host: that is it for today's show. thank you for tuning in and we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and in the meantime, have a great saturday. ♪

♪ host: good morning, it is saturday, february 17. two big items from yesterday we would like to get your reaction to. the judge in the civil fraud case ruled against donald trump imposing a 350 $5 million penalty. the former president is also barred from serving as an officer or director of any new york corporation for three years. and alexei navalny has died in a russian prison colony. this comes up a month before an election there. give us a call and share your thoughts on either or both of those topics. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. send your first name and your city state. we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span and x @cspanwj. here is the new york times, the new york judge on friday handed donald j. trump a crushing defeat, finding the former president liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordering him to pay a penalty of nearly 355 million plus interest. that decision by the justice taps a chaotic years-long case in which the new york attorney general put mr. trump's fantastical claims of wealth on trial.

he came down hard. the judge delivered a sweeping array of punishments that threatens the former president's business empire as he simultaneously contends with four criminal prosecutions and six to regain the white house. mr. trump was barred for three years from serving as a top role in any new york company including portions of his own company. he proposed a two-year ban on the former president adult son and order they pay more than $4 million each. eric trump is the company's defective chief executive. the ruling throws into doubt whether any member of the family can run the business in the near term. the judge also ordered that they pay substantial interest, pushing the penalty for the former president to 450 million, according to attorney general letitia james. and his unconventional style, the justice criticized mr. trump and the other defendants for refusing to admit wrongdoing for

years. their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. you can read the full ruling on our website, c-span.org. it is 92 pages. let's hear from the former president outside of his mar-a-lago home, reacting to the judgment. [video clip] mr. trump: a fine of 350 $5 million for doing a perfect job. having to pay back a loan no problem. at the trial they testify. we have an extra witness from the stern school at nyu who made the statement, and i was honored by his statement, he is one of the most respected people anywhere in the country for doing this kind of thing. expert witness. he said this is one of the greatest financial statements i have ever witnessed before. he talked about even the detail. so, my numbers were actually can

ask -- actually extremely conservative. they saw this. the expert, after having all of this testified to one of the best financial statements he had ever seen. i was honored by that. i also know we have a corrupt judge, he is not a respected man. he has been overturned in this case by the appellate division four times already. it is a record. no one has ever been overturned on one case four times. importantly, and i think ultimately, the most important, we paid taxes like few other people have paid in new york, and they don't care about that. it is a state that is going bust. it is a state that is going bust because everyone is leaving. it is headed up by biden, who is destroying our country. host: that is from yesterday.

the big news also is navalny's death. putin critic navalny dies in prison. he is a fierce anticorruption campaigner who galvanized russia's political opposition died in prison according to russian authorities after a life dedicated to fighting the descent into authoritarianism under vladimir putin. the cause of his death is still being established. prison authorities say that he collapsed after a walk at his prison colony on friday. that he lost consciousness and couldn't be revived. navalny's team, which lived in exile, didn't immediately confirm his death. a spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment but said that a lawyer was in route to navalny's present to confirm the news, which his team learned from the russian prison service. his aide said on navalny's youtube channel the hospitals and morgues near navalny's prison colony weren't picking up the phone and alleged that the

politician had most likely been killed. president biden delivered remarks about the death of navalny and putin's role. [video clip] pres. biden: you know, like millions of people around the world i am literally, both not surprised and outraged by the news.the death of alexei navalny. he stood up to the corruption, the violence, all of the bad things that putin is doing. in response, putin had him poisoned, had him arrested, had him prosecuted for fabricated crimes, sent him to prison, he was held in isolation. although that didn't stop him from calling out. even in prison he was a powerful voice for the truth. he could have lived in exile after the assassination attempt

in 2020, which nearly killed him, i may add, he was traveling outside of the country at the time. instead, he returned to russia knowing that he would likely be imprisoned, maybe killed. he continued his work. he did it anyway. he believed so deeply in his country, in russia. reports of his death, if they are true, and i've no reason to believe they are not, russian authorities will tell their own story. make no mistake, putin is responsible for navalny's death. putin is responsible. what has happened to navalny is get more proof of putin's brutality. no one should be fooled, not in russia, not anywhere in the world. putin not only targets citizens and other countries, as we see what is going on in ukraine, he inflicts terrible crimes on his own people as people across russia and around the world are morning navalny because he was

so many things that putin was not. he was brave. he was principled. he was dedicated to building a russia where the rule of law existed and where it applied to everybody. navalny believed in that russia. that russia. he knew that it was a cause worth fighting for, and obviously worth dying for. provide the funding so ukraine can keep defending itself. against putin's vicious onslaughts and war crimes. host: we are getting your reaction to both of those things. navalny's death and the trump ruling in the civil fraud case. here are a few republican reactions on x. here is senator tom cotton who says, alexei navalny died as he lived, champion of the russian people and a brave voice of dissent in vladimir putin's russia. president biden pledged,

"devastating consequences" should navalny die in prison. now he has to follow through. america cannot afford another erased redline. and the death of alexei navalny is a tragedy that shows who putin is, a ruthless thug that will kill anyone who opposes his tyranny. president biden must hold him accountable and demand the immediate release of all americans unjustly held in russian prison. finally, representative brian fitzpatrick said that navalny's death falls solely on the shoulders of vladimir putin. navalny dedicated his life bravely fighting for foreign rights and democracy. the world is watching and putin must be punished. the u.s. congress must past a to ukraine to defend democracy. we will go to the funds to get your reaction. danny in arizona, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead, danny. caller: you know something?

the first story with the trump case, this is nothing but a sham and a kangaroo judge. this is going to get thrown out in the appellate court. it's obvious what's going on. the democrats are scared because president trump is beating joe in all of the polls because joe doesn't know what time of the day it is. i get a kick out of one joe does -- you can't tell me he writes those things. he has someone writing for him because he can't write. he can't read, for crying out loud. anyways, this is just like the willis case. this is all a sham. this is all election interference. that is what this is, mimi. have a nice day. caller: good morning, c-span.

thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i am thrilled, thrilled, thrilled that donald trump has lost another case and it is going to cost him the one thing that he loves the most, which is money. ok? the reason he got into this whole thing is because politics is all about money. him being a crook, a grifter, if you will, he saw an opportunity to make money. little did he know that by doing this and doing things illegally, as he has always gotten away with, that running for president was the worst decision of his life. i am so thrilled that the judge awarded the state this money, and i hopeful that upon appeal he will still have to pay this

money plus the money to miss carolle and any interest, which will probably be half $1 trillion which will hurt him deeply. for that, i am happy. host: maybe not half a trillion. we will move to rich in hickory hills, illinois on the independent line. caller: i was looking on the internet this morning about an interview with the ex-president's son-in-law about the $2 billion from the saudis . the issue came up about the saudis executing somebody and jared's response was, are we still talking about that? as this relates to the

assassination of the russian dissident in the russian prison, it appeared to me like this kingdom where donald trump -- you know, he thinks he is a king. he is above these laws that he is being prosecuted for. in the united states we have a three tier system. the executive branch, the legal branch, and the congress and the senate. they are supposed to operate independently so that the justice department is not supposed to be controlled by the presidency. the presidency is not supposed to be a king that he can do whatever he wants. donald trump thinking that he should have total immunity while in presidency is to be king-like. this to me is where these

rulers, like putin and the kings, they have the right to do this. we don't want our president to have the right, for joe biden to say donald trump, let's just execute the man. that is what -- that is the issues that are related and on the table for why this is going on. again, if we are not going to hold a king accountable, and you can't hold a king accountable because he is above the law, and i don't agree with that mentality. this is why we have the system of government that is supposed to stop us from executing people at will. there is a process that says how we are supposed to handle it. host: eddie in cartersville, georgia. democrat. good morning, eddie. caller: good morning. i just want to say to all our

democrats who are listening this morning, please, let's just get out there and vote democrat. we can't put donald trump back in office. we see him now that all this stuff he got going on with the courts, nobody in the world have that many problems, have that many lawyers. nobody in this world -- we don't need him back in office. so, please wake up and see what this man do. he going to make y'all pay that $400 million out your pocket. you'll see how much money will come to your household and take out your household. host: speaking of the money,

this is the new york times. says that, mr. trump will appeal the financial penalty, but will have to come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days. the ruling will not render him bankrupt. most of his wealth is in real estate, which altogether is worth far more than the penalty. mr. trump will also ask in appeals court to halt the restrictions on him and his son from running the company while it considers the case. herschel in cincinnati, ohio, independent, good morning. caller: people forget that, one, putin brought russia back to the world stage as a power. they forget that. ok? he survived the sanctions.

joe biden effectively held the sanctions in place, but putin effectively have circumvented those sanctions and has strengthened himself in terms of russia. consolidated his power over russia. all right? three, everyone is celebrating this freedom fighter to -- you don't know his policies. his policies are not liberal, ok, all right? he was a russian nationalist himself. four, the invasion in ukraine -- i was talking to someone the other day that understands a land war in europe, the last one caused 85 to 100 million deaths.

you know what i'm saying? we are concerned about how we are working and there is a concern in there. i am an african-american. i'm looking at what we are talking about not only in haiti, but also in the middle east where russia has now regained strength. because we, in the united states, don't look at now leaving the shores in a unified manner. host: got it, herschel. the text that we got from karel in west virginia, this country is slowly and surely becoming a banana republic when the democrat party can use the judicial system to and crept donald trump so he could not run for president is truly a bad situation. kim says, mr. trump has convinced his followers that people are out to get him because he is so great. maybe someday they will realize it is because he is a criminal.

and james in detroit, michigan, the courts are weaponized against trump. election interference on the part of the democratic party. no jury, just a venomous judge and da. here is more from former president donald trump outside mar-a-lago talking about what he calls election interference. [video clip] mr. trump: more important than that, this is russia, this is china, this all comes out of the doj, it all comes out of biden, it is a witchhunt against his political opponent the likes of which our country has never seen before. you see it in third world countries, banana republics, but you don't see it here. i just want to say this. you build a great company, there was no fraud, the banks all got their money, 100%, they love trump, they testified that trump is great, great customer, one of

our best customers. and the judge knows that. he is just a corrupt person. we knew that from the beginning. we knew that right from the beginning because he wouldn't give it to the commercial decision. this judge. mar-a-lago is worth $18 million and it is worth anywhere from 50 to 100 times that amount. he rolled against me before he even got the case. he said he is guilty. he didn't know what i was guilty of before he even got the case. letitia james, that is another case altogether. she is a horribly corrupt attorney general and it is all having to do with election interference. there were no victims. the banks made a lot of money. they made $100 million. by the way, i paid approximately $300 million in taxes as the migrants come in and they take over new york. i paid over the years over $300 million in taxes, and they want me out. let's see if we can get them out. these radical left macaques,

they are lunatics, and it is election interference. i want to thank you for being here. we will appeal, we will be successful i think, because frankly, if we are not successful new york state is gone. people are moving out of new york state and because of this they will move out at a faster rate. they used the consumer statute that has never been used for thing like this before. they used it on me because i'm running for president. i am beating biden by a lot. we are beating not only the republicans, we are beating biden by a lot. we are up 20 points on biden. if i weren't running none of this stuff have ever happened, none of these lawsuits would have ever happened, i would have had a nice life. but i enjoy this life or a different reason. we will make america great again. these are corrupt people. these are people who shouldn't be allowed to do the things that they do. they are using this as weaponization against a political opponent who is up a lot in the polls and always will be because i'm competing with a man who can't put two sentences

together, who doesn't know what he's doing. we are heading into a third world war because of this guy. we have to win this election. we are doing everything possible to step away, but we won't stand for it. host: speaking of the election, former president donald trump will be holding a campaign rally in waterford township, michigan tonight. we will have live coverage of that on our web and our app, c-span now. back to your calls, darrell in columbus, georgia, democrat. good morning. caller: hey, mimi. how are you doing? the trump crime family, wow. thank god for michael cohen. this guy needs to be given an award. this is the reason why. you have committed all the kinds you can about imagine.

next app you want immunity so you can start murdering people. he wants to be just like putin and organize hits and start murdering people and get away with it. i'm glad they did this to him. they got his two sons. i hate to involve a minor, but when barron turns 18, start taking out him as well because he is the next one. host: john, new jersey, independent, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call, first time caller. i think with regard to the international issues that we have with the governments of russia, ukraine, china, i believe based on my own beliefs and also friends at work and at church that joe biden is compromised with regard to his attacks on donald trump. i believe that these are meritless. these are an organized hit on

interference. i represent myself as an independent because i have voted for democrats and republicans alike, but i think that at this point in time the trump derangement syndrome, as people have coined it, is taking over the country. the average person just trying to make a living and support a family like me, are going to have a defining moment this november and hope their candidate wins, but also that the country comes first. i grew up in new york and i moved to new jersey. i feel at this point i am a conceal carry permit holder because i fear for my safety and my family safety. also, you're doing a great job. i think you should smile more on this tv because you're beautiful and have a great morning. host: mark in new york. good morning. caller: how are you doing, ma'am? this is mark. i want to let you know that i

think the whole thing with the donald trump is a big sham, what they are doing. joe biden is doing the same thing, what we did with that prisoner that they had poisoned and put in prison and killed. i think they are doing the same thing with donald trump to get him away from running for office. the number one thing was to get trump. i think alan dershowitz wrote the book on get trump. a lot of the democrats don't realize, what has joe biden done for this country? are we any better or are we worse? the thing for me is i believe they use race on election time but never around when elections are over. i think it has to do with barack

obama being in control of, the white house too. host: back to the death of alexey navalny. the washington post, a sudden predictable death for alexei navalny. it says that his death foretold as almost inevitable, including byte of only himself, sent shockwaves across russia and was quickly condemned by russian leaders, some of whom joined russian opposition leaders in calling it a state-sponsored murder. navalny is 47 years old and appeared at a court hearing via video link the day before seemingly in good health an with his trademark humor intact. we will look at re remarks from president biden about the death of alexei navalny and what he ss is the need for congress to pass ukraine funding immediately. [video clip] pres. biden: it was a bipartisan senate vote that passed overwhelmingly in the u.s.

senate to fund ukraine. now, as i've said before, and i mean this in a literal sense, history is watching. history is watching the house of representatives. a failure to support ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten. it will go down in the pages of history. it really is. it is consequential. the clock is ticking. this has to happen. we have to help now. we have to realize what we are dealing with in putin. all of us should reject the dangerous statements made by the previous president that invited russia to invade our nato allies because they weren't paying up. he said if an ally did not pay their dues he encouraged russia to "do whatever the hell they want." i guess i should clear my mind a little bit and not say what i'm really thinking, but let me be clear. this is an outrageous thing for

a president to say. i can't fathom. from truman on they are rolling over in their graves hearing this. as long as i am president, america stands by our commitment to our nato allies. as they stood by their commitment to us repeatedly. putin and the world should know if any adversary were to attack us our nato allies would back us. if putin were to attack a nato ally the united states would defend every inch of nato territory. to stand up to the threat that putin's russia poses. you know, i send my deepest condolences to alexi's staff and supporters who continue to work despite this loss, despite putin's desperate attempts to stamp out the opposition, and most of all to his family. especially to his wife, his daughter, and his son who already sacrificed so much for their family and a shared dream for a better future for russia. so, i just want to say god bless

alexei navalny. his courage will not be forgotten, and i'm sure it will not be the only courage that we see coming out of russia in the near term. host: speaking of russia and ukraine, here is the latest on that war from the new york times. a long time stronghold for ukraine falls to russia with ukraine forces at risk of encirclement. the top military commander ordered a retreat and in a candid account soldiers describe disarray and despair. mary is calling from the pendants -- calling from peninsula, ohio. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call and i'm a brand-new republican. this is after i changed my party. this is the first time that i have actually came out as a republican. i am white. my husband is black. we have two beautiful black children.

first of all, i hate it and i think it's stupid when someone wants to call me a racist. i'm calling about trump and about nato. you know, i believe in supporting nato, but you know what, i'm tired of americans footing the bill for everybody else out there. there are nato dues due for the protection and to help fight for them. if countries don't want to pay for their dues i don't think that americans should have to put their money and their children's lives on the line for countries that either won't pay for them -- for countries that won't pay for themselves. host: back to nato, there are no dues. they have to pay 2% of their gdp for their own defense budget. caller: that is a due. if they want to belong to nato they have to pay 2% of their income. host: for their own defense, correct. caller: i would like to switch over to trump with regards to

new york. that is ridiculous. that judge found him guilty before there was even a trial. since when in america do we find someone guilty without a trial? the judge went ahead and said this is all about sentencing you. all right? since when do we have guilty decisions before there is even a trial and the judge would not allow it. in the end, and by the way in florida down the street from mar-a-lago are two empty lots. one is being sold for $200 million. it's an empty lot, two acres down the street from mar-a-lago. yet that judge went ahead and determined that a 56-room mansion, 56 bedroom mansion,

with golf courses and everything else, mar-a-lago, dining and everything, restaurants, is worth only $17 million when two lots down the street from mar-a-lago that are completely empty are for sale for $200 million. host: all right, mary. tony in west virginia, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say mr. trump w go down -- will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. number one is all of these here sham lawsuits trying to stop people from getting back into office, stopping him from voting in different states, it is all she. that's all a sham. the democrats are going after him tooth and nail. it all starts in the deep state in washington d.c.

now that i've said that, when trump was in office, our country was strong. afghanistan, that was a debacle. the recent israeli war over t here. that would never have happened if trump was in there. putin would never have crossed the line and come into ukraine while trump was in there, because they respected his strength. now that biden is in there, afghanistan was a debacle. host: going back to russia's invasion of ukraine, what do you think was the calculation as far as if trump was in office? do you think putin -- what would he have been afraid of? do you think trump would have put american troops on the ground? what would he have been afraid of? caller: trump would have told

him not to cross the line. and he didn't in four years when trump was in office. as soon as biden got into office he already had the troops lined up to cross over. it's just a matter of fact, the biden crime family, as a matter of fact, everything -- it's just terrible. host: got it. here is scott in essex, massachusetts who says every time donald trump had something go wrong for him he equates and tries to mistakenly say it is against all of america and blames joe biden for it. apparently mr. trump has never done anything wrong. when people never take responsibility, that is when america should be worried. rochester, new york. line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to say a few things. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 no red wa ve, 23. two special elections. i don't understand republicans. you are not winning elections. you keep talking about polls. they poll old people. host: what did you think about the ruling yesterday? caller: trump? that is irrelevant. the next one is coming up. the d.c. he better hopes the supreme court backs them up because if they don't he's going to court real quick and if he goes to court he will be found guilty. if they don't agree with him on that, that is the one i'm looking at, because that's the

one that's going to go first. i know he has the other one coming up in new york, too. that is whatever it is. it's about money too. can you do one more thing? their achievements. put biden's achievements up to trump's. who got things passed? saying that anxiety better under biden. obama had things going and trump got off his coattails. we had a recession in 2008 and obama had to get that right. trump got into office and everything was ok. there always talking about biden not doing anything. host: on the line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead, lisa. caller: first of all, you are doing a great job. everybody keeps bringing up obama. the guy who spoke before me, he

put it right. biden was losing the house, he saved the banks. bailed out the banks and the banks had to pay us back, the country. the car industry, and they had to pay us back. everyone calling out obama, we had the first black president. get off of obama. let's look at nato. the nato base in germany, if you've never been there, go see it, shut up about our nato. our nato interaction. everybody who has never seen that needs to be quiet. this that trump is running, if i bought all of the property that he bought and i said that i paid this amount but they were only valued at this, i would have been called out. we cannot keep letting these rich -- our country.

just listen to what these people are saying to us. they sound like jim jones' people who followed him, like a cult. host: let's hear from the new york attorney general, letitia james, who brought the fraud case against trump. she made remarks yesterday. [video clip] >> i want to be clear, white-collar financial fraud is not a victimless crime. when the powerful break the law and take more than their fair share, there are fewer resources available for working people, small businesses and families, and every day americans cannot lie to a bank about how much money they have in order to get a mortgage to buy a home or a loan to keep their business afloat or send their child to college. if they did, our government would throw the book at them. i want to thank the entire

incredible hard-working team in my office who tried this case, because the scale and scope of donald trump's fraud is staggering. so too is his ego and his belief that the rules do not apply to him. today, we are holding donald trump accountable. we are holding him accountable for lying, cheating, and a lack of contrition, and for flouting the rules at all of us. because there cannot be different rules for different people in this country, and former presidents are no exception. this decision is a massive victory for every american who believes in that simple but fundamental pillar of our democracy, that the rule of law applies to all of us, equally,

fairly, and justly. host: we are getting your reaction on two items, the trump ruling from yesterday, $355 million, and also the death of alexei navalny. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: i am doing ok. caller: good. i would like to take this time to really get down to the nitty-gritty, because you've got so many people, especially trump supporters -- first of all, trump is a narcissist. he is a social path. -- a sociopath. what irks me so much is why do so many white people not see him for what he is? white people believe that trump

is his great white hope and he is not. he is putin in the flesh. that lady who came on and said that she was married to a black man and she ain't racist, let me make this clear. just because you married to a black man and have black children does not make you not be racist. host: spell out why you think trump is the equivalent putin. caller: he wants to be a dictator. host: but putin -- he has the opposition put to death. he has been poisoned and thrown out of windows. you can't say that trump does that. caller: remember what trump said? he said he could go out into the street -- i forgot what street he said -- and he could shoot someone. host: but he has never done that. we do need to be fair on that. nikki in new jersey,

independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say this. i cannot believe i saw a so-called journalist go television this morning saying that it is ok to convict somebody using lies. that man ought to be fired. if it is ok to convict someone using lies, then your whole justice system is useless. host: when did you hear, mickey? caller: this was on channel 68. they had a journalist on there, talking about the trump trial in south carolina, i think it is. he said it's ok to convict someone using lies. host: i'm not sure about that,

mickey. people are usually under oath when they are testifying, so that would be a felony for them to lie under oath. it would be called perjury. caller: he was talking about the prosecutor using lies to convict someone. host: all right. steve in alexandria, indiana, republican, good morning. caller: morning. i would like to say that it seems to me like biden is doing the same thing for trump that putin does over there in russia. he puts his opponents in jail over there. they are trying to do the same thing to trump, put him in jail, keep him off the ballot. there is no difference at all. host: no difference at all?

navalny has most likely been killed by the putin regime. caller: well, that is what they would like to do to trump. they would like to get him in jail. they have been after him ever since he started running for president back in 2016. they have been after him. they had all of these russian collusion stuff. nobody has ever been held accountable for the lies the democrats has told donald trump. host: i want to ask you about the trial, specifically the fraud case. did you follow the details and what the former president was accused of? with the ruling said that he had done and his business had done? caller: i followed all they let you hear about it.

it seems like to me they didn't really tell it, tell all about what the charges was for. nobody -- you got to have a crime. what crime did he do exactly? host: that is all spelled out, steve. we have it on our website in the 92-page ruling. if you would like to peruse that, you can see all of the allegations, how the judge ruled, and why on everything. so that you have all that information. frank in connecticut on the independent line. caller: good morning, mimi, how are you? that guy just asked what crimes he committed but you couldn't answer him. you should have answered him. he inflated properties.

big deal. everyone inflates it. that lady just called about trump supporters in a cult. a real cult is witnessing your leader destroy his country while you clap like a seal. that is what these democrats are doing. host: you really believe that everyone inflates their property to get more favorable interest and insurance rates, frank? caller: please, mimi. everybody does that. i'm sure you must have sold a car that you inflated the price on. host: that is different, frank. that is going for a market value . if someone is willing to pay that for used car that is fair. it becomes illegal when you inflate your property value in order to get a better insurance or interest rate. i think that's the issue.

again, it is on our website. c-span.org if you would like to take a look at the full ruling. anthony in south river, new jersey, democrat. caller: hey, mimi. thank you for coming in on a snowy day. i am going to offer a suggestion or a solution. before i do that, listening to these people, it is like, you know, trump, come on. that case was decided before the trial even started by one guy and one district attorney. you know, come on. there is really no proof that he inflated these things because the banks wouldn't even say that. that was just the judge saying that. if trump came out and said, well, you know, i pay for everything in cash, because that is a wait thing, forget it.

it would be world war iii. i will give you a suggestion as to why we shouldn't have world war iii for the american people. we know there is an immigration problem bigger than a challenge, we have no place to put people. if you ever went to a hospital, an er lately, good luck. you're going to be waiting for a long time. host: all right, anthony. here is the guardian. it says julia navalnia takes the stage after the news of her husband's death. the conference turned deeply personal on friday as senior officials from around the globe heard firsthand from alexei navalny's wife hours after news broke of his death. navalny was in germany for the security conference which brings together national leaders, foreign ministers, and experts

when the russian prison service announced navalny had died in jail. officials at the conference were taking in the news. navalnia unexpectedly took to the stage addressing a crowd of politicians and diplomats after vice president kamala harris standing at a podium usually reserved for senior politicians. she said, i thought, should i stand before you or go back to my children? i thought, what would have alexi done in my place and i'm sure that he would be standing on the stage. let's look at that moment in the security conference in munich. [video clip] >> you all heard about the horrific news. i thought about it quite a while. i thought, should i stand here before you or should i go back to my children? then i thought, what would have alexi done in my place, and i'm sure that he would have been

standing here on this stage. i don't know. should we believe the terrible news we get? the news we get only from the official media? because for many years, and you know all this, we have been in this situation. we cannot believe putin and his government. they are lying constantly. but if it is the truth, i would like putin and all his staff, everybody around him, his government, his friends, i want them to know that they will be punished for what they have done with our country, with my

family, and with my husband. that they will be brought to justice and this day will come soon. i would like to call upon all of the international community, all of the people in the world, we should come together and we should fight against this evil. we should fight this horrific regime in russia today. host: and here is the washington post about that. here is a picture of her and alexi from 2013. it says she has generally sought to avoid the spotlight to shield her two children from the fallout of her husband's political work and deny his tormentors in the kremlin, including president putin, the satisfaction of ever seeing her cry. as she took to the stage and delivered a dramatic surprise

statement grief and worry were itched across -- were etched across her face. her voice, trembling with fury, she said, "i want putin, his entourage, putin's friends and government, to know they will pay for what they've done to our country, our family, and my husband, and that day will come soon." getting your reaction to that and the trump ruling. ed in pennsylvania. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for hanging tough amidst a lot of this delusional banter. i would like to say that i think alexei navalny is a hero to anyone who can pay attention to current events and keep their memory long enough to remember what happened. the attacks against navalny and the folks who were attacked with novichok in the u.k., all of those things happened under terms watch. to pretend that he is somehow a

a tough guy who putin is afraid of is laughable. even if you can justify to yourselves the people who want to call themselves my fellow conservatives, even if you can justify to yourselves all of the crimes that this man has committed in front of all of our eyes, you cannot pretend like that didn't happen. that's a fact. host: what treason are you talking about, ed? caller: january 6. we all watched it happen live on television. there are people who are sitting in congress who would like to erase history. these folks would like to go back as far as they can, even if it's just last week. i understand that we are all enduring the trauma. that dustup stuff to your memory, but that stuff happened on his watch. he went on television, on stage of the other day, and said that he would let russia do whatever they want.

host: one of our callers said that putin would never have invaded ukraine if trump was president. what do you think of that? caller: i think that is delusional. host: why? caller: i think trump and the people under him in the republican party have allowed themselves to become useful idiots. i don't subscribe that they are russian operatives, i think that is a bridge too far, but they need to look at what they are doing. what they are doing benefits putin's agenda. that is not an insinuation. he went on stage and said it in front of thousands of people at a campaign event. he said that is what he intends to allow to happen. host: dolores in portage, indiana, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for being on the air this morning and taking my call. firstly, condolences to the navalny family. hugely brave what mrs. navalny

did, and i admire her posture that she is showing for her children. the sacrifice that her husband made to the family is trickling down and she is standing in support to be a light for her children and the world. without emotion, sorry, one time i heard someone say that in order to give hate a head start among other status, you have to put a face to it. you have to give it a face and you have to give it power. everything that president trump has alluded to, making america great again -- well, america was fine prior to his presidency. we were not perfect.

democrats, republicans, independents, we all made concessions to get a little bit of what our world, our community needed. so, it doesn't matter too much from what i have been seeing what evidence is placed out in front for those who want to believe in trump's logic. there isn't enough that we can do to put in front of people to try to see the best in him. there isn't enough that we can do to put in front of anyone to say that the only reason we are at the crest of this of really what is a civil war -- there just doesn't seem to be anything that we can do to prove that the laws in fact in the country are the laws.

they are not being abused in one way or another to propel one party or one type of society on top of each other. so, that's all i want to say. host: monte in spring, texas, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, mimi. the first thing i would like to say that any one of us on a scale grant enough to get the attention of the authorities, inflated or deflated our assets, we would be subject to the same laws and probably cross prosecuted more vigorously because we don't have the capital to hire lawyers. anyone who says otherwise is running on confirmation bias. navalny was a hero of conservatives and liberals in america who have not been vocal

about support for this man should be ashamed. what is coming in russia is what we saw in ukraine during the mind on. there was no skinheads or nazis. it was an organic revolution. look at navalny and zelenskyy, they are fighting for freedom. putin, the man has been in power for decades, a man who openly stated he wants to bring back the russian empire. how do we have conservatives like tucker carlson going to meet this man who makes a fool of tucker carlson directly to his face. i want conservatives to look up if it is what you say it is, i love it. that is don junior, his brother-in-law, and paul manafort talking to a russian operative. it happened. the trump campaign was made into useful idiots by the russians. look at the change of support to ukraine at the last minute on

the russian platform. what happened to the ted cruz aide who was bringing up this addendum to the russian platform to increase ukrainian aid? what happened to her and that amendment at the last minute? where did that come from? you can't talk to any of these things to conservatives who are infatuated with trump. they are, for a lack of a less cryptic word, sycophants. host: that is all of the time that we've got for this segment, but we will have more time later in the program to take your calls and get your opinions. coming up next, a conversation with presidential historian lindsay chervinsky about the significance of president's day. later in our spotlight on podcast segment we dig into the battle between president biden and house republicans over energy policy with josh siegel, the host of the podcast politico energy. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> american history tv. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. authors kate mazer and dylan penning croft talk about americans in the civil rights movement for the 1950's and 1960's. we continue with the series coproduced by economist milton friedman and his wife in 1980. this episode is titled "what is wrong with our schools." on the presidency, constitutional law professor cliff sloan looks at franklin roosevelt's relationship with the u.s. supreme court and if the court reflected his wartime vision. on campaign speech we begin with a speech by john mccain at #michigan campaign rally, followed by bernie sanders speaking at a campaign rally in dearborn, michigan in 2016. watch american history tv every

weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of a floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal." plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today, or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. c-span now. your front row to washington anytime.

>> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. and citizens are truly informed, our 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. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with our next segment on presidential history and legacies with lindsay chervinsky. she is a presidential historian. she is also the author of the book "the cabinet." welcome to the program. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: in happy presidents' day. let's start with the significance of presidents' day.

why mark it every year? guest: presidents' day is an opportunity for us to think about the role of this office in the united states. it is obviously the most powerful position in the country, but i think it is also the most powerful position in the world. that comes with potential positives and potential negatives. it is a great opportunity for us to think about the history of the office, but we want the office to be, and our relationship to it. -- what we want the office to be, and our relationship to it. host: there are some presidents we remember all the time and some we have completely forgotten. guest: i think there are so many factors that go into what the memory is for the american people and how they appeal to the american people. sometimes it is a personality thing. i think theodore roosevelt, a lot of our memory of him is this larger-than-life persona, sort of separate from his real,

tangible accomplishments. some of it is the moments. so, abraham lincoln and franklin d roosevelt -- franklin d. roosevelt were presidents when americans won a war. that tends to be sexier than a president who led when there was not a war. i think there were also moments in american history when the presidency was really in the backseat. so, if we think about the 1840's and some of the presidents in the 1880's, those are some of the forgettables. it is because congress had taken center stage in running the nation. host: i want to show people the presidential historian survey. it is essentially every year we asked presidential historians to write the presidents. you can see here, abraham lincoln comes out on top consistently, and then followed

by george washington, franklin roosevelt, and theodore roosevelt. i wonder about abraham lincoln specifically. why do you think he is consistently on top as a favorite, at least for presidential historians? guest: just a little bit of back story for listeners who are not familiar with how the survey works. i had the privilege of participating. we don't just say who is our favorite, we rank the president on a bunch of different factors. so, their ability to communicate. their leadership in crisis. how did they manage the economy? how did they work with congress? how are they on things like civil rights? it is a much more nuanced assessment than sometimes people think. that is important, because someone like abraham lincoln gets high marks almost across the board. of course, there are some things he could have done better. he was by no means a perfect human. but if we think of someone like

lyndon johnson, who was really good on some things, but struggled when it camped to the vietnam war, that's going to explain why he is going to get a lower score in certain areas. i think for lincoln it was a remarkable political talent, as well as a remarkable communicator, and sort of a moral leader at a time of peak crisis that puts him in that spot. host: we will take your calls. you can start calling in now if you have a question for our guest about presidents' day and the legacy of presidents. the lines are regional. if you are in the central time zone you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, call us at (202) 748-8001. you can also use text. that is (202) 748-8003. and we are also on social media on facebook and x. are there presidents who have gone through significant changes

in how they are viewed or their legacies? guest: absolutely. and actually i use this survey a lot to demonstrate this point, to see over time may be what we have valued or what we have appreciated has shifted. or even just what we know has shifted. and that is a really important point. for example, one president who has really risen over the decades is dwight eisenhower. and that is because initially when he left office people had the sense that he was old, he was not particularly with it, he was a caretaker, he was not involved in decision-making. he was not important as a figure. but as documents have been declassified, as people have gotten a better sense of what actually was happening, it has become clear he was actually on top of every detail. he was very detail-oriented. he was very focused. so, his scores and our

appreciation for his role as president have risen over time. on the flipside, someone like andrew jackson, initially when he left office was considered to be a man of the people doing he was sort of the father of the democratic party. -- of the people. he was sort of the father of the democratic party. as we moved on from the emotional attachment to him or his role in founding the democratic party, have had much more assessment in the fact that he was responsible for indian removal from the southeast. he was horrifically racist, even by the standards of the time. he was not actually a great leader in terms of working with congress were managing the economy. so, his reputation has slid down as we have progressed. host: what about ulysses grant? he was not really high up on the list, and then certain biographies came out and everybody realized, he was a really great leader. at least, a great general, and

then his presidency got a look -- another look. guest: grant is such a great example of why we have to continue to revisit our history. just because a book has been written on someone doesn't mean it is necessarily accurate or we are ok with the values and questions they are asking. one of grant's main accomplishments as he fought for the suffrage for recently-emancipated black americans in the south. he felt the civil war had been fought first and foremost to preserve the union, but if black americans were returned to a bondage-like estate it would have been for naught. he put the weight of his presidency, at least initially, a hind making sure everyone had the right to vote. people in the late 19th century and early 20th century, especially places like columbia, there was a historian known as

dunning, and it was referred to as the dunning school of history, celtic grand had erred in been black americans a fair role in reconstruction of the nation. so, they hated him. and they were pretty explicit about that in their work. so, instead they focused on the correction of the political system at the time, which was called the spoils system. they blamed him for it. they said he was a drunk, which there wasn't really evidence of that when he was president at all. and they really tarnished his reputation. for a long time that was the standard narrative, and to a -- until a new generation of historians started to revisit grant and say, actually these are good things we should be celebrating, not punishing him for. host: and we will take your calls for the next half hour. we will start with laurie, who is in hamburg, pennsylvania. morning. caller: good morning. i would like to get your guest's

opinion on how she thinks history will report this in high school history books or whatever they have at that time. how is history going to report on the trump presidency? i know when he was elected my daughter was living in taiwan, and we spend about four to five hours crying after that. and her friends were very fearful of him becoming president. i think he has stirred a lot of issues, from naming jerusalem as the capital officially, which no other president did, which i think set off hamas. i think putin was waiting for trump to be elected, and he would not have had to invade ukraine as he did. it would have been handed to him. host: let's get a response. guest: it is such a great question. i know this is sort of a dodge answer, but it sort of depends

on what happens next. the impact of trump's presidency has yet to be seen. if he wins again in 2024 that is going to be a very different narrative than if he loses and he is sort of repudiated by the american people. when i can say, based purely on numbers, if we look at the amount of turnover in the administration, that was unprecedented. it is not a judgment, that is just a number of people that cycled in and out of the administration. a lot of that did have to do with scandal. it is a question of which of the scandals is going to stick. i think his reputation and legacy will be intimately entwined with the pandemic, of course with january 6. i think there is no way for us to think about him without thinking about his role in provoking what was an attempt to overthrow the election. and that is really unprecedented in american history, and i have no doubt history books will refer to it as such. host: how long did it take for

you to be able to really establish what the legacy is? guest: i think there are a couple of answers to that. one is, it is a matter of when records are declassified. that depends on the kind of record. sometimes it takes decades for us to have the story of what is going behind the scenes -- going on behind the scenes. but it think it also depends a lot on who comes after a president. for example, when george w. bush left office, his ratings were lower than we had seen in modern history. but now in comparison, for a lot of people when they can pair -- when they compare george w. bush to trump, they think positively of george w. bush. host: let's talk to david in detroit, michigan. caller: morning. let me say this. the forest was shrinking, but the trees insisted on voting for the ax.

because his handle was wood, he was one of them. i wanted to get that out there, because i wanted all of the people who would refuse our modern-day situation, could maybe see something in that. now, the presidential historians committee, the c-span presidential committee, has placed donald trump in the last five. he is four wrongs -- rungs above james buchanan. how did he end up in the last five of the presidents? can you maybe share that with us, please? guest: sure. host: david, it is here, donald trump is number 41, followed by franklin pierce, andrew johnson,

and james buchanan. go ahead. guest: i can't speak for everyone else and how they cast their votes, although i do think the numbers, you can look at how they ranked on some of the certain issues. like i said, working with congress, how they managed the economy. one area where trump scored better was why he is perhaps about someone like buchanan is, he is a very effective communicator. at least for a portion of the american people. i do think he scored higher there in terms of handling a crisis, i think most historians gave him very poor ranks for his management of the pandemic. no, encouraging nonscientific solutions like injecting bleach. that was something they did not score him well on. he did not particularly work well with congress, despite the fact that the republican party did have control of both houses, at least early on in his presidency. his management of the economy, i think, initially got good scores, but it tanked during the

pandemic. i think people looked at the different elements of trump's presidency and rank it accordingly. i think in general people who study the institution, we tend to be fairly protective of democratic institutions. this is small d democratic institutions. we tend to score people low if they demonstrate a disregard or a contempt for wanting to continue those institutions. host: keith, denver, colorado. good morning. caller: yeah, i'm fascinated by the cognitive dissonance i hear so often on c-span each morning. hyperbolic comments like, trump is the best president in u.s. history. now, that is disturbing. it is definitely an insight into his base, because they really believe that.

online when i am in forums and thing like that, i say check the c-span survey of historians. and what we see -- first of all, republicans are giving up the idea of winning the popular vote. it is no longer important to them. as is democracy. no longer important to them. so, when you have given up the importance of alignment between the electoral college and popular vote, then you have a presidency that resonates historically. when you have this trend towards settling for just winning the electoral college, you are dismissing a majority of the people. that is why there presidents

keep ranking in the bottom of your historical poles by historians. and i just don't understand the cognitive dissonance. they can say, i love trump and i think history will judge him better. but they can't be taken seriously when they say he is the best president in u.s. history. he is not the best president in the past 50 years. host: what do you think, lindsay? guest: i would not put him at the top of the list. i think partisan politics aside it is hard to top someone like abraham lincoln or fdr. i would say george washington, who was instrumental in helping craft the republic and preserving its institutions and ensuring a did not become a monarchy. he does not often get the credit he deserves, because creating something, having restrained, and knowing when to walk away is less flashy than winning a war. that is some pretty stiff competition.

i think what we are seeing at our current moment, there are multiple, but one is a fracturing of the media ecosystem. so, people are operating under different fact patterns or are receiving different information. so, while you and i might be assessing trump based on either his legal record or his legislative record, war what he has said about foreign policy, a lot of times those things are not necessarily getting to voters. the second piece i think is really important is, we have become so partisan that our political identity is our tribe, and it is overriding any other form of information or any other form of logic. and so, it is really hard for people to accept any fault with someone if they are a member of their tribe. we do have to try and push back on that, because it will make it hard to have any consensus, and to work towards a more

centralized narrative where we can all agree on one set of facts, if we are in a place where we cannot accept anything bad about the people we support. host: you mentioned george washington. we should mention the history of president's day, and celebrating george washington's birthday. i understand celebrating his birthday goes back to when he was still alive. guest: yes, absolutely. people started celebrating george washington's birthday before the new federal government, the constitution, even existed. americans have always loved a celebration, and there were used to celebrating the king's birthday. but, of course, once the declaration of independence had been written that wasn't really something you could do. so, almost immediately the army swapped out the king's birthday celebrations with celebrations of washington's birthday, which i think is funny and quite amusing.

the celebrations continued throughout his presidency. they actually continued once he left office. much to the chagrin of john adams, who felt it was inappropriate to celebrate the life of an average citizen. that is what washington was once he left office. so, the celebration of washington's birthday continued as sort of a local, or state practice until 1879, it was made an official holiday. then in 1970 the federal government sort of made holidays a little bit more uniform and put them on mondays so people could have three-day weekends to help spur the economy and make it a little more centralized. at that point a lot of people in a lot of states were celebrating both washington and lincoln, and their birth days are quite close. so they decided to make it that third monday in february. at one point there was a discussion of making the name officially president's day, there was a lot of pushback about that, because not

everybody wanted to celebrate james buchanan or franklin pierce. so it technically remains washington's birthday on the books, but we do call it president's day more broadly. host: everett in grand junction, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i kind of wanted to know what your feelings were about truman. he was faced with probably the most heavy-weighted decision of any president so far, and may be way down the line from here. you know, he always said, the buck stops here, but he had a decision to make with the atomic bomb. you know, whether to end the second world war and save lives. and as most historians say, you know, by dropping that bomb it actually saved the invasion of japan.

if i may, could i suggest to mimi, maybe she could have a name in front of her on the screen for each one of the hosts. host: all right. what do you think about truman? guest: it is a great question. truman is one of those figures that has received more attention in the last couple of decades. the caller noted that incredibly difficult position truman found himself in. he was not vice president for very long. he was not close to fdr. he famously did not know the atomic bomb existed until most of week into his presidency, because he had not been read into that top-secret information. which is crazy imagining coming into the presidency and not knowing this thing exists, and then having to make a decision about it. i think it actually is a point against fdr's leadership, because he knew he was failing.

not as quickly as he did, but he knew he probably would not make it out of the presidency, and he did nothing to help truman prepare, jet think is an important note. in terms of truman's decision making, i cannot really question the choice to drop the first bomb, because i think there is no way to know, of course, how many lives it saved. it is an impossible position to put someone. i believe he was a good and decent man, and that decision weighed heavily on him, and he did not take it lightly. i have a little bit more hesitation with the second bomb, because there really wasn't enough time in between them to allow japan to change its policy. and it did not give them enough time to surrender, because the shock and of the first one. i think the second one we can be much more critical of. the first one, it is really hard to say what we would have done in that situation or what the counterfactual would be. host: you developed an audible

course on the history of the president's cabinet. what makes a cabinet good or bad? guest: it is a great question. there are a couple of important factors. first, it really depends on the president. the cap net, i think, is the best way to understand presidential leadership. because it is going to shine a light on all of the flaws and a bright light on all of their strengths as a leader. usually what you're doing is bringing together a group of, probably a little bit egotistical, very experienced, senior people in their fields. and they are used to getting their way. they are used to being listened to. how a president can manage those personalities is really important. i think there are a couple of factors generally that lead to a good presidency. so, first, the presidents that have been the best, the ones we have talked about, the washington's, the lincolns, the fdrs, they surround themselves with diverse opinions.

it is not diversity in terms of an hr checklist today, but people come from different education backgrounds. do they represent different walks of life in the american experience? can they help the president understand what it means to be an american in a new way and pushback on some ideas? of course, our concept of who should be included in that diversity has expanded over time. the best presidents understand that they need that diversity of viewpoints to be a good leader. the best presidents also want that input. they want cabinet members who are not yes-men, because that doesn't help them make a good choice -- make good choices. i think also the final piece is, it has to be clear the president is in control. and that is what made lincoln's cabinet so remarkable. because up until lincoln it had been standard practice to fill your cabinet with some of your political rivals. that was true for james monroe. that was true for james madison.

but what made lincoln amazing is that he was the least well-known and least experienced of all of his cabinet secretaries, and yet through humor and political skill he was able to control it, and it was very clear who was in charge. that was really essential for decision-making, that one person calls the shots. host: in sylvester, georgia. good morning. caller: president's day, i know celebrating these presidents. and you mention several of them. the question i have is, we rank them sometimes based on the actions they did, or in actions. what we probably should do is re-rank them based on, how much did they devote to following the constitution? particularly the modern presidents in either party, because the executive branch has assumed a lot more responsibility, taking away power from the other two branches. and this has caused some problems. i want her to comment on that,

because the ranking i have looked at, that you put out over the years, i don't think is a really good way to assess all of these presidents. because those who tend to be more activist tend to get higher scores. you can look at, how much did they follow the constitution compared to other residents? some of the ones you rank lower, they tended to follow the constitution, and that is why they are not so popular with some of these historians. i will let you go with that. guest: that is really interesting question, and it is a good point. i think what your question is getting at is, in a lot of ways the constitution doesn't really reflect our current moment and some of the needs and demands of the nation. and that is not, i think, necessary -- necessarily the constitution's fall. i don't think it is always the presidents fault, although sometimes it is. i think it is congress's fault, because they have abrogated a lot of their responsibility to the president. they have stopped passing

legislation as they used to. they are not taking an active role in participating in the governing of the nation, it also on pushing back on the president, to your point. one of the things i think is important to note, when you talked about activist presidents -- and certainly there are example of those -- examples of those, but our constitution is one of the shortest in the world, in terms of the number of words in it. that was by design. it was designed to leave a lot unsaid because that was the best way to get it ratified at the time. it in moments of crisis, like the civil war or world war ii, sometimes that silence is challenging, because there is a need to take action, and everybody understands there is a need to take action, that it is not always clear what the best way to go about doing that. in the case of lincoln, of course, he grappled with limiting habeas corpus, because it was -- he thought it was really important to crack down

on certain areas where he thought there would be resistance. what was important in that moment is that congress went back and said, this example is ok, this example is not. and they did participate in setting the limits of that authority, which is i think the piece we are missing today. host: emily is calling from new jersey. morning, emily. caller: good morning. i really appreciate learning from lindsay, and i wanted to bring it back for a second on washington and his cabinet. you are actually just speaking about truman and how he wasn't involved in the manhattan project for a while. it seems like washington in some ways started that precedent of keeping the vice president out of the cabinet until the early 1900s with coolidge and all, and became a more permanent thing to keep the vice president in your cabinet. of course, the 12 amendment, you would think that would change maybe sooner.

i would like some of your insight with, what history have changed if the vice president was more of an active member of the cabinet right from the beginning? guest: i love this question. you are right that washington did establish that precedent. he never invited john adams to a single cabinet meeting. he did not include items in the decision-making process. he really kept him at arms length. especially toward the end of his presidency. i think that was detrimental, because adams needed some of that information he didn't have. he did establish this precedent that the vice president was not going to participate, and i think that was further entrenched by the second vice president, which was thomas jefferson, who was, of course, john adams' rival in that election. so it was off word to have a president -- a vice president from the other political party.

another factor was how the vice president was selected. until quite recently vice president's were selected by the party and selected for elector reasons, in terms of who would bring in an important state or balance different geographical economic interests. for example, if the president was from the northeast, maybe you would have a vice president from the south or west. that doesn't necessarily guarantee a good working relationship, or that the president wants anything to do with vice president. so, we didn't actually see until the 20th century, fdr was the first president to have his vice president have an office of the vice presidency. and it was not really until walter mondale, who is jimmy carter's vice president, that the vice president actually played a role at all. we are talking about quite recent history. i think the expectation we have now that the vice president is going to be an equal or almost-equal opening --

governing partner was not an expectation until dick cheney. we are talking about a very recent trend in terms of what the vice president should be, and i think you are absolutely right that history would have 100% changed if that was not the case. because early on vice presidents did take a much more active role sitting in on senate deliberations. and if they were also taking an active role in the executive branch i think we would see some very interesting blurring between the two branches. host: joseph is calling from fayetteville, north carolina. caller: how are you all doing? i was wondering why woodrow wilson is not rated closer to the bottom of the presidents. because he was very stubborn, just like andrew johnson. i know andrew johnson never went to school or anything. woodrow wilson had a doctorate. they were both really way off as far as talking to congress or

policies. woodrow wilson always talked about keeping america out of war, yet he sent troops down to south and central america. he sent troops over to russia. he talked about making the world safe for democracy. i wonder how come he is not lower? guest: you are speaking to my heart, because i personally tend to rank woodrow wilson lower on the charts. i think the reason he tends ticket credit is for a couple of things. first, i think some historians give him credit for not putting the united states into world war i sooner. a recognition that the war was really not fought over anything. it was kind of a pointless conflict, and a lot of people at the time, i think, reflect that. the second piece i think they give him credit for is the idea behind the league of nations. he was instrumental in drafting that, in drafting the 14 points. do your point, he was quite

stubborn. when he came back to the united states he was not willing to compromise with congress. he was not willing to work with the legislative branch to get it passed in the united states, and instead tried to do a tour across the country to build a popular support. i think the ideas he stood for, at least in terms of foreign policy, or ones that we returned to with the united nations and the post-world war ii global community. and so, i think he does tend to get higher points for at least thinking them and articulating them, and starting that process. for me, personally, i would say, he didn't actually get any of them passed, so i'm not sure how much credit he deserves. but in terms of putting those ideas into beautiful prose, some historians give him credit for that. host: what do we know about the relationships among the presidents? for example, among the

predecessor and successor? guest: until recently it depended on who was in office and what relationship they had in terms of if they were from the same party or not. for example, thomas jefferson kind of hand selected james madison to be his successor, and they had been best friends for decades and continue to be. john adams and thomas jefferson were famously friends, then enemies, and became friends later in life once they had both retired. i would say for the most part that is an aberration and presidents, and say left office they sort of return to anonymity and went home and were not necessarily involved. that is partly because technology did not permit the quick communication we are familiar with today. recently, as presidents have been living longer and having longer post-presidential lives, we are seeing concept of the president's club. that is, i think, a recognition that the demand, challenges, and

stresses of the office are unfathomable for anyone who has not been in that position. so it is helpful to have a relationship with someone who does understand and who can lend an ear or advice when you are in a tricky situation. i think those relationships -- with a couple of exceptions -- have been important for modern presidents. host: casey in santa barbara, california. caller: good morning. i was a big fan of ronald reagan. i am 58, and during my high school years reagan was in office. this is my question to you. i always thought from 1980 to 1984 he did a great job running the country, and then like most politicians he got greedy and ran for a second term. do you think that if he had not hand-selected bush to take over after 1984 he would have gone down as an of the greatest presidents of all time? only because he did a really good job after he took over for

jimmy carter? that is my question. thank you, lindsay. guest: thank you for that question. i do think it is a really interesting point that most presidents do not have good second terms. it is really hard for them to have a good second term, because they have lost a lot of their political leverage. everyone knows they cannot run again, so it is harder to get things done. there is just less that they can get done. they tend to turn more to executive orders. so, you know, thinking about the role they tend to look more inward. i do think we have gotten away from the tradition of a one term president. a used to happen that presidents would only serve one term, and that is not the expectation now. i think george h.w. bush, his role in managing the end of the cold war in a way that lead to peace and did not facilitate

nuclear weapons is hugely underrated. whether that would have happened toward the end of reagan's first term or going forward, i cannot say, that i think you are right that reagan's second term complicated his legacy in a way that is hard to fully understand, because we cannot go back in a time machine. host: terry in arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. hold on. hello? host: go ahead, terry. caller: my questions are for you to think about maybe having new presidents as a native american indians president. and we are not really trying to change the past. the past is the past, the futures the future. and that is what we are looking at these days. i would like to thank you for your question and answering this morning.

and -- [indiscernible] host: i did not hear the very and there, but he was talking about having a -- very end they, but he was talking about having a native american president. guest: thank you for the question. there are a lot of firsts we have not seen in the white house. we have not seen a native american president. we have not seen a female president. we have not seen an asian-american president. i think it is long past due for those things. we are one of the few democracies in the world that has not had a female leader. i think some of that is, as humans we have a bias toward what we have seen. it makes us think that it -- that is the only thing possible. until we see something we don't necessarily believe it can happen. a lot of people did not think a black man could get elected president until barack obama

did. i'm certainly hopeful that in the future we will see presidents of native dissent. he will see female president. he will see all sorts of presidents. because i think what matters is not necessarily the caller of their skin or who they are, but their leadership. it is clear that leadership in those positions is important and leads to, i think, good changes for the nation in a way that we hopefully can all encourage. host: can you talk a little bit about the history of presidential affairs? you know, how that kind of -- what the reaction is among the public? it seems that, you know, it has happened since, you know, obviously for many years. but how the public reacts to that? guest: yeah, so i think this brings up an interesting questions about president's day. should we have president's day or should we celebrate specific acts of leadership and

greatness? because president's day sent -- tends to suggest that we celebrate the entire lives of these people, as though they are kings and queens -- and they are very much not. i think presidential affairs are an example of why celebrating the entire life doesn't make sense. a lot of the early presidents, we don't know what happened behind closed doors because if they did not write it down or they didn't tell someone and they wrote it down we don't necessarily have a record of it. however, i think it is safe to say what we know about humanity, that things were happening we don't go about. when we start to get an increased presence around the presidency, then the press really did have basically an agreement with the president not to talk about certain things. and i don't know if it was sort of like a boys club agreement -- because most journalists were men at the time -- or if it was

considered to be inappropriate to discuss publicly, but a lot of that information was kept out of the news. i think john after kennedy is the most well-known example of the press -- john f. kennedy is the most well-known example of the press covering what he did behind closed doors. in terms of our public reaction, for a long time it would have been considered a major dealbreaker, because we did tend to have christian values as a nation. at least, the values we expect our president to adhere to. which is not to say we are a religionist -- religious nation or have a standard religion, but people did have a moral code they expected politicians to adhere to. they were, therefore, outraged the news of that broke out. i think more recently we started to have fuzzier responses. i think the response to the clinton scandal tended to be fairly partisan. and i think that we are seeing the same thing now when there is news about some of former

president trump's misdeeds. that tends to be a partisan reaction as well. host: let's talk to jesse in chicago. caller: good morning. may i speak? host: yes, go right ahead. caller: yes, this lady on tp is a historian. whenever i see these people on tv talking about how great the presidents were, they tend to forget that for 500 years people of caller had no rights in the united states. and the united states, every president we had allowed slavery to take place. george washington had 400 or 500 slaves. and every president that was after him had slaves until 1968, when they gave us the right to vote. 1960 four and 1968 gave us civil rights. i might have it backwards. i was a young man in school and had debates about, why can't we go into certain restaurants? they gave us civil rights, yet

this historian, if i were a historian and did not write that they killed 55 billion indians to take over this country, the indians are still being sent to reservations to live. and they act that this is so wonderful? i love this country. i would not want to live anywhere else. but when these people claim they are going to write a book about history, i know they are writing it from a caucasian perspective and they don't say anything about segregated armies, segregated navy, and we were fighting in wars. in the revolutionary war we fought, and yet they couldn't go to a restaurant and get a piece of food if the guys said you were the wrong caller. host: all right. lindsay? guest: thank you for listening. i appreciate it. they were absolutely flawed individuals. i would never deny that washington owned, or enslaved other individuals. that is history we cannot deny

and should not deny. it is important to note that some of the presidents you mentioned did not enslaved people. for example, john adams and john quincy adams were pretty anti-slavery and never owned anyone. you are right that we do have to tell the full story. that is why i encourage people to think about, is president's day really the way we want to celebrate it, or do we want to celebrate the emancipation proclamation, which was a really important stepping stone our history? we want to celebrate the civil rights act? do we want to celebrate washington retiring or returning his commission, and therefore checking the impulse toward monarchy? i think those things are worth celebrating more than the entire lives of all of the presidents, because they were very flawed individuals. i think history books that have been written, especially in the last several decades, have reflected that complexity. we were talking about andrew jackson earlier and his real

collapse in public opinion. one of the reasons he has collapsed is because of his role of indian removal from the southeast, and the horrific death and violence that brought upon native peoples. similarly, he bought and sold individuals while he was in the white house. and that absolutely should be a part of history, and is a part of his story, if you are reading more recent history books. i think that full story is worth telling. i applaud the historians that are doing it. i think you will find, especially in recent publications, that more and more of them are. and that is a good thing we should celebrate and continue to share. host: lindsay chervinsky, presidential historian and author of the book "the cabinet." lindsay, thanks so much for joining us. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: in about 30 minutes it is our weekly spotlight on podcasted segment. we will talk to josh siegel.

he is the host of the podcast called politico energy, about the battles between president biden and house republicans about energy policy. but first it is open form. your chance to weigh in on any public policy issue on your mind this morning. you can start calling in now. the phone lines, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . stay with us. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 6:30 p.m. eastern, oregon democratic senator jeff merkley shares his book "filibustered," where he argues that talk -- bringing back the talking

filibuster will fix the stall in the senate. andrew curran talks about his book "who is black and why," which looks at how the concept of race emerged. he is interviewed by george mason university history professor kristi baker wrote. watch book tv every sunday, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch any time at booktv.org. ♪ >> sunday, on c-span's q&a, don scott, virginias newly-elected speaker of the house of delegates and the first -- the state's first black speaker in 150 years, talks about spending almost eight years in prison. >> i had never been in trouble before, i serve my country, and i was hoping i would get more grace.

he probably could have gave me even more time than he did. but i remember he and my mother, when he said 10 years, you know, she couldn't believe it. and that yelp of pain, it always stays with me. it always lets me know how fragile our freedom is and how perilous it is. and if you make one wrong move sometimes, it can be literally the end of your life as you know it. >> virginias democratic house speaker, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. and citizens are truly informed, our 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. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back. it is "washington journal," so we are taking your calls about any public policy or politics issue this morning. before we get to your calls i want to show you this, from the ap. it says an fbi informant charged with lying about joe and hunter biden's ties to ukrainian energy company. the article says this. karen fbi informant has been charged with fabricating a multimillion dollar bribery scheme involving president joe biden, his son, and a ukrainian energy company, a claim central to the republican impeachment inquiry in congress.

alexander smirnoff falsely reported to the fbi that executives associated with ukrainian energy company burisma paid hunter and joe biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016. smirnov told his handlers that an executive claimed to have hired biden "to protect us through his dad from all cancer problems." smirnoff had only routine business dealings with the company in 2017 and made the bribery allegations after he "expressed bias against joe biden while he was a presidential candidate." the president was at a news conference and asked about that yesterday. here is a very brief response. >> an fbi informant has been indicted for allegedly lying. your reaction to that, and assured the inquiry be dropped? pres. biden: he is lying, and it should be dropped.

it has been an outrageous effort from the beginning. host: he will go to your calls now. maryland, isaac on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i was trying to put in my contribution in relation to the black history month. host: sure. caller: president's day, this is a time for americans to have a sober reflection about leadership. i'm speaking this way in respect of donald trump. he is an appropriate for that role of president, because he has been openly anti-black. he opposed the first african-american president. he opposed the first african-american vice president. he opposed the first african-american supreme court justice. and he has been openly touting that immigrants are poisoning americans.

he is a divisive person and it is a shame republicans are bowing down to him. and lending them their orange jesus. america should wake up. thank you. host: john, pennsylvania, democrat. morning. caller: good morning. so, the thing that bothers me the most right now is coming you know, i was watching when navalny got murdered by prudent, -- type putin. i turned over to fox news and they were talking about chinese immigrants. i was thinking, you know, trump just praised putin, how great he was, and then putin kills one of his political rivals. the thing that bothers me the most is, a lot of people in this

country are supporting trump and one him to be reelected. and it is the biggest issue for me, you know? i see the similarities between hepler and trump -- hitler and trump. it's like, who was pulling the wool over the eyes of these republicans, that they seem to think this guy says he is going to be a dictator from day one is somebody they want to run the country? and then when they get a border wall law passed in the senate and it goes to the house and they refused to put it on the floor because it is probably daf t, and then next week the republicans go, well, you know, this a bill does not have a word about the border in it. do they really think that the people are that stupid and cannot remember from week to week? -- week to week what they are

doing and what is happening here? it is appalling to me. host: john, about ukraine eight, this is politico that says the balding's death sparks calls for accountability. more ukraine eight on capitol hill. it says alexei navalny died in prison on friday at the age of 47. and, james, in kittanning pennsylvania. -- kittanning, pennsylvania. caller: yes, i'm calling -- i've lost my drivers license, and it is important for people to realize that in this country when you lose your license because of your age or whatever too soon, it can ruin your life. host: how old are you, james? caller: 67.

and there is nothing i can really do about it, because the way the system is set up, and you really can't appeal because they don't consider it a right like in the constitution. it should be, because of the devastation it causes. i live in what you would call rural america. host: so, explain, james, how you lost your license. on what basis? caller: i lost my license because i had sleep apnea, supposedly. but i had it under control. when i was going to fall asleep i would pull off the road. and i would handle it that way. and i know that millions of americans do the same thing.

but these doctors cannot be appealed. host: and how are you getting around now? caller: not really. i can even vote -- it has been several years. i can even walk to the polls. when you lose your drivers license, you have to sell your property, lose your home or whatever. host: let's speak to joseph in florida. caller: i voted for trump. the previous gentlemen has to

realize in 2017. he armed them with missiles and stopped putin from invading ukraine. he stopped the separation of families. in the obama era, when they were beheading people. trump stop that. embassy bombings? he stopped that, trump told the world health organization china was getting preferential treatment. we have been made fools of, the

same with nato. they thanked trump for making nato stronger. gas was $1.87 and when biden came and it was five dollars, four dollars. and the news media will not give credit to trump for anything. how much did it cost us to go back into afghanistan and rescue those people that biden abandon. if that was trump he would have been hung. these democrats, they refused to acknowledge anything he has done. host: marshall in tennessee.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i ask you to give me a little bit of time here. i want to speak mostly to democratic callers. i don't hate you and i'm not going to call you a bunch of names but i feel what we are facing an america today. it has to do with democracy. i am not a democrat and i will not stand with the democratic party. i will stand with any democrat voter and that is why i am speaking today. when we talk about democracy

being challenged or in danger. we need to look at which party is not putting the person on the ballot. we will not let people make their choice. they have done that with democratic voters. they did it in 2016 with a hillary clinton. the choice for democratic voters it was bernie sanders and they said no, you don't get your choice and they did it again in 2020 with bernie sanders and they shut down all primaries, and i don't really believe in coincidence. when you have a communist

ideology trying to take over america, covid is nothing. host: let's take a look at a portion from the munich summit. this is kamala harris and zelenskyy who held a joint news conference at that security conference and they were asked what would be the alternative if congress does not approve additional aid? [video clip] >> we are counting on this positive decision. for us, this package is vital. we are not looking at alternatives because we are counting on the united states as a strategic partner. if were speaking about alternatives that would not be our strategic partner.

and we do not look into alternative partners. >> there is only planned aid to ensure that ukraine receive what it needs. i will emphasize that an indication of where we can and must be is that there is bipartisan support in both of our houses on the senate and house of representatives and it is my full belief that if the package were to make it to the floor it would actually pass. i also believe that there is consensus across party lines in the united states congress that recognizes the brutal nature of moscow's aggression and there

must be a response that includes standing by our friends. host: we are back to open for them. i wanted to update you because we are talking about russia. this is cnn.com about the nuclear space weapon. russia is trying to develop a nuclear space weapon that would destroy satellites by creating energy waves potentially crippling government and commercial satellites that the world depends on. the weapon is still under development and not yet in orbit. but if used, officials say it would cause a dangerous rubicon and cause extreme disruptions in

ways that are difficult to predict. julius in chicago, a democrat. caller: hello? how are you doing? i one to list some of the dangerous things trump has said. he said climate change is a hoax , covid is a hoax. he became a doctor and told you to inject household cleaner. he was a draft dodger and he said he is a stable genius. nobody but a fool says that. that's enough for one day. host: let's hear from sam in california. caller: hello mimi thank you for having me. a presidential historian had trump at 41, the only thing bad

she said about him was covid and that wasn't his fault. wuhan, they let it out and he did a lot to help this country. syria was acting out, obama did not do nothing. he launched 59 missiles and they cap quiet. -- kept quiet. the democrats could not handle it. host: you mentioned the presidential historian survey. where would you put him? caller: number 12 or 13.

because of oil independence and he made this country a lot richer and all of these great things he was doing for this country. and every time he would get on the helicopter they would chat with the press, without a teleprompter and he was very good to the press. i would like to talk about one other thing. i want to think you people for taking my phone call. host: we will talk to darrell from idaho on the independent line. caller: being an independent is so nice because i don't have to be obligated to one party or another because there seems like there is a war going on. putin when you get into prison you take a chance of dying.

how many people have died in our prisons. these numbers are never brought to our attention. i remember buying a four bedroom home in costa mesa in 1969 for $28,000. i bought a home in 1977 for 65,000 and now every home in california are million-dollar homes. the scripture says, we have people not worried about

anything. one hydrogen bomb, there goes your city. no one is afraid of the stuff because we are american. no foolishness ever comes to us and we have never had the ability to say we are wrong. never did anybody say they were wrong because they would be kicked out of office. host: sylvia in virginia on the independent line. caller: i want to give my sympathies to the navalny family. if we pander to putin we will have to keep our heads down low. a lot of the military goes back and forth and sometimes i feel

like i want to keep my head though because we have really pandered to putin and we need to not give him 1 ounce of thinking we like him at all. host: mark is in westwood, new jersey. caller: it's interesting listening to all of the people call in and create new history about trump. my investments are doing a lot better with biden. i call because climate change is the number one problem facing the human race. trump is a climate change denier. it is science people. we need to do something, biden

has had new legislation and all he gets his grief from the republicans who want to drill baby drill. i got solar panels and it produces all my electricity and a 14,000 tax rebate. who is benefiting? everybody. i have free electricity and the planet has less fossil fuels being burned. there is a future out there and it is not fossil fuels. host: we will be talking about energy on spotlight podcasts so say tuned for that. richard. caller: oh hi. i just called because i will be 75 tomorrow. i remember ask not what you can

do for your country but what your country can do for you. there is black on black crime all over the place. we need to get over that. we can't keep drilling of thought dirge. host: do you feel people aren't doing anything for the country anymore? caller: i think they are. but we need the country, nobody wants to help. i'm just another local joe. i am 75 years into this country and i love the united states. i've love what it is done for a

lot of people. host: jean in virginia on the independent line. caller: i would like to say that trump or his family has any allegiance to the country. no one has served in the military which is why he doesn't have an allegiance to the military. i want to say, whenever trump is mentioned people continue to say, obama. they associate obama with trump. my concern is that he has taken us finances and inflated his finances to be better than they

were. he has taken records and shared them with putin. putin and trump, trump don't worry i've got the gop. once i get into the office we will take care of you. he is indebted to putin and that is why if you are in a republican state. stay on your constituents, they are not to vote their entrance they are to work with our president and our congress. host: that's a last word and open for them but after the break we will talk about energy policy. we will talk to josh siegel, the host of politicos energy

podcast. ♪ >> next week on the c-span network. the house and senate are adjourned for presidents' day will return later this month. beginning thursday live coverage of cpac, conservative leaders speaking at the event including donald trump. live coverage of the governors association winter meeting. on saturday, live coverage of principles first. pro-democracy anti-trump conservatives including bill kristol, cassidy hutchinson and rnc chairwoman michael steel. live coverage of the south

carolina primary. watch live on c-span or on our free mobile app. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and interviewers on the afterwards podcast and here wide-ranging conversation with authors making things happen. about books takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction publishing industry. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app and on our website

c-span.org/web. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this looks like this. get informed straight from the source on c-span unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal," continues. host: welcome back, it is our spotlight on podcaster we are joined by josh siegel and energy and climate reporter for politico and hosts the podcast called 'politico energy'.

new york times says biden administration pauses approval of new gas terminals in the government would analyze the impact before approving new projects. can you explain what this pause is and why they are doing it? guest: this pause is a pause. it is become the largest exporter of marginal gas due to the fracking boom and the last couple of years, since russia's invasion of ukraine we have picked up the pace in europe has depended on our gas and

transition from russian energy. essentially, to approve exports the energy department has a role in that. they are supposed to see if a project is in the public interest and since 2012 when this process started they have never rejected a project. there is now more scrutiny over natural gas because it emits methane which is a powerful pollutant. the administration is saying we need to figure out we have all of these projects up and running so let's see, we have never had

the government investigate the impact on climate change of these projects. how does that affect our prices? let's take a look at this and slow down. we haven't really looked at this is a government. host: can you explain the impact of methane on climate change. it is not a also fuel but it is sought a bigger impact. guest: methane is a pollutant and it is the main component of natural gas. we think of carbon we think of coal but this is a natural gas problem. it is more powerful immediately but over time, it doesn't linger

in the atmosphere the same way that carbon does. there has been a real focus by the united states, europe and china to crack down on methane because it's something the industry can do easily. the industry can basically control that. there has been this enhanced focus but it's unclear how much it's reflecting climate change. methane is uncertain on what it means for climate change so this review as part of figuring that out. host: the u.s. on the began shipping natural gas eight years ago and has already become the world's leader in exports.

how does that happen? guest: it is the fracking boom that has made us the biggest producer of oil and gas. we built these terminals to import gas which is where we thought our economy was going to lead. we have more than we need domestically and it has become a very strong economic asset for the u.s.. and a national security asset. host: what kind of an impact if the u.s. were to pull back from lng exports, what impact will that have on our allies who are dependent on natural gas and where would they go to get it?

guest: the administration is saying there isn't going to be an impact in the short ora media term. there is close to 10 projects that have permanence in the construction phase that are not affected by this review in those projects would double our export capacities. the administration is saying there is not an impact but the industry will say, the way these markets work as you need a long-term signal to countries, as they transition from coal where will they get their supplies? what other big suppliers like qatar or australia benefit over

time? for all we know, the administration could say lng is good for climate change. there is a lot of uncertainty around that but the administration is claiming that they felt comfortable with what we have in the queue. host: if you would like to ask questions or make a comment you can call us the lines are by party for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002 you can text us or send us of posting on x or facebook. the hill.com is reporting the house plans to block the

pause on the pipeline. guest: i covered that on thursday. republicans control the house by a narrow margin and this was a way for them to send a message after this announcement was made that we know support this. nine democrats voted for this bill. there are some democrats that represent natural gas states like pennsylvania, ohio. it has become a dominant source in the swing state so they wanted to put those members in a difficult position. this bill will not be taken up by the democratic controlled senate and the white house has

announced it is supposed to the bill but it would take the energy department out of the review process. you are essentially blocking the policy by not allowing any reviews at all. it is really a messaging bill but again, the fact that a pig nine democrats the republicans will say it's bipartisan politics. they had significant pressure from environmental groups and activists like bill mckinnon. the administration felt they had to shore up their environmental base and young voters.

host: senator john kennedy of louisiana has estate impacted by this permit because any plans to block every state department or energy department nominee until the president drops this battle against american energy. guest: i think he will continue to see things like that with must pass legislation like appropriation bills. you will see efforts to message around this and try to repeal but in the sin that you would

have to work around the filibuster. you would need a dozen democrats to vote for that which is unlikely. clearly, there is an impact here politically. i am not sure how many are in the state department. that shows the level of frustration from republicans on this. host: thomas is up first from schaumburg, illinois. caller: good morning. i am wondering what the guest has to say about the research that discovered co2 is made up of three different isotopes of carbon and only one of them is

anthropologically which indicates that anthropologically co2 in the atmosphere is not large enough to indicate the anthropologically co2 is significant enough to cause temperature rise? host: a scientific question for you there. guest: i'm not sure if i read that research but i do know the science is definitive whether it is the u.n. or our own government has reporting around carbon is the largest contributor to climate change. even republicans in congress are on board with that. i don't have much to add on that one. host: let speak to richard from

california, a democrat. caller: is this mimi? i really enjoy when you host the show. basically, we need to trust our leadership. we need to go ahead with the elegy as we have been. it is a pollutant that people are a pollutant too. we've got a lot of people. you need to quit the adversarial stuff and trust the leadership because we are a lot better off with the elegy going to allies then putin's elegy. if we lose our allies and they start getting their stuff from food this world is going to tank big time. i don't think you can trust that boy.

we need to continue our lng projects and all the alternatives. trust your leadership and get adversarial. host: the question with the price of natural gas and the impact it could have on russian x words. -- exports. guest: russia is still exporting energy to countries like china but europe has really cut back significantly. the administration is saying this is not going to have an impact on our allies for now. we just don't know what is going to come from this review. countries will not be scrambling away from the u.s. tomorrow. these projects take a lot of time to build and get financing

for. it's not so much an issue with europe but our asian allies who are going to become the biggest customers of elegy. -- lng. caller: good morning. i think climate change is a big hoax. we have always had these weather extremes. i think the biggest pollution is coming from the democrats, they are full of it. host: how in oklahoma. caller: good morning. i think it's important to take the long view on all of our energy resources.

we remember president carter said we would be out of natural gas in 14 years and he said that in 1976 i'm a great admirer but he happened to be wrong in that case. i was in the legislature for 30 years here. bottom line moving forward to the biden administration. the imbalance of what is being offered in light of the massively exported lng is reflective of the enormous resources in this country. i think the pause is logical. we should know more about alternative sources.

you can't just shut down the oil fields and those kinds of things. it would be helpful if we could speak with each other and not just represent our little niche of this world. senator kennedy will only think about the borders of louisiana. host: go ahead josh. guest: thank you for that. as you said from a remote perspective we have this great resource at her feet and there are still plenty of projects going and give us more time for

wind and solar to pick up the natural gas will be the dominant fuel in this country and nothing about this possible effect out. host: we go to the republican line in san antonio, texas. caller: my question is along the lines, he proposed the question if we pull out of selling this resource to the world what other suppliers are going to take over and dominate. i'm sure people in the middle east will give into this market or is the democratic caller said, putin will do it.

it doesn't make any sense to do it if there are people wanting this product from us. how does that benefit america to pull away from this market? guest: we are not pulling away right now. there are eight projects that have all of their permits these projects are going online regardless. to say we are pulling back isn't quite accurate. this policy is very nuanced so it is difficult to communicate that and i think the administration is struggling with that. republicans are direct and they are saying this is a bad and this is terrible for national security but it is not immediate

and we don't really know what the policy is. it could lead to continued expert we just don't know what the analysis will show. but while that is going we will still be exporting. no one is backing away from anything. host: this is a pause on new permit so anything that is already under construction will continue to operate. host: missy and iowa. caller: i have a question for josh about how they measure climate. as far as our options controlling for oil as soon as

bided kaman that is been getting less and less. . i would like you to explain to the american people when you measure temperature why don't you put those probes in the dirt where they belong instead of putting them on the concrete inside of big cities. when you are in a big city it is hotter and it is cooler in the country. why do you put the probes and big cities? guest: i did want to address what you said at the offset we are getting less and less oil and gas since biden was president which is not true. we are set to hit a record for

gas production. this is something they have not talked about publicly but that shows the private sector really drives what happens. the federal government has control over federal lands but prices spiked after covid and oil and gas drillers benefited from that. we are at record levels and it's only gonna go up higher according to projections. host: let's go to maryland next. caller: do you know what the forward f-150 lightning is. joe bided touted it as the future. they are reducing production because people don't want it.

it's not good and cold weather and loses his battery by. i don't like the government thinking for me. i would prefer a hybrid. all electric is good for shopping but i want the option. guest: that is a great point. the electric vehicle sector is facing significant challenges a lot of american companies thought ev's were said to take off but you have seen ford and gm cut back on production. there are still a lot of questions around the sticker price and questions around

charging infrastructure. is a transition that will take time but these automakers have admitted they thought this transaction would take place more quickly than it did. they have regulations they are trying to finalize and make cars more efficient and make automakers turned to ev's. there are some significant challenges around growing dvds but is from a small start. it will take time. host: gary in ohio on the republican line. caller: i was wondering, i live along the ohio river but they

are experimenting with hydrogen fuel and i was wondering if you could talk about that? guest: the administration and republicans, there is bipartisan agreement around hydrogen and bolstering that is a few that can help in fossil fuel plants but also to help with other sectors like manufacturing. these long-haul cargoes. hydrogen allows these other sectors to transition that are difficult to remove pollution from. the government is putting on hydrogen along with carbon capture.

we don't have a lot of it right now but clearly as we hear that phrase all of the above from democrats and republicans they hope along with wind and solar these technologies that are pretty new they are hoping they will spread. caller: good morning to our guest into our host. i just want to make three points. one we are nearing the tipping point which is expected to be irreversible by 2036. it is important to note that solar energy is only 3% of the

solution. solar as well as electric cars is only 3% it takes dirty energy to produce electric batteries. the other point i wanted to make this when it comes to funding them across and republicans -- we have been working with the nation scientist for years and we have called washington because we have technology that can reverse the effects but no one is interested in that technology because they are busy funding projects that have at least 3% on the total problem. host: what technology are you talking about? guest: we have a hydrogen plant

that we are in the process of trying to get funding for. and have achieved that through private funding but the government is too busy funding itself. everyone is trying to get points whether it's the auto industry making electric vehicles. we are 6-7 years out from a problem that will become irreversible. host: what do you think about the government funding experimental solutions to alternative energy or things like carbon capture or being able to reverse the effects of climate change? guest: i'm not aware of any technology that can reverse

climate change but the administration and congress is really throwing funding at all sorts of technology it will not just be wind and solar. the problem is so significant. i think the administration and congress are focused on all solutions because it is such a significant problem i'm not sure which tipping point you're referring to but 2050 is what the world is looking at. and we are not said to do that by any stretch. governments are looking at all

sorts of options to help get us there. host: arkansas on the independent line. hello richard. caller: hello c-span i haven't called in a while but here i am. has anyone considered what is happening around the world with volcanoes, earthquakes. they are spewing gases into the atmosphere but no one seems to care about that. it is just man doing this. there is such a thing called procession, a 26,000 wobble of the earth. the police become more active as certain gravitational pulls as the earth wobbles. as the plates become active you will have all sorts of climate change. we are going to need every bit

of energy we can get. fossil, solar, wind to get through this. guest: not sure about the volcano problem but as you said it will take everything in most governments are assuming that as well which is why they're trying to help fund some of these technologies you mentioned. host: the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments in ohio versus epa. what is that about? guest: this case is seeking to block overruling the epa put out called the good neighbor rule that aims to combat smog that crosses state lines some red

states has asked the supreme court to block this rule in the lower courts refuse to block this and it's unusual for the supreme court to take this up because this good neighbor plan has been posited half of the states you to other lawsuits so it's unusual in the stay like that for the supreme court to hear arguments in the case but is one of these rules were there trying to argue with the administration this is not climate change issue, this is a pollution issue. it affects breathing, asthma and it is something the administration wants to put forward to see it taken care of better than we have.

we will see how the arguments go but it is unusual to see the court take up something like this. host: let's go to appleton, wisconsin. caller: when you pull back on natural gas permitting you are pulling back on natural gas production. i was a petroleum engineer so i just wanted to make the point. guest: that's true, but exports aren't stopping so there will be no effect on's stopping. host: are you still there? does that answer your question? caller: it does assess what i said is true.

host: john and south dakota. caller: thank you for taking my call. there is a real problem, people are being misled. al and she is basically -- lng methane is more powerful than carbon. the arctic's office releasing methane as it melts. it is starting to get exponential which is something we cannot control. that is one of those tipping points that can lead to human extinction. we need to address this now and even 2036 is too late. thus why we need to work on research and development on

batteries. if you go on the electric viking you will learn more about transportation. there is an 11 minute video called the last hours and thom hartmann has a program on 11:00. tom hartman.com or on progressive voices.com. host: jd in oklahoma city. caller: i was wondering if we could do anything about earthquakes that we are having in oklahoma? the injection wells and fracking have drastically up the number of earthquakes.

you see cracks in your break and sheet rock in your houses and nobody seems to know what to do with wastewater after oil companies are drilling. guest: that is one of the concerns around fracking that environmental activists are really worried about. overall, it's undisputed that natural gas has been a net positive because it helps replace coal but there is a lot we don't know about it. the earthquake issue. it's not just about climate change there are local communities where these projects are happening from not only just the fracking.

there is a media pollution from being near that activity. is not only a climate change issues there are other more immediate mpox or local impacts and you mention one of them. host: frank in caldwell, idaho. caller: climate change is a hoax. they don't know anything about china or india. this guy from politico just knows that is the propaganda arm of the dnc. caller: yes ma'am. i have a question. the earth has been destroyed

five times. host: larry, are you still there? john in auburn, california. caller: i am john from california. i found myself a used hybrid. those are hard to find i do appreciate the hybrid specifically i like the regenerative braking and it recharges the battery. guest: you are seeing automakers

who are dismissive of hybrids are starting to be more open to hybrids they are outpacing electric vehicles. they're saying this transition will take more time but we will see other automakers put out more hybrids because of those concerns around charging. i think automakers want to make sure the option is available for people. host: could you tell us about the podcast and talk about what you really focus on? guest: thank you for asking. this is the podcast i host that comes out every weekday morning on spotify our focus

historically i will have a colleague on talking about the biggest story of the day taking you behind the story and bringing you details in our notebook and telling you what you need to know. our energy reporters are focused on their beats and i have learned a lot by talking to my colleagues but really trying to expand the podcast because we are finding there is a big audience who likes getting their news this way. we are very short and we try to bring out more outside guests, politicians.

politicians like eric fido was talking about the focus on building more clean energy projects in the concerns that the trump administration could pull that back. i had congressman jeff duncan from south carolina who was a key leader on the energy committee and we talked about the lng pause. we have another one with kelly armstrong who is running for government and he is a big energy leader in congress. weird trying to do a mix of colleagues but we want to bring in outside guests who can make news and tell us what is going on in the government and have a good back and forth.

it is rapidfire questioning and a lot of fun and i think people would enjoy listening to that and hopefully we will have an outside guest once a week. host: the podcast is called politico energy the host and climate reporter is josh siegel. thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for today's show. thank you for tuning in and we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and in the meantime, have a great saturday. ♪