>> coming up on washington journal, your calls and comments. we speak with the foundation of defense of democracy behnam ben taleblu about iran's role in the israel-hamas work and relations with iran. then the president of society of law institute george conway. he talks about the organization and its mission. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, december 5. the house and senate return today and funding for ukraine will be among the top issues. b zelenskyy is scheduled to

address senators at everything ahead of the key vote for president biden's foreign aid package that includes $61 billion for ukraine. we are putting the question to you. do you support additional usaid to ukraine? -- u.s. aid to ukraine? if yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. you can send estate text at (202) 748-8003. if you do, include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media, on x and on facebook. a very good monday morning to you. start calling and now. this is the headline from washington post. white house warns congress of an urgent need for ukraine funding. there was national security advisor jake sullivan in a briefing room echoing those warnings yesterday.

[video] >> on ukraine, omb director shalonda young sent a letter to leaders explaining without congressional action the administration will run out of resources by the end of the year to procure more weapons and equipment for ukraine and provide equipment from u.s. military stocks without impacting our own military readiness. the resources congress has provided for ukraine and other national security needs have halted russia's advances, help ukraine achieve significant military victories, including taking back more than 50% of the territory russia previously occupied, and by revitalizing our own defense industrial base jumpstarting and expanding production lines and supporting good paying jobs across the country. now it is up to congress. congress has to decide whether to continue to support the fight for freedom in ukraine as part of the 50-nation coalition president biden has built, or

whether congress will ignore the lessons learned of history and let putin prevail. it is at start of a choice and we hope congress will make the right choice. there is no magical pot of funding available. we are running out of money and we are nearly out of time. congress has to act now to take up the president's supplement request which advances our own national security and helps a democratic partner in ukraine fight against russian aggression. host: jake sullivan from the white house briefing room yesterday. the letter from the omb director getting this response from the speaker the house mike johnson yesterday afternoon. "the ministry and has failed to address any of my conference's legitimate concerns about the lack of strategy in ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by taxpayers. the administration is continually ignoring the

catastrophe that our own border." house republicans result any national secrecy supplemental package must begin with our own border. we believe both issues can be agreed upon if democrats and the white house will negotiate reasonably." the speaker of the house yesterday. this was senator ron johnson last week on the issues, talking about border security and ukraine funding. [video] >> we have one leverage point here. the administration wants funding for ukraine. we need to use that leverage point and make any funds that go to ukraine contingent on the administration actually reducing the number of migrants being dispersed in america. since this administration has been about has been in office 6 million people have come in. 1.7 million are detected got aways.

we don't over the other 5.3 billion people are. those that are -- million people are. this is out of control. you have hamas calling for days of -- you think there might be a bad person or two? it is a clear and present danger. what the senate must insist on is if they take out the supplemental, looking at funding for ukraine, republicans in the senate must hold firm to not pass any bill that does not include benchmarks -- hard benchmarks, the number of migrants dispersed into america or detectable got aways or any other category. when need to deny closure on any bill that does not include that hard metric. host: senator ron johnson last week. we are expecting chuck schumer will try to move a bill that will serve as a vehicle for

ukraine aid and other emergency funding for israel and for taiwan as well. that emergency packets abide administration is trying to move, that vote expected in the senate today. it's expected to come after a classified briefing with senators with ukrainian resident volodymyr zelenskyy. taking your calls this morning asking if you support additional u.s. aid to ukraine. lines for if you say yes, no and if you are not sure. randy is up first out of michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you and the other minute women it takes to bring us this program. you are doing a great service and happy holidays. host: same to you, randy. what are your thoughts on ukraine? caller: we have to deftly support ukraine. that is the real threat to this country. we -- it is just as important

than what we did for 9/11. now you're dealing with a gentleman over there in russia that actually has nuclear weapons, has a military and a navy, air force. terrorism is a terrible thing, but terrorism is more or less a nuisance, not a real threat to national security. as far as the administration having to negotiate to have what our goals are, we have a goal to illuminate terrorism. -- a lemonade terrorism. -- eliminate terrorism. you have to negotiate with people that are willing and honest to negotiate. you can't throw out these -- we

need to support ukraine. i believe that is our top priority. thank you for my time. host: thanks for that call. bill in alabama on the line for those that are not sure. why is that? caller: my opinion has evolved and i think no more funding for ukraine until we have an inspector general or someone is in charge of where the money goes, where the weapons go. i'm really disappointed that our government, the biden administration is taking money to pay ukrainians wages and for

the government. why are we spending so much money in ukraine going to their border when our border is wide open? host: if there is a deal that comes together that includes new funding for new border measures, would you then support that along with additional aid to ukraine? that is the crux of the argument right now. caller: to be honest with you i don't trust this administration to do anything they say they're going to do. he is not trustworthy. he should be impeached. i'm sure he will be. host: that is built in alabama. michael from lafayette, tennessee. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i completely support the biden

administration and the ukraine funding. we need to see here that funding today and get it passed. these people are fighting for democracy. if we lose that then there goes western europe and eastern europe. putin will just roll right over. i support biden and vice president harris. i know they will be reelected in 2024. trump will not be in the white house. he is going to go on trial and hopefully be convicted of his crimes that he is accused of. thank you so much for your time. host: anthony in iowa, good morning. the line for those who say no to additional aid to ukraine. why? caller: no, we should not be giving this money away to these other countries. we need to take care of america. we have people living in the streets and veterans with nowhere to live. we need to use the money for ourselves and quit giving it away to other countries. i don't care who the next president is. thank you. host: you don't care who the

next president is going to be? we lost anthony. john from new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. i totally support aid to ukraine. we have to defeat putin. it's unbelievable what he's getting away with and now with the israeli issue, no one is talking about it too much. i am a dyed in the wool republican from the nixon era. i'm 75 years old. i don't like the fact that a republican colleague -- our republican colleagues are raising all these issues about what is wrong with ukraine. we don't know what is wrong with ukraine but we have to do if he russia. yes, we should absolutely secure the border. biden has been a disaster. that will cost him the election but those to meet two

separate issues. host: you talked about the nixon administration. what were your thoughts when you find out henry kissinger died last week? caller: he's a great man. everyone tries to denigrate him. they destroyed nixon. yeah, these are fabulous people. these are great people. people who stood up in the middle of the cold war and tried to work things out. i don't understand why they are denigrated frankly. i really don't. host: an interview with henry kissinger from this past spring with the economist. kissinger for the safety of europe. get ukraine into nato, hireling to the conversation they had with him months before he died. what are your thoughts on ukraine joining nato as henry

kissinger was advocating for? caller: he was a smart man. he knew it better than i do. of course he wanted to do that. the argument has been that russia is reacting this way because we have expanded nato and apparently we pledged not to do that. i'm not sure. it's very complicated. of course. russia was supposed to be an ally after the wall fell in paris troika and glasnost. it seemed to be working for a while, frankly. we had seemingly very good relations in business, all that stuff. i'm not sure with the turning point was. i'm not smart enough to know. i read a lot of history. putin felt he was threatened with nato expanding and then the

crimea and georgia, etc., etc. he's got to be stopped. end of story. host: that is john in bridgewater, new jersey. tributes to henry kissinger continuing in today's papers. we showed you a couple yesterday. this is walter russell mead in washington journal. henry kissinger on power and morality as the headline. "for kissinger, the construction, attending and repair of a balance in global affairs was the supreme moral and clinical challenge of statecraft, especially as nuclear weapons made war on survivable -- unsurvivable. it required more bombs in north vietnam and cambodia, send in the b-52s. any guilt or shame attached to such moves belongs to those whose follies left the

u.s. with nothing but bad choices. kissinger was a victim of his own success. once america's position had been restored americans turned in revulsion from the methods and men responsible for turning the tide. jimmy carter wanted to focus on human rights. conservatives like reagan wanted to replace kissingerian detente with anti-soviet approaches. neither cap understood the ability to pursue ideological goals was the consequence of kissinger's achievements." if you want to read more, that is in today's wall street journal. back to the conversation about ukraine and on capitol hill i vote to move the vehicle that would be the funding vehicle for additional aid to ukraine. that is planned in the senate today. it was announced on monday but chuck schumer -- this was chuck schumer on the floor of the senate. [video] >> america's national security

is on the line around the world. in europe, the middle east and indochina. autocrats and radical extremist are waging war against democracy, against our values, against our way of life. before the year is out support the senate to pass a national supplement package providing aid to ukraine, israel, humanitarian aid to innocent civilians in gaza, deterrence against adversaries in the indo pacific. both parties understand the consequences will be severe if we fail. just this morning omb director shalonda young warned congressional leaders absent action from congress funding to help ukraine will run out by the end of the year. alarmingly, the process on the national security package has been on ice for weeks. not because republicans objected to israel aid or ukraine or humanitarian aid in gaza or the

indo pacific, but because republicans have injected partisan and extreme immigration measures into the debate. let me repeat that. the hold up on the security supplemental has not been over ukraine or israel or the indo pacific, but over republican decisions to inject hard right immigration measures into the debate. democrats agree. immigration should be debated and addressed. but if republicans want to raise the issue of immigration right now the onus is on them to present us with bipartisan ideas. host: chuck schumer on the floor of the senate back on monday. the conversation among senators continuing for weeks and months on this topic. senators tweeting their thoughts ahead of this vote and ahead of this briefing happening today with vladimir zelenskyy. patty murray saying the administration is out of money

to support ukraine. now it iupo congress to act and there is overwhelming bipartisan support to get it done. we need to step up and support are alws or we choose to give putin the upper hand. rk warner of virginia. time is running out to pass the package. we must act now for ukraine and their fight against authoritarianism. j.d. vance, senator of ohio, quoting from his letter to the editor that he sent to the waington post. weapons of war made in america do not justify sending them abroad. americans no longer support aid for ukraine and neither shoots of bennett -- the senate. taking your phone calls as we ask you simply you support additional u.s. aid to ukraine? the line for if you say yes, no and unsure are on your screen. this is david in tucson saying he is not sure. why is that? caller: good morning. i love your show . i'm not sure on where exactly is

going. i have nothing against ukraine. seeing the kids getting killed. we need to know where our tax money is going. that is what my concern is. yesterday i was watching and i was disappointed that you had a republican calling democrats idiots. you should have cut him off. that is no different than trump promoting violence. love your show. that's all i got to say. host: before you go on name-calling, we try to keep it down so i apologize, on knowing where the money goes are you specifically concerned about that in ukraine or do we need to do that with every country we give money to or is there something specific about ukraine that you don't trust where the money is going? caller: ukraine is not in nato.

we are in nato with israel. that is our duty. with ukraine we need a little bit more. we have pumped way too much money without not knowing how we are going to get a return on that. that is my whole thing. please stop the name-calling. we are all people. we are red-blooded americans. it doesn't matter if you're black, white, republican, democrat, independent. we are all the same. we need to come together. host: thanks for that call from tucson, arizona. upon money going to ukraine, it's up to about $111 billion since early 2022. this chart from the senate on foreign relations, a bit dated but you can see the assistance to you ukraine -- to ukraine compared to other countries through the summer of this year. the next country is israel and then jordan, afghanistan,

ethiopia, egypt and yemen in terms of recipients of us aid, all left together in that chart. andrew and grammar 10, washington. on the line for no two additional 80 ukraine -- to additional aid to ukraine. caller: it is unwinnable. russia threatens us. i don't care what the pr says. it cannot be won. the idea is we are just trying to deplete russia by pitting them against ukraine. that is just nasty, because they are just going to die. what is the actual objective here? i don't believe ukraine can either retake all of what they have lost or they can be russia. that is just silly.

host: the arguments for those who support additional aid saying nato and the united states not stop vladimir putin in ukraine here he will go ahead and do it again at another country. what is your response to that for those people who feel that way? caller: we need to talk to russia. we need to deal with it with politics. militarily it is a law situation. host: do you think vladimir putin is somebody we can negotiate with? caller: we have to be able to or leverage in some other way. this strategy of trying to make ukraine win can't work so we have to do something else. host: this is john in auburn, california. caller: good morning. thank you for being there. what the guy said. freedom.

the guy before calling from lafayette. lafayette was the richest kid in europe back in 1775. he gave his whole family fortune to create our united states marine corps. held out with us for six to eight years to fight off the british invasion. otherwise we would all be bowing to king charles iii today. yes, please do find ukraine -- fund ukraine's freedom. what is the competition about? wars are competitive. why cannot humanity be in a spirit of cooperation like our god suggests? freedom. host: that was john in california. warren in florida on the line for those who are not sure about

aid to ukraine. caller: one of the main reasons is that if we have the money to help someone we should. we are $33 trillion in debt. host: i think it is close to $34 trillion at this point. caller: there is a lot of good reasons to spend more money. even in our own country. it just seems like they are addicted to spending money, whether it is here or there. they make the subject this war and freedom, which i agree with. the problem comes in is do we have the money to pay for it? we need to look at the government overall. we are getting weakened about it. that is the main thing. they took money from social security in the 1980's because there was money reserved because

they passed a law, tip o'neill and all them. then they went ahead and stole the money, put bonds in there and they said that is the reason we took it, the help everybody with bonds. but the bonds don't pay as well. why would they go to the supreme court to be able to do that? they just take money. they spend money. they keep spending it. as the pie shrinks and if we ever had to stay with high interest rates we are going to be -- our budget is going to be the size of the military budget. we need to really think about whether we need to police the world anymore. there is a lot of things -- spending money we don't have is the issue. if we have the money come on forward. if they don't have the money, i am not forward. -- for it. host: the debt is $33.889

trillion in terms of how much we spent each year, the current budget has it at about $830 billion in defense spending this year. 692 billion dollars spent on servicing the debt that the united states has around the world. rick in sioux city, iowa. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: yeah, i am for it until we can figure some thing out. i've heard the freedom argument. mine is more of a strategic value. i'm reading an article now from o. it's a think tank out of canada. this is what it says.

the country ranks fourth -- ukraine -- fourth globally in terms of total value of natural resources with roughly $15 billion in annual output. a potential assessed value to be as high as $7.5 trillion. let me jump down here. roughly 80% of ukraine's oil, natural gas and coal production reserves can be found in the donetsk region, where all the fighting started was in the donetsk. so that is where the oil is. it is also in crimea. i think it was shell potential oil -- that found billions of dollars in potential oil. what i'm saying is that if we

turn over ukraine to russia that is an advantage to them and to the chinese. i am thinking they spoke about this at length. i'm wondering if we can hold the line on that if maybe that advantage comes to us at some point in the future. nobody's talking about the resources that ukraine has. i don't understand that. the part about freedom, everybody gets that. when you start talking about dollars and what could potentially happen, that can begin to change minds about what we are doing there. host: that is rick from sioux city, iowa. the think tank? caller: if you hang on just a minute, i will let you know. let's see. host: the phone numbers again for viewers if you support additional u.s. aid to (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001.

if you're not sure, we have a number for you to call. (202) 748-8002. is that enough time for you, rick? caller: cdc news, mary brewster. this would posted back in 2022. i bet you could find that. a political analyst. host: the canadian broadcasting corporation. this is taylor, michigan. terry is in taylor. caller: yes. that is a big no. we should not be sending. let's start with -- everyone from henry kissinger to the former secretary of state james baker and the soviet union days to noam chomsky, everyone from

right to left to center knew that nato expansion was a redline for russia. there's a huge historical record on that. number two. it's about a fight for democracy and freedom of ukraine. well, democracy is elections, freedom of speech, freedom of press. shouldn't c-span report on the suspension or question of the suspension of elections in ukraine? if it's about democracy, how will they suspend elections with the accuse of wartime and say that is democracy? they outlet opposition parties in the parliament. is democracy? they outlawed opposition parties in the parliament. why hasn't c-span reported on that? you have a foundation for the defense of democracy and they've done nothing but propaganda and say that it's democracy, but you don't investigate any of these

facts. is there any freedom in ukraine? host: we made note of that announcement from volodymyr zelenskyy. the others to point to russia and say is there freedom in russia? is russia better on these issues then ukraine? how would you compare the two? host: that is not the question -- caller: that is not the question. we are not funding russia's military and putting them on a military mission. host: do you think that any of the funding that we've given -- caller: we are not propping up the russian state. the russian state stands on its own. we are propping up the ukrainian state. host: this is the editorial board of the washington post today. terry says that he did know that the washington post said yes on calling for additional funding for ukraine as part of the must do list for congress. giving up on ukraine would undermine the 22-month u.s.

effort, in bold and, andy road key leverage in any settlement talks. funding ukraine has its soldiers and not u.s. troops to great the russian army, weaken the kremlin, and deter aggression elsewhere in the world. calling it a must do for congress. this morning as we pass 7:30 on the east coast, a vote will happen today on the funding vehicle for the biden administration's emergency funding efforts that include ukraine, but also israel and taiwan. the vote coming later today after a classified briefing is expected with senators with the ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy happening today on capitol hill. the debate over ukraine aid in both chambers of the congress. this is a republican on the house floor late last week speaking out against more aid to

ukraine. [video clip] >> the american people, the history books, the good lord are going to judge on the actions we take and whether or not we deliver for the american people. to deliver for the american people, republicans must force the senate democrat leadership, majority leader schumer and president biden, to understand a handful of very key truths. that under no circumstances should we give another dollar to ukraine. no bill should come to the house floor until hr2 is signed by the president and the flow stops across our southern border. that ought to be the very clear message sent to the president and majority leader schumer. if my colleagues on the other

seida of the aisle in the senate want to choose -- on the others of the aisle in the senate want to choose to refuse to secure the border, then they can call up mr. zelinski and the people of ukraine and explain why. that it is more important to keep open borders in america and undermine our sovereignty, security, and well-being. host: texas republican chip roy last week on the floor of the united states house. the houses in at 10:00 a.m. our question for you past 7:30 a.m. eastern's do you support additional u.s. aid to ukraine? if you say yes, no, or are not sure, there are lines for all of those answers. christopher in california. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am confident that this

war in ukraine, now that has started and we are in it, we have to send more money, because vladimir putin has a history of taking over land that aren't his or he thinks used to be his. i think about the ukrainian people, the people left, the people who have stayed and i wish that they didn't have to go through this. we should also definitely send money to taiwan because they are responsible, they are semiconductors, for the modern electronics and our modern way of life. israel, we should definitely send more money to them because they are our allies. people are forgetting about our most important allies, our neighbors, canada and mexico. right now we are slowly killing or corrupting mexico because the cartel is one of the most dangerous organizations in the whole world, and they are making

millions, maybe billions of dollars through human smuggling and drug smuggling. host: to bring it back to ukraine, we are at $111 billion since early last year on ukraine. you say that we should definitely send more money. is there a limit? caller: as long as our european allies are sending more money i think we should keep sending money too. that is the only way to get putin to the negotiating table and i hope biden is trying to do that. host: thank you for the call from california. rita in maryland. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. you had the previous caller on who hit the nail right on the top. that was about that there was actually an agreement between the west and the soviet union before the walls came down and the east was opened up.

the eastern european nations that were part of the soviet union would never join nato. it is the western nations, including the united states, that has consistently broken that agreement. that was a written agreement, from what i understand. obviously, now that we have ukraine fighting, i do not support supplying them with weapons because i think that it's a waste of money, it's a waste of time, and in regards to the other wars in the middle east, i certainly do support israel in the fight against hamas because what happened there is absolutely horrible, evil. i am dismayed that our own government has been that incompetent that they cannot secure our own border. i used to be a democrat. i will never, ever vote for a democratic president again, including biden, because of this

whole agenda with keeping the border open. you know, if we cannot even secure our own border this bodes badly for assassination. i think the republicans -- bodes badly for us as a nation. i think the republicans have a point and people are tired of the government not doing what the will of the government -- the will of the people is. we do have to address it humanely, but at the same time we are sending a continuous invitation that if you come you can stay. again, you know, there are legitimate cases, but the thing is, if you can't control your own border then you don't have any security. one last point if i may, china is going after taiwan. it is on the united states to protect them. are we going to get involved in that front? how can we even do all of this stuff? i think that we need to focus on

what is more important. that is here at home, taking care of our own people and our own country first. and then evaluate what else we can do with the rest of the world. thank you for taking my call. host: that is rita. you talk about nato expansion is how you begin your comment. in 1982, nato, 16 member states, you can see the map, the blue countries on the map, the nato countries. in 1999, the czech republic joined along with hungray and poland. then bulgaria, formally a warsaw pact country, latvia, lil wayne you, romania, slovakia, albania, croatia and 2017. montenegro in 2020. north macedonia, finland and

sweden are the most recent nato editions. that is brought the total up to more than 30 countries as part of the nato. ray and pensacola, florida. caller: good morning. one thing, the money that we sent to these areas is borrowed money. we are deep in debt. we are going to lose a lot of our benefits. i just feel that i haven't heard yet, are they going to negotiate between russia and ukraine? wasn't there supposed to be a peaceful settlement? we just got of -- we just got out of an area where we were for 20 years. it ended up the same thing. we don't have a -- host: is that all that you wanted to say? caller: i'm trying to think of

the country that we just got out of after 20 years and it has gone back to what it was. host: afghanistan. caller: that is correct. the one thing that no one ever mentions anymore is religion. we are doing a lot of things in this country that are anti-religion. abortion is a big one. i am against abortion on demand. it ought to be called murder on demand. i think that is why the world is turning out the way it is. we have lost our christianity. i don't think we need to send a lot of money unless we know for sure what will be the outcome. israel right now is the same thing. we haven't agreed to send any money as far as i know. we are spending millions and millions every day because we have military over there. that has costed us a lot of

money. host: raleigh, north carolina. you are next. caller: good morning. i want to say that i support -- i say yes. the united states should continue to support ukraine. i want to say to the black woman who called in a moment ago who said -- host: i don't think that any caller identified themselves by race. caller: she didn't? i won't assume that, then. miss, you are not a native born american. host: donald, i'm not sure anyone identified if they were native born or not. buffalo, new york. you are next. caller: good morning, jon. quick question. you obviously can't answer, but some of the callers talked about some of the policies with nato. that is one of the reasons why

russia is doing what they're doing. if the policies were broken, and it is similar to the israel conflict, policies were broken on that end with palestinians over the history. i just can't see my money going to any of these campaigns if policies have been broken. that means that we are rewarding these countries for policies that were broken. therefore, some of the other callers talked about our own situation at the border, people's health and living conditions. when did we become the world police? c-span, i watch you all the time, so i don't know if you had a segment on how much aid other countries have given ukraine and israel too, as those are the main issues lately. a caller talked about canada.

canada is a beautiful country. i was there over the weekend. they seem to be doing pretty good economy-wise. i don't hear about their $33 trillion cost deficit. i'm curious to see, are we the only ones footing the bill? host: i can give you this, kyle. 47 countries have provided military aid to ukraine. the eu is one of the largest along with the united states. you can see the top two lines. after that it is germany, the united kingdom, norway, japan, canada, sweden, so on down the line from most to least. you can see as a single country the united states is far and away the most. caller: look at that, man. i don't like that graph. i wouldn't mind being somewhere in the middle to be honest. i don't want to be the major contributor. at some point when do we say,

hey, deficits don't matter because we are going to keep increasing our debt? every six months they're going to increase the debt ceiling because they can't come to any spending cuts. i feel bad for the people of ukraine, but in another topic about that -- host: stay on that one topic in terms of another way of looking at this. the united states is not the top country if you consider aid as a percentage of gdp. the united states has given just .33 percentage of gdp if you add up the total aid. some of the baltic countries, including estonia, latvia, and lithuania have given 1.2% of gdp of estonia they have given to ukraine in a.

that's another way of looking at it, percentage of gdp of money given to that country. caller: thanks for that. that is actually good information to have based on the gdp. that does make a little more sense. still, there is a point -- i don't know. it is frustrating, because it seems like we are in the spotlight for the major contributors, but you never hear about where ukraine is re ally spending their money. we are giving them money that is basically welfare for people to stay home, businesses, health care, you name it. i'm willing to help people out, but i live in an area where 40% of the people are below poverty. if we don't care about deficits, and we don't care about the budget, then i guess we keep doing what we are doing, because it is going to be up to 50 at some point. heck, 2006 i believe we were

$6 trillion in the bank. we will keep helping people out. i would like to see our borders restrained a little bit so we don't have everyone coming in and loafing off the till too. i think 50% of people don't contribute. it is frustrating because my taxes keep going, inflation and everything, and i could go on and on. you guys have a great day. host: about 50 minutes left in this first segment of "the washington journal,: " asking for additional u.s. aid to ukraine. national security advisor jake sullivan was in the briefing room yesterday making the case for additional aid. [video clip] >> i want to ask a question about ukraine. you say that any member against -- any member of congress who

votes against aid to ukraine is supporting putin? >> anyone who doesn't support ukraine is gloating for an outcome that makes it easier for putin to prevail. that is a vote against supporting ukraine is a vote to improve putin strategic position. that is an inescapable reality. it isn't speaking someone's motive, why they chose to vote against it, it's just the outcome of their vote. a vote against supplemental funding for ukraine will hurt ukraine and help russia. it will hurt a democracy and help dictators. we think that is not the right lesson of history and every member democrat and republican should vote to support this. >> do you feel the same way about the money for taiwan, that a vote against the package is to help xi and to help hamas in israel? >> our view is that every dollar that is in this package is meant to enhance the national security of the united states, and

peace and stability in vital parts of the world. not voting for it in our view for the package in its totality we believe is a vote against what is necessary to secure america's national security objectives going forward. host: jake sullivan yesterday from the white house briefing room. here are some of your comments on the question we've asked about additional aid for ukraine. this is steve from facebook sayinghat yes, with the conditions outlined in the hse proposal, hr 2 for those following on the floor, the plan is to win and get out of ukraine, so here and fix our border first before we give aid to others. the left he says likes to get large slush funds with no accountability and to keep our country in chaos. she says a resounding yes on aid to uai. if ever a nation proved it once his freedom and sees to have it on a meat ukraine has. bill says absote not.

the eastern border of ukraine secondary to the southern border of texas. much disputed real estate that has called ukraine a tragedy. the open borders of the united states is a national security issue. this is ryan from san bernardino, california. you are next. caller: good morning, john. i'm calling in support. you already mention the gdp numbers, so we are the big dog on the block. we are putting in a lot of money. comparatively, it is small. to what we could do. the cost of this is world war if it blows up. we would potentially be looking at a two to three front war in different places that might even expand to the critical resource areas in africa.

you put all of that together and we cannot afford to let this thing blow up. if it does, you will be spending a lot more money. churchill said that america does the right thing eventually. we can't sit on our coattails and wait for it to get back. -- get bad. if we do it's not going to work. there are ways to do with the budget and the border, but really it's not people that is the problem. it is the fentanyl. that is coming right through the ports. i don't see how inflating the concern about the border, a bulwark to stop the funding won't be effective because in the end we are going to pay one way or another. host: the percentage of gdp commitments to ukraine, the map if you want to look it up for yourself, is the ukraine support

tracker. norway is the number one country in terms of aid as a percentage of gdp, giving 1.7% of their gdp in aid to ukraine. they are right on russia's border. we also mention the baltic states very high up. the united states at about .33% of gdp. bob in indiana. caller: thank you for talking with me. we are spending our grandkids' money, not ours. if you don't have the money come you can't spend it. i'm not -- i think that we should give aid when we can, but if we don't have the money we can't spend it. that is all i have to say. host: do you think we have had the money since the beginning of 2022? caller: no. we have been spending our grandkids' money for quite some time.

host: do you say no for an aid until we have a budget surplus? caller: that kind of foreign aid. their big support from the people around them, which are getting the benefit of their support, and our support, so we need to go to the places around us if we have the money and take care of them first. host: is it your opinion that we would have the money if we have a budget surplus? do we have to pay off all debt? what is your definition of "if we have the money"? caller: this country has to be secured dollar-wise and not be digging into the future to take our grandkids' money to spend. our money, right now, is what we can spend. host: this is willie in hope mills, north carolina.

good morning. caller: i am totally against aid to ukraine and israel, truth be told. i kind of agree with the previous caller. we have to be -- host: we have to be what? caller: good morning. host: you just have to listen through your phone. turn down your tv. caller: gotcha. we need to be solvent insecure within our own borders. if we are not, if we are not, there is no possible way that you spend money that you don't have. i agree with the previous caller. this is our grandchildren's money. as far as a percentage of gdp versus norway and other places, our gdp is so humongous that there is no comparison between

.3% of hours and 1.6 of theirs. the money doesn't balance no matter how you look at it. the truth of the matter is it is not just the fentanyl coming through the border. you don't know what's coming through the border. how difficult is it to come from the middle east through mexico and walk across texas on the back of the train? it is not difficult. these are the things that we are opening ourselves up to, i believe. i'm not against israel. not against ukraine. i am against debt. i am against our borders. i am against the streets of los angeles, san francisco, new york, chicago having bodies just laying there. that is what i'm against. i do believe that our money is being spent incorrectly. i will put it that way. host: you felt like our money was being spent incorrectly? caller: i am 72 now.

i believe it was probably when i was 40. i think that that -- believe it or not, i am a democrat. i am also a reaganite, as funny as that may seem. i say that because of some of his policies. some of his policies, economically, made sense. period. it is hard to be in my position as a lifelong democrat and not want to vote this upcoming because i'm getting the choice either or, trump or biden, and i don't agree with either. i think the bidens policies are leading us down the wrong path. i think that we will ultimately pay for it. we have a country that is an either or proposition. if you don't like biden but you hate trump you have to vote for biden anyway just so that your vote is counted.

when you come from where i come from, we fought for the vote, so the vote is important to me. and then i turn around, how can i vote for trump? if i stay home it may end up being a vote for trump. my reason is because i don't agree with the foreign policy we are putting out when our cities -- i'm from the city. i grew up in compton, california. it's horrible. host: who do you wish you could vote for in 2024? caller: jean phillips or a jean phillips/liz cheney ticket would make me happy. that sounds crazy, but it would. what happened to the possibility of a mixed ticket? why can't we have a republican and a democrat on the same -- in the white house at the same time? why can't we get to a point where everybody is adversarial?

we don't need an adversarial body politic, not at this time. even if we wanted to -- we are going to give this money to israel and ukraine. you and i both know that at the end. the border will get two pennies. what would be wrong with policies somewhere in the middle that puts american people on the same power that we put -- par that we put ukrainians and israelis? we think you care more about other people's infrastructure than ours. host: we are running short -- caller: biden has spent a lot of money on highways. in north carolina and california, they are busy. but a lot of that is show for because we are paying for it with money that we don't even have. host: lily in north carolina. we want to get in a couple of more -- willie in north carolina.

we want to get a couple of more calls in. thank you for waiting. caller: i strongly support the aid package, because if we don't then putin is going to walk into ukraine, followed by poland and europe will fall. because of our support for ukraine, putin's military is crippled. i personally believe that we entered the second world war a little bit too late to stop hitler. we could have stopped the mass extension of the jews and that is a fact. chip roy talks about the state and he has no clue what he's talking about. his focus is only texas. i think that president biden and jack sullivan are doing a good job. people say that we are the police. yes, we are. we have a major stake in this. some of the callers are saying, my grandkids' money. how do you define that?

the focus is skewed. that is my take. thank you. host: john in arbor derby pennsylvania is our last caller in this first segment -- upper derby, pennsylvania as our last caller in this first segment. next we will examine iran's role when it comes to the israel-hamas war and the fighting that is taking place since october 7. we will talk with behnam ben taleblu from the foundation for the defense of democracy. later today we will be joined by attorney george conway to discuss his new legal group, the society for the rule of law institute. stick around and we will be right back. ♪ >> friday nights, watching

c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data, watch c spends 2024 campaign trail. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. it makes it easy to quickly get

an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on points of interest. >> c-span shop.org is our online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> this year, book tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books with talks from more than 22,000 authors, nearly 900 cities and festivals visited and 16,000 events. book tv has provided viewers with 92,000 hours of programming

on the latest literary discussions on history, politics, and biographies. you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or online at book tv.org. book tv, 25 years of television for serious readers. >> be up to date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> friday nights, watch c spends 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to

discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. question c spends 2024 campaign trail friday nights at c-span. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a focus on iran and the ongoing crisis in the middle east. our guest is a political issues expert. explain first the role iran has been playing amid the ongoing war between israel and hamas. what to they think they can do amid this crisis? >> it's a pleasure to be with you. guest: the islamic public is

leveraging its strategy and has co-opted a series of proxy terror groups across the multiple battlefields fields in the middle east we see today. some places still have u.s. forces operating and in these jurisdictions, there's one element of a terror group that has drones, rockets, missiles, mortars, things of that nature. iran is doing in the post october 7 space is that it's slowly leveraging this network they call the axis of resistance . they bring elements of this axis online to create a conflict spiral in the hopes of preventing israel from being able to finish off hamas. in some cases, these proxies are attacking the israelis what they believe is is really linked shipping or interests. in other areas, they are trying to take advantage of u.s. risk

aversion in places like iraq and syria by stepping up the rate of fire there. there's been a reported 75 attacks on u.s. forces there and the goal is to get the u.s. to run towards the conflict between hamas and israel and create a deconfliction agreement like the 1973 agreement between the arabs and israelis in the hopes the iranians being able to do this, they are trying to use violent ends to achieve a political means. host: when we say iran backed, what do we mean? is it money and training? is it iranian military officials being embedded in these groups? guest: it's broadly internal and political support. there are two important ways to understand how iran creates and controls this axis of resistance. it's money on the one hand but on the other hand, it's weapons. maintenance, training,

logistics, other elements of terrorist acts and involving the islamic armed guard. there is the material support and the political support, diplomatic cover that iran also provides as proxies. one example that said game changer is that to the leading of the thanksgiving holiday, the iran backed militia in iraq fired a ballistic missile. iran is able to escalate by introducing a different kind of weaponry that provides these groups and that's an example of material support. host: where did that ballistic missile go? guest: i believe it targeted northern iraq but given iran's continued to intent it may only be a matter of time before there

is a major injury beyond the dramatic brain injuries that have been reported so far. i fear this will continue. host: drill in on the significance of the attacks over the weekend from yemen and commercial shipping and the red sea and u.s. navy vessel engaging here. guest: these are a few different elements that iran is trying to bring together. element one is the material support to the hufis. they are much older than the islamic republic but the islamic republic co-opted this group through political and material support and in 2014, when these over- they overtook the country and ousted the government and continued to fight the saudi backed coalition, more and more iranian weaponry came in.

they have plenty of ballistic missiles. they are not the only proxy of iran to have used anti-ship ballistic missiles. there was an attack over the weekend as well as the only proxy to have medium-range ballistic missiles that can fly over 1000 kilometers. these are changes to the way we need to look at iran's apparatus of terrorism in the region. in 2017, the hufis talked about their intent to enter a conflict against israel either with hezbollah or the palestinians. they did not yet have the capability. as of 2019, they've had the capability and as of 2023, they had the capability to fire at israel which is over 1000 kilometers away from yemen. when you add in the shipping component, there has been one direct attack by iran using the drones against is really linked commercial shipping. this is part of the larger

shadow war we've seen with cyber attacks on ports and shipping and attacks on critical infrastructure that both countries have tried to use to adjudicate the conversation in the middle east. they mean it and now they are showing you the material support that they have the capability to act on it. host: from the washington times today, i want to get your thoughts on this. guest: there is two kinds of extremes in washington and capitals around the world that are trying to analyze this proxy network and neither extreme is helpful to understand how this works. i will go wide and then specific.

group a believes the relationship between patron and proxy is iran gets on the phone muesli calls in the order and there is your local agencies and they have zero say and immediately implements what the iranians wants. i don't think that's a good extreme. the other extreme is academic. it's born of the principal agent problem that over time, the asians or the proxy gets more leverage over the principal because they are the ones risking their lives, on the front lines, who know the local terrain, they are interacting with other local actors in overtime, they get more leverage they have the capability to keep saying no. neither of these models is correct. the way iran has built this axis of resistance is by creating and co-opting through the material support local actors that share the same interest. the hufis are shooting at the same people and hamas and gaza

have been shooting at the same people. iran's foray into the gaza is built on the hamas being a spoiler to the peace process and being an even more aggressive and violent spoilage of the peace process after the second intifada. they have local interest in the islamic wrist public says we can help you with the local interest and it co-opts them through foreign material and political support. the hufis can set their own rate of fire but they have the say over the islamic republic of iran so was hard in the intelligence and academic community to say is there a smoking gun of iranian support from october 7? you have the wall street journal sources saying yes and then you have reuters with their local sources say no and it depends on your perspective, that your

understanding how this proxy network works in which camp you will fall into. host: we are talking about iran's role when it comes to the israel-hamas war, the conflict happening now and we are taking your phone calls as well. if you have questions about the history and the political dynamics of the region, now would be a good time to call. our guest specializes in iran as we talk about israel and hamas. when it comes to israel and iran, are you surprised that israel has not struck iran directly since october 7? guest: i'm surprised partially they were not willing to go as far as directly attribute everything that happened on october 7 two the islamic republic. i think there was a political consideration at play and its first focus on the most urgent threat in the jurisdiction that launched the threat, the local

actor that launched that threaten that would be hamas. it's likely that some have use this to talk about the u.s.-ices campaign and the priorities changing in the region in 2014 for the u.s.. they used to say first hitler's and stop stolid and now the israelis are doing the phased approach. in general, the iranians and israelis have had the shadow war we talked about. after october 7, there's knowing going -- there is no going back to that shadow war. the islamic republic armed hamas for these type of functions to be part of the regime's larger strategy of death by a thousand cuts against israel. why they are bringing this proxy online is they want to force israel and in general the u.s. now which has suffered 75 strikes in iraq and syria to absorb this escalation rather than respond to it. precisely by threatening and escalation spiral, they are trying to get everyone to say the responsible things to de-escalate and that's being

taken of politically in washington. i'm not surprised that responsible risk-averse actors are not looking to escalate the conflict. israel has limited aims as far as the destruction of the terrorist group but that will come with a political issue. host: is there a historical comparison to this proxy that iran built? guest: i don't see one. some say any alliance is a proxy network but even the way this proxy network works, sometimes --host: it's a network with a religious component as well. guest: the islamic republic is ecumenical. you have sunnis and shiites. that's not the entire population. when iran has this -- when the islamic republic has an committee a message, the angle of entry is not are you arab or

persian or muslim or not muslim, the first angle of entry outside the middle east is what kind of disposition do you harbor? you see this with the outreach of iranian political centers like the tri-border area in south america. this is how far they can take it. they use leftist groups in latin america to enter the conversation about being and site america in anti-israel and getting those groups to do something about it. if the co-opting of local causes. it's a religious in the middle east and they are willing to arm, trained and equipped to do things as heinous as we saw on october 7. host: plenty of colors for you already. this is janet in the bronx, line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm listening to him and he has

all of this research from these other people who say it's iran. it was the same thing with the iraq war. it was actually someone else who started the war. right about now, i think they are trying to get the u.s. involved and to attack iran. also, there is so much going on not being reported correctly. you are speaking about the hamas tunnels and 60 minutes reported on it like 10 years ago because of the blockade. those tunnels are being used so they can do commerce. donkeys were going through the tunnels. there is a lot not being told. when we had colin powell and whoever gave him information,

they say they have these weapons of mass destruction. they are doing the same thing here. guest: thank you for your comments and good morning. i wouldn't want to draw the analogy with iraq. i was willing to tell you that already there is so many different elements at play. i mention the wall street journal story with their local sources that says it was iran and i mentioned the reuters story that says it was not iran. i try to paint a picture talking about the larger proxy network and the regime's larger strategy where there is lots of empirical evidence for this. they went to battlefield to create groups like hezbollah and lebanon, i've talked about them going into places they co-opt existing groups that predate their strategy. exempts of that -- examples of that are all over. there is ample empirical evidence. these are not contentious issues.

it's the degree of iranian involvement. the administration which is taking the side of the reuters story, not being involved on october 7, even they are talking about the history of iran training, arming and backing with equipment. when you look at the material capabilities hamas has not just the 11,000 rockets fired so far but looking at the israelis moving deeper and deeper into gaza, the antitank weapons and where that came from, north korean copies, soviet copies of antitank weapons. those tunnels much like the trade routes of the middle east where they are the same routes in the red sea, the arms trafficking routes or the drug trafficking routes or human trafficking routes, those tunnels mirror the weapons trafficking routes as well and that's precisely how even under a blockade come iran could provide material support for its

proxy in gaza for hamas. host: where do you come down on the involvement of iran for october 7? guest: it's an alliance. some like to find this relationship as an alliance. in the west, we are -- we think an ally needs to look alike and think alike and share the same values. the way the islamic republic has been successful with sober few resources -- with so few resources and sustain that relationship is it takes the old world definition of alliance. if you are willing to shoot at the same person i want to shoot at, host: the enemy of my enemy? guest: precisely in the lower definition per victory is how they have been so successful. where i look at the data which is these random pieces of dots you have a media reporting, what allows me to connect the dots is

is larger assessment of iranian strategy which i'm trying to present to the viewers today. host: michael in plainfield, illinois, line for independents. caller: hi, i'd like your guest to follow up on what he was just saying. my observation is that we have this tendency to demonize the other side, terrorist devils, this is always our terminology we use. it seems to me from what your guest is saying that this is really a super imposition of a regional conflict between iran and us. and these other players which is leading to genocide and everything else. what i want to know your opinion on is do you think this is being

done for revenge, that we have actually lost control of a practical approach to this regional conflict? or are we just stuck in our own rhetoric, for lack of a better way of putting it. that's what i want your comment on. guest: thank. there are two layers of questions i want to unpack. there is the regional conflict and the revenge element. on the regional conflict, you framed it as a u.s.-iran issue. yes, the u.s. and iran or the islamic republic have had so many things they quarreled over over the past four decades in the order and structure of nature of governments across the region has been chief amongst them. this current conflict, the military iteration of fighting we are seeing post october 7 is not a u.s.-iran conflict.

part of the islamic republic's larger strategy to act on this ideological impulse it has worked puts death to a zal and death to america at the center of its foreign and secure the policy and that's where they co-opt control in this axis of resistance. they are slowly arranging these groups online to provide material support to these groups that basically like lebanese has bullied function as a knife against the neck of the israelis. they are sharpening that knife to box in the israelis of to make sure the most powerful military has less and less room to maneuver. it's about eroding your adversaries policy option so your regime can act on genocidal impulses it has. it shoots stars of david during target practice. they have military officials

engage in anti-semitic diatribes. the regional conflict is not u.s.-iran, it's iran-israel and brought in the u.s. through this path which is as iran sees its proxy getting pummeled in gaza, it's trying to take advantage of american risk aversion by targeting more u.s. assets. that's why a drone was shot down and thehufis are going against international freedom of navigation. that's why it's been 75 attacks on u.s. and iraq and syria. the longer the conflict in israel with the mouse goes on, the more likely iran is to turn up these proxies. iran is trying to get us to see that the heat is rising, why don't i put pressure on israel to stop the war against hamas? this is iran coming in from the back door by rising the heat. one less thing about revenge is that i don't view this as a revenge but i see that as we have risk aversion in washington

and in the western world, the nature of the men at the helm today are risk tolerant. what they've seen is a different america, a bipartisan foreign failure. they talked about this in 2021, that america today is not the same america of 20 years ago. earlier this year, the commander of the aerospace force, the men gave the order to launch ballistic missiles at the u.s. killed iran she terrorist received the largest ballistic missile strike since world war ii on its forces who were unprotected. that man went on tv bragging about how american aircraft carriers, american bases are targets and opportunities for the regime. years ago, there were threats. it's not about revenge. one reason we don't have a successful strategy is we have through politics and posture and lack of appropriate military planning, had a loss of deterrence.

that's why an actor like the islamic republic with much less capability feels more confident taking us on. they know they cannot when the balance of capability but they are betting on winning the balance of resolve. host: when it comes to the actors in the region that have been brought online and are circling israel, is there a regional group that has not been brought online yet? guest: the x factor there in my view will be one of iran's most successful proxies which is lebanese hezbollah. it has been firing already at israel and have been firing from iran and at been firing select rockets 20 or 70 kilometers. you've had displaced persons from the north to vacate the northern territory that borders lebanon. you had some drone attacks. my fear is the greater volume of not just rockets but precision guided missile fire from lebanon

into israel is one and the lebanese has bullet replicating the anti-access denial things end attacks on shipping we have seen the hufis do in the red sea. with they replicate that strategy again? just like the islamic republic, lebanese has bullet is trying to have its cake and eat it to come engaging cross-border attacks but not enter into the wider escalation that would lead to the destruction of this capability. so many other actors of local interest aligned with the islamic republic interest as well, lezz benny's test lebanese hezbollah was created and since the last major conflict in 2006, iran has created this arsenal of up to 200,000 rockets, mortars and missiles in the hands of its

cheap proxy in the region not just to be expended to save hamas but this is a tool that iran has created and cap there to prevent an israeli overt strike on its nuclear program or respond to an israeli overt strike. it's not likely to be expended in the short term. if iran sent some us more, perhaps the calculus of has billable change. guest: annapolis, maryland, republican, good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for having me. i have a brief question regarding iran. if we think about their chief goal in the world right now, i would not characterize it as world domination. i think their main goal would be characterized as projecting regional power and regional stability in favor of iran. is there a chance from an abrams

accord perspective, to bring other key players in the region to come to the table and strong-arm iran to bring them back to the table to take a step back and not funding this terrorist activity? host: guest: you hit the magic double a word, the abrams accord. let me work backwards. one reason i believe that you can continue to connect the dots be on the strategy we talked about this morning for iran and the region is that iran did feel encircled by the abrams accord. the governments that sign those peace agreements with israel would pay a cost they said. the less speech before october 7 of iran's supreme leader ended with a gigantic diatribe against israel but also the arab countries that had agreements and were seeking agreements with israel. host: remind folks to those

countries were. guest: the initial batch you had the uae and bahrain and you had sudan and morocco join on and the crown jewel of where the abraham accords could be expended -- could be extended was to bring in the 70's. -- bring in the saudi's. that would've been a game changer. iran saw this in one of the reasons i think iran continued to provide material support to hamas and is tied to october 7 is that it knew that the pictures generated from the conflict from the military response after israel would respond to hamas would create a gap between the arabs and israelis. whereas, that cap had significantly narrowed for most of the trump presidency. you had the least common denominator in the region being iran seen as the source of instability in the least common denominator based on the pictures coming out of the

region across more of the arab space is what about the palestinian issue in the nature of the war in gaza? in this way, iran has tried to change the least common denominator and put pressure on governments that would like to move closer to israel. in my view, it needs to be enacted but in the short-term, there's the overriding political challenge of how you get there and much of that will depend on the optics of what is happening in gaza, not just what is happening materially on the ground. you are right to mention the abrams accord. that was a gigantic motivator for iran to double down here. with the first half of your question which contrasted regional support with world domination, the islamic republic of iran has not just embassies but cultural centers that propagate its perverse interpretation of shiite islam.

it's not directly linked to mainstream islam. i have a little bit of a back room -- background in theological studies. you are correct, it seeks to dominate the region to what has happened in the middle east doesn't stay in the middle east. two years ago, the europeans mocked former president trump which is one political example. they mocked him who tried to have the united nations extend the multilateral arms embargo against iranian weapons exports and imports. two years after, european citizens and critical infrastructure, what's being targeted by an expanding radiance of iranian proliferation to include iranian drums going to russia and use against those targets in ukraine, there are reports that iranian close range ballistic missiles may go to russia as

well to supplement the war effort in ukraine.what happens in the middle east is not stay in the middle east. just like iran has this proxy network, over the past 10 years politically and militarily and economically but also from an intelligence perspective, iran has moved closer and closer to america's great power rivals, china and russia. some sense, iran is more willing than ever before to be a pawn in the hands of china and russia amid their larger games of strategic competition with the west. host: there's been no lack of ever to sanction iran. how have they been able to create these weapons programs and supply these proxies and supply russia in the war with ukraine. guest: some of the weapons you are seeing now with the cost of drones going to russia, they cost $20,000-$40,000. those are cheap weapons and they

require much more money to filled interceptors and build radars and trackers to detect these low and slow flying threats. it's a greater investment for the u.s. and the israelis and our partners in the region have to make to destroy the ballistic missiles or the cruise missiles. this is part of the way the islamic republic fight these wars is force you to spend more on defense just to offset their cheaper offense. these are weapons of the week. there have been different kind of sanctions against iran but a fundamental problem has been the lack of will of the biden administration in 2021 to actually enforce the sanctions regime it inherited. thus far from january, 2020 12 october, 2023, by conservative estimates, they been able to sell $95 billion worth of oil.

iran is also a major still exporter in a major -- and a major petrochemical supplier. it's levying and enforcing and in a world where the political will to enforce against the islamic republic is low in the sanctions prerogative and building of other sanctions for cuba, syria, venezuela, russia, north korea, china and other maligned actors is so high, you are fighting for attention and resources and it's the central thrust of this administration's iran policy which is pulled punches which is led to a lack of deterrence. host: about 10 minutes left with our guest. taking your phone calls and there are plenty. this is mary in las vegas, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, forgive my thoughts because i don't know if they are on the right track or not. i just want to express them. the palestinians put hamas in power.

how that happened, i don't know. as far as trump goes, how he acted in helsinki was enough for me and he was pro putin. putin is involved with iran and the only thing putin wants, he doesn't like us, he likes trump because trump will give him what he wants. the iran nuclear deal, if that had been expanded to improve upon it while there is more of a moderate leader in place in iran? could that have ameliorated what's happening now? host: we will take those questions. guest: let me start with the potential expansion of the iran nuclear deal. this was the 2015 deal agreed to after 2.5 years of negotiations with the obama administration and the five permanent members of the un security council plus germany. that deal was called the joint

comprehensive plan of action. the trump administration left it on may 8, 2018 slowly broke back the sanctions regime that had existed and built upon the sections regime in the hopes of limiting the resources for iran's leaders engaged in the acts we talked about today as well as be able to potentially get a new deal. in that sense, part of the political goal of the late trump administration and early biden administration was a longer, stronger deal. the sanctions we were speaking about, the biden administration is that concessions got that 2015 nuclear deal, not pressure. that's why there was a lock of enforcement of sanctions and the administration unfortunately undercut its own position of trying to get a better deal. you can kind of draw a downward sloping line of the goals the administration had when it came to putting iran's nuclear program back in the box.

during the campaign period from september, 2020, biden wrote an op-ed about iran policy. they talked about a longer and stronger deal and that was the case until april, 2021. the first rounds of indirect u.s.-iran diplomacy happen in string april, 2021 -september, 2022, it removed from longer and stronger to let's cleanly resurrect the deal that trump left before. after the iranians walk away in august and september of 2022 from a generous brokered offer, the administration's goal becomes we can't even get the clean jcpoa back, let's get an interim measure that defined much of the diplomacy we saw that bled into hostage diplomacy and bled into merely trying to cap iran's escalation of uranium richmond to 60%.

u.s. quit the biden administration's goal is, it's try to get the jcpoa back given its cognizance of the loss of leverage and given its unwillingness to enforce the sanctions and given its cognizance of the politics and optics of the politics. i think so long as the iranians don't go to weapons grade uranium which is 90% or test the weapons underground, i'm pretty sure the administration, despite this negative sloping line of having to be constantly defined downward, sure they will try to declare some kind a political victory of we tried to get the deal back but the iranians didn't let us but we did the responsible thing. most unfortunately, i ran has amassed more material under the bidens administration's watch. they made irreversible gains that even if we get the same deal or a better deal back, it's

not going to be able to address this because we can't take away this new knowledge the regime has. ultimately, every effort the administration had to build a nuclear diplomacy was undercut by its theory of the case which is an unwillingness to enforce sanctions because it doesn't see sanctions as helpful. this is where your philosophical difference will produce a different kind of policy that will lead to different politics of how you pursue. in my view, this is a self-defeating exercise. it's the philosophical path the administration has been on. host: out to long island, peter on line for independents. caller: good morning. i want to say thank you to c-span for having this guest on. you made some great points. i never realized that all of our enemies happen to be connected like iran is behind all the bad stuff in the middle east, russia behind everything bad in europe, china everything bad in asia and

we can forget the people and terrorist coming over the border. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for the kind note. host: two ke inn new jersey, democrat, good morning. caller: i just have an idea and i want to run it past her guest. -- your guest. i am convinced that the united states and war planners in the pentagon are now planning an attack on iran for early next year, maybe in the spring because they iranians have these cruise missiles that have a range of about 1000 miles now. they are supposedly three months away from developing nuclear weapons. i think it's been decided it would be easier for a regime change in iran before they get

nukes then after they get nukes. i'm curious to see what your cast my think about this possibility. i will take my answer offline. guest: thank you. broadly, the biden administration's policy toward iran based on the risk aversion we talked about and based on the idea of not being willing to enforce the economic measures and if you look at the response ratio of going against or trying to shoot back at in self-defense the militias in the region whether it's iraq or syria, there were 78 attacks from january, 2021 to march, 2020 three against u.s. forces in iraq and syria. from october, 2023 to present, there were 75 attacks. that's over 150 attacks and the u.s. has kinetically responded exceptionally lightly at that. more often than not in syria where fits -- where it's a free

fire zone given the attempts by iran's friends trying to evict the u.s. over time come the u.s. has responded maybe seven or eight times exceptionally minimally. i don't believe the biden administration is looking to even start a war with the islamic republic. forcefully, it has let some of the missile programs expand and the need to do more to get tough on iranian ballistic missiles. i would've liked to see defending the u.n. sanctions architecture on the iranian missile program was lapsed on october 18. that was built into the deal. the deal remains in place at the united nations on life support. the administration should have done this thing called snap back to restore the multilateral baseline against iranian ballistic missile testing. the range of the iranian cruise

missiles is up to 2000 kilometers now. ballistic missiles are in there as well. the lack of enforcement of the economic tool coupled with pulling punches in the very limited military response after the u.s. was it leads me to believe that the u.s. is not remotely inching -- itching for a conflict. they pull back from the table every chance there is time to use military action. my view is they have been too soft on the islamic republic. host: remind people who masa hamini was. guest: she was a 22-year-old islamic woman killed because she improperly wore her headscarf. many police around the country to make arrests.

she was beaten and she died three days later to two wounds she sustained from this allegedly police officer. people saw her photos on social media within hours of reports of her being hospitalized within moments of her passing, in september of 2022, protests began outside the hospital and spread to 150 cities, towns and villages with different demographics across the country, chanting death to the dictator. this is part of a larger series of room and bust cycles of protest from this society against the state in iran since 2017. this is a drastically different population in the government we talked about today. they are anti-american and anti-israeli and fundamentally a different population. they want more integration with the rope versus the is from -- versus the islamic republic once more separation and ultimately,

her death continues to be used as a galvanizing point to drive future antiregime protests and in essence, it's something i think democrats and republicans and people who look at the nuclear issue or the israeli -iran proxy war shadow issue need to also put into the front and center. the real change against iran and to build pressure will ultimately come from within. that country has had a century long history of fighting against authoritarianism in a fight to represent of government and regardless of all that's going on in the region, that fight will continue. host: why did that -- why didn't that protest bring about the change? guest: washington could and should have done better over rhetorical support and better support for communications technology and access to allowing iranians to get access to the internet.

the iranian people are unarmed and bravely continue to come out and protest against this regime. they iranian regime has a history of repression. you have paramilitary forces in the formalized police force, they have a special unit which is a swat team that cracks down on street protests. you have of course the islamic revolutionary guard itself which is a cocktail of repression that they throw against different protesters in different provinces across iran. even as these protests spread, the regime continued to use force like they did in 2019. we had 1500 people reportedly killed at that time in protests. the regime couples this street repression with cyber repression and internet blackout. it's a story we cannot forget

about no matter the shooting across the region. host: do you have time for one or two more phone calls? guest: sure. host: new jersey, republican, go ahead. caller: my question is we've seen reports in the last two days, people in the muslim countries are encouraging israel to continue to fight against hamas. why are there people in the same countries that oppose iran and they want to must destroyed? are there people in these countries that are silently funding hamas through groups like the muslim brotherhood or saudi donors funneling money into other sunni groups that make their way through? are these other groups funding hamas as well? guest: their largest external patron remains the government of the islamic republic of iran. there is always a concern over

terror financing in the permissive jurisdiction that qatar has provided over the years. i think algeria also had something of a role for political or material support prior to the arab spring. new the political branch was in syria, not in qatar. there is a significant foreign as to the capabilities that hamas has. host: last call, charlotte, north carolina, independent. caller: good morning, everyone. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of comments. people in the u.s. constantly want the u.s. to get involved in this work. they want us to attack iran. how many of them are going to go fight the war checkup it will be

the poor and middle-class people fighting the war. how many times has israel attacked iran in secret? the u.s. destroyed an iranian airliner in 2018 killing 290 civilians. these people desperately want the u.s. to go to war with iran. guest: there was a couple of different points there. there is a larger israeli-iran shutter war with caller mistakenly got the logic wrong. it's not just that israel out of the blue woke up and help create a cyber program against the iran nuclear program, it's that iran has cheated and obfuscated nuclear inspectors. the islamic republic of iran remains the world's foremost state-sponsored terrorism and

has created this apparatus that makes it lethal over time. if you are the sole democratic jewish state in the region come responsible planning would require some kind of kinetic pushback as you saw as to what the israelis are doing. i don't think the israelis are trying to get america into another fight. israelis are trying to get more munitions and resupply of the batteries to make sure the population remains safe as it continues to fight against hamas in gaza. host: our guest is a senior fellow for the defense of democracy and you can read more of his work. we appreciate you stopping by. guest: thank you so much. host: coming up in 25 minutes, we will be joined by george conway will be discussing his new group, the soft society for the rule of law institute. stick around for that discussion. until then, it's open form in

any public policy issue a political issue want to talk about, the phone lines are yours and the numbers are on your screen. start calling in and we will be right back. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfair view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio app plus a variety of compelling podcasts. it's available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat

to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> c-span's campaign 2020 for coverage continues with the presidential primary caucus. watch live on the c-span network as the first votes in the country are cast for the upcoming presidential election along with candidate speeches, and results beginning with the iowa caucuses january 15 and the new hampshire primary january 23. campaign 2024 on c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed, the republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased word for word.

from the nation's capital to wherever you are, the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span shop.org is our online store. route 3 latest collection of c-span products. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: about 8:50 a.m. on the east coast and its are open for any public policy issue or political issue in the phone lines are up now. on capitol hill, the houses in at 10:00 a.m. eastern and the

senate is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can watch on c-span and c-span2 respectively and on c-span three at 10:00 a.m. come a hearing with the fbi director on the oversight of his agency before the senate judiciary committee. you can also watch on c-span.org and the free c-span now at. for later this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern, ncaa riley gaines and others will testify on the biden administration proposed rule change of title ix to redefine sexual discrimination to include gender identity. you can watch the house oversight subcommittee on c-span3, c-span.org and the free c-span no video app. that's what's happening today on capitol hill on c-span. its now your time to lead this program. open form, what's on your mind, new jersey is first, democrat, good morning. caller: i want to explain all

politics in one minute. politics is about people getting along and moving the society forward. they have to be a little empathetic. one of the main things about humans is the amount of empathy they have. some people have a lot and they would give their left kidney to someone they don't know. other people are not empathetic. they don't want to give anybody anything. that's the definition of social [inaudible] , non-empathetic. if i ask a social path give money to the poor or for education or universal health care, they would say no. if i asked republicans, they would also say no. the point is that the republicans tend to attract the most social pathic people and

the democrats seem to attract the more empathetic people. the wars in the middle east, they talk about the genocide in gaza, there are two other wars going on the middle east. one million people have been killed in yemen. they had been bombed. no protests and nobody talks about it but that's genocide when one billion people die. in syria, 77,000 have died and that still going on. nobody is out there protesting that. it's only when the jews are killing muslims that people get upset. that's really what i had to say. host: this is indiana, republican, good morning. caller: should anybody be surprised that the arrow

bombardment equipment provided by the united states to israel is american, american airplanes come american bombs and so forth. the bombing has killed over 13,000 civilians. most have been women and children. should we be surprised that the allies of hamas are now attacking american military people in the middle east? even if they have the population of the middle east commits overwhelmingly muslim, even if they hate hamas or the iranians, you think there might be broad-based sympathy and concern by the population, arab and muslim population in the middle east, over the fact that so many civilians have been killed by the israelis in gaza? that's something americans should think about. host: steve in missouri,

independent, good morning. what's caller: caller: on your mind? we have to support ukraine and israel. if we don't, we will have to go over there and fight them ourselves. as far as the wall, trump did nothing for the wall. he spent $8 trillion in four years and did nothing for us. it all went to the wealthy. if the republicans deny this, they ran up most of the debt. they will have a firestorm that they will never be able to put out against the republican party. host: on 80 to ukraine come a vote expected today in the senate on the funding vehicle that would move the emergency funding legislation to one of your billion dollars. that's what the biden administration is requesting for

ukraine, israel, taiwan, border security as well. that package -- the vehicle that would move that packet come a vote happening on that later today in the senate. also today in the senate, a classified briefing as senators expect to hear from the ukrainian president. that briefing will be a day after letter from the white house to capitol hill says the u.s. is nearly out of money for ukraine. the letter coming from the budget chief of the united states. it was talked about in the white house briefing room. more today on ukraine on capitol hill today. this is tabitha in colorado, democrat, good morning. caller: this is open forum? host: that's right. caller: i'm calling to see if anybody watched the rachel maddow show last night with liz cheney? i think everybody needs to read her book. we need to come to the middle

were most of america is. we all need to start working together to make sure if the world is safe but if we lose america, everything is gone. host: new books are often released on tuesdays and liz cheney's new book was officially released today, a memoir and a warning. this is how the publisher describes it in the amazon website. a gripping first-hand account of the january 6, 2021 insurrection from inside the halls of congress and donald trump and his enablers betrayed the american people and the constitution. this is kevin in ohio, independent, good morning.

lot of attention.

accused of spying for cuba precious intelligence certain -- services for decades. it was merrick garland who announced the arrest of the former ambassador. that is taking place during a conference yesterday. >> the complaint alleges that he sought out and used his position within the u.s. government to support cuba's clandestine intelligence gathering mission against the u.s. after the fbi received information that he was a covert agent, fbi undercover proceeded to engage with him on several occasions. as detailed in the complaint, he repeatedly referred to the u.s. as the enemy. during the undercover, his

efforts to infiltrate the u.s. government were meticulous and very disciplined. he repeatedly blabbed about the significance of his effort, saying that what has been done has strengthened the revolution immensely. the fbi arrested him in miami and he is making his initial appearance in the u.s. district court for the southern district of florida. the defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. our partners at the state department's diplomatic security service for their excellent work on this case. those who have the privilege of serving in the government of the u.s. are given an enormous amount of trust by the public

that we serve. to betray that trust by falsely pledging loyalty to the u.s. while serving a foreign power is a crime that would be met with force of the justice department. host: merrick garland, that was yesterday. this is david from missouri, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two points. the one is about the war in gaza right now. if you do your research, benjamin netanyahu visited russia multiple times. i believe the last one was 2022. we all know that trump is friends with russia. and then netanyahu, all of a sudden, he has the best intelligence service in hamas.

it is not a conspiracy theory. it is the truth. israel has an attack that nobody knows anything about? who does that benefit? what politician does that benefit? the last thing i want to say is that americans keep calling in and saying how bad biden is and how trump did so very well and they have a short memory. remember people around the world laughing at us? he did not have to deal with covid until the last year of his term. infrastructure projects all over the u.s. they say that biden is a terrible president and that trump was a good president. we do not believe what we see, we believe what we hear on

social media. just look at what you see and stop listening to what you hear. he has done an amazing job. host: on the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. the story from al jazeera. he is set to face a long-running trial on corruption charges. a court in jerusalem is hearing the case, which is focused on russian charges against him this week. the trial was paused on an emergency order from the justice minister following hamas' attack. he is charged with fraud and bribery and breach of trust. this is bob in texas, republican. in morning. caller: thank you.

the last caller was talking about believing everything you hear. what he basically started was the biden talking points, but i went to comment that your last guest was excellent, speaking about middle east issues. he was very clear and balanced. very well known as a trump aide or and what i wanted to say about your last guest and what he imparted to me was the statement by robert in the past that pretty much every foreign policy decision that biden makes has been wrong. i think that a lot of people need to understand that. i think that c-span will do a good job. host: this is anthony in florida. caller: good morning. i have to hurry have because i

was waiting. my neighbor came over asking me to give her a jump. host: to start her car? caller: yes. she just came over. host: what is on your mind? caller: there are ways we can get stuff in order. we can make you the president and i will be your vice president. host: anthony, we will hold off on that, but let's finish your comment because other people are waiting and we are running short on time. caller: we will first take care of that border. we will have people pay who want to come across. mexico and texas, california border. we will do that and process that. we will help them put a base

over in taiwan. we will help israel get through the situation that they have. but we can get it done. host: that is your platform, anthony? caller: yes. that is what we are going to do. thank you. host: this is taylor in new orleans. caller: good morning. hope you are doing well. based on recently, it has really left me reeling. what is the plan? i really have to agree with that guest before. it is not a hypothetical. i was in a remote village in switzerland in 2018 and in this village, it was a big twist destination.

they are talking about it and what is going on over there? our trust and relationships with our partners and europe, but also the middle east was suffering as a result of not that -- not just that administration but other policies. our ability to have stable relationships -- i do not know how we can do that if we bomb the middle east nonstop. we keep burning the region and there is no one left. israel as a partner? israel does not care. america needs to deal with america's interest. that means backing off. there is no reason why we should be helping them bomb gaza, which is essentially half of the population's children. that is all have to say. thank you.

host: just one or to be of more calls. good morning. caller: good morning. i know we are talking a little bit about israel and i think that biden is doing ok on this one. i think we should stay out of it and try to keep it from a wider event, but i think anybody objectively looking at their wally was better situated in the are now. i just have one comment. i think trump -- i found him infuriating sometimes, but the fact is, he talked to us directly every day. we should really appreciate that because i will tell you something on biden. i'm tired of being lied to by

all these people who think that we are so dumb and that we do not know what is going on. i'm sorry. biden has barely spoken to the american people, expect -- except when he did that state of ukraine speech. tom spoke to us every day. he might have done it in all caps or he might have misspoken occasionally, but at least he communicated with the people. i think we should give a little more credit for that. host: paul from missouri, what is on your mind? caller: good morning. tom talked to us every day and unite to us every day. but how much is the essence of life must you deny to believe that it is 6000 years old? you have to be in denial of just

about anything with -ology at the end. these are the people that are running our country. if you do not see that as a danger, what is wrong with the taliban? what is wrong with the way they run things in saudi arabia? they are smart enough to realize . that is what i have to say. host: 45 minutes left. we will be joined by george conway and discussing his most recent book. we will be able to speak with him after the break. ♪

>> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of folks for you. listen to authors and influential interviewers on today. hereby ranging conversations with others who are making things happen. our conversations feature authors on a variety of topics. the podcast takes you behind-the-scenes with insider interviews and bestsellers. find all of our podcast by downloading the free c-span now at or whenever you get your podcast and on our website. >> in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided

complete coverage. party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span's documentary competition is back with the theme, looking forward by considering the past. we are asking students for a video addressing one of these questions. what is the most important change that you would like to see in america? what is -- what has been the most important change in america? we are giving away 100,000

dollars in prizes with a grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate has the opportunity to share in the initial. for infoat visio our website at studentcam.org. >> listening on c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. a fast-paced report for the stories of the day. listen anytime. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. >> book tv marks 25 years of

shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books. nearly 900 cities visited and 16,000 events. book tv providing viewers with 92 1000 hours of programming on the latest discussions on history. you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or online at book tv.org. book tv. for serious readers. >> washington journal continues. host: colonists -- president of the society for the world of law institute. what is the mission of the new group and how do you do about accomplishing it guest: is to

protect the rule of law at a time when it is seriously under threat. we have a likely presidential nominee in the republican party who will basically forsake the rule of law and is basically promising that he will use it for his revenge against his enemies. very much against a third world country kind of thing. we went to get the message out about what the dangers are that we face and about how important it is that the rules be respected, that the rules governing democracy be respected and to get people to understand what is at stake. there is a group of us who formed the group under a

different name in 2018. we have sort of revitalize the organization for this year. we did not think we would be here in 2023 with a presidential candidate under indictment and after he tried to incite an insurrection, we did not think our mission was going to be necessary after donald trump went on the airplane after trying to made capitol hill. we are back and this is more of a long-term effort. there seems to be a problem that is not just one person anymore. it seems to be a problem throughout the country at various levels of government.

when you do not understand what america means, we resolved our differences peacefully. we do not engage in conspiracy theories. we look at facts and reality. we just think that it is time. host: you would not say it is defined by its opposition to donald trump? guest: we are not a campaign group or here to tell you who to vote for. we had here to talk about what is at stake and the values that we think make america special and have made them special for the world and are under threat. we risk losing his people do not appreciate the significance of

what is and state. there will be a legal component. there will be litigation that is pertinent to the issues. and we certainly, because we are an organization of lawyers, law students and we are also going to form chapters of lawyers out in the country from bar associations to really get those voices out to be heard. we will have ways for people who are nonlawyers to participate. we want this to be a broad-based, long-term effort to really help reestablish the values that made this country

great. host: the phone lines are open. independence, (202) 748-8002, and george is with us until the top of the hour. people are calling in and you mentioned an organization of lawyers. remind me what the federalist society is. guest: it is a society i have been a longtime member of. i joined the federal society in 1984 or 1985. it was an organization that was important because most of the legal establishment, especially

in the 1970's and 1980's. it was very monolithic in its abuse. the feeling was -- i feel very strongly about it. people on the left had too much to rely on. that is not the function of the courts. they began to read into the constitution where i would agree with them if i was not a legislator. and there are many threads. there are traditional, conservatives and the rotarians. people look at it as a secret mafia or a secret society. a networking enterprise where people can meet each other and people have like.

they do not really have any place else to go. and today, the mission is different. the function is different. the federal society does not really take position on things. you can take strong stances on things. i do not think it is the role of the federal society to before where against donald trump. i understand that. but i will say is that if the shoe had been on the other foot and a democratic or liberal president had tried to incite an insurrection and had threatened or asked that the constitution be terminated, basically talking about how he is going to use the

government for retribution and had stolen classified documents and had been attacking the courts in adjudicated -- had become adjudicated rapist. if a democrat had done that, we would have seen more debates and discussion. it is not a political pact, but we would have seen wall-to-wall programming on that. i think the problems are that it represents a cross-section of people on the right. some people feel the way that i do about the current situation and others are just trying not to get hit in the crossfire. it is not really an organization that was structured to be able to deal with this threat, china think is much more significant and much more important than

what issues may divide us on how we interpret particular clauses or what legal policies are better or worse. this is the whole ball of wax and something that should unite everyone regardless of political persuasion. host: if you want to join the conversation, you can do so. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. independent is at (202) 748-8002 . angela from maryland. you are on with george conway. caller: george, i am a big fan. i am definitely going to be voting for biden. even if everything the right

wing says about him is true, until the day he does but trump did and say, i lost the vote, i will never forget watching him when he was running for president. and reporters had cornered him and asked him, what did trump want you to do that day? he said, he wanted me to reject the biden electors and keep trump in office. i have one question about the project as it relates to civil sort -- civil service employees, who are close to my heart. my family worked in civil service. host: we are going to take the

question and let george conway respond. guest: i do not know enough details about the heritage program you are discussing, but i understand one of the things that was moderated or limited the damage that we had done during the prior administration. there were people in the government who put the national interest and the law above party loyalty above loyalty to one man. i think it is very clear that the people who are supportive of the former president's reelection is determined to make sure that kind of person -- these are the people who refused to have the justice department used as an element to overthrow

constitutional democracy. i think the problem is that the next administration is not going to have those people. they are going to be screened out and excluded. you are going to have some -- it is going to be a very dangerous situation. there will be no check by people who are committed to the rule of law. that is a terrifying thing and i appreciate the comment and the question because that is part of what we're trying to draw attention to. we hope that we are not the only people who will be doing that, but we hope that other people will be encouraged to speak out so that everyone knows what is at stake. host: mike, line for republicans. caller: i kind of like to ask a

couple questions about the previous group. john weaver and the b of anti-trump pro establishment from the bush era. congratulations to your wife. she did something that no one else had done but mr. trump is a good president and all he did was -- he wants to do all this and they are unelected bureaucrats. many of them are democrat leaning. trump was president when he got

the so-called classified documents. biden had classified documents and he was not president. guest: well, the reason why donald trump has been indicted is because he took them intentionally. he took tons of the many boxes. he had them when the national archive came to ask for them back. he basically stiffed them and lied to them. he took the documents and had people moving them around. he tried to get somebody to dismantle and destroy the security footage to show that he was doing that. he lied, in response to a subpoena and only produced certain documents. they had to hand down -- they

found he committed several felonies. there is no proof that they engaged in any conduct that was illegal. he may have had some documents, and we will find out the story. absolutely, i think he should be punished. like the caller's view, it is just one of many examples. he was not a good president. he did not build a wall and he lied to you on many occasions. he is in adjudicated racist. no one else has been indicted four times. facing 91 counts. there is a reason for that and the reason is that donald trump

is a narcissistic sociopath. he only cares about himself. he does not care about the people or the public. as john kelly, his own chief of staff said donald trump said that people who died in war were raring the uniform of their country and were all suckers and losers. he does not care about you. he does not care about the country or the rule of law. the only cares about himself. he does not have a moral conscience. that is the psychopath aspect of him. he is a pathological liar and that is why he is so dangerous. host: when did your opinion of donald trump turn or did you never have a high opinion of him? guest: i never had a high opinion of him. he was far from my first choice.

i initially supported him. my wife was working feverishly on the super pac. an intelligent man who disappointed me in recent years because he basically has forsaken -- he is a smart guy and he knows better. he has forsaken things that i believe in. initially, he called donald trump a narcissist and urged people not to vote for trump. i supported trump because he was the default position and i did not understand him. i assumed he was a performer. there was something wrong about him that i had ambivalence

about. i thought, there are going to be moments where you go like this and you are going to cringe and you are going to say, why did he say that? but i thought that the structure of our government as outlined in the constitution, you have the capital behind you and there are so many checks on the power of the president to do things and i thought he would get the hang of it. it became clear to me, very early on. i supported him and it became clear early on. a bad picture of me. the trump headquarters in new york, and i watched him go about his business, early in his

administration and i kept wondering, what is wrong with him? why can't he be normal? why is he talking about some of the things that he is talking about? why is he lying about how many people were at the inaugural? the russian foreign minister and russian ambassador that he is trying to get rid of, he got rid of the fbi director, who was basically investigating things that needed to be investigated. what is wrong with him? i was originally slated -- my background checked and they were ready to name the nomination to become head of the civil division of the department of justice. and i withdrew my name because i said, there is something wrong here. i began to realize it was not

fixable. i started to read and there was a book, a very good book that actually the chief of staff, john kelly brought into the white house to show people. this is what we are dealing with. they went through all the psychological difficulties and disorders and i read that book and some other things and i realized that this man is not a functional human being. he should not be trusted to run an ice rink. host: before the house comes in, this is ron in chicago. morning. caller: good morning. thank you both. thank you, george. you remind me of a professor that i had. when fascism comes to america, it will be wrapping itself in

the flag. i have two questions. number one, why is it so difficult for people to understand? maybe because they do not study history. this is the first time we have had people tried to take this country down the road of fascism. u.s. congressman, u.s. senators, the pope -- the famous guy. why do we pretend like we do not understand what is going on? guest: the caller's question is so -- yes, we have had this in the past. we had had fascist movements. but we never had a political party basically taken over by a

one of the authoritarian. it is so much more dangerous now. history teaches us a lot. we talk about the psychological aspect of it. they were very much focused on trump's disorders. other groups of people who really spoke out against trump early on were people who studied history. diplomats from both parties, people who understood because they saw. not just what has happened in america's past, but what happens in other countries when democracies fail. they saw the same characteristics that you see in

mussolini and others. these are people who without conscience want to make the government there's to control for their benefit. to destroy their enemies and to destroy democracy. host: you are on with george conway. caller: a little housekeeping before i hand over my question. to george, i am sorry that you are so swayed and fooled by donald trump. somehow, you are so dismayed and

so confused by it. even lie on the surface and parade. if you look at the tapes of it, obviously you have. uc police escorting people and shaking hands, fist bumping i do not deal with any of that. you just do these political lies. why did you put yourself forward? guest: i'm not going to get into the personal stuff. i would rather be somewhere else that here today. i avoided publicity my whole life. even when i was doing things that were political. i hoped get bill clinton impeached. i do not like politicians. i do not like liars. that is what this is about. yes, i was confused by donald

trump. i am ashamed that i supported him in 2016. it was a mistake of judgment, of moral judgment. it was an intellectual mistake. i want to make amends for that. i want to urge people -- maybe not you, caller, but there are people who know better in the republican party. they know, they are just too afraid to speak out or too afraid to admit error. i see a lot today. people are afraid. they supported him because he gave the finger, if you will, to people they did not like. then they pretended and commenced themselves that he was smart. they convinced himself that he was competent. he is not. he convinced himself --

themselves that he is moral, which he is not. once you realize -- he disproves all those things so frequently that if you do not want to make a mistake, you turn it off. this caller says that january 6 a tourist visit. i have met capitol police officers who were assaulted. one of them had to leave service because of the injuries that he suffered. people died that day. property was destroyed. if donald trump had his wish -- according to the testimony of the january 6 committee and according to other reports, he basically tried to go to capitol hill. who knows what kind of violence would have ensued. the only good thing about that

-- more people would have been hurt, but at least it would be no ambiguity. maybe this caller could pretend that trump did not incite an insurrection. they are afraid of the base. they are afraid of losing elections and they are afraid of losing primary elections. they are afraid of being declared not a member of the tribe. the problem is that the republican party has become very tri-ballistic. it is no longer a party of principle. there is no way to say that it is conservative. they failed to produce a platform. the normal thing that you do is say, here are the things that we are for. here are the goals that we want to achieve. we want to explain how we are going to methodically get them.

it is all about spiteful name-calling and attacking people on the others. and it is a cult. donald trump -- everyone is bad except for donald trump and people who support him. it is absolutely mind blowing. i think social psychologists -- i cannot imagine the number of phd theses that will be written over the next 200 years by this is a fascinating phenomenon. we have to live through it, which is scary. host: next caller on the democrat line. caller: good morning. it fascinates me. four point, it does not matter what the past president did,

they excuse everything, no matter what he does. they excuse him for his behavior and it is astonishing, after all of this. he built up $8 trillion debt more than anyone in four years. he wrote love letters to kim jong-un. he took vladimir putin's side and he was not a good president. his record demonstrates that. there is not one thing you can look at that was positive for america. we were a laughing stock around the world. the problem is his supporters do not care. they are antidemocratic and anti-institutional. they are moving in an almost -- it is about one person and people are either scared of him

and afraid to speak the truth or they are just trying to get power out of it. guest: i could not agree more with the caller. but again, the problem -- this guy has been found, in a court of law, including jurors that included a jury that included people who may have been sympathetic to him and they unanimously found that he has been held liable. there is no redeeming value to this man. i think the caller eloquently put it out there. a small fraction of the things that he failed to do in his awful presidency, but what we need to focus on is what would happen next?

i think it would be a lot worse than what we saw from 2017 to 2021. host: we will take you live for gavel-to-gavel coverage. why do you keep the badge? guest: it just happened. my girls relate to school and i was in a rush. i had to drive here instead of taking the nice car service that you arranged. i had forgotten my wallet so i had to look for old id because i thought i had to show id outside and i found an old drivers license. and then i saw this. i said, this is perfect, this is perfect for the day. when colors come in and say, you are a liberal, i am not. i am still conservative and donald trump is not conservative. if you support him, you are not

conservative. the constitution, the country, the rule of law. we do not want to destroy. i think the government would be more effective if it did not try to do 600 things and try to do 60 things. those are debates i would love to have with my liberal friends going forward, but we are playing for all of the marbles here. the question of whether or not we have a government at all that can function. if you vote for donald trump, you are voting for anarchy and you are voting for chaos. you are basically seeking to destroy. you see some of these republicans attacking the military. people have become so antiestablishment that they have lost the plot. they want to basically blow themselves up along with the people that they think our enemies. it is a very disturbing

psychology. i think people are going to be focusing on it for the next 100 to 200 years, but today, we have to look at it. host: you are on with george conway. caller: good morning, c-span and america. i have a question. what was the name of the group that you are with? guest: the group and 2018, we called it checks and balances. i kind of cooked it up with some of them. we did not know the judge yet. we found that there were some like-minded conservative lawyers in town and it was kind of a therapy group, as much as anything. we would have lunch. we would do some programming. we would write op-ed pieces.

it was kind of low-key. we thought, and -- after 2021, we thought that would be it. he thought, our mission is over. thank goodness that we survived the attempted insurrection. we realized we still have to go on. host: a quick follow-up. caller: thank you. i just asked the name. i did not meet all of that. it's all right. one question and one comment. i hope you can focus some of your purpose and mission to focus on the fact that you are talking about people being above the law. we have a law that says you have to pass a budget every year on time. but we have not done that in 30 years. now you have parties who are bankrupting our country.

do you think mayorkas is doing a good job to keep up the law, patrolling millions of people coming into this country who might do terroristic activity around our country in the next year, month, day? as a conservative, you should be pretty happy with trump because i come from the state of hockey and he got three supreme court picks. are you happy about that? guest: i supported these justices and i supported a confirmation of them. i think the person who deserves credit for that is mitch mcconnell. i do not think that donald trump deserves credit for that. i think the problem is that there is much more at stake than individual decisions of the supreme court and individual members. we are talking about the survival and stability of the legal system at large.

yes, i am sure that if i drill down on the immigration policy, my view of immigration policy would be much more to the right of this current administration's immigration policy, but what the republicans have done is, they want to use that. they do not actually want to solve the immigration problem. they do not want to solve the problem. that is why donald trump was pretending to build a wall. mexico was going to pay for it. that was not -- that was a lie. the time it would take to build a wall -- it is insane. it was never going to happen. in fact, he did not actually ask

for the money to do that. the one time he was called out for not asking for that money, all that -- all of a sudden, he did an about-face and shut down the government. it turned out he got less money for the wall that he actually was given by congress. that is how incompetent and stupid he is. host: two more calls before the house comes in. this is the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. you guys touched on it a bit. it seems that the focus is on trump, but nobody just walks into the white house. they have to be elected and people have to vote. almost 80 million or 75 million

voters voted for trump. the more he is indicted, the more i turn on the tv and i see people berating him and saying he is terrible for this country, this and that. his numbers are going up. i'm wondering if the focus should be more on the voter rather than saying how bad trump is. what is the psychology? is there anybody looking at the psychology of why it guy who has been indicted 70 times is leading in all of the polls? guest: i do not think he is leading in all of the polls. he might be reading in of them. it is early to say who is ahead in this race. i do think that the most sensible americans understand the problem. the problem is, the voters have to be educated about facts.

what i think that people like you and others -- they are closing their mind to the facts. why don't you read the indictment? why don't you read about some of the evidence? why don't you read about what he has done? why don't you read the trial transcript? i will send it to you in the trial where he was found by a jury to have raped a woman? why don't you read all that and learn about that? to my mind, criminal should not hold public office. in long island, they just got rid of mr. santos. host: as the house prepares to come in, what is next? guest: we are going to bang the

drum's. it is not just about trump. it will be about what made this country great? it is about democracy and the rule of law and the fact that we do have disagreements but at the end of the day, we accept the verdict of the people and we respect the rights of the -- the first amendment rights of everyone in the country. we do not try to use the government to destroy our enemies, in violation of the law. host: if donald trump wins, will you respect the verdict? guest: i will, but i will be very afraid. it will make it more necessary for our group and others like it to speak out. i fear for the country, if that happens, but we are standing for something at