thing about policy, independence, -- think about policy, independence, really important topics. announcer: coming up on washington journal, john bailey

and louis frankel to talk about covid legislation and the news of the day. join the discussion with your firm because, facebook comments -- washington journal is next. ♪ host: washington journal, february 11. house impeachment managers will finish presenting their case to the senate. you can watch that starting at noon eastern standard time on c-span2, www.c-span.org and listen along on the free c-span radio app. we will show you highlights from the presentation and take your calls on yesterday's proceedings. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans,

(202)-748-8002 for independents. you can text us at (202)-748- 8003, tweet @cspanwj or post on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. yesterday's proceedings, eight hours of testimony, find that at www.c-span.org. video of the events of january 6, the key feature of presentations yesterday. here's is how the wall street journal summarized it. democrats paired clips showing views from inside the capitol. one of those making the presentation yesterday was the virgin island delegate, the former district attorney of the

bronx and appointee at the justice department, making the case yesterday showing security footage featuring officer goodman warning mitt romney of nearby insurrectionists. >> this capitol, conceived by the founding fathers, built by slaves, that remains through the sacrifice of service, men and women around the world. when i think of that, and i think of these insurgents, these images, and cited by our own -- incited by our president of the united states attacking this capitol to stop the certification of a presidential election, our democracy, our republic.

at the same time that breach occurred, approximately 2:13 p.m., one floor up, while senator langford was speaking on the senate floor, senator grassley, who had taken over for vice president pence called an unscheduled, immediate recess of the senate. a senate aide approached senator langford and informed him the capitol had been breached. senator grassley is immediately escorted out of the chamber. >> thank you. >> while this was going on, officer eugene goodman responded to the initial breach. you all may have seen footage of officer goodman previously. there is more to his heroic

story. in the security footage, you can see officer goodman running to respond to the initial breach. officer goodman passes senator mitt romney and directs him to turn around in order to get to safety. on the first floor, just beneath them, the mob had already started to search for the senate chamber. officer goodman made his way down to the first floor where he encountered the same insurrectionists we just saw breach the capital. host: that was from the presentation yesterday. there will be more that we will show you in this 1.5 hours. you can see the full presentation on our website, www.c-span.org. as far as mitt romney, as you

heard reference of, it was in the video that eugene goodman, the police officer was hailed as a hero for driving the violent mob away from the chamber, potentially saving the utah senator's life "i was very fortunate he was there." how close he came to the pro-trump mob. that is part of the presentations from yesterday. democrat line, maine, south portland, alfred. caller: good morning and thank you. i would like to remind everybody before january 6, everything the republican senators and representatives were saying about the election -- that it was a fraud and they were concerned about the results -- everything led to january 6.

we have republican senators and representatives who are a part of this coup. they need to be removed from their positions. they violated their oath of office. they are enemies of the state. host: what do you think about senator collins voting to advance the case? caller: i think she voted right. the person who ran against her was casting about but at least she is voting the way her constituency, at least me, want her to. i don't know about anybody else but the last four years have unfolded in front of everyone. if you don't know what has gone on, you are asleep. just like qanon people say, we other ones awoke -- no, you are

the ones eating misinformation. host: marissa, read lock, montana, republican. caller: good morning. i am so grateful for c-span. you are a light in the dark, like usual, a lighthouse in the dark. thank you thank you thank you. please don't cut me off. i won't talk long. please, fellow republicans, stand up. do not blame everything and everyone else for our actions! let's take responsibility. it is our cause, our effect. if you went into the capitol building, you should be held responsible. i want every last one of them arrested for trespassing. that is what they did. i live in a small town. i rescued rabbits one time and got charged for trespassing. host: you want to place blame on those who went in.

what do you think about the case yesterday? caller: what? host: what do you think about the case against president trump? caller: it was excellent. i am not done. i want every republican to stand up. host: you said that. caller: do not blame it on trump. ok, bye. host: what do you think about president trump's role? caller: forget trump. he never took responsibility. let's take responsibility. it is our cause, our effect. host: susan, florida, independent. caller: hi, pedro. thank you. it is heartbreaking to see elected officials in this country who we pay for as taxpayers not taking responsibility yesterday, what, looking at their phones?

writing notes? if they were in a company, they would be fired, for not working up to their potential. host: you are saying they were not paying attention? caller: that is what i have heard. it would be interesting if the camera would be panning the senators and we could watch their behavior or what they are not paying attention to. host: what do you think about the case made by the managers? caller: amazing. any person with any level of education could follow what they were saying. another thing i don't understand , why people have not read president, former president trump's full speech on january 6. he was defaming his fellow republicans. it is very obvious who this man is. he is leaning fascist.

host: that speech of the president you can still find online at www.c-sp.org, january 6. susan, the camera portion you talked about, i want to remind you the cameras you see in the senate are operated by the senate themselves. we broadcast the signal. we made a request to the managers for additional cameras to highlight activity. i don't know if a formal return to that request was made. the cameras you see are owned and operated by the senate. we broadcast the signal, as it were. we have that hearing available on www.c-span.org. maine, monrovia, republican, rob. caller: couple things. parents or grandparents have always said, if someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? even if president trump said

this, it is the people who acted on it. they need to be held responsible. i agree with the lady. every single one of them needs to be held responsible. how easy was it to get into the capital? my daughter's elementary school is harder to get into. unbelievable. host: as far as the charge, you don't think the president have a role? caller: to appoint, maybe, he should not have said things the way they were said -- the way he said them. he is just human. he is just talking. it is the people who acted on it who is wrong. host: steve from facebook adding it was devastating for republicans. "it will define them." from jack, "incitement was his final act."

penelope saying "obvious to overturn a legally binding election." "how any republican could consider supporting the president -- unconscionable." "branded by history." tammy on facebook saying "it is a distraction." some comments from facebook. you can post on twitter. some of you texting at (202)-748-8003. make sure you put your name, city and state where you are texting from, if you would. wilmington, north carolina, democrat. caller: hi. president trump should hold responsibility for everything that happened. saying he cannot run for

reelection. he should be put in prison. host: is that based on what you saw yesterday? caller: -- totally responsible for what happened. he kept that thing growing. before we voted, he was talking about fraudulent elections. they shot that girl and killed her. if they took their pistols out, all the people attacking and killed some of them, all of them would have ran the hell back out the capitol. they should have shot that man with the hockey stick. host: we will stop there. kevin, windsor, independent line. caller: [indiscernible] the attack on january 6 was the distraction. president trump, the enemy of the people. if republicans do not vote against him, republicans are

aiding terrorist groups. we have to eliminate these guys. host: did you watch yesterday? caller: yes. host: what did you learn? caller: these guys were almost taking over the capitol. these republicans are going to look the other way. they are not going to take their oath serious. host: kevin in connecticut. the hill reporting mitch mcconnell is not pressuring fellow republicans to acquit the former president as the impeachment trial appears to wrap as soon as this weekend. senators behind closed doors, including a meeting in which mcconnell talked timeliness. kevin cramer, "mitch is a good tactician and respectful that every senator got here on their

own." it quotes rob portman "hasn't made a decision, said he wasn't getting pressure from the leadership." mcconnell says it is a vote of conscience. thehill.com. linda, republican. caller: mcconnell should be voted out of office by republicans. they should be voted out. i don't want to say removed from office. as a private citizen, i don't want to be impeached by the kangaroo house. trump's speech was for a peaceful and patriotic march.

he said to cheer on congress and asked congress to fight. he also tweeted "stay peaceful." stick with me. then, the breachers that planned for months, arrived at the capitol 31 minutes before trump finished his speech. then they took the 45 minute walk, that was peaceful, and arrived at the capitol 76 minutes later and witnesses heard a militant terrorist group talking against trump and patriots. they were disguised group that set up trump supporters. host: who said that? caller: trump. host: who are the witnesses? caller: said that, they called them f--ing patriots.

they were antifa groups. host: what convinces you of that? what evidence? caller: do you know the fat boys don't have a history of voting? they are most likely antifa. there were two groups. the group that was patriotic and peaceful, that were at the um, speech. host: where are you getting that? caller: i said i heard witnesses that were at the trump rally. the other groups were terrorists to overtake the country backed by china. host: roy, melbourne, florida, democrat. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i watched a slam yesterday for the democrats. i was astonished by the pictures

i saw. the republican party is like the iraqi party that has gone with a loyal person, showing their loyalty to donald trump. host: how do you think the pictures proved incitement? caller: because of the words said and the emails, text he was sending in real time when the situation was going on at the capitol. the police are the real heroes. i would love to see one of them testify, look at these republicans and tell them what they went through on that day. they are still there protecting these same people that are standing up for donald trump. host: you are saying the text because the end result -- caused the end result? caller: words have meaning. this was boiling up to this point for years because of him

and the words he has been saying about the election being a fraud, back in march. he was saying, if he wins, it will be ok but the ballots. he has been getting this up since then. host: video being a large part of the case made by impeachment managers. we will show you that during the course of the morning. remember, over the next two days, tomorrow and saturday, he will hear testimony and the case made by the president's legal team, david shown, bruce castor. we will show you that case made by them. the impeachment managers get to go first, including among them, swalwell of california, talking and showing more videos of senators. this time, senators escaping the

chamber with the help of police. [video clip] >> the senate chamber was not evacuated until 2:30 p.m. the mob had been in the building for 15 minutes. this new security footage of staff leaving the chamber will be displayed on screens. it is silent. >> you cannot see it in this footage the quick thinking senate floor staff grabbed and protected electoral ballots the mob was after.

those of you here that they will recall that once you left the floor, you moved through a hallway to get to safety. that hallway was near where officer goodman had encountered a mob and lead them upstairs and away from the senate chamber. you know how close you came to the mob. some of you, i understand, could hear them. most of the public does not know how close these rioters came to you. as you were moving through that hallway, i paste it off -- paced it off. you are 58 steps away from where the mob was amassing and where police were rushing to stop them. host: jim, new york, republican. caller: good morning. first of all, i think it was

probably a bad choice to have the people come to washington dc. that was poor judgment, a bad decision. you are spending an awful lot of time on what happened at the breach and all the machinations inside the capitol, when that is not their question. the question to be answered -- did trump insight it? you cannot read anything he said in his speech or anything he has done. wiry spending this time talking about what happened inside the capitol when the question that needs to be answered -- did he incite him? no one can give me specific words that he did. as you know, maxine waters, a lot of other democrats have used

incendiary words and none of them are being asked to be impeached. why the double standard? host: when the president uses terms "fight like hell" that doesn't add incitement? caller: if that is the rule you want to place, what is maxine waters, what are all those, why are they getting away? they have been more incendiary. host: what do you think is the end result of january 6? what caused it? caller: i i think, anytime you get a large group and you have people that are bad actors that go in, those other the ones that are responsible. to go ahead and pin it on what trump did is just missing it altogether. host: how much have you watched so far and do you plan to watch all of it? caller: i am watching it.

i'm getting snippets. i have not been able to watch it beginning to end. i have read the speech. there is nothing in there that is remotely incendiary at all. i think this is a big charade. are we going to go back and try to impeach george washington for holding slaves? obama for the scandal? i think we are going down a slippery road, trying to impeach a citizen. host: des moines, iowa, democrat, felicia. caller: good morning, pedro. i have been listening to the callers. one of them said, when you were growing up, your parents told you, if you see other people jumping off a bridge, are you going to jump off a bridge?

what my mom told me when i was a child, i had a best friend. my best friend didn't have the best of luck. she used to steal a lot. my mom told me, she gave me money to go school shopping. i was 14. she told me, if you go to that store with crystal and crystal is stealing, you are going to go to jail with crystal. i thought, i am not stealing. why would i go to jail? i am buying my clothes. i did go to jail right along with crystal because she got caught stealing. and her mom came and got her out. my mom left me there. host: how does that apply to yesterday? caller: all of those people there were not planning on going to the capitol. some of them came to hear trump's speech.

when trump said, i am going to march down there with you, i am going to the capitol with you, a lot of them decided to go too because their president was going. trump knew he could not go down there because the secret service had already told him they could not protect him on that march. he knew he was not going but he told the crowd anyway so that they would go. you know when someone says, take for instance, someone who incites, watch all the shows about someone inciting someone to murder someone else, they don't go and do the murder. they don't say, i want you to murder. they say, i need this person out of my life. that person goes and does an illegal act. the person who inspired them to do that act usually gets more time than the person who

actually did the act. host: felicia giving her thoughts. jim on twitter talking about the presentation from the managers yesterday. "peacefully unpatriotic," and rick from twitter saying "the case is overwhelming. we will get a lesson in jerry nullification. they will acquit." as far as the response from the president and his supporters, the new york post highlighting the fact the save america packed, trump s war room tweeted a flashback invoking the notion of combat to block public effort, following " the rush to replace justice

ginsburg is about destroying voting and civil rights of the people." it goes on from there. you can find that story in the new york post. sergio, connecticut, republican. caller: good morning. the only reason why they are forming the charade is to get this man out so he can never run again because they are so afraid of him. you have been showing eric swalwell. that is laughable. every time i see him, i laugh. he probably still thinks about russian collusion. he was one of the proponents. host: did you watch his presentation? caller: listen.

all you have to do is watch one. they repeat the same garbage. ok? it is so sweet how much they love the police now. they are heroes. host: are you saying the managers have not made a qualified case? caller: no. you asked me if i have been watching. all you have to do is watch one of them. they repeat themselves over and over, ok? how much they love the police now. for six months, they burned cities down, disparaged police, spit on them. now they are heroes. how can you have any credence to what they are saying, pedro? host: pennsylvania, independent, parks per, joe.

caller: good morning. thank you. it doesn't take much to connect the dots when you read the progressive manifesto and listen to what the democrats say. accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of. any means to regain power. that is applicable here. it has been prevalent for the last six months or more. since president donald trump was elected. host: how does that apply to yesterday? caller: just listen to the narrative. they have fabricated everything that comes out of their mouth. host: before you go on, how so? caller: where's the proof? you can read donald trump's speeches.

he does not insinuate any violence at all. none. i don't know where your mind has to be to determine otherwise. anthony fauci. host: we are not going that far. you made your comments about the child. thank you for calling. -- about the trial. thank you for calling. caller: something to put in perspective, if you will. every morning, if you look at the sun, it comes up on the horizon. if anyone looks at it, they say the sun is going around the earth. actually, the earth is revolving and the sun is standing still. the reason i bring this up for perspective is they have to make the case, as some are making, that donald trump had to do the

incitement. something happened. the question is -- what the genesis of that incident, donald trump's words? they have been putting up evidence from eric swalwell and like. if you will, as a public service, put up donald trump saying, please go down there peacefully and do that. host: the speech is available on www.c-span.org. is the evidence credible? caller: absolutely not. put up the speech. i see him on the screen. put up his words. take a minute. put up what he said. host: if the evidence is not credible, why so? caller: you are trying to make a case. you are making a constitutional

case to take away his rights. you should absolutely put up his words and put it in context. host: jeff, woodbridge, virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. you do a great job as a moderator. thank you. couple points. folks keep referring to the speech of the day. what was behind it? emails, tweets, folks organizing, come to d.c., fight like hell, you have to be strong, fight like hell, the speech is right there. those folks came for a purpose. it is said some americans use the what about-ism and members of congress saying the same thing. democrats didn't incite a coup

on january 6. the house impeachment managers are making a strong case to the point where you had 10 republicans support impeachment. host: how is it a strong case? caller: if you look at evidence as a whole, it wasn't just the speech. it was the organizing behind it, the tweets, working together behind the scenes, the working for america pac, roger stone organizing. there are a lot of players behind the scene. a lot of organization was done behind the scenes for this. host: is it the president's words under question and if it produced the result? caller: absolutely. the words are clear. you can take the speech within context.

there was more to it than that. there were tweets, emails being sent out. organization of "stop the steal" consistently where people were being misled and told they could not trust the election results and if the president did not win, it was fraudulent. if you look at people like charles manson, they didn't do the act themselves but they incited participants to partake unfortunately in those actions. host: the senate impeachment trial, last day of the house impeachment managers presentation of their case, you can see that live on c-span2, 12:00 eastern standard time. follow on your computer at www.c-span.org, listen along on our radio app. if you want to go to our website we dedicated to all the elements regarding impeachment, you can do that at c-span.org/mpea

chment. one of the events yesterday dealt with a senator sitting and listening, mike lee of utah. "second day of the former president's impeachment trial ended in chaos after an effort by mike lee to remove the managers from the record sparked widespread confusion. lee stood at his desk and asked to strike comments made by house lawmakers that related to him, that he appeared to be referencing statements, while giving his part of the presentation, managers said the former president called tommy tuberville and instead called lee. here is what happened yesterday. [video clip] >> impeachment rule 16, i make a motion. statements were attributed to me moments ago by the house

impeachment managers, relating to the content of conversations between a phone call involving president trump and senator tuberville. they are not accurate, they are not made by me. they are contrary to fact. pursuant to rule 16 they be stricken from the record. >> senate resolution 47 section 4, presentations not limited to the record provide for section one of the resolution. >> [indiscernible] >> couldn't hear what he said? >> [indiscernible] >> mr. president -- >> [indiscernible] >> mr. president, mr. president,

right here. >> [indiscernible] >> we might as well hear clearly what the ruling of the chair was. if you will repeat that? >> i will. pursuant to resolution 47 section 4 party representation not limited -- pursuant to senate resolution 47 section 4 party presentation not limited to the record provided for in section one of that resolution. the senator from utah has appealed that ruling. is that correct? >> yes i have. >> [indiscernible] >> what is the question? is it shell the ruling of the chair be sustained?

-- shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? >> yes. [indiscernible] >> what is the ruling of the chair? my point was not about whether it is appropriate. my point was to strike them. host: background reporting done at the salt lake tribune, "what senator mike lee told me about the capitol riot." he did not say he overheard the conversation with senator tuberville. "my phone rang, the call id said the call was coming from the white house. i thought it was the national security advisor calling me to update me on a question i have asked about security. to my surprise, it was president trump on the line.

my heart started to beat faster. i thought it was to argue about the 12th amendment. i thought i heard him saying, how is it going tommy? i said, this is mike lee. he said, no, i dialed tommy. anxious to hand the phone to someone else, it goes on from there." find more context from the senate floor in the salt lake tribune this morning. linda, staten island, new york, independent. caller: good morning. i don't have anything to do with the current trial and how it is going. i want to say after the trial is over, what are we going to do

about someone responsible in government now, invoking the 25th amendment for the current present -- [indiscernible] because these executive orders, for example, the keystone pipeline they shut down and all of our guys in the heartland out of jobs, all of a sudden our gas will go up. i don't think anything wrong with actually having the pipeline run from canada. host: i apologize to interrupt. we are talking about the senate impeachment trial. what did you think of those events? that is the focus. caller: i understand. [indiscernible] host: this is the topic of conversation. did you watch yesterday? did you have a take away? caller: of course. they want to do whatever they want and impeach mr. trump. he is out of office. he is out of office.

our entire american government is insurrecting. host: democrats line, florida. caller: for everybody having trouble trying to discern whether trump is responsible for this, i would suggest to you this -- who else could have pulled this off? who else would have done this? who else is capable? just pull trump out of the equation. insert bush or whoever. it doesn't have to be a past president. i didn't mean to pick on george bush, because he is obviously not capable of something like this, but do not have one ounce of care for this country, to do

what he did. this was predicted by everyone who knew trump. they said if he loses, burn it down on his way out the door. host: the events of january 6, what do you think about the incitement charge and did the managers make their case and if so, how so? caller: i just said it. host: you talked about the president himself. the specific case on the managers, what do you think about what they presented? caller: what else could they do but show the riots and his previous speeches calling for violence, for hatred, for chaos? that is what he is best at. if you can't understand this guy

is not good for this country unless you like chaos and hatred, then i don't know what else to say. what else is there to say? host: richard, louisville, kentucky, republican. caller: i would like to know, the constitution, the trial going on -- is it still up in the air? i know they voted to say we feel the constitution does say this meeting the democrat so therefore we will go with it. there is no concrete proof this would be allowed in the constitution. is that correct? host: they voted on the constitutionality. republicans joining democrats to make that happen. caller: it was basically on party lines. ok, that is fine. they have taken this man, no

longer president, now a citizen and they say we will show you we can do whatever we want. i asked you and the american people -- what is to keep him from going after bush for weapons of mass destruction? what is to keep people from going after barack obama for his two against -- coup against the president for the 2016 election. pandora's box is open. i am afraid this will continue. host: besides that, as far as the hypothetical you presented, what about the case being made for actions on january 6? caller: i don't blame donald trump for what happened just as i don't blame bernie sanders for

that nut job at that ballgame. you could go on. there are so many stories and things i could bring up that are not important right now. let me ask you, i am a retired pipe fitter. shout out to the men and women on the pipeline shut down. he took your jobs. he gave joe biden your money, your union dues. host: john, alabama, democrats. caller: about the insurrection. trump said in the speech on january 6, "go down and fight" and he told them to fight. they went down. the insurrection took place. people lost their lives. this is the first time in 200 years this has happened. other callers have called in and

said what bernie sanders said, what maxine waters said. nobody has set people into washington to destroy and kill people. this is what happened. regardless of a comment somebody made, you never run out of comments someone made. host: when the trump team have added the president's words that they included "peacefully" that does not change her mind? -- your mind? caller: it is the action that took place. what happened in washington will happen, what happened in michigan, with the governor of michigan, will happen again and again and again as long as you have this white supremacist groups going around. if they go to washington, they

will go to any state in this country and perform the same thing. host: john in alabama making his thoughts known. they couple editorials. -- a couple editorials. st. louis tribune today, focusing on the senators from missouri, saying the impeachment trial should be an opportunity for roy blunt and josh hawley to redeem themselves for blindly supporting a man whose conduct was insensible. "after having flirted with the abolition of democracy in favor of keeping a dictator wannabe in the white house. he had the gall to tell reporters that he had never taken so much time to watch what

occurred on that day." both voted on not allowing the trial to proceed. the st. louis tribune is where you can find that if you want to read more. senator ted cruz, republican of texas publishing an op-ed on fox news. he adds this to the mix. "on balance, i believe the better constitutional argument is that a former president can be impeached and tried, that the senate has jurisdiction to hold trial. nothing in the text requires the senate to choose to exercise jurisdiction. i believe the senate should decline to exercise. i voted to dismiss this on jurisdictional grounds."

if you are interested in the thoughts of ted cruz, go to the fox news website and read that op-ed. boston, massachusetts, independent, john. caller: where do i start with this thing? as far as the trial is concerned, that is fine. show us all the cameras, people being afraid and all that stuff. it is sad to see that. this has been going on for so long that the country has been divided for so long, not just because of trump being in there. the average american understands

trump does not present himself as presidential. that is ok. that is what is scaring the hell out of congress. that he is exposing all these hypocrites. my son is a police officer. across this country, police officers have been trapped in buildings, set on fire and they look to congress to step in. host: let me clarify. what do you think about the legitimacy of the impeachment trial? caller: so far, the film disgusts me. it is so sad that had to happen. when you think of 100,000 people being there, and 200 people that are radicals that plan this, you cannot put this on jump. you cannot put that on trump. that was planned to do that. we, as americans, voting for so

many years, have tried to do that, have to see that. we have to see, we have to call the spade a spade. a couple hundred people that are radicals that did all that damage is disgraceful. host: when you say it was planned, by whom? caller: by these radical groups. the same people on the west coast, minnesota, different states where they were there and they destroyed things. here come the police and the capitol, and all of a sudden they are heroes. well they have been heroes. the tv, the channels putting on this stuff and going against the police have to start smarting up. we can take care of this problem the right way. host: audrey, welch, west

virginia, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i have been watching these trials. i believe it is unconstitutional. that the democrats are using this in order to stop trump from running for office in the future. they are afraid of him. if you bring him up on trial and find him guilty of inciting this riot, you also have to condemn biden, pelosi, harris, schumer, waters and many others who instigated and encouraged rioting in the cities. it is on video for everybody to see. host: as far as the unconstitutionality of it, what do you base it on? caller: because trump is no longer the president. you cannot remove him from the office.

he is already out. he is an american citizen. if they are going to attack him as an american citizen, who else are they going to go after? host: what did you think of the six republicans who decided this was a constitutional matter? caller: they are running scared. the democrats have the power right now. i would like to know, if he is found guilty, where they going to prosecute these other people? host: one of those senators who put herself in the mix, senator lisa murkowski, of alaska, the hill highlighting conversations with reporters looking at the issues at hand saying on wednesday, she could not imagine the former president would be elected again after footage of the capitol, talking to reporters. [video clip] senator murkowski: i am looking

at what we are seeing now. i have said i will look to the evidence presented. the evidence presented thus far is pretty damning. i also know i have a responsibility and obligation that i accept, to what the defense will present. we will have an opportunity to do that. today, again, i think -- [indiscernible] -- the videos we have seen -- [indiscernible] -- of what we lived through and unfortunately what some did not live through, is greatly greatly disturbing. reporter: are you concerned if the senate does not act, that he could run again and insight a similar -- incite a similar

thing? >> i don't see how after the american public, after seeing the case laid out here, but this whole scenario that has been laid up a force, -- laid out before us, i don't see how donald trump could be reelected to the presidency again. reporter: you are under no pressure, or are you, from leadership to vote a certain way? senator murkowski: none whatsoever. reporter: you feel free to vote your conscience? senator murkowski: absolutely. host: newsweek picking up the conversation. you can find that at the newsweek website. the washington post adding

reported reaction from the former president saying he was aware of the emotional punch of the democratic case. according to one advisor, he is pushing his own videos to counter his opponents. the former president has talked to a number of advisors in the past on for hours, including lindsey graham, mark meadows and his lawyers. according to people familiar, the former president was displeased with the meandering presentation tuesday of lawyer castor. his team has persuaded him to stick with castor. today is the second and final day of the presentation from the impeachment managers. 16 hours worth of allotted time of presentation by bruce castor

will start tomorrow going into saturday. we will show you portions of that throughout the week, covering the second impeachment trial of former president donald trump. you can see this at noon, eastern standard time on c-span 2. follow along on radio. www.c-span.org/impeachment. hollywood, florida, barbara. caller: oh, good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: i did not expect to be on this quickly. regarding yesterday's impeachment trial, i thought it was compelling. i am hard-pressed that they could not see how the president worked up the words that were used. he used "peace" but so many

times. then again, this particular president has always been rash with his words and incitement. you can tell that by listening to the callers they have here, that comes on the show -- they are sure to say verbatim exactly what he said, then defend that. host: to the events of yesterday, was it the video that convince you more of incitement or we caller: it was the argument made by the impeachment manager. it is definitely what the managers have said. it is also the fact that i listened to all of that the

former president had to say all of these years. i listened to c-span actually. i would call up whatever it is i want to listen to. i would listen to that entire speech for myself. that is how -- i don't know how it is the american public happens to be missing the fact that as the president of the united states, those words are important. maxine waters is important in maxine waters state. ill hand omar -- ilhan omar matters in her state, not the president of the united states, the 50 states that we follow. that is the difference between

all of that happening with the fireworks before. that has no bearing on what this president said. he left all of america in the lurch. host: that is barbara in hollywood, florida talking about wanting the events of yesterday -- particularly on this network. go to our website for everything we have taken in on this. for the last hour we have taken your calls on the topic of yesterday's events on their first day of presentation. call in the next tower --half-hour, here's how you do so. (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. someone on our twitter feed goes by the handle @bordercolliemom

says most editors are afraid of the presidents gop base. they are incapable of doing the right thing. adding the former president is guilty. another twitter user saying most are denying what happened on january 6. there is insurrection. it is complicity on their part. insurrection needs to be dealt with. this is michael on the republican line in new jersey. caller: i want to know the integrity of eric swalwell. you are talking about -- he brought up two names that were in the senate. they had their names, why don't you bring them up as evidence? they were witnesses, they were criminals in the fact. i would like to ask everybody in congress that they give donald trump the due respect. he was elected by the people.

did anybody give him the respect ? everybody gets 90 days of probationary period when they get a job. did they give him a chance? host: elaborate on eric swalwell again. i missed that part. what were you trying to get to? caller: he brought up two names of people that were actually in the senate. with the zip tie handcuffs. why don't you bring them out as evidence and see what they have to say? host: you're saying they should be called as witnesses? caller: are we just going to listen to stories of what these people are trying to tell us? swalwell, really? host: if you want to find out more about these two people as far as being brought up as witnesses, that is probably the most forward way.

caller: they arrested so many people that were inside the capitol building. wouldn't that be evidence of -- what brought you here? who do you back? host: if you talk to them you will learn their intent of why they showed up? caller: why wouldn't we want to know their intent instead of just listening to the democrats and their stories they have been saying. benefit of the doubt, think about it. host: i'm not a lawyer, i could not tell you. let's go to lisa, in philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: hello. donald trump was impeached, why is he still in office? host: it is his second impeachment while he is in office. caller: i think it still counts.

just because they had the hearing after he is in office should not have any bearing on the fact. there shouldn't be any democrat or republican issues. we saw what happened. right is right and wrong is wrong. people died on both sides. that is so sad. i think it was just general purposes in case he might get held accountable or try to be held accountable by anybody down the line. it is really sad that the republican party lost a lot of voters in suburbia because of all this back and forth. it is like a reality tv show. people died because of this.

that is sad. what congressman or what senator said in the past, if that is the case try them separately for those things. we are talking about the insurrection that happened on the capital. host: let's go to steve in florida. independent line. caller: good morning, good to talk with you. let's think about this case they are presenting. presenting a case just as they showed activities. they are not showing the cause and the effect. they are making an assumption. the assumption is all these people did something because of donald trump. what they are showing in this case is all the acts. they are not getting to the heart of the subject. host: you are talking the actual words used, the rhetoric used leading up to the charges? caller: exactly. host: you're saying the house

managers haven't made that case yet? caller: they have not made that case. just like the caller said before , they are not playing the whole speech. they take away from the points. the whole thing is about assumption. you don't go about presenting a case using just the events and not having the cause. they were assuming the cause. host: you're talking about previous events, text that were sent leading up to the events of the sixth, you think that qualifies for what you are saying? caller: think about the police, fbi, they had warnings before.

this was before trump had anything to do with anything. they did nothing. if you were going to say there was a cause, there was the ignorance of protection. the fbi and the capitol police were prepared for. you cannot make a case in a way to assume guilt. that is what they have done with president trump. the big question of what the democrats are doing is what if? what if? that is not a case. host: steve in fort pierce, florida giving his perspective on events of january 6. the case being brought by the house impeachment manager. you could do the same for the next 21 minutes or so. if you want to call in and post on our social media, you can

also text in. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i'm astounded at the level of ignorance. the callers are trying to equate the need to equate one speech to the violence. what the presenters have shown was that this took pace over -- place over a period of time. it built up. when he found out he was down in the polls he started planning the seeds that if he lost it had to be rigged. it went to stop the steal. all of these things built up to what escalated and blew up on that day. host: are the events of january 6 the ones that comes into question, particularly the president speech? caller: it is not only about one

speech. they showed you the tweets, they showed you clips of the speeches. it is a known fact he was stating that the election was rigged. that was the foundation for everything that escalated and erupted. host: how do you draw the line between all of those things and what happened on the sixth? what specific things? caller: if you tell people that votes don't count over and over again and send people out to scare and intimidate state officials that went through the court process, i don't have a problem. they lost. the bottom line is they lost. he refuses to accept that. host: how do you prove incitement? considering what has been the

house impeachment managers? caller: it has been laid out for everyone to see. host: is that from the video or arguments being made? caller: the video and the tweets , you hear his words on the video. you read his words in his tweets. it is not a thing of immediacy. it is over a period of time. these people didn't arrive one day and say ok. he told them to be there and go wild, those are his words. host: that is roy in california. we showed you from our website, if you want to visit that as a previous caller brought up, here is the president's speech in total. some of that being shown from the house impeachment managers.

some other evidence that they brought forth. all of that available at the website, particularly in our impeachment section if you want to visit that. you could do so at c-span.org/impeachment. barbara in texas. independent line. caller: thank you so much. i've been listening to all of this and watching it for so long , the guy that called in from florida made a good point. this is my point in everything. you guys question why did this happen? what were the republicans doing on the floor in the house and the senate. they were objecting to the electoral college vote. host: some republicans. caller: they were making points

of why they felt the electoral college was wrong because of the evidence. there is evidence out there that a lot of states did not follow their laws. there were votes counted that were not legitimate. my question is trump incited this crowd, why would he want to stop the evidence that was being presented? i said this was a preplanned deal. if all the evidence was to come out, people might find out the democrats were behind this. why would you stop something when you are presenting your evidence for fraud? host: when you say it was a preplanned deal, what led you to believe that? caller: we had reports on several news media's that this was preplanned from different groups out in the country.

and people was in on this. a lot of left-wing groups too. host: go ahead and finish your thought. caller: the fbi told them that this was going to happen. trump offered the national guard. they turned it down. host: that is barbara in texas. we will hear from harold in georgia, republican line. caller: this was a pre-staged by the rich and powerful. and the communist chinese back people. host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: just look at the facts. when you saw the riots you saw

battle helmets, gas masks, cameras in the videos. this was preplanned. host: how did that lead you to believe it was backed by the chinese, i could be wrong. caller: it could be the russians, iranians, cubans. host: how do you make that connection? caller: the chinese have done everything possible to besmirch president trump's candidacy. they have tried to impeach him before he was even elected. all four years it has been one impeachment after another. this is a perfect example. they didn't want anybody to see any evidence of the voter fraud.

i've got voter fraud sitting on my desk. i've got two or three ballots sent to me. the suitcases they pulled out from under the tables that nobody was supposed to see. they ran the ballots through three and four times. i live in georgia. i know this state, everybody i know is a republican. i know a lot of black people, they are republicans. all of a sudden we went democrat? host: that is harold in georgia. a lot of those claims being dissected by various fact checking sites when it comes to georgia itself. the atlantic constitution reporting today that as they made a case for impeachment of the president, fulton county's top prosecutor launched a criminal investigation into the president.

it centers on a january 2 phone call to the georgia secretary of state in which the president pleaded with him to find enough votes to overturn his narrow defeat. the fulton county district attorney has opened an investigation to influence the administration of the 2020 georgia general election. the correspondence that were delivered to various people on wednesday. more of that story if you want to read it there. james is next in maryland, democrats line. caller: donald trump did insight this. the same way osama bin laden incited it. he incited it. look what they did to osama bin laden. host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: osama bin laden attacked

americans, donald trump said go and fight. host: you will relate the events to 9/11 to those incitement charges? you will make those directly? caller: same tactics, same philosophy. host: finish your thought. caller: that is all i have to say. host: charlene in pennsylvania, republican line. hello. caller: i have been listening to your callers all morning. there are a few callers i do agree with. the democrats are claiming this has been preplanned, they have been showing texts, this and that. if this is the case, i want to know why they didn't have the 25,000 plus troops in washington, d.c. prior to january 6. there's a lot of bad apples.

there needs to be deep investigations as to exactly what went on january 6. host: what do you think caused january 6 the -- january 6? caller: the fraudulent voting and trump did win. the democrats don't want him in there, china doesn't want him in there. host: do you believe all of those things add up to what you saw the capital? ol? caller: that is correct. they set him up. there are bad apples. there has been an investigation into what exactly happened here. truthfully, i really don't think the truth will come out. i pray for our country right now every day. that is all i have to say. host: mike is up in rockford, illinois. caller: i think the managers did

a pretty good job. i wish we could've seen some more witnesses. not having witnesses after all that went down was incredible. russia hacked us a couple weeks before this incident i watch the new chief of staff get sworn in to be in partnership with china on all intel with land and sea operations. the call on the eighth a couple days after the incident nailed it. the australian paper says we are cooed by our militant. host: let's go back to the impeachment trial. are you saying the case the house impeachment managers are not strong enough without witnesses? caller: i think it is similar to

the last impeachment. they took that out of the prosecutor's mouth. by having barr not provide evidence and having the senate allowing to be a jury. allowing the president to threaten the jury with the head on a stake kind of thing. host: what will witnesses provide that is not being provided by the evidence so far? caller: if it is true that they stand down and they allowed this to come in, we could have 2500 police officers in the capitol, $400 million year we pay them. three people died, we haven't got their names yet. what other questions are answered? host: they're talking about other things and the events of yesterday. the democrat from pennsylvania

talked about those moments. a lot of that being referenced yesterday. >> i would like to close with a very brief timeline. what was happening in parallel alongside on the sixth of january. president trump began his speech with a fiery refusal to concede. he demanded they fight down pennsylvania avenue. around 12:20 some attendees began marching. by 12:30 as president trump continued to incite the supporters, large segments of the valley crowd had mast at the capitol. at 12:53 as the president speech was playing on cell phone broadcast the outermost barricades of the northwest side of the capital was breached. capitol police were forced back to the steps of the capitol.

the president ended his speech with a final call to fight and a final order to march to the capital. this is a revolution. just after 2:10 an hour after president trump ended his speech the insurrectionist mob overwhelmed capital security and made it inside the halls of congress. the truth is, this attack never happened if it weren't for donald trump. he used our flag to batter and bludgeon and at 2:30 i heard that terrifying banging on the house chamber doors.

for the first time in more than 200 years the seat of our government was ransacked. host: there is a sidebar story about the events taking place. this is the work of social media and when it comes to distribution of content. facebook seeking a move saying project management director wrote on the company's blog that content about coronavirus and from official government agency services will be exempt from restrictions on political use and information. the people in canada, brazil, and indonesia this week in the coming weeks. during the initial tests will explore ways to rank political content using different signals identified on the approaches going forward. adding that they do not intend

to remove all political content but aiming to better serve users who do not want to be overwhelmed by political content. that reporting this morning in the washington times. republican line, go ahead, you are on. caller: i'm wondering why they don't have people that were the perpetrators giving their thoughts on why they went ahead and did this. if trump had anything to do with cranking them up. i haven't really heard from them. i'm wondering what you heard. host: would you say you would call them as witnesses then? caller: yeah. absolutely. some would say this is all

hearsay. let's hear from them. what were their motives for what they were doing? host: maryland in illinois -- marylyn in illinois. caller: they have already spoken. they have spoken to the media. they have said they were doing it for trump. the people that were rioting said they were doing this for trump. why? because trump told them to do it, it is simple. when the republicans say that it is not constitutional, any lawyers will say if somebody is indicted on such and such a date and the trial is not on the same day. the trial comes up later. former president trump was

indicted, impeached while he was president. the trial was stopped by mcconnell until after he left office. it was a small thing that mcconnell did. it did not stop it. host: in tallahassee, florida, talia, hello. caller: i thought the house managers were excellent. they outlined in real time and from past features and posts the progression i think of trump's incitement of insurrection. the logical progression with video documentation clearly shows that trump was a force that compelled these insurgents to launch the attack on the

capitol that left two people dead. congressmen and women fleeing for their lives. trump should be impeached. i think criminally prosecuted for his actions. by the way, at the end of the day the only time trump called for peace. host: he said the word peacefully during the speech. caller: ok, i miss that. host: it is ok. some people catch certain portions. that is why we invite people to watch the speech for themselves. if you want to go to the website you could do that. caller: some of the perpetrators -- insurgents did say on video to the press that they were inspired by trump.

i think you have to be totally committed to rely in order to exonerate trump from being the insider in chief. host: finishing up an hour and a half of your calls. day two of the house impeachment. watch for today's events at noon on c-span.org, find all that information on the website under our impeachment section. we will take a short break. the house comes in for a 9:00 a.m. pro forma session. we will take that when it happens. up until then we will talk about the state of education under the biden administration. the debate over reopening schools amid the coronavirus pandemic. that conversation later on in

the program. we will be joined by a member of congress right after the pro forma speech. a top member of the appropriations committee. we will give an update on relief registration -- legislation through congress. that is coming up on "washington journal." >> the senate impeachment trial against former president trump resumes today with house impeachment managers concluding arguments in their case to convict the former president before defense lawyers begin their arguments. after that, four hours will be set aside for written questions from senators or lawyers on both sides. time will be set aside for attorneys to argue whether to subpoena witnesses and documents. closing arguments are expected next week. watch our live coverage of the senate impeachment trial at noon

eastern on c-span two, c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. if you miss any part of the proceedings watch anytime on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. >> 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 that provide c-span viewers as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is john bailey, a visiting fellow with the american enterprise institute to talk about the debate currently going on when it comes to reopening the schools amid the pandemic. good morning. guest: good morning, it is great to be with you. host: in your background you have spent some time here taking

a look at these issues. could you scope for people your experience on those fronts? guest: i've had different experiences. i was the director of educational technology but then i was deputy policy director at the u.s. department of commerce. that's when president bush began the efforts to develop the first pandemic preparedness strategy. part of a working group that work on that in terms of what would be needed across the country in terms of supply chain and everything we are experiencing right now. shelter-in-place orders to what we do about schools and whatnot? host: you wrote a recent piece taking a look at this topic of it reopening schools. you directed your attention to the role the teachers union played. what is the gist of it? guest: there is a tension across

the country, science is pointing to ways we can safely reopen schools. a body of science that we did not have at this time last year, school closing has made a lot of sense last year because part of the pandemic preparedness plan is that you close schools early. kids tend to be super-spreader's. we although that from influenza. the respiratory diseases, you often slow that transition chain. let's close schools in order to flatten the curve. what we learned in the month since is that the coronavirus is not played out in the exact same way the respiratory influenza virus does. the effectiveness of school closures is not nearly as effective as what we had initially thought.

we are seeing now in lived experience with schools reopening in europe and schools reopening in the united states that it is tough but we will start bringing kids back into the classroom with various types of safety liars and protective measures. we are seeing many of our largest urban centers, whether it be chicago, san francisco, that the teachers unions are moving the goalpost in terms of what they declare to be safe for reopening schools. what it's doing is taking kids out of the classroom for almost a year. it has incredible consequences for kids there is this tension. host: the chicago schools, there is reporting this morning that the teachers there reaching deals with management. it does quote the president of the teachers union who said this plan is not what any of us deserve. the fact that they couldn't

delay the opening a few short weeks to re-up on vaccinations and preparations is a disgrace. is that unreasonable? guest: again, it does not adhere to the science. even president biden cdc director says you don't need to vaccinate teachers to bring them and kids back into the classroom. you need layer of protection. the first layer of protection is so critically important, they are masks. the cdc just reaffirmed that yesterday. we know keeping kids apart three feet-60 is very important. -- six feet is important. we know ventilation is important. other protective measures are vaccinations as well as doing asymptomatic testing. a testing regimen once a week where kids are getting tested and you are quarantining kids that test positive.

the best example of this is actually chicago. while all of these negotiations have been going on between the city, chicago public school system, and the teachers union, the largest catholic school system in the country has been reopened since september. it has had fewer cases of kids and faculty catching covid in the closed public school system. the catholic school would not elaborate on extensive measures. protective measures we have now well known and well established and well verified, masking, keeping kids distant, increasing ventilation in the classroom. also making sure there is hygiene. it is not that the vaccinations are unreasonable. we want teachers to get vaccinated very quickly. that is an additional layer of protection. we could get teachers back in the classroom when these other protocols sooner. host: john bailey will be with

us until 9:00. if you want to ask him questions about reopening you could do so. (202) 748-8000 four you parents out there. (202) 748-8001 educators. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. there is reporting today about the president's initiative on this. saying the president's efforts to reopen public schools within the first 100 days has changed a little bit. white house press secretary saying that the president's goal is far more than 50% of schools. some teaching in person one day a week. what do you think of the change? guest: it is a pretty significant change. we have heard throughout the late fall and most of january that there was going to be this very aggressive move needed, an

urgent call to reopen schools within the first 100 days. as of this week we heard the criteria for reopening is so much lower that it has already been met. we know right now from a number of different things tracking school openings, about 60% of kids aren't doing the type of reopened schools that president biden is describing. what we need is not that lower bar. we need to be setting a higher bar. there is an urgency on here. there is a pandemic outside of the coronavirus pandemic. it is happening with kids. the pandemic becomes a mental health challenge. we know these play out over a generation. the incredible harms we are inflicting on kids now for several years from now we won't

know. it is urgent getting kids back into a classroom safely and responsibly. it is not about being irresponsible. we could do it. we have lots of places that we could learn from over in europe. multiple systems here in the u.s. have been open since september. there's no reason we can't be doing more right now and setting a higher bar. one of the places -- host: one of the places you point out is wisconsin, why do they stand out? guest: the cdc released a study looking at 14 schools. states that use protective measures we were just talking about. they had masks, they were social distant sing the kids. they did all of these different types of protective measures. the cdc researchers tracked them for the fall and found out they were not spreading the virus. either to themselves or to adults, teachers. that is a good thing.

it created tension because the administration is trying to spell that in order to reopen schools we need the american recovery act as part of the additional dollars to safely make sure the protocols that these kids in wisconsin had our in place for kids that are outside of school. again, what we are seeing are these are not expensive protocols. they are not the wealthiest schools in the country. it was a 150,000 dollar grant from a private foundation which is relatively small to cover 17 schools. congress has provided schools with dollars from the cares act and dollars through the december economic relief package that is now providing close to $60 billion for schools. they could use them for all of these different protective measures. the cdc study is one of the latest studies on a collective body of research that is showing

the path for how to safely bring kids back. host: let me tell you what brecht -- becky pringle most recently talked about saying it little bit about if it is not representative of what she is seeing places. we will get your thoughts when she is done. > the cdc has said the available evidence has been reassuring. there has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increase transmission. are masks not enough? is that what you are saying? >> mac -- masks are not enough. they base that on a study done in wisconsin. what they found is exactly what she said. however, those schools that reopened their, they have a sizable donation from a private foundation that provides the additional resources that they

all had masks. they had class sizes about 10 or 11 so they could socially distance. they had testing available. they had people to do the tracing. they were working with educators who were thinking about how they could bring their students back safely. the cdc and everyone else has said that we have to have all of these measures in place. not one of them, it is not just masks, it is ventilation systems. it is washing hands. being able to clean surfaces. it is making sure that we have test available so we could quickly identify those who are infected with covid-19 and isolate them as quickly as possible. host: your response? guest: one, explain away the science. this is one study. even if you want to ignore this

one study, there are hundreds of others that say -- duke studies looking at school systems in north carolina. i don't disagree. you need these protective measures. the masks, the social distancing. they have been recommended for the past year. this is not new. duke researchers looked at the measures in north carolina and found again very little spread between students. very little spread between students and teachers. that it was safe. you could dismiss wisconsin because it was rural schools and a limited set. if you want to look at the study that the chicago health department did of catholic schools in urban chicago, it was exactly the same thing. in all these instances asymptomatic testing was not employed. that is another layer of protection.

it is not the fundamental layer you need to bring kids back. they are all able to bring kids back with the existing lairs of protection in place. there is over $50 billion that congress provided. host: let's hear from an educator in albuquerque, new mexico. you are on with our guest from the american enterprise institute. caller: thank you, so much. good morning. i just wanted to say i have to disagree with the judge about the teachers unions moving the goal posts. in new mexico, the new mexico public education department actually just moved the goalposts. we first had the rule that we had to be ingrained in our county in order for schools to go back.

now last week at the state of the state address we totally split that. now since -- it sounds like next week we michael back to school. all the unions are trying to figure out what is going on. there was supposed to be a mass teacher vaccination thing that ended up getting canceled. i don't even want to get into the mess of politics behind that. just like our governor said one death is too many. risking all of these kids and teachers to go back to school. one death is too many. one sickness is too many. that is what our governor said. i'm just trying to follow the rules. host: thank you, go ahead. guest: first of all, appreciation and respect for the teacher. and for the situation he is describing, which a lot of teachers are feeling like a

yo-yo. a lot of this is coming back to what the caller was describing in terms of trying to assess what are the right community conditions? the community level spread of the virus. there there has been a bigger debate. there has not been as helpful of guidance coming from the cdc. as a result, governors have been left trying to read the research, look at what other governors are doing and figuring out what is the right level under which this is so high that it is not safe to bring teachers and kids back into the classroom. that is incredibly frustrating for teachers. it is frustrating for teachers and parents as well -- students and teachers as well. the biden administration updating, we will get clear guidance on what level of spread

should dictate what kind of model there should be. it gives governors and the callers certainty in terms of how to plan and how to prepare. host: saint minnesota, we will hear from bob, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. governor cuomo from new york says follow the science, follow the science. before the election, after the election. follow the science, follow the science. here you get the head of the cdc. then you get dr. fauci that says the best place for kids is in the school. while i don't understand is why don't the catholic schools and charter schools for example here in minnesota that have been in school since september that the public schools don't understand nationally. it is working. new mexico where one student

comes down with this is enough. it is going to happen. are we going to wait until this thing is totally over? host: thank you. guest: it is a great point what we are seeing right now is an administration wrestling with following the science and again a collective body. we will have a paper coming out shortly. just a small fraction of the studies that have been published since march of last year about what a risk to kids. do kids transmit the virus? this goes back to the previous caller about the risk to teachers. what are the detective measures in place? all of these collectively point to using these letters of protection. it is possible. so much fear mongering happened in the fall. you have parents that are really worried.

you have teachers that are really worried about their risk. this is not a crisis of science. it is a crisis of trust. we will have to do more to earn the crisis of the trust of teachers and parents. the way to do that is by pointing to some of these school systems that have been open. we need to be telling those stories more and putting people to those examples as well as the very large collective body of evidence. there is a path forward. host: connecticut is next. todd bailey of the american institute. caller: i think you have to look at the breakdown. if you are going to try to compare the different geographical areas you will see urban, suburban, and rural. rural is less populated for one. in the suburbs the kids are not

living in chronic conditions. if you look at who got hit the hardest, it was blacks, latinos, and native americans. they got more crowding. they got bad schools, and bad health care. those populations right there are the ones that are most affected. if you go to a private school that is well-funded, better ventilated, and less populated. you have to do the math. look at the numbers. guest: it's a great point in the sense of we should not be making a national policy that applies to all schools in terms of whether they should be open. all of the different types of conditions the caller described. there are reasons schools should remain closed because they are

not able to adequately ventilate and create more air circulation. they just don't have the classroom space in order to keep kids socially distance. or because the community spread is so high it would be irresponsible to bring them back to the classroom. i don't disagree with that. what we need is a better framework to help evaluate these risks. that is what the cdc has outlined. the protective measures could help. there are some teachers and students who should not be coming back to the classroom because they have underlying health conditions or risk profiles that put them more at risk of not just catching covid. the cdc is really clear about this. i could imagine all sorts of ways we create the accommodation for teachers that are older, under the age of 65. students i should say, teachers that create more risk, they

should be accommodated and stay home. there are other students we could start bringing in. maybe you start targeting the students who are struggling the most with remote learning. that is another way of bringing back a small cohort of students. keeping them socially distant as we get through this period. host: matt in virginia, an educator, hello. caller: i teacher right across the river in fairfax county, public schools. we are transitioning to in person learning. as a teacher i have already done in person learning in the fall with my students. i think for some teachers there is a fear that once they get back in person it will dissipate some. looking at our national perspective, what you just said, some schools are protecting

those teachers with those higher needs because of their age or disability. some private schools are not giving out information about covert outbreaks or protecting their teachers with advanced age or disability. i think the number one thing for success is for communities to actually follow the protocols. if you look at the country, a community will decide whether schools could open. our people masking? are people following protocols? this is not a school issue, this is a community issue. our communities actually doing the things they need to do for schools to open? host: that is matt in virginia. guest: that is bring up this whole issue, you have to trust the protective measures in place inside the classrooms for them

to feel safe to come back. the community has to feel that as well. as much as this is a medical challenge putting protocols in place, it is a challenge there as well. schools and the community need to do more to earn teachers trust on this. we have seen some of the research studies we will summarize, where you have seen outbreaks in schools or childcare settings, summer camps is when to the callers point they think the protocols have been relaxed. when a summer camp did not have a kid masked up, it is not surprising a lot of kids talk covid. they brought kids back into the classroom. bringing kids back to school creates this surge. what is happening is the kids are coming back without

ventilation. also without masks. when you remove these safety protocols you see a surge in cases. this is critically important for schools to adhere to what the cdc is recommending. host: we are running short on time but if you are asked if you could comment on the recent call by the cdc in some cases to at sometimes implement double masking. guest: that is the new guidance that just came out yesterday. what we have seen and learned is masks are one of the primary ways we fight covid. you have to get double coverage. particles from my mouth will have to go out there my mask and in through your mask. if you double mask it removes the chances of particles 95% of the time. the cdc researchers, dr. tony fauci, and others believe this is our first line of defense.

it is super important for us to take this guidance that came out 24 hours ago and begin using better quality masks and double masking in many instances. it could be a critical piece of guidance for schools if they are thinking about reopening. host: let's hear from amanda in kansas. we are just about to go to the house in a few minutes. noah ahead with your question or comment. caller: i keep hearing about you want to send the kids back to school. i even hear from the parents how the homeschooling is and how frustrated they are as parents. i understand all of that. right before christmas, i buried my best friend because her son was sent to school and not once

but twice was sent home because he had somebody he had come in contact with at school. they made it through the first time. the second time they both got it and his mother died. you cannot imagine the situation that put us in. because it is an inconvenience and because it is making life difficult to have your kid at home and they are driving you nuts. the in school or at homeschooling is hard to do. i understand that is a hard position to be in. maybe they need to look at what they are doing there. i don't think we are ready yet to send the kids back. it is not just the teachers and the kids.

it is those who are at home that are at risk too. host: a couple of minutes left, go ahead. guest: my heart goes out to you and to that family. that is the absolute worst tragedy any parent could have. if you are helping to support that family, thank you for that. it is also a reminder of what is at stake and why these safety protocols are so important. it is also a reminder that i don't think -- kids being at home is a nuisance for some parents. we are seeing some grave consequences of kids being socially isolated and some other challenges with them being home in terms of kids not being fed. we just heard about a tragic rise in suicide in clark county, nevada. other kids who have taken their lives because of the social isolation.

these are balancing. balancing tension and trying to find a way to navigate the risk. there are risks to keeping kids at home. we have to find ways to protect the most vulnerable and youngest children and figure out a way to responsibly help and bring them back into the classroom. host: john bailey serves as a visiting fellow at american enterprise institute talking to us about the role of educators particularly as they deal with the pandemic. thanks for your time and input this morning. guest: thank you so much, thanks for all the callers. host: a pro forma session of the house of representatives set to take place when we are finished with that session we will talk with democratic representative of florida. right now we take you to the house.