuts . >> i'm aware that the gardening society, they publish a map of the zones where it's appropriate to plant certain kinds of flowers and vegetables and the zone map, they changed the zone map because the weather patterns are changing. people say well, the weather changes but the city of norfolk and the naval base on the coast, we built it where the coast is and the coast is moving backwards into the land because the seas are rising, the military recognizes they have a tremendous problem sustaining that base and the city
12:03 pm
realizes they have a problem. there are times in miami that, and inundate the streets now, that didn't used to happen. so this is what we have to look forward to it we don't curb the pollution that's driving this problem. >> this is a treat from another viewer, what laws were passed by california and don't they always believe in air emission mark. >> california, you mentioned the northeast states earlier, the other leader which is california passed a law to cut back climate pollution. they just renewed these laws last month, actually. legislature passed and the governor brown side. each law, california pollution per person is way less then it is in other parts of the country and their economy is thriving.
12:04 pm
>> at three from louisville kentucky on the line from republicans, good morning. >> good morning mister david dunker. scientists have talked about the pipeline that burst in california that put out more methane then you could ever imagine, more than any coal company would ever dream of or more than any coal burning plants . and somebody, some person just off the bat caught it with an infrared lens and saw this . and to top it all off, you've got both volcanoes erupting all over the world now. how are you supposed to, you know, you going to put a fine on mother nature? >> the difference that human activity makes on top of what happens naturally, there are volcanoes from time to time but what matters is the tremendous amount of pollution that comes from our
12:05 pm
fuels that were tucked underground for millions of years and burning them and basically putting the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. it's like taking hamburger out of the freezer and letting it spoil. the leak in california was huge and it had to be stopped but it was no match for pollution from our power plants. >> this is a tweet from a viewer with handle sea of tranquility, what is the perfect co2 concentration that will give us the best weather possible, what is the target? >> if we had perfect foresight and knew what we know now, 600 years ago you would have started on these technologies to reduce the pollution and try to keep the levels under 350 parts per million down to 250 where it started in the 1700s. but as i said, it's gone up
12:06 pm
to 400+ parts per million and we're headed for disastrous levels if we don't curb these omissions. that's why president obama's levels to clean power plants and other actions in the last eight years and most importantly working with other countries to get the paris climate agreement. i'm about to go later this week off to golly rwanda, never been there. that's where the final negotiations take place on a global agreement to phase out a set of super pollutants called hs seas that are heat trapping pollutants more powerful even then co2 count for pound and we can do a lot to protect the climate if we replace these refrigerants in our air-conditioners and refrigerators with safer
12:07 pm
chemicals that work and are totally affordable and are available here today.>> the case of clean power before the us court of appeals for the district of columbia, the issue we're talking about with david dollinger. lois, joining us from shreveport louisiana, good morning. >> are you today? >> you me a favor, turn the volume down, that will eliminate the echo and go ahead with the question. >> my name is lois sales and i'm from thing is, this is basically of course, my thing is donald trump is saying people don't live in poverty. that trouble he has some good ideas but he doesn't have been laid out in the grain and my thing is, the economy was better in louisiana, not
12:08 pm
jobs and paper everywhere but then things move in the right direction because back in 2006 when we didn't even have jobs in louisiana and everybody was on unemployment and was doing bad. we was in bad poverty. now we have plants coming everywhere, we have jobs everywhere up and down the line and my thing is, you know, i think they're trying to remove those better if we better our equipment and that's all i have to say, thank you for listening. >> thanks for the call, more to comment? >> i just can't the presidential race given that i work for a nonprofit organization. >> louisiana, what impact if any has climate change from your standpoint had on the
12:09 pm
levels in louisiana? >> the sea is eating away southern louisiana. the gulf of mexico is chewing up basically the coastal islands and their syncing. there's a lot of reasons for that but one is the gulf of mexico is starting to rise. the biggest impact on louisiana of course was the huge hurricane, hurricane katrina and now the tremendous rain storm that came out of nowhere. but climate scientists have examined that rainstorm and concluded there's a very low chance that could be happening without the influence ofcarbon pollution that heating up the atmosphere and changing the weather pattern . >> let's go to alan in fort wayne, say that five times fast. good morning alan. >> thank you c-span.
12:10 pm
>> you are from fort wayne, right? >> that's correct. >> where's that located? >> northern wisconsin. >> were going to have you say that five times fast. >> a beautiful area unaffected by climate change. hathis person knows very well how corrupt the climate change fiasco is first, without excessive subsidies wind and solar can't compete, everybody knows that. we eliminate carbon credits, this whole thing would go away. carbon credit is at the heart of this. remember that. and our costs are going to go up if this carbon credit fiasco, if we keep it up. cold, by the way is the cheapest way to run a power plant. next next appreciate the call from wisconsin. >> all i can say is full power is down. gas, wind, solar are up.
12:11 pm
there's a tax credit for wind and solar. republican congress enacted that in, extended that for five years in december of last year and it's a good thing too. follow fuel industry has too many tax credits that it benefits from also, so this is where the future is going. coal is going to be a part of our energy picture for a long time but it's declining and it's not competitive anymore. anbut the only reason it can stay competitive is if nobody's having to pay forthe health damage and climate damage that the emissions from these coal plants are doing. >> but when the coal industry says clean coal, clean energy . >> it's an oxymoron, it's like military music. there is one way you could
12:12 pm
make coal safely and that is to capture thecarbon pollution and put it underground, it's called carbon capturing storage. there's a plant in saskatchewan that's doing this now. there's a plant in mississippi that's being built . a terrible cost overrun and the mismanaged project but is being bought by a southern company to do the same. this technology could allow us to keep using some amount of coal if you can put the co2 in the ground instead of in the air. >> for those who work in the coal mines in virginia and pennsylvania, and parts of ohio, can those jobs replace equipment jobs in the so-called clean energy sector? >> there are a lot of clean energy jobs and as i said, it employs more people and then in the fossil fuel industry at this point already but at the same time, we oh those
12:13 pm
communities in those parts of the country, we oh it to them to invest in transitioning those parts of the country to get into the modern economy and give people their new opportunities. nobody wants to leave them behind. >> gretchen young says clean coal may be an oxymoron but big agriculture is the biggest polluter and destroyer of our planet x well, there's a contribution from the agriculture industry to the climate change problem. mainly from methane emissions that feed lots and other operations emit and you can do things to control that, to reduce that.there's progress we can make on all fronts. >> another tweet, the glacier
12:14 pm
melting is happening at an astounding rate. >> well, there's some reason to fear that it won't stop. an ice free planet, basically where there's no ice left in many glaciers and greenland is this huge ice cube that keeps this water out of the ocean. if all that stuff melts, the sea levels around the world go up 3 to 6 feet and that's a disaster for coastal areas, especially in the developing world where people live on the coast and they don't have the kind of funds that we have here to build sea walls or move things back, spruce things up. that's why it's so urgent we do this before all the that ice melt. >> david daughter is from kalamazoo michigan, chris,
12:15 pm
republican line, good morning. >> good morning. i gave it. a couple questions and i will be off the line. when you say that china is falling behind cutting their coal, they're not supposed to cut coal until 2030. there pushing their coal industry to the max until 2030. i don't understand how that helps us, maybe you can respond to that and on refrigeration and technology, if we don't have the technology to make things cooler, do you think maybe louisiana and arizona and texas might kill a couple people? >> i'm a big believer in technology, that's why i know that we can have cooling with less warming. we can have refrigeration and cooling with chemicals that are safer and use less
12:16 pm
electricity so they produce less power and less pollution from the power plants that run the air conditioner, that's the way we need to go. on china, they actually have pete there coal, they've reached the peak of coal not in 2030 but in 2016 or 2015. it's going down now. they're running ahead of schedule that you are talking about. >> good morning from cranston bill new york, independent line. >> this whole thing is bogus . this guy speaks with a fork tom. i'm 73 years old and i got a lot of background in power and other industriesrelated to power . you talked about 300,000 years ago, co2 , who was measuring parts per billion in the atmosphere of co2 300,000 years ago? or 1000 years ago or 50 years ago? we have no way of doing that, even temperature. do you think the russians were giving us all their
12:17 pm
temperature data from siberia and south america and the south pole, all during the cold war? india, who was collecting all this data? >> carry, we will get a response from franklinville new york. >> the scientific community is the most honest, straight up people that i know about. they are extremely worried about this. scientists are beside themselves in alarm at this. you know, there are scientifictechniques to figure out how much carbon dioxide there was in here in all these time periods . there's air trapped in ice cores and you can actually see what the air was like 100,000 years ago. you can see, figure this out and scientists are really quite smart at this and i trust the scientists to tell us what it is.
12:18 pm
>> you are traveling to rwanda and your goal is to what? >> montrcal policy, another treaty that was adopted in 1987 to curb the cfcs, chlorofluorocarbons that used to be in our air-conditioning and in aerosol cans and that were damaging the ozone layer. that treaty has every country in the world a member and it's a total success in phasing out those chemicals but some of the substitute chemicals called hcfcs have problems as well and we have that are chemicals, better substitutes for them now. it's time to move on. the montrcal protocol, all the countries in the world are meeting in rwanda to finish negotiations on a schedule to phase down these hcfcs and replace them with safer refrigerants and more efficient chemicals, it would be a victory for us all and
12:19 pm
everybody would be better off with it. >> to our viewers and listeners, you can get more information by logging on to the national resources defense council our guest has been david dollinger, director director of that program climate and clean air development project, thank you. >> thank you very much.>> we apologize, we had planned to bring you live coverage of the army secretary and army chief of staff general mark millie talking to the u.s. army. we are recording it and will have that for you later in the c-span schedule. our road to the white house coverage continues later today as hillary clinton post to get out the vote rally in akron ohio. she is visiting the state a week before the ohio voter registration deadline there. the time has changed for the next speech, it's like at 5:45 eastern and you will watch it here on c-span2. donald trump holding a rally
12:20 pm
in pueblo this morning, c-span will have live coverage from the convention center at 5 pm eastern. i had of tuesday's vice presidential debate we will take a look back at the candidates, virginia senator tim kane and indiana governor mike pence using the c-span video library. >> i've seen the story before, i turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting or a weather emergency or afamine. i've seen these stories and there will be more stories but there was something in the story yesterday that was different and it was you. your spirit of, even in a dark day of optimism and community and hope . the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or ill it sets the tone for the other branches. it confers the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequential.
12:21 pm
it's requirements from the outset and by definition are responsible for mortals to fulfill without humility and attention to its purposes as set forth in the constitution of the united states. >> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the vice presidential debate tonight at eight eastern on c-span. watch any time at and listen at 8 pm eastern on the c-span radio . >> the white house is hosting an event called self myself along with conversation on civic engagement. it's related to an event called sxsw that president obama took part in the last march. the briefing is expected to include today's participants and we have live coverage when it gets underway at 12:45 eastern, we will have it for you on c-span2. right now look at the
12:22 pm
washington journal and the start of the supreme court's new term. >> from nashville tennessee is david french, he is a writer for national review, briefly earlier this year considered his own independent presidential bid. thank you for being with us. >> for having me, i appreciate itread . >> let me begin with a general question, your assessment of this race a month before the elections. >> my short assessment is for a brief time trump had momentum. all that momentum came to a crashing halt when he failed to prepare for the debate. when he failed to prepare for the debate, he fell into every single track hillary clinton laid for i tweeted that night it's like the ss trump and iceberg, backed up and hit it again just because. it was unbelievable. he had 20 minutes to start the debate that i thought it wastrouble at some of his best as a debater . it was trump at his best and after that he fell apart and he compounded it all by taking the bait again and again and again on dealing
12:23 pm
with this miss universe controversy, giving a rambling speech in pennsylvania. he had momentum. had he delivered on the debate today, he would have had a completely different conversation we be talking about a completely different lit race but he didn't bother to prepare so now we are back to where a clinton is once again emerging as a clear favorite. >> and governor mike pence turned around tomorrow night, more in the second presidential debate today in st. louis with hillary clinton and donald trump. >> mike pence turned around, the short answer to that is no. you are talking about the debate that's going to have a fraction of the viewership, two personalities that people
12:24 pm
don't care about that much. barring something completely unexpected, the vice presidential debate i expect to be kind of a non-event and can trump turned around with a second debate performance? he's put the bar so low i think he's got a good chance of performing better the second time around but look, this is 2016. anyone who says i know exactly what's going to happen from this point forward , we are just speculating. this is been one of the craziest election years of our lifetime. we have two or three more big twists and turns before election day. the new york times is printing that has more tax documents, wikileaks canceled a bigevent for security reasons. are they going to reschedule that event? are there going to be more leaks out there? there are so many things up in the air right now that it's difficult to gauge but right now the momentum is on hillary clinton's side because she manipulated donald trump and he fell for the trap . >> on your website the national review and in the publication you wrote the following.
12:25 pm
here's a sentence i never thought i would type. after days of prayer, reflection and curious study of the possibilities, i am not going to run as an independent candidate president of the united states. how close did you come to making that decision that you would run? >> i came very close, i really did. let's put it this way, i looked at what the two major parties had done, the democrats nominating hillary clinton as expected why believe to be corrupt, dishonest, bad for america and the gop in an election year where they had a historic opportunity to win back the white house against the candidate who had high unfavorable and so many americans feel is dishonest went ahead and nominated donald trump who i believe is unfit for the presidency so you had to unfit candidates running against each other, highly unusual circumstances. a large number of americans were ready for a third option. i came very close. i look very closely at it, i studied hard. i just didn't see the path to be anything for me to be
12:26 pm
anything but a spoiler and i didn't want to be a spoiler. i didn't want to be the ralph nader of 2016, i wanted to give it a legitimate chance and i felt like a larger constituency, more rate name recognition would be a better chance. >> bill kristol and others mention your name, it was david who? >> indeed it was. it was kind of a funny, after all this blue over i listened to some of the news coverage and somebody had put together a youtube montage of news anchors from across the land, who is david french? which was kind of funny but one of the interesting things that you saw in all of that was as people dug into my background and they saw my background and compared it to some of the things donald trump has done or not done, they began to make some sense
12:27 pm
to people, not enough sense for me to do it but there was a path there for somebody who had larger name recognition, a larger constituency, somebody who wasn't going to have to spend tens of millions of dollars to get their name out in public. >> my guest david french is the author of the book rise of isis, attract we cannot ignore. he's a graduate of harvard law school from nashville, lives in columbia tennessee which is an hour away. he's also an army veteran. talk about your service in the us military. >> i joined as an old guy. i was 36 years old, i got an age waiver to join. i said had a sense of conviction and it was late 05 when i joined. i got the conviction that we are in the middle of a long war. i was healthy, my family loved me and why was i not doing my part? why wasn't i contributing? why was i sitting on the sidelines saying god bless the troops so i got an age waiver. went for basic training at age 37 which was let's just
12:28 pm
say no one's going to make a video montage of my basic training efforts and deployed to iraq with the third armored cavalry regiment during the surge and late october 2007 got into iraq in november 2007, served with heroes, served with people who are now closer to me than my brothers and we had a tough deployment, we really did. it was a hard experience where we were but we did a lot of good things. we landed at fort caldwell in november2007. all the area around us was held by al qaeda in iraq . when the unit left in late september 2008, we held all the ground. we had taken it back. so i'm very proud of what our guys were able to accomplish.
12:29 pm
it came as a terribly high cost but serving my country in uniform overseas is the proudest experience of my life. >> if you're a member of a third party, the number to call is 2002 and if you're undecided, and the number is 202 7008 243. supporters of hillary clinton and donald trump, joining us from new mexico, welcome to the program. >> good morning. i was just calling because i've been watching everything and in regard to the republican debate, choosing to pick donald trump over any other republican politician i think suggests to the republican base that maybe they need to do a reality check and realize that all the things the republican party has told them in regards to climate change, in regards to obamacare, maybe they've been lied to and that's the reason they
12:30 pm
selected trump to come and that's why they need to change their party to democrats. >> to catherine. >> one thing for sure is they did actually nominate somebody who's more democratic than republican at the gop this year. look at donald trump's positions, he's been all over the place.he's adopted left-wing physicians time and again on issues like trade, national security. he's been a big donor to hillary clinton in the past so the republican base and let's be clear about this, it was a minority. it was a minority of republicans. the gop ticket with the smallest percentage of the vote of any republican nominee in the primary area. so it was a minority running against a big field, nominated a guy i believe is truly in his heart more democratic than republican . >> actual live policy decisions, they veer more toward the left than to the right. wake-up call for the
12:31 pm
gop is couple of things. underestimated y how many millions of voters really, really dislike the gop and wanted to cast protest vote, that much is clear. they cond thing is, overestimated how conservative he republican base was, people are attacking donald trump not being conservative and i think shocked h they were shocked how many voters either didn't know that or didn't care about that. they wanted somebody who is strong, who came across as tough and came against somebody against the establishment in a strong way. they wanted to burn it down, tor blowed up, and there is just an enormous amount of anger in the base that a lot of republicans missed and never figured it out until it was too late. this is a tweet from dede fredericks who said the guest
12:32 pm
was part of member trump. were you and are you.ere is >> was i, yes and am i, yes.ot there is no information that donald trump has given me since i wrote that i was never going to vote for him that has changed my mind in any way, shape or form. in fact, everything that he does only confirms that i will neverr vote for that man.candid to be clear, i will never vote for hillary clinton either. i don't don't bit for fit candidates for the presidency.he mi is unfit. here's what should be incredibly sobering.. i keep hearing his supporters trying to convince me to vote for him. they tell me again and again, this is the most important election. if hillary clinton wins, america is over. this is a more critical election. their own candidate didn't even bother to prepare for debate.
12:33 pm
did not bother to fully prepare for one of the most important events in this political period. he didn't even bother to prepare. they are telling me this election is the most important in their lifetime, their own candidate isn't even acting like it. that is just one of 10000 things that disqualify this man for the highest office in the land, to lead the most powerful nation in the greatest nation on earth. he is unfit, she is unfit, 2016, as an election is lost. or chile america is resilient and there will be more elections in the future. >> host: who will you vote for. >> guest: i have it decided yet. i will likely write somebody in. if i don't write them in i will refrain from voting in the election. it is a right of mind to refrain from supporting anyone if nobody has been put forth as a nominee i believe is fit to lead this country. >> host: from lakeland, minnesota, a a viewer that is
12:34 pm
undecided, derek, good morning. >> caller: "good morning america", good morning cspan. i tell you, this is exactly what's wrong. o he brings up donald trump, brings brings up the highest turnout in primaries and gop history. then you have a bunch of people like the never trump whoor actually are worse than the worst liberal progressive democrat because can see all ths people in the primaries who don't support him, who put put their ward out there that they would support the candidate and yet they don't. john kasich in ohio didn't even show up for the convention. t you guys are just throwing so much fodder on the table against the gop candidates that you'rere ruining your party and you don'e even know it. >> host: okay will get a response. thanks derek. >> guest: i hear people say that
12:35 pm
all the time, were ruining the party. the party is ridding itself by putting donald trump on the ticket. a party is supposed to stand for principle. it's not like a sports team that dons a uniform and whoever is wearing the jersey, you root for because they are in that jersey. a political party is supposed to stand for principle. i hear people all the time say, by me not voting for donald trump, that means effectively i'm supporting hillary hillary because i would ordinarily support republican. wait a minute. i ordinarily support conservatives and people who, for example, uphold american alliances, who don't try to threaten that they will order od american troops to commit war crimes. i don't support people who are against the free market system in the way that donald trump is against the free market system in international trade. i don't ordinarily support candidates who are dishonest.
12:36 pm
by not supporting donald trump and by not supporting hillary clinton, i am behaving as i would ordinarily behave. a political party has to be held to a certain set of principles for it to be bible going forward. it's not just a bunch of people getting together and vying for power. to be honest, if the republican party is going to be a partyno that nominates people like donald trump, that nominateses people with the values of donald trump, i would like to see it be it has no purpose going forward in this country except the destructive purpose of these are the people who it will continue to nominate and support. to the extent that a party a abandons its principles, it is no longer of value. parties should organize around principles. >> host: glenn who is following you at david a french says the following, he is undecided, he is not alone. >> guest: no, i am not alone. it's remarkable the number of
12:37 pm
people who will talk to me. they are at a loss. there at a complete loss. this is an election where the party elite of both parties failed utterly. think about what the democratic party did. we've talked a lot about the republican party. there are very many talented progressives, and i'm not progressive, i'm, i'm conservative, but there are many talented progressives who couldr have run for the nomination but many of them looked at hillary clinton and said it's her turn. it's nobody's turn to beth president of the united states. here is a person who is tainted by handle. i can tell you, as of armored tag officer in the military, someone who handle classified information, was responsible to investigate and prosecute peoplf who mishandled classified information, had i treated classified information the way she and her aides did, i would be negotiating a plea bargain to avoid a court-martial.
12:38 pm
that's what i would be doing yet the democratic elite dragged her over the finish line, a combination of superdelegates, large dollars that pulled her past bernie sanders, i like there's a lot of people on the democratic side of the aisle who are resentful of that. there are many people from both sides will come to me and say what is why are these two choices right now. i hope, at the end of the day, when the records clears from this election cycle, both parties will learn a valuable lesson in that lesson is you focus around principles, not personalities or family dynasties. >> host: our next collar is from harry truman's hometown in independence, missouri. she is a supporter of donaldld trump.t >> caller: it's good to see you
12:39 pm
again, one of these days you will get your own debate. i want want to ask mr. french what the sip subscription looks like at national review these days after they've gone on a trier tirade of trump. they don't let you make comments anymore because they're all negative and i'm not the biggest fan of donald trump, but i really, really detest hillaryld and i would do nothing to help her get elected. these are the two choices that we have. i'm not fond of them either, but this is what we've got. this is what the republicans gave us and you can look in the mirror to see why. it's people like you who say yes we need to do this. you have given us crappy, crappy candidates for the past i don't know how many years, and you tell us you have to vote for them because of the republican and we have dutifully done that and when we get one that you
12:40 pm
don't like, zero oh my gosh, the world is going to come to an end. i'm just sick of it. i'm sick to death of it and ifif we lose, you can look in the mirror. >> host: can use down the line. >> caller: i sure can. >> host: let's give david a chance to comment and that will give you a chance. >> guest: if you have a facebook account, you can facebook on comment all you want. who is the we. i am not part of the trump movement. he does not. >> guest: me in any way shape or form.s the team that i want to work on our people who are honest and have integrity and speak with conviction and have true principles and have shown them and displayed moral candidates. >> host: who would've been the ideal candidate this year. >> guest: i don't think we had an ideal candidate. i think we had 14 or 13 or 14
12:41 pm
people who had better values than donald trump. the majority of republicans recognize that because the majority of republicans didn't vote for donald trump. i would've preferred rubio or tedvo cruz and i criticized john kasich strongly but compared to donald trump, i would crawl over broken glass to vote for john kasich over hillary clinton. the problem with donald trump is not that he wasn't my favorite candidate and i want to take my ball and go home because i was a cruise guy or rubio guy, that would be fit pitching politics that people engage in. the problem with donald trump as he is not fit to be president of the united states. anybody who threats their and threatens the existence of nato taste on americans history and position in the world, a sixth-grader should know that he lacks that level of knowledge.
12:42 pm
he is somebody who is not fit to be president of the united states. somebody who would repeatedly, for weeks and weeks argue that he is and entitled to order troops to commit more crimes is not fit to be president of the united states. this is the guy who is wrong while outside of the normal parameters. i did not give this candidate to the caller. i tried to stop this candidate. i did not give previous candidates to the caller. what i have always urged and what conservatives like me in a number of movements have always urged is to consider character and integrity and moral principles in voting for a o candidate. donald trump has one goal and that's to them advance his interest. he is not fit to be president ot advaunited states. neither is hillary clinton. she is focused on advancing her own power. honesty and integrity doesn't
12:43 pm
matter to either one of these individuals. if you vote, don't forget there are two election cycles in play here. if donald trump were to win, you are tied to him in 2020 as well. that means for two full olympich cycles, the gop would be tied around a man with no character,e no integrity and that could do permanent harm, not just to the party but to the country. >> one other point and will go back to you. you wrote that donald trump insisted that nato could be obsolete which is music to vladimir putin's ear. >> guest: vladimir putin is trying to reassert russian dominance in the near,y he is also going for dominance in the middle east and many other areas that matter in geopolitics. the primary power is nato. the primary check against
12:44 pm
russian expansion is nato. if you undermine nato, if you give off a signal that there are some nato partners that we will not honor our tree treaty obligations with, you will encourage russian aggression. you will give russia greater a freedom of action in russia. remember, this is already a nation that has invaded and annexed part of the ukraine. it's already demonstrated military aggression that is more reminiscent of the old great power rivalries than this new century that were supposed to be a part of. anytime there is american weakness, this is just something that americans need to understand, when there is american weakness, that creates a power vacuum that somebody will fill. the entity that will fill that power vacuum is almost always not one of our allies but one of our if you create a power vacuum in eastern europe, russia fills that vacuum.
12:45 pm
russia grows in greater power as we recede and have lesser power. that is not good for the american people or american interest. it's not good for the american way of life. donald trump just threatens that. despite the fact that we haver had, since 1945, we have not had a global war. that global war. that means millions of lives saved and prosperity for millions and billions of people and yet you threaten that order out of a child's understanding of geopolitics. in fact, i have met children who are smarter in geopolitics than donald trump has acknowledged himself to be. that is deeply upsetting. >> host: our guest is a former major in the u.s. army reserves. he is currently a staff writer for national review, briefly considered his own independent bid. janice, thanks for waiting, i give you a chance to follow up. >> caller: he certainly is long-winded, if nothing
12:46 pm
i just cannot understand, we are in a much weaker position than we were eight years ago but because some people think it's okay to have hillary in their and you are saying, you don't want her either, you are going to get one of them.. whether you like it or not, one of them is going to be elected. i think, in my mind, hillary is hillary is going to do much more damage than donald trump.. c he can do some damage, but what i'm kind of hoping for is that he is going, he just wants to win and then he will turn it over to mr. pence and let mr. pence run the country and he would be better than any of the four that are up there. even if he doesn't, i am sick of the spineless republicans whoe have spent more time out of office this year because they have to raise money and they don't do the job that there'd there to do and everybody says they're going to come in pitch in and get it done but they never do. we are sick and tired of that and all the games that they play
12:47 pm
and being looked down on for being key party members. you're all disgraceful. >> host: ladies and gentlemen, that's 11 of the reasons we have donald trump. the problem we have here is that we have two candidates who are completely unfit, people who are extremely angry, as this caller is angry and yet they look at donald trump and in spite of absolutely zero evidence that this guy listens to his advisors over the long-term, this guys ego allows anyone else to shine or this guy will allow anyone else to lead him or really advise him strongly, they say g well he's going to win and then he will feed it all to mike pence. that is diluted wishful thinking. that's what that is.s. d it is sad to see. how many times does donald trump have to demonstrate that he listens to know counsel other than himself.
12:48 pm
the man was up tweeting about aa ms. universe at three in the morning a couple days ago. that's ridiculous. that's absurd. that is not somebody who is in any form or under any control on what they do. between hillary clinton and donald trump, the reason i am undecided, i honestly don't know which one is worse. there are things that i do think donald trump has a chance to be better. there's a chance he will nominate better judges than hillary clinton. there's a chance he will be better on the second amendment on hillary clinton. there's a chance that hillary clinton will be better than trump on foreign policy.y. don't think she will destroydonh nato or violate our security arrangements with south korea. i don't think she will be as destabilizing in the international sphere as donald trump could possibly be. for everyone thing where i say there's a chance trump could do better than hillary, there's there's another area where i sah hillary could do better than trump. that's not because hillary's
12:49 pm
good, it's because trump is that bad. that's not a message people want to hear. people want to hear message that says go vote for somebody in america is going to be better. sorry, we are past us. america, these are the candidates you chose. don't give me this you force this on me, you made me do this. no, you chose, you chose these candidates. the american people chose these candidates and they might be angry about it, but they did it and now they have to live with it.. my view is we have to maintain and preserve a core of people id this country who understand that party is about principles not just power. then we have to rebuild from the wreckage of this election. from this election we will have a choice. are we going to double down on. power politics and familyge and dynasty or are we going to double down on principle and courage and conviction in character. that is why there is a necessity
12:50 pm
for a never trump movement on the conservative side to not bou the knee to donald trump who will stand up in 2017, regardless of who wins and say we need to rebuild the party around principles, not around personalities or celebrities and not around the blind pursuit of power. >> host: this caller says he doesn't listen to his advisors now. let's go to valdes enable tenn illinois, a supporter of donald trump. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm not as angry as janice but i have heard him talk about principles and morals and all that. when is the last time we have had any principles at all about anything. the american people are fantastic. it's the people at the top who are ruining everything in worldh
12:51 pm
history shows that. you've never seen a workingit class destroy an economy or society. it has always been the elite. my point is this, i'm not the usual supporter of donald trump and i believe he has made some promises that he can't keep. i said here is a retired state police from california, an army veteran, veteran, i don't have any debt, never have, i'm in perfect shape and don't have any worries whatsoever outside of just living. i'm going to watch people believe that we can bring jobs back. that's not going to happen. hoping the american people completely explode and have enough of this 240 years of promises that have never beenn k kept. that's my point. i'd like to see some of the do something, but when you have people in both parties with complete corruption, out here in illinois, we have a former speaker of the house that nobody ever talks about, a homosexual pedophile, let's be serious. is this the kind of people we want? mr. french, please go ahead. >> guest: one of the things that i think we all have to look at, we all have to look at her subs
12:52 pm
in the mirror because america, in america, we vote for our leaders.they d i have heard this said again and again and again. the elite fail, the the elite fail. yes, they did.d the elite did fail. they made a series of blunders and a put us in terrible positions internationally, there have been a series of blunders that have put us in a bad position economically, but you know what, responsibility responsibility runs every direction in this country.esponb voters are responsible for their vote. leaders are responsible for the way they lead. 14 million people voted for donald trump at 14 million people made a mistake. 14 million adults, who have have the capacity to make decisions,. made a mistake. more people than that voted for hillary clinton. they made a mistake. by putting those two people at the head of their party, they made a mistake. we often come in this country, we say it's a great input of the american people. they're never the never wrong.
12:53 pm
people are people. we are all fallen, we all all make mistakes. we all have responsibilities to each other. what we are seeing in the election of 2016 is a mutual failure. the elite failed, and the people failed. i would disagree with the notion that the working class is nevers caused countries, that there has never been a failure of the working class that has harmed an nation and its history. we are dealing with a collapse of the family in this country that is horribly negative for the future of this country. nobody is making people divorce. nobody is making people commit adultery's or pop pills or drink too much. r we have have a culture in this country that right now, particularly in the working class of the country, leaking into the middle class and belowk where people are making terriblr choices that are harming their future and their children's future. there is not a lot of great news culturally in the united states of america.
12:54 pm
the elite is not all that elite the millions of the voting public have put forward to unfit candidates for the presidency, that doesn't happen because there's some small group of people in some room who are just handing down bag candidates. that happens because you have millions of people making choices and in this instance, many people made bad choices. then nation is extremely resilient and capable of bouncing back. our nation is capable of making better choices and i believe that it will in 2020. we just have to preserve enough people who are focused ond integrity and courage and the courage of their convictions to rebuild from this political disaster. >> host: half a minute left, very quickly, what's your assessment of control of the senate in the next congress? b >> guest: so much of it depends on what happens at the top of the ticket although there are indicators that the could be more split ticket voting this year. i think the republicans have a better chance to hold onto the
12:55 pm
senate than they thought six weeks ago. i would call it a tossup. the house looks like it will stay republican so even if hillary clinton wins which appears likely but not certain, there will be checks on her power. >> host: david french is our guest today, he at one point considered his own presidential bid. thank you for being our guest today. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> a lard in chennai picture from the briefing room where we will bring you today's briefing with josh earnest. it's focus on an event called south by south on. there are also questions on donald trump's tax revelations and campaign 2016. the briefing is getting underway live on c-span2. while we wait, look at the supreme court new term which begins today.
12:56 pm
>> from capitol hill with the u.s. supreme court, good monday morning. thank you for being with us. >> the morning. >> let me begin on a couple points you been making about the supreme court. you have to go back more than 100 years back to 1864 when the court was not fully staffed. how does that impact the fall term? >> just to specify, it was 18 sick before that we went into election day without nine justices on the court. this is pretty much uncharted water for the current members of the court will never experienced anything like this. they have an incentive not to take any issues on which they think they could split four - 4 because they are one just a short period it's unclear when
12:57 pm
the next justice will be appointed. there's a lot of uncertainty and they are not sure how this term will play out. >> this is the story from to follow up, you say you say the court has yet to take up any cases of politically social issues in its term. as you show they are showing a keen interest in more technical cases like intellectual property on the issue of ip, what case or cases will the court take up? >> the biggest case is a patent case between samsung and apple. that's a big-money case that will be argued next week. another case that's slightly less high profile is one they took up last week which is the
12:58 pm
trademark case involving an asian american rock band that wanted to trade trademark there name even though it has a history of a racial slur so that is being watched closely because it will affect a similar case with the washington redskins football team that has trademark the u.s. patent and trademark it because the historical context of the redskins. >> what could the court decide on what impact do on the nfl team. >> if they rule in favor of this rock band, it will effectively strike down a law that prevents people from trademarking terms that are deemed to be disparaging. if they win this case out right,
12:59 pm
that would mean the redskins also in the case. if they lose, there are still ways in which the redskins could win their case. >> there's also a case involving a woman who posted her toddler dancing to the music of prince and you're calling it a quirky copyright law case. >> they haven't decided if they will hear that case but they will in a couple months. that comes out a youtube where people post videos of their kids dancing to music and so on which a lot of people have done. the issue is when the record company sold this woman to take them the video because she was using a prince song, whether they missed but her because she had to take it down when in fact the copyright lawyer said your allowed to use snippets of music
1:00 pm
it is not key to the video. >> ohio is a key battleground state for democrats and republicans, hillary clinton will be there later today. what did the court decide not to do. >> the court has three emergency actions in the past month or so involving the election. there's one from michigan one from north carolina. the common theme has been wanting the court to stay out of it. both democrats and rebuttal can have benefited in different states from those decisions. the court is split four to four and at the divisive issue of election voting rights and they are keen to stay out of those. >> let me ask you about the nomination of garland and the
1:01 pm
politics behind all that. the post said he did nothing to inspire the left wing of the democratic party which was already vocal and reckless while mitch mcconnell picked a fight to ignite his debate. it is rare that the gop is united with party leaders but this did it. talk about the garland nomination, why the president chose him, the politics behind mitch mcconnell and what could happen before the next president is wanted. >> when he was nominated, maybe there was a needle that the administration could read that would go along the court. it was a high stake move with a thought if we pick someone who's uncontroversial and well-respected a moderate that would put pressure on the republicans to let him through.
1:02 pm
but because senator mcconnell, almost within hours of justice scalia's death in february said no way, were not going to appoint anyone because it's an election year, nothing the democrats have been able to do has dislodged that. most of the republicans have stayed behind that message as well and it's been hard going for them to break through. at this point it hasn't worked in the short-term. in the long-term we still have the election to come and people watching this may say that if hillary clinton wins election and the democrats gain a seat from the senate that might put pressure on the republicans to move in the lame-duck session after the election before the next president takes office. that could be garland/chance to get on. in that scenario, if the republicans don't have with the nomination then hillary clinton
1:03 pm
is free when she takes office to pick whomever she wants. she doesn't have to stick with garland and she hasn't pledged that she would so his chances might go once the next president takes office. >> me take this one step further when republicans wake up and realize hillary will pick the next justice will they push through garland and run out the clock. if that were to happen, if the republicans that we will move on the nomination after the election, before the next president is sworn in, what would senator mcconnell have to say to his colleagues? >> just by collating, might be that the pressure comes from the republican members rather than from mcconnell himself. i'm not sure. there's already been some
1:04 pm
republicans i have been indicating that they might be willing to do something in the lame-duck session if hillary clinton wins because mr. garland is well-respected and moderate and well thought of. if they were to get them on the court, they might think another conservative might think that's a better option than have hillary clinton come in and pick someone who is more liberal. >> in the cases that you have been writing about that about the trends gender rights, what is this all about. >> this is the case out of virginia and it's a national issue now but this is the first one to come up from virginia about a high school student who was born a girl but is now living out of as a boy and wants to use the boys restroom and a court in virginia, the appeals court including some of obama
1:05 pm
appointees ruled in his favor for transgender rights and there's other cases like this coming up around the country to. now there is an appeal of the supreme court. the question is will they weigh into this case even other short of justice. the story i wrote was talking about reasons they might want to skip it at this point because they got other cases they can pick up when they have another justice in this only affects one student in virginia. >> the wall street journal is writing about a vacancy and what a hillary clinton presidency could mean. they said it could set the stage for a liberal majority on the supreme court, something not seen since the retirement of chief justice earl warren back in 1969. that led to a number of appointments by richard nixon.
1:06 pm
>> despite that, there have been some liberal supreme court decisions in that time, especially recently because of kennedy who was a conservative and fought on many cases like gay marriage and abortion last year. we've had a conservative leaning in courts and if hillary clinton wins the election there's us aspect for her not to just replace scalia's appointment appointment but atop one or two other justices as two of the justices on the court are 78 or older. >> the supreme court is directly behind him, you can follow them online at that lawrence hurley talking about today from the start of a new term of the u.s. supreme court. joining us on the independent line, good morning. good morning gentlemen you stole my thunder and what hasn't been
1:07 pm
mentioned as the congress, the senate under mitch, has done something that is on the face, unconstitutional. there was nothing in the constitution that suggests a president cannot nominate a supreme court justice in his last year of office. i think it's important to mention that senator hatch who is not a leap from liberal by any stretch of the imagination indicated prior to this debacle that mr. garland was the best nominee that the republicans could hope for and i'm wondering about the court that approves citizens united. something has to happen to reverse this absolute aberration where corporations now our
1:08 pm
people and we have to kowtow to this particular situation where billionaires control our elections. i would like you to comment, if you would circle on those particular aspects. >> thank you, from florida. >> guest: on the issue of who gets to decide who the next justices, obviously it's the president's job to nominate a justice, but it's the senate's job under the constitution to advise and consent on those nominations. the position of mitch mcconnell and the republicans is that the president can nominate whoever he wants, we don't have to approve that nomination and in fact, what what they've done is not do anything on the nomination. it's also true that it's unprecedented to take the
1:09 pm
hard-line not know president can appoint a justice in an election year because it has happened in the past and has happened quite a lot in the past. both sides have their points and ultimately, with these issues, there is no one to referee those disputes so goes on to the election. >> host: let's go to lee in new york, republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was upset about the supreme court for one's reason because justice ginsburg got on five different media media outlets and demonize donald trump. even though she apologized later, we see where we are going there. as far as justice garland is concerned, even though he's more respected, i understand he is against the second amendment and he is for multiple epa rulings. it goes down the line with loretta lynch when the irs was
1:10 pm
investigated. they were told that breaking confidence is not a criminal offense when hillary clinton was investigated. i'm out of breath. they said she was not viable for criminal either. things started going down the line. even with irs, it seems in 2012, romney might've been the next president except for the irs. i will take my comments off-line >> host: thank you. >> guest: on judge garland's record, he has been on the appeals court in washington for almost 20 years. the court in washington here's a lot of administrative law cases which is regulatory cases so he has rolled on things like environmental regulations and he
1:11 pm
has been fairly supportive of regulations after that time. that's fairly common among judges on that court. the record on gun lobby, it has kind of come together on one vote he had which doesn't tell us a lot where he stands on guns because he hasn't actually ruled or written an opinion on a case that was a key case. >> host: charlie, the archbishop archbishop of washington d.c. who presided over yesterday's catholic mass, the traditional red mass that took place at st. matthew's cathedral, he walked down the steps with the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, joined, john roberts, joined by a number of other justices including justice alito and kennedy. what's the history behind this mass in the tradition? >> guest: it's been going on first quite some time where they have this legal community
1:12 pm
service before the supreme court term and obviously in recent years, the court has become more and more people like catholic justice. up until scalia's death it was six of the nine. now it is five. there is that strong tradition there. >> host: we go to david joining us from new jersey. he was just a few blocks from the white house. democrats line also, the church were john f. kennedy mass took place back in november 1953. go ahead david. >> caller: thank you both. you both. what is considered the most realistic for a number of supreme court justices who could be replaced within the first term of the next president? >> host: thank you david. >> guest: as i mentioned earlier , three other current justices are over the age 78 and there is a current vacancy on the court.
1:13 pm
including the scalia vacancy, one might think that justice ginsburg who is 83 could be thinking about stepping aside and more difficult to hear perhaps would be justice kennedy who is 80 who is a republican appointee. he may be more keen to be replaced by a republican president. justice breyer is the other one, he is 78. >> host: good afternoon everybody. >> it's nice to see you all. as you can see i am joined by special guest today. earlier this year the president traveled to sxsw where he challenged tech leaders, creators and entrepreneurs to leverage the latest technology and most innovative approaches to solve some of our country's toughest challenges. today he is bringing that call to action to the white house, to the south lawn to be precise, in
1:14 pm
the first ever sxsw festival. it celebrates the work of everyday americans who are using cutting-edge technology, art, film and innovative fit thinking to shape a better future for americans and across the globe. let me introduce the leaders standing next to me. i will give them an opportunity to speak briefly and we will open it to questions you may have for them. to my right is the ceo of the workers lab, and innovation lab that invest in entrepreneurs, community leaders and technologist to support new ways for working power. still her as a bronze star medalist of the korean war and he helps create pathways out of poverty through technology. daniel dash is a activist and writer who advocates for more humane and inclusive industry.
1:15 pm
like i said, we will give each of them an opportunity to offer brief comments about what they are going to do at the white house today and then we will give you a chance to ask questions. >> good afternoon everyone. i am really excited to be here. this is a real honor for us at the workers lab to be able to share some of the most cutting-edge technology, enterprises and organizations that are transforming conditions for working people in the u.s. in particular, we are excited to announce the launch of a digital platform called together we work which is focused on offering young people who work a set of digital tools to organize and amplify and tell their stories and connect with each other. thank you for having me. >> hello everyone. it's an honor for me to be here. my organization creates pathways
1:16 pm
out of poverty through technology training in queens which is the world's most diverse community. for us as the technology sector continues to change all sectors and our economy, we hope everyone has the opportunity to not only learn but get amazing jobs and technology help create these companies and innovations of the future. our program is really fortunate to focus on the 65% of new yorkers who don't go to college. i think most americans don't go to college and if you never go to college, your average lifetime income in new york is $27,000. year. for us going through the program, we've the program, we've raised peoples average income from $18000 starting out to $85,000 a year after the program. at the same time represents the diversity of queens which is half women, 60% black or hispanic and half immigrant. we feel if we can do it there
1:17 pm
and help support the growth in new york technology community, we have communicated communities across america that can have access to the opportunities and help grow our organization. >> thank you. working in the tech industry, we hear people talk about tech and their desire to change the world and it's exciting to see the dots get connected from that event to sxsw where we will have conversations with people doing the work and impacting their communities like the organizations we've heard from in civil rights. taking that technology and connecting it to art and film and music and other disciplines and seeing the impact we have in helping our communities and neighborhoods ends cities. >> okay, question question for the leaders who are here today?
1:18 pm
[inaudible conversation] sometimes it's harder to get out of here than it is to get in. [laughter] hopefully we won't be testing that proposition with me today, but we will see. obviously we are really excited about all of the activities associated with the sxsw and those of you who are interested will have opportunities to cover today and it will also be live streamed. fortunately the weather cooperated and it should be really a terrific event. i'm happy to talk to you about that or anything else that's on your mind. >> what was the reaction to the donald trump attack.
1:19 pm
[inaudible] >> i have not spoken to them about the story. what i can tell you is you heard the president on a number of occasions, since his first year in office, talk about the need to ensure that we have a tax code that is consistent with a smart economic strategy, but also a tax code that is fair. the president has worked hard, one of his most prominent campaign promises in 2008 was to make the tax code more fair while at the same time protecting tax cuts that middle-class families benefit from. in the context of the recovery act that was passed within the first couple of months of the president taking office, there there were significant tax cuts included for small businesses. other tax cuts that were targeted at middle-class families and after the president's reelection in 2012,
1:20 pm
you will recall he was able to reach a breakthrough agreement with republicans in congress to raise taxes on the wealthiest americans. this was the first time that the republicans in congress had voted to raise taxes in a couple of decades. the president has made this, made fairness in our tax code a top priority. again because he believes in the principle of fairness but also because he believes it's the smartest way for esper's intent to pursue substantial growth in the united states. the president is hopeful that he will be succeeded in office by a president who is committed to not just pursuing but furthering that strategy. [inaudible] >> and it gets difficult for anybody to draw a firm conclusion about that without having an opportunity to take a
1:21 pm
look at all the data. i recognize that the subject of some dispute on the campaign trail. what i will say is mr. trump's tax strategies aside, the president believes that we could do some very helpful things to the economy by closing loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and well-connected in using the revenue from those closed loopholes to invest in things like infrastructure, investing community college for every hard-working american student. these are the kind of things that we know would be good for our economy both in the short term but also a strong foundation for a long-term economic growth. that's the strategy that the president has pursued and frankly he did that before we knew all that much about the tax strategies that were designed by the republican nominees. >> also, what is the white house reaction to russia decision to suspend the deal on.
1:22 pm
[inaudible] >> i've seen those were sports as of this morning. this is an announcement that we are disappointed by. the decision by the russians to unilaterally withdraw from this commitment is disappointing. the reason for that is this agreement that went into force in 2011 pledge the disposal of thousands of nuclear weapons of plutonium. this was an agreement that was reached by the united states and russia because we are the two countries that have the largest amount of this material and both leaders in russia and the united states have made non- proliferation a priority. the united states is interested in limiting proliferation and
1:23 pm
reduce the risk associated with nuclear terrorism. again, we know russians leadership has recognized this risk. the united states has been set back since 2011 in implementing our side of the bargain and we would like to see the russians continue to do the same thing. >> to think it's fair to the spirit of issue. [inaudible] >> listen, obviously these are two different issues and we have made clear that our relationship with the russians is quite complex. there are areas where the united states and russia haven't been able to work effectively to advance our shared interest. we want to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon and that wouldn't have been possible without the cooperation of
1:24 pm
russia. they understand the national security consequences of this. the united states and russia have been able to coordinate our efforts in terms of being able to isolate the north koreans for their destabilizing activities on the insula. that was obviously a positive development and strengthens our hand as we deal with a situation there. >> we talked a lot about how the united states and russia were able to work together to dispose of the aside chemical weapons stockpile in syria. i'm in agreement that would have not been possible without the ability of the united states and russia to be able to work together. was obviously been quite disappointed about a range of decisions both inside syria and in ukraine. unfortunately the announcement
1:25 pm
about the plutonium management is more in line with those kinds of decisions that are deep in russia's isolation in the international community. the arrangement is one that does reflect the shared priorities of our two countries. we are hopeful that they will recognize that. >> what is the united states next step or move after they decided. [inaudible] the president was obviously very involved with this. >> obviously the president had an opportunity to visit in new york. the expectation was by colombian
1:26 pm
voters and that's not what occurred. it's a sovereign country and a democracy and the leaders had made a commitment to give the voters the opportunity away and on that agreement. the margin was quite narrow. the good news is that all of the parties, even the farc leaders in the opposition leader indicated a commitment to achieve peace. i know president santos and his team was focused on figuring out at the negotiating table to figure out what they can do to move forward. we are hopeful they will be able to settle on a path that leads
1:27 pm
to the kind of negotiated settlement and negotiating peace that all of the parties have indicated they would like to see. united states thus far has played a constructive and trying to facilitate this kind of agreement and we stand ready even through our special envoy. [inaudible] >> the process from here is going to be dictated by president santos and the colombian government. obviously that will be ultimately determined when we hear comments from fark about how to move forward. we hope all sides will be focused on the goal and we want to encourage them to pursue that
1:28 pm
pact. it's also important to be consistent with the promises they made to the colombian people and the will of the colombian people. democracy can be messy at times. the good news is, all sides, including the voters are still focused on reaching this negotiated peace and its certainly in the interest of the united states to in this war and we will encourage all types doing pursue that piece. [inaudible]
1:29 pm
>> the united states is strongly committed to the alliance that we have with the philippines. they were able to attest that commitment when he traveled to the philippines a year ago and met with predecessor. you recall there was an event in manila where there was a navy or coast guard vessel that have been transferred to the filipino government for use of their maritime operations. this was a u.s. coast guard vessel that have been transferred to the filipinos to enhance their maritime security. that's an indication of the kind of partnership. :
1:30 pm
a in which the united states and the united states military has benefited the philippine know people. both in term of adding resources to the maritime security effort. there are u.s. forces that work closely with counterterrorism and security force friday the philippines to address an extremist threat in that country. the united states military was also instrument wall in helping mobilize response to a deadly typhoon. so our response that certainly
1:31 pm
was instrumental in meeting the needs of thousands of filipinos who had been negatively affect bid the devastating storm. so, that's the kind of relationship that you would expect between two treaty allies and the united states is held in high regard by the philippine know -- filipino people and we are committed to strengthening the alliance. >> to what extent does that affect those goals and do you take seriously the threats and the -- of the cooperation agreement and are you concerned about growing influence of china as a result of hoe hostility i mentioned? >> well, i -- as related to the defense agreement, it is a binding one ask there's a formal process for withdrawing from it
1:32 pm
or changing it, and i'm not aware that process has been commenced in any way. with regard to the efforts of the filipino government to form relationships with other countries in the region, there are a variety of other examples, other allies of the united states seeking to strengthen their relationship with other countries, including china. so i've been asked this question in the -- and prime minister abe of japan when they had conversations with other chinese officials. we have said the united states believes it's in our interests for our closest friends the asia-pacific to have an effective working relationship with the china, and sometimes it's difficult to determine precisely what the president's
1:33 pm
intent is, in offering public comments, but if his intent is to seek a more effective relationship with china, that doesn't undermine u.s. positioning in that region of the world, and that's certainly been true with regard to our relationship with south korea and japan, who obviously have their own diplomatic relationship with china as well. michelle? >> when you were asked about donald trump and the documents that came out over the past couple of days, you mentioned the fair tax code and you mentioned -- are you saying that what happened here, the claiming of a nearly billion dollar oh, that could have led to not paying taxes, is that unfair and is that illegal? >> again, the -- i'll let others opipe on the political ram folk indications. we regard to specific details of
1:34 pm
tax arrangements it's a little hard to draw. that conclusion without seeing the tax returns. thes and thus far he has not released them. i'll let supreme with more expertise to weigh in and what it says about his approach to doing business. the president's priorities appear to be different, but are deeply held and these priorities for a more fair tax code, that advantages the middle class and closes loopholes that ben it in wealthy, thosele policies president obama cam patched on in 2008 and has been pursuing in' office and our success in making progress in making our tax code more fair is at least part of what we would attribute our strengthening economy, and our falling deficit to. there are a variety of contributing factors, of course,
1:35 pm
but there's no denying that making tax cuts permanent for middle class families, and expanding tax cuts that benefit middle class families in child kay tax credit and credits on cooling tuition are good for the u.s. economy and make the economy more fair, and make the tax code more fair. so that's been our approach and one of the president's priority. >> several times we heave seen a popular vote go deeply against u.s. goals or projected outcomes for what the u.s. would have liked to have seen happen. we have heard the president several times say that he doesn't think that the american people will elect donald trump, but when you see around the world these popular votes going in a direction that may not have been expected, does that cause
1:36 pm
him to rethink what he was been saying about the upcoming u.s. election. >> the first thing i would say is i have a lot more confidence in the kind of rigorous analysis been done of the u.s. presidential election than obviously i would of the colombian political system. seems look a more difficult system to analyze. i think we knew all along that was going to be close, and i think the president has also gone to great lengths to make it clear that it's important for the american people not to be complacent and i think it will be evident in the five weeks or so that reman in this race that president obama intends to make a very vigorous case in support of secretary clinton because of his deeply held feelings about the race and about who he would like to succeed him that and is
1:37 pm
consistent with not member who takes the outcome for granted but rather somebody who is determined to not he people be complacent because they think the know what the outcome will be. >> as we see obama on at the trail, including this week, is he going to change the message? going to be a much the same as what we heard before? >> i don't have remarks -- the president will have an opportunity to speak wednesday night in south florida, and i'm not aware that the president's intending to change his strategy but i think those of you who have been following the president's public commentses have noticed the present that is tailored his remarks to the audience he is addressing and also to the news environment in which he is delivering the remarks. i anticipate he will do a similar thing on wednesday. >> in last couple of week we had
1:38 pm
audio from secretary kerry said he mocked the argument with the administration for using military force in syria. it that an argument that he continues to make? >> my understanding is that he delivered that -- he made that declaration in the context of discussing the appropriate response on the part of the united states to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons. the president made exactly the same argument. made an argue to the congresses they should authorize the use of military force. that argument did know prevail but the president has made the case that the outcome has been a good one, that the outcome of that situation is that the assad regime did declare they had chemical weapons, something they stated for the first time. the united states was able to work effectively with the russians to round up that declared chemical weapons
1:39 pm
stockpile, collect it and destroy it successfully, and that did reflect the ability of the united states and russia to work together to get that done. that didn't just prevent the assad regime from being able to use the chemical weapons against innocent civilians and prevent the chemical weapons from falling into insides of terrorist that have overrun the country. the proliferation risk that was eliminated by destroying the chemical weapons is significant. and that is the in outcome i was referring to. obviously the situation in syria continues to be quite troubling, and the willingness of the assad regulartime, for example to weaponize chlorine and otherwise -- a compound that hayes many industrial uses but uses that as a weapon is an indication of the deprave of the
1:40 pm
regime and the evidence of the -- by taking the chemical weapons stockpile out of his hand. >> the state department announced we have suspended diplomatic consultation with russia over syria. is president president obama's e with putin officially at an sentenced. >> i think everybody's patience with russia has run out. they've also spent a great deal of credibility in making a series of commitments without any clear that's were committed to following them. so what we have seen from the russians in year or so since their military intervention in syria is they have not made much progress against isil. they claim the reason they're in syria is to fight extremists, but they haven't made a significant -- they haven't
1:41 pm
achieved a significant counter-isil objective in more than seven months and have been reduced to trying to claim credit for successful u.s. operations. i'm referring. to the u.s. strike that took adnani after the battlefield, a certainly isil external plotter and russia was in the position where they were rather to pate include trying to take credit. you recall that when russia announced this military intervention in syria a year or so ago, they did so with the intent to, quote, unite a broad range of forces. well, here we are year later and russia is standing alone with iran, trying to prop up the assad regime while the rest of the international community rebukes them for the tactics they used inside of syria and while the rest of the international community works
1:42 pm
with the united states as part or our coalition to go after icele and other extremists operating inside of syria. there's also not a whole lot that robert at this point has to show for their effort's the ground. they're in a stalemate and, again, they've been reduced to either act unilaterally or supporting the iranians in dropping bunker busting bombs on civilian hospitals in aleppo. it's outrageous and it's drawn international condemnation from countries around the world and the united states, and that's not an indication of a military force that is enjoying a lot of progress on the ground, but it is part of the concerted strategy we have seen from the russians and the syrians to try to bomb civilian populations into submission, and they've had -- enjoyed some limited gains as a result, and it
1:43 pm
appears they're trying to get more that way, but after a year of doing it they don't have a lot to show for their efforts. finally i'll say that much has been written about the theatrics of vladimir putin to try to raise the profile his country on the international stage. so you recall if you traveled to new york with the president in 2015, year ago, president putin delivered at a much hyped speech to u.n. general assembly. he was talking about the commitment of russia to do some of the things i outlined before. a year later, president putin didn't even show up at the united nations general assembly. in part because he rightly assumed that the rest of the international community was prepared to rebuke and condemn the actions he has overseen in that country, and it was while the world was gathered in new york at the u.n. general assembly that it became clear
1:44 pm
that russia was complicit in an day tack against aun humanitarian convoy. so, the goals that robert russia has laid out in advance of their military intervention have not been achieved, and the last thing i'd say about the ongoing -- what had been an ongoing talk between the u.s. and russia and syria, is that from the beginning, president obama was insissant that the united states would not be in a position to provide roush what they want ited which is military cooperation, until russia had demonstrated their commitment to living up to the terms of the agreement. russiaer in never did that. there have been concerns raid that russia was just using the cover of negotiations to try to distract concessions from the
1:45 pm
united states and our coalition partners, or to cover their efforts on the ground, about that's not not true because the united states didn't make any concessions and the world has been quite cognizant and clear and quite critical of what russia has been doing over the last several weeks. >> josh, by cutting off talks this would do you think its going to affect russia's behavior in syria or just condemn the syrians to being bombed until it's all over and the russiases and their sayrean ally win. >> there's nothing more for the united states and russia to talk about. with regard to trying to reach an agreement that would reduce the violence inside of syria. and that's tragic. and you're right, that would likely lead to ongoing russian violence aiding and abetting assad regime forces, means there are likely more syrian people who will get killed. innocent syrian civilians and
1:46 pm
what is happening in syria is tragic. and it is deeply concerning. and it is something that the russians have been complicit in for a year now. okay? andrew. >> is there a diplomatic solution to be found elsewhere? are you considering other options? >> well, the president and his national security team are always pursuing a range of contingency plans, and you recall that when we first began discussing this, even in the context of this room, that we were quite skeptical that russia would live up to the commitments they made. so, the president and his team, as the president as acknowledged a number of occasions, is some things the president has been thinking about and there are
1:47 pm
regular meetings among members of his team to develop options to present to him and that work is going to continue. i don't have any additional announcements at this point about the path we'll pursue, but the international commune continues to be deeply concerned about the situation in syria. >> another issue, this morning -- appeared to -- >> only five weeks to go. >> -- to have post-traumatic stress disorder are week and don't get it or -- [inaudible] >> i think the president is actually answered this quite directly in the town hall he did with michelle's -- last week. and the commander in chief made a firm declaration is it not a
1:48 pm
sign of weakness to get help. in fact it's a sign of character and a sign of strength to ensure you're taking care of yourself, and the president has acknowledged the cultural barriers in the military to changing attitudes about this. we have made in progress on this and that's a testament to the effort odd the president and also a testament to the efforts of the uniform leadership of the united states military to acknowledge that this is a cultural norm that should change. president obama has also ramped up resources at the va and at the department of defense that can be used to treat veterans and service members who sustained unseen wounds in
1:49 pm
combat. and the president also acknowledged the heroism that we have seen from our men and women in uniform who have served this country and with extraordinary courage some unmagically difficult situations. that have gotten help in treating both their physical and mental wounds. and are the picture of resilience. and that's -- that resilience is something that inspires a lot of pride, i think in just about every american. it certainly does in the minds of every american that serves in the white housing are, i'll tell you that.
1:50 pm
[inaudible question] -- could you complain explain the way the u.s. can help and also regarding the $400 billion the president -- what is happening? is the u.s. going to -- millions waiting for the final and certain casualty of the peace process? >> i think the path forward is one that's going to be determined by president santos based on his negotiations with all parties who participated in the peace process, and the goal of the united states has been to try to facilitate the kind of negotiated settlement, negotiated peace, that would bring an end to a long running conflict. in fact the longest running civil war in the hemisphere. so, colombia is a country ask the united states and colombia over the last decade or two have
1:51 pm
been able to work effectively to strengthen the economy and strengthen the security situation inside of colombia, and the united states remains as committed as ever to working closely with the colombian government and the colombian people in pursuit of those, but the next steps in the process will be determined by the colombia government and will do so with a strong support of the u.s. government and the american people. there is a special envoy aaronson will continue to be deeply engaged in the process as well, but we take some satisfaction, despite the electoral setback in seeing the renewed commitment from all parties to the pursuit of peace. >> 400 million? >> i spook to any sort of economic -- can speak to any sort of economic assistance in the pipeline. i'd refer to the state department on that. what i can tell you is that's the united states remain deeply commit ted the strong
1:52 pm
relationship between the united states and colombia, both between our governments and our people, and the united states benefits from a colombia that has a strong economy and a colombia that has addressed some of the security situations, some aspects of the security situation that have been trouble tolling the colombian people. the united states benefits from improvements in those areas and well continue to support the colombian government as they make the decisions nose make the improvement. >> fair to say the united states was surprised be the i numbering colombia? >> i think everybody was surprise bid the outcome. many people expected that the agreement would be ratified and the analysis predicted all of the analysis that was done in advance protected it would be ratified by the colombian people. it wasn't. but -- again, as i was -- i made
1:53 pm
rev reference too with jeff that the president acknowledges democracy is messy some times. the margin was narrow and it's an indication that there is still some work to do to meet the needs and expectations of the colombia people and president santos has committed to addressing those concerns that have been raised as they pursue peace. >> how engaged will the united states being in facilitating the process. would you argue that the united states was not engaged in the process or was tot trying to facilitate or affect the outcome of the vote? >> well, the outcome of the vote is something that the united states was certainly -- the will of colombia people is something that should be suppressed in terms of determining the outcomes and so the united states was not trying to put a thumb on the scale. obviously the united states made clear we were supportive of the process and supportive of the
1:54 pm
negotiatinged sentiments that had come forward and also quite clear in deferring to the sovereignty of the colombia people to make the decision they concluded was in the best interests of their country. but the united states has been gauged in these efforts for a long time. these efforts began measure president bush who was interested in trying to help the colombia gone address the situation. president obama had dispatched a special envoy to assist in facilitating these discussions. president obama actually met with president santos in new york just a couple of weeks other now in the context of the meeting president santos presented president obama a copy of the peace agreement that had been reached. so, i think that's a pretty clear indication this is a process that included u.s. involvement and strong u.s. support, but at each stage we have been quite clear that it's
1:55 pm
ultimately the responsibility of the colombia people to exercise their own judgment about the best interests of their country. >> you continue to say the russians don't have a lot to show for what they've been doing there and that is the stale may. is it really a stalemate? there are indications that aleppo is about to become completely besieged, but it looks like the russians are accomplishing their objective of keep are bashar al-assad in power. do you feel like he is threatened. >> we should just go back and look at what the russian objectives were at the beginning of this enterprise, and what president putin said was they were focused on confronting the extremist threat inside of icele and they -- >> never thought that was really true wonderful said from the beginning they've never sony -- >> in terms of evaluating their objectives, shouldn't we just take president putin at his word? he laid these objectives out at the again of military interception so if we evaluate
1:56 pm
whether his strategy was successful, let's go back to strategy. >> do you really believe that the key objective was to good after extremists or their key objective was to prop up the regime. >> i think russian is rightly and justifiably concerned about the growing extremists threat they face inside of syria. they recognize that there is a risk posed to the prepares they have in sirash also a risk that russia faces back home in fueling extremists so they're mindful of the extremist threat. the whole goal of these negotiations or the most operatessed objective of the russians in the context of the negotiations are in the -- was to extract tract a commitment front the united states we would cooperate with. the and operate jointly in pursuit extremist but over the last seven months russia doesn't have a single significant counter-isil objective they can
1:57 pm
point to achieving. in fact they've been reduced to trying to rather lamely claim credit for the successful operations that the united states and our coalition partners have taken to take extremeis off the battlefield. >> you don't think that propping up the regime was a high priority of the russians. >> i didn't say that. we know that was part of their strategy, too. >> arguably that was a huge part of their objective. no? >> again, i think we can just g back to what president putin said, and if you -- i can do that again or just move on. >> just to look at the situation overall, i would imagine there's a reassessment of what the u.s. is going to do now. is there a scenario that the president can foresee -- he's talk lately about how anguish -- my word -- this whole situation causes him and the limitations of what he feels america can do to address these humanitarian situations. i think there was a hospital that was bombed today.
1:58 pm
>> there was. >> there is something that the president sees that could -- do you think there's something he could see that would cause him to rethink using some level of -- greater level of military engagement to do something there? >> well, ron, it's important to consider -- let's start by saying that the situation inside of sirways nothing sort of heartbreaking and there are reports that one of the few remaining hospitals in eastern aleppo was the victim of a bunker busting bomb today. it is outrageous that a bunker busting bomb would be used to destroy a hospital that was treating innocent people who are caught in cross-fire of this conflict. and there's no mincing words about that. it is immoral, unconscionable and it is an outrage with
1:59 pm
international condemnation which russia and syria and iran have all been on the receiving end of. and for good reason. with regard to u.s. options, we obviously have been very focused on countering icele and other extremist groups that are using the chaos in siras as safe have ven to enclosed and carry out attacks against the united states or our allies allies alle united states has been quite aggressive in taking action against extreme nists mitchell colleagues at the department of defense can tell you there was an operation undertaken today to target this al qaeda leader in syria, al nasri. one of the leading -- one of most senior leaders of the organization, and the united states department of defense took a strike against him just today. that is an indication of how focused the united states military is on taking action against figures who pose a risk to the united states.
2:00 pm
that is of course our number one priority. >> still seems that the regime is not a threat to u.s. national security, therefore the objective is not to go after the regime -- >> what is true is that the political failure of the regime to effectively govern that country has created a chaotic situation that only benefits extremists, and incites violence that fuels extremism. so we're deeply concerned about the political situation in syria, both because of the humanitarian situation we are discussing before and also because of the instability that this adds to an already volatile region of the world, and we know that extremists seek to capitalize on the instability that threatens the united states. so, we have acknowledged all along that while there is great military might that is being used inside of syria to take out extremists and protect the american people that the solution we need inside of syria is a diplomatic one, political


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on