c-span, a senate committee considers nominations for the white house office of management and budget, including shalonda young as deputy director. that is live at 10:15 a.m. eastern. on c-span2, the senate energy and resources committee votes on the interior secretary and hold the confirmation hearing for david turk. at noon, the senate returns and will try to begin debate on the house passed one point $9 trillion covid-19 relief package. at 10:00 on c-span3, a house ways and means -- ways and means subcommittee looks at a trade adjustment assistance program. coming up in a few minutes, chris marquette on the latest congressional security threats. at 8:00, antidefamation league ceo and national director jonathan greenblatt on the rise in domestic extremism in the u.s..

at 9:30 a.m., washington times online opinion editor cheryl chumley discusses security threats at the u.s. capitol and the rise of extremism. host: "washington journal" for march 4. while the senate is holding a session working on the covid relief bill, the house is recessed today. capitol police received intelligence of a possible militia plot and action reportedly connected to the conspiracy group qanon. we will explain more and in our first hour, get your reaction only to the possible threat but the reaction by the house of representatives. here is how you can call and let us know your thoughts. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002.

if you want to text us, it is (202)-748-8003. you can post on our twitter feed. facebook is also available if you want to go that route. the washington times has a write up of -- saying it was the u.s. capitol ramping up security after officials discovered a quote, possible plot by a militia group to break into the capital on thursday, nearly two months after a riot inside of the building that left five people dead. the story adding the militia group was not identified. some say the threat stems from supporters of the far-right conspiracy group qanon. supporters believe former president donald trump will be sworn in on march 4 which had been designated as inauguration day until 1933. that was the reaction. when it comes to the capitol police themselves, they put out

a statement about information they received, saying the department is prepared for any potential threats toward members of congress or the capital complex. we obtained intelligence that shows a plot to breach the capital by an unidentified group. we already made security upgrades and increasing manpower to ensure the protection of congress. the public and our police officers. the statement saying the department is working with local, state and federal partners and they take the intelligence seriously. due to the sensitive nature of this information, they cannot provide additional details. we will show you more in a little bit, not only on this new information, but discussions yesterday on capitol hill about events on january 6 and capital security. you are invited to call in. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002.

text us at (202)-748-8003. twitter and facebook available. the capital complex is still surrounded by a fence and razor wire. these out of the events of january 6, even before this new event, this new information took place. joining us to give us some context of the last 24 hours is chris marquette. he is with cq roll call and reports on congressional ethics and accountability. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: i appreciate you having me. host: talk about the uptick in tempo as far as security is concerned. we saw the statement from police, but what will happen on the ground today? guest: basically today, the house is not voting. they moved up police reform legislation which was planned for today, and they voted on it and passed it yesterday, last night. right now, a lot of members are

cautious and wary of the security threat the capitol police has flagged. yesterday at a legislative branch appropriations committee meeting, they talked about the intelligence and described it as concerning, and noted that they enhanced their security posture and took immediate steps to get the national guard as well as their workforce to know exec the what to expect tomorrow and going forward, concerning this potential militia plot to breach the capital. the target dates are march 4 through march 6. you can expect everybody, including the members, the staff and the capitol police, the people charged with protecting the capital, to be on high alert the next couple of days.

host: what is the decision in -- the biz -- the senate still meeting for business today? guest: we will see what happens. the senate seems like they will conduct business as usual, but things are subject to change, moment to moment. host: as far as the capitol police is concerned, you talked a little bit about the reaction, but how are they responding to this, and will there be a different type of presence today and the next day's going forward? guest: yesterday, the office of the sergeant at arm's sent out an email to members of congress and congressional staffers, and they noted the sergeant at arms is working closely with capitol police to monitor march 4, fifth and sixth, what they describe as

potential protests and demonstration activities around what have some described as the quote, true inauguration day. that is a reference to the conspiracy. hearing groups -- these groups thought president -- former president donald trump's true inauguration would happen today. the sergeant at arms sent out an email and they warned -- the capitol police said it was new and concerning information. a militia group -- it is thought that qanon is involved in this. they noted that the police forces will have additional personnel posted throughout the grounds, capitol police has enhanced their security posture. i have heard that staffing

levels are up among the officers, in preparation for this. the national guard continues to maintain a presence on the capitol grounds as we have seen, that huge fence around the capital complex. national guard soldiers, it is easy to see. it is clear if you walk around the campus. you can see the huge fence and the national guard presence. host: what kind of reaction did you get from members themselves about this decision? guest: tim ryan put out a statement, after the legislative branch appropriations hearing yesterday about the concerning information about the possible threat to breach the capital today. tim ryan, chair of the appropriations subcommittee, and some other members got briefed by acting capitol police chief to pittman on security threats,

regarding march 4 through the sixth. tim ryan noted that it is heartbreaking that in the united states capital, it continues to be a target, not by foreign adversaries but by our fellow americans. he thanked the chief and the police officers for briefing him. i think a lot of members are confident that the capitol police is going to keep them safe and is properly preparing right now. that being said, there is a huge barbed wire fence around the capital complex. it would be hard to imagine any groups breaching that fortification. host: any republican reaction? guest: regarding republicans, i think republicans in the house are getting out of town, as democrats are doing, in preparation for this.

i think everyone is taking it seriously. host: chris marquette of cq roll call, joining us to give us an update in light of this information that came down yesterday. you can find his reporting on the rollcall website. thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: for the remainder of this hour, we will take your calls on this new information, plus the reaction from capitol hill, particularly on the house side of this. you can call or post on our facebook and twitter feed and you can text us at (202)-748-8003. some additional social media input. bernie saying this risk comes with the job. they will use any excuse not to do anything. sandy from facebook saying it is better to be safe than sorry. from twitter, at this point, it is the house's choice not to be in session today. check from facebook, the republican party asked for this by their words and actions.

you can post there and call on the lines. robert in pennsylvania, starting us off, democrats line. what do you think of the latest news and the reaction by the house? caller: i think it is much ado about nothing. i am a registered democrat but i don't believe in what the democrat party stands for anymore. do you honestly think this so-called militia would turn out for an obsolete date like march 4? i think you have more to worry about with what is coming down the line, with the democrat efforts to enact gun control legislation. host: but as far as the events of january 6, do you think it abundance of caution is necessary, for this type of information the capitol police received? caller: i don't think the fence is going to keep anybody out.

a fence can be torn down pretty easily. we heard out here in flyover country that the national guardsmen don't even have ammunition in their clips, and their rifles. -- in their rifles. pass out the amer -- pass out the ammo first. host: next on the republican line, we will hear from matt. caller: i was looking at the news today, and the democrats early talking about safety and all that. -- are really talking about safety and all that. i went on fox and msnbc, and migrants are coming across the border wearing joe biden t-shirts i the hundreds, so if you are catching and releasing them, and then they are going out and they have covid, because that is what is on the news -- host: we are talking about

events at the capital. what do you think about this latest information and the reaction from the house? caller: the democrats are talking about safety. they are scared and they are living up migrants with covid amongst us, to get us sick again. host: this is from washington post this morning. it was delegate -- the district of columbia's delegate who had been pushing for removal of the fencing around the capital, and she said on wednesday in light of the new information, the barriers and increased police presence may have to be there right now. she says she was encouraged to see that some fencing had been reduced earlier in the week and that she will continue to advocate to quote, return the people's house to the people. boston, massachusetts, mary is up next on our independent line.

mary in boston, hello? caller: yes, i'm here. host: are you mary? caller: yes i am. host: go ahead. caller: i understand what happened january 6, but the thing is to me, it looks ridiculous. they are so afraid. is it going to be a situation, every time there is a little thing on the internet, that they are going to walk down washington -- lock down washington, runaway from washington? the senate is still there. it doesn't make sense.

i don't understand it. why would somebody attack washington, when they know what they've got? they've got all of these wires and fences and national guard. why would you attack? it doesn't make sense to me. host: mary in boston, massachusetts. when it comes to information received by the capital police, it was the house appropriations subcommittee, the acting police chief was asked if the capitol police were prepared to respond appropriately. you can see the whole hearing on c-span, but here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> i want to ensure everyone on this call that we are working with all of our law enforcement partners and the d.c. capital region to make sure that all of the intelligence we have and threats to the campus, we are prepared to respond

appropriately. we do have some concerning intelligence that is law enforcement sensitive, and it wouldn't be prudent of me to share it in a public format, but i would love to come over, i am available at any time, to provide an additional brief to anyone on the call, but we have enhanced our security posture and we have taken immediate steps to let the national guard as well as our workforce know what to expect tomorrow and going forward. other than that, i am more than happy to come over and provide you a brief. host: if you go to the website of the capital police, they will also -- it is comprised of more than 2300 officers and civilian employees. according to their website,

their annual budget has approximately 300 sick to $4 million. leroy on our democrats line. caller: good morning. if the republican senators did their job, you wouldn't have this problem, but it is what it is. trump said it is what it is. host: what do you mean by that, in light of this information? caller: the information from yesterday is still on the rise. [indiscernible] it has been building up for four years. host: do you think this new information warranted the cancellation of activities by the house today? caller: no, no.

the house is going to do what they are going to do. the house didn't do what they should have did when he was in office. they should have had -- they let him ride free. host: our next caller in arkansas, publican line. caller: good morning -- republican line. caller: good morning. what i want to know about capitol police chief pittman, if they knew about this information weeks ago, why aren't these people being arrested? this is a crime. to me, it is a false flag. we have the fbi director tell us that there were no antifa at the capital on january 6. we know sullivan was there. he is a known antifa member. he was inside the house of congress and he was saying burn it down. you are being lied to. this is a false flag to keep

that fence up and restrict our country, and it looks bad. thank you. host: chris wray, the director of the fbi. he was asked on tuesday about the attacks on january 6. he has exchanges with senator patrick lahey about the involvement of right-wing and anti-for involvement, if there was any. here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> when i looked at what happened on january 6, it appears that right-wing white supremacist groups played an instrumental role in the violence we saw. is that your conclusion also? >> let me answer that this way. we are basically saying the same thing. we don't tend to think of violent extremism in terms of right, left, that is not a spectrum we look at.

what i would say is that it is clear that a large and growing number of the people that we have arrested so far in connection with the sixth are what we would call militia violent extremists, and there have been some already that have emerged who i would have put in the racially motivated violent extremists pocket, advocating for the superiority of the white race. >> in your testimony previously, you said you did not see antifa or left-wing groups playing a role in the january 6 insurrection. >> certainly we are looking for violent extremism of any ideology, we have not to date seen any evidence of anarchist violent extremists or people subscribing to antifa, in

connection with the sixth. that doesn't mean we are not looking. we will continue to look, but at the moment we have not seen that. host: when it comes to the events of january 6. usa today's website has compiled who has been charged and arrested in light of the events of the january 6. it is a searchable database as well. it also lists names and charges of various individuals involved. that is how you can check it out, if you go to usa today. when it comes to reaction from twitter and social media. -- i don't believe there is a threat to the capital being attacked by a mob but i do believe democrats want soldiers and fencing to remain, to take our rights away, so the need these fake threats. randy in michigan saying, ia understand -- i do not believe they will ever attack the capital again. the reason they had surprise on

their side the first time and they will not have it again. texting us is available at (202)-748-8003. you can call us on the lines, and you can also post on twitter or facebook. independent line, this is chris in kansas. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: yes. i think i have a problem the democrats can use and solve the problem. all live got to do is called trump up and have the -- call china up and have the military come over and protect the white house. then they don't have to say they distrust them. they distrust the police, the american people, they distrust our military. this way they can have china protecting their house. host: carolyn in texas, independent line. i hope i said your hometown correctly.

caller: yes. the only point i want to make is i am not connected to facebook and all of the other things, where treason and extremism on the right perpetuate. even i disconnected, know that right-wing extremism, donald trump is -- everybody is afraid of him. he is the traitor. host: do you find these threats in light of what you said, legitimate? caller: yes. yes, i do. host: and you base that on what? caller: i'm not an idiot.

we know the president is a racist. we know that he loves the total extremism right supremacy groups. we know that they have been allowed to operate. we know all of this. so why are we mincing our words? host: in indiana, republican line, justin, you are next. caller: i just want to say trump 20 foot -- trump 2024. host: that is just an, making his point. when it comes to threats to lawmakers, there is a story you can find on the website, thehill.com. threats toward members of congress in light of january 6, saying the acting capitol police chief, yogananda pittman told lawmakers on wednesday that

threats against numbers of congress have nearly doubled in the past year. that testimony in front of the house appropriations subcommittee that also deals with the capitol police budget. she said there had been a 93% increase in threats to members compared to the same period last year. she says threats have more than doubled over all, stemming from 2017 to 2020 with most suspects living outside the d.c. metro area, adding that a quote, significant focus of the capitol police budget will be centered on member security and more personnel that will need to be hired to handle the number of threats, which she described as through the roof. that hearing which we showed you his seal of -- is still available on our website, cspan.org. the house of representatives not meeting today, finishing up work on hr-1, the voting bill, which passed yesterday as well as the

george floyd police bill which passed yesterday. they are not in session today in light of this information. the senate is in session to continue work on the covid relief bill, and that is expected to carry on through the day and possibly into the weekend as well. cliff in michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, i'm calling because this entire thing was sparked by donald trump and republicans lying about the election. if these people calling in don't like the fence, the all they have to do is ask them to stop perpetuating that line. in your lifetime and everyone's lifetime, donald trump is the only president in american history who is ever contested in election he lost. if he could have gone away gracefully, he could run into any 24, but he had to lie and convince those people on january 6 to attack the capital. this is a democracy, we are not

a banana republic, where if we don't like who wins the election, we storm the capital. anyone who thinks it is appropriate, what they need to do is take the american flag down because they are not american patriots and they don't care anything about this country at all. host: we will go to curtis in maryland, independent line. caller: i really agree with your last caller. it is not hard, we all know that the reason behind the insurrection was because of the president and all the lies that were told. i believe that the people that stormed the capital, you saw the confederate flag, you have right-wing racists and all other types of white organizations participating. it needs to be put down. i think the government needs to take a hard look at all of these

right-wing organizations, and classify them for what they are. they are terrorist organizations, and they have been coexisting in the united states for years. thank you. host: dan is in south dakota, republican line. caller: thank you for letting me on here. i try to tune in in the morning when i get up with my first morning coffee. we tend to think that this is something that is just kind of arrived at our doorstep. we allowed the media and the political figures to divide us for years, and we've been moving further and further away from each other when it comes to civility and conversation, about

politics or anything else anymore. we have allowed others to turn us into enemies, which is too bad. i don't see it getting any better anytime soon, until we can step back and see what the root cause of this whole thing is. host: let me ask you, how does that relate to the events of yesterday, from the information received the capitol police? caller: i heard a couple other people calling and offering opinions on much ado about nothing. i think there is a certain amount of that going on. i think they are trying to shape perception, in some ways that bogeyman is out there and it is going to take down the country if we don't keep up the fence and keep putting more military in. i always thought it was the states that had the say-so over their own national guard. from what i understand, some of

these national guard people have been treated pretty shabbily while they have been there. why not let them go back home, where they might be able to do some good? host: deborah is next in texas, democrats line. caller: thank you for what you do, pedro. i enjoy your show in the morning. however, i am from new jersey, living in texas. i remember a time in new jersey, being -- that there was a manifesto, that people who are underserved, supposedly, would be elevating themselves to other levels so they could get in government. what has happened here in america has been going on for 400 years, with the sundown cities, places you cannot go as a person of color.

they have turned and looked the other way. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: i believe that trump himself is responsible. he incited this riot that happened at the white house. look at the voting places now. somebody put a pipe bomb. this is reminiscent of when blacks first got to vote. this is meant to scare people. host: two months after the fact, and the former president is still the cause? caller: the election was not stolen. i do believe that our congress has a bunch of people who are grifters. these are people who are financially well off. they could care less about the people. here in texas, we've got governor abbott, who is telling

us to take off our masks. host: back to congress for a bit. do you think they should have met today? caller: no. what i believe is they should use technology that is available to everyone, and do it online. host: let's hear from stephen in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that president trump was more racist than biden when it came to the protests in the white house. host: but the house is not meeting today. what do you think of that? caller: that is horrible, it is a mess. host: jerry is up next, republican line in nebraska. caller: yes, i just want to remind all of you democrat callers, the one successful

attack against congressman was a bernie sanders a supporter when he almost killed a supporter at a ballfield. host: how does that relate to events of yesterday? he hung up. jamie in maryland, independent line. caller: i just want to say, i don't know why everyone is acting so confused, listening to congress talk, and the chief of police. everybody acting as if they don't know what happened, all of that kind of stuff. they didn't act. it looked like there was no preparation at all for any attack on the capital. but that is not the truth. i think the problem is white america would not let those folks to act -- folks act on that. host: you talk about preparation, there was a gate,

fencing and a police presence. do you think the house should have still met? caller: i don't think that the house should have met, but i'm talking about the events of january 6. host: we are talking about the events of yesterday. go ahead and comment. caller: i'm just saying that that whole insurrection would never have been allowed had those folks been anything other than white. when i listen to the conversation taking place and where the failure was at and what happened, they are beating around the bush. white america does not know how to deal with white folks when they get out of control. they will not see the same thing happened to them as they would see happen to other groups. it is just that simple. host: that is jamie in maryland, calling . we have spent about a half hour on your thoughts with the house not meeting in session today in light of this information capitol police received about a potential threat. we will continue to do so until

8:00. you can call in. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. john from twitter says the house should not have canceled its session today. these types of threats unfortunately become more common as conspiracy thinking overtakes the conservative movement. the house must press on and continue the business of government. dave in orlando says i don't think the house and senate members don't trust the security enough to show up at the capital. we still don't have the answers to why security failed and the senate is still beating today, even in light of the risk -- in light of the information received yesterday. sheila from tennessee saying i don't believe the fences need to be there for safety of our present is in congress. from nebraska, this is ray, saying the insurrection for today will be canceled.

our next caller in florida, democrats line. caller: i think part of the problem right now is they obviously have to change who can order in the national guard and what they need for their security, because going through the dod isn't working, obviously. until they can get that kind of chain of command straightened out, they have to take every precaution because you don't know how many moles might be within the government structure, left over from the trump regime. host: so you are saying give the capitol police appropriate rack up. caller: correct. there should have been no reason that capitol police couldn't

have called d.c. and say send the guard in and have somebody show up. host: that is karen in winterhaven. the d.c. national guard had a hearing on capitol hill, featuring major gelatin -- major general william walker, the commanding general of the d.c. national guard, saying his hands were tied by the pentagon for more than three hours after he received a call from capitol police, requesting a backup. delaying the arrival of military forces as lawmakers evacuated or barricaded themselves in offices during one of the biggest national security failures since 9/11. the request by lawmakers to understand the failings that led to the january 6 insurrection took on special urgency during that hearing us capitol police on wednesday warned that -- of that possible plot to breach the capital on march the fourth. another karen from oregon, independent line. go ahead. caller: i want to say i agree

with the previous caller. if they could manage to be able to call and get the national guard alerted right away, they probably would not need to have all of these fences and the national guard they are every day. -- there every day. i cannot blame them for wanting to shut down today, at midst a threat of insurrection -- amidst a threat of insurrection. would you want to go through that again, after you have been through it once? i think a lot of people would say they would not want to be there. host: what do you think about the fact that the house is not meeting but the senate is still deciding to meet? caller: i think that they probably don't want everybody to know they are meeting. i don't know. i can't say they are more chicken than the other guys. i don't know why they are

meeting. host: the senate is continuing to work on the covid relief bill. you can follow along with those activities on the senate side. if you want, you can do so on c-span2. even though the house is not beating today for legislative business, house speaker nancy pelosi is still planning to hold her weekly press conference later this morning. if you want information on how to watch that, go to our website at cspan.org. you can catch it live, there. or you can watch it later, courtesy of the website. from wisconsin -- i'm sorry, washington state, this is suzanne, we public in line. -- republican line. caller: the choice for the house to cancel today's session just shows, why are they holding all

of those national guardsmen hostage, when they don't even trust that they are protected? that tells me a lot. along with the evidence, the proof. i listened to general walker say that the procedure was changed last minute, that he couldn't call in the national guard, that he had to go through office channels to get the national guard. people weren't available. nobody answered their phones. this was kind of a set up, i thought. it doesn't smell right. then you look at what was actually done, the last four years. what policies have actually been done by president trump, versus democratic leaders, and what is the outcome of these things? president trump signed a 10 year agreement to fund black

colleges, and president obama wouldn't do that. he refused to do that. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: as it relates to yesterday, i watched the first arrest on tv, the person who broke the window into the capital. his arrest showed he was an antifa member, because he shows up in many riots over the summer, and he is an actual member. he gave two excuses, but he was arrested and i don't know where -- what is charges are, what the status is. it shows it was kind of a let's get started. it was a mix, but a lot of it was started by paid insurrectionists. host: even with the fbi

director, when he says things like that, what do you think? caller: i wondered why, because the facial recognition, none of those people with face coverings were ever arrested in the first identity of the one arrested for breaking a window shows he is involved and he actually said of -- said we are just posing to infiltrate the supreme us groups , to find out their agenda. the whole thing smells of bad actors on both sides. racism is stupid and ridiculous, but so is destroying the american government. host: vancouver, washington state, suzanne calling on our republican line. we have been showing you pictures of the capital as it

looks now, in light of january 6 , with fencing all around, armed presence and razor wire. that is a life picture that you can see. -- live picture you can see. one of the people we talked to yesterday on this program, talked about the cost of security, as it is now at the capital and the presence of fencing and if it is needed. [video clip] host: is the fencing still necessary? guest: absolutely not, according to the intelligence we have been receiving. it would have been appropriate to have it on january 6, if we had intelligence at that time. as to these militant groups that are going to engage in violent attacks on the capital to the extent that they did and with the organized nature in which they engaged those attacks. right now, i know of no significant threats that are out of the ordinary. on a regular basis, congressmen

and senators get threatened with bodily or physical harm or even with murder or death. that is a part of being in the united states congress. we frequently have unsubstantiated or reckless threats thrown out, about doing things to the united states capital. that has been a constant in my 11 years in office. i have seen nothing that warrants the fence remaining around the united states capital, particularly given the cost. i had one other congressman who told me they did the research and the cost so far is roughly $500 million. i hope my staff will be able to confirm if that is the case but that is a significant amount of money. quite frankly, we are not getting a good return on that money. i'm sure these national guardsmen would prefer to be back home. under normal circumstances like

right now, i don't see anything out there that would cause me to believe that our capitol police cannot handle it. host: it was yesterday that the capitol police received information about a possible threat against the capital. that was supposed to take place today, according to the information they received. the house of representatives deciding to not meet today and cancel its business, pushing forward with the voting bill and police reform bill. we are asking your thoughts on those decisions. you can call us, (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. the washington examiner takes a look at threats against the capital in a poll that was recently released by harvard harris, saying that 55% of registered voters see violence in cities as more concerning while 45% said the capitol riot was more concerning. the poll found that 71% of voters view antifa as a demented temer group.

29% of respondents disagree with that characterization. 66% of respondents said they viewed the proud boys is a domestic terrorist group. if you want to see more about that pole or read about it, on the website of the washington examiner. our next caller in virginia, go ahead. caller: thank you for to come i call. there is one thing -- thank you for taking my call. there is one thing i want to understand, and if anybody can explain it, please do. i was listening to director wray's comments yesterday. i have the highest respect for the fbi. they risk their lives, they are honorable people. would someone please explain how we can surveil in the middle east and get license plate numbers and geosynchronous positions and yet we don't have a satellite over d.c., that with

a planned attack on the white house, i find that incomprehensible. we have to assume it is there. so they were watching this, from the get-go, watching this crowd march along. the secret service, right down the block is obviously aware of what is going on. host: so the decision by the house yesterday not to meet, is that something you agree with? are you there? caller: i am. host: do you agree? caller: certainly not. i think it is disreputable. they have to dig in and get answers to obvious questions, like with the obvious presence of surveillance, this thing could be watched in real-time. host: let's go to scott in georgia, republican line.

caller: good morning. i think they should not have canceled today. i do not think there will be any problems in washington, but we will find out tomorrow. you will see what damage was done. i say it will be nothing, and it will be a nonstory. this is as important as removing dr. seuss's book. host: a series of tweets sent out, talking about actions of yesterday and today, saying the acting sergeant at arms -- this was released yesterday, saying that security enhancements and recommendations for those in the capital on thursday. and intelligence quote indicating possible militia group interest in the capitol. we will have additional personnel, movement throughout the capitol grounds and added law enforcement will be visible in the areas outside of our

perimeter and the national guard will continue to maintain a presence. his final tweets as the memo gives numbers information on how to better secure their home district offices. brian from washington, d.c., independent line. caller: absolutely, they should have met today. if they knew as they said yesterday, that the cia, fbi, national guard, if they all know, and they still do not have the mental capabilities to protect the capital, then every last one of them needs to be removed from their job. they have notice. if they know, they can prepare. if they were preparing, they should have let them come in and arrest everyone of them. i have a question for you. why didn't they arrest those people when they left january 6?

why did they walk out of the capitol building like they had been there on a tour, and were allowed to go home?> why did we have to go across the country to try and find people? why didn't they arrest those white people when they came out of the capital? host: that is a rhetorical question that i'm sure you have an answer for. caller:caller: i really want to know your opinion. host: i won't give you my opinion, but you can leave it out there and somebody else might answer it. tony in illinois, democrats line. caller: how are you doing, pedro? i don't understand any of this at all. our capital was attacked. why did those people not get shot at the steps? we spend $900 billion a year to send our troops overseas, to protect other governments? we can protect our own capitol building? i don't get this at all. do not have enough bullets and guns? has the united states been defeated by these crazy people?

host: and what does that mean over the house deciding not to meet today? caller: they should have met, and they should have had enough guards outside and enough guns and they should start telling these guys, don't threaten our government. if you do, you will be shot. this is nonsense. it doesn't make any difference if you are red or blue or black or white or left or right or any of those things. you cannot attack the united states capitol, or you will be shot. host: tony in illinois on our lines for democrats. representative dean phillips sending out a tweet in regard of the decisions yesterday. -- disappointed by this decision. we cannot allow threats by sedition nests to impact our work in congress. doing so only rewards such behavior and emboldens traders to harm our country. bob is in new york, independent

line. caller: absolutely. there are 25 miles of fencing with razor blades on top. they should have met. that is the short answer. the long answer is they've had surveillance and the last couple of guys were right on. go back to the sixth. they had preplanning security way ahead of time. they knew pipe bombs were coming, they found it. it is in the fbi report. mayor bowser dropped the ball and that is a fact. she was told, they needed extra security. the security people begged six times for more security, and were denied. that guy got fired. i don't know what is going on, but i do know you can't believe the policeman who got killed

with a firing sting wisher. the fbi director the other day could not confirm or deny that. are you kidding me? host: that is bob in new york, when it comes to the safety of members of congress. it was the acting u.s. police -- capitol police chief testifying on issues and then brought up what threats members are seeing in light of january 6. [video clip] >> our mission has become more difficult. in the first two months of 2021, there have been -- there has been over a 93% increase in threats to members, compared to the same. -- to the same period last year. there has been a 118% increase and overwhelmingly the majority of those suspects reside outside of washington, d.c. on the capital complex, the level and complexity of those threats to the capital are increasing as well.

this was abundantly clear on january 6, when insurrectionists tried to stop congress from certifying the 2020 electoral college. due to the heroic actions of uscp officers, with the assistance of mpd, the national guard and many other law enforcement partners, the violent rioters were prevented from accomplishing their goal. we do realize that the possibility of a similar incident occurring in the current environment is a very clear and present danger. host: when it comes to funds for the capitol police, the washington post highlighting the fact that the chief made her case for a 21% funding increase to pay for improved security after the riot on january 6, with an emphasis on better support for officers and broader protection for lawmakers. she told members of the subcommittee that the funding would help ensure the police

force could better recruit, train and equip officers and address threats against lawmakers, adding the lawmakers continued to press pittman on how the police would address the intelligence and comedic asians problem that crippled the response during and before the riots. she said under the proposed budget, they would be able to increase their staff of analysts from 13 to 33, and they have already addressed command-and-control breakdowns. patricia in nevada, republican line. caller: good morning. i am amazed at some of these things i have been hearing. in 2017 on inauguration day, i recall nobody in the streets except for the rioters downtown, that burned a limo in front of a jewelry store, and they had

stripped jewelry out of the counter. and then i recall a few days later, the capitol police were attacked by antifa, with bicycle chains and all sorts of good things. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: i'm talking about the increase. the lady said it was a 108% increase over 2017. when that continued -- host: but what do you think about the decisions made yesterday by the house in light of the information they received? caller: the shooting of steve scalise is also in there and it was a year ago today or something. what i'm trying to say is they had the thing that happened this year, and i am not proud of that or anything, but i think it has been blown out of proportion,

and i do believe the cherry blossom festival is coming up and cherry blossoms and razor wire just don't go together. i think it is time to take things easy. send people home. sit back and relax. host: let's hear from joe in alabama, republican line. caller: this is all a bunch of fake. they are trying to keep that january 6 thing alive and remind everybody about it, because nothing has happened since then. host: why do you think it is for? -- it is fake? caller: all of this information. it is fake. if walls don't work, why do they have that razor wire and fencing up?

if it doesn't work down on the border, why would it work in washington, d.c.? host: our next caller, independent line. caller: i can't help but wonder, if they had just gone ahead and had their house session and something happened, we would be hearing all kinds of things about it. i think they are just darned if they do and darned if they don't. caller: i would like to just mention or ask a question about the hearing yesterday. why wasn't the secretary of the army and the acting former secretary of defense called for that hearing? william walker said he couldn't reach them, because they were in a conference. where they talking with the former president of the united

states? why was a substitute sent? the truth is obstructed in this case. the dod sent its representative. wasn't the secretary of the army charles flynn, the brother of the disgraced general flynn? is that correct? host: i don't know. caller: you should know. lastly, in terms of the chain of command and all the problems, this is a valid reason why washington, d.c. should attain statehood. host: representative mark green giving a tweet on the decisions yesterday and today, saying democratic leadership is disrespecting you by constantly changing the congressional schedules. speaker pelosi has change the schedule seven times in eight weeks, wasting taxpayer dollars and disrespect in the american people and only concentrates power in washington. this is bad leadership.

michael mccaul also putting out a tweet as well, saying leaders should be involved in condemning all forms of extremism. congress must seriously assess how we combat domestic terrorism in this country. one more call in charlotte, north carolina, crestline. caller: yes -- democrats line. caller: yes, i would like to talk about january 6. i don't know why people can't understand that what happened january 6 was donald trump's doing. host: we have discussed january 6 already. what do you think about the decision of the house not to meet today because of the information they received? caller: they shouldn't because they don't know what might happen. when something like that happened before, you are going to be afraid of what is going to happen next. i don't know why people can't understand that. what they should have done january 6 is they should have

shot them people. if it was black people they would have shot them. host: we will leave it there. we will continue on the topic with our next guest on the program. it is the ceo and national director of the antidefamation league. greenblatt warning later on in the morning, washington times online opinion editor will talk about security threats at the capital. other political news of the day. that coming up on "washington journal." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> listen to c-span's podcast "the weekly." with china editor for the economist. warning about a possible conflict between china and taiwan in the future. >> if china decides in the next five years that it wants to

reincorporate taiwan into the people's republic, that is the kind of challenge that is going to become transformative to say the least in geopolitics. it could lead to military confrontation. it is probably the most likely sector for a conflict between the u.s. and china. >> find c-span's "the weekly" where you get your podcasts. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's television company in 1969. today we are brought to you by these companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jonathan greenblatt is the

ceo and national director of the anti-defamation league. talk about the mastic extremism. thank you for your time. what did you think about the information that was received and reaction from representatives? guest: we have been tracking extremists for decades. i would describe what january 6 was as the most printable terror attack at in american history. these white supremacists, they told us what they were going to do. then they did it. you need to listen to these people and take what they say seriously. when the capitol hill police uncovered a plot to attack the capital, it is in their interest

to take it seriously, require legislators to leave the building. it underscores the threat of the mastic extremism and their pension for violence. host: going forward, what happens to work on the capitol if these events impact what they do day today? guest: the secret service could neutralize those threats. i think we will have to see fortunately or unfortunately, a perimeter unfold around our government buildings like the u.s. capitol to prevent these kinds of attacks from obstructing the day-to-day process of government. host: a perimeter like we are seeing now or harder? guest: i would venture to guess it would be harder. you might not need the tall

chain-link fence with barbed wire on top, there are different ways you could harden the perimeter. domestic extremism is a clear and present danger. what we have seen is these individuals, these groups, they are willing to commit acts of violence to undermine democracy completely. we have to take that threat seriously. host: one of your associates is quoted in usa today, a senior research fellow saying looking at these kind of threats and also the story saying it would be wrong to think the q community had given up. could you talk about the information you look for when you look at these threats? guest: it is fair to say that extremism today in america, the right wing variety is the one that we are most worried about. right wing extremism, you have white supremacists, you have

armed militia groups, you have citizens. one of the new forces serving as an on-ramp to bring more people into this dark world is qanon. qanon is this mutating conspiracy theory. it is only a few years old. it spread dramatically thanks to social media. it is this notion that there is this deep state. there is a pedophile ring among the democratic party. they are trying to take over the government. there is long-standing anti-semitic ideas. it is very hateful mythology. because it has spread so rapidly, it is constantly morphing and mutating. it is very dangerous. this idea that somehow the real

inauguration will take place today, that notion which is popular really got accelerated thanks to qanon. there's a number of people out there who believe that somehow, someway that president biden wasn't truly inaugurated on january 20. that today's the day donald trump himself will come back and be inaugurated. you have to understand the nature of the conspiracy theory is when the facts disprove the rationality, they move the goalpost. they change the story to fit the new narrative. march 4 becomes the symbol of a new hope. nothing is going to happen today. they will come up with new, irrational explanations. the qanon theory will live on. host: if you want to ask our

guest questions not only about the events of yesterday but the larger issue of extremism in the united states, the work of the defamation league does in assisting, i think there is a story related to events in miami. could you talk about the work you do in the space? guest: we are the oldest anti-hate group you we have been fighting all forms of bigotry since 1913 when the organization was first founded. a big part of what we do, we try to protect minorities. we do it in schools. we also monitor extremists. we have been fighting since the

1930's. adl helped to crack open the kkk in the 1950's. today we are using intelligence to monitor all variety of extremist groups. we've really got to keep our eye on the ball. after four years of donald trump who elevated these individuals to the mainstream, extremist threats will persist for a long time. host: greg is in colorado, democrats line. caller: two points, number one, if they don't believe the president is sworn in until march 4, how to donald trump get sworn in on january 20? in my opinion, these people

attacked members of congress, the vice president, just like we acute -- accused of muslim people of doing, they lost their right to be american citizens. they lost their rights to constitutional protections. we should not treat them any more or anymore different then we treat any other terrorist. we find out where they are at. hate to say it but george w. bush said you have to fight terrorism no matter where it is at. it is in our backyard. treat it the same way we would treat anybody else. these people are killing americans. they are terrorists. don't call them domestic terrorists, right-wingers, militia groups.

host: thank you. guest: i think he is hitting on a couple of important points. what happened at the capitol was not a riot. it was an attack. they were militants. it was the most printable terrorism attack in american history. extremists of this variety have it proclivity toward violence. previously the most violent attack was committed by timothy mcveigh. the bombing that murdered hundreds of people. this was in the 1990's. it was to disrupt the very nature of our democracy. we are tracking these people. we are listening to what they are saying. we should take them seriously. they want to kidnap and kill elected members of congress. they want to see the vice president of the united states.

there is nothing political about this purpose. we need to move past president trump, whose pension for these people is inexplicable. they are a threat to everyone, regardless of how you vote. host: california's next, this is sharon. caller: good morning, i would like to say first off that i kind of want to clarify what the qanon movement is, at least from my perspective. i think the way it is being represented is not correct. it is really more about the journalist movement, the truth movement. i do talk to a lot of different people. i don't think q has posted

anything in quite a while. the group is to try and solve problems with information rather than violence. i could tell you that my understanding of q and on is the absolute office it of violent. it is a shame to see that it is associated with white supremacists. host: hold on the line for a second. i want you to follow up. go ahead. guest: i appreciate the question. the qanon movement may describe itself as a citizen journal movement. it really is little more than a conspiracy laundering agreement. qanon has the best if you will, it brings together classic

notions of anti-semitism, xenophobia, a hatred of government. this notion that there is some deep state manipulating events. a group of people diabolically rearranging events. there is not a shred of truth to any of this. what is important to note is it is certainly true that many of the millions of people who shared these memes on facebook or are spreading theories on reddit and other platforms, if we look at the rally, the people wandering through the capitol building, many had q flags. it creates a cover that you will -- if you will, for violence. even if the people pushing these ideas online don't commit the acts themselves. caller: one last thing i just want to say is in the late 90's

there was two women that were a part of m 19, underground communist group that did bomb the capital. those women were pardoned by president clinton and they went on to become -- to this day they are still communist leaders. when he is saying the worst attack ever happened on the sixth, one example of a communist attack that was way worse. guest: i am not familiar with that attack. there have been other attacks on the capital. i think what we need to acknowledge here is multiple people were killed. scores of capitol police

officers were violently assaulted. three took their own lives in the days after the attack. the very process of confirming the election. the legitimate election of the president was interrupted. you have to go back to the war of 1812 to find anything remotely similar. host: there is a story this morning taking a look at the united states response. they highlight the fact that the biden administration said in his violence to further ideological goals such as those of political, religious, and social. it also says nonetheless, current and former officials say that law enforcement has been slow in recent years to address that threat. have you describe that disconnect? guest: it is my opinion that the

threat of domestic extremism has not gotten enough attention. president biden talked about the threat of white supremacy. a few days later the new director of national intelligence announced they would be coordinating a broad approach to examine the threat. i think merrick garland earlier this week -- chris wray on capitol hill. they're talking about putting resources against it. government moves slowly. we believe congress should pass the domestic terrorism prevention act. this is circulating on capitol hill. it would formalize offices, authorize offices in different agencies to regularly report on this. it is one step in the right

direction. you need to make sure they are resourced effectively. we don't need just a whole government approach. we need a strategy to tackle this threat. it starts with the president. making sure they are attacking it and giving it the attention it deserves. we need legislation from congress to help deal with this. we need to take other steps. there should be no extremists serving in government. not in law enforcement, not in the military. we need to adapt and adopt prevention measures to prevent academic programs. people who are being learned by kieran on -- q and on. we believe facebook is the front line. the social media companies need to end their complicity with the

scapegoating and allowing them to flourish on their platform. host: let's go to indianapolis on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question i'm hoping you could help me with. the policemen who are out there shooting blacks in the back, unarmed black people, why is it that not more whites are against us along with standing up for blacks who are being shot in the back? why is it they seem like they just don't care? guest: i think it is a very fair question. it is a painful issue. there is no excuse under any circumstances whatsoever for law enforcement to shoot unarmed people, let alone in the back when they are running away or thrown on the ground.

what we saw last summer with the killing of ahmaud arbery, the murder of george floyd, the murder of breonna taylor. the fact of the matter is we have to deal with systemic racism in law enforcement. we work with law enforcement to track extremists, to investigate hate crimes. this is systemic racism in these institutions. for too long they have been part of the problem. there have been so many good people in these institutions. this is inexcusable. i can't speak for all white people. but they need to be outraged. we need to demand these law-enforcement enforcement agencies do better. holding culprits accountable. so these issues will continue to

not persist again and again. host: mark up next in kentucky. caller: good morning. do know it is interesting speaking of george floyd's murder, may he rest in peace. i hope his family as well. the technique the officers were employing at that time is a specific place technique, assignment of the knee to the artery. do americans know that our police officers across the country take field trips to of all places israel, as crazy as that sounds and cross train with israeli forces? that specific maneuver was one they we learned in israel. guest: a few points. i think it is certainly true.

it is interesting because the guys on my team. individuals who run the law enforcement analysis was a two decade veteran of the fbi who described to me after we watch that video that this was inexcusable in any circumstance. that technique is not learned anywhere. what happened was unconscionable during and it was -- it was outright murder. many of our law enforcement officials do education programs in many different countries. there is not a shred of truth. there is not a scintilla of fact to the notion that american police do tactical training in israel and learn how to apply techniques like that. i don't know where you read that or where you heard that. what i could tell you i someone who has worked with a lot of u.s. law enforcement and israeli

organizations, too, it is an absolute outright fiction. host: we have a viewer on twitter who asks who decides what constitutes extremism. who decides what is hate speech? guest: that is a fair question. we think of hate as an antipathy towards individuals or groups of people based on characteristics. their race, religion, gender. i will be honest, in the united states, the first amendment gives us so many rights. it has given us so many privileges. we have to be willing to tolerate hate speech we don't like. we also need to clarify. there is a difference between freedom of speech and slander. there's a difference between freedom of expression and those that would incite violence. we need to draw some black

lines. those things are not ok. when you suggest you want to hurt people because of how they pray or where they are from, who they love. that crosses a line that isn't protected under the first amendment, permissible in any place of business. people who make those kinds of threats seriously. they don't believe in the legitimacy of our government. they take action to try to undermine government at all levels. that kind of extremism, everyone would recognize. that is not normal political behavior that we should be encouraging. host: oregon on the republican line, barbara is next. caller: someone was talking about hate speech.

somebody should talk to nancy pelosi, who spread hate speech about trump for four years. she is the drama queen. she drove it for four years. she was the one i believe that is behind the insertion on the capital. she has made fear and all of this stuff happen. nancy pelosi has driven, manipulated evidence. lied, and brought false charges against our president. that is a crime. nothing like this would even be happening. we need to take the fence down and stop listening to her obsessiveness about fear, she is the one driving the wedge between this country. host: we will let our guest

respond. guest: nancy pelosi indisputably was not responsible for what happened on january 6. she did not call the rally, she did not encourage those people to try to seize the capitol building. she did not assault police officers. she had nothing to do with this. the bigger point i might take away is extremism and hate preceded donald trump and it will persist after donald trump. yet to recognize what happened is not normal. it is not something you see on a typical or political spectrum. republicans and democrats, liberal and conservative, americans who care about the way society function should see the function and realize the threat it poses to everyone. they aren't asking them what

party they affiliate with. they are checking to see the partisanship of the person inside. mike pence and nancy pelosi, -- from mike pence to nancy pelosi, wanted to kidnap and kill everyone. we do ourselves a disservice when we try to fasten this as the political spectrum, it is well outside the normal view of politics. host: how do we combat the rise of domestic extremism when misinformation spread by the internet are taken as truth by so many? guest: this is literally the $64,000 question as they say. we try to understand, how did this happen? the part i think is broad, let's call it economic instability. jobs, the economy, the ability to earn a standard of living.

you have changing demographics which fueled the anxiety. it is social media that allowed these conspiracies to spread like never before. conspiracies exacted -- existed long before we had facebook. facebook has been the biggest facilitator of this madness. we need from facebook, google, twitter, reddit, other platforms , we need them to take this stuff seriously. not allow the spread. you have already seen this. we have seen donald trump was taken off twitter, let alone facebook and youtube. the misinformation on the platform dropped something like 97%. it is a problem that is bigger than one person. there are correct steps we could take in order to mitigate this

threat and dial it down. host: another one of your associates said it is encrypted boards where people are sharing information. guest: no question. we try to understand, how is this threat evolving and where is it going to go? we are watching extremists who used to parade out in broad daylight on facebook groups or other platforms shift communications to encrypted applications like telegram, whatsapp, this creates a brand-new challenge not only for organizations like adl but law enforcement which tries to stop it in its tracks. we need to get better at the investigative techniques we use. host: is this a case where the companies themselves monitor themselves and police themselves?

or if this legislative in your mind? guest: i say this as someone who used to work in silicon valley. i spent a lot of time in the technology field. the reality -- i believe in the power of markets. i believe in the need for self-regulation. it has proved to be an insufficient condition to really control this threat. companies absolutely need to enforce terms of service and do a better job monitoring these issues on their platforms. we need some degree of government engagement. host: jonathan greenblatt joining us. he serves as the ceo and national director. caller: good morning. i'm wondering why the media are still using the word or label

proud boys. is that politically on correct? isn't there women involved too? guest: that's a fair question. the proud boys are a militia group. that is the name they use to describe himself. they are very misogynist, very chauvinist, very antifeminist. they are fairly anti-semitic. they style themselves as a militia, an auxiliary militia. since the attack on capitol hill , even before that, members were arrested for vandalizing black churches. this group is trying to figure out where they go from here. so much public pressure has come down and law enforcement has come down on them. they no longer have the president telling them to stand

back and stand by. i think we will have to see what happens to the proud boys. do they fragment? do they fracture? many times these extremists like the proud boys thrive on perceived grievance. they were elevated under the trump administration. already, law enforcement has to crackdown. that will literally confirm their narrative that they are being oppressed. they will get new momentum in my calling said see a sense of renewal. they are being put back into the margins. see, we told you so? host: he was relieved. political reporting that. the judge saying there is no

sign he damaged any property. once they got there, it is not clear what leadership role the defendant took to all people inside the capitol. guest: i have to learn a little bit more. i need to understand more about what the judge said. the bottom line is the proud boys are absolutely a terror group. they have used violence and enemies who are overwhelmingly people of color. ordinary pedestrians were caught in the crossfire. this is not a boy scout troop. this should be confused with the rotary club. the proud boys are a violent, misogynist, anti-semitic organization. host: from the republican line, this is george. caller: yes.

host: you're on with our guest. caller: that lady that talked about nancy pelosi -- host: do you have a direct question or comment? caller: that lady was talking about nancy pelosi, i agree with her. president trump was giving the national address, she should've gotten charged with destruction of government property. she ripped those papers up right behind the president. if that was anybody else, they would have to have them removed from office. host: we are going to stop there. you testified the events of january 6, will you recall of

what you said that they and where we are now two months later? guest: one of the points we dated, that i made in my testimony a couple weeks ago about what happened were facts that were then confirmed by director wray. this was planned. it wasn't incidental. it was intentional strategy to try to disrupt the certification process happening in the capitol that day. to kidnap and try members of congress and their staff. we know that because we were tracking what they were saying. the proud boys and the others who descended on the building that day. it was quite disturbing. it is already two months ago. living with the impact of this for the next 10 years. my hope would be that whether

you are calling on independent, democrat, republican, and the visuals who perpetrated that crime are criminals. they were committing something as close to treason as you will ever see. they need to be identified, arrested, and tried. host: from florida, the independent line. tim is next. caller: i have a couple of questions. all i've heard him talk about so far is white supremacist. i've never heard him say it -- anything about antifa, the blm movement, everything. i was born and raised in chicago for 15 years. i went through all of the integration of schools up there. then we moved south and i have lived south fork 28 years. you guys like to throw around this expression, systematic

racism. that definition only came about a year ago. somebody made this request. when we were growing up -- everybody in america has prejudice against each other. you have prejudiced amongst the african-americans that are against other african-americans. the same thing with hispanics and white people. everybody looks down on everybody. identity politics has been a part of this system for probably over 25 years. it is been portrayed by the democrat party predominantly. you had president obama that say

republicans want to put you back in irons and chains. host: since you brought up a couple of points and then you made a direct statement there, we will let our guest respond. guest: one of the things is certainly true. extremism -- no side if you will, no political party, no ideology is exempt. extremism could happen on the right, the left, if you come from special interest types. you look at the last several decades, we have seen animal-rights extremists, environmental extremists. today it is right wing extremists who pose the most significant threat. we had a record number of hate crimes and a record number of extremist murders.

they were overwhelmingly committed, almost all of them by right wing extremists. we are still tabulating the 2020 numbers. is antifa a problem? sure. is there any equivalence between antifa and these other groups? there is not. antifa was not in the capital. they are not an organized movement that expresses violence and murders people. the last thing i will say is prejudice is not new. it could happen regardless of how you vote or politically identified. it happens among all different groups of people. i thing we should distinguish between an individual having views and systemic racism. this is what institution enabled through practice, they are

marginalized communities. we talk about systemic racism towards african-american people, you have to acknowledge there are patterns. the law enforcement system. employment systems. they historically discriminate against african-americans. it is borne out in fact. decades of judicial decisions of research and scholarship. i don't think it is any specific geographic place. we just have to deal with it. we have ideas and strategies. the reality is something that is sort of impossible to ignore. host: stephen california texts us saying anyone wearing a mag hat publicly is an extremist. that is what he seems to be saying.

guest: not every person who follows donald trump or wears a maga hat is an extremist, i never said that. i will clarify that right now. the reality is on that day you had the president encouraging the obstruction of our democracy. that is what he said. that is what he tweeted. that is what he repeated. that isn't actually a revelation i'm sharing here. what i found alarming was not that these militants rampage the capital and the capital and assaulted these police officers, it represented not just a watershed moment for white supremacist because they were able to take the building. it represented the normalization of extremism. thousands of people came to the capitol who didn't participate.

the hard core militants were able to sweep some of these people into that criminal event, it reminds me of what we are seeing in parts of the middle east. al qaeda and isis have radicalized large populations and brought them into our -- their acts of terror. not everyone that wears a maga hat is an extremist. if we see some of those people take trumpism and see this notion that you could undermine our institution. that you could denigrate our society. that is deeply problematic, regardless of how you vote. host: i apologize for mispronouncing your last name. guest: that is ok. don't worry about it. caller: good morning.

i was not born in this country. i am from europe. i just wish when they come to these programs -- antifa stands for anti-fascist, i was born in spain. i saw one of the senators --

antifa is anti-fascist. the once you vote for trump who talk so much about antifa, that is what i want to know. the people of this country to clarify that. 99% of them don't know the difference. host: thank you. guest: first of all, i appreciate the person sharing their story. i could only imagine what it was like to live through francos spain. fascism is not new. fascism, we see it in front, mussolini, hitler's, stalin was

a fascist in many ways. we see these authoritarian governments around the world in turkey, hungary, russia, other places that resemble the classic fascist model that was so frightening and brought so much suffering to the world. i think some of the people that participated in that attack in the capitol, extremists what they say and the glorification of the authoritarian leader. from an independent judiciary, a free press, a civil service, to a democratic congress. all of these things are quite frightening. they have echoes of history. you have to pay attention to that. host: this is jonathan greenblatt, he is the ceo of the anti-defamation league. you want to check out their work. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me.

host: we will be joined by another guest later on in the program. we want to get your take on the top public policy issue. it could be work on hr one, the senate works on the recovery act or the covid relief bill. all of those things up for discussion. here's how you could let us know. (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 is the independent line. you could text us or post on facebook. today was supposed to be the day when the house consider the george floyd policing bill. the justice in policing act was passed in the house with a vote of 220-212. one of the people who appeared

before cameras was representative karen bass. >> today we passed the george floyd justice in policing act. 30 years after the world saw the brutal beating of rodney king. i was in los angeles at the time. i remember when that video was released, i thought that was going to be the moment policing was transformed in the united states. finally, the world would see what had been happening in black communities for over a century. there was never a way to document it. the story was always the same. i was afraid, i did not know what was going to happen. that was the reason for the beating or the shooting. after rodney king's brutal beating, nothing changed in the country.

years later we have cell phone cameras and now we have seen video after video of people being beaten and killed. that is the reason for the george floyd justice in policing act. hold officers accountable and other measures of the bill support raising the standards in the process of policing in the united states. i know that change is difficult. i believe fundamentally that police officers don't want to work in an environment where the culture says if they are to step up, if they are to say anything if an officer is abusive or corrupt, their very lives could be in danger. one of the goals of the george floyd justice in policing act is to raise the standards of policing in america and also to transform the culture. i'm happy to say that we pass

this bill in an environment where our country is looking at a racial reckoning. we have a president who in his inauguration speech talked about ending racial inequities. he made a commitment to that and a commitment to the transformation of policing in the united states. i'm happy we were able to do this today. i am confident we will be able to work with the senate and we will put the george floyd justice in policing act on president biden's desk. >> "washington journal" continues. host: see more of that on our website. for the next 40 minutes your top public policy issue. let us know what you think about what is on your mind. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents,

text us at (202) 748-8003. the hill reporting that lance gooden from texas was the only house republican to vote in favor of the act on wednesday. he tweeted that he cast the wrong ballot by accident. saying i accidentally pressed the wrong voting button and pressed the wrong button. he later posted a similar tweet saying a record of changing his vote to know. adding that he would not supposed -- support the radical left's anti-police act. debbie from missouri, independent line, go ahead. caller: hello, pablo. -- pedro, i'm sorry. i have been a democrat since 1976. since the killing of jfk and martin luther king, it seems

like the democrat party has become socialist leaning and they support marxist groups. it seems like hr one trying to prevent in person voting with id has opened the door and revealed the democrat party has become communist. there is video of speech by democrat leaders incurring domestic violence. nancy pelosi herself instigated the riots with antifa. host: why do you believe that? caller: in order to disrupt -- host: why do you believe she is to blame? caller: she did not want debates on the election because it was getting too close to the truth.

if we would just have christopher wray give those ballots and count them with the fbi, why are they not allowing the american citizens to see the registrations and ballots? host: even the president's own attorney general and head of homeland security said there was no widespread fraud in the election. caller: they did not look at the registration rolls in the paper ballots, it is all there. host: ok. caller: good morning. i have some questions for nancy pelosi in your former guest. does greenblatt's organization get money from the government?

are they receiving funds from the democratic party? i live here in the state of georgia. the night of the vote, they were seen carrying out box loads of ballots. the ballots they were carrying out disappeared. host: those things have come up quite frequently. many fact checkers -- why do you blame nancy pelosi? caller: she's the one that is holding everything up. she is a power-hungry you know what. host: your top public policy issue, go ahead. caller: i thank you for the "washington journal."

i turned to c-span2 and i saw the trump rally. now they are trying to say this was a peace movement and everything. from the start, everyone up there said to march on the capitol. if you are a patriot, you love the government, even if they get it wrong. you have to stick with the people. host: why do you believe the statements on january 6 led to the result on the capitol. caller: that is my building as well as theirs. they spread feces on the wall. they wanted to kill nancy pelosi. host: we will go to larry on the independent line. caller: i would like to question

the fbi director when he says he doesn't know there was any people involved in the insurgents. when john sullivan, the leader of the nt for group -- antifa group has been all over tv telling people to go to the capitol, destroy the capitol grounds. i don't understand fbi director wray. he's a liar and doesn't tell us the truth. he knows what happened. i think john sullivan was arrested. he's facing charges now. how could the director come out and say that he does not know of anybody that plans to attack the capitol. this was all set up by george soros and his friends two or three weeks before. host: what makes you believe that? caller: the truth. host: as far as george soros'

involvement. caller: anybody with a brain knows that. host: how do you prove that? caller: it is going to happen. if you let trump do what he has to do, he will prove it. he is our only salvation against these democrats who have gone completely crazy. nancy pelosi should be in a straitjacket. host: ok. caller: i have two comments to make. one is the whole system in washington, d.c. prior to johnson and kennedy, they were all against -- the reason the system has changed now is because the democratic party is more diverse

so that is why they don't get along and it is this group against that group. both parties were racist. the comment i have about what happened, i believe it is more about the inside threat. there is the outside threat that if they close the capitol because there is some problem inside that system in washington, d.c. host: what makes you believe that? caller: why would they shut the capitol down with all the security that they do have. something is going on inside that they are not talking about. that is what makes me believe it. those congressman who they keep saying are part of q and on --

qanon or this group. host: that is pamela in arizona calling and talking about issues of public policy. one of those public-policy policy things playing out in the senate this week. it is the covid relief bill being debated by congress. when it passed the house including a direct stimulus payment. a changes being made with changes and who would receive the check. it would phase out at $75,000. as opposed to 100,000 in the version of legislation passed by the house this week. joint filers would have it phased out at $150,000, then entirely at $160,000. that was one of the topics being addressed by white house press secretary. here's a bit of that exchange. >> could you confirm the president has signed off on

these reduced income thresholds? >> let me provide a little context. some of the reporting is aligned with accuracy, some is not. i talked with the president this morning. he's pleased with the progress that is being made on the rescue plan. as someone who has served 36 years in the senate, he millie or with the journey of a proposal to a bill being signed. in every instance in the final stage which we feel we are in now there are suggestions, changes, negotiations between different members in different parts of one party. that is what is happening now. he is open to good ideas that will strengthen the package. the package needs to be large enough to meet the scope of the crisis we are facing, covid and

the economic downturn. the $1400 checks going out to americans and he has fought for that tooth and nail. that is a bar for him. he has also been firm on the thresholds that americans should receive those checks. it is 75 thousand dollars and $150,000. those are important from thresholds. where is the ramp up and how far the ramp-up goes. reporter: where it ends. >> he has been open from the beginning for that being more targeted and there to be a steeper cliff at which that ramp down ends. host: that press conference and all the press conference is available on our website.

one of the books the house took yesterday leading up to today is the voting age. writing the house rejected to lower the voting age. it came from ayana pressley, one of the most progressive members of the house 125 in favor, 302 against. no republican support of the measure. if it were passed that proposal would lower the voting age to 16. let's go to maria in westville, new jersey, independent line. caller: i just wanted to let people know if they are afraid of the vaccines or if they are told they shouldn't take them because of the conditions, that there is a place where they can get medication that should stave it off. it's called america's frontline doctors.com. and they could get hydroxy chloroquine, at least four of your experts on c-span have acknowledged using it

themselves. more importantly, one the n.n.i.h. said this is as effective as antigen therapy. that's america's frontline doctors. just one more thing, i was going to ask your previous guest, is he aware that the mossad has called hunter biden's tape. there was a guest last night named jack and he alleges the chinese know about murders that were committed of young girls in china and in the ukraine and that there is a lot of blackmail going on. i think somebody ought to look into it. host: we'll go to nelson in redwood city, california, republican line. caller: good morning. wow. i really appreciate c-span for allowing people to talk. i think a lot of the other networks should do the same thing.

they come off as paternalistic whether it's tucker karlsson, laura ingram, or don lemon on fox news, they talk to you in such a paternalistic way. i left the republican party because you just hear from some of the callers, yeah, they were part of the democratic party, but they left because the republican party has attracted bigots. i'm african-american. i have been republican for four decades. i left. i'm done. host: you are no longer a republican? caller: i'm no longer republican. i called on the line -- host: i apologize because we try to setaside the lines in such a way where people can call in and make sure that they pick the right line. i appreciate you calling. please call back on the appropriate line. if you can get in please do so. callers, again, please pick the line that best represents you as we go forward. larry in olympia, washington, democrats line. hi.

caller: hello. one thought i always had regarding elections and all the voting and all this talk about and how it's corrupted and fraud. there is a bottom line to it. but people that actually ran the voting, they are just regular people. many of them volunteered time to count the votes. they are good people. there's never been any statement about so and so's mother or school board member assisting or somebody's parent or grandparent helping with counting. on the local level. in the counties themselves as being corrupt. and if there was mass voting fraud, these people who are actually at the bottom line of the voting count would raise

bloody hell if our government, any form of our government -- host: ok. let's go to darell in greenville, north carolina. independent line. caller: yes. i'm just wondering -- it appears to me that the people's house, the capitol, is now an armed for treys surrounded by national guardsmen, and 12-foot high fence and razor wire, and completely sealed off from the citizenry. yet the democrats, pelosi and the democratic congress today decided to take off because they are worried about some far right-wing conspiracy that somebody's going to take over today. they are so scared they took off today and tomorrow. but the senate is still in session. then pelosi and the democratic-controlled congress is just a big joke.

they are driving this country in the ground. thank you. host: from republican line in washington state, ivan. hello. caller: hello. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: ok. what i'd like to say is i think they should be working. they should be doing their jobs. they didn't lift a finger when they were out here on the west coast when oregon public buildings and government buildings were getting attacked. they didn't do anything up in seattle, either. they just let the mob take over. yet if they even think that the mob might be coming their way, they ransack everything but they say we shouldn't fence and keep the people out. that's what they are doing. they need to open it up and let the public gallery come in so they can watch them at work. because they are doing things in the back rooms that we need to see. they need to be up front and honest. they need to be transparent like they always say they are

supposed to be. host: one of the ways we offer transparency as far as the actions of government is concerned is closely monitor those -- house and the senate. both on c-span's 1 and 2 respectively. you can follow along on the website, too. again, we cover a lot of venues here in washington. and give you access as we are allowed access to that workings of washington and what goes on. again, the website is the best way to take a look at that. katherine in alexander, virginia, democrat line. you're nks up. hi. -- you're next up. hi. katherine, hello. caller: sorry about that. i had myself on mute. i'm a retired teacher and history major in college. and my ancestors come from both parties in europe. i just -- and i had two grandfathers, one american and who had to flea nazi germany, austria, and i had to say that both my grandfathers who were

media heavyweights taught me, as well as my father, to always kind of try to find the facts, listen to what's going on. find the original source. i'm really disturbed like so many other americans that we have a media literacy problem in this country and we have an overreliance on hearsay, unvetted social media websites. i would urge my fellow citizens to stay off the social media platforms for a month or two at least, find an actual legitimate journal newspaper and try to listen to original sources. what's happened eave social media seems to equal gossip, misinformation, so many people, a lot of the callers, some of the callers are evidence of this, we have people calling in from news deserts who are just spreading rumors. who are trying to legitimatize what happened january 6 or blame the other side. we are americans. we need to stop blaming. we have to stop

mischaracterizing democrats. host: ok. this is kathleen from idaho falls, idaho, independent line. caller: good morning. i had to tell you i am 76 years old. and i was a republican ever since i was 18 years old. about a year ago i went down to my elections bureau, changed my registration to independent. and the reason why is because the republican party is absolutely -- i don't think it exists anymore. i think it has so changed since donald trump was elected. i just couldn't be a part of that anymore. but i would like to say my top policy issue, the republican party is actually trying to suppress the voters. they are right now trying to pass laws. people, be very afraid. we want people to vote.

at least that's what i was taught. we want people to take part in our democracy. but they are trying to actually prevent it. and it's extremely upsetting. host: kathleen in idaho. one of the things that came out from texas, the texas governor's decision to drop mask mandate and as far as opening up businesses are concerned, that got reaction from president biden who was asked about these decisions. here's part of what his response was. president biden: i hope people realize by now these masks make a difference. we are on the cusp of being able to fundamentally change the nature of this disease because of the way in which we are able to get vaccines in people's arms. we have been able to move that all the way up to the end of may to have enough for every american to get every adult american to get a shot. and the last thing, the last thing we need is neanderthal thinking in the meantime everything's fine. take off your mask. forget it.

it still matters. as of last -- yesterday we had lost 511,874 americans. we'll lose thousands more. this will not occur, we'll not have everybody vaccinated until sometime in the summer. we have the vaccine to do it. getting the shot in someone's arm and getting the second shot is going to take time. and it's critical, critical, critical, critical that they follow the science. host: other news coming from texas, this is from the texas tribune this morning, that the board overseeing the electric reliable council of texas, the independent nonprofit entity that opt prates and manages the electricity grid that covers much of the state, fired the c.e.o. wednesday night. the move by the board to vote in favor of a 60-day termination notice came after they convened in a private executive session for more than three hours. the board barely discussed its

decision once returning to the public session. the decision is the latest in several recently announced departures from the board which includes the c.e.o. seven board members resigned after public criticism that many board members did not rereside in texas. david is from ohio in defiance, republican line. caller: hi. i would like to know why are people in ohio and other states going to end up paying for a tunnel between san francisco and silicon valley when we don't live out there. why are our taxes paying for that? and a bridge. i don't understand. host: where is this coming from? caller: it's coming from watching the debates on the congress when they voted on the

bill for -- the covid bill. host: the covid relief package. caller: yes. it slipped in there by pelosi and schumer. host: chester in richmond, virginia, democrats line. go ahead, you're next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'm a united states four purple heart, bronze star combat vet marine. i worked in washington, d.c., for almost 30 years. i have to come in off of dairy farm that i grew up on. we, the people, any time we even look like we are going to give some justice here in america to fulfill our constitution the way it should be, then you see these people that act like they acted

when they tore up the capitol. come out the woodwork like roaches. always do that every time it look like we are going to get any justice whatsoever. i was beaten three times unconscious. you think rodney king was beaten. when i woke up and said what i needed to say in washington, you should have seen them jump on me. they get you downtown. they know this has been going on forever. any time that it look like we are going to get somebody to stand up for us the way they talking about nancy -- that's one of the most just women that you ever heard speak. they decide that they are going to trash her. it's so sad. host: ok. that's chester there in richmond, virginia. by the way to the previous caller, mentioning those infrastructure projects, "usa today" reports a story released yesterday saying that two of

those projects that were decided by senate republicans were dropped. the $1.9 trillion relief bill following deliberation was a key senate official. according to a spokesperson for the house speaker nancy pelosi, the bill's funding for expansion of bart, a subway system serving the san francisco bay area, was struck from the bill because it was part after pilot project. and $1.5 million in funding for a bridge between part of upstate new york and canada also scrapped. going on to say now the two projects that republicans misled the public about in their bill have been removed. it's unclear how the republicans will justify their opposition to the rescue plan which has strong bipartisan support among the public. that's in "usa today." a story from yesterday. in connecticut, independent line, ashley. caller: good morning. kind of in a different area. another one of your callers mentioned media literacy, and i feel like one of the things i was lacking as a young person was the literacy to understand

what is happening in the media early on in my life and it's taken over a decade for me to understand -- i'm grateful at this moment that i am not a q conspiracy person. 10 years ago or 15 years ago i easily could have been one of those people if it was not for gaining the literacy to understand how to research media, how to understand and find vare viable source that is give me credible information that makes -- verifiable sources that give me credible information to make decisions. many callers have kind of looked at you or others and said what are you going to do about this? frankly i feel like the issue is, what are we going to do about this? we have the capability to educate ourselves. host: what's your process? caller: -- when you are sifting through information that you get and how do you verify that? caller: i like to look at scholarly articles as often as possible. things written by somebody who

is knowledgeable in their field, if not every field. they don't have to have all of the knowledge. but also to look at multiple different sources, track the same story across multiple different sources. see where those differences lie. and even to -- call to c-span. i understand a lot of people want transparency, you don't always feel like you're going to get it. sometimes you have to dig for it. part of the reason you have journalists in the room is so they can report for us, but there is also things like c-span that exists where if you want to know what's going on, you can tune in and watch live or watch later so that you are informed of exactly what went on, who said what. to me it just makes things much more clearer. host: ashley in connecticut talking about media consumption. members of the media got a chance to talk with the new york's governor andrew cuomo yesterday about issues concerning sexual harassment allegations. he's saying he's embarrassed about it but not offering a resignation.

can you find the full back and forth on our website. here's a portion from yesterday. >> just wanted to ask you, with all these calls in the last couple days calling for your resignation, from some democrats, certainly not all, some democrats, is this the way of saying i'm certainly not resigning? it >> question. dave, look, some politicians will always play politics, right. that's the nature of the beast. i don't think today's the day for politics. i wasn't elected by politicians. i was elected by the people of the state of new york. i'm not going to resign. i work for the people of the state of new york. they elected me. and i'm going to serve the people of the state of new york. by the way, we have a full plate. we have covid, we have recovery, we have rebuilding, we have a teetering new york city.

we have a terrible financial picture. we have to do vaccines. so, no. i'm going to do the job the people of the state elected me to do. host: here's dianne, knoxville, tennessee, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions, but the first question that i have is, why do white people hate black people so much? they have everything, every opportunity at hand. all they do is stifle black people. host: do you take that as a generalization that all white people hate black people? caller: no. no. host: that's how you put it. caller: let me rephrase that, then. most that belong to the republican party at this present time. host: again, that's another generalization.

why do you think that? caller: because of the way they vote in their house and the senate. and what's being said and how these lies keep coming and coming and coming. just because of the ex-president . that's why i say that. and they have been known to say that the only way the republicans can win is they have to gerrymander, they have to stifle the votes. so what are we to do? how are we to receive any kind of justice when we have peoplele it purposely holding us down, not letting us achieve what we are able to achieve. yet still they want us to honor the national anthem.

host: ok. that's dianne in knoxville,town tfpblet by the way, story from the hill just so you about the president's desire to put mer rick garland into the attorney general's office. it says in the hill's reporting the nomination is hitting g.o.p. roadblocks. and will likely delay his confirmation until next week. senator tom cotton, republican of arkansas, a member of the judiciary committee, viewed as a potential 2024 contender said wednesday that he's blocking an effort by democrats to expedite garland whom they hoped for confirmation this week. quote democrats are trying to expedite judge garland's confirmation i'm blocking them because he's refusing to answer basic questions. including illegally interert the country should remain a crime. under the senate's rule any one member can slow down a nomination and force senate leadership to eat up days of time before final vote on this issue. you want to see more reporting on that, go to the hill and read it there.

this is fawn encino, california, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. it's very good to see you again. don't hang up on me but i just want to say thank you to brian lamb for creating c-span. and he's a military fan, and i would suggest everyone to go to c-span and to the library and do research and learn more about -- a little bit of everything as far as our country. now, the topic. the first topic is i would like for america to concentrate on reading more, reading -- when i was coming through, i had to read the newspaper, actually read the newspaper before social media. and the "l.a. times," the daily

news, i read books, newspapers and now that we are on social media, you do have to select what you read, how you read, how you have to sift through all of the information that's coming through because this information is coming through very fast. we have to be very particular about the type of information we are getting and then double check. and then research. and then research more. and then research more on the information that we are getting. host: with that in mind, you said recommend reading. if you had to recommend a book people should read, what would you recommend? caller: oh, my goodness. which book? host: yes. caller: oh, my goodness. i would suggest -- i like the book as far as the first ladies. i really do. i would suggest -- i'm sort of

into metaphysicalics. i would suggest a lot of the spirituality book because i'm very spiritual. host: ok. that's fawn there giving her book recommendations. ray is in syracuse, new york. republican line. caller: hi. good morning. just a response to the last lady. very good ideas, yes. read. i would recommend 107, the boy on the side of the road. you mentioned c-span their response from your organization, obviously, and how to know what's going on in congress. it's clearly a gift for our nation is to have that availability. however, we have to take into consideration that what we do

see on camera it's pretty much staged. as soon as you put a camera out there. you can learn a lot from people that are staged and saying what they think they have to say in public. you can still learn quite a bit from how that happens, but you have to go deeper than that. and that's a whole other issue. but i just want to add my own personal opinion on the top issue. this is probably the first time definitely in my lifetime, i'm 64, when our military is as they often are, they are overseas, but also mostly watching the united states right now. our military is guarding and wrestling with what's going on

inside the united states. if you know how to look for these things, you can see how many planes and how many ships are around the country right now. that's the first time in history when that's been the case. host: ok. that's ray there in new york. finishing up this public policy issue. one more guest to go before the end of the program. we'll be joined next by the "washington times" online opinion editor, cheryl chumley, to talk about events at the capitol, particularly the decision by the house of representatives not to meet and other related issues. those conversations, that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> sunday, on in depth, a live coverage with author elizabeth coalburg, staff writer for "the new yorker." the most recently book is "under a white sky. the nature of the future." her other books include the pulitzer prize winning, "the

sixth extinction" and "field notes from a catastrophe." join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, for elizabeth on book tv's in depth. on c-span2. before the program be sure to visit c-spanshop.org to get your copies of her books. >> sunday night on "q&a," a discussion about social and economic disruption caused by the covid-19 pandemic and the government's response. with jamie lemke, senior fellow with george mason university's mercada center. >> any time we are really going to change the way we live and change the way the economy produces, that there are necessarily going to be things that get left by the wayside. there is going to be some degree of destruction associated with whatever new is create because we are changing the way resources are used.

and this pandemic is kind of forcing us to engage in that creative process. i think there's some optimism that we can find in that. in particular with the issue of working women. it's been known for a while that flexibility in work is one of the most useful ways to enable women to balance a profession and motherhood. and now we are all very familiar with zoom and using online technologies and work from home. so there are some good things long-term that might come out of it. but of course in the short term, there is it -- it's been pretty scary, i think it would be fair to say trauma. >> jamie lemke, sunday night on c-span's "q&a." listen to it as a podcast where you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cheryl chumley from the

"washington times" joins us. she serves as their online opinion editor. we thank you for your time this morning. guest: great to be with you. host: in light of the decision of the house of representatives not to meet because of the threat that the capitol police received, what do you think about that issue and the larger issue of concerns still about foot ture domestic terrorism? guest: well, i get that the house democrats made a decision not to meet because they said that they received a threat about another, what they characterized, as a storming on capitol hill. and whether the threat was real or not, we don't really know. if you happen to trust democrats, then i guess they made a good decision. host: as far as the larger issue of domestic terrorism, is this a concern? particularly what happened on january 6 that caused the actions of the house this time around? guest: when you are referring to domestic terrorism, are you referring to antifa for black lives matter? or are you referring to the

protests on capitol hill? there are different characterizations of what is taking place in america right now. and i don't think i characterize what happened on capitol hill as an act of domestic terrorism. host: why is that? guest: because it wasn't an organized storm trooping such as portrayed by many in the press. and the more we find out about what happened on capitol hill with the five deaths, the more that narrative crumbles. for instance, the big narrative was that the capitol hill police officer was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher. we find out by listening to christopher wray f.b.i. director, that didn't exactly happen. and his family was even saying that he died of a stroke the following day. host: do you think that element of antifa or other groups were part of the event of january 6? guest: i'm none hohnestly not in

a position to say that. i don't know. host: what's your impression? guest: my impression is in the leadup to what was taking place on capitol hill that if i were a member of the antifa or black lives matter, i would have looked at the two rallies on capitol hill as a great possibility for a string of trouble. that's just my personal opinion. that has nothing to do with facts. host: you mentioned christopher wray talking about these other issues and asked about this kind of thing about the involvement on january 6. listen to what he said and we'll get your response. >> when i look at what happened on january 6, it appears that right wing -- white supremacists played an incidental role in the violent assault. is that your conclusion also? >> well, let me answer that this way. i think we are basically saying the same thing.

we don't tend to think, we at the f.b.i., don't tend to think of violent extremism in terms of right, left. that's not a spectrum that we look at. what i would say is that it is clear as i think i said to chairman durbin that a large and growing number of the people that we have arrested so far in the -- in connection with the sixth what we call militia violent extremism. extremists. there have been some already that have emerged who i would put in the racially motivated bucket. advocating for the superiority of the white race. >> i understand from your testimony previously that you did not see antifa or black groups playing a significant role in the january 6 infraction. >> certainly while we are equal tune in looking for violent extremism of any ideology, we

have not to date seen any evidence of anarchists violent extremists or people subscribing to antifa in connection with the sixth. that doesn't mean we are not looking and will continue to look. at the moment we have not seen that. host: in light of that, your impressions of christopher wray's assessment of january 6. guest: my impression is that that's what he said his findings are thus far. and so that's what his findings are. the investigation continues. and if people think that by saying that antifa could have played a part in the capitol hill protest and the violence that occurred there, is somehow saying -- denying the existence of violent protestors on the other side of the political aisle, for instance denying the existence of far right extremists, or k.k.k.ers or proud boys or people like that,

that's not true. there are violent extremists on both sides of the political aisle. all i'm saying is that insofar as the media has put forward as the narrative, that donald trump supporters are automatically are part of a violent extremist group, a basketful of forables and so forth, that narrative has crumbled. host: our guest with us until 10:00. if you want to ask questions dorks so at 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. text thoughts at 202-748-8003. speaker pelosi on capitol hill talking about forming a 9/11-style commission taking a look at the events of january 6 and what's connected to it or what went underlying that. what do you think about the prospect of that type of investigation coming from

congress? guest: well, i think that's just politicizes it more than it already has been politicized. we are supposed to have a law enforcement community to do investigations of crime. i think that nancy pelosi would do well to let the law enforcement community go forward and finish its investigation. host: do you think the f.b.i. and other members of the justice department focusing on these issues is a right path to look at these kind of groups that christopher wray mentioned? guest: i do. it's not as if i have an issue with congress looking at some of the groups around the nation and deciding whether they should be given deeper law enforcement scrutiny because of some violent tendencies, but i just think that they are looking at the wrong batch. i think that the better look here is at the antifa. host: do you think of antifa as a group an not an idea? guest: i think -- out of the idea has sprung the group.

i think that's a point that -- i guess we can go back and forth on all day long. but antifa, they organize together and they meet with other like-minded groups to conduct violent protests. host: just to clarify, as far as, you think of it as an organized entity with leadership and the like, or is it -- how does it work in your mind, then? guest: i think antifa uses social media and other groups to band together. and they create situations where they can create chaos. and whether it has an actual leadership-style group or not, i really don't think it matters. i think antifa is a group that has come together in america to upset the constitutional system. host: what's the appropriate response? guest: for law enforcement to look at antifa.

that's where law enforcement -- that's better served for he law enforcement to look at antifa than to look at donald trump supporters. hoif we have calls lined up. matthew starts us off, in raleigh, north carolina, you're on line with cheryl chumley of the "washington times." go ahead. caller: good morning. how you doing today. host: fine thank you. you are on with our guest. caller: i actually totally disagree with what you are saying. putting anybody in a basket in any type of situation is just totally absurd. you are doing exactly what foreyears ago, three years ago anybody would do. and i'm just being logical speaking that you can't just say -- you are opposing exactly what you oppose. to be honest with you. do you have a response to that?

guest: i don't know what you mean. who am i putting in a group? i'm not sure what you mean. host: he's gone. let's go to -- if you want to respond to anything he said as far as what he asked you. guest: no. because i honestly i'm not sure what he means. host: mary, corning, ohio, republican line. caller: yes. my concern is who stood to profit the most from the january 6 invasion on the white house? trump supporters were there to support the legislators. so they could have a fair hearing. on the votes. and the demonstrators were there to stop that hearing because they knew there was a lot of cheating that took place so trump's rally was an opportune time for the radical nontrump

supporters to tear down things and stop the vote. that is my theory. host: cheryl chumley, what do you think of the shearry? guest: i disagree. first off it was two days of rallies. i was at the first day. i can tell you these people were entirely peaceful. the second day when donald trump actually came out and spoke, of course, emotions were higher. people were ticked. people were ticked off around the country. and absolutely there were probably some people in that group who went to capitol hill with the idea of storming and creating a violent outcome. but by and large, 95%, 96%, the vast majority of people who were there were peaceful. and they were simply there to protest what they saw as an unfair outcome. and to stand in support of president trump. so the entire premise that a lot

of people have been making about capitol hill in january 6 is faulty because most people went there simply to support the president and to stand in opposition to what they saw was an unfair outcome. and they intended it do it peaceably. host: so you're saying -- by and large fueled by claims of election fraud, at least from those speakers and those participating. guest: i'm saying that there were bad actors in there who started violence. but to characterize those bad actors as part and parcel of an entire movement, entire donald trump support system is wrong. guest: what did you think, then, was the contribution of the continued talk about election fraud, all of that, if any? guest: what do you mean? what do i think was the continued contribution? host: you said people were there because they protested the

election or had differing thoughts about the election. does continually talking about election fraud do you think that fueled what took place on january 6? guest: well, i mean any protest -- you could make the case for any protest movement. you can make the case that any time people come together to exercise their first amendment rights that is fueling violence or fueling something other than peaceful. people have the right to gather together and exercise their first amendment. and it's my view that the majority of people who were there on capitol hill that day were there just to do that. host: from ohio -- we'll go to brian, brian in rockville, maryland, independent line, hello. caller: hello. i think you mentioned the narrative in the media. i think you got that wrong with regard to not being consistent.

the narrative by elected officials, including the president, said this was -- election was stolen, was 100% responsible. and the response and reason for what happened on january 6 and beyond. i'm sure there are more things down the road. i think all the elected officials and the media that have lied about this saying that this thing was stolen when every state certified this election is the problem. every state, red, blue, doesn't matter, they all certified the results. can you say 100% that this election was fair? because everyone else has. guest: everybody else -- not everybody else has because the courts refuse to hear the dozens of cases that were brought forward. and some of those cases, no doubt, would have fallen on deaf ears in the court and rightly so. but there are plernlt of cases, specifically the one in pennsylvania, where -- plenty of

cases, specifically the one in pennsylvania, where it was clear-cut that the legislature has the right to make an uphold election laws, and that simple law was compromised. you can't say that when courts refuse to hear cases that it's 100% certain that there's nothing to see here. go home, folks. and i think that's what 75 million-plus americans who voted for donald trump feel. host: just to clarify, there is a viewer on twitter, bobby, who asked you direct question do you think the election was stolen. guest: doesn't matter what i think. just like it wouldn't matter when asked about obama and the birth certificate. george biden is president and i won't go down that road. host: michael in wilmington, north carolina n. democrats line. hello caller: hello, how you doing this morning. guest: gooders thank you. -- good, thank you. caller: regardless of the

capitol being -- regardless the election has been stolen, the whole point of the matter is the fact that over 400 years our people have been depressed. the voting rights. everything that has been against us for so long for people of color, people of mexican, hispanic, and indant descent has been such a -- indian descent has been such a trying -- it's been so long for this -- for us to stop this nonsense that's been going on for so long. people so leaning on the fact that there is a voting process, the -- what happened with the capitol, malcolm x. martin luther king, medgar evers, all of this has been going on for so long. it's time for us to stop the

nonsense. it's time for us to stop judging everything out of a box of crayons. people hate on a box of crayons knowing they all can make a beautiful portrait. host: caller, what do you wow like our guest specifically to address? caller: i want to address the fact that why can't this country look at everybody as human beings? we all have rights. and i wonder why -- why it seem like things cannot be on the same level as everyone else. host: ok. that's michael there in north carolina. miss chumley, go ahead. guest: because of people like michael who come on national media and talk about how his people, who i assume because of what he said a minute later, people of color, have been oppressed. and that has just been ongoing for 400 years. when you keep up that mantra, when you continue that messaging

over and over and over, it creates a situation in this country where it's constantly in division. joe biden, the great unifier, has promised us unity, i look forward with great anticipation to his unifying measures that he is going to be bringing forward soon. but until that comes, it's incumbent on individuals to unify on their own. when we have people like michael who constantly bring up being oppressed, even though those -- the oppression isn't based on anything that this country as a system, as a government, puts forward, then we are going to continue to have an oppressivecies tefment host: canada, this is godfrey, hello. caller: goofment host: you're on. go ahead. caller: hi. i kind of have a problem with c-span, pardon me for saying this, c-span selection of

guests. some of the guests from the anti-defamation league appears to be a clear-cut democrat, clear-cut anti-trump person, clear-cut liberal hack. and you bring in cheryl chumley, who appears to be a center personnel and prevalence of the anti-defamation league guy. it you brought in cheryl who is just a journalist in the center. a couple of different issues. host: let me stop you there only because clearly the previous guest had a clear perspective. miss chumley has perspective as an opinion editor. caller: my ge for her is the idea the january 6 protest. is i have a problem that we

experienced the burning down of america in the summer of last year by antifa and the black lives matter. where were all these senate hearings during that time? joe bideen -- they took over washington state. and the same guys that did all this are here trying to lecture me on good behavior and domestic terrorism. you have to be kidding me. host: that's godfrey in canada. guest: i agree with his question. where were the hearings? where were the outcries from the left? let's go back even farther than antifa and black lives matter. let's go back to congresswoman maxine waters' statements and nancy pelosi's call for summers of resistance. and all those in the democrat party who use rhetoric to,

according to their own standards, fuel violent protests because that's the standard that they affix to donald trump when he calls for fights and so forth. where were the protests on capitol hill, the outcry from the democrats then? and the answer, of course, is there weren't any because that furthered the democrat parties' means and designs politically. there's a lot of hypocrisy going on here. and i just think the caller made a good point. host: this is terry in louisiana. go ahead. caller: hi. thank you so much for your refreshing point of view. i'm almost giddy because i want to make two points first of all. when i was 18 i became a republican the reason i did was because i did not like the way the democrat party was treating black people. i did not like that the ku klux klan was democrat.

and my mother had told me how hurtful it was for her to see black people in school and in town mistreated. host: caller, let me stop you there quickly. what do you identify as now? caller: i became no party this year because on both sides of the parties i see hypocrisy. i see them tearing people apart. both parties. and i even had to quit watching news, fox news, cnn which used to be my favorite. they all had the same talking points. hour after hour. and basically they are lies. i want to know if miss chumley thinks that we can go back to journalism when it was reported, when they were reporting the facts and not their opinions.

and also i would like to know what's going on in the rest of the world? it's like our journalists want to keep us in a bottleneck that we don't see the full picture of what's going on over the world. host: that's terry there. i forget the state. ms. chumley, go ahead. guest: as for the media, the media is hateful and vial for the most part. there are a lot of people in the mainstream media who delight in going after politicians on the right, republicans, and taking them down because it's a notch in their belt. the fact that the media has turned this road away from just simply reporting facts, i don't know if i agree totally with that. there used to be journalism decades ago in this country that was definitely more opinion nated in nature. my issue is when they say they

are unbiased when they are not. i say they are a lively press a. lively media where even opinion journalism is on the nightly news. as long as it's clearly marked. i don't like when journalists pretend to be completely unbiased and just doing their job. but when a democrat is in office, suddenly their jobs are a lot more wishy-washy and soft and tamer. as far as what's going on in the world, take journalism, it's incumbent on the individual to educate yourself. so checking out, because you don't like the state of the media or the news that's being reported, to me is not a good option as american citizens. if you don't like the news you are watching, use it to fuel your own research to find the deeper truth that you crave. and i think if more individuals did that that would

automatically hold the media they don't like more accountable. host: michigan, democrats line. henry. caller: good morning. i'd like to make two points and i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't interrupt me or hang up on me before i make my points. one, about cancel culture. of course we want to cancel cancer. republicans are a cancer upon this country because most of them, not all, but most of them are racist. i believe that many of them are mentally ill because of the violence that happened on january 6 at the capitol. and they want to install a fashes dictator, of course we want to cancel that. my second point, in november many ex-intelligence officials and defense secretaries decried donald trump's wholesale gutting of the defense department. that was done in preparation for

january 6. so, cheryl, thank you for teaching us that the "washington times" is definitely not a place where we want to go and get truthful information. host: ok. that's henry. you made your two points. ms. chumley, go ahead. guest: as commander in chief of course donald trump can do what he wishes with the department of defense. he is the commander in chief. and as far as republicans being automatically racist, hey. that's your opinion. have at it. you have your right for an opinion just like i do. host: what is the state of the republican party these days, do you think? guest: the state of the republican party is strong to be honest. the state of the republican party is firmly still in the camp of donald trump. and i think that even those few in the elitist side of the republican party, the republicans in name only, the entrenched are learning the lessons that they need to stand

by donald trump's side or risk alienating a good portion of conservative voters in america. host: how dependent is donald trump to a future republican president being in the white house? guest: who can say what donald trump will do, right? the guy makes up his own mind. that's part of the reason that so many in america like him. host: you're saying it depends on him, though? guest: well, are you asking me if it depends on whether he runs in 2024 for the white house? host: i suppose that or the influence whoever decides to run in 2024 to have his backing. guest: yeah. to a certain extent it depends on drum. but i -- donald trump. i don't think he's going to change his messaging and it's going to be incumbent on candidates coming forward in the republican party to treat him with a little bit of deference and at least some sort of acceptance that his viewpoint is part and parcel of a large

majority of the republican voters. host: dillon in indiana, decatur, republican line. caller: hi. i just want to thank cheryl. i haven't seen her on here before, but she is probably one of the most honest people that i have seen on the tv or this network about what she said about the courts not even accepting any of the evidence presented. they denied and denied. and why are we not allowed to say the things that we have seen as far as the videos of the capitol insurrection, as they call it. there's multiple videos inside this guy named john sullivan, you can tie back these characters to different protests within different states. and they were involved with some

violence. why can't we say it's antifa. trump supporters don't have that character in them. that's all i have to say. host: miss chumley, go ahead. guest: it's interesting the last thing he said the trump supporters don't have it in them. i have thought for a very long time that trump supporters have been wrongly slappedered as being violent and racist. it seems akin to what went on in 2010 with the wrongs of the tea party. the protestors were characterize the in the media as this peaceful grassroots get together. then you started seeing the videos come out of them defecating in bank lobbies and smashing windows. they left everywhere they stayed in complete shambles. fast forward to the tea party movement and every time you saw tea party activists or rally,

everything was cleaned up. everything was peaceful. and the media painted it opposite. the media painted occupy as if they were peaceful and they weren't. and they painted tea party movement as if they were violent and racist and they weren't. you are seeing the same thing with antifa and black lives matter versus trump supporters. host: from democrats, foulerville, michigan, cheryl. go ahead. caller: hi. yes. you were awful defensive of the capitol regarding the attacks thinking there was a possibility of antifa attacking, but it's a little bit shameful to think antifa would be -- they are not, i would say, they are against --

i want to say they are not violent people. i mean i'm not an antifa member. don't get me wrong. but they are not a violent people. but my government was attacked by -- or threatened by trump supporters. so what is your opinion on that? those were white supremists-type people. what is your opinion on that? those were trump supporters. host: ok. ms. chumley, go ahead. guest: white supremacists suck. they are the dredge of society. the same as those on the left who would commit acts of violence. calling yourself anti-antifa short for anti-fascists and saying that you are against fascism doesn't blind the truth of those who watch your actions when you break storefront

windows and throw bricks and things like that. you can call yourself what you want. but it's your actions who speak louder. as far as any trump supporters threatening acts of violence, they are just as despicable as those on the left who threaten and carry out acts of violence. host: cheryl chumley, the "washington times" online opinion editor. find the work of her publication at washingtontimes.com. thanks for your time today. guest: thank you. host: that's it for our program. and another one comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we'll see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> here's a look at some of our live programming today on the c-span networks. with the u.s. house changing its schedule and not being in today due to security concerns here in washington, we're bringing you a confirmation hearing for the white house budget director and the white house deputy director for management. that's set at homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing is set for 10:15 a.m. on c-span2, voting on the nomination of deb haaland to be interior secretary today. they'll hold a confirmation hearing for deputy energy secretary. the nominee is david turk. that should be starting right about now. the senate returns. they're expected to begin debate on the house-passed $1.9 trillion covid-19 relief package. it could be a long day and night in the u.s. senate. likely beginning with a 10-hour

reading of the bill. and live on c-span3, we're live right now. a house ways and means subcommittee is considering re-authorization of the trade adjustment assistance program. as always, all of our live programming available online at c-span.org or with the free c-span radio app. >> sunday on "in depth" -- a live conversation with author elizabeth colbert, staff writer for the new yorker. her most recent book is "under the night sky." and her other books is "the sixth extinction" and "field notes from a catastrophe." join in with your conversation with phone calls, facebook comments, texts and sweets for elizabeth kolbert sunday on book tv's "in depth" on c-span2. before the program, be sure to visit c-span.org to get copies