tv Washington Journal Anthony Scaramucci CSPAN June 4, 2018 4:05pm-5:05pm EDT
also on c-span2 tonight, we will hear from stephen holbrooke, who successfully argued three gun cases before the supreme court, at 8:30 p.m. eastern.ist society or watch online, or by using the free c-span radio app. york joining us from new is anthony scaramucci, white house communications director for 10 days, for 11 days? let's get it on the record straight. guest: i sort of say 954,000 seconds now, so that makes me feel a little bit better. so i would say, i guess, 11 days. host: this is the headline, the president slamming the trade critics, saying the u.s. has been ripped off for years. he used twitter yesterday, saying there is an $800 billion disparity between the u.s. and chin an $800 billion disparity between the u.s. and
china. we are now seeing these tariffs with aluminum and steel aimed at the european union, canada, and mexico. do you worry we are alienating our closest allies? guest: i think what the president is saying on the twitter feed is that is an accumulation of trade deficit imbalances that have gone back over five to 15 years. not precise to say that it is 8lionilhis year, but your broer point relates to our allies. i think what the president is trying to say to our allies, and even potential competitors and adversaries, the u.s. needs to reset the way we are involved in helpl trade if we are to the american worker and middle-class families, and increase aggregate demand in our society, something we are having
trouble doing. if you look at the last years of wages, they've been stagnant for 35 years. if you go to some of these trade ter world war ii, we reordered the trading deal so itould be imbalanced against the united states. we did that for a good reason, to create a globally, economically interdependent class which has led to military conflict. the deleterious side effects, the bad side, is we have lost manufacturing jobs. wages in the united states have stagnated as other countries have built their labor forces. i think what the president is saying, we step back, allies and potential competitors, we want free trade to be fair to the united states.
we can no longer accept the imbalances. as well,hat tweet that we are not charging anyone for goods and services flowing into the u.s., yet we are willing to accept embargoes in other nations. we have to knock that out if we want to protect american workers. i inth is the point that is being missed in the conversation. tariff threat is a negotiation to bring people to the table, to see the system that has been in place for the past 75 years, no longer workable for the united states. tot: he will be heading singapore, but let me get your reaction to an interview that aired on this morning's nbc's meet the press, chuck todd with this line of questioning the justin trudeau. our soldiers who had fought
and died together on the beaches of world war ii and in the mountains of afghanistan, and have stood shoulder to shoulder, always there for er. that somehow, this is not something to them -- that this is insulting to them. the idea that diel a milita vehicles in the united states, it is canadian aluminum that makes year fighter jets. that it is somehow a threat? next week, we are hosting did you send it -- the g-7 summit of world leaders. -- was put there in world war ii to protect and aluminum smelter providing to the military efforts. the idea at we are somehow a national security threat to the united states is insulting and unacceable. >> so, what do you feel the president wants from you? >> i don't know. >> you don't know what he wants?
is it nafta? you have no idea? >> he has talked about the fact that he's worried about trade surpluses, trade deficits around the world. they have a $2 billion surplus on steel with us. it's not like the trade is imbalanced against the u.s. is nbc's meet the press, one of the programs we air on c-span. in reference to the national security clause, which the president is using to impose thes tariffs. guest: i have a lot of respect for the prime minister. i understand what he is doing and he is a very adroit politician. he is spinning at a little bit. when the president talks about national security, it is not an exist actual threat -- an existential threat from canada.
he is looking at the map of our steel, iron, and aluminum production, and it has shrunk. and he doesn't want it to shrink further. he wantsn incrsen the market share. say, if you me don't have steel and aluminum, you don't have a country. allowed elements of our manufacturing to a road. but the canadian prime minister is correct. we have a wonderful relationship with canada. we are trading partners. top two or three trading partners in the world, and we need to figure out a way to keep that relationship as harmonious as possible. i think he knows, and his trade negotiators know, as it relates to the renegotiations of nafta, there's a lot of fairness in the president positive proposal. if this is something -- if we
can doubt that the rhetoric, and i know this is something presidents can do. they feel compelled to defend their constituents and their labor force. but if we can take it to a back room and go line by line through these trade agreements, what we will discover, if things are unfair to the united states, let's make them fair. if it is unfair to the canadians, believe it or not, president trump wants to make it more fair. he is for -- and i've said this hundreds of times. remember i was on the campaign with him for years, i was on the transition team. while i was only in the white house for a short time, i was very close with the economic team. the president positive goal is .reer trade but we no longer need to accept the embargoes" is. been able to sell
grand cherokees in japan at the population proportion demand they had in 2008, they would have never had to go bankrupt. we need to clear this up, to clean it up. what the prime minists on half of his country and his citizens, line, also knows, line by where there is elements of unfairness on either side, let's make it fair and sym host those listening at home, our guest is anthony scaramucci. former chief strategy officer for the export/import bank. he is the founder of sky bridge capital, joining us from southampton new york. i'm sure you saw this story yesterday. the president is exempt from histions, according to lawyer. let me share part of what the new york times is reporting. president trump's lawyers have,
for months, quietly waged a campaign to keep the special to answer questions into the investigation into whether he obstructed justice. in a brash assertion of the president cannot contends obstruct any aspect of the investigation because the constitution empowers him to "if you wish, terminate the inquiry, or exercise his power to pardon" -- he does risk exposing himself to accusations of lyin' ted investigations, a pential offense." peachable your reaction. guest: i haven't seen the letter, so i cannot react to the specific send e letter.
but i can react more broadly to the legal strategy and to the thought behind where the president's legal team is going. i think there's three elements there. t yofirst element is obviously want him to be open to bein interviewed, because you don't want anyone to feel that there was any level obstion on behalf of the president or members of his they sort of, in the begning, wanted that door open. secondarily, they wanted to be careful here. under oath, they do't want the president to make in this atement. 'm going to say they are accidental misstatements. his adversaries would say they are intentional, but if you are the president's lawyer, you don't want him to make one, whether accidental or intentional. and the assertion about presidential power. you had my old constitutional -- for faster on in the past
law professor on in the past hour. clear, whenat is you get to the line of overexertion of presidential power, it can cause a high level of disruption. if you think about what happened 44, 45 yearsd cox ago. you don't want to put the president in the position where he's ring anybody in relation to this investigation. to layink they're trying out some negotiating terms with how they will work with the special prosecutor's team. i think there will bpeople upset about that letter, but i think from a legal strategy, the letter makes sense because they .ant to protect the president from, again, unintentional , like you said earlier, could be brought in a case of perjury. host: how long have you known
donald trump? , known him known him super well over the past six years. met him for the first time probably 21-22 years ago when i was still a vice president at goldman sachs. to mr.boss introduced me trump at the trump tower in 1995. but i didn't know him, couldn't say that i was a good friend of his. we became closer after the romney campaign for the presidency. we did a number of fundraisers in mr. trump's apartment on behalf of governor romney. believe it or not, mr. trump even participated in a call upon in 2012.-thon host: let's hear from lisa in louisiana. caller: i'm so excited. -- just let me finish.
ok, number one. russia did not interfere in our collection. number two, these things that will declassify everything so we can find out exactly what the obama administration did in spying. and do you think john brennan clapper will be -- to make corey lewandowski in louisiana, when he came down with the book? i will be going to washington to see president trump get reelected, and i will be one of the people in the biggest crowd that will ever be. host: your response. caller: it is great -- guest: it is great to hear your voice. inquiry is a great guy -- and corey is a great guy. clapper, in, and
don't think they will be charged. some people want to call it an informant, somewhat to call it spying. what i think is necessary is to have an inspector general try to look at this stuff objectively. what i'm saddened by is that these are institutions that .old sacred in the country institutions that are supposed to be executing the rule of law. what we know about our great republican democracy is that all of us are beneath the roots of .aw and are subjected to it i really do not hope these agencies were weaponize against the president or against individual, potentially innocent citizens. we will see that unfold over the next three to six months. i'm not exactly sure what is going to happen, but i don't see those gentlemen getting in trouble, as much as they may have been part of something that, you know, smells a little partisan from this vantage
point. we will have to see how it happens, ultimately. but i will agree that the president will be resoundingly reelected in 2020. he's done nothing wrong. i was on that campaign for, like i said, two years. there was no collusion that i'm aware of. president's personality, he wears everything on his sleeve. it would be hard for him to hide that from his senior staff. theou go across sections of united states and think about the optimism in the economy today, it would be hard for me to see a scerio where the esendoesn't getleed that doesn't mean we won't all be working super hard on his behalf. think governor kasich or senator flake will challenge him in a republican primary? guest: i don't know either of
them personally, but i've seen their interviews. it is possible they may want to do somethingike that. , because it is't bad for the republican party. the samewearing jersey. we may have difference in personality, styles, but warren buffett has a great line -- i'd rather be roughly right then precisely wrong. and i think it would be precisely wrong for them to challenge president trump in the primary. but if they do, it won't have the effect that ted kennedy had on jimmy carter, or that ronald reagan had on gerald ford in 1976. they will be defeated in an ugly battle, unfortunately, but it will not affect the long-term prospects of the president's election possibility. >> john brennan has a piece this morning.
an oval office without integrity. "the impact of the trump presidency will be felt for years to come. selfimportantly, his -- absorption which will be emulated by many americans." guest: listen, they are rough on ea other right now. these guys are two titan s swinging hard at each other. director brennan is someone i know. i've met him a few times, and i invited him in 2017 to speak at night investor conference, and -- ad a small conference small dinner. i have a lot of respect for him. president thate john brennan was instrumental in rolling back and executing a lot of the antiterrorist campaigning programs inside and outside the united states after 9/11.
he saved legions of american lives and innocent citizens abroad. but this has happened to me, unfortunately, to ma peo we get our egos into the situation, get our ire up. i hope that stops. i do think the war declaration on the media is not helping the president. i said that to him personally and have no problem saying it on c-span. he is better than that and bigger than that. for 15 years, he was a television star. there's no reason he can't come on c-span or be reinterviewed by lester holt or a major news outlet. when i think people will see itut the president is that is way more a moderating voice than what is being pigeonholed and described by director
brennan. listen, we are in a rightand-tumble country now as it relates to our politics. in a way, i was a minor casualty of that. both sides will ballot back a little bit and find ourselves the true americans that we are. we have more in common than and i think other, that by and large, the president will eventually do that. .ut he feels under the gun frankly, he likes punching back in a situation like that. if you were on the campaign plane with him, when he was tweeting stuff that people thought was unpresidential, he remarked, this is the way i will have to be, unfortunately, if i'm to win this race. it is an ugly time in american politics, and it would be better for everybody to take a step back and see that we have more
in common. host: the president still does not have a communications director. does he need one, and if asked, would you return? guest: you had the professor on one hour ago. one of the things he taught me is that you can't answer a hypothetical like that because you always get in trouble. i don't see myself being asked back to the white house, so i really don't have to weigh that decision. but what i will say is that in the last nine months, or maybe 10 months since i've departed, i'm back at sky bridge capital. ,e are growing that business performance has been great. it would be very tough for me right now to dislodge myself from the firm i went back to. but it would be flattering to be asked back. of methe possibility being asked back at about -500%. jerry in's go to
huntsville, alabama, democrats line. caller: good morning. have two quk points i want to make. as an army veteran of 28 years, integrity and ethics means a lot to me. clearly, this president doesn't have any. i'm not like a lot of democrats calling for impeachment. elections have consequences. americans have to -- for the next few years. if 20 is n our sounding board, nothing will. thank you, have a nice day. his expression is an expression that is out there. we have also colorized the situation with the way we've segmented our media. myself included, we sometimes go to the television
channels that confirm our own biases. respectfullyree with jerry, and i don't think the president is an unethical person. i think he's a person who uses the force of his personality to get things done. sharon is next, southside, west virginia. good morning, republican line. caller: good morning, andy scaramucci. i have comments abouthe russia collusion. it looks to me like the collusion was with the democrats , and it backfired on them. mediaso, the mainstream keeps saying that trump should be grateful that the fbi spied on him? that is crazy. those are my comments. host: thank you.
guest: i will address both. is thing that the president sore about, anthis is something he tweeted on, and i commented as well. if there was an informant, a spy , if there was a fear of russian potentiality of collusion in the overall or in the presidential election, it is hard to understand how they would not have gone to the candidate and briefed him. please think about it objectively, i say to everybody. if it wereeb bush, john kasich, somebody the establishment in washington felt was part of their ilk, would i amhave briefed him? asking that rhetorically. because it was an outsider, a business person with a brash television personality, a television star that they probably didn't feel was in
circle, if you will, they didn't briefed him. i think that was very unfair to the president when he was a candidate. siation unfolds.ow tha on the other topic, the only thing i can say to you is that i and manyd the hoop others. i didn't see anything on the fbi , as it relates to president trump, would be concerned about. denyingy gowdy, who is allegations of spying in his last couple of interviews, has said publicly, that from everything he has read and seen, the president is not a target of the investigation. i think that is good news. this program is carried live every sunday afternoon in great britain. kevin is joining us from london, england. caller: on a light note, we are
glad to have a new american princess. the politics.o what we don't understand here in the leader of a nation continually attacks his own staff. nobody understands. workplace, when the president continually attacks his own staff. not democratic staff, his own staff. ?hat sort of leadership is that it confuses us here in europe. host: you saw that most recently with his disdain over jeff sessions, the attorney general. anthony scaramucci, your response. guest: you have to look at the origin of the president's operating and management style. he grew up in a real estate development family, a heart
ckledled, -- hard-knu mindset. if you go to the netflix documentary, which i think was british news4, a channel, you can see it was a very rough and tumble environment that the president was creating his career in. one aspect of his personality people don't like -- but what i said to my colleagues, even in my short stint in the white kiddinghen he was people on twitter or being critical of his associates or staff, what i said to my colleagues, and i'll say it on c-span, you need a thick skin to work with the president. you need to know that sometimes he will be saying things to you the way a rough football coach would be saying things to you in a halftime speech. so you can't overly absorbed that or think, oh my god, i
should run out the door right now. ok, he is a tough love sort of person, the way, frankly, my high school football coach was. you can have the personality where you can take that or not. be 72esident is going to years old on june 15, american flag day. he is not changing, that is his personality. i tell people who work for him or have been around him, you have to roll with it. it is probably not in the management book of the harvard or london business school in terms of protocol, i hear you, but it is what it is. i s that peopleking with them adapt to it. guest: first of all, -- host: first of all, the mooch. is that a recent nickname, or did you grow up with that? with it.grew up
liberals love to use the mooch, because it is apparently per george's. they should call me -- apparently her george's -- op perjorative. my last name is scaramucci, so i remember being called e mooch since i was a kid. i know on amazon, a guy is selling mooch t-shirts. it's a right, and i hope he sold a lot. there's funny nicknames that funny t-shirts out there with my nickname. host: another story that broke a couple years -- a couple weeks ago. the possibility of you and michael evan 90 cohosting -- atti cohosting a program on msnbc? guest: the truth is, we met at -- i had to get my fist up there to see that there's a little bit
of a comedic rivalry. i don't know him well. i think he's a formidable .ompetitor he is an adroit, skillful guy. he's a kind of guy i would want on my team, frankly. having said that, i want him to .e defeated in the courtroom what i have a show with him? nothing has come up about that. i've read so manfferen thgs abo myself and my life in gossip pages and tabloid that's notking gosh, true. there was one woman writing that she saw me come off air force one and saw my luggage stacked, and i have to be 5'2". , but that's 5'9"
fine. i'm sitting on four phone books this studio in southhampton to talk to you guys, my feet are dangling. . lot of the stuff isn't true there's been no real discussion about that, but i do respect michael avena , don't underestimate him. he's definitely got a strategic sense and a very good munication skills. host: bottom line, interested or intrigue in the possibility down the road? if it came to pass that somebody actually layout -- actually laid out a proposal, i would be open to it. is ane thing i don't want show that is going to detract from my existg business at sky bridge. if i didn't, it would probably be more related to not wanting
to do anything that would hurt our existing business. host: if you had a choice of network, do you have a preference? guest: why not c-span. you don't have any room for us? come backcan both next week, as a matter of fact. we would love to have you. and we found your t-shirt, by the way. guest: there's a lot of them out there. a "remember the mooch," pack,"s a "mooch starter it is all good. host: we go to jeffrey in greenbelt, maryland. i had anthony talk about some of the things that the people who defend the president talk about, calling him
rough-and-tumble, then he goes .n to talk about no collusion he, like the rest of them, once --to suspend reasoning and anthony, you say you are not aware of anything the president has done. why'd you have to qualify it by saying "you are not aware?" done,view that has been you know that people have been indicted, and you people keep saying this. will you not just accept that the president is a bully? he was bullying president obama. withg to defend this man all the things you've been all of, please, save us that -- host: thank you, jeffrey. guest: i get the argument on the
other side, and i guess i understand why you are upset. but here's what i would say. ien i say i'm not aware of, was saying, frankly, there is no collusion. people who are saying "you don't 100% know that, you weren't in every single meeting, every campaign trip, you worked on ery phone call, so you can't ,"y there was no collusion that's why i qualify it. but if you ask me in my gut, i don't believe there was collusion. but i understand what you're saying. guy,s a rough-and-tumble and therefore he has to have crossed the line into treason and criminality." i won't accept that. despite what people think about the president, i was thinking
about bb -- i was listening to bbc worldwide. said, president trump loves strongmen, chairman she and chairman kim and so on and so forth. all of that is not true. he is a very good negotiator. he wants there to be peace and prosperity globally. he went to dallas to try to send a message that he wants to be that he went to davos -- went to davos to say he wanted to be integrated into the global system. there was a guy on msnbc yesterday after i left the show. that me,ying to say meaning me and donald trump, have "new york values," some nonsense. we could have different styles but still be honest in dealing with people. so when you say, don't believe
see iting eyes, i don't that way. i've known the president, as i've said, pretty closely for five or six years. this is not a guy that would do something treasonousith the russians. i just don't see it. me saying that, but i will keep saying it until we have definitive proof, which i predict will not happen. host: the president a little while ago tweeting again, let me share with you. as one of only two people left who could have become president, why would the fbi or the department of "justice" have ld me they were secretly investigating paul manafort on charges that were 10 years old and had been previously dropped during my campaign? should have told me! any reaction? again, that is along the lines -- and this is one of the
fun parts of being the director, thatm you didn't know when a tweet woodland on your desk. -- when a tweet would land on your desk. this is what we we tki about earlier, why would they not let him know if there was something like this? one of the reasons he is moving on the pardon is that it appears to him and to many people in the united states that there has been a weaponization of some of these agencies, some of these departments, and things that crossed over into criminality that were not necessarily criminal, but it is a way to push out or eviscerate your political opponents. so i think he's trying to send a message. hey, listen. two people left to be president, i sort of thought i would be thing, on this kind of
especially if i had nefarious people -- people who you thought were nefarious, at least -- in my campaign. it would be interesting to see the spin process and the reaction and ove the twt. athe endth day, and i would say this to professor tribe and anyone else out there, put yourself in the other person's shoes for a little while and see where they live. and i think you will have some respect for where he's coming from. host: our next color, lewis on the republican. line.heubliepn --ler: this time last year the losey and the other democratic leaders beating each other up to get to the microphone to pursue this collusion theory. and now, all you hear from them they don't want to
release documents because it is national security. you don't hear from these guys anymore. and on the other hand, this time last year, brendan, klapper, you didn't hear anything from them. becaus they didn't think the shoe was going to fall on them. and by the way, whatever happened to tell me? every day -- whatever happened to comey? we haven't heard a word from him. i haven't seen any of it, which wouldeport, have happened with one of comey's deputy directors, andrew mccabe, i think there's a lot of speculation in washington that certain things happened improperly. i don't want to react to that because these are longtime civil servants who have served the country. i want to give them the benefit
of the doubt, like i want them to give -- like i want people to give the president the benefit of the doubt. but it does seem, in director , i think the problem there, when you talk about higher loyalty, and are being interviewed on the bbc, being asked, knowing what you know now about president trump, would you be handing intelligence briefings to him, you wouldn't do that. what is that? there's a rule of law. there is a protocol and a procedure that has to take place, whether you like it or not, trying to remove the guy from office. but i think these guys are a little too sanctimonious, probably a little too righteous. and i think they don't have him in the box, meaning president
that they thought they had him in. and are confusing his style withouttimes, bombast, understanding the fundamentals times.content at the content is absolutely perfect. sometimes the style can get out there and upset people. i've seen more than one person in the last few years that suffers from trump derangement syndrome. these guys have a little bit of it. host: i want to be precise, did you call it "incoming twitter missiles?" guest: yes, like you were sitting there, like let's have a comm plan, and the president is firing these missiles. i don't want to speak on behalf of sarah or anyone else on the continent -- on the comms team.
hope and i used to find that humorous. when you talk about hiring a ms director,om you want somebody who likes the president, is not put off by his style, and can deal with the unpredictability of what he's doing. he is a very intuitive guy. we had a campaign event in 2016 , on 42nd street. i wish i had recorded this. it was in a large group. then-candidate, had a 20 minute soliloquy on his twitter strategy, which i thought was brilliant and should end up in a harvard business to how hee study, as was deploying twitter on the campaign. this was before he got the nomination. how and why he was deploying it
in the way that he was, and how effective it was in terms of getting his message out. one of the reasons he tweets like that is he knows that msnbc,like c-span, cnbc, media groups, fox, they all have to put out his twitter statement and forced a reaction. so they are incoming twitter missiles. and i'll let you know, there is no anti-ballistic missile to counteract those. in.: anotherne just came let's get your reaction. following up on paul manafort, he says paul manafort came into the campaign very late and was with us for a short time. he represented ronald reagan, bomany others. but we should have been told that comey and the boys were doing a number on him, and he would not have been hired. guest: yeah i mean, listen.
i know paul well. i have a lot of respfo he says he is innocent. let's allow that process to take place in the court system. i think the reason the president brought him in, there was a discussion about him winning all of the primaries, or a majority of t primaries, but potentially getting hijacked at the convention, where the delegates were going to swap their votes. paul manafort, from the mid-20's, there was a great book about the 1980 and 1976 , he was helping ronald reagan aggregate and size of the convention delegates. so it was recommended to president trump to bring him in. they got along well. when corey left the campaign, he made him campaign manager temporarily. and as they got through the
theention process, i think president wanted to go in a different direction, which is why i think he hired kellyanne conway and steve bannon. the president made a point, if you're getting briefed, you're down to one of the last people in the race, why not give me the heads up? he is also being a little cheeky , because he knows they weren't going to give him the heads up. but he's trying to call out the level of unfairness there. that people who are adversaries of the president, stylistically, dialback some of your righteousness and sanctimony. you'll probably do better. if you get to being emotionally charged, you'll probably end up losing a lot of the american people. joining us from hollywood, california, tom.
caller: i find mr. scaramucci's comments on mr. trump's ethics laughable. he doesn't have any. what i wanted to tk about where these statements in the president'sthe powers, saying that he can terminate any federal investigation, get rid of he is totallyhat above the law. what is next, is he going to eliminate term limits and elevate himself to dictator? host: ok. guest: obviously, he does have the power to fire the prosecutor. richard nixon did that with archibald cox. he ended up with leon jaworski. it's not a good thing to do. it would not be a strategy that i would recommend. friends of the president would probably not recommend that strategy.
even perhaps in some levels of frustration where he's suggested it or brainstormed about it, i would tell you it has never been an option, never really been something that was going to be deployed. he're making the point that doesn't have any ethics. we can sort of debate that. we probably don't have enough time on this television show. whatever you think of the peoplent, the american in 2016 voted him president. people votedlion for him. whatever the surgeon general's warning label was on president trump's life, you could see the full array of things he's done. the positive and negative. we heard people saying, ok, i'm not looking for "the perfect person," i'm looking for somebody -- and i've only got two choices. i'm looking for the best choice.
for the american people. he's not looking to be above the rule of law, but he's looking for the law to be practiced fairly as it relates to him. , think what he's also seeing that there's been elements of go legal system weaponize to after political adversaries. he feels that is the case in his case, and that is why he's pushing back on twitter and in other areas. we'll debate this. but he's not looking to be dictator or anything like that. i'm sure he'll s o his two four-year terms and move back to one of his great homes. if you were in the white house now, i want to ask you about scott pruitt, the epa director. front page of the new york times, the epa chief has cozy ties with a colbert and. -- with a coal baron.
it writes, his relationship with the billionaire coal executive -- [reading from host: do you think he is a problem for the administration? guest: i don't think that matters, what i think. it is ultimately up to the president. it is up to him to decide whether or not that is a problem. one of the things i said earlier, and i'm not calling it fake news or anything like that. i'm just saying we have to make sure, when we read this stuff, that it is accurate and objectively factual. exceed to the new york times, everything they are writing is factual. i would tell you, you live down
there, not me. that's why they call it the swap . i find a lot of the nefarious activity inside washington to be absolutely disgusting, and i think most americans do. you are down there to serve the public, given this special trust where you should have a bond with the american people. you should try to think about this in a way that will serve the most amount of american people, and less about serving yourself. if this is true and the president asks for his resignation, i would not be surprised. if it is true and the president doesn't ask him for his resignation, someone will eventually ask the president why, and you will get his answer, which is way more valuable than mine. spicer was with us a few weeks ago and he said the daily briefing with sarah huckabee sanders is no longer useful. agree or disagree? i could not disagree more
with that. i understand why sean would be saying that, because he moved to non-camera briefing. he had a voice recording briefing going on before i got there. i think the american people sort of want that. if you look at the original construction of the documents for the united states and look at what was written by our founders rated to free press, it is imperative that we have a free press checking the people in power. for me, one of the first things i did -- perhaps the only thing i did in my short stint there, of any major consequence, was i turned the lights and cameras the press room. i said the cameras and lights are going back on. the president asked me to do the press conference on that day. i said no problem, i'd be happy to. we had a conversation about sarah huckabee.
my feelings about her, and whether we should make for the temporary or permanent pressecretar i think she's fabulous. she does an amazing job for the president. it is one of the hardest jobs in washington, if not the world. i said to the president i had no problem making her the permanent press secretary. then when i left the oval office and went back to the communications area, i had a conversation with her. listen, i'm going to do the press conference today, because ie president wants me to, but promise this is the last time. i didn't realize i would get fired that they. -- that day. you o remember, i'm a business executive. i know how to delegate. when you are a business leader, you put yourself into a servant-liter position with them
and help those people maximize who they are. sah has done a brilliant job. she's a great person and i think sean is wrong about that. at the end of the day, they have to take those questions, however hard they are. it is important for the american people to see somebody representing the president out there, accountable to the press. whatever the meanness or is is, whatev t biases may be. it is important for the american people to see it. so i hope they keep it going. if sarah decides at sompoint she will do something in the private sector or help at home, whoever takes her job, i hope they take that example. host: john, good morning, joining us from new hampshire. you're on the phone with anthony scaramucci. caller: thank you for taking my
call. just a few notations that mr. scamucci seems to have either footn or left out of his statements this morning. one is, the trump campaign was the fbi, to watch out for russian interference. that, theint, after indictments have taken place on certain campaign individuals. for lyingn indicted to the fbi, number one, and two, for meeting with russians. and also with the nine russians indicted -- host: will get a response. i was the june 2015 thing not aware of. it's not that i forgot that or
was trying to spin anybody. i was not aware of that. when i leave here, i'll google that and try to get myself up to speed. as it relates to the people who were "indicted" related to the campaign, i didn't even meet those people. i don't know them personally. but it seems like the charges being brought about them were less about russian collusion and more about perjury, lying to the fbi. maybe i don't know what i'm talking about their. as it relateso ruia, i've said this on a number of networks and will probably say it in my book, as it relates to russia. it appears they have tried to meddle and use some of their intelligence forces in elections around the world. frankly, i don't think they were trying to curve the election for president trump. if anything, what they are trying to do is destabilize the averaged make
american person think this is an unfair or rigged system, why does my vote even matter. that is sort of the stuff that i think was being practiced. those nine pthateoe ere indicted, i could be wrong, and hopefully, you guys will affect check me. it was moree related to what they were doing and less to collusion with the trump campaign. but all of this stuff is eventually going to come out. i think the president will be fully exonerated. if i'm right, maybe that will invite me back on c-span and we can discuss why he was fully exonerated, and if i'm wrong, you can put a docking station in andhampton and don't me -- dunk me in this nice suit i'm wearing. my book will be coming out in the first week of say more.
jim is joining us from the republican line. that, thehat point, after indictments have taken place on certain campaign individuals. to destroy the united states, as far as know -- as far as i feel. and president trump is trying to make america great again. it takes time when people messed things up and create all this have a in america, foromeone come through and ihost: thanka response from anthony scaramucci. caller: listen, at the end of the day, and i went to law school with president obama. i have in or miss respect for him and the first lady, but we were very different -- i have a tremendous respect for him and
the first lady. -- nefarious activity like in house of cards, i hope that our legal process can uncover it. as it relates to president trump, he's being harassed because he is an agent of change . he's not part of the establishment. people who live in washington on both sides, republicans and democrats, they don't want people like restaurant there. trump there.dent he opens the door for billionaires who are left-leaning or right-leaning to say why not me? if you're sitting in washington for 30 years, looking down at pennsylvania avenue, thinking you belong in the oval office, and some guy moves down from trump tower after 17 months of i think we can hear you. guest: if you can see me or hear me, we have a phenomenal country. an unbelievable opportunity in
the next years. let's dial back the rhetoric on both sides, and we will get there in a better mood. host: anthony scaramucci joining us from southhampton, new york. we >> you can watch that at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or on c-span.org or using the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on "the communicators" american cable association president and c.e.o. polka and tbs telcom senior vice president of orporate affairs, andrew peterson talk about the issues facing rural and suburban
broadband providers. >> we serve so many of our customers, very rural in scope. is the instances, pbs only provider in those areas. we've worked very closely with the devernnt, the .c.c. with programs that make partnership investments with private companies through the federal service program to bring that and to customers didn't previously have it or have adequate broadband bring robust broadband in the future. >> i think it's very important the as the administration, f.c.c., congress considers like proceedings and other concepts that roadband is and has been determined to be a matter of important infrastructure to our country and to our national policy. change because typically we think of infrastructure as roads, which , railways, etc. are all very important and need to be -- need to be helped. you cannot survive today as
a business, as an individual, as someone working from home in our economy without having a robust, broadband experience. communicators" tonight at 8:00 ern on c-span 2. >> also on c-span 2 tonight, we'll hear from an author and arguedy who successfully three gun law cases before the supreme court. that's hosted by the long island federalist society at 8:30 p.m. eastern. again on c-span 2 or watch on using the free c-span radio app. next, the editor in chief of debating y standard" president trump's foreign and domestic policies with michael nton, former national security council spokesman who left the white house in april. this is part of the weekly tandard's annual political summit in colorado springs.