Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  October 23, 2016 2:45am-3:30am EDT

2:45 am
>> on election day, november 8, the nation decides our next president, and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race, including campaign stops with killing clinton, dental trump, and their servants. c-span, where history unfolds daily.
2:46 am
newsmakers, david mcintosh talks about campaign 2016 and what his group is doing to support several republican candidates running for the house and senate. he also shares his thoughts on the republican party and its future after the election. what we will do at the isntry growth is -- grove continue on the issues that we think are the right ones for the country. candidly, the republican party should be the vision carrier of the goes forward. that is limited government, free , increasingspending the private sector over the government sector. we will double down as proponents for that. you're going to see the divide in the republican party that is a personality divide right now,
2:47 am
in the end why think unites the republicans is our agenda. what the strategists are sharing with you, i think our approach to what the republican party should do -- my friend just what i would before, and i mentioned all those issues. so they said you're going to be for the republicans being republican. i do think that is what we are. for us to try to say let us reassess and be political about it would give up what the club is all about. we'll go back to advocate those issues. with my friends in leadership and in politics, i will say the smart thing for you to do is to embrace those, because that is your point of unity between the wing wink and the -- trump and the establishment wing. >> you can watch the entire
2:48 am
interview with david mcintosh tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and six akaka p.m. eastern here on c-span. sees brand brings you more debates from key u.s. senate races. live coverage on c-span. democratic senator patty murray and chris vance debate for the sensing. the pennsylvania senate debate between republican pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. on wednesday night at 10 a clock on c-span, a debate for the florida senate between republican senator marco rubio and democratic congressman patrick murphy. and thursday night at 8:00 eastern, republican kelly ayotte and maggie hassan debate for the new hampshire senate seat. follow key from house, senate, and governors races on c-span,
2:49 am
c-span.org, and on the c-span radio at. c-span, where history unfolds daily. host: joining us is katie bo williams, a staff writer at the hill who talks about the latest wikileaks revelations of the past few weeks and the weaponization of wikileaks and campaign 2016. where are the leaks coming from? guest: emails that have been allegedly stolen from clinton campaign chair john podesta's personal email account. by most accounts this is , probably the work of russian intelligence but that has not been confirmed. u.s. intelligence was very clear in that the theft of the dnc emails was the work of the russian government but have not made the similar stance here. private security firms have come out and said they did a forensic
2:50 am
analysis and set it is likely the same group but we are still somewhat cautious in making that attribution. host: what is wikileaks? what is that and why are they interested in john podesta's emails? guest: they believe in exposing power and corruption by exposing an edited troves of documents. to talk about wikileaks is to talk about its founder, julian assange. he is a guy who is currently in the ecuadorian embassy, avoiding a rape charge, he has an ax to grind against hillary clinton. he has gotten criticism for how he has managed leaks over the years, some suggested among researchers that he is happy to
2:51 am
publish anything that either fits his own agenda or promotes his stature in the world. host: who else has wikileaks targeted? are they focused primarily on the clinton campaign? guest: we have seen them released the e-mail stolen from the dnc as well. you have heard critics of wikileaks say that this is somebody explicitly targeting democrats and the clinton campaign. the dnc leaks were seen as damaging to clinton and so were the john podesta hacks. host: talking about the latest batch of wikileaks e-mails released over the past several weeks. our viewers can join the discussion. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.
2:52 am
independents, 202-748-8002. those supporting third parties, call 202-748-8003. let's look at some of the things wikileaks has released. according to a russian news organization, they have sort of taken the best of recent hacks. one involved her wall street speeches. a january 2016 e-mail detailed how she boasted of her great relationships with bankers in october 2013 speech, she spoke of how more thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we do not kill or maim what works. but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here on wall street.
2:53 am
many e-mails involved some of these paid speeches she has given to wall street groups, something her opponents were calling for the release. how big an impact is this making? guest: the first impact these e-mails are having, they have not been confirmed. the clinton campaign has been very explicit that they will not comment on the authenticity of stolen material. while they are largely being treated as accurate given that the clinton campaign is not saying this is false, that is an important distinction. with regards to the content about wall street that is in this e-mail, that was one of the big early revelations from the documents is that there were partial transcript for her speeches to wall street that were a big issue in the primaries. some strategists are saying this may be would have been more damaging had it come out in the primary because it appears to
2:54 am
portray her as a little bit cozy with wall street. that is one of the big things that sanders supporters were hitting her on early. host: david calling from north carolina on our independent line. you are on with katie bo williams of the hill. caller: what discussion is there on the hill of using social media platforms to dictate to the representatives of the united states citizens desires? i have been trying to get this conversation to go for four years along with using debit cards to track immigration and make that a secure system. can you elaborate on that? guest: if you are talking about wikileaks as a social media platform, i am not 100% sure that is an accurate way of
2:55 am
describing them. they are an operation that is run largely by a single guy, julian assange will say he has hundreds of employees or volunteers that are helping him disseminate these documents that they are publishing but if you talk to former employees, and largely sounds like it is a one-man shop. they do have a huge social media following with pretty active supporters who spend a lot of time defending the integrity of the organization. host: let's talk politically about what these wikileaks revelations are having, the political impact, marco rubio, who is running for reelection said that, he tells abc news that republicans are making a mistake by jumping on allegedly hacked e-mails released by wikileaks and he will not talk
2:56 am
about them and he urged republicans to follow suit, saying "that as our intelligence agencies have said, these leagues are an effort by foreign governments to interfere with our electoral process and i will not indulge it. further, i want to warn my fellow republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these lakes, today it is the democrats, tomorrow it could be us." how particular troublesome is it for those who are using these revelations? guest: that was a big deal, marco rubio coming out and effectively echoing the clinton campaign line and you are seeing a hardening of republican attitudes against wikileaks. the biggest debate in washington is how do we talk about wikileaks? do we talk about them like a journalistic outlet that is putting out content that is fair game to have any political discussion? or do we talk about them as a
2:57 am
bullhorn for the russian government and the work of a a single guy who has an ax to grind? there is a lot of dispute over whether or not this is a true journalistic outlet or an attempt by the russian government to interfere with the u.s. elections. host: texas, republican line, you are on with katie bo williams. caller: i am a little confused. the democrats seem to have got to the last refuge of the scoundrel defense, which is the russians are trying to influence our elections by publishing these e-mails but by looking at what is in them, their principal offense is exposing how the democrats are looking to steal the election. guest: there is a lot of concern from quite a few republicans
2:58 am
that the content of these e-mails are not getting enough attention. i think you are seeing a couple of different things happen. part of what is going on is, even though the content of these e-mails are being reported on, the republican candidate himself has not grabbed a hold of the individual allegations in these e-mails and raised them to the level of a campaign issue. there is some question about what interference in the election means. when the u.s. intelligence community said that the dnc hack is an attempt to interfere in the u.s. election, they do not offer more details. they left that open to interpretation and that does not mean that helping donald trump. it may just mean sowing uncertainty and discord in the lift or process. -- in the electoral process. host: let's look at what hillary
2:59 am
clinton said about the wikileaks e-mail dumps during the presidential debate. hillary clinton: you are quoting from wikileaks and what is important about wikileaks, the russian government has engaged in espionage against americans, they have hacked american websites, american accounts, of private people, institutions, then they gave the information to wikileaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet. this has come from the highest levels of the russian government, from putin himself, as an effort, as 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.
3:00 am
the most important question of this evening, chris, is finally will donald trump admit and condemn that the russians are doing this? and make it clear that he will not have the help of vladimir putin and rejects russian espionage against americans which he encouraged in the past? we have never had anything like this happen in our elections before. guest: she put the focus on russia and that this was outside -- an outsider trying to influence the election by john podesta and others have had an uneven response, responding to some but not saying that they are real. they talk about the clinton campaign response. guest: they have tried to to this.y tie trump
3:01 am
this is largely based off roger stone that they have a quote unquote back channel. he has not gotten any information through them. that is a narrative the clinton campaign is pushing. >> bill, you are on. caller: you good morning. listen up viewers and listeners. , if you an old saying want to hide, high and plain sight. it worries e-mail and personal server were not hacked. right. something hacked e-mails are contaminated information that will not hold
3:02 am
muster with any court any day. thank you. this how reliable is information? that's a great question. we don't know that this information is authentic. my personal suspicion is that because the clinton campaign has not come out and explicitly denied the contnt they're probably accurate. but researchers have repeatedly warned that given that these e-mails were most likely stolen by the russian government and provided to publish, there could be e-mails in there that have been editted or doctored in some way. i don't think we've seen that yet but that's not to say that e-mails coming out in later dumps are going to be completely accurate. >> the "new york times" has an opinion piece that today related to the wickie lease release and said that it's a lesson for secretary clinton.
3:03 am
talk a little bit about that. that clinton has this reputation of being secretive. guest: this kind of drip drip drip of miner revelations coming from these e-mails is certainly damaging. she's obviously struggled with this sort of perception that she's untrust worthy. and the continual -- the slow
3:04 am
and continual release of documents that have been stolen given them the perception that there is something hidden i think has sort of played into that narrative. ost: tommy from new york city. caller: i understand there's a lot of bad things coming out but i go by -- i i'm following her for a long time. as long as i've heard or known, she always says we're the rodham-clintons from illinois, illinois, illinois. for a few months i put on the tv and hear her making a speech for coal miners and this and that. she wanted their vote. all of a sudden now, 25 years later she's from scranton pennsylvania. i heard her say with her own mouth. my point is she will do and say anything to get what she wants
3:05 am
to get a vote. that's proof of lying. she will do and say anything to get what she wants and that's why i don't trust her. host: let's get a response. guest: perhaps the most damaging email was the excerpt from one of the frans scripts of her wall streach speech in which she talks about a need for a public and private position in policy making. that has certainly been probably the single expression from these e-mails that has kind of gained the most traction perhaps because it does play into some concerns that critics have of mrs. clinton that she is not trust worthy. host: one of the e-mails that were released appear to show a private email account of her and president obama says in the
3:06 am
obama e-mails 6 talk a little bit about that. what sort of information does it appear that these releases are trying to divulge or is it mostly trying to embarrass people? guest: with that particular email, i think the nugget of information in there that generated interest was that was an email address hadn't
3:07 am
formally known to be associated with the president. but the thing about wikileaks that has sort of characaterized their releases of documents sort of since the beginning of this campaign is they keep promising to deliver the death nail for the clinton campaign but they've largely overpromised and underdelivered. while there's been revelations that have been seen as embarrassing for mrs. clinton there hasn't been anything that has yet amounted to a true october surprise. now, who knows what's going to come out in this sprint leading to november 8 but that's been the narrative so far. host: just over two weeks left. could more be coming? guest: there's ooshslule more coming if julian is to be believed. still thousands of e-mails from mr. podesta's account still to be released. so we'll see what's in them. host: you are on with katie of the hill. caller: two months ago, trump
3:08 am
on a campaign -- i don't know what he was doing there. but he had a campaign. he said russia, if you're listening, please get me those e-mails. and then a few months later hillary clinton's e-mails. and then two months later they were there. and he claims he doesn't know anything about is it russia or what. he said that in public. nobody mention that is but he actually asked them to get hillary clinton's e-mails that were missing and they did. host: let's get a response. these aren't the e-mails that she deleted. guest: those are being released through a foia request. the f.b.i. recovered about 15,000 e-mails that clinton deleted when her lawyers purged the personal e-mails from the work-related ones before she
3:09 am
turned the work-related ones tot state department. the f.b.i. recovered 15,000. they released those made the second release yesterday. they're largely dupe cats. they tend -- they so far have been documents that were already released through other requests, perhaps an email that was an identical email chain forwarded with the line, please print at the top. that's the kind of thing coming out. host: virginia from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to ask a question. i would like to make a comment first. i would like to ask a question. i am a retired civil servant that worked in the top secret capacity. for these e-mails to be released and for the media to
3:10 am
take a hold of them and publish them and talk about them like you're doing, to me, it's a hindrance to our government. in order to destroy a government you must destroy it from within. we have no e-mails from the republican party. we know nothing about what they are doing. when we get down gist of this, we're going to find out that this was also done from within dealing with hillary clinton. now, i don't agree with everything that she does and she says, but then for donald trump -- and i agree with the other caller when he made the announcement to hack into her email. now, this is espionage as far as i'm concerned. host: let's get a response. guest: a lot of people do see
3:11 am
this as espionage including the clinton campaign. given the fact that these e-mails were most likely stolen by the russian government and then provided to wikileaks to publish, there's a great deal of concern in security research community that foreign intelligence agencies are now using the platform of wikileaks effectively as a weapon to try to somehow influence public opinion and have an impact on the results of the election. host: a new jersey judge wrote a piece for fox news exploring the question as to whether the media can reveal things that are disclosed in these wikileaks dumps.
3:12 am
what information do you have whether it's ok to write or talk about them? guest: we've been pretty aggressive in covering the content of the e-mails, making clear that they were stolen and have not been authenticated, as well as the larger geopolitical conversation surrounding whether or not this is an attempt to influence the election. but one of the really interesting things about wickie leaks that you're hearing from quite a few of the research critics of the organization is that they don't do what journalists do when they're
3:13 am
provided sort of a mass data dump. what some of my sources in the security research community are telling me is that genuine whistleblowers are not going to wikileaks. they're going to the guardian or they're going to the organization that put out the panama papers, because journalists have a process by which they remove personally identifyable information that isn't of the public interest. and they also vet it for accuracy. wikileaks has a very dump it all approach. anything that they get they're going to stick out there. they don't pull personal information for people that might be vulnerable and have no public interest. and they've received a lot of criticism for that. there's also some big questions about how they fact check their information. they're not very transparent about what their process is for ensuring that these documents are authentic and haven't been tampered with. they say they have a 100% strike rate but there's really no way to know. host: john from pennsylvania on
3:14 am
our republican line. caller: good morning. i want to address this allegation that the russiansing are behind it and trump is a upe of the russians. whatever. you nterestingly enough, may be aware, you had a's a guest about a year ago the author of clinton cash. simply that, clinton cash. it was really an explosive book that had all kinds of revelations. it was reviewed by the "washington post" and the "new york times." you can google it. specifically, uranium one. clinton cash, "new york times." and it's a fascinating story. but i read the book almost immediately. and the une numb one story, which is this one segment in the book is extraordinary. bill clinton took his good pal
3:15 am
on his private jet, his friend flew him to kazakstan, bill met with the dictater, had a big feast. the next day bill took his good iend billionaire to meet the dictater. there was a competition for uranium rights in cazzic stan, which all the major companies in the world were fighting for. host: do you have a question for katie? caller: a week later he was given the contract. ultimately what happened is the russians acquired the company and the clinton foundation got $140 million of campaign contributions. i mean, the foundation got $140 million of contributions to the clinton foundation. host: i want to give katie a
3:16 am
chance to respond. guest: there are certainly concerns from the republicans's side of the field that -- let me rephrase that. there's certainly sort of hopes i think amongst some of clinton's critics that there will be something in the e-mails that will effectively be the thing that is able to bring clibten down somewhere between now and november 8. but the question is, will that revelation be in there? and what impact will it have in the next couple of weeks? host: let's take a look at what republican candidate donald trump himself said about the impact of these wikileaks revelations on the clinton campaign on thursday. >> hillary clinton has raised countless millions of dollars from big donors who want to ship our jobs to other countries. you know that. you saw that last night. i said open border. i don't want open border.
3:17 am
but it turned out she wanted open borders. that wikileaks has done a job on her. and you take a look. she really has a hatred almost for catholics. she's got a hatred for evangelicals. what they said about catholics and so many other things. so many other things. and actually, the one i like was john poddesta saying that who is her campaign chairman, saying that hillary clinton has bad instincts. she's got bad instincts. i don't want somebody with bad instincts as our president. i'll tell you, if i were hillary i would fire that guy. he's said so many bad things. host: how big of an impact is this having on at least donald trump's attacks on hillary clinton? guest: we started to see him grab ahold of the revelations in some of the specific e-mails. but there's some strategists
3:18 am
are concerned that he really missed his opportunity with a lot of the content of the e-mails to grab ahold of some of the earlier ones that came out of wall street that had clear defined talking points that were easy to understand. he took a lot of really started honing in on single e-mails. he would mention them but not really drill down on them. host: and some of the e-mails did have some things he could have taken ahold of. for example, the claim that pay to play during her tenure at the state department again rt in ca said that one email january 2015 detailed how moroccan authorities donated to the clinton foundation's global initiative to get access to clinton 6789
3:19 am
how problematic are things like this? guest: pay to play allegations are certainly one of the biggest criticisms that she has faced from trump and republican critics. that 2015 email, which was sent shortly after she announced for candidacy for president, certainly could be interpreted as playing into those criticisms. host: robert from california on our independent line. caller: good morning. concern is, has hillary splarnede the -- explained the missing -- host: can you turn down your tv and listen through the phone,
3:20 am
please. caller: ok. host: go ahead. caller: has she explained the eleting of e-mails or even the destruction of cell phones to the public? guest: one thing that i would note is that when we talk about these e-mails coming out we're talking about e-mails that were taken from the personal account of her campaign manager, not the e-mails -- not e-mails that were sent through her personal server that were the subject of an investigation by the f.b.i. host: so what implications do you think these wikileaks are going to have on future campaigns and on the political world more generally? guest: i think that's what you're seeing with these comments that came out of mr. rubio this week. i think you're starting to see this hardning of attitudes not
3:21 am
just on the democratic side but on the republican side, this sort of growing concern that there might be long-term political consequences to supporting what is believed to be an attempt by the russian government to interfere in a u.s. election. host: don from south carolina n our democratic line. caller: good morning. i just -- wikileaks kind of supports the butterfly effect. snowden, who is currently being sheltered in russia, had no idea that by -- when he ratted out the nsa, maybe rightfully so, what effects that would have. what it gave credibility to wikileaks. and now there's no way he could have realized that assadge
3:22 am
would become putin's puppet and start spewing out information that russia was giving to wikileaks. it seems to me that a lot of republicans are sort of living in denile. when you look at it together, it's pretty obvious. putin has got his docket rat in the soviet propaganda and he's great at it and applying that. it sort of makes a lot of publicans become russian clabters. host: let's let katie respond. guest: thrgs a big concern amongst the research community that because he will sort of publish anything that anybody gives him there's this real opportunity for foreign intelligence agencies that want to shape public perception,
3:23 am
that want to get a message out there without necessarily having their fingerprints on it are going to be able to use that platform as a bull horn or tool. now, to go back to the snowden stuff, edward snowden himself has actually been fairly complimentry of wikileaks. he has raised some wrns about their kind of dump it all attitude. what he has called their sort of opposition to even modest cureation of leaks. now, snowden himself obviously went to the guardian so he did go to journalists that picked through and found a way to peek the public interest but protect vunlable individuals. host: we talked about a cyber attack that happened yesterday. and we're, according to wikileaks, were by supporters oogs onse to julian sangs internet being cult off. the board praised that move to t off the internet so that
3:24 am
hold up in london can reboot all he wants. does the united states have any role in his losing his internet access? guest: they're saying no. there's a lot of speculation that there was some back channel pressure there but the state department has said neither it nor intelligence officials >> were involved. host: mike from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. i just want to address something one of the earlier callers asserted to the effect that donald trump asked russia to do further hacks.
3:25 am
i don't know how you get that out of that exchange that went on between trump and the press, because what had happened, this was right after the democrats had figured out that the dnc had been hacked by somebody in the soviet union -- i should say in russia. trump at the same time there was all this issue about where the misdzing e-mails were, the 30,000 missing e-mails. and trump made an off the cuff sarcastic remark that maybe the russians could find them. an awful lot of people on the left took this sarcastic remark -- and i don't know how you miss that that's what it was -- as some kind of an invitation to the russians to continue acting. to me, this is really absurd. 57bd it shows a lot of paranoia on the part of the democrats.
3:26 am
the democrats are really worried that trump can win this election. host: let's let katie respond. guest: there's a lot of extra versey. obviously the trump campaign said he was talking off the cuff and the democrats said this is an explicit invitation to a foreign power to hack the united states. the way that you're still seeing this play out is the clinton campaign is sort of suggesting that there is this direct connection in between donald trump and julian assang and wikileaks. so you're still seeing those comments have legs. host: another official jeff uncan responding in a tweet. how are people lawmakers
3:27 am
responding to this? is there any backlash to folks who rely on this snsks? guest: i think there's a real split right now in terms of how to approach these leaks. both from the left and the right. obviously the clinton campaign has said we shouldn't talk about these. you had jill stine use the content of the e-mails to hit clinton for not being progressive enough as recently as yesterday. on the republican side there's also this play. you've got duncan saying they're doing the job that the mainstream media won't. he's sort of kind of playing on these sort of widespread concerns amongst some americans, in particularly amongst some americans that the media is biased colluding with the clinton campaign. but then you have rubio saying no. like we shouldn't talk about these. he sees it as kind of a leading light in conservative foreign policy thinking. so there's really a big split
3:28 am
in terms of how lawmakers are handling these. host: connie from california on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for take mig call. i just want to say, trump won his -- to be the running person because of the other opponents that he was running against were all afwrade to say what he opened -- afraid to what he opened the doors to. a lot of people are so fed up with what's going on in our country also, i want to know how can they know where wikileaks are coming from? doesn't it say where they're being published from? also, i want to say about trump also. all these persons, women that have come up before, it's before he was running for president. host: let's let katie respond. guest: in terms of where these leaks are being published, that's kind of the big question now because obviously julian no
3:29 am
longer has connection to the internet. he claims hundred obvious volunteers. it's unclear who they are or where they are, where they're actually publishing these from. host: dan from oregon on our democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is about journalism. i always thought that journalism was supposed to be reporting the truth and i know these wikileaks things have not been confirmed or anything. but here we are putting them out there as if they're the truth. thank you very much. host: what's your response? guest: i think certainly at the hill we've been pretty careful to make sure that we're identifying the fact that these e-mails haven't been confirmed. but that they are now out in the public eye and are having an impact on the political discourse. host: donna froio

63 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on