along with these other television providers, giving you a ont row seat to democracy. coming up on "washington journal," we will take your calls and comments live, then the wall street journal's ryan barber will talk about yesterday's house oversight hearing with the secret service in the wake of the assassination attempt against former president donald trump, and political historian and george washington university professor matthew dallek discusses campaign 2024 and president biden's decision to withdrawal from the presidential race. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it is "washington journal" for july 23. the houses in at 9:00 today, so i two-hour program.

vice president harris has set the stage to become the presidential nominee. yesterday on capitol hill, the secret service director faced tough questions from both sides of the aisle over the handling of the assassination attempt of former president trump. republicans and democrats have called for her resignation. you can comment on both events on the following lines this morning, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city, and state. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. you can also post on x at @cspanwj.

the associated press' breakdown of the delegate counts as they stand from yesterday, updated early this morning, saying the vice president has secured enough support of enough democratic delegates to become her party's nominee against republican donald trump. top democrats rally to her in the aftermath of president joe biden's decision to drop his bid for reelection. several state delegations met late monday to confirm her nomination, including texas and california. she has well more than the amount of delegates she needs to win the nomination. no other candidate was named by a delicate -- a delegate contacted by the associated press. and this says delegates to the democratic convention could begin voting on the parties presidential and vice presidential nominees as early as next week.

the proposal is scheduled to be taken up on wednesday by members of the d&c conviction -- convention rules committee. if implemented, could result in kamala harris selecting her running made by the middle of next week. harris has already effectively cleared the field of would be challengers. she has gotten a cascade of endorsements, nancy pelosi to every democratic governor and the country, many with their own national ambition. also yesterday, and this is on c-span and on the app, the vice president vicinity the harris for present -- visiting the harris firm president offices in delaware. [video clip] vp harris: it is my intention to go out and earn this nomination and to win. [cheers and applause]

so in the days and weeks ahead, i, together with you, will do everything in my power to unite our democratic party, you our nation, and win this election. before i was elected as vice president or u.s. senator, i was the elected attorney general of california. before that, i was a former prosecutor. i took on perpetrators of all kinds. [laughter] [crowd cheers] predators who abused women. fraudsters who ripped off consumers. cheaters who broke the rules of their own game.

so hear me when i say, i know donald trump's type. [cheers and applause] and in this campaign, i will proudly -- i will proudly put my record against his. host: again, you can find that full speech on c-span.org and on c-span now. the vice president talking yesterday, and she will head to milwaukee today for her first formal presidential event. front page of the washington times, the other big story in washington, d.c., head of the secret service, kimberly cheadle, before the house oversight committee prepared to answer questions about the assassination attempt against former president trump. the washington times highlighted

it, sang the director refused to answer a majority of questions monday, is facing overwhelming bipartisan calls for her resignation. she repeatedly refused to relinquish her post despite mounting pressure during nearly the five-hour hearing. lawmakers, after she dodged questions and declined to provide basic details about the security provisions for the rally in butler, pennsylvania -- this full hearing on our website and our app. one of the people questioning kimberly cheadle yesterday was republican congressman nancy mace, and a warning, this contains plenty of expletives. here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> is the secret service fully cooperating with our committee? >> yes. >> ok, you say you are fully

cooperating with this committee. on july 15, this committee sit you a list of demands of information we wanted. has the secret service provided this committee a complete list of all law enforcement personnel that were there that they? have you done that, provided that list? >> i will have to get back to you on that. >> that is a no. have you provided all audio and video recordings to this committee? >> i would have to get back to you on that. >> that is a no. you are full of shit today, being completely dishonest. >> mr. chairman -- we have to maintain decorum in this committee. >> have you provided any and all memos we have asked? >> i would have to get back to you on that. >> that is a no. you are being dishonest or lying, being dishonest of this committee. these are important questions the american people want answers to come and you are dodging and

talking around it in generalities. have a subpoena to be here, and you will not even answer the questions. we have asked you repeatedly to answer our questions, this is in hard. host: that took place yesterday. you can comment on either events, the vice president securing enough delegates to become the nominee for the democratic party or the hearing featuring kimberly cheadle. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will start with mike in virginia, democrats line. good morning. you are on. caller: good morning. i am excited about the nomination of kamala harris, and i look forward to her vp. i would be satisfied with whatever she decides she wants to bring on board to the ticket. i am a father of four daughters,

and this is a very pivotal moment for me watching this young lady move forward towards the presidency. i think that she is very formidable as it relates to going against donald trump. she will use her prosecutorial skills to really put him in his "place." so that is something i am very very excited about. i am looking forward to 2025, the presidency, just like i was looking forward to the presidency of biden and harris. very excited. thank you. host: lee in oklahoma city, independent line. caller: let me turn my volume down right quick, pedro. how you doing, dude? hey, don't cut me off, guy.

last time i called, old mimi looked like she saw a ghost and hung up on me, man. i am just trying to tell my story. host: you're on with us now, so, don't either the vice president are the secret service hearing. go ahead. caller: do you know anything about the game of chess, pedro? host: sound like a rhetorical question, why don't you answer it? caller: there is the queen, and even god almighty himself would not face bobby fischer without resigning if bobby fischer had two queens on the board. with that information, i would like to go ahead and nominate my friend hillary rodham clinton to meet my friend kamala harris as vice president. two queens on the chessboard, i believe our residents will submit because they do not want to be checkmated, not to mention the fact that iran will be

pretty, and we will have a chinese democracy. by god, they can cancel elections, do whatever they want. host: david in massachusetts, independent line. you are next up. caller: good morning. i find it very odd that ms. harris is running on two premises, first, reproductive rights of women, and second of all, to be the first black female president. first of all, we should not vote, in my estimation, of sex or color or race. second of all, reproductive rights, we all have the right to reproduce.we do not have the right to kill what we reproduce. she should know as a person of color that planned parenthood was started to destroy black people. yet, she is pushing that agenda.

it is very, very sad for our country. host: again, the washington post and other papers this morning taking a look at where the vice president stands on key issues, one of the first ones from the analysis this morning is abortion, saying it is one of the democrats' strongest issues. president biden, and 81-year-old catholic man, has been somewhat of an awkward messenger on it. by contrast, the vice president has shined by forcefully and unapologetically championing abortion rights as reproductive rights and framing republican attempts to limit abortion as an attack on americans' freedoms. looking at her efforts on the border, this says it was early in president biden's presidency that he tried to address the root problems of migration at the border by focusing on countries in central and south america. do not come, you will be turned

back, harris told migrants at the u.s.-mexico border in june 2021. it is not clear what she accomplished. she came under criticism for not visiting the border sooner. crossings until recently have been at record highs under biden . but under her view, it was about the underlying causes, not what to do was people arrived to the united states. she makes efforts to become president of the united states. let's hear from rob next, republican line, maryland -- let's hear from robin. caller: i am a first time caller, 73 years old. i am a registered democrat. but during the obama -- host: wait a minute, are you a republican or democrat currently? caller: i am totally republican,

although i have been a registered democrat, but i changed the way that i vote starting with obama. and i am totally conservative republican now. and the reason i am calling is to remind everyone that the only reason kamala is running for president right now is because everyone in the biden administration has been lying about biden's mental acuity. starting three years ago, republicans knew that biden did not have the mental acuity to run the country. but kamala has told us he is sharp as a tack. kamala said it was disgusting that people would say these kinds of things. the liberal media is all said that biden was absolutely sharp as a tack. kjp says biden runs circles around everybody.

yet, he just had to get out of the race because of his mental acuity, and people still believe the people that surround him. thank you very much for host:, kentucky next, this is steven, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am very ecstatic that we have somebody that is not a biden, clinton, bush, trump, finally somebody new, a fresh face, a woman, a woman of color. if you don't vote for her, you are either sexist or racist. you have no good reason. she is pretty much doing the job behind biden. she has been in politics for years, has a great demeanor, is calm. this is the difference that this country needs. asking for a revival, this is perfect for us. host: would you want to see her keep on going with the current president's policies or do you

think she will come up with things on her own? caller: oh, she will definitely come up with things on her own. she has her own plan, her own agenda. it will make this country better than it ever was before. right now, you have a 70-year-old man versus a young -- younger woman, way more with it. she has the beat of the nation, the beat of the young. she can also help the elderly. it is just a great combination right now, and i am so happy that they did it. the gop, they are running away, they are scared, not sure what to do, how to handle it. honestly, everybody that doesn't like trump vote for kamala. everybody against the gop in the project 2025, they are going to vote -- it is wonderful. i am very happy. like i said, if you don't fold for her, you are either sexist or racist. host: independent line, go ahead, florida. caller: i find it very

interesting, i am a woman and will not vote for her. i think she is dumber than a bag of hammers. i think it is appalling with the democratic party is doing. they are serving the will of the people. no one voted in the primaries for kamala, they voted for biden . so this is, again, the democrats cheating -- all right, they always have these schemes on how they are going to cheat to try and stay in power. it is we, the people, not we, the party. as far as being racist or sexist if you do not vote for her because she is half black and is a woman, that is the most ignorant thing i have ever heard . we do not vote for people because of the color of their skin or their gender. we vote for people based on their capability, and she has no capability. she has done absolutely nothing as vp, she is dumber than a bag of hammers. do i need to remind you about the community bank where the people in the community work for the banks.

the people in the community. anything she says is just idiotic rose. it is -- is idioticracy. it is appalling, and i'm so disgusted. host: ok. pete in wisconsin where the vice president heads today in milwaukee for a rally, republican line. caller: how you doing? first of all, i do not think harris is going to win. second of all, about this assassination thing, i said this right from the get-go, where were the satellites looking down on that rally? where were the drones? everybody's talking about drones. what about the satellites? you know damn good and well that satellites are looking down on everything, and they can zero in on those rooftops. somebody should have seen this. nsa, cia, whatever, they should

have seen that kid up on that roof. it does not make any sense to me whatsoever. it should not have happened, should not have happened. host: ok. again, you can comment on the events of the vice president or comment on that hearing yesterday with the secret service director being questioned by republicans and democrats about the assassination attempt on former president trump. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. some of you resndg on text and social media. th ifrom angela in maryland, saying when it comes into the vice president's future vice presidential pick, senator mark kelly of arizona and governor wes moore of maryland would be wonderful, great, unimpeachable

man with military experience, which will help her with foreign poli that is angela in maryland. from gary roberts on faceb it does not matter who the democrats weren pla ojoe biden, i disagree with the democratic platform on nearly everything and wilbe voting democratic. kamala harris will continue joe biden's policies, and that is why i will not be voting for her. if you want to reach out that way, there are a variety of ways to do so. the washington post looks at when it comes to former president trump, that the agent health of the former now coming under scrutiny -- that the age and health of the former president now coming under scrutiny. a 78-year-old with the history of heart disease and obesity has not shared any updated blood work results or other specific information to help experts assess his ongoing medical risk.

he has released a three paragraph letter from his primary care physician who wrote in november that former president was in excellent physical and mental health and later said in a statement released to the washington post, there's no need for president trump to release another medical report in addition to the one he recently made public. that is in the washington post this morning. in washington state, myra, democrats line. caller: hello. i am very happy. i have always voted. i am now 90 years old. but i have been so disgusted with the way our government has been. all the biden infighting and not passing bills that should be passed. but after listening to kamala's speech just a few minutes ago, i'm going to vote. i was debating whether i was just going to not vote or become

independent, but i have always voted the democratic ballots. so i am very, very happy, and i cannot wait until she has a debate, and hope she does. i hope she gets the nomination, because against donald trump, she will take him to the cleaners. two i. host: --thank you. host: william, ithaca, new york, independent line. caller: i want to make a comment about kamala. while she is all for calling different gendered people equal races of people, but transgendered people are not races of people. they are groups of people, and they are not the ones martin luther king was saying was equal. martin luther king came directly after hitler. immediately afterward came martin luther king, and it says that the rider of the black

horse was given a set of skills, and then we had martin luther king speaking of equality. host: whoa, whoa, whoa, i'm trying to understand what parallels you are trying to make to the vice president's candidacy or the secret service. caller: very easy. martin luther king was speaking of equality of races, races of people, not just groups of people. i am not for kamala because she is dodging also the 2025 issue. but i found that that is not supporting of transgenderism. i'm not prejudiced against any individual like that, but i am saying that they do not have a right to make themselves equal with races of people. host: ok.

jeff in north carolina, republican line. caller: yeah, the people that really love kamala harris, let them go out there and talk to the black people of california, the once she prosecuted for simple pot possession charges, let them talk to these people. to the 14 million democrats voted for biden, come on over to the other side. we are sane here. we don't treat you like dirt. think about what you are doing before you go vote. good day. host: jean in miami beach, democrats line. caller: good morning. i cannot understand these people who say come over to their side. i listened to the hour and 15 minutes of donald trump, and he was talking such complete rubbish. it was crazy. he was completely disjointed.

and the bunch of grotesques there screaming and shouting and treating him like jesus christ, it was bizarre. so i am delighted that there is somebody who is soft-spoken, and intelligent woman, and who is prepared to take on work and try and really bring this place forward. we need somebody who will try and be forward-looking, not like the backward-looking men who are just a bunch of old white people, grotesque. host: do think the vice president will carry on with president biden's policies? and what will differentiate her? caller: of course she will have her own ideas. she will continue with the idea that the middle-class must be raised up and the money should not be given only to the rich. but she will have her own ideas, obviously. and if she brings on somebody young like her, it is going to

make this stupid republican party look like the idiots they are. host: perry is on our independent line from anchorage, alaska. caller: good morning. this election reminds me of 1970 when i was a delegate to the democratic convention in miami beach when the democrats -- i was a delegate from alaska to the democratic convention, and it was mcgovern and henry and jackson, who was more qualified, and when i got down there it was still questioned -- host: keep going, you are still on. caller: thank you. there was still question, who was more qualified? i want to vote for the most

qualified person. i believe the process was very flawed, and i will be voting for rfk in this election because i believe the democratic powerbrokers have lied to us, the media has lied to us, about the condition of our former -- or current president. host: what specifically is it about rfk's policies that you support? caller: it isn't that i support him, it is that i don't support the current administration and their failures. i think the democratic party is no longer the party of the people. i think the people have been hoodwinked by nbc, which is really an arm of the democratic party. i appreciate very much the "washington journal," and i

watch c-span probably two or three hours a day. i am an elderly, former democrat, now more independent. host: gary there in alaska giving us his thoughts. you can comment on the current state of the race, particularly the last 48 hours, involving kamala harris as the presumptive nominee for the democratic party, and also the secret service side of it, the head of the secret service, kimberly cheatle, on capitol hill in front of the house oversight committee talking about the assassination attempt on former president trump and being asked questions from both democrats and republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can continue on those, and you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003.

washington, d.c., republican line, we will hear from joe. caller: good morning. i have a concern that kamala harris might have a real chance of winning this thing. i am very concerned about that with the issue of women's reproductive rights. and because this is a bread-and-butter issue of democracy, versus the attempt to do a national abortion ban on this particular issue. that is what i am concerned about, maybe she is going to get a lot of women to defect from the republican party and come over to the democrat side based on that. i think a lot of women in the republican party might come over there. i am very concerned about this. also, the issue with black men,

and we know we have a bump in the increase of black men supporting trump, which i am part of that demographic. kamala harris has a bad record on that. so if trump comes out and do issue on black men, then we can take him over there into the white house, just like cliburn had an effect on biden with the black vote. if trump come out something with the black men, supporting the black men, whatever policy, assisting as, making us back at the head of our homes in the black community, because we know a lot of black women are hitting the black homes, he can come up with the policy dealing with black men, we can put trump in there. host: ok, that is joe and washington, d.c. there is a story today looking at the republican national convention, which was on c-span

and other places. 3% of delegates through this year's convention were black. subtext, the still low figure was up from 2016, saying only 1780 of the 2429 rnc delegates reported their ethnicity, according to officials. of that number, 55 delegates said they were black, representing 3% of those who provided the demographic information. while still small, that is up from 2016 when only 18 delegates reported they were black, fewer than 1% of the total, the least amount of racial diversity for an rnc crowd perhaps in 100 years. more of that in usa today. to virginia, democrats line. caller: i am 69 years old, and i'm so grateful. i was upset sunday when i was

following when president biden stepped down, but then this morning and last night, i was up until around 2:00 this morning, and when i heard that kamala had went over the threshold of becoming the next president, i k now for a fact that she is going to be one of our best presidents that has ever stepped those stages since john kennedy. but i am so disgusted with the black gentleman from washington, d.c. and all of the -- and i am black myself. those that are following trump? i mean, my lord. look at his background. i want all the blacks that have voted for him and will be voting for him, see how many blacks

have been in his organization. if you go back and even look at "the apprentice," that gentleman, i forgot his name, but a black gentleman, and i was following him and he was saying how many times trump had even called the n-word on "the apprentice." and the blacks that are voting for him, looking like, oh, that is no big deal. i'm telling you, they going to be in for a rude awakening. host: one of the other records being set by vice president harris is the fundraising, headline from axios, the harris campaign raising a record $81 million in the period of 24 hours. larry in indiana, independent line. caller: yes, i was wanting to

talk to you about the security for trump during the rnc. why do they not use the military, green beret, or the national guard for security? host: what difference do you think they would make versus the secret service? caller: well, they claim they were undermanned. and how can you be undermanned when you have the most horrible military in the world? host: diane is in arkansas. this is on our republican line, hi. caller: good morning. t for taking my call. i just -- thank you for taking my call. i want to play to the american people, black, white, what have you -- look --

host: are you still there? just continue on. caller: ok, let's look at harris. ok, she has met with biden once a week for three years. she knew of his decline, and she hid it. so she is very deceptive. and i do not know how much you are hearing of this, but i want y'all to look at the records, american people. 11.5 million immigrants have come over in three years. she was over the border. they are getting medicaid, social security, $350 a week. they have letters to come back in seven years for citizenship. until then, they cannot work

legally. they are going to work under the table, and they are going to get our benefits. and then they're going to apply for social security when they are of age, and we cannot afford it. they shut down the pipeline, raised prices, put us back in the iran accord and fueled iran with money. american people, wake up, vote for what is good for the nation, please god. host: ok, that is diane in arkansas. another person criticizing the vice president, j.d. vance, the vice presidential pick for former president trump. at a rally in ohio yesterday, the washington times saying the senator struck out on the campaign trail as the cello avenger for the republican vice president jewel nominee and accused kamala harris and democrats of lying to the american public about the president, president biden's cognitive decline. mr. vance said democrats are

usurping voters by selecting mr. biden's successor. that is in the washington times. the speech in ohio available at our website at c-span.org and on our app at c-span now. here is senator vance from yesterday. [video clip] >> the idea of selecting the democrat party's nominee because george soros and barack obama and a couple of elite democrats got into a smoke-filled room and decided to throw joe biden overboard, that is not how it works here that is a threat to democracy, not the republican party, which is fighting for democracy every single day. [applause] this, this is not ok, ladies and gentlemen. you cannot, for three and a half years, take a guy who clearly

did not have the mental capacity to do the job. kamala harris lied about it, my senate democratic colleagues lied about it, the media lied about it, every single person who saw joe biden knew that he was not capable of doing the job, and for three years they said nothing until he became political dead weight. that is not a way to run a country, not a way to run a political party. that is an insult to voters. host: report yesterday that vice president kamala harris getting enough democratic delegates to become the nominee in the convention process. that took place yesterday. and the secret service director kimberly cheatle and front of the house oversight committee discussing the assassination attempt against former president trump. let's hear from kevin in new hampshire, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. you are on. caller: i was just on vacation for three days, and i am a

little confused and scared about what is going on. is joe in or is he out? host: president biden formally stepped away from his race, and of the vice president is taking on that mantle. caller: so are we having an open process now? an open mini primary? my friend texted me yesterday saying we were having an open mini primary, and now i am hearing she is in. host: she has commitments from enough delegates that could make her the nominee at the convention. distal formally has to take place -- that still formally has to take place as far as the process is concerned. caller: i am one of the 14 million people that voted in the primary for joe biden, i'm not going to vote for kamala harris as president, that is for sure. her one job was the border. they are usurping my vote, my mom's vote, my sisters vote.

i am really concerned. we have been saying for years and years trump is a threat to democracy. what is this? this is not democracy, i don't feel. is it, pedro? i don't know what is going on. host: curtis is up next, clearwater, florida, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i guess, basically, c-span is supposed to be an educational open forum for the american people, right? host: we let people comment on open for them, but we also select topics for people to comment on, this morning -- like this morning. caller: ok. i would like to put everybody's attention to a book by saul al insky, "rules for radicals."

basically, hillary clinton and barack obama greatly admired this man. one of their tactics is to relentlessly pick a target and relate loosely attacked that target. who were the target be? donald trump. who was with the target be? maga supporters, radical -- i don't know what else i have been called. i don't know, people need to understand. read the book -- host: how does that relate to either the vice president getting the nomination to run for the white house or the secret service? caller: they are just going to force whatever power they want to have in there. they are not representing the people. how are they representing us, we, the people? like the guy who just called in and said, wait a minute, wasn't joe biden supposedly -- i mean, how is that fair for democrats

that were hoping that joe biden would be the nominee? he was the nominee. how much money and time spent doing that, and now all of a sudden it is kamala harris. and they have relentlessly dehumanized donald trump. host: that is kurdistan florida. the assassination attempt -- that is curtis there in florida. the assassination attempt discussed of the house oversight committee, the question of kimberly cheatle came from the judiciary committee chair, jim jordan -- [video clip] >> director, were you guessing or lying? the day after president trump's shot, the secret service spokesman said, the assertion that a member of the security team requested additional resources that the homeland security secret service rebuff,

that is false. we have not received any requests for additional security measures that were rebuffed. five days later, washington post said top officials repeatedly rejected requests from donald trump's security detail from our personnel. next day, new york times said this, the spokesperson acknowledge that the secret service had turned down some requests for additional federal security assets for mr. trump's detail. so which is it? because both statements cannot be true. were you guessing or lying when you said you did not turn down requests from president trump's detail? >> neither, sir, and i appreciate the question. >> well, what were you doing? because those statements don't drive? >> for the event in butler, there were no requests that were denied. >> maybe they got tired of asking. maybe you turned them down so

darn much, they said not worth asking. how much did you turned them down ahead of that? >> it is important to distinguish between what some people may view as a denial of an asset or request -- >> your spokesperson said he acknowledged the secret service had turned down some requests. i am asking how many. >> a denial of a request is not equal a vulnerability. there are a number of ways that threats and risks can be mitigated, with a number of different assets, whether that be through personnel, whether that be through technology -- >> tell the committee, they asked for additional help in some form or another, you told them no. how many times did you tell them know, and what did you tell them no to? >> again, i cannot speak to specific incidents, but i can tell you in general terms, the secret service is judicious with

the resources based on -- >> what does some requests mean, how many times? it is plural. what did they ask for, and how many times did you turned them down? pretty basic question. >> again, without having all the details in front of me, sir, what i can tell you -- >> you did not get briefed when they asked for additional help? you did not get briefed on that before you came to this hearing knowing you would get asked that question? >> in generic terms, when details make a request, there are times that there are alternate ways to cover on that thread or that risk. host: paul in florida, republican line. caller: hi, pedro. kamala harris was given one job, the border czar. over 10 million illegal people killed under her watch. she is an ultraliberal.

all she will talk about is racism and pregnancy. this is all because of the groundwork laid by the committee organizer two years ago who said i will fundamentally transform this country, and that is happening today. biden's term is more like an obama third term. next term, if we are under kamala harris, that is the way it will be. everything is in a mess here. that will finish my comments. host: randy in michigan, democrats line. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to start by thanking you and all the men and women it takes to bring this great program. you are doing the nation a great service. i am glad to see vice president harris step up and take on this role. i thank president biden for

putting the country ahead and stepping aside. he has got the capacity to finish his job, but running a campaign is a lot harder to do than being in the white house. we have heard all this about primaries. in michigan, we have not even had a primary yet. i have heard about the border this morning, and we had a bipartisan bill on the border, but other gentlemen running for office decided he didn't want that, so he told his minions to turn it down. so you cannot blame her on the border. it is generational change, and it is about time. did not want a showman or wannabe country boy running the country, because we need somebody that is truly involved in it, and she has been there for the last three years. she can take and handle whatever

comes up. she will have good advisors, and that is what everybody else has, advisors. she will walk into that job prepared to do that job. so i wish her the best of luck, and let's go, kamala. thank you. host: to pennsylvania, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to see kamala harris take the reins now. let joe biden resign, and let kamala -- what she has done to get into the presidency, put her in the seat now and let her get a taste how it feels throughout all the other countries, to be the free leader of the world, to deal with china, to deal with russia, to deal with ukraine, to deal with israel. the groceries, go out and buy

four or five things, it costs you $50, $60. let's see joe resign just about harris and now. six months, this way we know what we are getting, because we are not going to know what we are getting come january. so let her get a taste of what all the other presidents go through. in joe biden i think -- and joe biden, i think, did a very good job for a man his age, sharp as a tack. but let her get a chance because she seems really happy. host: ok. the caller bringing up israel. the israeli prime minister set to address congress tomorrow. the vice president will not attend the joint address to congress but will conduct a separate bilateral meeting with

the israeli prime minister at the white house, according to an aide. harris was scheduled to attend an event in indianapolis before this date was set, conflict allows hares to circumvent the question of whether to attend the address -- allows harris to circumvent the question of whether to attend the address. netanyahu plans to reiterate the right for israel to defend itself. it is time for the war to end her israel is secure and all hostages released and the palestinian people can enjoy the right to dignity, freedom, and self-determination. josh is next in north carolina, republican line. caller: yes, i just want to say a few things. i want to respond to that caller

a while back from kentucky, what he said about, if you do not vote for harris, you are a sexist or racist. that is the very rhetoric that has got us here in the first place. i am not voting for kamala harris, not because she is black or a woman or whatever, because i do not like her record. she had one job. she was in charge of the border, and she did not even go to the border. in her record when she was a prosecutor, she prosecuted nonviolent crimes, and she put nonviolent criminals in jail and kept them in jail but released a whole bunch of violent criminals in the summer of 2020.

so that caller in new hampshire, he had it. the democrats call it a threat to democracy, but they just upended the entire election with this move. host: ok. another michigander, we will hear from bill. caller: good morning, my first time calling. i was wondering about the secret service for donald trump. i do not feel he should have any secret service. i do not know anybody in the country that has secret service being a convicted felon and convicted rapist. host: joe is next in new york, independent line. caller: hello, how are you? thank you very much for taking my call. there was a book by pat

buchanan, state of emergency, very interesting book that every american should read. he said in the years to come, we are going to be employed. that is what is happening now. we have laws and have to go by those laws. we have to enforce those laws. also, i remember reading, and i checked this out --biden when he was a presidential candidate, he says if you have a problem figuring out whether you will vote for me or trump, then you ain't black. what kind of statement is that? that is crazy. and back to the head of secret service, dick cheney talk her well. she has ties with dick cheney, and way back when when they needed flat jackets, the armed forces, he kind of reneged, and it took the girl scouts in wisconsin to raise money to buy

the protective vests for the veterans. everyone should read that book, state of emergency. host: it was during the event, formerly the biden for president headquarters in delaware, now harris for president, that president biden called in to talk about the decision to leave the race and talk about the vp now heading up the mantle to become president of the united states. this is over speakerphone, so you will hear his voice, but here's president biden yesterday calling and talking about the events of recent days. [video clip] vp harris: mr. president, thank you for calling in today. over to you. pres. biden: if i did not have covid, i would be sitting there with you, standing there with you. [applause] keeping me out of peoples hair for the next three or four days, but i'm going to be on the road.

i'm not going anywhere, it has kept me low a little bit, but i want people to remember that what we have done has been incredible, and there is so much more we're going to get done. kamala, i know she will be speaking shortly, and i want to tell the team to embrace her, she is the best. i know yesterday's news is surprising, and it is hard for you to hear, but it was the right thing to do. i know it is hard because you have poured your heart and soul into me to help me get this nomination, help me win the nomination, and then go on to win the presidency. you are an amazing team, but i think we made the right decision. i know how hard you worked, how many sacrifices you made. and so many of you uprooted your lives for me, the kind of

commitment you people make. you made it. i have been honored and humbled. i made it from the bottom of my heart, for all you have done for me and my family. we built the best campaign and organization in history. i know i am only 40, but i am around these kids all the time, and i cannot think of a better campaign or organization, crest roots -- grassroots campaign. over 2000 staff and literally several thousand volunteers on a regular basis. there have been relentless and tireless in reaching out and contacting the voters. the campaign has been amazing. all of you. on raising money and so many more, you build this team and brought us together. you inspire them. you have done what leaders do. now the name has changed at the top of the ticket, but the

mission has not changed at all. by the way, i will be on the campaign with her, with kamala. we will be getting legislation passed and campaigning. host: president biden from yesterday, expected back at the white house today. in relation to the visit from the israeli prime minister this week, at 10:00 today there will be a hearing for families of hostages currently being held by hamas in gaza. those lawmakers -- they will sit down with lawmakers for questions, and it will be before the house foreign affairs committee to talk about their experiences. that live coverage on c-span3. and you can follow on on the app on c-span now and c-span.org. michael is next in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. i have the perfect campaign slogan for kamala.

you know how the one president had a chicken, she can say i want an electric yellow school bus in every driveway. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. host: sharon is next in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you. democrats, it is time to unite. primaries are over. did you not think when you saw biden on stage, that disease, impairment, or even death would visit him? i lost a person his age close to me this year. alzheimer's can proceed very quickly. that has not happened to biden. furthermore, stop the nitpicking. there are no flawless candidates ever in politics.

so if you don't want to see erosion of your freedoms, get a vision. americans need a vision, and it is not the other party that wants to take your freedoms. host: sharon they're finishing off this round of calls, appreciate all who participated. coming up, we will continue with discussions about that house hearing yesterday with the secret service director kimberly cheatle. the wall street journal's ryan barber covering that and talking about the assassination attempt of former president trump, what members of congress are sayg about it he will join us. later on, political historian and george washington university professor matthe dallek discusses campaign 2024 and president biden's withdrawal and other related events. during the break, we will show you something that happened on the house floor yesterday with members of congress.

a moment of silence for representative sheila jackson lee, democrat of texas, who passed away last week of pancreatic cancer at the age of 44. [video clip] >> texas colleagues and others who may want to come up and honor our calling sheila jackson lee -- >> without objection, recognized. >> i rise to honor our colleague sheila jackson lee. it is strange to be here and not see her at a microphone, because we know her as the outspoken colleague in thiscolleague in t. -- when i was elected, sheila and i were a part of a very small democratic class of 13. even then, certainly, and last year, a couple of months ago, i never thought i would be

memorializing her after an illness that took her far too swiftly. she is an icon in houston and in texas politics. she always showed up for her constituents like she always showed up here. she chose to spend some of her final days helping those trying to recover from hurricane beryl, personally passing out food and water and connecting families. she is known all over houston for being a fighter for her community. in washington she was certainly a fierce advocate for many causes, particularly racial justice and equality. she was responsible for our nation recognizing, in a bipartisan effort, juneteenth as a federal holiday to recognize our recovery from slavery in the horrors of them. she fought to end the scourge of community violence, the sentencing reform act, the kimberly vaughn firearms safe storage act, and she treasured

her children, erica, jason, and her grandchildren, ellison and roy, and her dedicated staff members here in washington in houston. she graduated with honors and was in the first yale university class to include women. a trailblazer there, as she was here, mentor to many. while a demanding boss, she had a great sense of humor, a side that many do not remember. she seemed to be everywhere and involved in just about everything here, providing inspiration to many and eight determined advocacy. the stories from her staff members that knew her best attest she played a major role in their professional development and provided a launching pad for their careers. with the bipartisan support of so many here, i ask that all join our delegation in a moment of silence for our respected colleague, sheila jackson lee.

i get back. >> well done, roy. >> thank you, sir. thank you, sir. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is ryan barber, with the "wall street journal," reporting on matters of justice and others related to criminal affairs, including the secret service. here to talk about that hearing with the secret service director, thanks for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: what were legislators looking to hear from kimberly cheadle? guest: committee members scheduled this nine days after the shooting and made a point of saying that we could have asked for a hearing immediately and we had the appetite for the information to do that, but we wanted to give you time and

understood that you needed time to get the answers and have various law enforcement agencies examine what happened. they emerged entirely unsatisfied, yesterday. one question after another. questions that they saw as basic, things that one lawmaker said every american was asking at their neighborhood diner or at a ballgame. the director was often not able to answer. in fairness to the secret service, some of that came down to the sensitivities of an ongoing investigation and not wanting to divulge information that could complicate that process, but we are still talking about the first attempted assassination of a current or former president since 1981. as i mentioned, there was just this appetite for answers and they really came up dry and frustrated. host: in the lead up, you said legislators were looking to get a couple of questions answered. number one, why the roof of the

building from -- from the person who attempted to assassinate the president, why that wasn't secure. how was that addressed and answered by the director? guest: for lawmakers, completely unsatisfactorily. she essentially used the word overwatch. the plan called for overwatch, but didn't get clarity on yeah, the key question that we have. so, that was incredibly frustrating. going into the hearing, we saw some lawmakers primarily on the republican side were already calling for her resignation before she even came before them for her first ever congressional hearing. it's not a senate confirmed position. this was actually her first time doing this in a public setting. republican lawmakers, several of them came in with their minds made up about whether she should have a future with the secret service and at the end of the hearing we had democratic

lawmakers after a very partisan year and a half now, marked by an impeachment inquiry that this particular committee has been spearheading having a twilight zone moment of -- my goodness, we are agreeing. i, a democrat, think that you, director cheadle, should resign. it really was this remarkable moment we are even the top democrat on the panel, jamie raskin, concluded by returning to the dais in saying that i will be signing a letter with my republican counterpart calling on her to be, to step down as secret service director. host: one of the other questions was why, even after the man was spotted as suspicious, that the former president went out to speak. guest: i thought that that was one area of the hearing where i personally felt i was learning more. so, what the director tried to explain was that the shooter,

thomas matthew crooks, had been spotted one hour before the shooting on the periphery of the site, outside of the secure area, near where they have things like magnetometers and the like, had been spotted with a rangefinder, which for those unfamiliar with that device, it's sort of like binoculars, although most will have one scope as opposed to two, and then he had a backpack as well. one of the lines that just sticks in my memory the most from the hearing is -- a rangefinder is not in and of itself a threat. a backpack is not in and of itself a threat. essentially, what she was trying to say was that there is a distinction between suspicious and threatening and what law enforcement had to go on before trump took the stage was merely somebody acting suspiciously, which happens at events. it was only in a matter of seconds before shots began to

ring out that this evolved and escalated into a very clear threat. host: ryan barber is with us and if you want to ask him a question about this assassination attempt against the former president and how the secret service handled it, call in on the lines. (202) 748-8001, democrats. (202) 748-8002, republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us your questions or comments at (202) 748-8003. one of the things that she talked about was who signs off on something being secure or not. there was a long answer and it was a lot of the questioning, but elaborate, what was said by the director? host: lawmakers -- guest: lawmakers took a keen interest in how these plans are drawn up. from our reporting, yes, there is even a piece of paper

somewhere that delineates who had responsibility for what. what she said yesterday, what the secret service said in the lead up, was that the secret service was primarily responsible for what the agency would call, especially those innermost rings of the three concentric rings of security, where you have the inner details surrounding in this case former president trump, those were the agents that you saw swarming him, whisking him off the stage, then you have the second ring, the immediate venue space, the crowd, the areas where people have to go through magnetometers in the first place. that is something that the secret service monitors and secures in partnership with local law enforcement. then there is the outer perimeter, where they have long range, you know, they have snipers looking out there, they have local law enforcement. they draw this up. what she said was that she did

not personally sign off on the event security for that day and that that is not unusual, she said that there is a whole conjunction of lower-level officials who do that. she was essentially trying to say yes, we conduct advance work at these sites and we come up with a plan. top officials sign off on the plan. two things can be true at once, we can be responsible for the plan and draw it up, but there are also local law enforcement responsible for bits and pieces of it. what she said was that local law enforcement was ultimately responsible for the building where he took his shot. we have seen that emerge as just a really sticky issue for the secret service to try to communicate. because i think in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, they were saying things like -- we take responsibility.

the director in an interview said that the buck stops with her, but there is the other truth, local law enforcement has responsibility, and we saw that emerge as a bit of a flashpoint and a point of tension between the secret service and some groups that advocate for local law enforcement. host: several members said that in an interview she offered more information then she offered to the lawmakers. is there truth to that? guest: there were certainly moments where i found that the news interviews generally, like she did an interview with cnn -- on the whole those probably -- i can understand why lawmakers would see it they got more information out of those they and the hearing. i think that there are a couple of different explanations for that.

there could be a clamming up effect that happens in the face of all of these lawmakers, many of whom have already called for your let -- your resignation. there is also, as i mentioned, we are now at a point where the fbi, the department of homeland security, the inset -- inspector general, they have all been conducting their investigation and talking to a lot of agents. the sense within the agency is that we need to be careful about what we communicate now in order to avoid doing anything that could interfere with the investigation. host: this is ryan barber of the "wall street journal," joining us to talk about the events of the shooting. leslie, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: morning, leslie. caller: hi. i kind of have a question that probably isn't exciting to a bunch of people, but i watched the entire congressional meeting or whatever.

kind of -- i didn't understand -- when they were talking about people being sent from pittsburgh, extra people, to cover what was going on, and they said that there were 12 people sent to joe biden at the racetrack -- at the casino, only four to donald trump, because the risk assessment for joe biden was higher than that for donald trump. can you explain that? guest: i think that the best explanation i can give is to recount how the director answered the question yesterday, which is that the secret service makes threat assessments and divvy of resources accordingly. one area that we have seen emerge in the last week that has been interesting that has, that was true, that was true in the

months and years even leading up to the shooting on the 13th was that there had been reporting in the two years leading up to the shooting that the trump security detail requested additional racehorses that the secret service sometimes turned down. those requests were not specific to the july 13 rally. they were for events preceding it. what we have learned from that is that the secret service says -- hey, even if we cannot ourselves provide the extra resources requested, let's make sure to find a way to get those resources to an event or to change the plan entirely to reduce exposure appropriately. so, in this case, in a lot of cases, you have seen them pull in local and state resources to fill the roles. i understand that that is a long

way, perhaps, of answering your question, which is that at the end of the day, even as this bit of an argument has come up about the resources allocated to jill biden versus trump, what this service director said was that there was not a shortage, in their view, of resources, that they in working with local and state law enforcement had what they needed that they, it was clearly more just a breakdown of the plan and of the communication between the various collaborating agencies. host: rich, democratic line, new jersey, go ahead. caller: yes, i watch the hearing yesterday and i was sort of taken aback, they didn't really distinguish between the lines where the secret service was and the area outside of it, which were local and state police. there was a big issue regarding communications with the secret service when the shooter was

first identified as a suspicious person. my question is, and it wasn't addressed yesterday, can the local police detain and hold a suspicious person, who turned out to be the shooter, or do they have to call secret service and do they have to come and make the arrest? guest: that's such a great question and one of the interesting things i learned in the course of reporting is that one of the reasons that local and state police are often tasked with the outer ring of security, so outside of the secure area but still within the vicinity of the site, is that it's helpful to have local and state versus federal law-enforcement fill the role, because they are more in position to actually apply local law and enforce it, if and when issues arise. so, that is -- so, when local and state police engage with

somebody, that is really a case-by-case analysis of whether the conduct arises to the level of an arrestable offense versus hey, we think you are acting suspiciously, let's stop you, ask you what you are up to, try to get out some information about what has you at the event, and perhaps why do you have certain items or why you are in certain locations. there is a real sense of a sliding scale that is dependent on the unique facts and circumstances. but certainly, certainly, there would have been an opportunity for a law enforcement officer to go up to the gunman, if they saw something suspicious, saying what's this all about, what is your backpack all about, have that conversation. what we have been hearing in the 10 days since the shooting is that it's not clear if that kind of interaction ever did take

place and one thing that we have heard, just in our reporting, that there was something certain about officers leaving their post to do that kind of work, to have that conversation, to do that extra level of investigation even in an informal conversation because there was this concern about leaving a post and potentially a gap in the security plan like we've been talking about. host: 10 days later, how much of a better picture do we have of the shooter? guest: 10 days later in the shooter in something of an enigma, still. we have heard from family and associates that he was somewhat of a loner. apparently law-enforcement enforcement went to his house and it was very cluttered, almost resembled something that you would see out of a hoarder. one of my colleagues at the journal spoke to a member of his math book club, who said that -- you know -- when the conversation turned to politics,

he wasn't engaged or animated. he -- a lot of people are kind of looking for whether there was a partisan motivation here. it's just not clear that there was one. another thing we heard from law enforcement is that in the lead up to the shooting, he searched the images of a lot of top officials in the federal government. there was no, there was no particularly partisan direction there. he was looking at photos of mike johnson, of the top democrats in the house, of hakeem jeffries. images of trump and biden. which has led some former law enforcement officials to, to speculate, and it's just that, spec -- speculation, that this might have been more of an equal opportunity fame seeker looking for a top public official of any stripe, as opposed to really having any animus directed towards one party or another. host: if you want to ask ryan

barber questions, you can call the lines were post on social media. let's hear from joe. joe, you are next up, good morning. caller: good morning, i have a bit of a head cold, i hope i'm speaking clearly. it's ironic, the policy, because i hadn't heard anything about probable cause. i mean, this is their job. he could have stopped him like anybody, anywhere, for any articulable suspicion. as far as leaving the post, we are all trained in diversion tactics and things like that, a contingency, if i was unopposed and got engaged here, i would have flagged it. wherever you pulled resources from, like are you a photographer? i mean there's lots of ways of leading someone down a path and there are a bunch of holes in that story. the story got very complicated

in a unnecessarily diversionary manner. like, probable cause? articulable suspicion? it's the job of everybody. i worked with the fbi. do you want to charge both? state and federal? you can get into a situation of -- is it military? she could be charged with state, local, federal, and military law. so, if law enforcement officers have not studied the law to that degree, it's a training problem. with all respect, there you go. host: ok, that is joey new jersey. guest: great point about that sliding scale, where you might get to that point of that monitoring outside of a secure perimeter of whether or not something rises to a probable and that is a good point about how that conversation could have gone short of probable cause.

there are, as you said, lighter steps that you can take about what the rangefinder is all about. is that related to a hobby that you have? you never know how those conversations will go or have what those questions might elicit. that could result sometimes in kind of just having someone go on their way and diffusing and kind of taking the oxygen out of what could rise to a more threatening situation and i think those are great points. host: reporting that the house is set to establish a bipartisan task force to look into this issue. what's the picture they have of the events we are talking about? >> it would add one more layer to the introspection going on within multiple branches of the federal government over this in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, where we worked with the secretary of homeland security, who said he would appoint an independent

commission to conduct an independent external review in addition to the department of homeland security internal watchdog and calling the inspector general to conduct a review. even with that, this step from congress that they are apparently taking, yesterday's hearing itself was a piece of the congressional side of the oversight end of this examination. of course, you have the secret service having its own inward look and the fbi doing a criminal investigation. you also have, you see the pennsylvania state police doing a lot of the after incident interviews and things like that. there are just a number of agencies coming together looking for answers, here. host: republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i watched almost all of the hearing, yesterday. i was called away for part of it. i don't know if it was intimated

, and maybe in some of these it will be there, but i have a family member that is a former military sniper. he and his cohorts are saying that there is no way a nervous 20-year-old could have made that shot, and that the sound of two of the shots sounded more like 450 yards away. so, i was just thinking of asking if there is any discussion along those lines. thank you. guest: i should mention that i am a fellow pennsylvanian. yeah, if the upshot of your question is the idea of there being a second shooter, we heard the secret service director say yesterday that they have no indication of that, that all of the evidence so far points to it

being thomas matthew crooks and only thomas matthew crooks. in terms of accuracy from a distance like were talking about, i can't say that i'm much of an expert on the range of these weapons or anything, but there was an interesting moment yesterday at the hearing that was relevant to this where we had one lawmaker almost talk about how he had reenacted the shooting, firing a gun from a similar range. host: i think it was pat fallon. guest: that's right. i hope i have his number right in my recollection, but i think he said something like 94% of his shots were on the mark. maybe that's, maybe that's, maybe that's a little bit of a -- i think he professed to maybe not being much of an expert, so maybe it was a bit of a humble brag their, but yeah, he was saying that within that range

and with this kind of gun, that it didn't take much of a marksman or an expert to be very effective. so, that is some of the initial talk we are seeing around the gun, the accuracy at that range. and of the question about whether the gunman was acting alone or not. host: when it comes to the gun itself, how much of the hearing became a discussion on gun rights and gun safety? guest: that was an interesting question because this was an ar-15 style weapon that had been legally purchased and used by his father, and we saw a lot of lawmakers primarily on the democratic side talk about the easy access to this gun, that all it took was a legal purchase by the father and the son was able to easily come into possession of it, for this 20-year-old to be in the position that he was to take a

shot at the former president, who was at that point about to be formalized as the republican nominee. we heard a lot of talk about how this is not how -- this is not the world other countries have to live in, fear of assault style rifles being used at a public gathering that you are attending with your family, your kids, and your friends. you know, we heard from some lawmakers about how these rifles were used in mass shootings their communities and said hey -- we are having a hearing because this was a former president who was shot in a stunning and tragic security lapse, but where is the hearing for the people in my community who are suffering from these events and, and, and that are just sadly becoming almost more normal and almost every day in

the headlines, it seems, sometimes. host: one more call, this will be richard in alabama, independent line. caller: for the morning, sir. my question isn't so much about what the secret service did or didn't do, but they did what they were supposed to do, they jumped on him, they pulled him down, then threw him in the car. it was like he was at a football game, his head was exposed. he goes to get in the suv, exposing his head. what kind of game plan or protocol was given to these individuals? it just doesn't make sense. these people are using their body for someone who's been shot acting like they are in a football game? thank you. guest: yeah, i think the best answer i can give there is that in the video of the immediate aftermath of the shooting, you hear a lot of communication and

you hear the agents saying to themselves that something along the lines of the threat has been cleared and we are good to go on your mark. some agent had a call, essentially, to get from the ground and take the former president off the stage and get to a point where they felt comfortable taking that step. so, i think -- i think they might have had confidence at that point that the threat had been neutralized, which is kind of the euphemism for a sniper just shooting and killing the gunman. neutralized is the term they are using. i think it just got to the point where they were confident that there was no ongoing threat when they did that. you could hear trump in the video say weight -- weight -- get his shoe. he raised his fist and set fight, fight, fight. we saw a poster sized photograph

of that moment posted inside of the hearing room yesterday, directly behind the oversight committee chairman's chair. host: yesterday we saw nancy mace calling for the impeachment of kimberly cheadle. a congressman on x saying that in light of the unacceptable handling of the attempt, the disastrous appearance today and refusal to resign, we have no choice but to impeach. how much of this is a matter of when and not if kimberly cheadle will keep her job? guest: it does seem that after yesterday's hearing it's more a case of the latter. there was a moment at the end of the hearing that stuck with me where, going into it, as i said, you had republican lawmakers calling for her resignation and in the course of the hearing they said forget resignation, you should be fired. it got to the point, though,

where, we're jamie raskin, the top democrat, a real ally for this white house in the impeachment inquiry and is a top democrat he has worked as a counterweight against a lot of the rhetoric that the republican side put out in even he called it and irretrievably broken relationship. they felt like the answers were so lacking yesterday. there was no, it was no longer tenable for the secret service director to stay. what they said in response is that there is value in continuity and that in addition to the challenges they are having and the steps they are taking to log holes and improve security, they don't need a new director learning the role on the job. so, you have that disagreement there, here initially, but it will be interesting to see whether this tension boils over to a point where it is no longer tolerable for the administration

, department of security, and secret service. host: ryan barber, thank you for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: the house is coming in a 9:00 today, but before that we will have a discussion on presidential politic with matthew dallek, who joins us next on [speaking another language] -- joins us next on "washington journal"." >> courier copy of the 2020 four congressional directory with bio information for every member of the 118th congress for important information on congressional committees, presidential cabinets, agencies and state governors. it costs $32 95 sense plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit corporations. order your copy today.

>> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors and influential writers, and on q&a hear from nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen, with notes plus episodes that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction books industry, with best sellers. find all of those podcasts by downloading our free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts, c-span.org/podcasts. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered

view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events of the day with live streams of hearings from congress, white house events, courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal," and find scheduling information for c-span, c-span radio, and a variety of compelling product -- compelling podcasts. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now is your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. [gavel] >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced coverage of

government, taking you to where the policies are debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: matthew dallek joining us now, the author of the burke -- the book "mergers," -- birchers," good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: how would you put this joe biden seven away from the race in historical context? guest: the closest omens were harry truman and lyndon johnson, 52 and 68, incumbent presidents eligible to run for another term who said -- nope, i'm not, i'm not doing this again.

the other analogy to both of them is that they were very unpopular. truman, february of 1952, 20 2% approval, which is extremely low . lbj, the war in vietnam was a disaster. so, they were very unpopular nationally but also within their own parties. so, the circumstances today i think are very different. biden has obviously been drawn much deeper into the campaign, into the general election, essentially, but he's also obviously quite unpopular it it is that internal party pressure that at least, in part, i think, drove all three from seeking another term. host: for the other two that you mentioned, was it that unpopularity that was the main driver, or were there other factors? guest: i think that each was unique. truman had been in office for about seven years and was

eligible to run, but democrats have control of the white house for 20 years at that point. there was economic, so economic discontent in the country. inflation, joblessness, unpopular price control, and above all the war in korea was a stalemate. that was truman's war. that really settled him as well. and then he was deeply unpopular. he was wounded by losing the new hampshire primary, even though it was nonbinding back then. it was kind of a slap in the face. it was a combination of those forces. lyndon johnson, similarly in the new hampshire primary, even though he didn't lose it, eugene mccarthy, the antiwar candidate, had a strong showing, and it was a kind of humiliation for johnson. on top of that, the tet offensive of 68 exposed the lie that there was so cold light at the end of the tunnel in vietnam

. it was a combination of unpopularity and simply a war, a quagmire that neither president could get the country out of. host: when you saw a key democrats usually calling on president biden to leave the race, small at first, large towards the end, what did you think of key democrats and the party making the push? caller: why were they making it? host: why and especially in the first place. guest: it was extraordinary, my sense was that many of them loved joe biden. not to be overly cliché, but many were huge fans and supporters of his and they believed in his policies. my sense is that they were very much responding to a couple of things. one, the polls starting to drop, really crater. also, this unifying, really almost hatred for donald trump that kind of intolerance of the

idea of a second trump term. so, it was the fear of biden losing to trump and losing badly. that they would not be able to reap -- we take the house or hold onto the senate. it's a pure self-interest involved. i think it was that combination with money drying up as well. it was kind of that perfect storm and ultimately, you know, president biden had some very good events after the debate but also some interviews that left some democrats really unsatisfied that he had quieted concerns. so, biden was never able to really put the doubts to rest in the weeks after the debate. host: joining us through 9:00 and if you want to ask them questions about the current state of presidential politics, democrats are (202) 748-8000, republicans are (202) 748-8001, an independents are (202)

748-8002. text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. what does history tell us about those who take on the mend -- mental the presidents who decided to step away? what does it mean for kamala harris now? guest: this is one of those moments where even though i'm a historian, i'm not sure that history offers us a ton of insights. one that i think we are seeing now that has maybe played out historically is that there is a kind of rally around the person who is thrust into the position of power in a moment of crisis. now, the circumstances are totally different, but harry truman when roosevelt died, lyndon johnson when john f. kennedy was assassinated, that's not a comparison to biden withdrawing, but there is certainly a sense that within a part of the country, within the democratic party there's a kind of crisis, and i think that what

we are seeing now is not just a sigh of relief among voters, but the sense that the crisis maybe continues and we have someone who can us through it. you are seeing that have these kind of temporarily, as they rally around a candidate. it has been surprising, frankly, to watch the outpouring of support in terms of financial, in terms of delegate support, in terms of elected official support, and voter support for vice president harris. host: for the two that you mentioned in history, did they have to go to an open convention? what's the difference between that and what you are seeing play out? host: that became prep -- guest: that became president. -- precedent. truman had to win that election campaign on his own terms.

he almost lost that race. lyndon johnson, kennedy was assassinated in november of 63. lyndon johnson faced voters a year later. so, they had to quickly kind of redefine, both understand their predecessor's legacy and figure out how they were going to carry that on while putting their own stamp on their agenda, their vision for the country, i think that is the balance that vice president harris, even though she isn't assuming the presidency, she is assuming the mantle of leadership for the democratic party and she has to balance the biden legacy that is partly her own, but also put her own stamp and vision on what her campaign will be about, how she will define her agenda, but four years from now will look like if she wins. we will talk -- host: we will

talk about that and a little bit, but first we go to joanna, democratic line, maryland. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about johnson. it wasn't just the vietnam war that took him down. in his first run, he was supported because the south was solidly democratic, but the dixiecrat's rejected the civil rights bill. he even said -- i lost the south . once he signed the civil rights bill, they all became republicans. so, he didn't have enough democrats to support him after that. it wasn't just the vietnam war. it was a combination of dixiecrat's leaving him and the vietnam war. host: -- guest: yeah, i think that is an important point, before that dixiecrat's had become to break away from the

democratic party. throughout the mid-1960's, post-civil rights, post-voting rights, there were uprisings in the cities. the cities were -- they were on fire. crime was becoming a major concern. so, law & order. lyndon johnson, who had a vision of the great society in 19 64, by 67 and 68, i think a lot of americans across the country were feeling like -- where where -- well, where is that great society, we are not dealing -- seeing it? that was a multiracial reaction. african-americans who did not see enough relief from some of the challenges that they were facing in terms of poverty, a lot of white americans as well. so, there were other issues, of course, to. but vietnam was, i think, the central driver. without the war, you know,

history may well have been very different, including of course in 1968, the convention where we had protests, violence, and bloodshed in the streets. host: lodi, california, independent mind, denise. caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead. caller: to me, i just don't understand what's happening. i'm trying to find out if it is actually legal, what's going on, because apparently vice president harris never won -- hasn't had any wins. she lost, she left. they put her, it seems like a coronation to me. again and again, it is showing that the framework of the party

doesn't listen to the will of the people. they choose whoever they want and do that. in fact i'm not even sure if harris is going to be the one, because it seems like she is doing worse than joe biden. if the issue is about winning, not about what you want, then they are going to put her aside and put somebody else in the can win. please, let me know here where we are, because we are in uncharted territory and i've never seen that before. host: denise, california, thank you. guest: yeah, i've never seen it before either. we are in uncharted waters. the parties do have plans for something like this. let's say that the nominee were to keel over or have an incapacitating stroke, they have rules for deciding who will

replace them. in this case, the nominee, joe biden, has withdrawn. so, the rules are -- and actually, he was the presumptive nominee, not even technically the nominee. the caller is exactly right. biden harris were the winners of 14 million primary votes. given that the primaries are over, it now falls to the 4000 plus delegates at the national convention. many of them are elected officials. members of congress. they are activists. they would pledge to biden but now they have become unpledged, in a sense. so, harris now has a majority of those delegates. so, i think it is fair to call her the presumptive nominee, but it really is up to these 4000 plus delegates. it's clearly not the same as the 14 million voters, but logically

it's the next best thing in an emergency situation. host: and delegates approaching now, it's by voice, not binding. caller: -- guest: yes, not binding, but the majority of the delegates have expressed an intention to vote for her when they do -- the party is going to do a virtual roll call, basically, in a couple of weeks. you never want to say it's a done deal, you never know what's going to happen, but it certainly seems like she is going to be the nominee. host: tiny, texas, republican mind, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, harris is not going to make a good president. she's got the same policies that biden and the rest of the democrats want.

as far as the hearing yesterday, that woman live from the beginning to the end. for me, i think it was a plot to assassinate from the democratic party. host: ok, we are going to leave it there, caller. but to the point that she made about the person, you hinted at it as well, when the vice president goes on, she's got to stick to her own agenda. how much does she stick to her own agenda or big -- stick to the original agenda or become her own person? guest: historically, we have seen the vice president take a pretty different path, often, depending on themselves, right? the composition of the party? circumstances within the country . truman, for example, presided over the very end of world war ii and obviously launched the war in korea.

he had a fair deal. he moved on civil rights, frankly, in a way that franklin roosevelt did not. he put his own stamp on the party and on the country. lyndon johnson, you know, john f. kennedy and in a way, lyndon johnson, he said let him continue after kennedy was assassinated in he embraced many of the kennedy programs but also went a lot further than that in his vision of a great society i think was much more vicious than what kennedy had outlined. johnson had the majority of the congress to get it done. much of the land lark -- landmark legislation still with us today, like medicare, medicaid, environmental protections, you know, that was lyndon johnson, essentially. i think it's really important that vice president harris is

going to be both defending the biden legacy and, especially if she were to win, she would have, i think, very different views on some important issues. we don't quite know what they are yet. i wouldn't say that she is just simply an extension of president biden. host: let's hear from jim in chicago. good morning, you are on with our guest, calling in on the democratic line. hello. caller: my question is about rfk junior being in the discussion, does he hurt trump's chances or harris's chances by still being in the discussion for president? guest: well, that is an open question. i think it also raises the question of third parties this cycle. because there are several

third-party candidates, including jules stein and cornell west. i think that the evidence so far is mixed in the polls have suggested that robert f. kennedy, jr., who has all of these conspiracy theories about vaccines, he has pulled support from both parties. the question, though, is whether the people who might have voted third party or might have sat on their hands and not voted for president, now they have got someone who is not biden and not trump on the ticket. do they come out and support vice president harris? we don't know that, yet, but it could potentially hurt -- higher elevation into becoming the nominee could potentially eat into some of that support. again, we have to caveat this, we just don't know. rfk junior, who knows he is going to do. he has made rumblings about

endorsing trump. will that help trump? we just don't know. host: the current president, what happens to him? he is still president of the united states, obviously, but how does the goal change? guest: it's a great question. the president himself did this phone call, recovering from covid in delaware, did a phone call at the campaign headquarters saying i'm not going anywhere, i have six months left in my presidency and i am going to be out there stumping for you. it's really interesting, though, because vice president harris will surely want president biden's support. they are very linked, both politically and in terms of their policy record. but because biden has become unpopular, it's going to be trickier for her, right? she's prop -- he's -- she is probably not going to do every

rally with the president. she will want to establish her own independence. to think about one example, ronald reagan running for governor in 66, beeri got -- barry goldwater, the 64 nominee that lost in a huge landslide, still popular among conservatives. but reagan did not want goldwater campaigning with him, right? wanted him at arms length and was happy to kind of have a loose endorsement bump but didn't want to stump with him. he wanted to kind of define himself and project his own image and shed some of that more extremist association. so, vice president harris, very different. it's a balancing act. guest: -- host: a lame duck president now, what could it mean? guest: it could be liberating

for him. he's not a lame-duck president -- he is now a lame-duck president, everybody knows that, but he doesn't have a majority in the house and is already limited with what he can do. his legacy as he sees it, of course, is harris winning in november. to the extent that he makes decisions, he will want to make decisions that he thinks is helpful to the country, of course, but also his legacy, and you cannot take politics out of it. it's also going to see liberating as well because they don't have to worry as much about every action through the lens of him and, frankly, the pressure is alleviated somewhat for him as well. people will not be watching his every word to see if he confuses the president of one country with another. some of under.

-- that's some of what he's been under. host: sabrina, the house is coming in in about five minutes. go ahead. caller: ok, first of all, let's start off with this whole thing. the democratic party needs to put forth other candidates besides harris. biden had his own legacy before she came onto the scene. this whole thing is just so messed up. the american people are not going to support her, they are not going to do it. if the democratic party puts her fourth as a candidate, trump has it in the back. if they want a chance of winning this election, they will have to put forth another candidate. it's going to be groundbreaking because there is no way that the american people are going to vote for her because it's not going to happen. she's [indiscernible]

and it's not going to happen. host: she's a what? guest: i think she said foreigner, but that's not true, of course. she's a u.s. citizen. it does raise the question, frankly, of donald trump, if they were to lose, would they accept the results? of course there was chatter at the republican convention that there is no way they can lose without cheating. and obviously it's likely to be a close election no matter what. the democrats probably have a better chance today than they did a few days ago. obviously, it is a fraught moment, but vice president harris seems to be uniting the democratic party and of tent -- potentially appealing to some of these double hater voters. host: jim, nevada, running short

on time, get on it. caller: i was wondering if you might be able to elucidate on what accounts for the degradation of critical thinking among the electorate that would allow a creature like trump to ascend to the national stage to the extent that he has -- guest: look, i think trump, whatever people think of him, donald trump is a very skilled politician and political operator. i think that you cannot just dismiss him as -- he has won the nomination of his party now three times in a row. he even amid covid, and arguably the disastrous handling of the pandemic, came close to winning reelection. trump has shown that he is masterful the social media. i think he has moved the republican party in a more far right direction on issues like

immigration and trade and a number of other america first isolationisms. he's found a real constituency for this in the country. he has tapped into something over the last decade that allowed him to endure. we need to not dismiss the well of popular support that he has found. host: we have about a minute, tell us about your book about the john birch society. guest: this group of the 1960's, conspiratorial, antiestablishment, anti-interventionist, embracing a more kind of explicit racism, helping to establish an alternative political tradition on the far right. that even though it was seen as extremist, other successors to the movement picked up on it over time and cap the legacy alive, the ideological legacy.

they were a part of the larger conservative coalition that in some ways the tea party and now maga, they reflect those ideas. ideas around change, it being about some of the extremist origins to the far-right takeover of the conservative movement. host: the book is about how the john birch society radicalized the american right and is written by matthew dallek. thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: the house of representatives is just about to come in. don't forget, when you go to our website, c-span.org, particularly campaign 2024, all the recent and daily updates when it comes to the current state of the presidential race, including the entry of kamala harris as the standardbearer of the democratic party, you can see all of that on c-span.org. the house is about to come in for its daily session. we take you to them now. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is respo