Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  March 29, 2016 9:19pm-10:04pm EDT

9:19 pm
should make the decision about the debates. >> we will look at the case that denied a black citizenship under the constitution and the missouri compromise. scott versus sanford. fred hiatt at our table this morning, here to talk about your interview with mr. trump last week. how did it come about? -- howicted on schedule did it get on your schedule? the majornvited , and hiss to come in spokeswoman has been saying for a long time that he would like to do it. just before we did, monday?said how about
9:20 pm
he is the first one to accept our invitation. host: what were the ground rules? guest: on the record, just my editorial board, we are very separate from the new side. -- news side. what i said is we would like an interview that focuses more on substance than on the horse race. and we would like it to be on the record, and that was something they were fine with. host: and there was not a conversation about it should be on or off the record? guest: there was a conversation, but there was no dispute if they were happy to be on the record. host: and it was the editorial team in the room. it was in the room for donald trump's campaign? guest: he was there with his spokeswoman and campaign manager . there might have been one other, but i think that was it. host: he met with you for more than an hour.
9:21 pm
there is an audio recording. why not cameras? guest: that is a good question. my video team would like to know the same thing. [laughter] we just had a couple of days to set it up, we do not think about it too much. sometimes i think video can get in the way, as well as being useful. there was no great ideological reason, we just ended up doing it this way. host: you asked several questions yourself. overall what did you make of his interest to the questions? guest: first of all, i give him credit for coming in will -- on the has been editorial page we have been very critical of him and have had some have things to say.
9:22 pm
that is why we wanted to give him a chance to address our concerns on the record. and he did, and the tone of the conversation is great and very cordial and polite. i do not know if you remember when ben carson endorsed tr there are two different tribes, when you talk to them versus us the relish. i can see why he has an impression. that editorial after your meeting, you wrote that unfortunately the visit provided no reassurance regarding his fitness for the presidency. i am not a radical person, he told us as he was leaving, but his answers left little doubt how radical your risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the white house to him. why did you write that? guest: i think he would be a huge risk for the country.
9:23 pm
i think he is a risk to our democratic system on many levels. , to the extenth policy can be th learned, we disagree with a lot of those. host: your critical of his foreign-policy agenda as well . there were comments he made a couple of times about the role of nato in this country. this was the or the attacks in brussels i very next day. but he has tweeted out and said the same things he said in that washington post meeting. i want to play for you a little of the exchange you had on this issue. >> i see nato as a good thing to have. i look at the ukraine situation ukraine is a country
9:24 pm
that affects us far less than it is other countries in nato, and yet we're doing all of the lifting. i say why is germany not dealing with this? why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of ukraine are not dealing with this? why are we always the one that war,ading the third world potentially? i think the concept of nato is good, but i do think that the united states has to have some help. pay hundreds of billions of dollars every year into other countries that are technically wealthier than we are. , weany, japan, south korea
9:25 pm
spend billions of dollars on saudi arabia, and have nothing for it. and i say why? wouldd go in and i structure a much different deal with them. it would be a much better deal. when you look at the kind of money our countries losing, we cannot afford to do this. host: what did you make of his answer? guest: i think he is wrong on just about every level. in one sense, the complaints about our lives is not different from what americans have been saying for decades. there are burdens to being the leader of the free world. one of those burdens always dealing like you are paying more than your fair share. the united states has been fighting with germany over this forever, with japan, with france, it is natural.
9:26 pm
but i think you listen to the , he'sty of what he said questioning more than the burden sharing. he is questioning the u.s. being a leader in the world. the would it mean for dollar to be the international currency? it is a very different, radical new of he would hold back, strikeout when he felt we were under attack, but otherwise pull in and i think it's threatens the system that has more or less kept the peace for 70 years and allowed europe antiseizure to become prosperous over the last half-century in a very risky way. host: you write in your column u.s. leadership matters today just as it did after world war ii. guest: there were a lot of people than also who did not
9:27 pm
think we should go to war, and then afterwards were people who said why are we doing the marshall plan, isn't it time to come home? i have we already spend a lot saving them? the marshall plan turned out to be a great investment, not only e, but for the united states. criticism of donald trump foreign policy, saying it is dangerous babbling for policy. then you have the wall street journal this morning with their editorial. the republicans would accelerate under retreat begun on -- president obama. critical ofe been president obama in some respects, particularly a retreat from the middle east, which i
9:28 pm
think has not had good results. president obama has also talked about nationbuilding at home. they do not think he has made the case to the american people as a president should why u.s. leadership is important. , obama ise comparison fundamentally still committed to u.s. alliances and he has worked with europe and china and others to come up with a climate change treaty. he has tried to negotiate a even though i might differ with some of his policies, he is an internationalist. in u.s.believe leadership there is more that separates them that unites them. host: let's get some calls.
9:29 pm
democrat, from nevada. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very happy that we have c-span. what a wonderful program. thank you, sir for being a part of it. i am a retired political science teacher. i have a simple question. alleges that there are two donald trump assuming that mr. carson is correct, i would like to know how the american people are supposed to know which donald trump will show up in the war room when we have a crisis with great pressure on it, and the president has to make a decision about the use of military power. how do we know which one? will it be the bombastic donald trump, or the relaxed conversational tone of the interview station? how will the american people know how this man will react in
9:30 pm
the most important role in president has? >> that is a great question. i guess my answer would be there are not two donald trump's. there is one donald trump and he for the spread the one who says i would like to smash that protesters face in, or in the good old days he would taken out of your on a stretcher, that is donald trump. the fact that he can then enter an editorial boardroom and speak in a different tone of voice, my mind does not negate the damage that that kind of campaigning dust and has done. course, does not take away the fact that they are the same person. unknownthe risk and the
9:31 pm
that you ask about of what would happen when he goes into the war room, i think that is a good question. host: you and others from the editorial board repeatedly asked him about condoning violence and the distinction he is try to make. what did you think about the answers he gave you? guest: if you look at the transcript for listen, you will see that keeps coming back to the idea that these protesters are terrible people. up,e once were getting beat or who he wishes would get beaten up. theyep coming back and say might be terrible people, i am not granting one way or the other, but does that excuse condoning the violence, and if you offer to pay their legal fees, are you not condoning the violence? he never really answers the question. he just coming back to the idea that they are terrible people. i would say in a democratic
9:32 pm
is am, the right response protesters disrupted is let the police handed, that handle it, not to threaten violence. host: we're talking about the washington post interview with donald trump. he sat down with them for more than an hour. timeser gave the new york interview about his foreign-policy. a lot in the paper following up on those conversations about donald trump and his vision for this country if he were to win the nomination. we are taking your questions and comments about that as well as other campaign news. we go to my vermont, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my comment. regard to mr. trump's ability
9:33 pm
to meet the president, i am 58 years old. i have three children and four grandchildren. i will probably have more grandchildren coming my way. what i see here in the past, not just mr. obama but mr. bush and mr. clinton, the baby boomer that startedere after george bush senior, we have tried this. this type of leadership. terrorist attracts were would mr. clinton was there -- attacks were when mr. clinton was there with mr. bush. havee continuing to
9:34 pm
attacks all over the world now. that wehink it is time might want to try a different type of leadership in this country. host: would you point to? for me, mr. trump is an excellent choice, i believe. of course, being from vermont, and mr. sanders, outstanding intlemen, i must tell you, just want him for my children particularly, because i will not be distressed one way or the other. i think there is an thinktandable tendency to we have a lot of problems, we have been fighting al qaeda now
9:35 pm
for 15 years or 20 years and there are still terrorists out so let's try something lately go outside the box. i can understand the temptation, i think it is a risky one because i think these problems really are difficult, and if you go back through history, there is no president has ever come out of a term with a perfect record. there is always successes and failures. bush and obama are quite different people one from another. it is true they are all someoneans, but saying who has never been involved in does not know much about the is likely to produce more problems, not fewer.
9:36 pm
i think there is a danger in the rather provoked bernie sanders and donald trump were constantly talking about how terrible things are in the country is run by losers and everybody is going backwards. it overstates how terrible things are, things in the united states are not best terrible, and we are not a poor country compared to other countries as trump would say. it leads to risk taking, which in the end could leave us a lot even though ing understand why people are dissatisfied with the current political situation. host: they are also looking for somebody who quote, tells it like it is. this is something you saw in many supporters in these primary caucuses.
9:37 pm
people who vote for him say it is because he tells it like it is. on one level that is understandable. we are tired of scripted politicians and politicians to sound funny when they talk. hand, a lot ofr what trump says is not true. you remember a few months ago, he was a thousands of muslims had celebrated after 9/11. that this was in new jersey, in the united states. it was false. it was proved to be false. but he kept saying it. i think there is a difference beween being willing to insulting, and sounding spontaneous, and telling it like it is. those things are not necessarily the same. host: independent line from alabama. you're next. caller: good morning. i think maybe the media keeps looking into character flaws and
9:38 pm
problems with the candidates, and i think the biggest problem is they are all politicians. money and influence are basically the rule. situation, wee keep hearing numbers on that. find this to out. essentially, it is an 80% default right now. the fall are not paying. people say it is a great plan, which need to execute it better. i think people are getting tired statuspoliticians quo. sanders was a draft dodger whose family was rescued in germany by american blood. now he is a socialist.
9:39 pm
how in the world is that not the story of the day that he gets that support in a free country? guest: there's a lot wrapped up in question. i think the health care is a good example of why things are difficult. washington is very divided these days. fines and the old days my have been result with some compromise , but they have become battles to the death. you obamacare has been pretty -- i thinkl obamacare has been pretty successful in bending the cost curve, making health-care expenses slow.
9:40 pm
but it was never going to be a solution to every problem. because republicans and democrats in washington have to use every battle to fund raise than two look forward to the next election, the singular presented in apocalyptic terms. where peopleuation are either disappointed that it did not turn out to be this great savior, or they look at obamacare is the cause of everything that is wrong. i think both are exaggerations. host: democrat line, good morning. c-span andnk you for for the commentary. the bookenjoy festivals and the many kinds of tomentary that comes forward elevate and thomas. this gentleman is a very reasoned and seasoned journalist. i think him for his service in that role.
9:41 pm
relates tot as it this dichotomy that is happening in our country right now, i think this is years in the making, where we now have a lived -- i amas almost 60. i have a mother that is in her 90's. i am a black american, my husband is a physician. i have two who are in medical school. we are not a common story that has been promoted on television about black families. a have an america that is diverse america, and international and integrated america. reachingourse is what this dichotomy right now. south lived in north and and internationally, i consider myself an appreciative person of
9:42 pm
the world economy. when we talk about donald trump, himselfo is promoting in a reality-based media with twitter and the dynamic newspapers losing their , myorial selections question to the journalists is how do you feel that the dynamic of the medium of technology is imprinting this kind of --lity-based i will have fred hiatt
9:43 pm
jump in. guest: great question. thank you. i think we are in a totally new world when it comes to the media , and it is good and bad. there is no question that a lot people listen to just the television station where they could be sure there are only going to hear what they agree with, or just go to the websites where they can be sure they will only read what they agree with. i think that can foster partisanship. it exaggerates this sense where andle have different facts do not see the world in the same way. on the other hand, to be more positive about it, the transcript of our interview with mr. trump has been one of the most read things on our website for more than a week now. we can see by how long people
9:44 pm
spend their that most people are reading the whole thing, and we are reaching what i think was a very substantive, useful conversation. we are reaching many more people than we ever could have. there are a lot of people out there who are trying to read this for themselves. to just read our news stories or editorials, they want to have the actual words of the candidate. i think it is a world, where as you say, it can lead to fracturing, but it also has positive aspects in terms of people being able to educate themselves in ways they never could before. host: what about your editorial last week as the gop slides toward mr. trump? he did not specifically say mr. trump's name. -- why you call him a
9:45 pm
not so innocent bystander? guest: it a tough thing right now to be a republican leader who does not support trump. i understand that. but i think it is a time when the country needs its leaders to stand up and be heard from. , one of theember republican debates, when all of the other candidates were asked, what do you think of donald trump, and they all said he is dangerous, it would be a disaster, and then they were asked if you would be -- if they would vote for him, and they said yes. you cannot have it both ways. if he is really dangerous and a threat to democracy, and a departure from everything we have known, then something has to be more important even than party loyalty. did you hear from paul ryan's office after he wrote that editorial? guest: i do not like to talk
9:46 pm
about my phone calls one way or the other. i think the feeling would be, and i understand this, at that mr. wright has to chair the convention this summer. he has to be the neutral party as chairman. a lot of what he said in that speech was great. i understand, he is in a difficult position. invitations tout all candidates to come sit down. donald trump was the first. can you tell us who is coming next? guest: i wish i could. i have had expressions of interest, but nothing is currently scheduled at the moment. what we offer would be of interest to any of them, because we are saying we will top substance -- top substance and put the transcript of justice we
9:47 pm
did with donald trump, and people can see your words without the filter of the washington post. host: i want to talk to you about another part of conversation that you had over libel laws. he started out, when you asked him to go ahead and start at the beginning of your seductive he started out by saying i am not sure why i am here, the washington post has been very bad to me, and he questioned on the way over why he would be the the going to the washington post office to sit down with all of you. the conversation that followed that with about the media. >> given the supreme court ruling on libel, how would you change the law? i would have get my lawyers into tell you, but i would loosen them up. right washington posts badly about me, and they do, i
9:48 pm
read some of the stories coming up here. staff, why are we wasting our time when the hatred is so enormous? i do a good job. i have thousands of employees, i do a good job. i have a very rational person, i am a very same person. a read articles by you and and the level of hatred is so incredible i actually said why am i doing this, why am i even hear? are you -- >> it was wrong. the washington post never calls me. i never had a call why did you
9:49 pm
do this or why did you do that. they just treat me like ryan's horrible human being, which i am me know that are ever calls -- which i am not. nobody ever calls me. host: what were you thinking when you sat and listened to the answer? guest: we have been critical. i respected his willingness to come talk to us anyway. what struck me about that was when he said i would have to ask my lawyers, because here he has said he wants to change libel laws, which is a pretty fundamental part of american democracy. the question is, how would you do it? it is a portion of the constitution that has been interpreted in supreme court cases that the president cannot change. it is a pretty fundamental thing to say. yet, by his own accounting, he
9:50 pm
really has not thought through how you would go about doing it typical ofnk that is a lot of his statements. it is very difficult to have a democratic debate when a candidate puts something out there, but then does not have the policy or says, i will figure it out later or i will hires people. how do you debate the? it is the end of the conversation when it should be the beginning of the conversation. host: let's go back to our calls. caller: good morning. i have two questions on two candidates. i've questions on bernie sanders and they say she is -- he is a socialist communist, but what i have checked out is he is a social democrat. that is what our founding
9:51 pm
fathers found in our country on. have is onuestion i ted cruz. his father was a cuban soldier who worked for castor and then came over to canada. , not onorn in canada american soil. i do not know why that has changed since i was a kid, you had to be born on u.s. territory . tot: we will have mr. hiatt those questions. guest: bernie sanders, i take him at his word. he defines democratic socialist as more or less what we used to think of as a big government democrat. he does not want government to take over the means of production, which is how karl marx would have defined socialism, but he was government to do a lot more for
9:52 pm
vulnerable people. health care, so forth. we can have a debate on what parts of that are good ideas and what parts are not on ted cruz's birthplace -- parts are not. birthplace, there is some disagreement about this. some say even if you're born to american parents, you are immediately naturalized and you are eligible. professorop-ed from a at the university of delaware law school that got a lot of readers. she made the case that that is not a natural born means. been tested and the lawyers wonder who would have standing to test it. thinkms to be most people of this that way.
9:53 pm
host: the editorial board has been critical of donald trump and ted cruz. democrat line, good morning. question or comment? we will move on to jim in ohio. you're on the air. caller: first thing i want to say is i believe that donald trump is the only possibility we have of saving this country. i have heard some criticism of mr. trump saying that he has wise people to help him. he is smart enough to realize he does not know all the just all the questions of everything that wouldng to happen heard advisers have that specialized knowledge in that particular area.
9:54 pm
guest: i think every president has to do that right i think it would be more reassuring if we saw people around him, and we have not seen much of that. i think good advisers can only take you so far. he didn't want the greatest cabinet, one thing we have not talked about today is the divisiveness of a lot of what trump has been saying, starting when he declared he would send rapists across the border. these cases, it is not so much that the policy should not be debated, but when you talk about the muslims as if it is one thing, or the blacks, your stereotyping and separating the country at a time when i would rather have a president who is
9:55 pm
trying to bring people together and promote conversation across barriers. host: when you pressed him on specifics for for policy, whether it was pressured china with trade or whatever, he said i am not going to tell you everything that i would do, because that would tell our enemies the playbook you pressed him on this theory of unpredictable it. tell us why. guest: there are times when it is true you do not want to telegraph everything, but in general, you want to have allies in the world, they have to know if they can count on you. to havee very dangerous ambiguity, because if you are worried about whether china is going to be aggressive against japan or against the philippines, it is important for china to know whether the united states is going to stand with its allies that can affect
9:56 pm
chinese behavior as well as the allied behavior. what and then reaction to donald trump has said recently about pulling out of south korea. a south korea will i say his remarks are shocking. that he saysay they should rely on their own nuclear weapons. that is a window to how quickly and more dangerous the world be -- could become. caller: with all due respect, you're the reason that i think surprised one election day in a landslide for trump. you're in the washington bottle -- bubble. you do know you are in the tank
9:57 pm
for hillary clinton. i do not know how anyone can consider voting for her. response? ,uest: in the washington post guilty as charged. we have not endorsed anybody. host: will you? guest: we probably will in the general election will have to see who the candidates are. host: do you think your endorsement house way like they used to? guest: it depends on the race. in some local elections, our endorsements have some sway. in the presidential and even in the local, what i think we aim for is not to decide the election or tell people how to vote. can do most we usefully is tell people how we are think about a race and
9:58 pm
hopefully spark people to think whenusly about an election they cast their vote, take on board the issues we think are important. i do not think there was every day when the washing post we tell people -- every day when the washington post would tell people how to vote. you have been an editor since 2000, you joined the board in 1996. you have worked for the washington post almost all of your career. caller on our democrat line. caller: i was just wondering, i thought maybe donald trump is thinking outside the box because worsee have been
9:59 pm
times like door for incident -- like dooarfur and sudan. the nato is what nato is. it was designed to between north america and europe. worse ofmanaged the dissolution the soviet union in the warsaw pact. but terrible things still happen nigeria andorld in southeast asia. i did not lead to say that the world has been a piece for 70 years, and thank you for pointing that out. host: at the end of the interview, your
10:00 pm
-- she said that the meeting ended and we were walking on the runway, thanks to trump for taking my question, and were you there? what was your reaction when you heard about it? at hiatt: i did not hear it the time, i was out in the hall, i was surprised to hear it when she told me. i was supportive when she said she should write about it. again, i think we should be judging each other on the quality of our questions and thoughts, not on our appearance. host: that is why you encouraged her to write about it? leaders,: yes, our
10:01 pm
should make up their own mind, what they think about that. host: and there is a lot to digest, as we said. you can listen, you can read the entire thing on "the washington post," website. hiatt, thank you for being here. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up wednesday morning, president of the fund and "nuclear nightmare: cure the world before it is too late," a nuclear summit meeting taking place in washington. sosecure nuclear materials does not end up in the hands of terrorists. yahoo! news deputy editor will be on to discuss a new yahoo! aws project which takes
10:02 pm
closer look at those were supporting donald trump as president. the contributor for national review, will talk about his -- it has created problems in the american economy. you can watch beginning of live at 7:00 a.m. on went the morning. join the discussion. landmark tonight, on cases series, looks at the landmark case, dred scott v. sandford. in 1857 thated americans of african descent, whether free or slave, were not american citizens and could not sue in federal court. that is next on c-span. after that, a donald trump rally in janesville, wisconsin from earlier today. later, president obama urges more funding for opioid addiction programs.
10:03 pm
>> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court, give their attention. c-span'srk cases, special history series, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759, with your arguments, roe. v wade. >> quite often, our most important decisions were often unpopular. lets go there a few cases that illustrate very dramatically what it means to live in a society of 310 million different


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on