the senators follow on questions must be sued and submitted by 5 p.m. january 30 on saturday and i asked you to respond to whitten -- written questions you received by noon, monday, february 1. i know that is a tight timeframe but your prompt responses will facilitate this committee quickly processing yo >> members of congress speak at the march for life rally at noon eastern time. at 6:00 senator cory booker talks about what he sees as threats to the u.s. system of government. at noon on c-span two, federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. hosted by the bipartisan policy center. coming up in an hour, evan mcmullen, the 2016 independent

presidential candidate and former chief policy director for house republicans discusses the future of the republican party. at 8:45 a.m., james taylor on the bided -- biden administrations's climate change agenda. ♪ host: good morning everyone on this friday, january 29. we begin the conversation with our review about the debate happening in washington over political rhetoric and when a politician's comments crossed the line. where is the line? that is our question. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you could text us with your thoughts if you put your first name, city and state at (202) 748-8003.

send us a tweet if you put @cp n anwj or post your comments on facebook.com/c-span. we will get to your thoughts on this question. what do a politician's comments crossed the line? we want to know where the line is. there is a debate happening in washington over marjorie taylor greene's support for and comment she made before she ran for congress in 2018 and 2019. cnn reported this week about postings she made. from their reporting they noticed this. in one post, greed like a comment that said a bullet to the head would be quicker to remove house speaker nancy pelosi. another post about executing fbi agent who were working against trump.

in 20 green wrote about the iran deal and barack obama's foreign policy agreements saying do we get to hang them referring to obama and hillary clinton. we must be patient, this must be done perfectly or liberal judges will let them off. yesterday, the speaker of the house was asked about these previous comments by the congresswoman. here's what she had to say. >> i want to ask you about marjorie taylor greene. how concerned are you about her past remarks, rhetoric, what would you like to see done? rep. pelosi: what i'm concerned about is the republican leadership in the house of representatives who is willing to overlook, ignore those statements. assigning her to the education committee when she has mocked

the killing of little children. she has mocked the killing of teenagers in high school at marjory stoneman douglas high school. what could they be thinking or thinking too generous a word for what they might be doing? it is absolutely appalling. the focus has to be on the republican leadership of this house of representatives. the disregard they have for the death of those children. not only are they not interested in gun safety and gun violence prevention bypassing legislation for background checks. that is overwhelmingly supported in a bipartisan way in the country. to have someone mock those

events is just beyond any understanding of any regard the house republicans would have. for the heartbreak of the families at sandy hook and marjory stoneman douglas high school. it is really beyond the pale. the senate has to ask them why they thought that this raised itself to the level of something that was appropriate to do in the congress of the united states. host: the speaker critical of the house for putting the georgia congresswoman on the education committee after her postings about that school shooting. cbs news is reporting that she will not resign amid calls for her expulsion from congress.

california democrat jimmy gomez has issued a resolution to expel the georgia republican. the resolution has garnered more than 30 democratic cosponsors. it must receive two thirds support of the house which would require nearly 70 republicans to join in. they go on to a spokesperson who told cvs that she has no plans to resign. they're coming after me because i'm a threat to their goal of socialism. they're coming after me because they know i represent the people, not the politicians. they are coming after me because like president trump, i will always defend conservative values. they absolutely hate that. she also put on twitter this from yesterday. the media only reports the lies, smears, and attacks to create the image they want the world to believe. that is why they are fake news and no one believes them anymore.

elizabeth in greenwich connecticut, a democratic caller. let me show you before we get to your thoughts, this is the republican leaders spokesperson responding to what the freshman republican had said. these comments are deeply disturbing and leader mccarthy plans to have a conversation with the congresswoman about them. caller: thank you for taking my call. as a democrat i have watched the degradation of humility coming out of the republican party. what i find offensive is they denigrate the choices of democrats. if the roles were reversed and if they called the same names or took the same posture they would be apoplectic. they are feeding a mentality of

adversity as opposed to working together. carrying on with qanon and threats, i work for an airline for 30 years. law enforcement are giving waivers -- given waivers. no one else carries a gun into an airplane. why do they need to carry a gun into the capital. it is scary for the other elected officials and the american republic -- republic that they could do that. would immediately order sensor and removal. that's what i think. host: pennsylvania, republican.

what do you think should happen? where is the line and what should happen to the freshman congresswoman? caller: i'm not sure. i watched another morning show and everything. they had said the oyster i could think of was this was before she was in office protecting her second amendment right. they have people thinking congress people will be killing congresspeople. the minute the stabbing of -- the shooting by one of the rap star shooting donald trump in the head. the comments were started four years ago. now because she is a republican, all of this stuff is hitting the

fan. you are four years too late with this topic. it is geared toward donald trump and republicans. when that don't work they come after the supporters. i'm still an american voter in a free country. i'm called every other name in the book. four years to eight -- too late. host: vince, an independent. caller: this started probably 10 years ago, maybe longer. i changed my party affiliate. she couldn't even say who she voted for and she was supposed to be a democrat. the guy you had on a couple of times from south mississippi said he didn't vote for obama.

these people dislike the democrats. i don't know why you all will have some type of topic on that? host: where do you think the line is when it comes to political rhetoric? when does a politician cross it? caller: they cross it with the rhetoric. this lady from georgia use. there is one i think from nevada. colorado, nevada, one of those states. host: your thing of the freshman congresswoman. caller: they crossed the line all the time. they don't seem to get any repercussions for it.

obama was running for president and he was going to a reverend church there they were outraged by what this guy was saying. now they are not outraged by their own representatives or senators doing the same thing. it is just mind-boggling. i don't understand it. i thank you for letting me on. you are a great host. i appreciate you. host: let me show you how republicans responded to former congressman steve, republican of iowa. the house overwhelmingly condemned gop rep steve king for white supremacy remarks. they noted the house voted for 24-1 on a resolution of

disapproval offered by james clyburn. they reject the ideologies that -- of white supremacy had white nationalism. he gave a comment to the new york times which is why republicans and democrats responded this way. you will recall the des moines register reported on at the republicans removed him from committees. the des moines register noted he was removed from the agriculture committee and they said it came at the worst possible time for struggling iowa farmers. this was january, 2019. the hill newspaper and others noted representative steve king lost his primary battle in the next election. he is no longer a member of congress. the opinion page of the usa today compares how republicans responded to steve king then to

how they are paired -- responding now. how does the party of lincoln feel about marjorie taylor greene? green makes king feel like a relative statesman. even before she was elected to represent the 14th congressional district. she embraced qanon and other theories. her facebook account contained racist, islamophobia, and anti-semitic views. house republican leaders rightly denounced her in her candidacy in the georgia primary. she prevailed in the primary and since then conspiracists with their lies about satan worshiping pedophiles have become among the most conspicuous groups committed to donald trump. they were among riders who stormed the u.s. capitol.

they say their view is representative greene's views pose a test for republicans. agree or disagree? caller: i really don't think there is a line anymore that could be crossed. especially on the republican side. it is something like a soccer game where the line keeps moving. a couple of things related to that. the republicans when there were supreme court judges they lied to the faces of the democrats and said they would not put a supreme court judge in until the end of the term of a president. another thing is media bias with the republicans always cry about. there's always a little list of what the conservatives have.

it is fox news, oann, newsmax, talk radio, the internet, how they could say there is a media bias and use that as a point of contention is ridiculous. one thing i'm tired about is the republicans are always acting like lucy with the football and democrats always act like charlie brown. they have to change that. they have to get the filibuster canceled. they have to do what they have to do to change the country and get it going in the right direction. host: let me ask you about another back-and-forth that is making news. representative alexandria ocasio-cortez sent out a tweet yesterday responding to ted cruz agreeing with her. she said i'm happy to work with

republicans on this issue where there is common ground. you almost had me murdered three weeks ago so you could sit this one out. happy to work with almost any other gop that aren't trying to get me killed. in the meantime, if you want to help, you could resign. the hill newspaper reports the gop congressman is demanding she apologize following the twitter exchange with cruz. this is from the republican of texas demanding an apology. roy said he came to his attention the interaction between ted cruz and alexandria oak osseo cortez took place. -- alexandria ocasio-cortez, it is completely unacceptable for a member of congress to make this kind of charge against another member in the house or the senate for simply engaging in speech regarding electors as

they interpreted the constitution. i ask you to tell her to immediately apologize and retract her comment. what you thing about that? caller: as soon as ted cruz apologizes for coming out with a big lie and backing trump about the election being of -- being a fraud, then she could apologize. the sides are too far divided. host: jim, a republican. caller: this is a ridiculous question. it will never stop because this is a battle. concerned about the censorship, some of the things they have been talking about is conspiracy

theories like this q thing that i know nothing about. other things being edited, sanitized, erased by the internet. does any c-span junkie remember after 9/11? for about five straight years the democrats callers were calling about the conspiracies that the deep state george bush blew up the twin towers. i was kind of a conspiracy theory. i listened to those callers for years. i didn't have a problem with it. a kind of made me mad. it was kind of funny. they had really wacky theories. back then facebook -- the internet did not censor these conspiracy theories.

i'm sure they are still on the internet. the other thing i want to say is talk about rhetoric. talk about incendiary rhetoric. guys like me constantly being called white supremacist. those are fighting words. i'm sick of it. i'm a white guy from pennsylvania. i work with mexicans, hondurans, guatemalans, all black guys -- old black guys, i even work with refugees. it is always the rich, white millionaires who have no contact with minorities who call me the working guy a racist. i'm out in the trenches with these people. it is not always hunky-dory. there's lots of conflict. i have been through the meatgrinder of this all my life.

i was displaced by illegal alien labor and i came west to get a better job. it is the rich white guys that live behind walls in georgetown or new england, they have their own security forces. like biden, he never had a job in his life. i'm not a member of any group. i'm a nice guy, i get along with anybody. i worked with people of color all my life. i'm tired of that. host: do you think that politicians can incite people to go a step further? to be violent? caller: the left is pushing white guys like me up against the wall. when a couple take a swing back, it justifies this narrative that

the white man is a predator in the black man and other minorities are innocent little lambs. that is just not true in the real world. host: why do you feel pushed against the wall? caller: when someone is constantly picking a fight with you and calling you names and telling you what garbage you are, what am i supposed to say? host: who is doing that, where you feel like it is an attack on you? caller: you have a rich, white insulated guy like biden talking about so-called white supremacy and is rising up these groups like the proud boys. i have never heard of these guys. i have been a subscriber to many nationalist newsletters. the one i learned of from you was this american renaissance. you guys used to cover people

like jared taylor. allow him to come on your tv show and talk about racial issues. i just want a full story of race . i want to talk about the reality . the left is creating a false narrative. it is not going to work because it is not based on truth. host: when president biden says that white supremacy is on the rise, usa white man feel like he is attacking you? caller: when you look at racial crime statistics, which c-span used to cover, black on white violence was inter--- 80% of interracial violence. i have been in north philly, brought in diamond street, the bad sides of chicago, i have

been to the real world. host: are you saying that when president biden and others say white supremacy is on the rise, you take it as a personal offense because you are white? caller: i take it as an offense because you have a powerful class of insulated white guys who have been in academia, hollywood, or government all their life. they don't know what it is like in the trenches or in the real world. do i take offense to being called a racist everyday? damn right i do, i met a lot of black racists. host: why do you feel like the president is saying that to you? caller: don't turn it around to think i'm paranoid. i'm just tired of it. host: i'm not saying that at all. i'm trying to understand. caller: white guys on the left

are scared. they are terrified whether they are in hollywood, academia, part of the political world. they know that in order to maintain power they have to vilify the lower class whites to get the other minority groups to follow them and believe they are the ones who are going to save them. host: thank you for the conversation. i will move on so we can get more voices in. judy in massachusetts. caller: about that lady, that republican, she ain't going to go nowhere, i will tell you right now. the american people are sick of the republicans since trump has been in office. they didn't want to work, they didn't do much. they don't want to help the people. they collect money and to hell

with everyone else. host: she says marjorie taylor greene will not go anywhere. she says she is not going to resign. there are -- there are calls for her to be expelled from the house. take a look at her numbers in 2020 when she won her term in congress. she won with 74.7%. her democratic opponent unofficially withdrew with 25.3%. the republican party in washington tried to oppose her in the primary. she came out the victor in her primary runoff for the 14th congressional district. there are the numbers there. diane in fayetteville, new york, independent.

go ahead. caller: i'm calling because the rhetoric that came from that woman's mouth was horrendous. we have no kind of shut off valve for when things get too explosive. there's also different steps and different levels of rhetoric that could be just as demeaning and just as harmful. in a different sort of way. everything in sight. i'm so sorry to call myself an american because there should not be republicans, there should not be democrats, there shouldn't be nitty-gritty back and forth. we should all be americans. we should try and come together. i don't think that would really ever happen.

one mean comment could be just as bad as somebody that says i will be polite. thank you. host: bernard in new york, republican. where is the line for political rhetoric? caller: there is no line. the line is gone. i want to answer the question, that guy was excellent. you kept asking him the question if he took the charges of being a racist, if you took those charges personally. the answer is this, biden doesn't come right out and say it. half of the democratic party and 90% of the news media, i will get to the news media in a minute say anybody who voted for trump is a racist. that is said over and over

again. it is like the global's with the big lie. if you tell a lie ever -- over and over again people will believe it. we will take over america, we won't have to follow up -- fire a shot. we will use useful idiots. these are the people who believe 90%. one local called in, these conservatives, they have fox news. fox news happens to be the only channel that gives a conservative point of view. i will give you a little history if you don't mind. i like you. this started a long time ago. we are seeing the takeover of america by what i call the fascist left. they call themselves antifa. they are the fastest. they are worshiped just about by

the news media. they are only fighting for racial justice. it is racial justice all the time. the bad guys are the white people. this is what they say. many members of the democratic party. i'm 83, i forget name sometimes. the one that went out and said get in their faces. host: are you talking about maxine waters? caller: thank you very much. how come she is not indicted for inciting riots, inciting violence. this is the double standard that now takes place and we almost don't have a chance. i will tell you this. the reason we hated trump the way they hated trump, here it is. there were outside forces. i don't know if you want to call them communist.

it doesn't matter what their names are. they have been trying to take this country over for probably 100 years but at least since the 60's since he came to fruition. every single one of them, single -- silicon valley, they took over the internet. they took over the school system. they are brainwashing children now from the first grade up until college. this is all coming from the left. it is very hard to get the voice out there because they dominate everything. we are in serious danger in this country. one of the reason that i feel like the back -- my back is against the wall. 74 million people voted for trump and they all feel their

back is against the wall. they are denigrated on cnn, msnbc, every single network. last thing. host: i'm going to leave this, we have a lot of people waiting to get in on this conversation. you brought up maxine waters and what she said. fox reported on it then and they noted the fire started about civility that began with the refusal of a virginia restaurant owner to serve sarah sanders has now concentrated on one person, maxine waters. it started over the weekend at a los angeles rally when she urged attendees to keep pushing back against members of the trump administration with whom they disagreed. referring to the attention grabbing incident in which they were confronted by the public. you think we are rallying now? you haven't seen anything yet. members of congress -- here's another quote.

you have members of congress being booed out of restaurants. if you see anyone from the cabinet in a restaurant in a department store, at a gasoline station create a crowd and push back on them. you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. it's the congresswoman in 2018 addressed the chair of the financial services committee when he brought up her comments. she addressed what she had said and this question of stability. rep. waters: as to the chairman's comment about civility and what you would do if he owned a restaurant. let me say that i think every reasonable person has concluded that the president of the united states of america has advocated violence, he has been divisive, he has been the one that has caused what we see happening

today. people are trying to push back on his policies and where people are trying to have peaceful protests instead of violence. he continues to call names and challenge people in very violent ways. in his campaign he said i'd like to knock the craft out of them. further he said do you know what they used to do to guys like us when they were in a place like this, they would be carried out on a stretcher. in addition to that he also talked about the fact that if someone was hurt while they were being assaulted and he was encouraging them to do -- he said this. if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crab out of them. just knock the hell out. i will pay for the legal fees. if you want to talk about civility, start with the

president of the united states and you employ him -- implore him not to promote violence and not continue to promote divisiveness. then i think it would be a better example and people would've -- follow a better example rather than get trapped what he is advocating. host: maxine waters and 2018 responding to calls for her to apologize. they came from then speaker paul ryan and also kevin mccarthy, the majority leader at the time told fox news the people who claim tolerance seemed to be the most intolerant in this process. adding we need civility in this country. the idea you're asking people to go forward has become very dangerous and becomes a risk inside our country as well. that is what kevin mccarthy had to say about maxine waters comments in 2018. we showed you what the leader of

the republicans, kevin mccarthy, had to say about marjorie taylor greene's comments. these comments are deeply disturbing. leader mccarthy plans to have a conversation with the congresswoman about them. let's go to drew in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. host: where is the line for you? caller: i'm sorry? host: where is the line? caller: it is increasingly hard to make out. first, i just wanted to say i appreciated your back and forth with the gentleman. you are authentically trying to understand where he was coming from as far as his angst that a lot of conservatives and republicans, perhaps many of them white males like myself might feel. i think much of it comes from the media itself.

like where we getting that messaging that are increasingly portraying white males in the republican party specifically as white supremacists. it comes from the media itself. it is a tougher and tougher cross to bear. i was just going to say while some of the comments are taken, some people make comments that democrats urged supporters to be violent. the maxine waters comments, in and of itself, we know how it was delivered at the rally itself. considering the restaurant situation had just happened with sarah huckabee.

people take that in and they process in a certain way. it obviously lends itself to how people feel down the line and how it may be control someone's moral compass down the line. i would say that those comments, if they were from people like hillary clinton, who has made comments. in castigating with those who promote violence you have to get down with the dogs. she has made those comments before about how you have to play dirty with already. i don't believe there's a conducive way of dealing with each other in this country. we've lost decorum across the board. certainly comments made from our leaders with hardline tellers isn't going to get us to the day

that we probably all want. host: would you apply the same theory of people taking whatever politicians say as their moral compass using the example of maxine waters, would you use that same theory for president trump set on january 6? caller: absolutely. we have to take responsibility for the words that come out of our mouths. the passion behind those words could be even more important. host: jane, in fort worth, texas. caller: hello. i wanted to make a comment to the guy that said -- understand this is coming from a democrat. he was talking about maxine waters. my thing is where the line is,

republicans and democrats always had this against each other. since trump was the candidate and become president, this has gotten violent. you have to remember when he said he could go on fifth avenue and shoot someone and not lose a vote. now that he is president that is actually true. everything trump has done has never been accountable for you cannot get one republican to just say ok, he was wrong. he lied. you cannot. if that is where the line is, if

they became completely honest, i think we could cross this line. until they be honest and say what he is doing, what he has done what he has done was wrong. host: what about liz cheney from wyoming? a member of the leadership team in the house who said the president lit the fire? caller: there's how many of them five? her and mitt romney? host: in the impeachment vote there were 10 republicans. there are five republicans in the senate who voted with democrats earlier this week. caller: how many republicans is there? ob that many -- only that many

came out and said that was wrong. that is not enough. if you get enough of them, maybe more will come. you can't take three barrels of apples that are rotten out of a barrel and expect the rest of them to be ok. host: liz cheney has come under fire for being critical of the president's role in the capital breach. matt gaetz, a vocal supporter of president trump went to wyoming yesterday. take a look at the headlines. wyoming capital crowd cheers on gaetz, take a look at what he'd said. rep. gaetz: this is my first

time in wyoming. i feel like i already know the place better than your misguided representative. my grandfather was a small town mayor in not too different north dakota. he passed before his time but not before passing a little wisdom to my dad. my old man calls it prairie populism. do right by your people, never sell out. never, never let the powerful run over the week. inspire people through courage and tell the truth. the truth is that the establishment in both political parties has been up to screw our fellow americans for

generations. in washington, d.c., the insider club of joe biden, mitch mcconnell, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, and liz cheney -- [crowd booing] rep. gaetz: enriching them, make them more powerful at our expense. we could stop them and it starts right here in wyoming. [applause] host: florida congressman not gaetz making a visit to wyoming to voice his opposition to liz cheney, the congresswoman from that state and her role in republican leadership because of her criticism of president trump. this took place a few hours after kevin mccarthy the republican leader met with former president donald trump in florida. the headline in usa today, trump

and house gop leader meet in florida to talk about 2022. news reports say may also aim to recognize -- reconcile differences after he blamed president trump for -- or said he should be held accountable for it. he then voted against impeachment. kevin mccarthy tweeting out united and ready to win in 2022 with a picture of him in the president. c-span also tweeting out that picture of the two of them together at the president's resort in mar-a-lago taking a photo from -- with former president donald trump. john in south carolina. caller: how are you today? host: good morning, where's the line for you when it comes to political rhetoric? caller: i believe -- all my life

i have listened to the right, the left, the one thing that has happened that i understand is probably paramount to anything is the republicans have broken the system. they have turned around and said if we can't win, we could just lie and say it was wrong in the first place. it works well but what happens with that is the fact that people now have in their head that when something happens in washington and the guy is standing there on the line protecting assemblies from the

rioters in the worry is that cop going to stop that man? or is he going to open the door and take a selfie before he comes in and tells me? host: tie this to political rhetoric. they are pushing that trump didn't do anything wrong. we had a trial. he was exonerated. ask any cop, when you try to arrest somebody and you search them. you search all of the pockets. you don't get to just search the front pockets and leave the back pockets untouched. host: what do you bring up then? caller: i believe they broke the

country. host: "usa today" on what happens next with the impeachment trial of president trump, the second one after the house voted to impeach him. they are slated to begin the trial the week of february 8. "usa today" are talking about censoring the president with acquittal likely. democrats are going over their options. dave in michigan, independent. caller: good morning. there are both sides of this, you could go on and on. just to make it quick, you don't have a judicial host that could verify this. i always wondered, even going back to jfk. i am 70 years old. when i was younger we believe the president. we believed what he said.

pretty well rest assured that was the train of thought. what happens is, when you come right down the president when he takes the oath of office, what is the state ship between the oval and the judicial system? it says i will tell the truth at the inauguration. so help me god. this gets back to my core root of let's go back and let's take a look at what we say, what we do and the way people feel. our senators get up on the stage. i watch c-span a lot. they stand there and they say -- something about evidence.

i don't care if it is any of them, pelosi, sanders, the white house, they have verifiable evidence. make us understand. host: you said we used to believe what president said. when do you think americans stop trusting the president? caller: i really don't know. i think it was maybe the turn of the chaos in all of this in our world affairs. when we get too many other people, i will not say too many other people. what happens is there are attacks on this nation. i think you got kind of mixed up.

-- it's got kind of mixed up. we have to look out for us, yes. what happens is we've got to the point where there is no verifiable numbers. the war in iraq, it makes my skin crawl to understand some of these authoritarian countries. that is the way they are used to it. they are used to being treated that way. host: you cannot verify what a politician is telling you, do you feel like that is when people just retreat to their camps? i cannot verify this so i will just go with what i want to hear? caller: you are right. you've got the right to say whatever you want to. when you take the oath on the

bible and say yes, i'm not a real religious person but i will say there are a lot of people that are. when you take the oath or tell the truth, there has got to be some kind of rating. whatever it is to whatever the public thinks for how we will have this rhetoric. host: there are those sites out there. politifact, "washington post", "new york times." they all have this. if the politician is spinning the numbers or telling you exactly the facts. we will go to karen in california. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that as far

as political rhetoric and where is the line, we might have that old saying about -- you don't know where it is but you know it when you see it. i want to agree with the republican gentleman that called in a little while ago. there needs to be a return to a sense of decorum. it has gotten so out of hand. i worry about republicans continuing with all of this going on in their party. i respected the republican party until now. there is so much hitting them in the face and they will not acknowledge it. no one will apologize, especially trump. just watching maxine waters a little while ago. her recalling some of the things

trump had said, i remember telling my son i didn't vote for trump but i said it would be an interesting experiment. i have no idea. i just had no idea. i do miss when they go low, we go hi. one more thing i just want to mention is people that compare an artist like kathy griffin -- the people that write music, when they say violent things, how does that compare to a person in congress? i just can't see the comparison. host: are you talking about marjorie taylor greene? caller: i am. to me, i can't even imagine how

some of the people in the capital feel -- capitol feel. to think that could be sold during its way into the building. it is a chain -- shame. i agree, they should not be there. for them to have to protect themselves from the inside from an enemy that might be inside is a frightening prospect. host: the "washington post" is reporting the acting capitol police chief has talked about this dramatic step that your condemnation from the d.c. mayor. nonschool net -- non-scalable fencing was put up the day after the violent breach. former army secretary said at the time the seven foot tall fence would only remain in place for 30 days. on thursday the acting capitol

police chief said security experts have long argued that more is needed to be done to protect the u.s. capitol and members of congress. there's an update for you on that. you also mentioned marjorie taylor greene. she made national news when she was running for this seat. we sat down with her before january 6. before cnn reported this week about comments made in 2018 -2019. we asked her about her previous support for qanon. >> you drew national's intent -- attention for showing support for q and on. i'm wondering how you first became -- how you first knew of the group and why their message has resonated with you. reppo stoneman douglas --

rep. green: after we elected president trump everyone was just thrilled. we watched the media attacked him every single day. the democrats attacked him and then a whole plan basically launched into action to try to move him from office wrapped around a conspiracy theory of collusion. that was being broadcast 24/7, day in and day out from the media was something most americans wouldn't believe, didn't believe. obviously later was proven to be false. myself, not being a politician or ever having any plans to be one, i did the same thing as millions of americans. i looks to the internet of what is really going on.

that was where i stumbled across different ideas. i'm just a kind of person that will tell you what i think and feel. i went on facebook and talked about him. a lot of times i was just talking about the things i read, not necessarily preaching them like some of these stories have tried to say. i did that. i'm a normal, regular person. i also found things that i did not think were true. i made a decision to change paths. if i want to make a difference, if i really want to make sure that we protect our america first values, i want to make sure all americans because we are all equal could maintain and keep our freedoms i need to put that into action. that is when i decided to do -- what i decided to do and how i

ended up here. host: our interview with marjorie taylor greene before cnn reported this week about comments and made comments that she made on her facebook pages and other social media sites back in 2018-2019. headline said because of that, call seven mounted for greens ouster from the house. when it comes to political rhetoric, where's the line? caller: good morning. to be honest with you, i think you are -- you are just stroking a fire. everybody knows whether you are democrat, independent, or republican, nobody is happy anymore. why are our government afraid of

us? that should be the first question. if they are so afraid they are doing something wrong -- if they are so afraid, they are doing something wrong. you brought up marjorie greene. you mentioned it. host: i mentioned what? caller: you mentioned her name. the caller previously didn't mention her name. that is what you said. host: and she said yes. caller: you are stroking the fires. what do you want? do you want peace and happiness? do you want that or do you want congress on both sides to figure out what we want as americans? i don't understand this anymore.

this has gone way too far. way too far. you guys are calling all white people racial? i am sorry -- i don't know if that was right to say. asians, mexicans across the street, i don't know. we all get along. but you guys are stroking the division. if you don't see what you are doing -- and have you had 1, 1 of any of the outrage and lawsuits that were coming out on bidens ceos yet? come on, folks. host: how does this conversation that we are having stroke the fire? -- stoke the fire? caller: it doesn't stoke the fire until you come along.

the wall street journal said this. it doesn't -- it is how you start adding your opinions and trying to make people talk about it. nobody wants hatred. nobody, nobody. host: so, when i show you what people are saying in the papers, editorials, quotes from the papers, i am reporting to you what i am seeing in the papers and what folks in washington are saying about the debate. the program allows all of you outside of washington to join that debate and let these lawmakers, and journalists, and anybody else watching in know how you feel about political rhetoric and where is the line. it is not an endorsement of what they are saying.

i am letting you know what is being discussed out here so you can react to it and give us your opinion on whatever the debate is that is happening in washington. caller: is nancy pelosi standing up for anybody when she says republicans are the enemy of the people? just yesterday she said she is afraid of them. why? i'm a 56-year-old woman that has never harmed anybody in my life. why would she be afraid? i live in california. i'm afraid of her! host: i have to leave it there. we will return to the conversation in the last 30 minutes or so of the program this morning. coming up, we will be joined by former independent presidential candidate evan mcmullin on the future of the republican party and the never trump movement. later, we will talk with james taylor, president of the heartland institute, discussing

his group's opposition to the biden administration's climate change agenda. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv on c-span two has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, it is kamala's way and american life. dan talks about the life and career of vice president kamala harris. at 11:00 eastern, they talk about their books, the greater credit reversal. aging societies, waiting inequality and a inflation -- and inflation revival. sunday on afterwards, charles on his book the w know, a black power -- the devil you know, a black power manifesto. watch book tv this weekend on c-span two.

>> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is evan mcmullin, who ran for president in 2016 as an independent and is now the executive director of stand up republic. evan mcmullin, remind your viewers why you ran in 2016 as an independent. guest: in 2016, i felt that in the general election that conservative and american principles were not going to be well represented during that part of the election, the general phase. i felt that someone needed to stand up and represent those.

if not, they could be lost from at least half of the republican -- or the american population. and certainly lost from the republican party. i felt some but he had to stand up and represent them. i also thought that there should be another candidate who represented those who did not feel well represented by either side. the most important reason was to stand up for fundamental americans, which should be also conservative principles. host: are you a republican? guest: i am technically registered as a republican now. obviously i feel estranged from the party and not well represented by its current direction at all. where i will go from here is a question. we are a two party system. i think that is critically important that both parties be committed to truth and democracy.

i think all americans should have a goal to ensure that both parties are that way. i am sure we will talk about exactly what that means for the future. but, as far as me personally, i am registered as a republican for now. but i am not supporting the direction of the republican party at the moment. host: what is your reaction to this political poll that found over half of voters believe trump should probably or definitely run for president again in 2024. 36% think he should not. guest: it represent progress that over one third of the party thinks that president trump should be in the republican party's past and not future. it is very concerning that a majority of republicans would like to see him back in office. another three fourths of the party believe that joe biden was not the rightful winner of the

election -- the last election. so, there are serious challenges going forward for the party. i think donald trump remains in control of the largest portion of its base. and that -- whether he should be part of the party going forward in a leadership capacity is the topic of a debate. there is some oxygen for that debate right now. clearly, the direction of the party is toward him, still. host: do you think republican senators in an impeachment trial should vote to convict the president for incitement of violence on the capitol hill -- on capitol hill so he could not run again? guest: i think the most important reason why the senators should convict president -- former president trump is so that there is accountability. we have a president who, at the end of his term, incited, i would say lead a violent

insurrection against the u.s. government. against the representatives of the people in congress, in order to overturn the results of an election in which he lost. if there is not accountability for such egregious action on the part of an executive, on the part of a president, then i fear that we will see other authoritarian like actions in the future. that is a real issue. for me, it is not as much about making sure he can't run for office again. i hope he doesn't. i think he has earned being prohibited from doing so. the most important thing is that there be consequences, including at least conviction for insurrection led by the president. we simply cannot tolerate that. host: would you run in 2024? guest: i will pursue public office again. when and exactly how, i am not

sure about yet. it could happen sooner rather than later. i am not quite sure yet. but i do feel the need to offer greater leadership to the american people and, in my home state of utah. that is something that i consider. i think that we need leaders who are oriented toward unifying america and finding common ground and working toward solutions for the american people. especially at this time now, where we have almost 450,000 americans who have lost their lives during the pandemic. millions of others have lost their jobs or are barely holding on. at the same time, our democracy is more threatened than i think it has ever been since the civil war. we need better leadership. we have two leaders in office now. but not enough. we need more.

i feel compelled to do more on that front. exactly how and when, i have not decided. host: how did you perform in the state of utah in 2016? guest: we were only in the campaign for three months. exactly three months. at the beginning of the camping -- campaign, i had zero name recognition. not a team and none of the things you would need to launch a president shall campaign. it was a campaign of last resort, even in my own mind. i hope somebody else would do it. in those three months, we were able to win over 21% of the vote in utah, starting from scratch three months before election day. and without hardly any resources at the time, it was a very modest and emergency effort. it was enough to see that there was a demand for something new. a new direction for the republican party, at least for my home state. and for leaders who unify.

we did not only have republicans. we had republicans, democrats and independents who supported us. mostly republican. there is an opportunity, especially in a state like utah for more unifying, effective leadership to be put forth and help the country move forward. host: what are you i up? could it be governor -- eyeing up? could it be governor, could it be sent? guest: i don't know. i am looking at a handful of potential races. i look at leaders who are doing damage to our democracy, who use position as a political strategy, who have misled the american people for years about threats to the republic and even basic truth. those are potential races where i think greater leadership especially is required. is needed. and so those are races that i

look at most closely. i think there are some good leaders in utah. we have some excellent ones. i think senator romney has offered principal leadership to the country -- principled leadership to the country. spencer cox has quite a great deal of potential himself. he works to unify people. he is just newly elected. i think there are members of the congressional delegation from utah as well that have the potential to be unifying leaders and there are others that have not met that standard. and who have not lived up to their oath of office. so, those are ones that i look at, in addition to thinking about the overall situation in the country. so i just don't know yet. i am looking at options. i hope to help lead in one capacity or another, a unifying

movement to bring about more unifying leadership. hopefully, a change in the republican party, whether i run as a republican or otherwise. we do need two parties who are committed to our foundational values and to our democracy. our democratic republic. that is my goal. that is my broader goal, whether i run or not or regardless of what i run for. this country needs unifying leadership. i think there is an opportunity in this time of such great division and chaos and governance failure over the last four years for something new. a new approach to politics. will it work? i don't know. it has to, eventually. i am committed to working toward that in any capacity that i think can be most effective. host: we want our viewers to join this conversation about the future of the republican party.

if you're a democrat, dial (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name, city and stay at (202) 748-8003. what is standup republic? guest: standup republic is a political nonprofit that my running mate in 2016 and i started in 2017. we -- that organization has worked to advance american democracy put the last four years. we have done everything from promote electoral reforms that put more power in the hands of voters and give them more choice and incentivize more unifying and effective leadership like independent redistricting and other electoral reforms. excuse me.

as well, we work to promote good leaders. honorable leaders. that has meant defeating some of the bad ones. we were one of the main organizations, i think we were the biggest outside organization that campaigned to defeat steve king. that took us two campaign cycles. we were a major player against roy moore and a handful of others, some who we are still working on. we did that by mobilizing principled republicans and former republicans to stand up and to defend their principles and defeat leaders who were destructive and divisive and dishonorable. that was what we did and what we continue to do. we played that role in the 2020 election, working in swing states to mobilize principled

republicans to defeat donald trump and take the country in another direction and hopefully set the stage for a stage -- a change in the republican party. , however difficult that still seems. host: when you look at 2022, who will be on the list of republicans you plan to oppose? guest: i -- i don't know for sure. we do evaluate those opportunities, even now we are doing that. you think of congresswoman greene. you were discussing her before i came on the program. she is about as divisive and ineffective and extremist as they come. she is not the only one. there are others out there who have worked for the last four years, longer than she has been in congress, to deceive

republicans across the country and mislead them and to divide americans for their own political benefit. those are leaders that need to be held accountable. certainly, those who voted not to certify the election results and made an effort to overturn those results, those people, there are many of them, over 100 members who did that, even after the violent insurrection. there is a lot of work to be done. we cannot do all of them. we cannot oppose all of them. in addition to opposing people, i think it is absolutely critical that we support those who are doing the right thing. 10 members of the house republicans stood on principle to impeach the president, which should not have been a tough call. i know there were many republicans who wanted to do that but were afraid of the base and their own physical safety,

which, frankly, i don't think is sufficient excuse. those concerns are real. they did not step forward to impeach the president. those who are doing the right thing need to be defended. you think of liz cheney and others. we need to stand with them as principled and former republicans. also, i think everyone in the country, we need to back these leaders up. they made a hard decision that put them at risk politically and physically. i think we need to be there for them as we continue to support other members of congress who are doing the right thing. democrats and a handful of independents. we need to be there for them to support them. not only removing and holding accountable those who have taken steps to damage the republic, but those who have taken a principled stand to support it. host: let's get to the calls.

jack in st. petersburg, florida. republican. you are up first. caller: thanks. when you look at the fairness of it all, americans are basically fair people. when they feel that the rules are being changed in the middle of the game or that something is not clear or that the rules are favoring one side over the other, that is a double standard. and that is what you have. host:? are you talking about the election? -- host: jack, are you talking about the election? caller: yes. everybody saw that there was a double standard. nobody is saying trump won by a landslide. but we are saying that there were issues. and those issues had to be explained. a lot of americans feel those issues were never clearly explained. the guys in the senate, they have a right to bring up those issues. no one is saying they will

overturn the election. in the impeachment process has been perverted by pelosi. holding it up for two weeks, sending it over, they are a bunch of angry, old democrats. host: we will take your points about the election. evan mcmullin, how do you respond? guest: there is someone saying donald trump won by a landslide. he says he won by a landslide. some republicans who support the president, they have been told by the former president and by others, his allies, that the election was stolen. and that there were problems with it that simply did not exist. and they believe that. we just heard that from jack. republicans have been subjected to four years of essentially state tv on fox news and other

outlets. they have been mislaid -- misled by their own leaders and the targets of disinformation. it is not hard to imagine how someone, like jack, could be misled by all of that. people want fairness. i agree that americans want fairness. generally, americans are good and fair. i believe that as well. but if you have been subjected to lies for 4.5 to five years that lead you to believe that an election has been stolen from a candidate you prefer. the former president tapped out on the election before and certainly afterwards, you will hear things like we heard from jack. the election was reviewed by courts across the country. by election officials on both

parties and there were not irregularities. jack mentioned the changing of the rules, those rules were put in place and in processes that were established and were legitimate. i would ask jack and others, if i had the opportunity, what do you say about the fact that republicans gained seats in the house during that same election? you can't have it both ways. i think that is the kind of critical thinking that is not happening enough on the right these days, unfortunately. host: david in san diego, republican as well. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i appreciate you giving us a voice. i understand -- i voted for obama twice and i was a democrat most of my life.

switched to independent, back and forth over the years. recently i voted for trump because of the policies. the man is definitely flawed. he has some problems. he is bringing up a lot of good points that the establishment -- that is where i want to go with this -- most of the guys were called racist all of the time. the establishment created this mess for power, quite frankly on both sides. that is why we are now left grasping for straws every election if we see an independent or somebody talking not flowery talk and they are talking plain talk, we tend to gravitate more toward that. that is where i am at. host: evan mcmullin?

guest: i think that what you just heard was important. there is a lot of dissatisfaction out there. there is a lot of distrust. it comes from a lot of sources. there are a lot of reasons for it. there are a lot of people sowing seeds of distrust in the american mind about the government. i will also say that the republican and the democratic parties have to start to deliver solutions to the american people. i think the gridlock and dysfunction that you have seen in washington in modern history has left a lot of people feeling very frustrated about their government. that is why i think it is so important after the last four years that this administration, that the biden administration, make an effort to successfully

govern in a way that unifies most of the country and delivers actual solutions to the country. i am somebody, these days, i don't look as much at our situation as republicans versus democrats. i see it as a fight for american democracy versus authoritarian -- an authoritarian movement against it. joe biden was elected with the coalition of republicans, democrats and independents. i call that coalition the democracy coalition. the american democracy movement. that democracy movement, now that it is in power, it is a broad coalition of unlikely partners. but it must now govern. it must now deliver results to the american people in this time of such great need. and then i hope we will hear people like the last caller say

that things have changed. things are getting done. things are moving forward. and that will be a wonderful thing for the republic. that is what i am hopeful will happen. it needs to happen in the next four years. i think that this authoritarian movement in the united states that wants to overturn elections with violence and lies and that would like to move away from democracy, we are not done. we have not resolved that issue yet. we are likely to see that again in 2022. we are likely to see it in 2024, and it is quite possible that leading contenders for the 2024 republican nomination will not be as committed to american democracy as they need to be. we are not out of the woods yet. the next four years are critical for showing that democracy works . we don't all have to be united

on everything. that's not going to happen. we should have healthy debate. president biden and his administration will not convince all republican senators to come along with every initiative. but my hope is that there will be a group, however small it is, of republican senators who can work with the biden administration and the biden administration with them to find solutions that can win bipartisan support. again, not everyone. that is not going to be possible. cross partisan and bipartisan support so we can move the country forward in the most unifying way possible. host: let's go to linda in st. petersburg, florida. democratic caller. caller: i don't know what has happened to the republican party. i grew up in a very staunch republican family. most of my relatives are still that way. to the point where, as i got

more educated, my mother asked me about how i voted in the election and i told her i voted for a democrat. and she did not talk to me for two weeks. but the person i voted for was someone who -- i was a teacher. he had been a teacher and she was standing up for what i believed in. -- he was standing up for what i believed in. it was not until later that i realized that not only -- i did not realize it for the longest time. now i see that what is happening is the sleeping old giant has been awakened. i don't know how many people knew anything about trump other

than he was a personality with a lot of money who was now a republican. host: linda, what is the sleeping giant? what is that? caller: the sleeping giant is the racism. host: ok. evan mcmullin? guest: well, i join linda in looking at the republican party now and not recognizing it -- at least not recognizing it as it compares to the aspirations that i had for it, as someone who is affiliated with the republican exclusively -- who was affiliated with the republican party exclusively until 2016. it is tough. there has long been an extremist wing of republicans party. we are a two party system and in any two party system, you will have extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. that is something that both parties have to deal with. in the republican party, for the longest time, we ignored that

extremism. we brought it into the party decades ago and we ignored it. we tried to -- and i say we collectively -- not personally -- the party mostly ignored the extremist wing of itself and tried to minimize it as much as possible. at times, our leaders signaled to it but tried not to do that too much. any amount was a mistake. but what happened over time was that the extremist wing group. in 2016, it found a leader or a leader found it. donald trump was willing to or able to move through the primaries with a plurality of support, not a majority of support. he did not win a majority of votes in the 2016 primary, and he moved through with a lower

plurality, a weaker plurality, but nevertheless it was such a large number of primary -- with such a large number of primary contenders, he was able to prevail. leadership matters. especially with a president and party nominee, they have enormous influence over the views of people who follow them. that extremist wing of the republican party has grown and it now controls the party. that doesn't mean it controls everything the party does but it controls the direction of the party. and how we are going to reverse that is going to also require leadership. the problem is that our leaders -- and i mean as americans -- leaders in the republican party are not interested in actually leading. they are interested in representing only and staying in

office and reflecting what the base wants. at some point, and i wish it would have been five years ago, those leaders -- the party is going to need people, leaders, to stand up and say this isn't right. this is what truth is and some of them may lose their seats. some of them may not. they may lose voters and therefore the majority in the house and senate, they may lose presidential elections without this coalition that includes the extremist wing of the party. what it does is it creates an opportunity for the party to have a rebirth. that is the kind of tough decision, tough leadership that is actually needed in the party. it might be too late for that. i don't know. i hope that it isn't. if it is too late, that spells a bigger challenge for the country.

there is certainly plenty of room for pessimism about the near-term prospects of the publican party for change. i guess my point is simply that there will not be a new republican party without new republican leadership. and that is what is required to protect our country and the party itself from this extremist wing. host: who could lead that? is there someone you have in mind? guest: i think it needs to be more than just one person. i think certainly those who were standing on principle in congress are a start. mitt romney, liz cheney, adam kinzinger, others outside of elected office. john kasich, larry hogan in maryland. there are others. there are others who have not yet run for office who are considering it and may run in 2022. principal republicans who are conservatives who may step forward to offer a different vision for the country and

party, a unifying vision. that may happen. i think -- something that is important that also needs to occur is the capacities that have been developed under the pressure of the last four years among the principled former republicans who have fought the republic, those capacities need to be directed for another purpose, the next phase in this fight. and i believe they will be. there are discussions happening between us and principled republicans in congress about the next steps and how we might be able to, working together, occupy an important position in american politics and the chambers of commerce in which we can position between the parties and help the parties and help leaders in the white house,

president biden, and others reach unifying or find unifying solutions to the major challenges facing the country. you look at the five senators who voted to have the impeachment trial, the five republican senators, that is a good start in the senate. those senators, mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, senator portman and senator sasse, they have an opportunity to help lead the country forward. they have tremendous power and influence, given that they are acting on principle. the same is true for democrats. joe manchin. they have to mend his power to lead the country forward in a unifying way. mark kelly in arizona as well, i am optimistic about the leadership he may offer. there is opportunity for those senators and a contingent of

members of the house, those were publicans who voted to convict the president are a good start. there are others. and then democrats like abigail spanberger, who are unifying and want to bring people together across party lines and who have fought the hard fights to do that and put themselves at risk in order to do that. what we need to do on the outside, those of us who have built these capacities, grassroots, data messaging, we need to get those capacities up to support those leaders and support that kind of leadership. even though our numbers, although growing, are still small, getting positions between the two parties is a way we can continue to have outside influence. host: bob, danville pennsylvania, republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have to commend you with your grace on some of these questions. people call in with all of these opinions, it is wonderful. i hope i can get my points across and make sense. mr. mcmullen ran as an independent and i think his idea was he is in the middle. he will get the people who are moderates on both sides, which makes a lot of sense. think about president trump, when he ran and he became president. look at the enthusiasm that he had. if you want to take away his rhetoric and things he said and just what he accomplished, it was tremendous. the unemployment, america first, the jobs, everything was wonderful. but what a person says and what they do are different things. it is more important what they

do than what they say. in discussions with my family, i said -- i was strongly against most of the things that he said. he brought people to think -- got people to think about patriotism, our country, it's potential and it's incredible influence in the world as a beacon of light. that is why he was so strong. that is why people felt so strongly about him. the republicans did not -- and are still not -- putting out what the republican party stands for. individual rights, individual responsibility. what i see is that, on the liberal side, they keep people

in boxes. they see -- they say we are white america, black america, hispanic america. we are all americans. we have to put out there that we are all americans. if they continue to put us in boxes, we will have division. host: evan mcmullin, how do you respond? guest: i couldn't agree more with the latter point that our leaders need to stop working to divide us. there are politicians in our country who use division as a political strategy. and it seems that the days of running a reasonable primary campaign where you address the concerns of the base and you allow yourself enough room to run in the general election in a way that you can unify people across party lines, those days seem over. even some of the most formerly

unifying members of congress now rely on a turnout base strategy to win general elections. that is what we saw in the presidential election on the public inside with former president trump's campaign. -- on the republican side with former president trump's campaign. that leads the country to disaster. we are experiencing that and living through that disaster now. i would also respond to another thing about basically the president words or a president words -- presidents words don't matter. i disagree. the presidents words matter a great deal. research shows that. we all know that. even the presidents own supporters wait eagerly -- the former president's supporters waited eagerly for every word he typed on twitter. his words matter to them and

they matter. every presidents words matter. they have the power to spark insurrections. they have the power to spark violence. they have the power to spark unity. they have the power to advance truth and to advocate for it and to inspire the cause of freedom within our borders and beyond it. the presidents words matter a great deal. i would also argue -- and the reason why i will spend a moment on this -- i think it is important for the future of the republican party. if there is to be a healthy one, we need to come to grips with the fact that former president trump said a lot of terrible things. but it isn't just what he said. he also was catastrophically incompetent and corrupt. and that is why he mismanaged

the response to the pandemic in such a terrible way, telling the american people it was no big deal while privately telling people it was. he put his own political interests first in that response and he miscalculated in that way. it led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans, many of whom did not have to occur. and the economic crisis that ensued. every president faces challenges. every single one. whether it is a terrorist attack or a pandemic or an economic meltdown, almost every president faces some kind of crisis. that is why we need leaders who are honorable and capable in that position. for the last four years, we did not have that. i don't say that to dwell on that point. i think there are ways to find common ground. i believe, even with people who supported donald trump.

i say these things because i think we have to come to terms with that in order to move forward in a healthy and competitive way for the republican party. we have got to come to terms with the fact that donald trump was not just somebody who said terrible things. he was a terrible, terrible executive. that doesn't mean every policy that he and republicans pursued was terrible. i don't think that is the case. he pursued many policies that were standard for republicans. but he also pursued policies that were evil, like separating immigrant families at the border and putting children in cages as a way to deter future immigrants. treating refugees and asylum-seekers with great inhumanity. this was people and we have to -- evil and we have to come to terms with that. when we do, we will move forward

and republicans will be capable of leadership of the country and the country will be much better off. host: eric in westminster, maryland. independent. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: a few things that it seems like our rehashed all of the time. one, i think when you have the majority in the senate, you should be able to pass the bill that they need to pass. period. host: they don't need two thirds. they need 60. two thirds would be what they need for a conviction and an impeachment. caller: right. you need well over half. host: sure. caller: i think if you have more than half, that is the majority. and that should be the rule in my opinion. they should get rid of the filibuster. some of the most -- i want to

say -- divisive people that have been there for years, i go back to harry reid. nancy pelosi, harry reid, you look at mitch mcconnell. i know they are just the mouthpiece of the party. but both of the parties have horrific relations. i think part of the issue is they have been there too long. we need to do something to have term limits. i don't know how we get that on the ballot. host: we are running short on time. two issues for evan mcmullin. you have votes in the senate, how many it takes and term limits. guest: he is referring to the filibuster, that is really his point. it requires 60 votes to actually move forward on a bill in the senate and, in a divided senate, the way it is 50-50 with vice president kamala harris as the tiebreaker, that presents

challenges for bills. this is what i would say. the filibuster and that 60 vote threshold can be a positive thing in the sense that it creates the need for bipartisan solutions. not unanimous solutions but bipartisan solutions. that manner of working in the senate can lead to lasting policies, good policies that unify the country and that create stability in the country. and for the country. i think the filibuster and that 60 vote threshold is important. i will say this. the minorities, in this case, the republicans who are barely in the minority now. the minority always wants to protect the filibuster. there is responsibility the minority has to work

constructively with the majority in advancing policies that are good for the country. if the minority is simply going to be obstructionist, then they are the ones that put that 60 vote threshold at risk. because they put their own voices and their own power at risk. so, it is incumbent upon them to engage constructively. we did not see that from, frankly i say this as a republican, we did not see that for mitch mcconnell and republicans in the senate. when mitch mcconnell said his number one task was to obstruct obama and make sure he failed. that is not the right approach for the country. i say that as a conservative and a republican. we need to work together because that is the only way anything can get done. there will not be unanimity. the republicans have a responsibility to protect the filibuster, protect their own voices by governing

constructively with the majority. as far as term limits, you know, i am someone who has thought positively about term limits. i think that you can decide how long the limits should be. i think it is important that we have representatives who have some expertise and develop some governing and legislative expertise if we are speaking specifically about congress or state legislatures. i also think if you allow someone to stay for decades and decades and decades, the incentives change and they too often start to start thinking about themselves and less about their constituents and that is a real problem. there are a variety of electoral reforms that need to happen. i think we have to do something about gerrymandering across the country. we have got to open up primaries so that everyone can participate.

independents, so that more people have ballot access. i think ring choice voting is another reform that allows -- ranked choice voting is another reform that allows voters to rank who they want. whatever it is, we are constantly ranking things. when we vote, we have to say yes or no or vote for one person or the other and our voices are not fully heard as a result. that is another reform i would like to see. that is part of defending and strengthening the republic, advancing the number of electoral reforms. alas a -- alaska passed a ballot initiative which has a single nonpartisan primary, and open primary, the top four winners of the primary, republicans, democrats, libertarians, whatever move on to the general

election where there is ranked choice voting. voters get the opportunity to rank their preference and fully express their preference. all of that inspires more unified and effective leadership. i would like to see that reform passed elsewhere in the country. host: evan mcmullin is the executive director of standup republic. you can find more information at standup republic, read thank you for the conversation -- standup republic.com. thank you for the conversation. we will be joined by james taylor to talk about his group's opposition to the biden administration's climate change agenda. >> sunday night on q, investigative journalist lawrence roberts talks about his book, mayday, 1971 which examines the spring offensive when tens of thousands of

anti-vietnam war protesters, including vietnam veterans came to washington, d.c.. >> it is a story about how we as a nation, individuals, -- does the justice system deliver justice? do people stay by their principles? or are they caught by their fear to stand against the tide? it is a story about a clash between an embattled president, richard nixon, who comprised the social movement in the streets, just as he decided to get reelected. what constitutional lines did he cross and his administration crossed in an effort to stay in power? >> investigative journalist lawrence roberts sunday night at 8:00 eastern -- 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a.

a discussion on social media and free speech with harold feld, senior vice president of public knowledge and randolph may, president of the free state foundation. >> they used to say in journalism if it bleeds, it leads. therefore, the headlines were always kind of dramatic crime stories and that sort of thing when people spoke disparaging about fictional media. the same thing is true about social media. if it bleeds it leads, it is more if it engages, it -- if it enrages, it engages. we have algorithms that give us the most extreme views first. >> i disagree with a lot of actions twitter takes, facebook and google. on my own perspective, as someone who is right of center, a free-market conservative, to

my way of thinking, there is a bias in their actions. against those that have that perspective. nevertheless, that said, i have always said that these companies have a first amendment right to put up on their platforms what they wish and they have a first amendment right to take down what they wish. >> social media and free speech, saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span. >> with the biden administration now leading the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org/coronavirus. search c-span's coverage of news conferences as well as remarks from members of congress. use the interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide.

go to c-span.org/coronavirus. >> washington journal continues. host: james taylor is joining us now. he is the president of a free-market think tank to talk about the biden administration's proposals on climate change. when you heard what the president had to say this week, what was your reaction? guest: i was concerned because american workers really need jobs right now. especially as a result of the government shutdowns and lockdowns. what the biden climate plan does is it destroys jobs throughout the country. the shutdown of new leases for gas production on federal lands, that puts literally hundreds of thousands of jobs on the table to be chopped. the keystone pipeline, blocking that kills jobs. what we are seeing is a jobs destruction pandemic being

released on the american people and it is entirely unnecessary. host: how do you view climate change? do you believe it israel? guest: -- host: is real? guest: we know that through science the earth's climate has always been changing. temperatures have warmed. it is quite possible that humans are playing a measurable role in that. even if humans are causing a significant portion of it, that doesn't mean we are facing a crisis. especially when we realize temperatures throughout most of human civilization have been warmer than they are today. that comes -- it is important to look at the question is warming necessarily bad? is it harmful, is it a crisis? sometimes whether the earth is warming gets completed with weather that is bad or a crisis. host: the president used the

word jobs somewhere in the range of 15 times according to news reports. here he is talking about how he believes what he wants to do would create jobs. pres. biden: we know what to do. we just have to do it. when we think of climate change, this is a chance -- a place where conscience and convenience cross paths. we are dealing with things that threaten the planet and -- when i think of climate change, i think of jobs. a key plank of our build back recovery plan is building a modern, resilient modern infrastructure. and clean energy that will create millions of good paying union jobs. not seven dollars, eight dollars, $10 an hour, but fair wage with benefits.

to withstand the impacts of extreme climate. we have already reached a point where we will have to live with what it is now. that will require a lot of work by itself without it getting any worse. when we think of renewable energy, we see american manufacturing, american workers. we see farmers making american agriculture first in the world to achieve net zero emissions and gaining a new source of income in the process. we see small business and master electricians designing and stalling and innovating energy, conserving technologies and building homes and buildings. and we are going to reduce electric consumption to save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and energy costs in the process. host: james taylor, your response to the president. guest: joe biden talks about creating millions of jobs. we could create millions of jobs

paying people to dig holes and fill them back up again. it doesn't make america better. it makes our standard of living decrease. when we appoint someone to do something that accomplishes very little. the biggest threat we are facing is joe biden's climate plan to jobs. you do not create jobs by forcing people to leave efficient energy sources and utilize inefficient energy sources. you do not create net jobs by forcing the american economy to give up inexpensive and affordable energy and run a more expensive energy. you can create jobs in the wind and solar power industry if you mandate people have to utilize wind and solar power. when you are imposing greater costs on the american economy, we will lose a far greater number of jobs in the conventional industry -- inner g industry -- energy industry and the economy.

so, this is going to be a net jobs killer. host: we want our viewers to join in on the conversation as well. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. public and, -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8001. text us with your first name, city and state at (202) 748-8003 . onshore and offshore, the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7700 unused permits to drill. guest: that is a head fake. that is not a legitimate argument. the oil producers, they purchase leases and they have to go explore and find out what it is producing. they are not allowed to go into

these tests before they decide to purchase a lease. there is a lot of risk involved that only a certain percentage of them are going to be exploring. if you have to drill wells in areas that are not productive, that is getting everything backwards. when they say we are not impacting current leases, just future leases, there is a steep production decline in the first six to 12 months. that is when you get the vast majority of the oil production. even if it's a six-month freeze, the time period we produce most of our energy, we will freeze that and eliminate that. 25% of u.s. oil production occurs on federal lands. they are putting a significant stifling impact on oil production for 25% of what we produce. we five decades to get to the point we became the world's energy domination. we five decades to get off

reliance on oil imports and that will change overnight. that is just throwing it away for no reason. host: dave in annapolis. caller: good morning. it seems that your guest, which is typical for this particular viewpoint, glosses over a couple of points. one, that jobs are not the only metric. jobs will not matter if her on a planet that is choked with pollution. two, it's as if we are in a car. there are fluctuations in and outside. if you have one person smoking, fine. if you have 10, you have a problem. we have everybody smoking and we are all suffering for it. it is not do you believe in climate change. do you believe the scientists? the data did not come out of nowhere. it isn't digging holes and filling them up. we moved from firewood to oil, from oil to nuclear. we realized nuclear was not good

and i we are back in oil. there are legitimate jobs created by solar, wind, and moving away from this. hanging onto oil jobs li coal is not the answer. address those viewpoints if you would, can be specific. -- and be specific. guest: i appreciate your call and concern. regarding the desire to lose pollution, that is something all americans share. the united states has reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than any other nation this century. the reason we have done that is because we have allowed the market to work and for natural gas to replace coal. not according to government dictate or the united nations programs, but allowing american ingenuity to work. the biden freeze on natural lands would put a significant dent in that natural gas production that has allowed us to lead the world in emissions

reductions. i'm concerned about biden's proposal. as far as the science regarding climate change, it's important to note according to the united nations inter-governmental panel on climate change's latest report, they find low confidence there has been any impact of climate change on hurricanes. they find low confidence of any impact of climate change on tornadoes. low confidence of impact on floods. low confidence of impact on droughts. we have predictions fueled by computer models for 30 years have failed. i believe in the science and i believe in scientists. if we were to go to the nongovernmental international panel on climate change website, you will see thousands of pages of scientific literature, peer-reviewed, cited in fact-checked that prisons the scientist. if you go to heartland.org, you can find video of climate conferences where we had hundreds of scientists who

discussed the issue. the science is on our side. the economics is on our side. if you believe in the climate crisis, the best thing we can do is allowed natural gas production to continue as it has in the past five to 10 years. host: peter, valley cottage, new york. caller: you are absolutely right. democrats talk about the science. let's look at the science. the last ice age lasted over 100,000 years. 12,000 years ago, the planet started to warm up. we had nothing to do with that. when i was young we were always talking about when the next ice age was going to start. the earth is a dynamic place, constantly changing. the tilt of the earth changes every 20,000 years. it is called procession. the earth changes. the earth's orbit changes.

when we are in an elliptical orbit because of the way the other planets pull on the earth, it gets colder. when you have a warming of the planet, co2 goes up because it gets greener. plants put out oxygen. oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. it actually cools the planet. when the might of oxygen builds up to a certain level, the planet cools down and then you get an ice age. continental drift. the circulation of the ocean has a factor on the planet's temperature. all these things are all facts. the united states has lowered his carbon footprint for the last 20 plus years but the problem is, if we inhibit our ability to produce things here in this country, americans are not going to stop buying their junk. it will go to china.

you make it more difficult to produce goods and services over here in the united states, that money will go to china. they will continue to pollute because china and india are the two biggest polluters in the world. host: mr. taylor? guest: thank you for pointing this fax out. you make some good points about how we have to consider the context of the earth i'm history. the little ice age which lasted from a possibly 1300 to 1900, that was the coldest period in the past 10,000 years. when people say nine out of the 10 hottest years of the decade, they are comparing the record. on record. that applies to the past hundred years, which is convenient for them. it's a good thing we are not still in the coldest we have been intended years. for most of human civilization temperatures have been warmer than they are today. that has been documented by the

united nations. during that time, without 21st century technologies, civilization developed and thrived and flourished. when we look at the notion that somehow we are in some unprecedented time period, that's a delusion. temperatures are abnormally cool, not abnormally warm. if you look at the past few ice ages that occurred, over the past 700,000 800,000 years, we've had three to four warming periods. deitch was warmer tha the present warming. -- warming period. if carbon exit emissions are higher, and yet temperatures are many times warmer than today, it tells us carbon dioxide, while it may cause some warming, is not the driving factor. thank you very much, peter. host: caller: i would like to speak about -- i worked in: oil and

construction. worked in wyoming in oil and gas field. i remember back around 2000 when cheney was vice president they have the energy bill. he started this opening up of federal lands. wyoming and bodies of the western states were almost all on by the federal government. they are land leasing. i was working in the bp oil fields and gas fields. they were predicting gas what quadruple in price. we became the largest natural gas producer in the world. large gas field full of oil and gas. and the wind turbines. you can make enough wind in wyoming to probably produce electricity in the whole country. it is empty, barren land the government owns.

the problem is the capacity to move all the stuff. we have a shortage of electric grid capacity. we don't have a shortage of energy. we never did. host: mr. taylor? guest: he brings up a couple of good points. wind power and solar power are very land intensive. wyoming or montana or northern colorado. if we were to decide to power much of our grid through wind power we would have to replace 300 square miles of lines to replacing conventional powerplant. if you want to do more, multiply that 300 square miles over and over and over. as the caller points out, we have to get -- we have to build transmission lines to deliver that power to metropolitan population centers. if you're a conservationist, if

you care about preserving open spaces, you should be concerned about wind and solar power, especially wind. these are the types of energy sources that are tremendously disruptive to an unspoiled american landscape. i love open spaces. i love my get out into nature. i want to see nature preserved. i don't to see it spoiled unnecessarily by imposing an efficient energy sources on american people. host: roy, a republican in las vegas. caller: thank you for c-span. every time democrats talk about investing in jobs, it's always the government is paying for those jobs. whereas free enterprise jobs that are lost, there is a big difference there. former president trump had a

pretty good stance on looking at everything, all the sources that don't just completely wipe out the jobs that are there. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you so much for pointing that out. it's important to understand even on today's system, it is in favor of wind and solar power. there are tremendous tax subsidies that dwarfed any tax subsidies for conventional energy production. you have utilities -- with those advantages, less than 10% of electricity comes from these sources. that's because it is such a mislead expensive. the only way we will go to a wind and solar economy is if the government mandates it. it makes zero economic sense. that means the american people are left with fewer resources in

their pocketbooks, less goods to purchase goods and services. it's important to allow the most sensible and the most efficient energy sources to prevail in a free and open market. host: james, a democrat in baltimore. caller: thank you for taking my call. when is enough enough? we have these fires in california and australia. we had tornadoes. we have all these hurricanes. all of this is due to climate change. for mr. taylor to say there is no climate change and this is something that happens naturally, we are the ones putting it in the air. we are the ones polluting the country. to sit there and say wind and

solar energy is not a way to go because we cannot continue to use our fossil fuels for power in this country, not only in this country but this world. if we want to have something left for our great grandchildren where they don't have to walk around with gas masks on -- we walk around with masks on because of a virus. they would have to walk around with gas masks because of the air they breathe. guest: i appreciate and empathize with the concerns. i'm glad these are things on your mind. . it's important to understand and appreciate the difference between some anecdotal exceptions to the rule and what the trend is. nasa satellites have been able to measure the amount of land burned by wildfires. they can measure this between 20 and 30 years. what they find is in that time

over the past 20 to 30 years the area burned by wildfires has declined by 25%. when you have wildfires in australia or california, wildfires have always occurred and always will occur. global warming will not magically stop all of a sudden. they are newsworthy events but it doesn't mean necessarily they are getting worse or global warming is causing them. the evidence shows wildfires are becoming less frequent and severe as the earth warms. tornadoes, same thing. noaa, you can look at their charts and reports. it shows tornadoes have become less frequent and less severe. tornadoes will still occur and when they do the media will cover them as they should. but to link it to global warming makes no sense. when they're becoming less frequent and severe. hurricane data shows the

accumulated energy, the total global energy from hurricanes, we have been able to measure that for the past 40 to 50 years. we see no increase whatsoever as the earth warms. the united nations reports low confidence in any links between climate change and hurricanes. i agree and understand and empathize with your concern on these points. if natural disasters become rampant and severe, that is something we have to be concerned about. scientific evidence is clear. as the earth modestly warms, these events at worchester staying about the same but appear to be becoming less frequent and less severe. in the little ice age it was much more severe than today. host: virginia and sarasota, florida. republican. caller: did i hear years ago they were destroying the rain forests? why don't we just plant more

trees? host: any thoughts on that? guest: thank you, virginia. in, there has been pressure on the rain forests. more rain forests are being cut down. it is it subject for international discussion. buyers in the amazon are naturally occurring, as well as human-caused. what scientist discovered in the amazon as we are not seeing increase in fires caused by natural sources. it's an increase in precipitation. i do believe we should be good stewards of the earth and we should take whatever measures we can to address environmental issues. fires in the rain forest -- one

climate activist try to make a connection, the scientific evidence simply is not there. we should be good stewards of the environment. host: peggy and washington state, democratic caller. caller: hi. i was happy to see biden and the keystone pipeline. it's only a loss of a few thousand temporary jobs. most of those would be located in canada. as cars th -- as far as the economy, it just seemed the economy is better under democrats and republicans. thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. especially today with unemployment rising so much in so many americans unable to find work, not because of their lack of skills or their own lack of motivation for because of the situation we are in with covid and shutdowns and lockdown.

even the few thousand jobs, that's a few thousand americans able to put food on their table, pay the mortgage, not be reliant on handouts. it is more than just those direct construction jobs that you referenced. it's three times more expensive to transport oil via railroad or truck from canada to the refineries in louisiana. it will still happen, but not by inefficient -- underground pipeline. you have trucks and trains admitting more. it will kill jobs throughout the economy because people will be spending more money on the same energy. that leaves less money to spend on goods and services that provide value to american households and create jobs throughout the economy. i appreciate your concerns and i think it's great we have these

conversations. host: stephan in north carolina. caller: good morning. i need to ask the gentleman this question. you could be right both ways they could be causing climate change were not. are we willing to take that gamble? if we lose on this gamble we have lost -- it will get to a point of no return. this is something we cannot chance republican say it's a shame. they can get out of debt. if we live on earth for the can't grow crops, it will be terrible. let me finish.

this will create jobs, clean up the environment. less people are going to be getting sick. the water will be cleaner. this can be done. america consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels. he said india and china were the biggest emitters. we have to take the lead. we have to take the lead because we cannot take a chance on this. if we lose, we are finished. guest: thank you for expressing your concerns. regarding the experiment, temperatures were significantly warmer. i think it's highly unlikely 200

years from now we will be a coal and oil-driven economy. as temperatures have warmed, you mentioned crop production. virtually every nation in the world, the united nations food and agriculture organization keeps records that shows is increasing consistently as the earth modestly warms. we set records virtually every year. more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, longer growing seasons. these are all conducive to crop production. finally, if you believe we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, give it's important to reduce conventionally defined pollutants, we should not be shutting down natural gas production on federal lands. the reason the recent u.s. reduced emissions more than any country in the world the century is because we have allowed natural gas production to thrive

through the free market. china's emissions are indeed within twice with united states's are. we are utilizing natural gas in china isn't. thank for the call. guest: you are on the air with the public of the heartland institute, james taylor. caller: my concern is how we have allowed the politicians to turn climate into a political issue. i am a scientist, not a climate scientist but i've been reading on it for 15 years. when you go to nasa.gov, you will find the summit telescope. it is the solar ultraviolet magnetic investigative telescope. we also have the solar dynamics observatory launched in 2011.

hello that tells us there's is so much data we are keeping. the suns energy in the stratosphere is what has a direct impact on our weather. not the total impact but the direct impact. from the summit telescope in hawaii, nasa has one model that says we might go through a significant cooling between 2030 and 2045, and that could coolly earth significantly. maybe similar to a little ice age but it's only a model. the other thing is when we talk about climate, we have to get the politicians out of this. we have to talk about nitrous oxide, ozone, co2, sequestration carbon is coming. we have to talk about ozone. you get what i'm saying.

we are not introducing science to the american associates. we are introducing a political view of science. host: ok, deborah. guest: ray points. i -- great points. i encourage viewers to read the scientific work of dr. willie soon, etc., sebastian learning. they talked about and document how fluctuations in the solar energy have an impact on earth climate. carbon dioxide likely does also impact the earth's climate but it's not the primary or dominant driver often told was by politicians or people who believe in a climate crisis. it's important to look at the science and we look at it independently. at the heartland institute, we have a website, climaterealism.com. we look at what the media is claiming about the climate

science. also climateataglance.com. you can look at summaries of global warming topics to see with the science says. host: michael in massachusetts. caller: just a quick history for me. i am 59 and live up in massachusetts. growing up we had a river down the street called the dye river. it changed every thursday a different color. purple, brown, orange. we used talk about pollution. growing up it was kind of taught in schools about how important it was to love the environment. i think my message here is we get lost in this whole climate change connotation. but we are talking about is making our environment cleaner

and healthier to live in. instead of constantly focusing on what the science says, you can just look at your door and know whether or not we are treating the environment properly. i guess my question is, i would like to get his opinion -- the speaker's opinion on the recent change or decision by gm to go to zero mission by 2035 and how that fits in with his thoughts. guest: i appreciate that. addressing your second point first, i find it probably not so much a coincidence that gm announces this with a biden administration. the automakers were happy when the trumpet administration postponed the obama -- trump administration postponed the obama squeezing of fuel economy

standards, fuel economy mandates. gm sees an opportunity. they are carrying favor. discussions go on in the back rooms but you can see the timing of this. in years past when it is great enthusiasm for the hydrogen highway and other so-called game changers in terms of automobile production technology, fuel, etc., i suspect it will not work out. regarding your comments about the environment in general, it's a good thing we made the progress we have. according to the epa, compared to 1980, the air is 70% cleaner than it was in 1980. 70% fewer emissions, which is ironic considering polls asking to make people if they believe the air is getting cleaner or dirtier, 70% is saying dirtier. we should be vigilant to make sure that is the case. that's why i'm concerned about

wind turbines. environment the concerns are more than just carbon dioxide emissions. scientists at harvard who were looking for ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they published a study looking at how many wind turbines we would need to replace conventional energy as joe biden is proposing. we would have to cover literally one third of the american land mass with wind turbines to replace current electricity. if we required the electrification of automobiles and transportation, that would be one half of landmass. think about the absolutely devastating environment to impacts of leveling half our forests, half a while pl -- wildlife habitat. that to me would be far more destructive than anything i can think of, including the worst-case scenarios which are unlikely to occur. we simply cannot destroy half of

america's environment and open spaces in the name of wind power. that is not clean energy and not environmentally friendly. host: clarence, republican in charlotte, north carolina. caller: good morning. i want to make two points. i think we lost common sense in america. we realize we are -- the climate change. i want to say about the caller calling about we have to worry about the earth. i'm a preacher. let me tell you what god said. we'll control this world. god controls it. man controls pollution but not the world, when it will be destroyed. we don't have that power. host: mr. taylor, final thoughts. guest: from god and human

ethics, we are charged with being good stewards of the environment. we should look at carbon taxes emissions, but we have to keep in mind many of the other devastating environment the harms from wind and solar power. if they can cure environment harms and compete and give us a competitively priced energy product, i will be the first one cheering them on. is not that i want to detract from any source, other than what the impact is on americans living standards in the environment. those are good points. host: go to heartland.org to learn about the heartland institute. james taylor, we appreciate your time this morning. we will take a break. we will return to political rhetoric. where is the line? there are the lines on your screen to dial in. do so now and we will get your thoughts in a minute. ♪

♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this weekend, saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, vincent brooks on african-american military service and modern-day challenges with bill whitaker. sunday at 4:00 p.m. on real america, the nasa film "apollo 14." at 6:00 p.m. eastern, we visit plymouth, massachusetts to explore a re-created 17th-century colonial village depicted in 1627, seven years after the mayflower landing went about 160 pilgrims lived there.

6:30 p.m. eastern, post-world war i era in the u.s. with u.s. army command with richard faulkner. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: the debate happening in washington over marjorie taylor greene's comments back in 2018 and 2019. cnn reporting the republicans are facing pressure to rebuke those comments. cnn reported earlier on their series that the freshman republican posted supports for violence before running for

congress. what they found is that in one post from january 2019, greene like to comment that set a bullet to the head would be quicker to replace nancy pelosi, and a post about executing fbi agents. in one facebook post, she wrote conspiratorially about the iran deal. she replied, players being put in place, we must be patient. this must be done purposely or liberal judges will let them off. the speaker the house was asked about the congresswoman's comments. here is what she had to say. [video] >> how concerned are you about her posts, remarks, rhetoric? >> what i'm concerned about is

the republican leadership in the house of representatives willing to overlook, ignore those statements. assigning her to the education committee? when she has mocked the killing of little children attending sandy hook elementary school. when she has mocked the killing of teenagers in high school at marjory stoneman douglas high school. what could they be thinking? or is thinking too generous a word for what they might be doing? it's absolutely appalling. i think the focus has to be on the republican leadership of this house of representatives for the disregard they have for the death of those children. not only are they not interested in gun safety and gun violence

prevention by passing legislation for background checks, legislation with this -- which is overwhelmingly supported, but someone who would call it fake is just beyond any understanding of any regard the house republicans would have for the congress of the united states for the heartbreak of the families at sandy hook and at stoneman high school -- marjory stoneman douglas high school. it is beyond the pale. you have to ask them why they thought that raised itself to the level of something appropriate to do in the congress of the united states. host: the speaker critical of republicans and putting the

georgia congresswoman on the education committee because of her past comments. she told -- a spokesman told cbs he has no plans to resign amid calls from other democrats to expel her from congress. a democrat from california put forth a resolution to do so. he only has three cosponsors. cbs included in their reporting a statement by marjorie taylor greene. "they are coming up to be because of a threat to their goal of socialism. they're coming after me because i know i represent the people, not the politicians. like president trump, i will always defend conservative values. they want to take me out because i represent the people and they hate it." "the media only reports the lies, smears and attacks in order to create the image they want the world to believe. that is why they are fake news and no one believes them anymore. they did it to themselves." with that debate happening in washington, when it comes to

political rhetoric, where is the line? body in illinois -- debbie in illinois -- betty. caller: i was 18 years old at the first of the year. i have seen a lot and heard a lot. i had a republican friend. we were friends for 23 years. since trump has become president, we have lost our friendship. when trump got off the bus and said what he said about women, he should never have been able to run for president after that. nobody else could have done that. trump has divided the country. the people in the capital on january 6 scared for their

lives, also the vice president, and these people still stick with trump? i don't understand that. some people said they were calling their family members that they were so scared they were not going to make it. in vice president pence, i hope that woke him up. trump is the type of person if you go against him, he gets rid of you. one time c-span ran -- host:dora in virginia, your opinion on this? caller: hello. host: where is the line for you? caller: the line for me was back a long time ago. i am 83 years old. i was taught better than this. i was taught everybody -- host: everybody what? caller: everybody should be

respected no matter how you felt about things. this someone had a different opinion, that's ok. this is not what is going on today. trump is not the only cause. this has been going on -- i can't hear you. host: just listen and talk to your phone. we are hearing you. you said this started before president trump. caller: it started a long time ago. the world has turned upside down. nothing is the same. we were taught morals. the morals have gone away. we were taught respect for everybody. that is gone. host: did you hear the reporting from cnn about marjorie taylor greene? d think what she said crossed a line? caller: i think she crossed the line and i think some of the others have crossed a line. i don't think only her, but i think we should be watching a

little bit and thinking about what we say before we speak. host: d remember how republicans responded to steve king of iowa? caller: no. host: he made comments to the new york times about white supremacy. npr reported in 2019 of that year the house condemned the gop congressman for those white supremacy remarks. the house voted 424-1 on a resolution of disapproval offered by the democrats that sites his comments and rejected the ideologies that fueled white supremacy and white nationalism. then the republicans stripped him of his committee assignments as well. what he think leadership should do in response to the georgia congresswoman? caller: they won't do anything i think they should do anyway.

this is not the right thing. she should be punished in some way. i don't know that she should lose being in congress but she should be punished in some way. i have lost faith in all of our congressmen and the senate. democrats and republicans. they are all acting like such brats. they are acting like a bunch of brats. host: do you think president trump should be either impeached or censured for what he said at the rally before the january 6 security breach? do you think he should be accountable? caller: i think we all should be held accountable for what we say. all of us. i'm not calling to say he was right because he was a republican president. what i'm calling to say is this

-- i have watched democrat presidents do just as bad. it didn't come out of the mouth but it came out of their actions. i have seen a lot of my time. i think people ought to try to go back to having respect for each other and morals. host: i understand your point. usa today's opinion is the republicans need to act. is greene like king also beneath the dignity of republicans in the usa? apparently not. "at a minimum she should be denied committee assignments and shunned by donors. other options include reprimand, censure, expulsion, particularly if she remains dodgy about her hate filled views." ron in rockford, illinois. caller: the political rhetoric

has gotten out of control. it has gotten way too hot. we need to look at language what we can talk to one another and discuss ideas. that is pretty much out the window. let me quickly give you a reason why i think it is and then an example of what we are talking about. this has been going on for years. it did not just happen three or four or five years ago. i urge my friends, refamiliarize yourself with rules for radicals. if you look at that, it's a playbook. do not talk to your opponent because it humanizes them. instead use ridicule. isolate them and destroy them. that is basically in a nutshell the rules for radicals. you have been seeing that played out everywhere. nobody wants to talk.

they put a label on you. what do i mean? look at an example. before i say this -- host: give us your example. caller: they broke up into the house in washington. they call it an insurrection. how many have you seen without firearms? it was a riot. everybody should be arrested and from the book at. they should face whatever. it was not an insurrection. host: built in brian, ohio. caller: good morning. i guess the line for me when you threaten to kill somebody. the lady in california earlier, if someone at work threatens to put a bullet in your head, when that offend you at the very least -- wouldn't that offend you at the very least? nowhere i know if you can get away saying that.

i don't know what you can do with this. you have to get some sensitivity training or some counseling or some therapy of some kind. i know she ran unopposed. that is how she got into office. i do think she should be allowed to stay in there. she is dangerous. host: the general election in 2020. this is the primary, her general election numbers. 74.7% of the vote. everett and grand junction, colorado. caller: how are you doing, greta? host: what is the line for you? caller: i'm not sure what i think on this deal. what i was going to say is i think everybody needs to watch their language, no doubt about that, and how far it is carried. i think those people that actually went into the capital, i think they might've taken on

the viewpoint like in the declaration of independence. i think they thought it was an obligation. if you read the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, it was kind of like that. what they did not do is did not petition the capital, the congress or the senate. prior to trying to overthrow the government, if that is what they are trying to do. unfortunately, the lady killed, we know kind of where her political viewpoints are. i don't think -- she was not armed. to shoot somebody through a window, whether they broke the window were not. i understand congress got their nose bloodied. that is how the people that have businesses felt when their businesses were being burned down and there was not a police response or a major arrest.

the whole crowd should have been arrested for burning down neighborhoods. host: alexandria ocasio-cortez sent out a tweet directed at senator ted cruz, who had agreed with her on an unrelated policy issue. "i'm happy to work with republicans on issue with her is common ground, but you almost any murder three weeks ago so you can sit this one out. happy to work with almost any other gop that are trying to get me killed. in the meantime if you want to help, you can resign." that prompted republicans from texas to call on nancy pelosi to have the new york congresswoman apologize to mr. cruz. the hill reports in the letter addressed to the speaker, the inaction had taken place -- interaction at taken place. about her tweet in which he accused senator cruz and essence

of attempted murder. let's go to tony in maryland. we are talking about political rhetoric. where is the line? caller: thank you for taking my call and good morning to everybody listening. i wanted to address the common ground and unity thing we are talking about. to me it is just about zero. one of the things i wanted to talk about was nancy pelosi during the state of the union address, she ripped up the state of the union and front of the whole world. that was a terrible thing to see. not just for the united states but for the whole world. in addition to that, 74 million people voted for trump. it was like slapping the face of every american that voted for

trump. it is not fair. i don't like the way he brings things on but his policy is right. they have been trying to impeach trump even before he got elected. host: you said you don't like what he says sometimes. would you be in favor of censuring him for what happened at the capital? caller: no. he's already been punished already. let him drift on. we need to come together and stop what we are doing. host: simon in new york, democratic caller. caller: mi on the air? -- am i on the? i think marjorie taylor greene crossed a line. there is no question she has to be kicked out of congress. you simply cannot -- it cannot

be accepted you will call for violence against anybody. that's automatically a redline. as far as the state of political rhetoric in general, it's absolutely disgraceful in this country. there are a lot of problems where you did have the media and some activists last summer who are excusing outright violence and property damage. i think we have seen democratic politicians and democratic governors saying conservatives and republicans don't belong here. i definitely think people like marjorie taylor greene and ted cruz and josh hawley, louie gohmert, lauren bomer, they should be expelled for their actions. it crosses a line. host: tracy, a republican in virginia beach. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i would like to applaud mr. mcmullen that you had on earlier. i very much agree we need principled politicians representing us. i love he said we need to stand up and defeat leaders who use division as a political strategy. i know that what trump did was wrong but there are other politicians doing the same. alexandria ocasio-cortez, what is happening to her? she is never happy. she is angry at everyone, not just trump but also stood up to pelosi and biden. she complains about things. nothing is being done about those politicians. i definitely think we need to do something about people who are using anger as a division. host: ditties in new york, and -- denise in new york,

independent. caller: i agree with a lot being said but these people are elected officials and elected by the people. it is not up to congress or aoc to decide who should be kicked out of congress. it is up to the people. the comments by greene are despicable but i feel she made them before she was elected. the people elected her anyway. aoc, maxine waters said get up in the face of trump supporters and tell them they are not wanted. nothing was done with her. she is reelected. if people are reelected, it's up to the people to decide, not congress to kick these people out. i wish you guys would have led with aoc's comments. i think they are much more divisive. she is calling people racists

and sang the attempted murder on her. that is not true. that is a lie. people need to make choices. host: the leader of the republicans in the house kevin mccarthy, his spokesperson put out a statement about cnn's reporting and said, "these, so disturbing -- he plans to have a conversation about them. david in pennsylvania, democratic called. caller: good morning. about the comments the previous caller mentioned these are elected officials. elected by representatives of their constituency in their home districts. you cannot kick them out. committee assignments should be based on their past experience and the good they can potentially do sitting within these committees within congress, both on the house and senate sides. the previous comments of the

senator, you don't place her on an educational committee. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i was a teacher for 32 years. you think about it as a school board. would you put this person on a school board to make decisions for young children? nobody in their right mind would do that. you would never do that. she should not be removed from congress. there are things such as freedom of speech but you don't take her and put her on an educational committee having made the comments she has made in the past about sandy hook and parkland. that makes no sense whatsoever. host: john and california, republican. caller: good morning. i would like to start off, earlier you were criticized but i would like to say one thing c-span could do to be balanced would be to -- if a comet like a republican makes a statement,

instead of having a journalism that counteracts the statement, have a journalism that supports the statement. another caller comes with a counterargument. have a journalists support his argument. what you are having is you are having a one person making argument and countering with a journalistic. if you put supporting comments to supporting journalism and the people call and say this is a different story, then you put their site on to support them. the journalistic side for them. i wanted to call about the rhetoric. i want to address black rhetoric towards old white guys like me. i'm 73. is not deserving and i disrespect al sharpton and black lives matter and the black rhetoric coming out. when i was a kid in the 1960's, i supported malcolm x and marcus

garvey. i was involved in the integration movement. we wore our sunday best and never rioted. to be labeled a systemic racist now i'm an old age i think is seriously wrong and the black community either form your own state and be all black because your voting as a black group, or you have got to integrate and start not voting as a herd of sheep. host: andrew in louisiana, independent. caller: hi there. i had to talking points when it came to political rhetoric. one is pandering and the other is euphemistic speech. to speak on the current political rhetoric is

challenging because it is moving quickly and we are in the middle of a political cold war revolution, i think. what has been pushing from that division has been high levels of pandering. as an example, i remember watching elizabeth warren on the campaign trail. she was giving her speeches and it just seemed like she would talk down in such a way that she was not saying everything. everything was in all platitudes -- banal platitudes. she speaks different on the senate floor. behind closed doors she will not be using this pandering speech. people are tired of thinking you are meaning something different than your telling me and i'm catching on. host: in a couple of minutes the white house press secretary will hold her daily briefing. we will bring you to that when

we see it begin. first, we will try to get more of your thoughts on this question before we go over to the white house. richard, is very -- in missouri. caller: i'm calling on the democrat line. we have come down to two tribes, democrats and republicans. it don't matter what one or the other says. they are against the other. i remember -- i'm only 83. i remember when truman fired macarthur. that was the biggest deal. it was awful. the people have mental problems -- this girl probably has a mental problem and trump i think that a mental problem. he's got all these white guys running around. you cannot buy a gun. host: what is the point?

caller: i think we ought to have a mental tells for people running for government. host: rick, independent. caller: great show. my hats off to you. people pick on you for taking one side of the other. i don't see it. i don't see it as much as republican, democrat issue as much as i see it as a picking up sized by the media more than ever. in the past four years under trump, you definitely saw a line in the sand that was drawn that said we are not going to promote anything positive for the man. we are going to do everything we can to work against him. and vice versa. you saw within fox, no different. that became the trump channel. another thing i notice is there has been a huge difference --

cnn and fox for example. they used to have much more of a differing opinion on the show. tucker carlsen for example used to have a significant amount -- that he would argue with. quite frankly, that is what i like to watch, argue with these guys about a different thought. i think all the guests that come on support a narrative that either camp wants to drive. that to me is what is driving the division in america. people are tuning in to what they think they like, so there will never be an education into the middle. host: andrew, in texas, a republican. caller: i am a 93-year-old. i took