c.e.o., co-author of the book "believe in people" on how to tackle economic and social challenges. and sunday live "in depth." elizabeth kolbert talks about global impact. "under a white sky: the nature of the future" and at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards", sarah wore horowitz, author of the book "mutualism." she's interviewed by orrin cass. watch "book tv" on c-span2, this weekend. >> you're watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in

1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. 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 >> the u.s. house canceled the meeting due to continued security concerns in the aftermath of the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. the associated press reports that the capitol police have asked the national guard to retain