and we will visit the saratoga national historic park. >> the new york times magazine said the battles of saratoga were the most important ever parked in the entire world in the last 1000 years because they surrender. general's it was the first time in world history a british army surrendered. c-span's cities tour up their toga springs, saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's put tv and on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable partners as we explore america. communications commission yesterday repeal the obama era net neutrality rules. we talked about that on this morning's washington journal.

our focus, net neutrality. yesterday's fcc decision. we want to welcome randolph may, the president of the free state foundation, which is what? free market think tank, free-market think tank. host: and chris lewis, with a group of the foundation of public knowledge? we want to give you a sense of what is happening outside the fcc yesterday, as inside the commissioners were deciding the three-to ruling. [video clip] >> is it any wonder they want to shut it down, silence it, and stop it? are we shocked? ? shocked?-- >> no. are we going to let them get away with it? >> no. post: some of the demonstration outside of the fcc.

access isrnet overturned by the fcc. what you heard outside in this headline, randy may, is it accurate? mr. may:no. really, what happened yesterday was going back to the type of fromnet regime that we had the beginning of the regulation of the internet until 2015. we had a return to what we called a light touch regulatory regime. in 2015, the previous commission imposed public utility type regulation on the internet service providers. that type of regulation is really too heavy-handed for the environment we have today with the internet. it is appropriate for maybe water systems, a lecture said he -- electricity delivery, but it

is not appropriate for the technologically, rapidly changing environment we have with the internet. i don't expect any more. when people access the internet, they will not notice a change. i do not suspect that they will notice a change a year from now or two years from now, but what happened yesterday is that the fcc removed the threat that was overhanging the internet, that this public utility type regulation would stifle innovation and investment. out one steptake further. the argument put forward by tom wheeler, the former chair of the fcc, is that when you turn on the light, you expect the electricity to be there. we have become so dependent on the internet we should expect the same service and speed, regardless of which site we are on? mr. may: no, i think it is fair to have that expectation.

but from my perspective -- i think this is the perspective of a lot of economists who study this issue, a lot of other policymakers, we did not have a problem with the internet before the imposition of these public utility type rules. there was no market failure, the consumert cite problems at the time that it imposed the rules. it is really appropriate -- it is better to wait until problems impose aefore you heavy-handed regulatory regime. i think what we will see if we do have problems develop in the future, nothing the fcc did yesterday would prevent the fcc from coming back in and changing its rules. it certainly doesn't prevent

congress from legislating, but importantly -- this has all been lost in what we heard yesterday and some of the rhetoric -- what the fcc did was restore the enforcey of the ftc to its oversight of internet service providers, which had byn invested from the ftc this 2015 regulation. isis not as if the internet not going to be regulated by isp service providers, the ftc is restored now back as a police, cop on the beat to oversee the practices of the internet service providers. wrecks is what we heard from the -- heard.hat is what we we want to share some

editorials. this from the wall street journal, the internet is free again. "by effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman tom wheeler turned the fcc into a political gatekeeper, killing obama era rules will remove the fcc. consumers can choose broadband providers and plan accordingly. technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation. the fcc is restoring the promise of internet freedom." that was the argument put forward yesterday by ajit pai, the republican chair of the fcc. [video clip] brokeninternet was not in 2015. we were not living in a digital dystopia. isthe contrary, the internet one thing, perhaps the only thing in american society that we can all agree has been a stunning success. ,ot only was there no problem this solution has not worked. the main complaint consumers have about the internet is not

and has never been that their internet service provider is blocking access to content. it is that they do not have access at all or not enough competition. these regulations have ironically taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. under title ii, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars. notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. when there is less investment, that means fewer next-generation networks are built. that means less access and less competition. that means fewer jobs for americans building those networks, and that means more americans are stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide. was part of yesterday's hearing by the fcc, again, on our website at www.c-span.org. lewis. go back to chris you have heard the rebuttal from

mr. may, your of you? mr. lewis: we are very disappointed in the boat. this is the first time they have decided they would take themselves off the field as the enforcer and the cop on the beat to make sure the internet is open. this is another editorial, from the l.a. times. the fcc sacrifices the free and open internet on the altar of deregulation. deregulation of at&t, comcast, and other broadband providers is a abdication of authority that could usher in a new era of content and services online and people who rely on them. the obvious problem is that the broadband providers could pick winners and losers online. there is also a realistic fear that broadband providers would favor their own sites and services, because some are doing it already. for example, at&t effectively exempts video streams from its directv city area -- subsidiary

from its wireless data cap. congress needs to clean up the iss that fcc chair ajit pai creating." mr. lewis: they have it absolutely right. there is a long history of isp, internet providers blocking applications, giving preferential treatment to some traffic over others, like you described with directv. the fcc ignored that history that led their predecessors to create these rules and to principles, these protections over the last 15 years. host: randy may? mr. may: i really dispute the notion there is a long history of any type of discriminatory action. there were literally three or four examples cited when the fcc 2015.d the rules in i think a lot of people, steve, are beginning to realize that perhaps the greatest threat of

discrimination to actually -- actually comes from the so-called edge providers, .oogle, twitter, facebook twitter, for example, recently took down an ad from congresswoman marsha blackburn that was pro-life, talk about blocking. there is an increasing realization that the giant internet sites, google, facebook, and so forth, that they are more likely to discriminate because of their dominance then these internet service providers. progressives -- organizations that are so concerned about net neutrality with the internet service providers were as concerned about the same type of conduct

that we see from the edge providers. i do not happen to believe that they should be regulated either by public utilities, i am not advocating regulation for them. what i think it is wrong to look --this out a one-sided way in a one-sided way. ist we have now, and this the important point, is that the ftc will be able to oversee the types of practices of both the internet service providers on the one hand and the edge providers, google, twitter, and so forth, on the other hand to see whether they are living up to their representations. point -- one final on final point, we focused the action yesterday by the commission. it is important that the mission strengthens can parents he rolls -- transparency rules. they have to disclose their practices, they will have to be clear to consumers, and that is

the basis upon which, if they violate those practices, that the ftc would be able to sanction it. our guests have worked at the fcc, so they come to this from very different perspectives. randolph may, who is a graduate of duke university, where he also earned his law degree, is the head of the free state foundation. he served as the fcc assistant general counsel. christopher lewis is a graduate of harvard, the former fcc deputy director for legislative affairs. our phone lines are open, give us a call. frank, one for republicans. thank you. caller: good morning, thank you everybody. i am concern about -- concerned about the present censorship on the internet. i have been centered about four imes in the past -- censored about four times in the past year. last night i was censored again. i raised a question about any

collusion between the pro-democratic people at the fbi in the murder case -- in the rich murder case. but they would not send my online tweets on that subject matter. i had to work up to the final question, and they still have not let me send the final two. host: what site were you on? caller: well, i am just hoping under the new system, there will not be censorship. host: frank, thanks for the call. will there he censorship on the larger matter of issue what people can or cannot post and who can post it? mr. lewis: we are very clear about who the rules impact. they have access to the network providers. they do not have jurisdiction over website, web services, and

large platforms. while i agree with randy that there are concerns with some platforms, and we have spoken out about that recently, and agree with those were calling for a deeper look at the competition of those large toolorms, we have a at the fcc under the law that they could be using to have strong net neutrality rules and make sure folks give you access to the internet. which consumers know the difference between a website and the company that gives them access to the internet? the difference is that you do not have a choice in network provider. most consumers have one high-speed broadband provider, some have none, very few lucky folks have a couple. if they do not like the rules that they have from that internet provider, they do not have any else to go. that is why we needed an fcc that can enforce clear rules of the road, that said you cannot block a website, you cannot throttle and application, you cannot set up a prior tour is --

paid prior to her station -- prioritization schemes. host: when did you work at the fcc? >> [indiscernible] host: and you? mr. may: 1987-1991. when i was at the fcc, we were the belling with anomaly. the competition was beginning to there were even online providers that were beginning to emerge at that time. we were developing rules for those online providers. what we did, and i was actually part of working on this process, was classifying online providers as information services so they would be unregulated and mop-bell and the telephone classified asd be

television carriers that were regulated. that was the environment that we had really from that time, those were called the computer 2015,ies, right up till when the information providers, the broadband companies were flipped and classified as telecommunications carriers, and public utilities. i think most people agree when they think about it, that all those years that we had the light touch regulation of information service providers, the internet did flourish, surely, we would all like for it to be faster, cheaper, but the reality was it was $1.5 trillion of broadband providers in building out broadband networks in that. period of light touch regulation. when we switched over to a new ,egime without a good reason

there was not a reason to impose stifling of investment , innovation stifling regulation. host: we will drill down even more on this issue of net neutrality. program the communicators airs over the weekend, and is also available on the website, www.c-span.org. but what is net neutrality? according to the fcc, here is the definition. broadband service providers cannot deliberately block or slow speeds for internet services for internet apps, favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration, or engage in other practices that harm internet openness. that is from the fcc. elaine, olympia, washington, republican line. caller: there are two things i want to bring up. when i first got my computer, i watched live tv, i could record data, but anyway, i cannot even

stream. i cannot stream anything on the internet that is live, nothing. for --ay, i was looking i was researching those emails on bing and google, and i was reading different sites, and all of a sudden, they were gone. i could not find them anywhere. they were off the internet, i could not access one thing about fraud. that happened yesterday, and i would like to know why. host: elaine, thank you. christopher lewis. mr. lewis: that is a good question to ask for broadband provider, what happened to her access? hopefully nothing is going wrong with her service there, but what is important about these rules is that there is nothing holding frombroadband providers taking a service or a website and saying we will not show that website and service anymore.

the rule that says you cannot block anything has gone away with this repeal. unfortunately, the federal trade commission is not a rule-making body. they do not have the ability to create and enforce any no blocking rules. all they can really do is use what is called section five authority, their unfair deceptive practices authority, to say that if the broadband provider says they are not going to block, they can hold them accountable if they do. so we are setting ourselves up now to trust and rely on the broadband providers to be honest , and to set the rules for themselves. ,ost: your opinion and views setting aside, what happens next? what can congress do and what could we potentially face in the court? mr. may: i think there is a real opportunity for a -- mr. lewis: i think there is a real opportunity for a court challenge. we have dealt with these cases before and we are evaluating

that, and we hope we can build a case to overturn the decision at the the. -- the fcc. we hope folks will follow that. congress has a chance to overturn these rules as well, and there have already been to members of congress, one in the senate and one in the house, who have suggested they will introduce a resolution to overturn the rule and decision of the fcc yesterday. heard attorney general eric saturn of new york saying yesterday there are a lot of petitions, and there were some fake comments that included 100,000 new yorkers that posted on there, but did not say anything. there is an investigation into the fake comments, that we ensure that people are putting up fake comments, they are putting up comments under other people's names. -- names. we do not see that had of investigation before the decision was handed down. host: democrat line, thank you for being with us.

caller: good morning, guys. -- i think this is a huge mistake and could put hundreds of thousands of small businesses out of business, because right now the internet runs at full speed for everybody and everybody has access. that was the rule put in place , even the obama era access. they are trying to reverse that. so couple of corporations might make some more. right now, everything is running at full speed. the only way to make things faster is by slowing everyone down. that will make pages load slower for hundreds of thousands of small businesses, and google will penalize them. before you know it, google searches might drop them all together for being slow, and the republicans have no idea what they are doing. they are hiring revolving door lobbyists around the country to talk to the fcc, and it is up to congress to stop them and go against them. host: thanks for the call.

randy made? -- may? mr. may: the reality is it takes billions of dollars each year to keep building up a network to accommodate the explosion in traffic. i think chris will agree with that. on average, it is about $70 billion a year that is invested by the isps. that is not government money, that is private capital by the internet is providers. what this decision may do over time is allow the internet service providers to innovate new types of offerings that allow them to recover more of those costs from those companies that really imposed disproportionate amounts of cost . it is not clear that will happen, but it could. what i am referring to specifically is, for example, on any giventflix,

night on average, 50% of the traffic on the internet is actually generated by those two companies. if that is the case, we are not talking about the average , orumer that is imposing who will pay for it. in order to ensure that the video andthat netflix google's youtube are delivered in a manner that satisfies their consumers, it is possible the end-user customer would pay less because ultimately someone has to pay for the investment in these networks. >> if you are just tuning in we are talking about net neutrality. , theterans on the fcc

president of the free state foundation. and christopher lewis of vice president of public knowledge. we are disappointed in the net neutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of creativity and civic engagement. this is the beginning of a longer legal battle. netflix stands with innovators large and small to oppose this misguided fcc order. caller: good morning. i just got off of the phone yesterday with my city council members. to at them to go pre-internet, pennies on the dollar and bypass a lot of this monopoly from inner net providers with their noncompete contracts they have with each

other to keep prices up. i feel the competitive rest of the world, in our area, the united states, it was 20th in speed to the rest of the world being faster than i was. south korea is faster. i think this monopoly they have is holding us back. thank you. don't know our exact rankings but i think the concern about having a monopoly provider is when we hear often. they lead to higher costs. we should expect to see that with these rules. and your story is common. you hear a lot of local communities looking to find ways to provide access to broadband when companies don't feel they have a business case to roll out

and avoid networks to their communities. so, more and more communities are stepping up to invest dollars to make sure that their assistants have access to high-speed broadband. it is important. to have access to jobs and civic life generally. to washe fcc was smart their hands of the legal aspects. now congress needs to regulate it. cta.from the in our objective to title to has never been about not wanting to provide customers with an open internet. broad andis overly has the potential to rate regulation. following nctae on twitter. .aller: good morning i have a question that is a

little off the subject but it is with the subject. supplier.t a comcast they blinked us out on the youngstown station. news in theatch morning for two hours. a good news show. now they blinked it out. i can get all of the pittsburgh stations. youngstown is not that far. they tell me that they had to do that through the fcc. i would like to know why that was done. host: can either of you answer that? that is not really a net neutrality issue strictly speaking. it has to do with negotiations between broadcasters. -- if i can go to the last caller. i think this is something we may agree upon here, it would be good if congress would actually

take up this issue and could reach a resolution that would in this debate in a way from my perspective that didn't adopt the public utility type regime but nevertheless did leave in place oversight over the internet providers. we have been going back-and-forth on this net neutrality issue for over 10 years now. it is an issue that really is within congress domain. perhaps congress will now decide to take it out. host: this is a tweet from a congressman. the upcoming decision should not allow for corporate monopolistic domination.

.avid from grand rapids democrats line. good morning. caller: real quick. why should congress have to make any rules when the fcc and obama made rules that said you have to be neutral. enough said. be neutral. all of those republicans complaining, you voted for trump. what did you expect? he is for the business. sll he is doing is lining hi pockets for the next four years. byst: what i am encouraged is -- the quote you read. a number of republicans have heard from constituents because outside of the beltway, 75% of republicans want to keep net neutrality rules. beltway, onlye

inside washington is this a controversial issue. you have large special interests led by big broadband providers trying to roll back these protections. it is important that folks know that the rules that we have, if they go away, congress could act. but we have not seen any legislation come along that protects an open internet as fully as the rules that we have. and the speed congress moves it is not fast enough. we do have a law congress passed in 1996 that empowers the fcc to create these rules. a sick rules broadband providers can live by and say they are going to continue to live by. then i see no reason why people should go away at all. guest: one quick note on that. 1996 mentioned the

telecommunications act congress passed. that is important because that is the first time congress made a statement about the internet in the telecom act. it said the competitive internet should develop unfettered by federal and state regulation. .hat is the policy that is essentially the bipartisan policy that we had until 2015. host: the front page story of the washington post. the audience may still be unclear in terms of what it would mean. the split fcc votes to in the rules on net neutrality. they begin the piece as follows. federal regulators provide internet providers to speed of service for websites they favor

or block and slow down others in a decision repealing landmark regulations overseeing broadband companies such as at&t and verizon. the move to deregulated telecom and cable industries was a prominent example of the policy shifts in washington under president trump and being viewed as a setback for consumer groups. companies and democrats who lobbied against the decision. chair toallowed the follow through on his promise to repeal the governments net neutrality rules which required internet providers to treat all websites, large and small equally. we will go to peter on the republican line. caller: good morning. my question basically is, the way i see the fcc, it is supposed to implement the rule of congress. whether net neutrality is good or bad, it is irrelevant.

my question is, all these reinterpretations, which is really the implement of what congress directed the agency to do? christopher lewis. guest: the 2015 rules did implement what congress has asked the fcc to do, to make sure the medications network of the 21st century, like the phone network, is nondiscriminatory. when you pay for access to it you can go and call anyone you want to. you can go to any website and service that you want to. by creating these rules it was a long effort to make sure that these protections were in place. under at in 2005 when republican administration to try to enforce basic principles of nonblocking. in 2009, again under republicans.

they set rules of the road so that isps would stop throttling traffic as they had done during those administrations. when the court throughout those rules they came back and said if you want to have nonblocking and non-throttling rules, you have to do them under title ii. those are common rules. you have to classify broadband as a common carrier. that is what they did in 2015. host: good morning independent line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about investment argument these guys keep making. in reality, if these companies are able to charge google and facebook, these huge companies more money, and they go along with it, why would the isp invest in smaller companies that

don't have as much money? work.sn't it doesn't add up. it is irrational. on top of that, what is driving the, growth is coming from content providers. that is where the future is. to go. where they want which is why they're trying to go into that market. the only way they can get ahead into that market is live they content area that is where this starts. what their drive is. i look at this ruling and i think it is a shame. host: thank you for the call. there is just no question that it is going to take ongoing investment of billions of dollars in order to be able to

deal with the expanding traffic. a lot of that expansion is due to the consumption of video, which is exploding. ultimately the network has to be paid for. i suggest that new rules will mean over time the small consumers, small businesses, residential consumers, they will end up paying less than they would pay absent these rules. i think that is the way we see the economy working in other segments where we have different between differentiation products. when we don't treat everything absolutely equal, and that is the way consumers benefit from this type of differential treatment. host: opinion as zika mobile

congress take this up? will it be challenged in the courts? guest: i don't think it is any question it will be challenged in the courts. chris will see to that. i don't know whether congress will take it up. i hope that ultimately it does. i want to say one thing. view on theris' legal question. i understand that perspective. it is my firm opinion that ultimately the fcc's decision that it lacked authority to impose this public utility regime will ultimately be affirmed by the courts. it may take the supreme court but i think we have a difference in terms of missions going forward. to answer thed question from the caller. he raises one of the great concerns.

one of the rules was a ban against paid prioritization. creator, small content not the netflix or the googles who will be penalized if they have to compete with netflix. but they don't and they are trying to compete and create content and have to pay to get preferential treatment online. .his is why we have these rules to create a free market online for all services and all websites. now that rule has gone away, i'm very concerned about the long-term viability for these small companies. host: the story is front page of the new york times. caller: good morning. i have been listening for 30 minutes or so. i haven't heard anybody talk about the potential impact of media.wards independent for example, netflix and google,

cnbc, but mayr smaller independent media havees would then potential to be restricted and on a bandwidth consumers could access. i would like to have both sides comment. with the fake news and mainstream media stuff that has been so huge this past year, i think this could potentially be damaging for people who want to get media smaller, independent content creators. thanks. host: thanks for putting that on the table. guest: i just don't think that is going to happen. i think these broadband providers respond to what consumers want. consumer complaints. we would like to see more competition in the marketplace. i think we are seeing that.

i just believe that is going to happen. one other quick comment. i think as chris may know, the d.c. circuit in the rehearing petition from the original decision made clear that the internet providers could have a non-neutral network even under the obama rules if they wanted to, as long as they disclosed that practice. that has not been discussed much. it ought to be discussed more. , truly, there wasn't as much that happened yesterday as we are all hearing that happened because of that rehearing petition. host: in this editorial, the , killingis free again the obama era rules will remove the fcc as a political gatekeeper. christopher lewis your response? guest: there is a number of

problems with what we are hearing. number one, the caller was concerned about independent media. they are absolutely right. small websites from the left or the right or not political at to need to have the ability access consumer's. consumers need to have the ability to access them. voicess a concern those will go away if they are forced to compete with big media conglomerates. the competition randy once is going away. you see with merger after merger. the mergers we're seeing now are not the mergers of the late 90's where cable companies were buying cable companies which led to the local monopolies we have right now. what we are is a greater consolidation where they are buying content. universal.s nbc and at&t owns directv and is trying

to buy time warner. by buying content, by merging vertical, they have a greater incentive to prefer content that they own over others. these rules going away is an extra step to make it easier to make greater profits, to edge out competition and independent voices. host: i want to point out to our viewers who know that this company, c-span is fully funded by the cable industry. a few pennies each month provide funds that we use to operate three networks, our radio station, and the website. one moment last night on abc's jimmy kimmel show, from late-night comedy. jimmy kimmel: the fcc did something absolutely despicable. they voted to put an end to net neutrality.

this is the rule that says everyone gets equal access to the internet. a big company, somebody selling crocheted owls from their house in the midwest. as long as they tell us they are doing it now, internet service providers will be allowed to block web traffic to any website or streaming service they like which benefits big telecom companies and does the opposite. 83% of americans support net neutrality. 2 million people who wrote to the fcc to oppose net neutrality were bogus. many turned out to be dead people. someone stole the identities of dead people to help push this through. -- we have to hold congress hope congress agrees to reverse it. thank you president trump thanks areou, big corporations about to take full control of the internet. merry christmas, everybody. host: we will give you a response. guest: steve, let's don't forget

yesterday the fcc strengthened the transparency rules that apply to the internet service providers. it restored the ftc's authority to enforce any violations of the promises made by the isps to customers. , almosthe major isps all of the isps in the country have already said they intend not to block websites, not to throttle, and not to engage in unfair prioritization. the ftc will now be in a position to enforce those promises. randy.e begin with chris lewis, you get the final word. randy described the rollback. it is now left to transparency of promises by internet service providers. when they choose to change their policies, there is no one to hold them back from blocking and throttling content.

we've already seen them start to do this. what randy just described. instead of saying they will not engage in paid prioritization, they talk about harmful prioritization. they are easing it in so folks don't notice they are changing practices. we will continue to see this now that the rules has gone away. it is important congress acts. i hope people contact congress to turn -- to overturn this. host: we want to thank christopher lewis of public knowledge, and randy may of the free state foundation. we appreciate your conference with jeff sessions on the efforts on fighting violent crime at 2:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span. day on capitol hill, the house coming in later

at 5:30 eastern for a pro forma session and also, a lot of things happening relating to the tax reform proposal. the ways and means committees will hold a conference call on the final taxable at 4:00 today. followed by a call with all house republicans at 4:30 p.m. eastern. that bill will be filed and made public according to kevin brady at 5:30 eastern at the time that house comes in for the pro forma session live on c-span. off the floor and also from the ethics committee, they launched a probe into sexual misconduct charges against ruben kihuen, democrat of nevada. ate coverage of the house 5:30 eastern. while we wait for attorney general jeff sessions, we bring you more from today's "washington journal." host: joining us from new york, the cofounder and ceo of hermitage capital management,

being viewed by some as public enemy number one by vladimir putin. sean flynn writes "the harrowing rowder isill b his own kind of daily terror. " thank you for being with us on c-span. is that a fair assessment? guest: i think it is. i have done a lot of things over the last decade to cause utin personal trouble in retaliation for the murder of my russian lawyer in a russian

prison after my lawyer uncovered corruption by the putin regime. host: which led to an act that congress don't with. explain specifically what this does. guest: sergei was my lawyer in russia. he uncovered a massive $230 governmentsian corruption scheme. he exposed it. instead of arresting the people who committed the fraud, they arrested sergei himself and put him in pretrial detention and killed him in a horrific beating on november 16, 2009. he was 37 years old. i got the news the next day and i made a bow in his memory to his family and to myself that i

would go after the people who killed him. for the last eight years, that's what i've been doing. the major tool to get justice in this case was creating a law named after sergei called the magnitsky act. it was introduced by benjamin .ardin and john mccain then there's the maintenance act in 2010. it passed in 2012. passed the house by 80%. it was signed into law in 2014 by president obama. president putin acted unbelievably angry. adoption of russian orphans i american families and stated that repealing the act was the single largest foreign-policy priority. ,e have seen numerous efforts

bullying, all sorts of crazy stuff leading up to a major which was launched by an agent of vladimir putin. natalya is famous because she was the person on june 9, 2016 who went to trump tower and met with donald trump, jr. and jared kushner and paul manafort with the specific agenda of trying to repeal the magnitsky act on behalf of vladimir putin. story long and shocking of how we effectively found the achilles' heel of the p utin regime. guesthost: are you saying one oe motivating factors was this act he passed in 2012? guest: unfortunately, this was

the primary motivator for him to take sides in the election. believed donald trump be more likely than hillary clinton to repeal the magnitsky act. he sent an emissary to approach the trump campaign to do this ds. n was actively relating ourinute electoral outcome in america based on the hack of the dnc and all sorts of troll farms distributing fake information through facebook and twitter . we don't know whether this was just putin expressing his own preferences in a vacuum on his own or whether he was doing it in conjunction with anybody in the united states.

that stillness need to be investigated and proven one way or another. host: how much is vladimir putin worth? guest: in my estimation, is the richest man in the world. he became the richest man in the world through theft and extortion. about $12 billion. when he became president, he had one group of people who work stealing power from him. these were the russian oligarchs. they were taking away the power of the presidency. he decided at one point to arrest the richest oligarch in russia. he was the owner of an oil company. he put him in jail. the rest of the oligarchs went to payton and asked what we have to make su do to make sure we 't face the same fate? putin said 50%. he owns 50% of the wealth of the

russian oligarchs. is a peersam browder and vocal opponent of the russian president. are you worried about your safety or the safety of your family? guest: worry is an emotional concept. i don't worry. i don't spend my time living in fear. there are very real clear and direct threats coming from the russian government to me. they have threatened to kill me. y have threatened toe kidnap me. there is a very real risk. host: the relationship between trump and putin, how would you describe it? guest: it's a strange relationship. there's a difference between the relationship between donald trump and the relationship

between the trump administration to vladimir putin. does a bunch of things that i find unpleasant and offensive. these as vladimir putin is not a killer, he is a good guy, we should respect him. those sentiments are not true. putng said that, he's together an administration of people who are actually executing the foreign policy of if not who are as tough tougher than me on russia. he has general mattis as his defense secretary. he has mcmaster on his national security council. pompeo as the head of the cia. nikki haley, even rex tillerson. if you listened to tillerson's speech last week, that was an extremely hawkish speech. the actual policy of the united states of america of the trump administration towards russia is tough based on these people i just mentioned. inch bysn't gotten an

supporting donald trump. at the moment, we have a person who is tweeting nice things but theadimir putin policy hasn't changed so far. host: based on some of the reporting this morning, including the story in "the washington post," renewed speculation about how long rex tillerson will stay on as secretary of state. he hasn't learned his lesson, according to trump allies. guest: i don't know. i have read a lot of things over the course of weeks that rex tillerson was absolutely out and then i read statements from donald trump saying he's absolutely not out. this is like a show of "the apprentice." who knows who is in and who is out? at the moment, he is still the

secretary of state and the policies seem to be tough towards russia. donald trump doesn't have a lot of political attitude to warm relations with russia. extremely heavy cloud hanging over his head about whether he's got some kind of site dealings with putin. he can do anything without having the whole country question his decision. host: are you saying the russian president is a killer? guest: i'm saying vladimir putin is a cold-blooded sociopathic killer. host: will he be reelected next year? guest: there's a very big assumption that there's a real election taking place. in russia, they have the facade of democracy. there is no democracy in russia. to makedimir putin do sure there's no chance he's not the leader of russia? in some cases kills or exiles anybody who has any

real chance of challenging them. he controls absolutely every aspect of the media, television, radio, newspapers, the internet. so that anything bad said about him will be seen by his people. he creates this fake election where they stuff the ballot boxes to make sure they get the results they want. there's 100 percent certainty that vladimir putin will be in power until he dies a natural death or until some of the overthrows him. host: we are joined by william browder, the head of hermitage capital management. a graduate of the university of chicago, earned his master's from stanford. tell us briefly about your firm. guest: i went out to russia when the berlin wall came down. i come from an unusual family background. my grandfather was leader of the american coming as party. by rebellion, i became a businessman.

i decided if my grandfather was the largest communist america, i would be the largest capitalist in eastern europe. i set up a firm called hermitage capital management. invested in the russian stock market. it went well for a long time and then not well when we discovered corruption and exposed it. i was named a threat to national security, expelled from russia. my offices were raided. they took my documents, stole $200 million of taxes i paid. magnitsky was arrested, tortured and killed by the putin regime and then putin participated in the cover-up. host: the c-span podcast is available online on the pre-c-span radio app -- the free c-span radio app. dawn in kansas.

caller: how many of the oligarchs who been adversely affected by the magnitsky act have had reported contacts with trump associates? could you name a few? act so farmagnitsky has sanctioned 44 russian individuals. 35 of them were involved in 'srgei magnitsky arrest and death. there are none on the list at present. judges andailers, other human rights violators. some of them are very wealthy in their own right. some of them are mid-level officials. the reason the magnitsky act is so terrifying is not what it's done so far, it's what it could do in the future. richest guy in the

world with $200 billion. that money is not held by him personally. it's held in the name of oligarch trustees. putin was one of the recipients of the proceeds of the segei magnitsky exposure -- that makes putin subject to the magnitsky act at some point in the future. and he's not holding the money in his own name, u.s. government will go after the oligarchs who holds the money for him. host: where is this money being held? guest: it's being held by big russian oligarchs. those people invest their money through major u.s. and european banks, hedge funds and private equity funds and trophy properties and all sorts of other things. what looks like legitimate money of russian oligarchs is in some cases putin's money.

host: lorraine in ohio. republican line. caller: how did the uranium one deal benefit america? guest: i'm not all that familiar with the uranium one deal. i don't know how to analyze who did what to whom on that. host: your former partner who was killed, he left behind a wife and how many children? guest: a wife and two children. thankfully, they are now out of russia. they live in london. host: carol in idaho. good morning. 1849, russia sold as alaska for $7 million. donald trump is upset about that. he will never beat that deal. russia was our ally in world war i and world war ii. we didn't lose half a million

people in world war i. russia lost 15 million. while we were going to the moon, they were working on nuclear weapons. don't even think about the fact that some of our policies lead us to a situation where we all better be bullies in our own backyard -- building in our own backyard in nuclear nuclear fallout shelter. you see police shooting individuals in the back and you start putting those on the news, we don't have time for anything else. that is my comment. i hear you about all the terrible things going on in america and i agree with you but that doesn't justify the terrible things that vladimir putin is doing. a lot of people will say we

should be thinking about russia, we should be nicer to russia and maybe they would behave themselves. appeasement has proven to never work. if you remember back in world war ii, there's a famous british prime minister.

but you know, that's an objective outcome. does he still have this decision? maybe. he doesn't have it, but i really hope that he still has that desire. it's in the interest of the russian american nations. shared will overcome

threats, terrorism, environmental issues. work together on them. on north korea and other issues, where we other issues can work much better when we work jointly. guest: he gets involved in things like doping and meddling in our election, and then says we can work together. we have a company -- a country

, andthe economy of italy to workying we have together. he has a responsibility to stop doing the bad stuff and we have a responsibility is america and europe with strong democracies and free countries to stop him from doing the nasty stuff he is doing. all this talk about working together only works if you works with us on the terms of civilized western countries. him to stops on doing the bad stuff he is doing. host: an extensive piece cowritten by greg miller and philip rucker of the washington post, frontpage about the fold, how trumps pursuit of putin left the u.s. model to the russian threat. refusing to accept u.s. intelligence findings, the president, donald trump, has resisted or attempted attempts

to hold russian accountable for meddling in the 2016 election. so far, he hasn't been able to roll back anything. russia hacked the election by hacking d&c and spreading fake news and many of the things we don't know about. that's a matter of fact. the obama administration in the last days of their administration imposed sanctions on russia for doing that. after the sanctions were put in place by executive order, there was some talk went donald trump came into office that he was thinking about lifting the sanctions. involved as a nonpartisan issue, where democrats and republicans got shouldr and they said, the president be able to lift sanctions on russia of his own thingsn based on these that have already been put in place. in congress decided on a vote

98-two in the senate and former 13-4 in the house progenitors to take away the power of lifting sanctions from the president undertaken to congress, where they would vote on the future. there have not been an inch given away on this particular issue. importance ofe making sure that we are not exposed to this stuff in the future, i think there's a big agenda about allowing russia to metal in future elections and this has become a partisan issue, because many people think that if you put too much attention on the fact that they meddled in the past election that it takes away from the legitimacy of the election. i think whatever happened, we look forward and say we shouldn't let any country, russia or anyone else have any impact on elections here. i know that my home country in britain, it's a big issue in france. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. it should be an issue about

national security. host: richard joining us outside of washington on the independent line. with bill router from new york. caller: good morning. towardsue of antipathy ,ussia is so prevalent today the media screams it, the bankers scream it. it needs to be understood that food and -- that putin did one thing which upset these people so much. that is he destroyed or moved that central bank that russia had, which was under the dominion of the -- [indiscernible] host: do you want to respond? guest: i'm not sure what i'm responding to. the central bank of russia was eliminated -- the central bank of russia was the monopoly bank of russia and there are no other banks in 1991. they freed up banking and it allowed many banks to enter.

this was a good decade before vladimir putin came in. as a result, there's many banks in russia. i don't believe rothschild's bank is in russia. i'm not sure what to say about that. host: in case you want to get more information on our guest, he wrote this piece last month on cnn.com. "why does vladimir putin hate me?" what is the summary of this piece? guest: vladimir putin hates me because, in my opinion, the primary objective of vladimir putin's presidency has been to to accumulate wealth. he's been stealing from his people and the state. in order to commit those crimes, he's had a lot of people imprisoning and torturing and

exhorting people of their money. in the process, he's become worth $200 billion. that is now at risk because of the magnitsky act, which i was very instrumental in getting passed in the u.s. and five other countries. it puts putin's personal money at risk. he's very upset about that because that's what he cares about. you put all this work in. it's not easy to steal that kind of money and torture those people. it was hard work for vladimir putin. now, all of a sudden there's a chance that money will be frozen in the west. host: that act was passed in 2012, led by john mccain and signed by president obama. it allows the u.s. to withhold visas and freeze financial assets of russian officials caught involved with human rights violations. savannah is joining us from maryland, near annapolis.

good morning. caller: i've been astonished by what you've accomplished with the magnitsky act. i wanted to ask you, what can people like me due to further your mission here? guest: the most important thing at this point -- what happens with vladimir putin and what happens with russia is that when we get to the truth, it turns out to be much worse, 100 times worse in some cases than our speculation. recently, there was a movie called "icarus" about the doping program in russia. it wasn't but as a of the person in charge of the doping program who fled to america. when he told us about what was really going on, it was 100 times worse than what people thought. the same thing is true in most aspects of what vladimir putin is up to.

the most important thing you and others can do as citizens as people engaged in the process is to say that russia is a threat, a country that is threatening our well-being that doesn't wish us well. things are worse than we think, not better. we should contain them, not appease them. that applies to the magnitsky act, it applies to any involvement they may have in election fraud or election manipulation and various other aspects. we need to wake up and become a country that contains russia, doesn't appease russia. host: can you provide any insight into the personal life of vladimir putin? his wife and his children? guest: i don't think he has much of a personal life anymore. he divorced his wife and while ago and his children live outside of the country.

they are hidden from view completely. any russian journalist that writes about them finds there publication -- their publication shut down completely. they don't have what we have in the u.s. or u.k. with the royal family or the president's family seen walking across the white house lawn. what the wife is wearing, and so on. in russia, it is a cold, stark, lonely place. vladimir putin is sitting by himself and his palace. he doesn't need a lot of human warmth. i view him as being a sociopathic individual. he has no capacity for empathy. not a very sympathetic character. host: alexandria, minnesota. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are we one to go on with russia if we condemn them for everything? trump doesn't agree with everything, but he's trying to make friends with them.

i think putin acts just like the democrats do in the united states. guest: i take a bit of offense to comparing a cold-blooded sociopathic killer with people you may not have agreements with. i have seen putin up close and personal. he covered up the murder of my lawyer. he's been involved in the murder of an opposition politician who was a friend of mine. this is a different order of magnitude -- this is like pablo escobar and the spanish nukes. different people have different approaches toward different political issues. in america and in europe, whatever our differences are between democrats and republicans and labor and conservative are minor differences we all have with a person who is involved in terror and killing and things like that.

he doesn't respect it. he doesn't view friendship as something that will change his behavior. he views it as weakness. host: we will extend, if we can, and have you stick around for some more calls and questions. steve is joining us from michigan. good morning, steve. independent line. caller: putin is a cold-blooded mass murderer. i would like to equate that to clinton in the united states. that's about all i have to say. guest: again, i'm not here to defend clinton, but let me tell you a little story about what

putin did with my lawyer in the we can decide whether that stuff happens here in u.s. sergei magnitsky was murdered by the putin regime because he uncovered a massive corruption scheme. putin promoted the people who were involved in the murder. three years after they murdered my lawyer, they put them on trial in the first ever trial against a dead man in russia. whatever differences you have between trump and clinton and so forth, the department of justice is in putting dead people on trial for political reasons. they are not chasing human rights activists trying to kill them abroad. there's a whole different order of magnitude to any disagreement you may have an united states. host: when was the last time you talk to your partner? guest: i was in touch with sergei magnitsky shortly before he was arrested.

i was on a conference call. he was very adamant and angry about what a bunch of russian government officials had done to his country. as a patriot, he wanted to stop it. they arrested him and tortured him and killed him. host: jennifer from somerset, new jersey. democrats line. good morning. caller: thank you for being on our television. i want to ask you a question. if you can give us information on putin's activities in south america, alaska, turkey, and why america should be concerned. guest: great question. there's a lot of different

territories to cover. let's start with turkey. turkey is a country very close to russia and very strategic to russia. turkey has effectively gone from being an enemy of russia to an ally to putin. the turkish president, erdogan, makes putin almost look like a vegetarian in terms of arresting people and going after everybody. putin is also involved in venezuela. they basically are doing predatory lending in venezuela where venezuelans are desperate for cash so putin is taking over the venezuelan oil industry. they run a foreign policy were they try to infringe and get involved in every country's

internal affairs. they run hundreds of projects. most of them are not successful, but every once in a while, they have amazing success. they don't care whether 99 out of 100 aren't successful. they are just looking for the moments where they have success. they are meddling everywhere, meddling in europe and latin america, meddling in asia. host: the trump supporters are putting their heads in the sand when the clear connections are shown. this from audrey who says what does a sanction entail? what is involved? guest: what the sanctions are all about -- it freezes the

assets of people who have them in america. it prevents them travel to america. it adds people's names to the sanctions list. that is the u.s. treasury sanction list. there is no think in the world that wants to do business with you anymore if you get added to that list. no bank in the world wants to be in violation of u.s. sanctions. they can be fined billions of dollars. if you are on the sanctions list, the moment you get put on that list, you will become a financial pariah. that's what really gets these russians, the putin regime, the fact that they can become financial pariah's overnight. host: respond to this tweet. any attempt at friendship with putin is seen as a weakness. very interesting.

guest: it is weakness. putin does bad stuff and then says let's all be friends. he comes from -- it's difficult for civilized people in the west to look at putin and understand what his psychology is. west to look at putin and understand what his psychology is. the psychology of someone in a prison yard. everybody in the prison yard is carrying around their shanks about to stab each other. where he comes from -- this is different from us. he's either a killer or be killed. we are coming in and sing can you be nice to us about this thing. he laughs at us. host: michael from new york. republican line. good morning. caller: i would like to comment on your guest saying he's

comparing putin to hitler. that's a shame because hitler killed jews systematically. putin is a jew friend. , it's a your guest great thing to do, but your guest failed to represent what national security threat is so immediate for america versus the bigger threat from iran, which america under the obama administration tried to befriend. they also kill people. they are spreading terrorism. i would like to get an answer. host: thank you, michael. guest: the question is really what is more threatening, russia or iran?

i would argue that russia is more of a threat to the national security of america than iran. why? russia has the single largest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any country in the world. russia is on the border of europe, our allies. very recentlyin has decided for the first time since the second world war to redraw the map of europe by invading a foreign country, ukraine. russia has also been involved in killing in syria innocent people, supporting the assad regime and the use of chemical weapons. russia is very actively involved with iran. analysisny objective putting aside any prejudices,

putin is a more dangerous person than anybody else in the world right now. it may not appeal to people who have their preconceived notions. that is the result you would come to. host: market in georgia. democrats line -- mark in georgia. democrats line. caller: thanks, bill, for your act of courage and patriotism. i'm a former united states marine. --as looking at my passports i have quite a few countries from around the world stamped in my passport. i wanted to thank you for your act of courage and true act of patriotism. by my fellow illinoisan. i don't see you as a political person. i did watch your testimony at congress. you're a straight shooter. i would trust you with my

investments if i had them to make. i want to thank you very much for your american spirit. you represent freedom very well, sir. got bless you. guest: think you. -- thank you. i'm a full-time human rights activist. i wouldn't be able to manage your money. i do appreciate your support. i'm trying. my campaign is not about left and right, republican or democrat. this is about fighting evil. evil wears all sorts of different clothes in different skins. we've found a way to fight evil. the evil of this century dictators --oper autocracy and dictators. we have a global magnitsky act. the global magnitsky act targets

killers, dictators, that guys everywhere. -- bad guys everywhere. this was recently passed in canada and the u.k. and lithuania and estonia. rgeihe name of se magnitsky, we want to create consequences for bad guys. we don't know whether there is collusion or not. we know the russian government wanted to influence the outcome here. we don't know whether they were engaged or whether there was a unilateral or bilateral effort. we are sitting here as armchair policeman and investigators -- policemen and investigators with one 1000 the information the law enforcement people have.

they have the subpoena powers, access to witnesses the likes of which none of us have access to. we have tiny pieces of this puzzle. eventually, the puzzle will crystallize. it will either crystallize that there was nothing or that there was collusion. in the meantime, i'm not going to speculate based on insufficient information. i don't think i have to because you will get the answer from people who will have the answer. host: to you have any insights into the meeting that took place in june of last year between donald trump, jr. and the russian lawyer? guest: my insights are that we know exactly what the russians wanted in that meeting. that is the one thing that everyone has agreed on. they tried to repeal the magnitsky act. my insight from that is that the russians wouldn't have gone to try to repeal the most important piece of human rights

legislation in this century if they didn't have something equal to offer. we don't know what that was that they were offering. we don't know whether that was accepted. all we can say with any degree of certainty is what they wanted. we cannot say with any certainty what happened after that. this will all eventually come out one way or another with this investigation. onthe meantime, everybody all different sides of this argument are all speculating. we should wait and see. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. dave in kansas. you are next. caller: thank you for all your work. my question is regarding the next steps of tracking the money with block chain and bitcoin on the rise, in seems like a haven for people to hide dark money. whatur acts bear fruit,

are the bad guys doing to stay one step ahead? what can the international community do to try to keep pace with them? guest: i'm glad you asked that question. i was in washington yesterday testifying for congress about the that anniversary of the magnitsky act and i was discussing where the strength and weaknesses were. one of the biggest weaknesses of the magnitsky act and of other sanctions is the rise of bitcoin and other crypto currencies. the beauties of the current sanction regime, it really does whote pariahs out of people are sanctioned because when you cannot do business in the banking system, you are basically sunk. however, with the advent of bitcoin and other untreated currencies, this is like a gift from god for dictators and other gangsters. at the moment, it's unregulated.

the same way facebook and twitter were unregulated. we have a big problem that hasn't been addressed. washington is behind the curve on this thing. it's a big issue that needs to be addressed.. the anonymousies, use of the currencies have one great benefit. that is for criminals. and needs to be regulated. clydequite in oklahoma -- anin oklahoma. democrats line. that's one thing people don't understand. ande muslims came from where russians came from. sends all evil spirits back to where they came from. guest: i have become very

sensitized to russians and what they want and what their aspirations are. this is really important. when i'm talking about putin, i'm not talking about russians. .here's 141 million russians they are the best people you can come across and there's one million criminals occupying the country that are working for vladimir putin. the average russian, you would be amazed at how good and decent they are. my wife is russian my staff is russian. these are the best people on our but they've been terribly mistreated by these vicious criminals that are occupying their country. host: can russia help us with regard to north korea? guest: i believe china is the key to north korea, not russia.

putin always tries to insert himself into the international situation to become a spoiler. he could certainly cause harm to our situation in north korea. i wouldn't be surprised if some of the nasty stuff coming out of north korea has russian fingerprints on it. host: i want to put on the screen a photograph from the 1980's. president reagan in

>> isaac think it was a bad mistake.

-- i think it was a bad mistake. it is a very sad thing that way vladimirh the putin quietly came in and took over the country for his own needs. host: good morning. you had a collar a minute to go saying something about could and it not being a ass murderer -- you had collar a minute ago saying something about who did not being a mass murderer. putin not being a mass murderer. i haven't heard anything more about adopting these russian children. let's mueller do his job -- let mueller do his job. you must be getting pretty close to trump. -- they must be getting pretty close to trump.

otherwise, they are starting to store up a lot of trouble. thank you for bringing up the malaysian airliner shot down. 292 innocent civilians were killed. it was a russian operation. indimir putin was involved setting up apartment bombs across russia. over 2000 people died. 10,000 people were killed in ukraine. hundreds of thousands of innocents in syria have been bombed. this is an extremely nasty piece of work, a lot of terrible stuff. anyone who tries to in any way take without responsibility from him is doing wrong. collusion, let's

just wait and find out what the answer is from law enforcement. why speculate? host: steve, republican line, from fishers, indiana. caller: the current prime brother wasims his killed along with other polish leaders in an airplane crash. browder have any information on that? host: i read the same story. close to a number of investigations involving murders and other atrocities committed by vladimir putin. getnews and information you when you did deeper into these situations is much worse when you think. believe that was an

error.t pilot i don't believe the president of a sovereign state would have an incompetent pilot. the new president of poland has reopened investigations. they believe there were two explosions on that airplane before it went down with that previous president of poland and most of his cabinet. evidence, thaty i think it would be very interesting. host: back to the issue of north korea. the president was asked about that before heading on to marine one earlier. he said very nice things, vladimir putin, about the country's economy. he also said negative things in

terms of what is going on he said very nice things, vladimir putin,elsewhere. the primary point was to talk about north korea. help onto have his north korea. china is not helping and russia is not helping. host: that was the president, earlier this morning. reaction?ur guest: russia should help, but we are not going to do them any favors, with your not going to exonerate them of other other misdeeds when we asked him for help. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> good morning. thank you for taking the time to join us today. we will all had downstairs after this. if i do not get a chance to say hello, merry christmas and happy holidays. we would like to talk