the house rules committee met earlier today to discuss the impeachment inquiry into president biden on allegations of his profiting from business dealings of his son, hunter, three months after an initial inquiry began at the direction of then house speaker kevin mccarthy. the full house, now expected to vote this week on a resolution to allow the inquiry to continue by giving committees increase authority to obtain certain documents and testimony. watch of the rules committee meeting tonight at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> this syndrome is extremely rare. but friends don't have to be. when you are connected,

you're not alone. announcer: cox supports c-an as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ we are joined by national security reporter for the washington post shane harris. also the reporter for the discord leaks. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us how this partnership between you at the washington post and pbs frontline came together. guest: in april my colleague and i broke a story about where these leaks were coming from print in the spring of this year 's classified intelligence documents started popping up inexplicably all over the internet, and u.s. officials were caught by surprise trying to figure out where they came from. so we set out to do that and figure out who is the ultimate source of that and obtain many of those documents. after we wrote our first stories we got in touch with frontline

and said, essentially, this fall like a good opportunity to go deeper on this story and really tell it as a documentary, an addition to the print stories we have done. sam and i became correspondence in the film and worked with two tremendous directors over there for the past six months. the result is what we will see tonight. host: tonight is at 10:00 eastern on your pbs station. who is jack? tell us about him. guest: he is 21 years old. he was a technician in the air national guard in massachusetts. he worked at otis air force base , or air national guard base i should say. an intelligence officer that was basically responsible for doing things like processing drone footage and satellite imagery from various conflicts or what the u.s. military is doing overseas. grew up in massachusetts. was fascinated in military history. a job in the military seemed well-suited for him.

he was also interested in video games. this becomes a very important part of this fop -- this biography, because as he gets older and during the pandemic increasingly is spending a lot of his time, and most of his free time in some cases, on a gaming platform called discord, which is essentially a chat platform that lets people talk to each other while they are playing video games in real life. this is the place where he makes his close friends during the pandemic and ultimately start sharing with them last -- classified information he has access to because of the facility where he works as a computer technician. so, we get into this in the film of the decisions that led him down this road of starting to share this classified information, but some buddy who by all accounts has a potentially bright future ahead of him in the military, where he was getting to satisfy his interests in military history and operations, as well as computers. host: so tell us, what led him down that path and how many

documents did he end up sharing? guest: it is a surprising turn of events. i have to say my career, this was unique to me. i'm used to individuals who have access to information sharing it with the press because they think there is some government wrongdoing or they want to expose malfeasance as they see it. he was sharing this information ultimately because he wanted to impress his friends, which sounds like a very strange thing to do, but from a really early age it seems that he had when i described as a pedantic nature. he enjoyed knowing information and a trivia, and the arcane aspects of military history and operations, and sharing that with people. sometimes even lecturing them. friends we spoke to that played video games with him said he really insisted on calling the weapons people played within games by their actual technical names, and being very precise about this. so, someone for whom knowing things and information made him

feel powerful. and then when the war in ukraine begins he is that she has made these very close friends on these discord servers, these chat rooms he is in, and he wants to start telling them about this massive event unfolding in the news. the way he does that is by sharing with them classified that all field assessments and updates he is able to get at work. now, he is not supposed to be reading these things. he is a computer technician. he is not an analyst. but he has a top-secret clearance which lets him get into the files he is only supposed to be maintaining and keeping up. and he is taking this information, he is writing it down, in some cases taking it home and sharing it with his friends. honestly, to make himself feel important and big and strong, because they knew things he didn't. host: you able to talk with him? guest: no, he decline through his lawyers. he is awaiting trial on six

felony counts. his family also declined to speak with us. host: as far as what is in the documents and how much of -- i guess how important there were two national security, what can you tell us? was it only about ukraine and battlefield assessments? guest: no. what makes these leaks so interesting is the breadth of them. it was about ukraine. there was information about north korea, china, other aspects of russia, parts of latin america. we are talking the whole panoply of information that the u.s. intelligence is collecting on a daily basis. these intakes that come in in the form of bulletins, briefing slides. all information that is shared throughout the intelligence community for people who might need a further job, and he was able to go in and sampled us as he wanted to read it. we think he took at least several hundred documents, printed documents, and it is

harder to count, but a larger body of information he wrote down as notes, and then typed into chat rooms almost verbatim in many cases, of reports he was reading. it is an astonishing amount, but the breadth of it is striking. and it is current. this is information that is up-to-the-minute intelligence reporting on events that were unfolding as he was describing them to people. host: if you would like to call in and ask our guest a question, you can do so on our lines by party. so, republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. and (202) 748-8002 is the line for independents. i guess the question is, why is the computer technician having access to this kind of information? guest: it is a great question. it surprises so many people. after the 9/11 attacks the intelligence community underwent this profound change and how it handled classified information. one of the reasons for the attacks was that so many

intelligence agencies are not talking with one another about what they knew. the fbi did not know what the cia knew or what the nsa was collecting. after 9/11 they switched to what was called need to know, which is how you determined who got access to classified information. did you need to know it? what they call need to share. let's make this intelligence and make it broadly available to people who might need it in ways we cannot anticipate. the senior policymakers in government. someone who has a top-secret security clearance like he did gets access to networks where all of that information is maintained. that is how he gets in and can see it. he is not supposed to be looking at it. he cannot help but encounter it because he is working on the computer systems and maintaining them and keeping them running. that is how someone at his very low level is able to get access to information that people at much higher levels can get that need to see it. host: want to ask you about the

process for him getting that top-secret clearance. he had some things happen in his past that reasonable people might call it flags. i'm going to play a clip for you real quick of his former girlfriend talking about what the military might find in that investigation for the security clearance. >> was a little bit worried they were going to in their interview bring up, we found this discord account, or this discord server. at that time he did become less active in discord, and he was very worried about keeping the things he was doing private and safe. >> what was he specifically worried that the background investigation might turn up with regards to discord? >> there was a lot of, like, racist talk on that server. there was a lot of talk of killing atf agents, killing different government officials, committing acts of terrorism. things that are probably not great for someone in the

military to be saying. so i think that is probably what he was worried about. host: that is kind of an understatement. guest: it is. early, this server these kids were hanging out in was rife with racist jokes, anti-semitic comments, pictures of gore. the kinds of things many of these kids, to be charitable to them, were saying this to get a rise out of people. i think some of them believe that and i think teixeira is among them. i think, why are you spending so much time saying these things? why are you joking about making threats to kill atf agents? what is this hostility you are showing toward the u.s. government that we now want to join by military service? and what is important to note here is that background

investigators never see this part of his online life, because when you go through the process of getting a security clearance you are not required to disclose your social media activity, accounts like discord where you may have a presence. go and investigate an interview people in your real life, your neighbors, your friends, maybe your coworkers. jack takes sarah -- jack, those were his contacts and associates. the background investigators never interview people like that. host: any indication that because of this case they might start looking at people's online life? guest: it is possible. we are seeing from the defense department that they need to tighten up securing information. what we have seen in the past day or so is an air force extractor general report come out into these particular leaks that faulted the security clearance process and said there was negative information, as

they called it, that came up in the course of this background investigation that was never shared with the supervisors at his unit where he worked in massachusetts. the inspector general concluded that had they done that people there, supervisors they are, likely would have put him under closer scrutiny. and when he did start looking at classified information might say, hold on, this kid also has other red flags in his past. maybe we need to take more aggressive action about what he is doing. host: how about the platform itself, discord? i guess once they realized he was sharing classified documents, why didn't they take it down? guest: ultimately they didn't know he was sharing them. the way discord is set up, the analogy their executive uses is, discord is like a city, and every one of these servers is kind of like a house. it is a place the individual sets up, and that person decides who comes in, who gets kicked out. it is an invitation-only architecture. this place, the company discord

is not actually monitor what is going on inside that house. they don't have security cameras or listening devices. that is a choice the company has made. it is not a technological obstacle they cannot overcome. they could monitor them if they wanted to, but they have made a choice to value user privacy and give people spaces where they are not being monitored. this has become an issue for them, though, because discord has become a hotbed where extremists and other radical groups organize because they know they are not being monitored by the company, and it is easier for them to share the kind of rhetoric that teixeira and his friends work, or to do things in real life. host: we have another clip from the documentary. this is the vice president of trust for discord defending the platform. >> the unite the right rally was a challenging moment for discord. i was not part of the company at the time, but it was the impetus

for discord to build a trust and safety team. we have 150 million people using discord every month. right? it is billions of interactions during so, the scale of this challenge is immense. >> the company has defended itself in the wake of the intelligence leaks and ongoing problems with extremism, saying they represent isolated bad actors on a platform designed for privacy and community. >> we have taken the stance that a lot of these spaces are like text messaging your friends and your loved ones, and it is inappropriate for us to violate people's privacy. we don't have the level of precision to do so when it comes to detection. to me, this is, we are a city. we have all of these people who are trying to find friends in their city, and they're going and playing sports, right? they might be gaming.

they might be studying together. in any city you are going to have problematic pockets. host: and that is discord. how long did it take for the fbi, once they started seeing these documents come up on the web, how long did it take them to find out who it was an arrest teixeira? guest: that part did not take long. the documents were proliferating out of this discord server for about five weeks before the pentagon notice. and they did they alerted the fbi. it really only took fbi agent about a week to find jack teixeira. they chased him to his discord cap. they were able to go to the company and say, we need you to give us information. people we talked to credited discord with responding very quickly to the fbi. once they understood what was

going on on the platform, which nobody understood well it was happening. that is a pretty remarkable amount of time. usually people who leaked classified information, they are not discovered. the issue here was that prior to that arrest there was no practical way for discord -- and they talk about this in the film -- to understand their were classified documents moving through their system. don't scan for that. as they said, we wouldn't even know how to begin to scan for classified documents unless somebody tells us, this is when a classified document looks like. host: is there any indication of what the impact was to national security because of those document leaks? guest: the fallout was significant in a number of ways. probably most so that it really exposed, particularly through the ukraine war intelligence reporting, that privately u.s. officials had a very dim view of the likelihood of success of the counteroffensive in ukraine which is playing out right now. in fact, president zelenskyy is

coming to washington this week because support is waiting for this war in ukraine because so many lawmakers feel it is not going the direction that the u.s. hoped. the documents show that u.s. officials essentially knew this was likely to be the outcome publicly they work much more optimistic and bullish about the prospects. there were real strains between the u.s. and our allies, because it exposed so much information that the u.s. is monitoring communications of its allies. there was some information in the documents that we simply chose not to publish because it was far too specific about individual sources, in some cases human sources, spies passing information to the u.s. or their allies, that if it had been made public, perceivable he those persons lives could have been in danger. a lot of sensitive information, and when we reported on it we took steps to make sure we were talking to the government about exactly what we were preparing

to report what was in these documents and making decisions when we felt it was necessary to withhold information. host: let's talk to viewers. tim is calling from asheboro, north carolina. caller: good morning. i was in the army security agency in the 1960's. and i was given my clearance to the fbi. there seems to be a lack of training for these low ranking individuals on what will happen if they leaked classified information. i was scared to death of spending a long time in fort leavenworth. and it was literally years before i would discuss what i did. and i would like to know, who is

doing the clearance now? the fbi interview people at my home. and even back then if you had been a member of some obscure group that may have had connections with the communist party, that could keep you from getting a clearance. host: all right, tim. guest: tim is putting his finger on the problem here, which is that the air force spoke to this. they investigated these leaks and what happened. what they found was confusion even among the people who had security clearances about what they were and were not allowed to look at. it is not clear if this is an isolated incident, but i have to think that particularly as hundreds of thousands of people have been given clearances, some of them are looking at having a clearance as some all access

pass to look at intelligence. that is not what it is. a clearance-holder still has to have a reason to look at information. as tim put it, having that fear of under -- fear of understanding that if you leak these things you are going to get into trouble. it is fascinating is that teixeira -- and we can see this in text messages -- understood that what he was doing was illegal. he knew what the stakes were and he was not supposed to be doing it, and he did it anyway. he was caught at work four times looking a classified information and warned to stop, and he didn't. his case might be quite extreme in that regard. as somebody who didn't know what he was supposed to be doing. i wonder, though, if the permissive nature of the office in which he worked, in which there were not coming down harder on him, put the idea in his mind that no one was going to catch him doing this. host: and ray is calling from aurora, colorado. independent.

caller: good morning. hope you all have a good morning. looking forward to watching the documentary tonight. i am affiliated with the libertarian party. and i also happen to be an avid discord user. mainly to keep track with twitch streamers, who are nowhere near the right. take many of them have progressivism, although i am also following the national liver charity -- national libertarian party. because of this leak, one of the prospects for the federal government to engage in surveillance along the levels of what was revealed about 10 years ago from the nsa revelations? guest: yeah, i think it is probably unlikely that the federal government is going to start doing any kind of mass surveillance of discord. it would be pretty hard for them

to do that. a lot of the spaces are closed off. they are not public. it is not easy to see into them the way the government can look at social media, because it is public and they can see what is up there. i don't think we are expecting any major changes on how the government monitors social media because of these leaks. what i think you are more likely to see is changes internally to the kinds of questions they start asking in background checks about the social media presence of people who are applying to get a security clearance. host: echoes and shadows says something similar. oh my god, you really want us to believe they didn't know about his online presence? the pentagon is a joke. most employers search employee'' backgrounds. guest: this is something we found pretty surprising, frankly, and it was a real blind spot for background investigators. because you are not required to

disclose your social media history, there is not necessarily anything for them to go on. had they decided to go on social media and look for, may be public things he had tweeted or posted on other public sites, that would not get investigators to the inside of the servers on discord he was a member of, where all of these problematic activities work occurring. host: alexandria, virginia. independent line. caller: i wanted to talk about how, you know, with anybody who leaks information, it is almost a guarantee that they are going to be blackballed or information is going to be used against them to discredit them. especially with the julian assange case, any something is leaked about the government they somehow make this person terrible. you know, we found, x, y, z, but

really what the matter is, is in the case of ukraine we provided them all of these weapons to push back russia and essentially nothing is happening. they are, you know, a sickly has been a standstill this whole time. and we just sacrificed a bunch of lies. so, somebody leaking stuff from the pentagon in discord, you know, yeah. i don't know. guest: i think i understand. anytime there is a leak there is always the question about the motivations of the leaker, how they did what they did, and of course the information they reveal. we should emphasize that jack teixeira did not give this information to journalists, right? he gave it to people and it got out to those people. some of those who gave it to journalists as well. jack teixeira is not a leaker in the way that julian assange is,

where he deliberately put this information out hoping it will go public. he is not a whistleblower. but the information was of intense public interest. it did reveal that officials understood how bleak the prospects were for counteroffensive by ukraine, which is the country we are giving weapons. so, it is always an interesting aspect of these cases where the caller is exactly right. the information will come out, and it will be of public interest, but there is always the question about the leaker and this person's motivation. this was different because teixeira is not the leaker. that is one of the things that makes this aasnating story. host: this is what mik in rockford, illinois has texd us. why does it feel like the computer technician is a fall guy and not the actual leaker? guest: in this case, again, it is teixeira who is alleged to put the documents on discord, where other people distributed them. we should keep in mind how the

sequence went. another way of looking at that question might be, why is there so much focused on teixeira and not the people supposed to be monitoring them in the air force ? already we have seen a tremendous reaction by the air force, and punishing 15 people who worked with him. host: i wanted to show this article here on the washington post. the air force disciplines 15 people in discord leaks investigation. those 15 were enlisted. mlb wrote this to us on x. it was announced last night that there arections taken against military commanders. are they severe enough to warrant more caution from these officers in the future? so, who is being disciplined, and is it enough? guest: the number you cite is 15. that is pretty big in terms of the number of people who would've had awareness of what he was doing. and importantly, a colonel who was the commander of the hundred

second intelligence wing, he was relieved of his command. that is a pretty serious punishment. there have been other forms of disciplinary action taken. we are waiting on information for some of the specifics there. i have to imagine that this case is going to be pretty chilling for a lot of other people in similar positions and roles of responsibility. it might be harder for someone like a jack teixeira in the future to look at classified information to be reprimanded repeatedly, as he was. their bosses might now say, maybe i should pull him off the line and do something. this military wants to send a message by doing this. at the same time, we still have this dynamic where hundreds of thousands of people with security clearances have access to information. they could potentially steal that information in ways that are not so obvious as the way jack teixeira did, or maybe they find ways to circumvent those

procedures. it would be a mistake for the military to presume that by punishing these 15 people and relieving the commander that they have solved that bigger problem. host: we think the whole system needs to be reformed? guest: there are real questions about whether or not too many people have access to classified information and whether an intelligence agency can effectively put -- effectively police all of their activity. the air force found that teixeira working night shift, with effectively no supervision. that seems an easier problem you can correct. but when we are talking about people's level and above, having the ability to go into computer systems, look at things, possibly print them out, it is very hard to imagine how you police all of that activity when so many people have access to the system. host: it is not a simple answer, because hawk sent us this. one forward, how is something like this avoided? guest: one potential way, if you take teixeira's case, look at

the obvious avenues for reform. i think that looking at a security clearance applicant's life, to include their connections, is something the military and intelligence committee are going to have to consider. he might not have obtained a security clearance. there is going to have to be some hard looking at whether or not there are too many people with security clearances, or can you use technology to give gated access to someone like teixeira. if he was in the system, could the computers say, you are not supposed to be reading this stuff, it appears that you are. you are supposed to be maintaining the computer, not looking at the contents. experts we talked to said there was technology available that could more accurately police that kind of access which would probably go a long way to preventing a leak like this in

the future. host: what is the timeline here? you mentioned that teixeira is in prison, awaiting trial. when is that expected to happen? guest: it is not clear. his lawyers are going to the process of discovery of evidence, with the prosecution. it takes a long time, because there are classified documents. they have to get security clearances, lawyers. it is normally the same process former president trump is going through in the mar-a-lago documents case. he is charged under the same statute as teixeira, one of them. there is this process of all of the lawyers seeing the evidence that takes a lot of time. it would not surprise me if this case goes forward in 2025. it could take that long. in many of these cases the defendant will often seek a plea agreement with the government after they have seen all of the evidence. host: let's talk to jeff in massachusetts, independent line. caller: hi there. this is jeff. i have a question, or comment, i

guess. with cable and everything else the fcc is supposed to presumably control the content, or at least make some guidelines on what the content might be. or how they conduct their business. curious as to whether the fcc has any control over a new website or these secret houses or whatever you want to call it, either or not they have any control on how they conduct their business and what guidelines they can conduct their business by. and attempt to, you know, prevent these types of problems. if you could comment, please. guest: it is a great question. the answer is no, they really don't. we are talking about companies that are not regulated like service providers. they are not the phone company.

this is an internet company. there are laws about decency and child pornography and things that canning cannot be distributed, kind of categories of material. but as a whole the internet is not something the fcc regulates, and discord would fall into that category. host: there is a text here from lee in asheville, north carolina. he says, regarding this piece by shane harris, it is unconscionab that the psychiatric evaluation not di the individual's need to impress. thank you for such a wonderful program and to those behind the scenes. guest: this is another great question. i cannot speak to what any psychological assessment has shown, because we have not been able to see the full record of his investigation. the washington post has father will -- has filed a lawsuit to get that from the defense department. i think with the writer is putting their finger on is in

order to really understand and appreciate the full risk that someone poses, a background investigation needs to capture many dimensions of that person's life. not just the parts they want you to see. had they been able to dig more into this discord connection and talk to those friends, they might have surfaced them of these pedantic characteristics of him, of this need to feel important. it is not a guarantee, but they would have had a much fuller picture of jack teixeira is had they talked to the friends he spent so much of his time with. host: you have your reporting here in the washington post. it is called the discord leaks explained. it is extensive information about everything that happened, and you have been working on this for a long time. what surprised you the most over the course of your investigation? guest: i don't have kids, so i cannot speak to the way young people are spending their time

online right now. so, i learned a lot about how teenagers are interacting with each other and the relationships they are forming. what really impressed me is that for so many of them these relationships they are forming with people they have never met are as meaningful and real to them as a real-life relationship. have to say i came away thinking that they were not correct about that. that there is something about a real, in-person relationship that you cannot replicate in a technological space. i came away concerned about what technology is doing to distort young people's ideas about what relationships are and what real communication is, and what is and is not appropriate. that was a revelation for me, as somebody who does not spend a lot of time around young people. myself as a journalist, i am online all the time. i can understand from that perspective as far as these spaces and how they use them, i

was surprised that they do not grasp the degree to which they were missing out on human contact. some of them, it is interesting, have gone to a change after this and have now come at the other end of this experience recognizing they need real-life friends, and the time they were spending on discord was leading them to make some bad decisions. host: was he living by himself or with his parents? guest: he was living with his mother and stepfather. he had a tight family network, as far as we can see, and a strong support system. and was living in the town he grew up. host: jim is in west virginia, democrat. morning. caller: good morning. i had a couple of questions. i was in another room doing some things and i did not get to hear all of this gentleman was explained. it is interesting. there is two things i wanted to ask related to if he could answer them and maybe explain some to me and to the public about.

that is, that situation that happened that young lady named reality winter, she was a former military person, an intelligence specialist. when she got out of the military she went to work for a defense contractor, maybe in georgia. guest: that is right. caller: she had access to this top-secret information, a report that revealed how much russia penetrated multiple states' voting registration systems when they were trying to help trump win in 2016. but, of course trump and jeff sessions, his then-attorney general, slammed her in jail pretty quick. i think she served five years. it is an interesting story. if you could tell us about that and maybe some relevance to this teixeira fella. i will take mansour off the line.

i might not have heard you describe when i was in the other room, listening to what you were saying, but did it turn out, from what they looked at and had to investigate with this teixeira boy, did he end up inadvertently, like you are saying, thinking, these people are all great. did he end up inadvertently, as it turned out many of the people he considered to be, just, you know, you know what i'm saying, legitimate friends, did they then turn out to be foreign agents? host: right, jim. guest: those are great questions. reality winter was working as a contractor and had access to classified information, and since some of that to journalists because she felt there was important information they needed to know and that the public needed to know about russian interference in the election.

reality winner fits the profile of a whistleblower who says, i'm going to share this information. it is illegal to do it, but i'm doing it in what i think is a larger public interest. there is a long tradition of that happening in government and journalism as well. teixeira is a bit different, because he was sharing the information with a small group of friends. in some cases a much larger group, people he didn't know. not with the intention of it ending up in a newspaper. he has a different kind of motivation there, which is why he is not a whistleblower in that sense. to the question you asked about whether there were four nationals in the group, our reporting says, yes, there were. and the government prosecutors have pointed this out in some of their filings in this case to say that, you know, one of the things you are told when you are not sharing classified -- told not to share classified information, is do not do that because he could fall into the

hands of a foreign adversary. if he is sharing information with people overseas, some of whom may have been in ukraine or eastern europe, that raises the risk that that information could be obtained by a foreign government. i think from the prosecution standpoint, that magnifies the severity of what he was doing when he was sharing those secrets. host: along those lines, lucinda asks, can this person be charged with treason? guest: i don't think so. treason makes a very specific crime, provisions in the constitution. sometimes people use treason as a catchall for what they mean as a betrayal of an out, which in this case that is what he is being charged by. he signed a nondisclosure agreement and made a commitment not to disclose classified information, and he is being prosecuted for that crime. host: is there a generational knowledge gap leaving open weak spots? what is the age group or user

profile of a discord user? guest: i think there is a big potential knowledge gap when it comes to generations. part of that responsibility rests on the defense department, who conducted the background check, which did not fully appreciate that this man's life was more represented by his online contacts than his off-line contacts. should have been looking at the online world. that a generation of people have moved so much of their life to online communication, and the background checks are missing that. typically a discord profile, i'm not sure about ages, but it skews younger. it is popular with video gamers. it was developed as a platform to allow people to play multiplayer video games together in real-time, so that when you are looking at the screen and you see other friends you are playing with, you can that has traditionally been the main profile of a typical discord user.

host: what role did his family have in helping him get his job? guest: his stepfather worked in that wing. we didn't find any information about what that relationship would have done favorably for him but he did go up in a family with a lot of military service. the background investigation would have taken note of the fact that he had family in the military. host: michelle says discord is a private server and not culpable for the content that has been distributed. it's like a mainstream fortune. --4 chan. guest: in the sense that the

company is not monitoring what is going on in the servers. they made a decision to not look inside what is going on in those chat rooms. host: the announcer: c-span's washington journal, our live forum evolving you to discuss the latest issues of government, politics and public policy from washington, d.c. and across the country. coming up wednesday morning, we will discuss the house republican impeachment inquiry into president biden and other congressional news of the day including the debate over u.s. aid to ukraine, israel and border security with congressman andy ogles and ami bera. and we will discuss trends in

the u.s.. join in the conversation live at 7 a.m. eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. ♪ announcer: nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on odd forecasts. on q&a, here we wide-ranging conversations. book notes plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly future fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. andy about books podcasts takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and bestsellers' lists. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app, or where ever get your broadcasts -- your podcasts, oon