tv Washington Journal 10152020 CSPAN October 15, 2020 6:59am-9:01am EDT
your unfiltered view of government. brought to you today by your television provider. the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee amy coney barrett concludes thursday with the senate judiciary committee listening to outside witnesses who support and oppose judge nomination at show onm. eastern election security. later in the day we are live from the campaign trail in north carolina with president trump holding a rally in greenville. senator kamala harris speaking to voters in charlotte. coming up on "washington journal " vermont senator patrick lady talks about the hearings for amy coney barrett. more on the confirmation process with russ feingold.
later, former white house press secretary sean spicer talks about the trump presidency and his new book "leading america." ♪ host: u.s. seventh circuit court of appeals judge amy coney barrett yesterday completed her two days of testimony before the senate judiciary committee in consideration of her nomination to serve on the u.s. supreme court. is thursday, it october 15, 2020. this is "washington journal." outside witnesses today with a full committee vote a week from today. the full senate voting the week of october 26. we will spend this first hour asking you a simple question, should amy coney barrett be confirmed to the supreme court? if you support judge barrett the (202) 748-8000, if you
, ifse, it is (202) 748-8001 you are undecided (202) 748-80 2 2. wj.twitter @cspan facebook.com/c-span. we will play some of the highlighted questions from some members of the judiciary committee in this first hour. the reporting this morning in the "wall street journal" on the hearing and what is ahead in the coming week or weeks. amy coney barrett's character qualifications will be discussed by witnesses. they write that judge amy coney barrett won't be present on thursday. the senate judiciary committee meets to debate the nomination and hear witnesses testify about her character and qualifications. the threat democrat say she poses to health care, voting,
and other rights. appointee tomp's replace the late ruth bader ginsburg. she made it through tuesday and wednesday without any high drama or surprises. the committee will hear from witnesses including representatives from the american bar association. the group is found judge barrett to be found well what -- to be well-qualified. those wholso includes have worked or no judge barrett. were a mother of twins with multiple pre-existing conditions, and a civil rights attorney. there remains little doubt as to the final outcome. republicans hold a 12-10 advantage in the committee and a 53-47 advantage in the senate. thursday is the final day. to vote theected nomination less than two weeks from election day. it will follow the senate floor
the week of october 26. we start with a comment on the questioning. we have not heard much about this issue in particular. barrettlis asked judge about cases that deal with government lockdowns, especially if they really -- relate to protest or houses of worship. about a month into it everybody understood that we had to shut things down. try to understand how covid was affecting us. then about 4-6 weeks later we saw peaceful protests. some of which were hijacked. we have seen them widely reported allowed by certain local governors and other elected officials in towns and counties. at the same time they have prevented churches from being able to worship. protections,d the
the specific protections under the first amendment and i think religion and protest are two of them. do you feel like every governmental entity has a right on the one hand to allow these protests to occur. on the other hand, prevent worship and synagogues and mosques? barrett: those kind of cases are being litigated around the country now. they have gone to the supreme court on a couple of different orders. that is not something i could comment on. sen. tillis: could you opine all about how you would? judge barrett: when you have a restriction, as we are in a 'sndemic, the supreme court general position is that a government has a compelling interest in responding to a health crisis of this sort. the case law
describing the story to address the public health crisis. it came out in a case involving vaccination. interchangear in my with senator holly, you look in the other rights in play. the first amendment, looking at the free exercise clauses of that amendment. those come into play as well. host: writers from the politico morning pole support the barrett nomination takes up to 48%. should amy coney barrett be confirmed to the supreme court? daphne opposes the nomination, go ahead. daphne, you are on the air, go ahead. from michelle, supporting judge barrett. caller: can you not hear me?
michelle, you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm very impressed with judge coney barrett. she was articulate, eloquent, she stood her ground. many senators tried to force her into answering questions that are not even up before the supreme court yet. her and i agree with a lot of what she -- her personal beliefs. i'm very pop -- i'm very happy she is possibly our next justice to fill ruth bader ginsburg's seat. cleveland, ohio, we hear from charles. caller: thanks for taking my call. i oppose the nomination. i think this whole sham is an
attempt by the republican party to weaponize the supreme court. pushing across justices to confirm the policy as it relates , the aca, they are using the supreme court to push across the legislative agenda. they get confirmation from the american people. this young lady has a very limited judicial record. when you look at other federal justices in the things they have done, there's a lot of gas lighting going on trying to make this young lady into something she is not. she is a tool of the republican party in the senate that has not
done the work to try and get the american public to buy into the aca. to buy into the precedent that has been set by the supreme court over the years. this is just a scam. i disagree with it all the way. host: spencer, south dakota. good morning. barrett --upport any amy coney barrett. -- mute yourr set set, you are having a little feedback. go ahead with your comment. has all ofhink she the qualifications. i think she would do a good job.
i think she deserves it. twitter.e reaction on lizzie says this, we saw a lady said through 20 hours of and not one set anything negative. she will be a spectacular supreme court judge for many years. only 48 years old. what a success story she has. this one says yes she is qualified, no person not to confirm her. this one says she should not be confirmed but it is ok according to the constitution. incidentally, so would changing the number of judges on the court. someone with her lack of experience and transparency shouldn't be anywhere close to the supreme court. she has not tried a case. the front page of the less thann post," three weeks until election day. turnout for early voting is a mess. with less than three weeks to go, roughly 15 million americans have voted in the fall election. n -- setting a
trajectory that could result in the majority voters casting ballots before election day for the first time in u.s. history. in georgia, voters waited as long as 11 hours to cast ballots on the first day of early voting. in north carolina, one in five lastot vote in the presidential election. in michigan, one million people, one quarter the turnout in 2016 have already voted. posticture is so stark the right that election officials are reporting record early turnout. much of it in person. meaning more results could be available on election night than previously thought. i wanted to show their jump page, their continuation of the article. it goes to another story. their jump page headline says republicans say it will bring a trump win.
showsturnout shofar democratic votes are coming in earlier. not necessarily in higher numbers. the trump campaign and other --tes might win the democrats might win the early vote but the president will catch up on election day for those who don't trust mail-in voting. go, there is the overall statistics. my technology is breaking on me for a moment. we will get back to that. we heard about georgia. let's hear from georgia. opposing the nominee. go ahead. in georgia, you are on the air. i wanted to call it because first what i would like to say is that i think judge barrett is truly brilliant and her knowledge of the law is of
great wealth. however, i think that at this ase the united states senate it relates to the national pandemic that we are facing, judgein this interview barrett is simply not answering questions that on a normal basis would be required. that is the reason i oppose her nomination. host: do think that is sort of standard fare? rule on some their of those questions that they are asked. host: i'm of the opinion that of we have received her personal views, moral and religious views. what we are looking for in this interview is her legal opinion. evens refusing to give it on some issues that are outside of the scope of what could come
on the docket of the court in the near future. is john in new york, who supports the nominee. caller: i had a couple of comments. think i would sit in front of my tv and be able to absorb it all. i'm dismayed by the people who are complaining that she did not answer all the questions. apparently they did not understand the class and don't seem to know what an independent jurist is supposed to be. i hope if anybody ever goes to court they would get an independent jurist, like this nominee. if i was from the state of embarrassed bybe
senator hirono. host: why is that? caller: i think she is the most dumb senator i have ever seen. caller: i want to set the record straight. i watched amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing. not all of it, i will admit. i will agree with the previous caller that it was a crash course. i know nothing about what they were talking about. i especially liked republican senator lee and how he explained the law the best of anybody at all. the ohio governor, mike dewine, never close churches.
know why there is this could governor's churches. mike dewine never close down our churches. i voted and it was as easy as pie. i'm thankful that it was. i really don't have that much to say about amy coney barrett. i'm on the undecided. i am learning a lot. host: did you vote in ohio in person or by mail? caller: i voted in person. voting startearly in ohio? i'm getting confused now. i'm a senior citizen. 6.her october 5 or october
i'm glad i did. i'm glad i voted early. i'm really proud of ohio and what all is happening. i just wanted to make it clear that ohio governor dewine never close down churches. i'm glad you got through this morning. the issue of mail-in ballot inc. came up several times in the discussion over the last couple of days with judge barrett. here is senator amy klobuchar. sen. klobuchar: we are in the middle of a pandemic that is forcing voters to choose between health and their vote. better knownots, as mail-in ballots are an essential way to vote for millions of americans right now. judge barrett: that is a matter of policy that i cannot express a view. sen. klobuchar: that is a fundamental part of our democracy. have you ever voted by mail? judge barrett: i can't recall a time that i voted by mail.
maybe in college i did when i was living away from home. i can't as i'm sitting here specifically remember a time i voted by mail. sen. klobuchar: do have friends or family that are voting by mail? judge barrett: i have had friends and family vote by mail. sen. klobuchar: we are in a moment where the president is undermining vote by mail even though a number of republican senators are supportive of it. host: james in texas says this. i hope the people are watching understand judge barrett cannot respond to the incessant questioning trying to trapper to legal canons judges must apply by. mikael bricklin opposes the nomination. -- miguel in brooklyn opposes the nomination. her nonanswers speaks volumes. have been not
nominated. she should not even have had a hearing. she should walk away. yes, judgeays barrett should be confirmed. the line for you if you support her nomination (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the nomination (202) 748-8001. milford, pennsylvania, susan opposes. caller: at this time when the country is so polarized i don't think the republican party should be voting on whether to take president trump's nominee. at this point there is only 1% of donald trump's term left. why are they bulldozing her through? her or anybody handpicked by the that only society
represents a very small majority . not even a majority. a small minority of the population. i think donald trump is going the theory of dividing the american public further. i think it is a sham. i know i feel strongly. it is the only way to feel. in akron, ohio, good morning. have ani don't really opinion about her either way. i listen to the whole hearing. of course, she didn't answer the questions. none of them answer the questions really. that is the way it is. -- thing about the democrats the republicans are playing hardball by ramming this thing through. theybiden gets in there,
should just add some more justices. to confirm her, i don't have a personal opinion but to confirm her and if she makes decisions that change the country as far as health care and voting rights , they are playing hardball in the democrats play just as hard. thank you. here's a piece to be published in politico's weekly magazine from the editor-in-chief of the national review. the headline is confirmation hearing shouldn't be so worthless. he writes judge amy coney barrett acquitted herself very well in her confirmation hearings. that means quite often she refused to answer questions. he is an example -- he is an exemplary nominee but not always
responsive. she can't be blamed for this. you play the game as the rules have been established for decades. it is to take nothing away from her to wonder what this landlord -- long-standing norm of nominees run away from substantive question serves the country well. writing the court has taken on an outsize role in our politics and national life, while at the same time nominees say less than ever about their views during the one chance senators charged with confirming them get to vet them. you think we want to hear more from a prospective member of a body that elections are explicitly fought over. that for better or mostly works determines how we are governed. in the sweep of american history, public hearings featuring the testimony of supreme court nominees are relatively recent innovation, taking hold in the 20th century. was the battle over robert bork that changed everything.
hearingse 12 days of on his nomination. with the printed record running more than 6000 pages. five days of hearings involving bork himself. he wouldn't allow anyone to persuade him to take the edge off his persona or soft pedal his views. disorder, he was on our q&a interview program on book tv last weekend. you can find that on our website at c-span.org and book tv.org. on the your calls nominee. amy coney barrett, opposing the nomination is donald in san antonio. caller: good morning. i'm listening to these people calling saying she should be. she refused to answer the questions. i argue with people all the time. you could still express your views in your opinion but when
is hows to the law, this everybody keeps getting confused. we put someone on the supreme who will control our lives. we should be able to know what her views are on some of these subjects. we are not asking her to tell us how she would vote. we are asking her her views to give us some kind of insight on may be how she would conduct the law. i'm against abortion but when it comes to the law it is the law. whether i approve of it or disapprove, it is the law. we just want her views, that is all. is in north
carolina, supporting judge barrett. caller: this is peggy. host: go ahead. caller: i'm definitely in favor for her making the supreme court. i think people are very confused about whether she should answer certain questions or not. said put her personal beliefs aside and will make decisions based on the law. as far as increasing the number on the supreme court, i think that would take us down a very dark path. next we will hear from ben , who is undecided calling from west palm beach, florida. caller: i think amy coney barrett is extremely
well-qualified. she's already been vetted by the confirm to she was the federal court of appeals. could see thei left crying out about is the hypocrisy of the republicans. when barack obama nominated merrick garland, the senate was in republican hands. undecided?ly absolutely not. i could see why some of the left would be so, understandably. the sitting president must nominate, the senate must consent. if the president or -- is reelected or not, he will be president until january 20. if the democrats want to cheat impact the court, that is on them. personally, i think amy coney barrett is a superb pick to
phil ruth bader ginsburg c. host: jeff is calling from indiana. caller: anybody that can sit there and be able to answer all of the questions and not have one word in front of her on a piece of paper is a very wise person. she's just telling the truth. she doesn't want to say anything that is wrong. she wants to be able to say the law is the law. if democrats did what the law claim for them to be doing it would be in jail right now for treason. i think we need her in there. democrats left no choice by gop hypocrisy, richard set on twitter. says c-span, she showed in her finger than
everyone in that room. loves thisegon choice. a strong choice and for some reason democrats have issues with strong women. watched the process for three days, she is a remarkable woman. the first woman i ever met who had no opinions on anything. acb be confirmed? could i have a root canal instead? senator grassley, the former askedof the committee about cameras in the supreme court. sen. grassley: another interest of mine that i probably won't live long enough to see done but i discussed cameras in the courtroom. legislation on that over the last 15 years. it is not a very popular subject
. judge suter said he would have to roll over on his dead body before they put cameras on the supreme court. while i could respect that point of view, i totally disagree. many of us believe allowing cameras in the courtroom would open courts to the public and bring about a better understanding of the judiciary. for many years, that bill i have introduced was called the sunshine in the courtroom act. a bill to give judges the discretion to allow media coverage in the courtroom. i also sponsor a bill to allow cameras in the supreme court. the seventh circuit court of appeals where you currently serve adopted procedures to allow requests for video recording of oral arguments as well as public release of the recording. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. grassley: what are your
views on cameras in the courtroom? judge barrett: i would keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the supreme court. from a couple of headlines different organizations. new york times news analysis says barrett voting independent is haunted by trump's demands. town hall headline and opinion piece, they call it a hearing. they don't listen. and opinion piece by terry jeffrey. gary is in new hampshire. he is on the undecided line. go ahead. caller: this hearing i think is a sham, for one thing. the senate needs to be concentrating on a coronavirus pandemic and get into the american people. the american people desperately need it. should'veis nominee waited until after the election.
it is up to the people, whoever they elected president. people, whoever they elect president. the point that kamala harris made about the election, the coronavirus, get aid to the american people. have a good day. host: long ville, louisiana. opposing the nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i know everybody knows lindsey graham and ted cruz. first of all, my grandfather raised me, and he told me the only thing i have that can't nobody take away from me but me is my words. and lindsey graham said last have ae can't let obama pic of a supreme court judge because the election is too close. .nd that was over 107 days now it is 29 days and all of a
sudden lindsey graham says it's all right. and ted cruz -- the nerve of him. called for the -- he called his wife ugly, and he said then that he could no longer, no way support this man. , andrites are hypocrites you all know it's wrong. took my president's choices away from him because of the same reason why you are saying you need to make this choice. so all of you are a bunch of hypocrites. host: none eden, florida. supporting judge amy coney barrett. caller: first of all, i really enjoy c-span's coverage. your unbiased approach to
reporting news rather than editorializing is really a breath of fresh air for everybody. i absolutely unequivocally support amy coney barrett. she is well-qualified, she comported herself in these hearings very well, especially when faded by certain senators of the democratic party, who were trying to get her to say things that would possibly take her down the road where she would be in trouble. even now, with the canons that she is bound by. , thesereally a sad show two days of hearings, and unfortunately i didn't get to watch all of it, but i watched most, and to see what has happened in our country is .isturbing on many, many levels
i do appreciate the time in taking my call. thank you so much again for this platform, and i hope to see judge barrett on the court soon. to others who could not catch all of it, we have it all at c-span.org. "om the washington post, muddled message at 11th hour." "in the final stretch of the risk of a trio of long-standing challenges have converged to create a daunting barrier to trump's reelection, the inability to drag down by an's favorability ratings. and a pandemic that continues to up american life. a funding crunch at the trump campaign has exacerbated the challenge, limiting the president's ability to drive home his closing message on the airwaves. trump, recently hospitalized after contracting the novel coronavirus, is aiming to make up for the financial
disadvantage, holding nightly rallies that highlight the enthusiasm of his base but also pull him off message. last night was in des moines iowa, being about his supreme court nominee. pres. trump: to defend our rights and our constitution, i nominated judge amy coney to the united states supreme court. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: and i tell you, i don't mind running against sleepy joe, but i wouldn't want to run against her right now. please promise me, amy, you will never run. she has been great, so outsmarting these people with bad intentions. you look at some of the questions being asked, and it is so obvious.
let's face it, they are not great. they are just horrible, nasty, and she handles it like nothing. she's a great intellect. one of the reasons, she is a highly respected professor teaching for many years. come and i believe that type of thing. it is called intelligent. i believe in intelligence. i want to just say that we made the right choice. writing about the second debate that was supposed to happen tonight, in the washington times, biden and trump holding competing meetings on different networks. competing town hall events that i'm with they 1000 miles apart on thursday. the set up has voters wondering why they cannot be on the same stage for a more conventional face-off less than three weeks from election day.
eric beach, founder of the probe pacp group great america -- your competing for the andest office in the land, you are able to count each other, contrast each other. it socially distance town hall with mr. trump, and florida voters in miami starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and mr. biden has a 90 minute abc town hall in philadelphia that starts at the same time. we will have coverage today of both the biden campaign and donald trump as well. he has a rally set for this afternoon in greenville, north carolina. we will have that life beginning at 1:00 eastern. that will be over on c-span two. also continue coverage on , kamalathis evening harris takes part in a democratic fundraising event in charlotte, north carolina, underway at 6:35 eastern.
in midlothian virginia, jimmy. go ahead. much.: thank you very i appreciate you taking my call. i watch she's been all the time and you guys do a great job. -- i watch you guys all the time and you guys do a great job. the liberal media, they have also forgotten about benghazi. president trump is obligated by the law to select the judge to the supreme court. judge barrett will do a fabless job and be a wonderful asset to the system. should biden win the election, our country will become -- we will lose many rights. kingdom has and they hated. biden has been office for 47 millions frommade china, who gave us the virus, not trump.
please tell biden to hide in his basement for the next four years. much, and again, i'm very supporting judge barrett for the nomination. thank you, sir. host: to robert in waldorf, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. mrs. barrett is an extremely intelligent and impressive lady, and she's exactly what we need in the united states supreme court. it's amazing to listen to the shecrats complain about how won't answer their questions. but they never complained about joe biden not answer questions. we have evidence that hunter biden has taken millions and millions of dial dollars from ca and sold his vice president's office. we have evidence that joe biden and hunter biden took money from ukraine, that joe biden had his hand in that. joe biden said he had knowledge -- no knowledge of his son's
business, but this morning we -- we had evidence --m the home computer that he made $60,000 a month to sell his father's influence in ukraine so the state department would look favorably on burisma. he in turn flew on air force to to china with his father to make a deal with the biggest chinese .nergy company in china joe biden had his hand in that. they have sold the american people and the american workers out and will continue to do so again. int: we will go to brian washington state, opposing the nomination of judge amy coney barrett. caller: morning, c-span. you guys havead got both sides of the coin this
morning, and it is so obvious. devolved to mankind the point that it did to end up in world war ii between germany and italy and the enablers that let our world get to that point. i'm seeing it displayed every year, of hower that happened. i'm watching it on the way to -- i heard a family member of the vice president miller the barry goldwater administration that ran for the white house. his job at the nuremberg trials was involved with the prosecution of the judges. when they started after the enablers of the crazies of the world -- mussolini and hiller --
they started off prosecuting the judges -- as the first enablers to allow our world to devolve to that situation. the gal wants to be on supreme court, and she is gunshot of responding to a question in the white house right now. it is a frequent history lesson. we are seeing it live. buff, but istory think we are looking at how things happened to end us up in a crisis such as world war ii. host: some of those articles raised here in the new york times. "fears rise of political violence, a plot to kidnap the government -- the governor of michigan only the latest in the latest of election era threats. candidate senator
kamala harris asked yesterday devoting this permission still exists. >> i question, however, is do you agree with chief justice, who said voting this permission still exists, no one doubts that. that voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that. do you still agree with that? judge merrick: i will not -- not make att: i will stem a -- >> do you make it a proposition or a fact? i'm not going to make a comment, say that i endorse the majority or the dissent in the case of shelby county. >> are you saying that you refuse to dispute a known fact or that you refuse to agree with a known fact? judge barrett: senator, i'm not
exact sure what you're getting at with asking me to endorse effect or whether any pacheco practice constitutes voter discrimination -- when the any -- whether any particular practice constitutes voter disk imitation. harris are you saying that it exists in any form? judge barrett: there have been cases. we have been hearing about the wisconsin kids that went to the court involving voting. i think any opinion that i would express -- and i don't mean to signal that i disagree with the statement either. what i mean to say is that i am not going to express an opinion because these are very charged issues that have been litigated in the courts, so i will not engage on that question. host: just about 15 more minutes of your comments of your nomination of amy coney barrett, should she be concerned -- confirmed to the supreme court. nomination,rt her
202-748-8000. disagree with her nomination, 202-748-8001. senator patrick leahy of vermont, good morning, centre. that's good morning, senator. guest: good morning, it is good to be with you. host: this week on the affordable care act, you questioned her on wednesday and said she had been critical of the chief justice's ruling in a case. what else did you learn from the response of judge barrett? as you know, i was chairman of that committee for a , and withyears supreme court justices, i have never seen one like this. she seems to have no opinion on
certain things, even though she has written a great deal about -- she has passed actually a litmus test. she hastold us that criticized the affordable care that,nd she does admit to because of course we have the written statement she has made. she has never defended it. never defended women's .ights , as some ofed ivf
her supporters say it is, a crime. it is really a strange hearing. host: having her answer her stance on cases or cases that may become before the support, how do those responsys compared nominee hearings, those of president trump and barack obama? guest: i think the fact that she didn't want to talk about a possible pending case -- i have no problem with that. that's appropriate. talking about cases she has decided. this is probably not her fault, but you have the president say over and over again, i want to put this person on the supreme tort, so that she will vote do away with the affordable care
the coveragewith of pre-existing conditions, and then to say i want her on the court because if i have to contest this election in the courts, i want somebody to rule with me. numerous tweets, and that is not an easy job to summarize donald trump's tweets, but he does have a great player. her to defend him before the court, a contest on the election. i asked her, i said, can you state -- and we have cases that go back to the 1700s. the president is not above the law.
the president, for example, cannot pardon himself. she did not want to respond to that, even though we are talking about over 200 years of settled law. that concerned me. colleagues talked about her qualifications. what concerns, if any, do you have about her qualifications? guest: she is on a circuit court, she has been a professor at notre dame, and is certainly more qualified than a lot of the judges at the other courts that the white house has set up. she does not match the qualifications of a ginsberg, and i think she would be one that would admit that. but that is not so much the point. what has happened here is first
we had the republican leadership ay you will not have nomination -- a nominee heard in an election year. they blocked mary garland, a judge that -- merrick garland, a judge that numerous republicans as well as democrats said they would report. a consensus nominee. because president obama nominated him. mitch mcconnell and the republican leadership said we cannot do this. judge in anr had a election year from the president one party and the senate the other party. we have had, of course ronald reagan nominated anthony kennedy , to the democratic-controlled senate, confirmed him nearly unanimously in an election year. and then of course, the chairman
of the committee, lindsey graham , said you can take me at my word, we will not have a hearing if we go past the time of the preliminary leading up to the election. and of course he went back on that and immediately said we have had the conventions, we know who the nominees are. we are not going to wait until the election. we are going to break all precedent, break all rules, and we are going to ram this nominee through before the election. election, do you think republicans particularly in the senate will pay a price at the polls over this nomination? guest: i think the whole country pays a price in this way. i think that the senate, which is supposed to be the conscience of the nation, has been badly
diminished by breaking its own rules. by breaking their word over and over again to the american people and to their fellow senators. that has diminished the senate. i also think so politicizing this in the way donald trump has the courts.hurt we have to assume that the supreme court is credible and the federal courts are credible. the respect that people normally have for the court is going to be greatly diminished. i have tried cases in trial courts and appellate courts. i even had one that went up to the supreme court. i never thought, as i went into those courtrooms, you know, they are going to be going this way or that way depending on my politics. never happened. today everybody is going to be wondering, mi politically ok to
go into a courtroom? and that is going to hurt the country. senator patrick leahy joining me this money, former chair, former member -- this morning, former chair, former member of the judiciary committee. guest: thank you. host:'s sideshow to the hearings is the soft pedal fundraising by lindsey graham. that no nominee should be put up to this election. graham is getting his head royally handed to him in south carolina by jamie harrison, his democratic rival in the senate race. i supporter. these are the rules of the game. the president,t -- i- jd in massachusetts notice that none of your callers are opposing acb and finding fault in her performance. great choice, present trump. sandra in new york -- ms. barrett will that should not be
confirmed. we already knew that she will rule according to trump's dictates. it is a clear indication of one who does she is that does will as she is told. intelligence does not always ankle integrity. the right thing for him is better do is step aside or her pond status is assured. from alexandria, minnesota, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i totally, totally support amy barrett. she is going to be a constitutional lawyer, and that is absolutely what we need -- not a lawyer, i meant a judge. we have already way too many people on the bench that go ahead and rule according to the way they feel. they don't go by the law. they rule however they feel, and that would be a prime case of what is going on right now with flynn. we have a judge that is going by
the way he feels personally or politically or whatever, and i am so happy that we were able to go ahead and get somebody that is a constitutional lawyer, and she is not president trump's pond. president trump wants to go by the constitution, and that is what he put in the supreme court. so that is all i have to say. i am 100 percent happy with the pic. jackie is in syracuse, new york, posing the nomination. caller: i do oppose the nomination. i feel like, for one, she might be qualified but this is not the right time. it is not about democrats or republicans, it is about the american people. they seem to soon forget that we are in need of help during this
pandemic, which i have been on this earth 50 years and i have never seen nothing like it. i oppose her to the fact that she is trump-based. he is transparent about it and he talks about it. i would tell him not to advertise me like that, but him advertising her like that, he's making sure that we know that she is a part of his team. host: a look at the way forward from the associate press -- the associated press senate panel, the senate judiciary committee has scheduled a vote to approve her nomination, to the supreme hert before hurt -- before nomination hearing has even ended. the morning of the last day of hearings, her nomination is expected to be brought up for a vote. that meeting delayed for a week per committee rules. if that happens, the gop led
committee would vote to approve her nomination thursday, october 22. that was set up a final confirmation vote on the senate floor the week of october 26. our coverage getting underway really in about an hour or so with the gavel coming down at 9:00 a.m. eastern, and live coverage on c-span and c-span radio, as has been the case the last couple days. annapolis, maryland, supporting judge is dana. good morning. i support amy coney barrett because i can see that she is overly qualified. n even-tempered judge. she was -- i think that the constitution, the way the framers intended this to work is actually working. the president of the united states dominates the candidate, and then this -- nominate the candidate, and then the senate decides whether to appoint his
candidate or not. in the case of president obama's decidedent, the senate not to. with this particular nominee, the senate decided to go forward. this is exactly how our framers intent of the constitution to work. the second point i would like to make is that amy coney barrett cannot express her views on contested issues or issues that come before her. i think people are confused with substantivee, her views and her research and writing when she was a scholar or a professor. she tried to explain this during the hearing, and i just don't understand why people cannot objectively listen to what she is saying. for example, when it comes to procedure, she may disagree and write about severability -- that was one of those examples that during the hearings -- severability is not the same as
her opinion. whether or not the affordable care act not. she was trying to argue and explain and, you know, senator lahey was on your program a few minutes ago and he continues to be confused about procedures and -- thatat the judges you judges saying versus her opinion about the affordable care act. and a lot of people are so scared they are going to lose their health insurance, no matter what she says, and she is terminate,ssion to she is a judge watching and rolling over the evidence and litigants and whether or not procedures are followed, and then whether or not substantively something is constitutional or not. dana in annapolis, maryland. bying up, we will be joined former senator russ feingold,
former member of the judiciary committee, now president of the american constitution society. that is next. later on, sean spicer joins us to talk about his new book, leaving america, president trump's commitment to people, patriotism, and capitalism. announcer: books tv on c-span 2 features ands top office. jennifer town on her book "big dirty money," which looks at the repercussions average americans face when the rich break clause. p.m., in "the spy masters," chris whipple talks to see my -- cia directors about intelligence organ nation -- organization nominations. and kendis: went on why black americans should vote republican, in her book
"blackout." watch book tv, this weekend on c-span 2. announcer: the presidents, available in paperback, hardcover, an e-book from public affairs, resenting biographies of every president, inspired by conversations with noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. as americans go to the polls next month to decide who should lead our country. the collection offers perspectives into the lives and events that forced -- that forged each president upper leadership style. to learn more about the president and the featured historians, visit c-span.org/thepresidents. order your copy today, wherever books are sold.
announcer: our campaign 2020 coverage continues with candidates campaigning and debating. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from wisconsin is former member of the jersey area committee russ feingold, now the american constitution society president. guest: good to be on the show again. americanl us about the constitution society, what it is all about, and your point of view on the nomination. guest: the american constitution society is a network of students and academics and practicing lawyers and activists across the country who want to see the constitution interpreted going forward in a way that helps all the american people in all of our communities.
we respect to the original intentions of the founders, we respect the text, but we also believe it needs to be adapted to the reality of the 21st century, and that is the only way the constitution can be legitimate. a we do programs, we do series of activist issues. we are helping with getting out the vote, with aspect of making sure that the vote is not tampered with in particular. it is a great network of areressive lawyers, and we very concerned about the illegitimate process that is filling the supreme court seat. oft: given the great amount talk this week over originals him and textualism that came up, what is your take in what you heard in the responses from judge barrett that? unfortunately, this idea of originals him and textualism sounds good, like let's do what the founders thought and said.
but the reality is that if you manipulate it so that it is only in certain cases when they use that, but it does not fit their goals, they don't use it. so it is a phony process, and i think that we need a more full discussion in the 21st century of what the constitution really has to mean today. so i saw judge merrick sort of moving around different aspects of this, not wanting to talk about original attempts, in some cases, and in other cases not doing it. that is the problem. it is a convenient mechanism that avoids the tough issues that justices should have to deal with today. pretend thating to the founders stood on issues that they did not even know anything about, like climate change. host: how did she answer questions -- how did she answer
youtions compared to when were on the judiciary committee? guest: famously, they tried to say as little as possible. they are coached to say as little as possible. but certain things are extreme, and what i saw from judge barrett was extreme. her unwillingness to admit or say there is institutional racism in this country, which is essentially what she did -- it was like pulling teeth to get her to acknowledge in any way that it was deeply troubling. law with regard to the election, then saying she did not know whether she would have to recuse herself in such a case was to me way beyond what i have seen before in nominees. the issue here isn't any coney barrett. the issue here is the seat is being stolen right in the middle of an election in a way that is a disgusting affront to the
constitution and the advise and consent power of the senate. but her role in this is complicit. she is assisting, and it appears to me she is afraid that donald trump might yank her nomination. he could still do that. if she said i'm not going to rule on whether the president lost the election or won the election because i was just appointed by him, she could do that, but i'm afraid she would be -- but i think she would be afraid to do that. when gorsuch came up, there was talk about yanking his nomination. this has really corrupted the process. and unfortunately, because she is talented and certainly a distinguished judge, she is part of stealing a supreme seat. host: you put out a statement earlier this week, that by capturing the court, there were eight hopes it will effectively steal -- the right hopes it will effectively steal the generation for the future. that it will not have the opportunity to forge its own way and make manifest promises yet
to be realized in the constitution. their future will be bought by an alliance of billionaires, a political movement, and right wing and corporate interests. it would be a tragedy if it were to succeed. tell us a little more about the thinking behind this and what the potential fallout could be from the court. guest: i'm passionate about this, and one of the reasons is not so much for me and my generation, but the younger generation of lawyers and law students we work with here at the american constitution society. they are putting these folks, 48 years old or younger, on the supreme court. they may well be on there for 30 or 40 years. so people that are graduating from law school right now, who are 25 and 30 years old, the same person may be on the bench 40 years from now when they are 60 or 70 years old. what does that mean? given the hard right ideology of these people, and the fact that one wereuch and this
essentially taken, in my view, from people should -- people who should have been making the nomination, president obama and whoever wins the election in november, that causes the court to be illegitimate and for a very long time. so that is generational theft. that generation sen. tillis: will not be used because these folks will be locking it down, and that is what the right is trying to do. that is why this process is illegitimate, an affront to younger generations, and it was not, in my view, anything the founders ever intended that people would be able to be on the court for 50 or 60 years and simply deny future generations a chance to have their view, and in particular their desire to constitute and reflect the reality of americans in the 21st century. that's what we need. we cannot have some document that doesn't involve.
it has to evolve in order for it to work as the great constitution it is. host: our phone lines are open for your questions and comments for our guest, russ feingold, president of the american constitution society. do you support judge amy coney barrett? that number, 202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. undecided, 202-748-8002. during the hearing, the idea of so-called court packing has come up. senator feingold, what is your view of adding additional members to the supreme court? guest: it is the kind of thing that is something i would not have thought would be ever necessary until i saw what the right was willing to do, to steal the seat from president obama -- that is one seat that as far as i'm concerned is illegitimate. to ram this nomination through right at the end of an election process, in the middle of
covid-19 and all the other problems that we have is unprecedented. this has never been done after july in an election year. so what you have here is a theft of our court. so what do you do. i think your response is necessary is to look at what the constitution allows. that is what will be discussed. there will be a national discussion at the american constitutional society that it will help lead. it has happened before. that the congress can add or reduce the number of supreme court justices. is an option. another option is to affect the jurisdiction of the supreme court. the supreme court does not have a constitutional right to jurisdiction of all cases, and the congress and the president can act in that way. it would take a constitutional amendment to do some of the other reforms that have been proposed. some people think there ought to
be an 18 year limit on how long supreme court justice is served because we had this horrible situation now where people feel they have to hang on, like justice ginsburg, when she was very ill, and on as long as she could because of the way this works. the fact that there is an intentional effort the right to get as young as possible people -- not necessarily the best people -- but as young as possible people who are hard right, committed to a narrow ideology, a pro-corporate ideology -- if this act is completed, there will be a national conversation emma and potentially action to do something about this because look, when you steal the supreme court, there has to be recompense. there has to be reparations. people who care about this from the left to the right, who care about the supreme court, cannot just stand back and take it because the legitimacy of the united states supreme court is being destroyed at this point.
there is no choice but to take a look at options if this occurs. host: you are co-author, with the late senator john mccain, of what was a landmark mccain-feingold campaign finance legislation that was overturned and the citizens united case. i want to get your thoughts on the computer -- on the future of campaign-finance but first by the comments of senator enzi graham, the chair of the committee, with comments on campaign fundraising and financing in his own race, the $57 million raised his own opponent in that race, jamie harrison. here is senator lindsey graham. graham: to my friend senator whitehouse, you and i are going to come closer and closer about raising money. there is a lot of money being raised in this campaign. i would like to know where the hell some of it is coming from. but that's not your problem. citizens united says what?
thee barrett: it protects position of corporate -- >> if someone challenges that, how with the process work? judge barrett: somebody would have to challenge that law in the case, somebody would want to spend the money, and it would wind its way up, and judges would decide it after oral arguments were made. host: what did you hear there from senator graham and from the nominee? guest: this is the exact phoniness of what we have heard all week. over and over again, the republican senators said the court should not be over turning the will of the people, the court should apply to the law. but what they did at citizens united is overturned the will of the people, and it is no fault of yours but there is a
misconception out there that mccain-feingold was overturned. that is something not true. that case was not about mccain feingold. there was an act called the tillman act, saying that money could not be given to political campaigns by corporations. ,he united states supreme court joined by justice scalia, her hero, and others, said we are going to overturn this law that has been in place for a hundred years to protect the electoral process. that is what was done. so to have lindsey graham, who was a big ally of ours on this issue, when i was in the senate and he was in the house at the time. to have him complain about this because a lot of money is being spent against them, you wonder, where was he when citizens united came down, when there was an effort to require disclosure of all these contributions, as the supreme court asked for? courtality is, it is this
that is threatening to strike down the will of the american people, not only in campaign-finance but almost immediately on the affordable care act. i could not believe they were talking about the will of the people. the will of the people was expressed in the affordable care act, and they are talking about dismantling that, and that is one of their goals. so this is a completely disingenuous and hypocritical -- another example of where they use reddick on one side, but their real goal is to stop the will of the american people from moving this country in a direction that reflects the reality and diversity of america in the 21st century. that is the real goal. .ost: let's hear from callers willie in mississippi, supporting judge barrett's nomination. caller: thank you, c-span. longtime listener, first on collar. i was a teenager when you first got on covering the covers, and it was amazing to me seeing grown people saying the pledge
of allegiance every day. i've been interested in politics ever since. i support every judge on the supreme court come on the appeals court. however, i disapprove of the process going through. i would like to say to the gentleman, i forget your name, but i know your face. they are talking about expanding the court. i would suggest along with that, you should change the rules. a president who has been impeached should have no power. all his power should be given to -- vice president, what whether the senate moves him or not. they have to have some teeth in the game. also, a president in his second term should be able to appoint any judge, and should be able to come up with hearings.
for people not understanding this, mcconnell did not even table it for a nomination. i think it should go until the beginning of august before voting even begins by the people. that willie, thanks for and for being such a long time viewer. senator russ feingold. i want to congratulate willie on the integrity of his comments. what you really have is a majority of the united states senate committing to vote they knew who it was going to be. think about how ridiculous that is. they said i have the vote. how can you have a vote before you even know who it is? you see somebody like judge barrett who is smart and talented. one way to have people look at it, let's say you drove your nice new car into a parking lot, you came back after eating dinner, and there was somebody in your car driving it away, and
the person said, yeah, but she's just a really good driver. look how well she drives the car . but it's your car. that is what this is. this is stealing by somebody who might be a good driver. that is simply wrong. benton, freda in illinois. freda, go-ahead. the first fiveed sentences of this guy on here this guy called himself an activist. that is not with this country meads -- needs. the seed with obama was left open, and if clinton would have won, clinton would have got to make her pick. obama, the country was divided. no one can deny that. the people had a right to choose at that point on a different path. -- on a different path they wanted to take. if clinton would have won, she
was nominated. of the nuclear option on the lower court. now they are coming back and they are doing it. i mean, come on. the last caller said he should not get to do the judge because he was impeached. clinton was impeached. host: we will hear from senator feingold. guest: i don't blame the caller for thinking there is hypocrisy on both sides of politics, which is of course true. i was involved with four of these supreme court nominations on the judiciary committee. two whereby the democrat president, two whereby republicans, and it was nothing like this. it was a gradual process, we got to meet with the nominees, had time to investigate their background, talk with people about them. we got to question them at length. there was time before the debate on the floor. it was a fair and real process.
justdy that says this is that the other side does the same thing, that is absolutely false. neither side has ever done anything like this, and the idea of not filling a vacancy that came in the early part of a fourth year of a president's term is unprecedented. amorgos time ever that the seed was not fill before, what was done to mira garland, was justice brandeis. this was far more. it is apples and oranges, and you cannot make the comparison. this is simply theft. it makes people look at the supreme court and say why should we obey what the supreme court says if the process of putting people on the supreme court is illegitimate? it is a dangerous thing for our country. ,ost: as we get set for hearing what are your thoughts on the process of these four days of
hearings, of the answers that nominees do or don't give? is a: well, you know, that whole problem even when the process is fair. foras been a real challenge people on both sides of the aisle, trained to not give answers. i got frustrated even with people appointed by president obama during this process, because i felt why can't you at least answer this or give us a sense of your feelings about issues, even if you would not -- if it would not directly affect the case. but this becomes much worse in a situation where this is being jammed through for political purposes, by a president in trouble with the electorate. this causes the process to be even more fraudulent and disturbing. this person will have the right to affect everything about our lives for the rest of her life. the idea that that would be jammed through with basically not answer questions or only answer questions that you feel like answering -- for example,
she was happy to talk about the affordable care act case and the specifics of the severability issue. that is coming up in a few weeks if she gets confirmed. but she would not talk about so many other important issues that deserve a sense of where she's going, from roe v. wade to others, so this process is basically the worst we have ever seen. in northt up is eric carolina. opposing the nomination. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. senator, a pleasure to speak to you. i am not a lawyer but i stayed at a holiday inn express last night. ha ha. beennk this president has sent such as when these people come up for nomination, it is like watching -- i don't know, like watching a mobster being --
asking questions and say hi plead the fifth. that is what this has come down to. i plead the fifth. they don't want to incriminate themselves. on the know the timeline way these nominees are being coached, as you say. when this whole idea of just don't answer the question, just don't answer the question -- they are just pleading the fifth on a lot of the stuff. they are afraid to expose themselves for whatever reason, so if you would be so kind to expound on that, pleading the fifth is way -- the way i'm seeing these things these days. are absolutely right, it may not have to do with incrimination, but it is defrauding the people, hiding the ball from the american people. when judge kony says i would recuse myself -- when judge amy coney barrett is saying that --
is asking that's being asked if she would recuse herself and she doesn't answer -- that is hiding the ball from the american people, hiding behind the word followough -- the word the law, when she can recuse herself anytime it is necessary to recuse yourself. this is a horrible way to treat the american people, to use a buddy who is smart, sound smart -- to use somebody who is smart, sounds smart, but is refusing to admit that she should not be ruling on a case of a disputed election involving this president. we will hear from carol, a supporter of judge merrick. host: good morning, you are on the air. caller: i absolutely support
president trump seven nomination in judge merrick. i'm really tired of hearing these progressives say this is illegitimate. they are ramming, they are jamming, it's fraudulent. they are not telling the truth. this is a constitutional candment, states that we and the president is supposed to -- that is his job, to nominate a supreme court justice. they are never going to stop saying it. in defense of judge merrick, she carefully answers these questions because just like president, every word she says is weighed. it will absolutely be criticized by the liberals, so quit condemning what she says. there is a reason for it. -- have have caused caused her to have to answer like that, and then they condemn
her. ,hey condemn her either way just like president trump, no matter what she says. it is not illegitimate, it is happening. if it was illegitimate, it would not be happening. host: we will get a response from senator feingold. guest: i appreciate your candor. i tell you, those of us who are watching all this, we are tired of being tired. we are tired of the two sets of rules, one for the right and one for the left, or for moderates and progressives. the absolute ruthlessness of accusing one argument, which is we should not fill the seat under president obama, but we need to file right away for president trump, is apsley wrong. i sort of agree with the president, that you can certainly nominate somebody because the cousin duchenne -- the constitutions permits it -- the constitution permits it.
so late that nobody would ever have imagined it before. i guess we have to agree to disagree, but we may both be tired but i will tell you something. we are not going to put up with this, we are not putting up with stealing the united states supreme court from the american people. we are done with that. is in clinton, washington. we lost robert there. the lead opinion in usa today from jonathan turley, "nominating barrett is not court packing. responding to some criticisms of republicans, he writes, "filling a vacancy is not court packing under any possible definition, otherwise anytime you disagree court seven nomination -- guest: that is nothing but a word game. court packing,
call the court stealing. i would rather call it that anyway. you are taking a seat from somebody who should be making combination. let's talk about the fact of what is happening and the fact that congress and the president have the power to decide how many justices there are all of the supreme court. so if we get away from the slogans and get down to the specifics, then the real issue is before us. host: we are joining you this arning from wisconsin, snapshot of real clear politics, their average showing joe biden ahead by six points. what is your on the ground look about how things are shaping up for the democratic nominee? >> i have made transition, running a nonprofit. when i'm proud of that -- i am proud of that. that means i am not a pundit anymore on campaigns.
they surprise me in positive ways, in negative ways. but i will leave that to the pundits to analyze in the coming days. host: one more thing noted in our preparation for our interview, back in 2001, you were the only senator to vote against the 2001 patriot act. it has changed over the years. how do you think that vote stands? almost 20our thoughts years later? >> most people think that was one of the most positive things the -- i did as united states senator. i took the unconventional approach of reading the bill, and i saw in the bill that this was loaded with provisions, going out to personal rights and personal liberty. their library records. it was not even for karis to -- for terrorist cases. now going --le are many conservatives are concerned
about the intrusions into personal privacy that this allows. it was a good vote, and, you know, i'm glad i did it, and i'm glad other people have come to realize that there were things in that that simply didn't belong in the usa patriot act. thanks forfeingold, being with us. up next here on "washington journal," we will be joined by former white house press secretary sean spicer, with a america out, "leading ♪ contenders" about the men who ran for the presidency and lost. tonight, governor of illinois and u.s. ambassador to the united nations adlai stevenson. this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3.
♪ >> who will control congress in january? stay informed on all the competitive congressional races leading up to election date with c-span's campaign 2020 coverage. watch the candidates debate and election results on c-span. watch online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> the competition is on. be a part of this year's video competition. middleton high school students start -- middle and heisel students lead the conversation. exploring the issues you want the president and congress to address. be bold with your documentary. show supporting and opposing points of view. there is $100,000 in total cash
prizes, including the grand prize of $5,000. the deadline to submit is january 20, 2021. you will find competition rules, tips, and more information on how to get started at our website, studentcam.org. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you by your television provider. >> washington journal continues. host: next up we are joined by sean spicer, former white house press secretary and author of his latest book, "leading america: president trump's commitment to people, patriotism, and capitalism.." , welcome to washington journal. guest: good to be with you. host: tell us what your book is
about and why you wrote it. guest: it's about a couple of things. it could not be more timely considering the news about hunter biden, big tech and media censorship. i talked about big tech and journalism and the headwinds conservatives face in both areas. i talked about corporate andica, academia, college, what the direction society is moving in in the leftward bent of the institutions in america and why president trump's policies are pushing back against them. but we can do as conservatives and people who care about free speech and why cancel culture is destroying the country. i give an account of my time in hollywood through my adventure with "dancing with the stars." it's a good look at where we are in society and the direction we are heading in. i tried to make a case,
especially in light of the next 20 days and why the election is important. host: are you now involved in the trump campaign? do you think in your two years since you left the press secretary, those things you articulated have gotten worse? show every night at 6:00. i have no affiliation with the campaign. i am a supporter. i make no bones about that. i am a hosted have no role in the campaign or any other entity officially supporting the president, except for my own personal one. i think those entities have gotten worse. the idea of cancel culture, virtue signaling, trying to decide what everyone can and can't say has gotten worse. it was interesting listening to russ feingold. washington as a guy who wanted to create solutions
to big problems. mccain-feingold was one of his big issues with campaign-finance. his rhetoric shows he is part of the problem. the idea we are stealing a supreme court seat when there is a vacancy and the nomination is made by the president. just like president obama. it is a fair point to discuss if politics is involved, but welcome to washington. to say someone is stealing a seat when there is a vacancy in the constitution calls for the president to make a nomination is hardly stealing. that is the process we have. it is case in point of why i wrote this book. we are now using things like that to describe the process that would frankly be normal just every year back. host: on the capitalism piece, the subtitle of your book, you write, "it is not only capitalism at stake. it is our constitution. i was taught the guiding principles of the first
amendment to the constitution was based on the concept of allowing for free expression and exchange of ideas. i might not agree or like or agree with what someone says but i would fight for the right to express it in a matter how much i disagreed with it. unfortunately this understanding is fading quickly. our society has dealt into a mob mentality that believes if you don't share the prevailing leftist view, you need to be canceled and pushed out to the margins of society." guest: 100% right. when i grew up there was an issue of flagburning. i spent 21 years in the military. i don't think it's appropriate. the first of the day amendment gives people the ability to express themselves. i can equally express my displeasure. the beauty of the constitution and our country is you can do it. we have seen this through the supreme court hearings where judge barrett made a comment about the words sexual preference.
liberals for going nuts and saying it shows she is unfit because she is not using words they deem appropriate and express and get in your way. somehow now you are unfit and you should be canceled out. the interesting thing about this, bill, is there is a double standard. if someone on the right said something and it is not deemed appropriate by the left, they get protested. if someone on the left does it, well, it is understood and as long as it is in pursuit of the greater good, no problem. there is a big problem when you can say the same thing but it depends on who says it what the reaction is. host: the book is "leading america: president trump's commitment to people, patriotism, and capitalism." the author is sean spicer. ready for your questions and comments. (202) 748-8001 if you support president trump. (202) 748-8000 if you support
joe biden and kamala harris. all others, (202) 748-8002. let's go to "dancing with the stars." an outsider. you set it up in the beginning by saying you and your wife did not even get through your wedding dance. talk about some of the trepidations of going into it. tie it into some of the political fallout that came after. lessonwe took one dance at glen echo down here in d.c. let's just do a couple of turns and cut the cake and call it a day. i have no rhythm. she is a little better than i am. i turned down the opportunity to be on the show initially after leaving the white house. there are a couple of others in terms of commitment i had made. after a couple of years i thought they don't ask that many times.
i accomplished a lot of what i wanted to do. maybe have some fun. i thought it would last a couple of weeks and that would be it. i go through the -- it is funny and easyhing as simple as a show that literally is lighthearted and supposed to be a fun dancing show became so polarizing. i made no political comments throughout the show. i went in saying the opposite. the cool thing about it was it was a family show and something you can encourage your kids to watch. there is no real competition. you don't win a cash prize over dancing competition contract. you go because it is good, wholesome, american fun. every question my fellow contestants got was what is sean like? is he trying to persuade people? are you disgusted with him being on the show? is this really serious? you can't have a show where everything has to be politics.
ist point i make in the book there is often this call from the left to have civil discussion. everything they try to do is tear people apart who were having civil discussions. i talk about where colombo brown, a very left-leaning individual, we started to have good, interesting conversations about life. not about politics, just life. the media had this fascination. it is crazy they are talking. i think it is crazy you think it is crazy. not you on c-span, but people say i can't believe you guys are talking to each other. i'm thinking to myself -- i totally disagree with most every policy he has. i think he felt the same way about me. but we could talk about family and life and competition and current events and sports. he's a dodgers fan. i'm a red sox fan. the world series was going on. it is fascinating there was
never a moment where they would allow it not to be political despite the fact i think michael was to make it a reprieve from that. i think that is why a lot of americans tune into a show like that. host: you wrote something about the "dancing with the stars" community. are you still in touch with some of those folks? do you still have conversations about those things that are nonpolitical? guest: absolutely. the only time politics ever came up is once in a while one of the cast members would pull me aside and say can i ask you a question. it was never a group discussion. i stay in touch with a lot of folks on the show. the contestants and professional dancers. someeauty of the show is of the executive producers, the staff that supports it, the people who make sure security is handled and take care of the other logistics and publicity
, i stay inervices touch with a lot of those folks. he really is a family you develop being on that show and indoors with you after you leave. it was a selling point for the show i talk about in the book. i thought it was a talking point. it is truly a reality. there are people who stay in touch. i loved being on the show. i had never really watched it before i was on it. now i sit around with my kids and watch the show. we cheer on the other folks. host: let's get the calls. louisiana, malcolm, a trump supporter. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. spicer. i would like to say i think this country is going to pot for several years now. left just will not that the regular people have anything to say. they try to shut them up all the
time. you mentioned hunter biden. i checked cnn and msnbc last night. they were not speaking of this at all. all they were talking about was trump is having another big rally and nobody is wearing masks, no spacing. they were talking about how many people have the virus and all this stuff. as far as i know all these endeavors are a bunch of bull. you hear this all the time. i don't know. this country is going to pot because of the fact it is being pulled to the left by biden and his type of people. there is nothing they will not do to try and shut up the regular, real americans. host: sean spicer? guest: i think you will love the book. i walk through all of this in the major institutions in
america, big tech, corporate america, academia, hollywood, journalism. you hit the nail on the head. that is what i wrote the book, to create a greater understanding of the landscape. i think this hunter biden story is fascinating. the new york post put a story out that there is no question on the sourcing this was from material recovered from an apple computer discarded. other members of the media started talking about how they wanted to discredit it and won't use it and big tech sensors it. i thought how fascinating this was. if you juxtapose to a few weeks ago when the new york times illegally obtained the president's tax returns. no one had concerns about using hacked information at that time. he saw journalists coming out and attack and critique another journalism outlet because they did not like the story. then big tech blocked people from sharing the story.
had her twitter account blocked last night merely for sharing the story. merely for sharing the story. what is going on when big tech is so afraid of a story? this isn't some right-wing publication. it's the new york post, one of america's longest publications. but because people don't like the story because it is not -- it is inside biden, -- anti-biden, it gets blocked by big tech. host: we read that story yesterday. to procure on washington journal. this is the reporting of the new york times. allegation on biden promised pushback from social media companies. joe biden's campaign rejected assertions made in published reports made on unverified materials from trump allies. facebook and twitter found it dubious enough to limit access to it on the platform. guest: ok, that is fair enough.
we should scrutinize reporting. i am not a reporter. at the end of the day there is an email in that story. not. either true or there is some validity to the email or not. there were pictures recovered as well. the question is, is the email doctored? if so, i understand the pushback. media organizations should apply the same scrutiny as they did to the trump hack story. i think the ark immediately dismissing it and trying to tie it to russian disinformation. tell me why. within a matter of hours they immediately dismissed the story and said they could not run it. i looked at that story. i don't know anything more than a red in that piece but the emails that were obtained seemed to be legitimate. i don't have reason to doubt them. it would seem easy for the biden
campaign to say the emails are not accurate and here is what. they are not even doing that. the journalists are not doing the bare minimum questions. joe biden says when asked if they will pack the supreme will they they win, increase the size of it? he tells the reporter no, i will not give you my position. i will tell you after the election because it will cause a headline. isn't that what politicians try to do? articulate why you should vote for them. the media's answer was on most one of embarrassment. sorry for asking you that question. we will move on and ask for negative questions of president trump. the media has become an embarrassment in the last few days in terms of how they conducted themselves. part of what i write is understanding of how these journalists are trained. they are told to proceed with they believe the greater good is, not the facts and figures. what they perceive the greater good. for many of them it is a more
left-leaning country. host: let's hear my biden supporter in philadelphia. ruben, go ahead. caller: sean, i have a couple of questions. after the president said lysol and bleach and reopen of the and fire foundn tea and read tweeting all of this, we find other bob woodward he knew how deadly the disease was. how can you still support the president for that? how can you support the senators that in 2016 said this is an election year, we will not put in a supreme court justice. lindsey graham gave his word he would not even vote on it. you do not see the hypocrisy in that? host: sean spicer?
guest: those are two really interesting questions. i don't disagree with you. i think those senators from a strategic standpoint made a mistake. they should not have said it. the senate -- the president has an obligation to fill vacancies. thehe case of senate, whether it is a judge, the senate has a right to decide how to move on that nomination. what speed to move on it and whether or take it out for a final vote. it was a mistake for the senate to make a they did in 2016. they should have said we are the opposite party and we are making a decision. the argument they made is coming back to bite them now. is a both sides thing. argue theyts could should fill one in election year.
this shows you the nature of washington. i do think that should shock anybody. it is the reality of how washington operates. you operate in the short term for whatever advantage your party and principles at that time. sometimes you have to eat crow and go the other way. i don't like it. i wish we had a more consistent philosophy and we could get back to standard on judges, that they are qualified or not. you look at the number of republicans that voted for justice ginsburg because she was a qualified justice. , notis the senate's role if you agree with them. now you're getting to the point where it is not are they qualified. there is no question that amy coney barrett is probably one of the most qualified justices -- jurists to ascend to the supreme court. we have now turned that qualification standard into you a -- into a do you agree with me
standard. democrats want people to feel like them. they want to know do you feel a certain way. do you agree with them as opposed to what the law says. secondly, with respect to the president, respectfully i don't think he described it in the way you did. i remember the press conference you are talking about. he was sort of meandering during that press briefing, asking the doctors about certain ways they potentialst therapeutics or vaccines. i don't think it was the most well articulated thing or that was the way you should be doing that, but it's definitely a reach to say he was telling someone to ingest lysol, which is not what he said. i think the president's policies have moved the country forward. he kept his word. that is an odd thing in the city. i have been in politics for 25 years. he said he would move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem and he did.
he said he was going to pull out of the paris climate agreement and he did it. he said he will renegotiate nafta and he did it. he said he will cut taxes and regulation and he did it. he said he would close up the military budget and he did. politicians generally don't come up every election saying they did exactly what they say they did. you may not agree with his philosophy, but i think the president deserves credit for keeping his word and implement and what he said as a candidate when he became president. host: cindy in maple valley, washington. caller: good morning. thank you for having sean on. 'that is my son's name. guest: does he spell it the right way? caller: he does. i want to say i love the president. i have supported him from the start and i would never stop supporting him. i want to say -- i want to ask real quick, today there will be
something coming up before congress. i want to see what you think about it. i am part of this movement they are trying to stop called the q movement. we support the president and everything he does and also through the -- we get a lot of information to help us. i think the president also often puts out things to get us to look up and find out and educate ourselves. toknows we will go the internet. i want to know what you think about that as far as the congress and what they are doing with that. guest: i'm sorry. what is the movement? host: i missed that. she is off the line. i apologize. --st: i did not get wet
-- i did not get what -- agree found she has been a victim of cancel culture from the right -- found has been a victim of cancel culture from the right? guest: i don't have to agree with you. we have room and space for disparate voices. we don't need to agree with them. sometimes that discussion of listening to opposite voices educates us. each of us -- in my case i grew up in rhode island in a small town. there are times i hear from people who had a different experience. maybe it is culturally or economically. maybe it is geographically. they explained to me something i was not aware of the way i grew up in terms of the way they were growing up. maybe the headwinds they faced with the challenges they overcame.
sometimes hearing those other sides helps you grow as a person. sometimes he was the person espousing a particular view learns from people when you espouse something and somebody starts questioning why you said it. you learn and go i did not think about that in the context. the more we can actually exchange ideas and learn from them the better. there are things in some cases that offend people because of some kind of past discrimination that other people might not be aware of based on their upbringing. you learn from those experiences. you grow as a person. it was never intentional what he said in the first place. if we can't have that free exchange of ideas, we can't grow and learn as we should. host: sean spicer, the new book is "leading america: president trump's commitment to people, patriotism, and capitalism." thanks, for being with us this morning. guest: you bet.
thanks, c-span. host: that will wrap up our program. we are heading to the final day of hearings for judge amy coney barrett at her nomination to the supreme court. the committee will conduct initial business and then move on to several panels of witnesses, both for and against the nominee. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern washington journal. i hope you are too. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [crowd talking]