pregent comment on the latest talks to revive the iran nuclear deal. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ >> good morning. it is sunday, april 11. congress returns this week. president biden will meet tomorrow's leaders in the house and senate on the issue of infrastructure. today, we talk about business and politics and whether you think it is appropriate. this follows the decision of major league baseball to pull its all-star game out of atlanta after georgia enacted its voting law. is getting involved with politics good or bad for a business? if you think it is good, (202) 748-8000.

if you think it is bad, (202) 748-8001. a special line for business owners, (202) 748-8002. also, send us a text at (202) 748-8003. you can use twitter. c-span wj is our twitter handle. you can also go to our website. i want to remind you what rob manfred said at the time he was moving the all-star game from atlanta to denver. he wrote that over the last week, we have engaged in thoughtful conversation with clubs, former and current players, the players association, players alliance, among others, to listen to their views. i have decided the best way to demonstrate our values as a sport is by relocating this year's all-star game and major league baseball draft. major league baseball fundamentally supports voting rights for all americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box.

that is rob manfred, the mlb commissioner, talking about all of this. lots of reaction to this ever since it happened. here is senator mitch mcconnell on tuesday in kentucky, talking about it. [video clip] >> if they applied the same standard they applied to georgia, they could not have games in st. louis because missouri has a more restrictive voter law than georgia -- van the new georgia law. -- than the new georgia law. new york has a more restrictive voter participation law and the new georgia law -- than the new georgia law. where does it end? my warning for corporate america is to stay out of politics. that is not what you are designed for. and don't be intimidated by the left into taking up causes that put you right in the middle of

one of america's greatest political debates. host: mitch mcconnell on all of this earlier this week. calls are coming in. i want to read something from open secrets. work which came out earlier this past week. for decades, mcconnell has led the charge to deregulate campaign financial. the 2020 supreme court decision has allowed corporations to directly donate to outside groups like super pac's. most stay away but senate leadership took in $31 million in the 2020 cycle, far more than any other outside group. corporate donations to republican and outside groups total $85 million last cycle, compared to $23 million to democratic groups. open secrets.org, calls are coming in already.

let's take the first call from ashburn, washington. you think it is a good idea for businesses to get into politics. james, tell us why. caller: these businesses are getting tax breaks. they should be responsible to the citizens that go and shop in these places. the republicans love the police officers and when police unions speak for them. but now these businesses are realizing it is hurting their business and they can't continue . republicans do nothing for them. they would not agree to the stimulus program. citizens united needs to be done away with. these people need to be dealt with. thank you. host: that was james. on to marvin in philadelphia. marvin, you are calling on the bad line, the line that thinks

it is a bad decision. tell us why, marvin. caller: because you get business involved in government, then that means that it will be more geared to the business. that means more tax breaks to companies and things like that. as well as the civil part of it, that is one thing. it all comes down to the money. millionaires becoming billionaires and the minimum wage is still the same. it can't be geared to a certain group of people because they put so much money to get people elected and stuff like that. i think there should be an even plan going out where businesses not get involved with the government. because, it is going to make it uneven because they have a lot more money and they have a lot more people backing them than the regular person.

host: marvin, it does not matter what type of business, big or small, just a bad idea overall? caller: is a bad idea across the board. it can protect my interests. big business comes in and protect the interests of big business. the government is for the people. as a singular person, not as a business where it has so much money that is controlled by one person that will be giving money so we can benefit health. host: john, what do you think about all of this? is getting involved in politics a good or bad idea for business? caller: i think it is a very bad idea. my folks at a small grocery store, i remember when they retired. i called to get welfare -- they called to get welfare.

he said you never discuss business, you never talk religion or politics with your customers because they will be just as many republicans as democrats and you will upset them. he was right. what they are doing now is extortion. they go around and fight business. what they are doing with the democrats, they are extorting. that is all they are doing. give money and they will leave you alone. have a good day. host: does it matter whether it is sports entities or other kinds of business? caller: what kind of entities? host: sports. caller: no, just many republicans and democrats --

just as many republicans as democrats are sports fans. if you take one side, you will get democrats upset. on the other side, you have republicans. it doesn't make any difference what kind of business. milton friedman said businesses should not get involved in any kind of social issues. their job is just to make money. have a good day. host: thanks, john. you have a good day. patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, donates $1 million to georgia voting rights. this is the website outside online.com. here is a statement from the ceo of the patagonia company. mlb has pulled the all-star game from atlanta and we need more businesses to take a stand and we can use our business networks to expand our advocacy. opting to stay silent while the

constitutional rights of voters in georgia and across our country are being threatened, tantamount to supporting these unjust laws. hope colleagues, clients and customers won't forget what we do. that is the head of the ceo -- that is the ceo of patagonia. joanne is calling on the line that thinks it is a bad idea. give us your thoughts. caller: i think if we cut out businesses from telling who they represent or their voting rights, we cut out the unions from putting in for who they want to vote for. so, let's cut out the unions, let's cut out all of the businesses from advertising or putting their words in. they supplied the work for the people. the people work for them. they don't have -- they can

voice their opinion but i don't think they have a right to boycott. you ruined a lot of black people there that thought they were going to get a choice, somebody to represent their values. stacey abrams did a terrible job. thank you. host: thank you for calling, joanne. here is brenda, calling on the line that thinks it is a good idea. renda, -- brenda, ohio, give us your thoughts. caller: i think it is a good idea because, in truth, big businesses fund people running for government and they put in who they want. they help push the game. the people that buy their products, they need to look out for the people who buy their products because people know who

fund different politicians. and if they are funding republicans who are taking away the votes for people, making it easy for them to vote, then people are going to realize that they are part of the problem with the republicans who are taking away their vote. i mean, after a while, people are going to realize that a big business supplies the political game and they need to stand up for the people who are their customers and our government, to keep it a good and safe place to live. host: what do you make of what mitch mcconnell said? he said corporate contributions are fine but direct involvement on legal issues is stupid. caller: he doesn't like the fact that -- he has had his whole

career on making it easier for companies to get breaks, to keep things the way they want it and not taking care of their people. after a while, people have to realize i am an american and i need to stand up for all americans. it is not about the money. companies do fund people who are supposedly taking care of us and i hope that people boycott the companies that don't stand up for them. i would not have a company in a state that took away voting rights for people. i wouldn't. host: brenda from ohio, thank you for calling this morning. more of your calls, we have a third line for business owners. if you think it is a good idea for businesses to be involved for politics, call (202)

748-8000. if you think it is a bad idea, (202) 748-8001. third line, for business owners, (202) 748-8002. we want to hear from you if you are a business owner. here is ted in new york city who sent a text. mcconnell doesn't want corporations to put their money where their mouth is and he does not want corporations to put their mouth where their money is. he just wants their money. i think it is great for corporations to speak out. we have paul from chesapeake, virginia. what do you think? caller: is a bad idea. a real bad idea. people talk about businesses getting involved in politics. doing it under the table -- they have been doing it on their -- under the table for a long time. it is called lobbyists. they have been putting money into politics, whether they be democrats or republicans.

years ago, as one gentleman said, you did not discuss sex, politics and religion because you never knew where that was going to go. for businesses, and we saw part of that under the previous administration, where businesses involved in politics and telling people to get out and not serving police officers and things like that. that is not their place. many of these people calling about the georgia law, i don't hear them talking about that they have put in ballot boxes or drop boxes, which they did not have prior to covid.

so, they have done some -- and another person brings up a point and i agree with them -- i have never met one person who does not have some form of hygienic acacia. -- identification. when you are talking about the law, that is crazy. getting back to politics and business, it has been done for years, with democrats and republicans. i remember the outcry on k street when they talked about k street. so, it has been done under the table for years. they are just doing it in the open now. some of these young folks coming out of these liberal colleges are pushing these things, because many of these higher institutions are teaching it.

that, in order to draw your business, you have to draw people of certain political persuasions. so, let's get back to the fact that it has been done under the table for all of these years but they need to stay out of it, let the politicians take care of politics and get it out of business. host: paul from chesapeake, virginia. thank you for calling. corporations cut themselves from 50% of the population. rick in montclair, california, two bad corporations, i stopped buying coke. i no longer watch the mlb due to kneeling anti-american sentiment. i won't buy patagonia stuffed either. brian kemp said pulling the all-star game out of atlanta

will hurt business owners of color. he condemned the mlb on saturday, stating its decision to pull the all-star game out of atlanta will hurt is this owners of color. saying, minority owned businesses have been hit harder because of the visible virus, -- in visible virus, through no fault of their own. the restaurant near truist park. that is the story out of the hill. we have timothy from vermont. you think it is a bad idea. tell us why. caller: well, my opinion is that the hypocrisy abounds to the right and all i can say is our politicians don't want business to be involved in politics. all i can say is let's reverse

repeal the citizens united act of 2010. oy vey, you know? host: timothy, thanks for calling. henry is in south carolina. you are a business owner. what do you do? henry, are you there? one last time, henry from south carolina, are you there? we will move on. we will move on to fill in midfield, massachusetts -- phil in midfield, massachusetts great you think it is a bad idea. give us your thoughts. caller: number one, anybody who is a republican, i think we have to boycott coca-cola and i forget the name of the airline. host: delta, i think.

caller: delta airlines. the other side is trying to bribe these businesses into unfair voting. everybody has to have an id. you can't be years old and buy a record at the record store, can you? if you moved and don't live there anymore, your vote should not count if you do not live there anymore. if you are dead, your vote should not count, either. anyway, think black lives matter is threatening that they will burn these businesses down if they don't go along with the cheating and lying, which is what -- the democrats are all about cheating and lying. that is what their whole story is about. you have to have rules and regulations in life.

i guess we are going to have to secede. we have two separate countries now. the republicans and the democrats. because i can't live in the same country with them cheaters and liars and lowlifes. bye-bye. host: let's go to loretta. in cleveland, on the line for good. you think it is a good idea for is this an politics to mix. go ahead. caller: i am wondering why did you tolerate that? that is the very poison that has is in the situation we are in now. of course corporations have a responsibility to communities. but, the gop tax cuts is like a payoff. they have been doing that for the past 50 years. look at our inner cities. it is not like black people don't take taxes. this guy, talking about voter id

, it is not about voter id. it is about having crummy voting machines that don't work. you have three and you have 6000 people in line. and when you go out to the suburbs, it is three people in line and they have 200 voting machines. now, the drop boxes, of course it is something new to different areas because of the pandemic. but, what do they want? i guess they do want more covid. i don't know, something is wrong with republicans. they want black people's taxes, they want your money but they don't want to give you anything for it. that is taxation without representation. you need to start giving more history lessons when people

start calling in and talking like that, paul. this is just embarrassing! host: thank you for your words this morning. we have a business person on the line. larry from eugene, oregon. what kind of business are you in? caller: i told your screener that i was a former business owner in engineering development. i thought everybody on the planet knew that large businesses basically are politics and the form politics almost entirely at the national level. you could argue politics is not possible without their money and their areas of interest. they basically own the field. i would think all of your listeners would know that. they bought it so i think they have every right to intervene in matters of justice, fairness,

matters of injustice and unfairness. host: larry, did you ever get in politics -- involved in politics? caller: i did. i worked on a campaign years ago, mcgovern's campaign. not successful, as you know. host: did your business engage in politics one way or the other? caller: no, not big enough to matter. small business -- what small business experiences is that relative to large businesses, we are just customers and they are the vendors. we basically have to dance to their music because of the overwhelming economic advantage. so, i just think it is absolutely inevitable in a modern america that business is always in politics. host: thank you for taking part in the program. more of your calls, coming up.

a couple of other social media comments. mark writes that it is an individual decision. businesses have always profited and they should stick to making a profitable marketing product. i do not trust them to make moral or ethical decisions. libby writes our state will lose $100 million because of the ml b decision. governor kemp caused this debacle and is trying to sell. here is the ceo of the major energy provider of the southern company, tom fanning. he was asked about the role of corporations in play cultivate -- political debate. >> the state of georgia has been in the news a lot, most recently over a controversial voting bill. some companies like coca-cola and major league sports teams have publicly condemned the

bill. can you talk about how you and southern are approaching this issue? >> sure. this is such an important and serious issue. fundamentally, elections are at the core of who we are as americans. and i think everyone supports their elections permitting ease of voting and integrity in results. i think that i am afraid that for all of the good intentions on both sides, i think emotion has taken over and the discourse has become to political. in many roles that i played, whether it is cybersecurity or economics with the fed or energy policy, very often, i think the best role for the private sector to play is to work in the middle to bring both sides together, quietly and effectively. you know, we are working here with bipartisan in many regards.

i want to commend them. they have done a good job with the innovation council. i am on that with bill gates and others. and also the net zero business alignment. these are the organizations that i think are most effective right now. host: here are the words of two republican congressman from the state of utah. they said private citizens and corporations, while i can enjoy the -- they can enjoy the ability to make decisions. we believe the statements and decisions made by several corporations were based on a fictitious narrative, not facts. companies can take political stances under social pressure but we strongly encourage them to ensure their positions are truthful and thoughtful. that is chris stewart and blake moore, both of them are republicans from utah. we have mark on the line from

pennsylvania. you think this is a bad idea, corporations getting involved in politics. tell us your thoughts. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, mark. how are you? caller: i am doing good. i think it is a bad idea. there are a couple of reasons why. first of all, these politicians, i don't care if they are republicans or democrats, most of them, if you look it up, our multimillionaires. they got that way -- are multimillionaires. they got that weight by whatever you want to call it. you do the math. let me ask you a question, if i can. host: go ahead. caller: you know, they get paid a certain salary, whatever it is, 200 thousand per year. some of them have been in office for 30 or 40 years. they may have made one million

or $2 million. these people are multimillionaires. let me go to the georgia law and squash this forever. you need an id to go to the bank. you need an id to get a pack of cigarettes. you need an id to go fly on a plane. i show my id when i go vote. the ladies, i love them to death , they are elderly. i say my name and they searched and blah, blah, blah. i give them my id. just because -- here, let me make it easy for you. this whole thing about voter suppression, they are not going to get food and water, eat before you go. bring food with you. bring a cooler with you. bring a tent. whatever you have to do. this is totally ridiculous. that is how i feel. it is a bad deal all around. these people, the politicians

mostly, not the people. the people are the ones getting hurt. these politicians think about themselves and only about themselves. most of them are multimillionaires. you do the math. host: on to gary. gary is in atlanta. he thinks it is a good idea. tell us first about the city of atlanta and its reaction to all of this with the baseball game. caller: good morning. to the people who think it was about water and that it was about id, they have it wrong. what it was about was they gave themselves the authority to void an entire section of people who they disagree with the way they voted. donald trump said that if they had had that law in place when he ran, he would have one georgia. they changed -- won georgia.

they changed the rules after they lost three elections. -- the reelection. they gave themselves authority over the entire electoral body. even though they have not used it, they can use it at any given time. that is what we are crying about. we are not crying about the id. you have to show id, we have id. we are not talking about water. the lines should not be so long that you need water in the first place. what we are talking about is they gave themselves the authority to void the entire voting counties where the majority of black voters come from if they disagree with the fact that something went wrong. another thing i wanted to say, january 6 was one of the most atrocious things that happened in america. what right do they have to make changes as a result of that? if it was based on a lie, why

are you making changes? host: what do you think of what the governor said that this will hurt african-american businesses in georgia? caller: it may hurt them in the short term. in the long term, taking our votes away hurts us even more. no one said nothing to donald trump when he told his supporters to boycott the nfl as a result of a man taking a knee when his voters took the same flag and beat law enforcement officers to death. they said nothing about that. but a peaceful demonstration, he told people to boycott the nfl. where was the outrage then? host: ok gary, from atlanta. i want to get some other voices. we have a little more than 25

minutes left in this segment. we are asking folks if it is a good idea or a bad idea for businesses to get involved in politics. lots of differing viewpoints this morning, following this story out of atlanta. baseball's all-star game moving out of atlanta to denver. lots of other news this sunday morning, including this headline , which jumped out at us from politico. quote dumb son of a bitch. trump rips mitch mcconnell at mar-a-lago. this was before a republican national committee donor retreat saturday night. last not, he called mitch mcconnell a dumb son of a bitch. he veered off during a 50 minute speech before several hundred gop donors, saying he was

disappointed in vice president mike pence, calling the presidential election a fraud and knocking -- mocking dr. anthony fauci. he tore into mitch mcconnell further, saying he did not do enough to defend him during the february impeachment trial. people familiar with the remarks said trump called the gop leader a dumb son of a bitch. he also went after elaine chao for resigning after the january 6 insurrection. mcconnell, who was reelected to his seventh six-year term, not respond to request to come in. the latest verbal broadside against mcconnell, the most powerful republican still in elected office comes as trump reemerges as a dominant force in gop politics. you can read about it at politico.com and elsewhere this sunday morning. paul is on the line from wilmington, delaware.

a business owner. paul, tell us about your business. caller: the biggest since -- the business was working with drug companies to get drugs approved by the fda. host: were you an owner? caller: owner. it was not a publicly owned corporation. host: any political activity in that business over the time you were there? caller: to get to the point of your question, i think businesses should not do it. i don't think it is up to the government to make them do it or not do it. it is too polarizing to make a choice on an issue. when you look at political campaigns, you will see ads where someone voted against this for the orphans. when you get down to real issues, it is the details that

matter, not the big picture. you are polarizing your workforce and your customer base. there is more nuanced than that. i think it is a bad business decision. host: thank you for calling, paul. gloria is on the line from mississippi. you think this is a good idea, what we are talking about. is this is getting involved in politics. tell us why? -- tell us why. caller: absolutely. it is so amazing to me that the republicans who are in congress, they accept contributions from businesses. publix, patagonia, they accept all of these contributions but all of a sudden they don't want them to have a say in the politics of the world. i think it is a wonderful idea. everybody knows that it was not

an issue with georgia. now, all of a sudden, the governor of georgia wants to implement these changes, even though it was a fair election. donald trump lost. since 1992, first time that donald trump lost. now, they want to implement changes even though it was a fair and free election. you can't have it both ways for you cannot have it both ways. you cannot accept contribution from businesses and then say they should not have any say in what is going on. you cannot have it both ways. you have a wonderful day and thanks again. c-span, you guys are wonderful. host: thank you for calling in. you make the show a good one, you and the fellow callers. here is rick newman of yahoo!.

companies that are in conscious or -- in controversy. companies cannot go around the country, policing every effort to disenfranchise voters. they should know what is going on in their backyard. rick newman goes on to write with everything so touchy these days, it is not enough just to have a corporate record -- rapid reaction that responds to crises. it is time to put analytics to use, sniffling out repressive government actions, likely to prompt boycotts or other branding problems. you can read more at yahoo.com. another story making news is an updated recount of what happened on january 6. this is at ap news.com. clear the u.s. capitol, mike pence pleaded.

rioters pummeled police and vandalized the building and mike pence tried to assert control. in an urgent phone call to the acting defense secretary he issued a startling command, "clear the u.s. capitol." chuck schumer and nancy pelosi were making a similarly dire appeal. military leaders asking to deploy the national guard. we need help, schumer said, in desperation, more than an hour after the senate chamber had been breached. general mark milley said we must establish order. order would not be restored for hours. these details about the deadly riot are contained in a previously undisclosed document prepared by the pentagon for internal use obtained by the ap. it leaves very the inaction by president trump how that --and

how that void contributed. we have a call from warner robins, georgia. will ameena, good morning. -- wilhimena, good morning. caller: i am a georgia voter. and i know that this is about politics. brian kemp is just upset because georgia turned blue and we have two democratic senators. coke, aflac and delta, if they take business away from georgia, georgia will be a disaster. businesses have a diverse board

of directors. and that is because they feel that it is fair. mlb -- one person did not decide the game away from georgia. there was a board of directors and other involvement. dealing with the food and water in georgia when we have spring and summer elections, it is 100 plus degrees outside. that is ridiculous. the gentleman that called from pennsylvania, i think he is a knee and her thaw. -- neanderthal. who does what brian kemp did? that is my point on it and i think c-span does a good job. i want you all every morning. and have been watching you since 1979.

host: wow. thank you, keep watching. chris, calling from huntingburg, indiana. he things it is a bad idea. tell us more, chris. caller: hello to everybody in the country. first, i want to say i love you all. the god i believe in does not give me a choice of who to love and not love. there is a lot of opinions, i think that is part of the problem. the motions of what somebody said -- emotions of what some but he said earlier plays a huge part in this. if we could love one another, things would be a lot better. as for the politics, i call myself a hard-core conservative but i'm not a racist, i am not a bigot. i am not any of those things though a lot of people are claiming that all republicans or conservatives are that. i want to get that out of the way. i think that needs to be brought to light if possible that there

are racists and bigots on both sides and if we do not recognize that, we are very, very -- we are in a bad spot. i see one thing that is a pattern, when things get moved, when venues get moved, it seems like it is the left in my opinion, that is an opinion. i have never heard of a republican or a right-leaning company moving something because of their beliefs. i think we need to also recognize that. so, there is a lot to talk about here. i just -- i wish everybody could get along a little better here and come to an agreement. politics have gotten too big for their britches. caller: thank you for calling. -- host: thank you for calling.

glory in oklahoma -- gloria in obama, what business -- gloria in oklahoma, what business are you in? caller: i have been in a number of businesses to survive. the previous man was good in stating a lot of what i wanted to in that we must have love in our hearts, even as a company. when you are in a business of sorts, you are not a racist. you need to keep your business for everyone. therefore, the politics or the politicians do not need to play favor to one or the other. now, of course, you know anyone can contribute to anyone they

want. and when you are in politics and you are running for office or whatever, through the correct loss, you can -- laws, you can take contributions from anyone, any business you are, no matter what color you are, black, white, pink, purple, i love everybody. the thing is the politicians have overstepped. government is getting too large. they are to controlling. they -- they are too controlling. they are going very socialistic. i am afraid they are on the verge of communism. i am a christian and i am concerned that the united states is going to communism. i wrote a book, just recently, about the self-destruction of the usa.

and of course, the covid-19 stopped me from going to my book signings and i lost money. also, i have rental business and i lost money. that is not the only people. everybody has lost money in all of this. and all of the businesses. but, the politicians are trying to control the business is too much. they are not going to survive. and if they don't survive, the united states is not going to survive. because, they are people trying to make a living. host: gloria in oka houma. steve writes on twitter, -- oklahoma. steve writes on twitter, what are we talking about? it is a bad thing when politicians -- businesses by

politicians to support employee rights. we mentioned that congress is back in session. the senate will have nominations on the floor. a house -- the house will have a couple of bills on the floor starting later in the week. one of the bigger headlines as we get back to congress coming in is the talks tomorrow between president biden and members of congress. here is the wall street journal. they planned meetings with lawmakers in both parties, gun and background checks -- gun background checks are on the agenda. news conferences could possibly come from those events. you can watch the house live on c-span this week and senate live on c-span2. we have michael from upstate, new york. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. as far as politics in business,

here is the way i feel about it. they had a law passed, citizens united. the title itself is misleading. it is not about citizens, it is about corporations. it gives corporations the same rights as a natural born citizen of the united states. ok echo which, i think -- ok? which i think is contradictory to taxation without representation. i feel the law is unconstitutional. as far as the unconstitutionality of what they are doing with voter suppression laws in the south and other states, it is obvious. the attacks on suppressing people's votes is an attack on america. look at all of these congressmen who are having horrible charges

brought against them and being exposed. it shows the dirtiness and the corruption of politics. it has no place in business. business should stay out of politics, also. people have a right to choose. there should not be any intimidation for anybody to vote and vote their clear mind. that is how you have a consensus. i think a consensus is the best way to go. if you suppress votes, you're not giving a consensus. as far as mail-in voting, like we just did, that was a free and fair election. there is no question. there is no voter fraud. they still try to beat the drum that there is for there was not. -- that there is. there was not. they are trying to gain control by getting involved with businesses. there were businesses that wanted to cancel their employees right to go vote on a certain day for crying out loud.

businesses should stay out of politics. just like the politics should stay out of business. host: thank you for calling, michael. king george, virginia. randy, what are your thoughts this sunday morning? caller: good morning. business has always been in politics. so, what is changing? they are already involved in politics. the system is so corrupt, there is no repairing it. the scenery has run amok. dealing with voting, where is our department of justice? what actually is the department of justice's job? when you're sitting there, watching voting rights trying to be rolled back, as a young man

in this country who has served this country, it never ceases to amaze me how americans talk about how great their country is, how great they are and they continue to still do the same things over and over. nothing is going to change. people, if you want change, you have got to step out against the injustice that is always being done. stop saying you are great. you are not great. when you know what is right and what is wrong, why is it so hard for you to always do what is right? host: thanks for calling. 10 minutes left, maybe a little less than that before we get into our guest segments. a washington post lead story, a local story to maryland and maybe -- and they made some big news. maryland in next policing

overhaul. they enacted historic police accountability measures, becoming the first state to repeal the officer's bill of rights. they write the democratic majority legislature don't governor larry hogan a sharp rebuke, overriding his veto of the measure. -- restrict no-knock warrants, mandate body cameras and opened allegations of police wrongdoing for the public review. each bullet inhaled by criminal justice advocates makes the state bearer and more transparent. democrats made enacting them the top priority after months of protests over the police involved deaths of unarmed black men and women. a major news story, the lead item in the washington post.

today, we have elena from georgia. what do you think about all this? caller: i am a voter. i am a republican. a conservative. in march, as we all know, brian kemp signed into law the voter reform bill, which protects voter integrity and promotes confidence in future elections. democrats continue to perpetuate the lie about this bill and it has now cost the state of georgia millions of dollars in revenue and jobs lost. this bill has nothing to do with blacks or race. but democrats play the race card and call it voter

suppression. the media perpetuates it by saying the bill was signed by governor kemp and surrounded by all white men. president biden calls for unity. and we all agree with that. but, he continues to divide the nation with his jim crow remarks about this bill and calls it on american. quinn did voter id and signature verification -- when did voter id and signature verification become un-american? host: the governor said businesses are going to get hurt really bad, including african-american businesses, it was more of a flavor -- give us more of a flavor of what the talk is like in georgia right now. caller: what's the flavor? host: give us a sense of what

your neighbors and others are saying. caller: i will be glad to. all of my neighbors feel the way i do. i don't know any democrats, except one or two in the state of texas. and they are relatives of mine. i feel no animosity towards these people. this is a free country. we are able to decide who and when -- who to vote for. too many people in this country are like sheep. they are being led by sheep and they want decisions to be made for them by the government. so, that government will take care of them. children need to be taken care of. we are not children, act like adults. don't give away your power, embrace and make smart decisions and vote for those who wanted to limit -- want to limit government. that is what the founders wanted

for this nation. we need to stand up and fight for our rights as americans before it is too late. i am proud to be a republican and i am proud of what governor kemp has done for the state of georgia. it was out of his hands since we wanted to make the future elections fair and promote confidence in them. i am all for what he has done. the people need to understand why he did it is to protect future elections. host: we will get a couple more calls in. the next day of the derek chauvin trial in minnesota is tomorrow. you can watch coverage of the trial all week, replayed on c-span2 at 8:00 all week. we will be live at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow with the next session

of the trial, at least until the senate comes in at 3:00 in the afternoon. another tweet from mlb says that major league baseball is courageous for making their stand, whether you agree or not. they have started a long overdue debate about voting rights and corporate participation in our democracy. john writes businesses want stability. politics encouraged -- that encourage instability are not good for business. -- we need their legalized bribes. here is jan calling from west chester, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, when the businesses contribute money to politics, they are already involved. so, they do get the say and choose to say what they want to say. they give their money, they take their money and they have a

right to voice their opinion. and i want to say something else too about earlier callers with my dedication. that is not the main issue with the voter rights rate -- with the voter rights. when people become elderly, they are no longer driving. sometimes, they don't go and get a photo id, or a state issued one. they may have another id. that may not be sufficient with these new laws. a lot of times, your -- they are elderly people and they have been voting for years. they may have been voting by mail for several years due to their health and ability to stand in long lines. also, cutting the amount of places to vote and limiting

time, people have to work and everything. yes, that is voter suppression. you are trying to suppress how many people vote and so on. in pennsylvania, because of covid, i voted by mail. my identity and everything -- i gave my identity and everything before i got my valid. i did not just ask for a ballot and they gave it to me. unfortunately, a lot of politicians are stretching the truth, not telling the truth and it is crating a lot of problems. host: jan calling from west chester, pa. that was our last caller. one other story, ramsey clark has died, the former attorney general. rebel with a cost is the new york times headline. -- rebel with a cause is the new

york times headline. he dies at 93. here is the photo of ramsey clark in 2012. as attorney general, he led the way on desegregation. as a lawyer, he resolved international conflicts and died friday at his home in manhattan at 93. ramsey clark, a champion of civil rights and liberties in the johnson administration and devoted his life on popular causes. his niece announced the death. becoming the nations top law-enforcement official, his appointment come to his father, justice tom clark to resign to avoid conflict of interest in cases in which the federal government might come before that bench.

he appointed thurgood marshall, the first african-american to serve on the supreme court. mr. clark, a tall man who shunned the government limousine in favor of his oldsmobile took a liberal course as attorney general. he filed the first lawsuit to force a federal school district in alabama to desegregate or lose its federal school aid. he filed the first voting rights and schools desegregation suits in the north. ramsey clark has died at age 93. that is the end of our first hour. we will have a short break. when we come back, jeff asher will join us to talk about the rise in violent crimes, including murders in the u.s. in 2020. a little later, we will hear from rigidly, a journalism -- richard lee, a professor at saint bonaventure university whose students research

what questions are most asked at the white house. we will have talks about the ron -- iran nuclear deal. lots more to come. you are watching washington journal for sunday, april 11. we will be right back. >> watch the trial of derek chauvin, charged in the death of george floyd today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the trail of derek chauvin, today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span 3, exploring the people and

events that tell the american story every weekend. today at 2:00, u.s. army veteran reflects on his time serving as clerk during the vietnam war. tonight at 8:00, a look at newly elected president's first address to joint session of congress. exploring the american story, watch american history tv today on c-span 3. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's table -- cable television companies in 1979. we are brought to you by these companies -- >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is jeff asher,

crime analyst and consultant. we ask you to talk about a rise in the nation's violent crime rate. before we dig into the details, tell us about your own background. guest: i am a former cia officer. i moved back home to new orleans a couple of years ago. i worked for the new orleans police department as a crime analyst. i started doing more broad crime analysis and consulting. looking at the available data and evaluating both local small trends and big national trends using available data. host: some of the information you have written about, let's

put it on the screen. the fbi released preliminary stats showing a major increase in murder last year. fbi did not receive data from several cities with known big increases in murder like new york, chicago, and new orleans. 25% increase would mean the u.s. would pass 20,000 murders in a year for the first time since 1995. guest: a tragedy on top of a whole host of tragedies that occurred in 2020. it is a complicated issue because what we found in the piece i did for the intercept, it really was not one crime or one because. several different causes. murder was up in the first quarter of 2020. we know it increase dramatically in a lot of places in the second

quarter following the death of george floyd. it is a very complicated mechanism. it increased in both the third and fourth quarters of 2020, suggesting that the pandemic, the issues of the pandemic, the economic stress, the mental health stress, availability of firearms contributed to what was more than double the previous largest national increase in murder dating back to 1960, which was the first year we have available data. there were a lot of tragedies. on top of that, we had 5000 or so more murders last year than we had the previous year. host: let's get the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. we will split the line regionally. (202) 748-8000, eastern time zones and central time zones.

(202) 748-8001, pacific time zones. guest: we provide consulting services to all sorts of agencies that don't do analytics. we largely work in the criminal justice sphere. myself and my partner, our expertise are in kamil justice. -- criminal justice. we work with law enforcement agencies, trying to plummet the data -- trying to implement the data pieces of their decrees. it is with the traditional crime analysis i have done in terms of providing 20 -- 21st century analytics for agencies where it is not something they do. take us through this piece.

-- host: take us through this piece. take us deeper into this piece. guest: the reason i wrote the piece, along with my co-author, was that we wanted to understand why murder rose. we understand -- we have the data currently available to show that murder increase last year but crime data collection is typically pretty bad. you compare it very unfavorably to something like baseball where you can see everything that happens on a baseball field every day of the season. crime data, we do not get formally for nine months. we have to use publicly available data, city data, to cobble together an assessment of what happened, understanding why it happened. when something historic happens, it does not make sense to wait until late september when the

fbi releases the final year in data for 2020 -- year-end data for 2020. we started to dig into the available data to dig into why last year might have been such an horrific -- i horrific rise -- a horrific rise. when you dig into the data, it shows it was much more complex and more complicated than a simple explanation would allow. people point to chicago, new york. they show the increase in murder that happened over the summer. when you dig into the city data, you see that it was nationwide. it was a complex nationwide phenomenon where cities over a million people had a murder rise almost 30%. cities under 10,000 had a murder rise of over -- almost 30%.

we see it in places like chicago and new york and los angeles. but it is something that occurred nationwide. our best explanation is that early on in the pandemic, there were drivers such as the shutdown, increases in domestic violence, the abusers and victims were unable to be separated because everybody was quarantined. you saw an increase in domestic violence murders. everyone is staying at home. drug markets are not as easy as they were in february. it might have led to increased violence and danger in those types of situations. in the summer, increase in violence, dramatic increase in places like portland where in july, portland saw the most murders than they had ever recorded.

there is a tendency to say there was a change in policing or the protests. the data we have shows there was no relationship between the number of the rate of protests and the increase in murders that occurred in each city. it is not like the places that had the most violent protest had the biggest increases in murder. you can point to it happened in july and you saw this big increase in new york but that does not explain why places like shreveport, louisiana, omaha, nebraska all saw big increases at the same time and did not inherently see the anti-police violence protests that occurred those months. it does not explain places like new york, where proactive policing and arrests for things like drug enforcement and weapons, those have been dropping like a stone for the last decade. yes, they fell in june or july, but the drop was pretty small compared to what happened over

the last 10 years where there has not been any relationship between this change in policing and no increase in violence. his -- new york has reached destroy close in violence over the last decade. i think the causal relationship is less certain and less clear in the data. in the fall, we had another clear increase in new orleans, where i am from, we had one shooting a day in march to about 1.5 shootings a day in july to almost two shootings a day in october through the end of december. there was something that caused an increase in gun violence in the third and fourth quarters of the year. what that is is a little less certain. if you think about all of the pandemic economic assistance

running out, stimulus money ran out, it is plausible that these things might have contributed to an increase in violence. on the other hand, it is not clear that that relationship exists and it is not entirely clear that economic depression has a relationship with increases in violence to begin with. maybe it is a factor. maybe it wasn't. it is hard to say. host: with all that background, let's get to calls. we are talking about the rise and the more -- in the violent crime rate. we have chris on the line from tennessee. thank you for calling. caller: thank you, good morning. i think people are struggling. it is getting harder all the time. it is hard to make money.

can i tell you about a -- it is a terrible waste of money. they have been doing it for seven years. i am kind of letting people know. host: your reaction? guest: he is speaking to the point that the pandemic caused stresses on everyone and i think at the very end of the tragic spectrum is this increase in murder, which because of the stresses and the struggles everyone is feeling, a lot of people are able to handle it and some people, it leads to or contributes to gun violence. that is probably what we are seeing in the statistics. host: you mentioned gun

purchases. i have some info from cnn from back in march. industry data and firearms background checks show 23 million guns were purchased in 2020. 65% increase compared to 2019, when 13.9 million guns were sold. give us more perspective on that figure, 23 million guns purchased. guest: it was an astounding increase in the number of firearms purchased last year. we are beginning to see preliminary evidence that firearm carrying increased as early as march or april. that would -- this availability of firearms, they make their way into illegal hands.

it provides an increased, accelerant of whatever the trends would have been. the percentage of murders in the country committed via firearm has increased from over half in the 1960's to around 74% last year. that is the highest percentage we have ever recorded. if you add firearms into a difficult situation, it stands to reason that the likelihood of the firearm being used and turning deadly is significantly higher than if there was not a firearm. it would make sense that the availability would help to drive what is already these trends that are driving murder. host: norman from new jersey. caller: good morning. i think we come up with those ridiculous reasons we have an

increase in firearms. some people say to protect themselves. it does not protect yourself. police were killed, they had guns and they were killed. we have to stop this nonsense. the question is, why do we have more killings with guns then all of the civilized countries in the world put together? why can't we stop that? why don't we find out how they did it in england and australia? they do not need the guns. they are able to control it. why do we kill so many people with guns? we love our guns and we come up with all of this nonsense

about why we should have it. quoting the second amendment. the second amendment is in case the country -- take arms against the country that we don't like as they did on january 6. they had guns and they did what the second amendment says they are allowed to do. guest: there is a clear relationship between the number of firearms, the number of illegal guns and the rate of murder in each state. the state of louisiana has had the highest murder rate in the last 31 years and has the highest rate of firearms that are recovered each year.

the vast majority of these are not in gun crimes. they are in other things. it would stand to reason that the availability of firearms is an important accelerant in what is happening. i think that it is also a hot button political issue that i am not here to discuss. the evidence is clear that the availability of firearms was likely a driver in what we are seeing right now. host: let me get some reaction to what the president had to say on thursday. his decision to pursue executive action to curb gun violence. pres. biden: it seems like we always have a long way to go. today, we are taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis

but what is a public health crisis. nothing i am about to recommend in any way impinges on the second amendment. the phony arguments suggesting these are second amendment rights at stake. no amendment to the constitution is absolute. you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. in the very beginning, you could not own any weapon that you wanted to own. certain people were not allowed to have weapons. the idea is bizarre to suggest that some of the things we are recommending are contrary to the constitution. gun violence is an epidemic. gun violence in this country is an epidemic. it is an international embarrassment. [applause] host: jeff asher, your reaction? guest: i know they are offering

a significant -- $8 billion over five years, i believe, to provide for community violence reduction. approaching it as a public health crisis is a smart way to do it. the question is, how do we do it appropriately without better data collection? a suggestion, if the president is listening to this, would be that improved data collection on shooting. we do not collect data on specific shootings. doing that nationwide would be a critical step to better understanding policy effectiveness. we do not have a lot of understanding of exactly what works in reducing gun violence. there are a handful of programs but if you were to say,

absolutely, what is the one thing we need to do to reduce violence, i don't think we can say that. i am hopeful that a large chunk of the resources dedicated to reducing violence are dedicated towards better data collection and better evaluation of programs so we are not throwing money at bad programs. we are measuring the impact of the policies to ensure that what we do is actually working and having an appropriate response. host: more of your calls. george from honolulu. good morning, george. caller: aloha. i do not mean to tell you how to

do your job, but i cannot help but to ask you to underscored that it is covid now. your traditional criminals are not committing the crimes right now. we in hawaii, we just had our own situation. the police shooting of a 16-year-old trying to steal a car. that is a result of covid. if you guys, if you and your profession can study that. this is covid and there are different gun crimes going on. that is what i have to say. thank you. guest: some of it is clearly

covid, especially some of the early increases where there was clearly to -- clearly increased domestic violence from stay-at-home orders, all sorts of mental health stresses. we are not seeing this abate so it suggest a large bit of it may be covid contributed but might have more staying power. covid may go away but it is not clear that the drivers of what -- currently driving the increase in gun violence will necessarily go away. police violence is a major issue . the degree to which that is a driver and people trusting the police and being willing to speak in the criminal justice system -- it is possible that that will not go away quickly. the economic situation will not

inherently go away. we are millions of jobs below where we were march of 2020. it is possible that it will take a long time to see the police community relations improvement and the economic improvement that will hopefully drive increases in murder back to where we were in 2017, 2015, 2014. host: do you have a handle on arrests in these increases in crime? have arrests increase? guest: we do not have data on arrests and clearances related to gun violence. we will not see those until september. they released some data on about 12,000 agencies but it is all crime data. all of the evidence shows

arrests and stops fell in 2020. it is not clear that arrests for murder fell. traffic stops fell because mobility dropped. arrests for things like shoplifting undoubtedly felt because people were not out. in bourbon street, there were no pickpockets from mid-march 2020 through the fall. that never happens. nobody was on bourbon street. you have situations like that where you have to separate out -- did arrests fall because police were not doing their job? did arrests fall because people were not out? it would stand to reason -- it would stand to reason that arrests would fall. our did arrests fall because they do not trust the police? -- or did arrests fall because

people do not trust the police? host: can u.s. the guest if there was an increase in police contact deaths? guest: i don't know. i don't know the rate at which police contacts led to deaths. i believe that the number of police killings state about the same -- stayed about the same. we don't have good national data on police contacts. we do not have good national contact -- data on what happens with police contacts. we do not have good collection on it. even if we did, it is only april. host: let me go to naples, florida, where max is on the line. caller: good morning. i am interested in knowing the technique that is employed by mr. asher and his company in

reaching the conclusions they do. do they have established criteria or categories into which they impose data? do they go out and collect data by conducting a survey? is there ever an occasion in which they are asked to provide data reaching a particular result which could prejudice the accuracy of their performance? guest: that is a good question. i am not here to necessarily reach conclusions. a lot of the analysis i do, especially on gun violence and murder transnationally, we are not offering inherently this is what happened. we are saying, this is what the available data says and this is what it supports.

this is what is likely using probabilistic language and techniques i have learned starting back with my days as a cia analyst. that is how i approach things when i am doing analysis of trends. we are working with clients doing consultant work, we are working with the date of the organizations are already collecting and we are trying to find the effectiveness in the data. in the dissent -- in the consent decree, this is what you are collecting. it is not quite what you need to be collecting on these are the steps we would advise you to take to collect that data. much less an analytic role and much more in consulting advisory role.

i would like to think that i will follow the answers. i like to think i have a reputation as someone who is neutral to the data in the conclusions. -- and the conclusions. like everybody, i have my personal biases. it is the role of the effective analyst to let the data drive your analysis and doing all these things, we are not talking about certainty. we are talking about evaluating uncertainty. the fact that it is difficult and we have very few answers is something that is a great intellectual challenge and something that means that we are doing these analyses, we are rarely providing concrete answers. we are hoping to provide what makes the most sense, what the evidence is, and what our level of uncertainty is. host: walter from north

carolina. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: what i would like to say is i am watching this guy talk and he is reading a script and he is not talking off of his head about gun control. government wants gun control and he is pushing this on tv. about the coronavirus, i have heard bill gates talk about they want to get rid of 10-15% of the population through the shots, they ought to be telling people the truth. if you take the shot, it will kill your immune system. it will not help at all. they should be telling the truth. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: i do not have a script. i am not advocating for gun

control. i am not advocating for any political position. it is full hearty do not acknowledge -- foolhardy to not acknowledge that gun violence drove the murder. dramatic increase in the number of guns being used, no real change in the number of other weapons being used. to the vaccine question, i have my second pfizer shot. i feel good and my whole family feels good. i would advocate for everybody to get vaccinated so we can all get back to normal. host: just under 15 minutes left. fox reported that nonviolent crime fell in 2020.

even as the violent crime rose. did that surprise you? guest: that is not surprising at all. think about the things that drive gun violence. the perpetrator and the victim know each other. it is more intimate. it does not rely as much about -- rely on random people being out. versus other crimes, shoplifting. people are not parking their car at work. robberies down as well. rapes of a stranger or an acquaintance, people are not gathering with people they know. these crimes are in likely to go down -- are likely to go down. 10% drop in robbery, a percent drop in burglary -- 8% drop in

burglary. the vast majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults. most crimes are property crimes and most property crimes are thefts. we are not surprised to see those go down. that specificity matters. crime was down last year. murder was up historically. when he that specificity because it helps to explain -- we need that specificity because it helps to explain what happened last year. if you have a very specific problem, that calls for a specific set of policy responses. if crime is out of control and everything is going badly, you

may need thousands more cops on the streets. you may need a whole different set of policy responses. it is important to be very specific to what the problem was. interestingly, the one thing that is unexpectedly up is auto theft. it is surprising. on the other thing -- on the other hand, auto theft is the one property crime that correlates with murder. maybe a younger crowd. it is hard to say why auto theft might be up. it clearly was up and it may help explain why something like carjacking was up last year. it is hard to say exactly what drove that trend. that trend existed and i am guessing there was some relationship. host: let's go to sean who is in west virginia.

caller: yes, thank you for the opportunity. the gun violence thing, you have answered some of your own questions. coronavirus has driven the aggravated assault, the operative there is aggravated. you have a lot of who are aggravated and tired of the situation. we never focus -- i am a registered democrat and a liberal minded person -- we never focus on the statistics of people who have defended themselves with the gun. did not have to fire a shot. that never gets talked about. it is not always about defense. if you are a non-gun person, you have no concept or understanding

or open-minded enough to see that people that hunt -- i live in west virginia. everybody has guns in west virginia. you do not have the rate of crime. maybe it is because we are a bunch of ignorant hillbillies, but we do not have off-the-wall murder things. we do have it, of course. gun violence israel. gun violence is -- gun violence is real. i look at the programs out west, the teenagers who are shooting. 30 years they have been doing these programs. these kids grow up and they do

not have -- they do not use drugs. they commit less crimes than even policemen. we do not talk about that. i think it is very interesting. coronavirus has driven all of the things you're talking about. host: thank you for top -- thank you for calling. guest: there is certainly some truth to that, especially early on, the virus itself and the reaction makes a lot of sense as the driver. the further we get along and the evidence for the first quarter of 2021 suggests the trend of the last three quarters of 2020 is continuing so we still have this elevated level of murder relative to year-to-date 2020. it suggests that it is not the thing that is driving it as we

go along that it is other things, maybe it is a contributing factor that would go away as we get along. it is hard to say that it is the major driver exactly what is causing the increase in gun violence. i would argue that we can barely collect data on the actual instances of shootings and murders that happened. collecting data on things that do not happen, defensive uses were no firearm is used is not something we as a country are good at collecting any data on. getting them to collect detailed information to be able to say with a ton of confidence how many uses are defensive uses of a firearm or the firearm was exhibited and it saved a life

but no shots were fired, i think that is challenging and something beyond our capability. i cannot talk authoritatively about that. if there were a way to understand that and delve into that data, i would be interested in doing that. host: i wanted to get your thoughts on the rise in violent crime. did hate crimes increase in 2020? guest: i will hide behind our lack of data. the fbi will release hate crimes data in november of 2021 if they stick to their normal pattern. hate crime stated is another thing -- hate crimes data is another thing. we do not have good data collection on most things. hate crime's data is something we are even worse collecting

data on. there is no standard definition. three or four states do not even have hate crime's laws and 16 or 17 states that have hate crime laws but do not necessitate, do not legally require a specific set of data to be collected on them. agencies might do a better job of reporting one year. the agencies might do a worse job of reporting. a single officer can make -- can be the person who makes the determination on hate crimes. that can have -- because we have underreporting of hate crimes, it can have a dramatic increase, dramatic effect on what hate crimes get ported -- get

reported in each jurisdiction. there was an increase in anti-asian hate crimes starting in march of 2020. it went from averaging under one hate crime a month in the first couple of months of 2020 215 in march of 2020 and a handful more in april. it averaged about 1.5, three times as much in new york for the rest of 2020. we do not have 2021 data. it is something they will not produce for several months after the year. we will not know if there is an increase in hate crimes. we will not have data on that until november of 2022. it is something that makes a lot of sense from the anecdotal reporting. it is very plausible and

something you would love to see steps being taken to counteract. but it is something we do not have data to put hard analysis behind. host: let's hear from earl in atlanta. caller: i would like to ask mr. asher -- he is one of the puppet masters. he has had a smirk on his face since the beginning. he is the cat who ate the canary. these guys orchestrate chaos and mayhem and always have. they coordinate with organized crime, russian mafia, italian mafia, jewish mafia. they are the puppet masters. we should ask him what kind of crimes we will see because they are the orchestrator's.

crime is a business and business is booming. guest: the only chaos i deal with is my kids. that is the majority of chaos i try to control from a crime standpoint, i do not create it or pumper master -- puppet master it. i tried to analyze and evaluate it. host: jessica in arlington, virginia. caller: thank you for c-span and all that you do. i wanted to throw out an idea or two quickly that might be feeding some of this crime. a lot of people were at home and still are doing covid, they are on their computers and watching tv more. what is on social media today?

some of the social media sites have a lot of violent rhetoric. a lot of it is right there. go on to a number of the social media sites. not all of them are like that, but some are. the wilson institute recently did a version of a small symposium that they aired. it was focused on the negative rhetoric and violence on some of the social media sites that happen to be directed at women. they ran some analysis. they did some statistics. what these ladies reported on was shocking. so, just a thought. i will check out the social media sites. host: jessica, thank you for

calling. final thought on this topic? guest: it speaks to my work, which is it is the type of thing that we are capable of measuring. it is a complex and, looking at issue and i think given the fact that it was nationwide and the fact that it is ongoing and the fact that it is not just the big cities that typically people think of when they think of gun violence, it is certainly a strong suggestion that we need to think of big national trends as the driver. do not think of it as the police department, stop making stops on one street corner. this is the type of thing that really has national implications. it is important to know what caused it so we can develop policy countermeasures.

they probably need to be national in scope. host: jeff asher, thank you for joining us this morning and giving us the update on violent crime statistics. we will take another short timeout. we will hear from a professor rigidly -- richard lee. a little bit later, hudson institute joined a roundtable conversation on efforts to revive the nuclear -- the iran nuclear deal. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, a conversation on the influence lady bird johnson had on the lbj presidency compared to other first ladies.

with a senior research fellow at the lbj school of public affairs at the university of texas austin. >> i see her between the bridge -- as the bridge between eleanor roosevelt and hillary clinton. she has the commitment to developing policy agenda that reinforces and elevates her husband. she has the public role, not quite as broad because she did not have a radio program, but this was the woman who went out campaigning for her husband and working to elevate his presidency. i see lady bird coming in and modernizing the office, the first person to do that since after world war ii. >> author of lady bird johnson

hiding in plain sight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can also listen to q&a as a podcast. >> listen to c-span podcast the weekly. the workplace to the pandemic with kim hart. she will talk about a newly released poll which indicates most employees prefer working remotely. >> 87% of the people surveyed say they want to work remotely at least one day a week. a lot of people want to work even more than that. 13% said they want to work full-time on site the way they use to. that is a huge seachange for employers who are used to having everybody in the office every day. people wanted to live closer to their jobs. that is no longer quite as important.

>> go to c-span.org/coronavirus for the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. if you miss our live coverage, it is easy to find the latest briefings. use the interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is associate professor of journalism richard lee. interesting class you had, project that you recently had. your students did report on questions asked at white house briefings. tell us about this project, what you ask them to do and why you did it. guest: thank you, paul. this is a seminar course i teach in media and democracy where we

explore the relationship between media and democracy. one of the projects i do is called media tracking. we keep questions asked by white house reporters so that when we have a discussion on a topic, we start with some facts with some hard data. when i was looking for something to do a project on this year, since the press briefings were back on a regular basis and back to a normal sort of briefing and the transcripts were online, i thought it would be interesting to keep track of what the press court is asking about and see how -- press corps. looking at the president's agenda. i asked the students to identify their priorities. we are in the process of we are analyzing the data to see what it all means. host: 155 questions on the

pandemic and health so far this year. 131 questions on immigration, 129 on international affairs. any of that surprise you? guest: the large number of questions on international affairs surprised me. i did the first days tracking. as i was tracking, i kept seeing all of these questions on international issues. i thought that was an aberration. but it held true throughout the month. that was surprising. i think those are important topics. host: how engaged were the students? how did they first receive it? guest: i am teaching the course online so i do not have the direct feedback. i will get more of that we start getting into the analysis.

everyone jumped right on the project. i think it was something new for them to see the back and forth white house briefings. that helps them understand the dynamics between the press corps and press secretary. host: what kind of questions do they ask you along the way? guest: they sensed some of the journalists' frustrations. you can see there were follow-ups. especially when it is in the transcript, when the answer to the question or response is not really an answer to the question . i think that was something that -- you could see it clearly when you looked at the transcripts. host: we are talking with richard lee. did you note biases within those

white house press briefings? guest: we did not really track the questions by he was asking them. -- by who was asking them. that might be something we dig a little deeper, we might look at. at this point, we just have the questions, topic of the question. host: what are the thoughts of yourself and your students on the role of the white house press corps these days? guest: they are still doing a good job and you have to keep in mind that the job of the press is not just to ask questions about what the public is interested in. it is to ask questions about issues that are important. it goes back to what walt whitman wrote. when i look at immigration being right up there, the second most

number of questions, and when you look at opinion polls, when the public is asked what they feel is the most important issue for the president and congress to address, immigration is in the middle. that is important. things that are happening in china, korea, ukraine are affecting us. host: pew reported earlier, top priorities for the white house and congress, 80% folks say strengthen the economy. 63% say improve the political system. any reflection on those numbers, professor of? guest: they are pretty consistent. the economy was way up there. the economy is at the top of every election in terms of

issues. health care with covid, not surprisingly, that was up there. you had a general health category. when i looked at some of the breakdown, 90% of the questions on health for about the pandemic, vaccines, getting kids back to school. host: the students watch these briefings live? did that you c-span video or other networks? -- did they use c-span video or other networks? guest: a few of them watch them live. for many of them, it was the first time they watched a briefing. if you go to the briefing section of whitehouse.gov, there is the press briefing -- some of them had questions that they wanted to make sure they were tracking the right briefing.

host: do they have thoughts on the team and how they are performing at this point? guest: not on this. we have been spending a lot of time looking at the biden administration's media policy and there has been some pushback from journalists that it is to controlled. -- too controlled. they seem to agree with what they are reading. they are controlling the message and controlling access. host: let me ask you about your own background. you are a journalism professor and a former journalist yourself. you have spent a lot of time working in this area. tell us about your background. guest: i did a number of things as a reporter. i was a statehouse reporter in new jersey for a number of years. i worked for the news tribune.

i later did -- i worked initially for the state legislature and worked in the governor's office for two governors as deputy director of can indications. -- communications. host: what do you think about the future of these briefings? do you think they matter? and will continue to matter? guest: they definitely matter and we missed them during the trump administration. the press secretary is the voice of the president and it is important that the press be able to ask questions about issues that are important. and they relay them to the american people. host: what other takeaways do you have from working with the students? guest: i was a little surprised that race was not -- there were

not as many questions about race. it may be if you think about the nature of press briefings, maybe questions on race are not the type where you can ask and get a brief response. i looked at the numbers in the stories the students tracked and if you look at them in terms of percentage, it is not like a large percentage of questions were about immigration. it is about 13 or 14%. looking at what the press corps does versus what the public is defining as priorities, the press corps asking -- touching on important range of topics. host: richard lee, interesting research project you have. thank you for coming on this morning. guest: thank you very much.

host: we will take another short timeout. it is april 11. we will talk about the iran nuclear deal and the potential future with darrell campbell of the arms control association. plus plenty of time for your calls. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ i don't to go c-span is your unfiltered -- announcer: today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. announcer: tonight at 9:00 eastern, in her new book "everyday is a gift," tammy

duckworth talks about her life and career in the military and in the u.s. senate. she is interviewed by politico. >> my six-year-old daughter abigail asked me that question. she went through -- she wants me to teach her. but, i can't run alongside her and push her bike. she is like, why couldn't somebody else's mommy or daddy have gone to iraq? i wrote this book and i want to be upfront about it to show that america is worth it. it began with me growing up as an american in southeast asia and understanding what a privilege it was that it was american, that i could leave when i wanted to because i had that american passport.

announcer: watch tonight at 9:00 eastern on "book tv." afterwards, available as a podcast. and c-span's long-running series book notes is back as a podcast. here compelling in-depth interviews with authors and historians. new episodes are available every tuesday. on the latest episode, we look at the lincoln library and museum in springfield, illinois which ranks as one of the most visited presidential libraries. here come from executive director christina shut on the future of the museum and what she hopes to accomplish. the new weekly podcast from c-span. subscribe where for you get your podcasts and get information on all the c-span podcasts at c-span.org/podcasts.

announcer: c-spanshop.org is c-span's new online store. go there today also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy at c-spanshop.org. every purchase help support c-span's nonprofit orchid -- operations. host: we talk now about the iran nuclear deal and its prospects for being regenerated. daryl kimball is executive director of the arms control association, good morning. guest: good to be here. host: we are also joined by mike prejean, senior fellow with the hudson institute, good morning to you as well. guest: i appreciated.

first question, talks did get underway in vienna. last week, on the u.s. and iran possibly returning to the nuclear deal. remind us first what this 2015 deal did and did not do. >> this was a multilateral agreement negotiated between the permanent members of the security council and the u.k., france, russia, china plus germany and the european union with iran and it rolled back iran's nuclear potential. specifically, it reduced its capacity to enrich uranium, which can be used to make fuel for electricity production, or at higher levels, for nuclear weapons. it reduced the stockpile of enriched uranium iran can have. it limited the number of centrifuges it can retain and

also limited the type of research it can do on more advanced centrifuges. at also block to plutonium path to the bomb by forcing the modification of a reactor that could have been used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons and it increased the access the international atomic agency has to facilities in iran. it rolled back the capacity for around to amass enough material for a nuclear weapon for an estimated period of 12 months. it was widely hailed as a breakthrough because iran was racing to the point where it could produce enough material for a bomb in just weeks. that is what the deal is. donald trump pulled out of the deal unilaterally in 2018, even though iran was meeting all of

its requirements. he reimposed sanctions that have led us to the situation we are in today. a very difficult situation where iran is retaliating by increasing its nuclear capacity. host: senior fellow at the hudson institute, explain for us your take on where we are right now. guest: i would like to clarify that the jcpoa, i would change out the word limited and replace it with paused. jcpoa paused these things, it did not limit or end it. that means if iran complied with jcpoa, iran has been cheating on the iran deal. declared sites and undeclared sites, the undeclared sites are carved out of jcpoa and iran limits inspections of declared sites and undeclared sites.

they delay, they deny, they obfuscate, and each time the ie a -- i aei has visited these sites that are in clear violation of the nuclear number 11 treaty -- nuclear nonproliferation treaty -- when it comes to terrorism and missiles, we expect or hope that they comply in the shadows of jcpoa and we just do not have any visibility. section t of jcpoa is where iran is able to develop the trigger systems and the actual delivery systems using our computer models. that is in violation of jcpoa. we can't verify whether or not they are actually doing that.

we do not have access. the regime is still in the jcpoa, even though -- that it was going to retaliate. iranian -- iran needs the jcpoa more than the u.s. does. what i find troubling is that iran is treating -- cheating on the u.k. with impunity. there are no sanctions from europeans, there are no demands from the russians and the chinese for iran to comply. why is that the u.s. have to be the guarantor to make sure iran does not have to become a nuclear power? we are in this deal with -- we were in the steel with partners, and our partners are being cheated on. iran is being facilitated by russia and china because they continue to protect this regime. that is where we stand.

host: let's put the numbers on the screen for guests and we will get callers. here, republicans (202) 748-8001 . democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from jen psaki, white house press secretary from this past wednesday. [video clip] >> we are at the early part of the process here. the primary issues that will be discussed are both steps that need to be taken for iran to come back into compliance, and sanction religious steps that the u.s. would need to take. -- sanction release steps. we expect this to be a long process and we are at the beginning period. >> [indiscernible]

>> i can't put a timeline on it. we feel that diplomacy is the right way to approach this challenge. doing that in coordination and cooperation with partners is exactly the right approach. that is what we are focused on now. it is a good sign and a good step we are engaged in even though these conversations are not direct at this time, we are at the beginning of the process. i expect they may have more to read out. host: beginning with david kimball, if this nuclear deal works -- guest: it is worth reviving. that is because it did, i am sorry to contradict my fellow guest, it did rollback iran's nuclear potential. it has kept iran in the box. iran was not cheating on the deal, as was suggested.

they have not begun to exceed the limits of the agreement until donald trump pulled out and reimposed sanctions, that were have to have been waived. our european allies have been working hard to get the iranians to come back into compliance, and the united states in compliance. without this agreement, what -- without both sides complying, we have seen since trump pulled out, iran increasing nuclear capacity. we are in a worse situation today than we were at the time we pulled out. iran is increasing the amount of enriched uranium it has. it is putting more efficient centrifuges that can enrich uranium faster. they are threatening to restrict action by the iaea to its sites

and the iaea has been getting access to sites and has been getting the information it needs to ensure that iran says what it is doing. iran is now exceeding these limits and will continue to do so so long as the sanctions that were meant to have been lifted remain in place. it is a matter of weeks before the s -- the situation escalates. the u.s. and european negotiators have just a few weeks to work out an arrangement by which both sides would simultaneously return to compliance. that opens up the door theoretically to follow on negotiations to deal with the issues we are concerned about. president biden and our european allies are concerned about how to strengthen the jcpoa further into the future, how to deal with iran's other activities we are concerned about, its

behavior in the region supporting militias. it's missile program, which could in the years ahead potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons. we are in a much worse situation today because the deal has been violated by the united states, the iranians are understandably retaliating and we need to get back into compliance as soon as possible. host: same question for michael pridgen. guest: it is worth it if we use all the leverage that the massive pressure campaign has given the administration. iran won't bust on ballistic missiles, it won't budge on subset clauses that expire in 2024. in 2025, the international community loses its authority under jcpoa to impose snap back sanctions.

if the biden administration cannot renegotiate from a position of strength by using maximum pressure to address the ballistic missiles issue that expires in 2023 and cannot expand on the subject clauses that begin to expire within two years, how do we strengthen the jcpoa? again, the united states is not in the jcpoa. everything my colleague mentioned is a violation and an affront to those remaining in the jcpoa. the signatories are being cheated on by the regime. there are no repercussions. if we listen to tehran, they want the lifting of full sanctions before they go back into compliance with a deal that is set to expire in nine years. this is the opportunity to strengthen the -- the u.s. will not have as much leverage as it has now. the regime is on its knees.

the economy is weak and needs a lifeline. the biden administration should not give it that lifeline unless we do this completely. senators schumer and menendez and cardin can support what would need to be a treaty. the bite never been a straight and was not a -- the obama administration was not able to make it a treaty because it was unpopular then and is unpopular now. this is more dangerous than it ever has been because of the republic of iran and european allies will not demand that iran fall back into compliance. they will put sanctions on the regime. they were against snap back sanctions from the united states and iran looks at all of these things as concessions. the islamic republic has put the playbook into play and has a series of provocations for

successions and the administration is signaling it is willing to concede and give up leverage and to jump back into a deal that begins to expire in two years, and completely expires in nine years. why would the regime extend a ballistic missile band? it is not being punished enough economically. this is called smart power. using u.s. sanctions to get the regime to move into direction to protect regional allies in the middle east. strengthen the deal itself and reward the iranian people. this regime is not set to do any of those things. host: can i -- guest: can i make a quick point about concessions and leverage? host: sure. guest: it is true the trump administration put sanctions back on iran that were have to been waived.

books like michael who are critics of the iran nuclear deal say biden should not give up this leverage. in the real world, there is a difference between pressure and diplomatic leverage. donald trump gave up diplomatic leverage when he showed the iranians that we could not be trusted to follow through on what we said we would do in the original agreement. the united states right now does not have the kind of leverage that michael is arguing we have. we are in a bad position because iran can much more quickly ramp up its nuclear program than we can put additional sanctions on iran. the other thing is that as a result of this so-called maximum pressure campaign, iran has shortened the timeline of these so-called sunset clauses. it is incorrect in saying the deal ends in two or three years,

there are multiple restrictions that last multiple years had we are in a worse position as a result of this campaign. we have a real-world experiment which shows that policy has been an abject failure and we are in a worse situation today than we were in 2018. host: chris is calling from north waltham, massachusetts. caller: anyone who knows anything at all about the middle east knows that trump pulled out of the jcpoa because he was paid $30 million in 2016 campaign contributions by sheldon adelson to do so. two questions, since biden has gotten then, israeli seven attacking a rainy and shipping. i think we all know the reason for that. men end as, you will find out his objection to going back into the treaty is because he was

receiving over $600,000 in pro-israeli pac money. you are not -- we are not as dumb as you think we are. caller: menendez was opposed in 2015. chuck schumer was opposed in 2015. senator cardin, senator manchin, i don't really have any comment outside of that. this is about strong foreign policy. it begins to expire in 2024 but it is completely gone in 2030, with the exception of this clause where iran can keep it going if it chooses. hope is not a method. we can't just hope that the regime does the right thing. this is a time to use leverage. the united states has all the

leverage it will not have again to deal with tehran. macro and tried to salvage the iran deal by urging tehran to talk about ballistic missiles and sunset clauses. before zurich landed in paris -- the regime indicated they were not going to budge. the regime is now saying they will not budge unless united states lifts all sanctions. it is going to be difficult for the biden ministration -- i can't believe i'm quoting --, but it is going to be difficult for the biden ministration to lift sanctions and designations based on terrorism and human rights violations. there are thousands of sanctions on this regime and the majority of them outside the nuclear portfolio are on terrorism and human rights violations. host: let's get tim from daytona, florida.

are you there? let's try tim one more time. let's try paul. caller: [indiscernible] thank you to -- for the special -- and also a message about prince philip. the question i want to ask is, is -- the nuclear deal -- [indiscernible] host: can you say that again? caller: can the u.s. government find -- over the nuclear deal? host: finally unite around it? guest: this has been a politically divisive issue for several years. it is important for democrats

and republicans and independents to focus on what we do agree on. everyone agrees that we need to prevent iran from getting to the point where it can produce a nuclear weapon. where there is disagreement is what the best way to get there is. we also need to agree that there are other rainy and behaviors we need to address. my argument here, and the view of the a biden administration has been that the nuclear problem is the most urgent, problematic. iran will be a much more dangerous actor if it has nuclear weapons. the jcpoa was clearly successful in rolling back iran's capabilities. it is not the be-all and end-all, but it is the foundation for further efforts through sanctions, diplomacy, to roll back the program into the

future and begin to discuss with iran a number of issues we've got mutual concerns about in the region. it is the first step towards the kind of things that both michael and i are talking about with respect to making sure that over the decades, we are not running into a situation where iran could be building nuclear weapons. >> from auburn maine, democratic line. >> good morning. caller: here is my thinking, bill clinton put in some inspectors on the ground in north korea and they had some access, but there was cheating going on. obama managed to get on the ground, they were seeing some stuff, but there was probably cheating. i've got a question, do you play poker? >> i do caller: if i say it i

will show you five of my cards and we will play for high-stakes. but, i only show you three and i am cheating, are you going to say because you're only going to show me three you'd rather city zero and play the game. which would you prefer? >> lets view this poker analogy. the trump administration called iran possible off. they said that if --, they would walk away. they did not. iran said if the trump administration walked away from jcpoa, so it iran. the regime needs the steel more than we do. we should demand to see all the cards. its economy is hurting, now is the time to strengthen the deal. it does beget expiring in 2024. it begins to end all restrictions on enrichment and

centrifuge restrictions beginning in 2025. we lose the ability to punish it. iran is the player at the table that has pretty much put all of its -- it doesn't have anything else to put in. the united states has an opportunity here to ask for the show, show me your cards. united states has all the leverage here and the trump administration called iran's bluff, the biden administration needs to do it again. the regime needs the iran deal more than we do. i believe the regime would continue to push its nuclear program to the point of getting concessions for the next nine years. in hopes of getting the united states to continue to cave when it comes to sanctions and other incentives. we can't allow the regime to use

the threat of -- going to a bomb to get concessions. around was one year away from nuclear weapons inside jcpoa and it would be six months to the air outside jcpoa. jcpoa is nothing more than an economic incentives program for european allies and the chinese. russia and china want to jump into the u.s. economy because they want to sell it advanced weapons. europe wants to jump into that as well. united states cannot be the only country worried about iran moving towards a nuclear weapon. the biden administration's attempt to re--- the deal is not a serious one. host: here is former president trump. [video clip] >> it is clear to me we cannot prevent an iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten

structure of the current agreement. the iran deal is defective at its core. if we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. in just a short period of time, the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon. therefore, i am announcing today that the united states will withdraw from the iran nuclear deal. host: that was may, 2018. more comments as we take calls. another one from england. what is your name? caller: [indiscernible] thank you for taking my call. also, thank you to your guests. i would like to say im against jcpoa. the reason why i am against it is because we know that the

character of your partner is as important as the content of a deal. when you have iranian characters who believe in terrorist activity and exporting revolution chaos everywhere. it is very difficult to have a constructive deal with a gangster mentality. jcpoa in no way compensates for that type of mentality, that cheating mentality. iran is more dangerous than north korea because north korea, even if it is dangerous, works within its own borders. iran has overseas ambitions and we see it operating in many different countries. host: thank you for calling. watching on the bbc parliamentary channel, let's

hear from darrell kimball. -- guest: in international affairs, you don't get the just negotiate with the people you like. that has never been the case. john f. kennedy knew that you need to negotiate with your enemies. ronald reagan, barack obama, now joe biden. just because the iranian regime is autocratic, dictatorial, human rights violator, does not mean we cannot and should not sit down with them and work out a deal that prevents them from getting nuclear weapons. we have to be clear, michael earlier said that iran would be in the same situation with respect to its nuclear program whether it is in or out of the jcpoa. that is flat out wrong. i have been working in nuclear nonproliferation for years and

the jcpoa puts us in a better position to block iran's pathways to the bomb. you have to remember that without the limits set by the deal, iran has already increased its nuclear capacity. the argument that critics of jcpoa are pushing, which is that we should not return to compliance and somehow magically expect iranians to come back, begging to come to the table because we continue to put sanctions on them, it just has not worked out. we have had experience seeing what has happened and that has not succeeded. the worst possible approach for joe biden and our allies is to continue a policy that has failed. we need to get back into the deal, which we know was working to contain iran's possibilities. that is the first step to pressure iran to limits that

extend the restrictions on its nuclear program and help us to begin to address these other issues we have been talking about that deeply concern us about iran. host: much -- michael pridgen. guest: iran is currently violating all of those restrictions now. the signatories that remain in jcpoa are doing nothing about it. with respect to breakout times, inside the jcpoa, iran is now closer to a breakout time because it is cheating with impunity. outside would be the same timeline. we have intelligence assets in the air and really will look at things to see whether or not iran is moving towards a bomb. most of our recent partners don't want to see iran move towards a bomb. i believe russia and china do not see that you're not want to see a bomb. there will be repercussions, unfortunately they will be military. why not use the leverage we have now to end iran's nuclear

program. we can live sanctions once we get on the ground. there are no inspectors allowed to look at these sites, that was another condition, but there is a way to strengthen an agreement with iran that could be a treaty. jcpoa was no near -- nowhere near that. again, everything starts to expire in two years and terminates in 2030. that is nine years away. how does that end around's program? host: bill from pennsylvania. caller: the iran deal was negotiated by several countries. it put limitations on iran's nuclear program. now, there is no deal at all.

the only reason is because trump recklessly and unilaterally pulled out. how can we expect other countries to trust agreements by the united states if we just later pullout? the sanctions on iran are not hurting the rulers, they are hurting the people, the children who cannot get supplies. finally, what is really needed is a total ban by all countries on nuclear weapons. 122 countries have agreed to this. the countries that won't agree to this are the united states and countries that have new clear weapons. the nuclear weapons put every single person on earth in danger of extinction.

guest: what i would say to that is -- [indiscernible] we keep hearing trump did all these terrible things, former president trump actually took the iranians seriously and actually looked at the jcpoa and it was not because of a payoff, it was because it is not good for the united states. it is not good for allies, not good for europe. the republic of iran is basically -- has basically accelerated everything it was doing that led to sanctions under the protections of the jcpoa. from ballistic missile testing, to syria. now, extortion. threatening our allies if they do not make concessions. there are no repercussions.

our european allies need to be stronger partners. what i would say to the callers the way to get the international community to trust us that we won't break our agreements is to make them treaties. the jcpoa could not muster enough votes to be a treaty. it can't now because it is that weak. we can get the international communities and our adversaries to trust us if we make deals like this treaties. that will require 60 votes in the u.s. senate. there is no group in congress that is willing to make this jcpoa, as it stands, a treaty. host: caller from d.c. caller: the previous caller is totally right. michael pridgen is dodging the big issue. the leading state sponsor of nuclear proliferation in the middle east is israel.

the jewish state. so, the jewish state f rated the apartheid south africa, pleura freighted weapons grade uranium from the u.s.. the u.s. could really create a weapons free zone by forcing the siding to the -- amendments that no longer providing israel with aid until it actually disassembles its nuclear arsenal. i resent his menacing like, the islamic state of this or that, it is triggering and it does not get to the real issues. at nuclear free zone in the middle east. host: mr. frigid? host: i would like the color to take -- guest: the caller said we shouldn't give any aid to israel until it dismantles its nuclear program completely. i am arguing for the same thing

when it comes to iran. iran is not a republic, that is what it is called. it continues to violate existing security council resolutions, and i would argue that until is iran -- until around dismantles completely its nuclear program, then we should not give it any sanctions relief. we should not give it anything that empowers its regime. sanctions are in place on the regime, and the people want them kept in place. they believe the regime's weakened and needs a lifeline. the biden administration should not extend that lifeline until we get a complete dismantling of iran's nuclear program ahead of any sanctions relief or favorable activity. host: lets bring daryl kimball back into the conversation. is this something you want to respond to? guest: one gentleman made a

couple of good points. we have to recognize that the sanctions that the u.s. have reimposed on iran are hurting the uranium people. i have a rainy and american friends with relatives in iran. it is a complete misrepresentation to suggest the people want these to continue. it is hurting the people. it is also hurting the regime, but it is hurting the iranian people. if, as michael seems to be suggesting, the united states should not allow other countries to engage in trade with iran to buy oil, allow iran to use international banking system until iran completely dismantles its nuclear program, that is a recipe for constant conflict and no deal ever with iran. we have seen that iran now does not trust the united states because donald trump pullout of

an agreement that was struck in 2015 that it was complying with. the u.s. intelligence community has assessed that iran was complying with the agreement up to 2018. the international atomic energy agency, the u.s. intelligence community said, and i quote, "iran's implementation of jcpoa has -- from a few months to one year." we have seen how this maximum pressure strategy has failed to change iran's behavior in the region. it has prompted iran to break out of the limits. it has also hurt the iranian people. this is a failed policy we need to move away from, not continue. that is the definition of insanity to continue the same failed policy. host: another caller from the

u.k.. caller: thank you c-span. i am a fan of the show. it is very impartial and professional. my specific question for your two experts, were there any specific benefits from the trump administration regarding his more hard-line approach to the iran nuclear? that is my question for your experts. >> -- host: derek? guest: it is hard to find something from trump policy that has really worked well. one thing i would note is that before the former president pulled out of the deal in 2018, his state department negotiator

was trying to work with european allies to toughen their stance on iran's ballistic missile activities as well as its access to weaponry. they were on the verge of arrangements that would have toughened the international approach to those problems. but, the administration's decision to pull out of jcpoa completely pulled the rug out from under that pretty good idea. there were things that were afoot that were being pursued, but they were short-circuited by former president trump's decision to pull out of the agreements even though our ron was meeting the new clear limits established by the agreement. guest: the abraham accords, that was a benefit of trump's policy toward iran.

which psycho alliance emerging because israel and regional allies did not -- the obama administration was taking the threat seriously. it started forging under the table alliances and the administration of moved -- the administration moved to take advantage and the abraham came out of that. trump administration gave the biden ministration leverage. smart power is the best tool for a diplomat. smart power is in the form of sanctions and designations on the republic of iran. we use that leverage to get a deal that will survive, a deal that will become a treaty. it is unfortunate that it seems like the administration has thrown that leverage away. host: andrew in alexandria, virginia. caller: i just had a question

for mr. prejean to refer to the jcpoa is unpopular. i looked at the polling information and the majority of americans supported the deal then and also opposed trump's withdrawal from it. a recent poll by the chicago council from global affairs came out and showed six in 10 americans favor u.s. participation in the nuclear deal and that the majority of the american people, which he claims to support, also support the jcpoa. so, why not respect the will of the american and iranian people on this matter? guest: in 2015, the head of the jcpoa, going into getting his --

getting enough democrat votes -- there never was a vote, public support for jcpoa was 51%. when it was implemented, it was down to 33. i would say, how many americans know that the deal expires in nine years. hominy americans know that we can actually strengthen and toughen this deal if we actually use the leverage that the trump administration built up to get iran to simply address ballistic missiles that expire in 2023, to extend the -- clauses which expire in 2024. educating the american people, and that conversation is happening now, when more americans learn that the biden administration is -- is concerning. we've seen democrats and republicans urging the president not to lift sanctions and simply

reenter jcpoa. to use that leverage. the administration is weighing whether or not to use political capital to go into the deal because it is that unpopular. everything happening now in vienna is being done in closed rooms with the russians, the chinese and european allies. the united states needs to have an open discussion to help the american people understand that the united states has leveraged, it can extend and strengthen a deal with a very weakened adversary that is coming to the negotiating table on its knees, and we should be able to get what we want. host: a question about the process in vienna, we understand it will be european mediators tech -- talking separately with the envoys in the u.s.. why not just me directly? do you see that happening sometime soon? guest: it is more difficult for

the u.s. and iran to exchange views and ideas and proposals through this indirect approach. the reason it is happening that way is that the iranians are willing to get into a new negotiation where they negotiated the basic terms of the agreement. in some ways, this is a form of punishment. a signal they are sending about their lack of trust in the united states as a negotiating partner. nevertheless, the system that has been set up whereby the european union primarily is shuttling between two hotels, one in which the iranian team is situated, the other in which the u.s. team, it can work, it just slows down the process. the two sides understand exactly

what the iranians need to do to return to compliance into reverse these breaches that they have pursued since mid-2019. the u.s. knows which sanctions it needs to waive -- nuclear related sanctions to waive under jcpoa. there are questions about which of these additional sanctions that were imposed by the trump administration in the name of terrorism against iran might be lifted. there are questions about that because the trump administration was trying, in its last weeks, to build a sanctions wall. a number of these terrorism sanctions are levied against the same entities that the original nuclear sanctions were levied against. it is complicated, but the two sides, if they both want to return to compliance, they can do so. i believe they need to do so.

the other thing is that the clock is ticking. that is in part because they are iranian elections coming up. it is widely believed that hardliners are going to win the day. president rouhani, relatively speaking on moderate, who led the negotiations for the iranian side of the deal, and his foreign minister, they are going to be -- the team that negotiates the jcpoa is going to be probably gone by june. host: it's got a call from spokane, washington. caller: my question is this, when mr. obama, or whatever he is, left, hitmen biden had the middle east. there was the genocide of the christians, there was fire and blood and human suffering everywhere in the middle east

because of them and their policies. how can you say now that trump costs ideas do not work when there was peace and prosperity over there? and now you are going to be financing a bunch of people who don't like humanity. it makes biden look ridiculous and weak. my concern is, are you willing to take responsibility for the suffering you're going to cause over there to not only israel -- you hate israel and i don't know why -- but the whole region. were talking humanity, not whether this garbage about a deal. that is what your deal, the biden deal is allowing to happen. host: thank you we understand

the point. guest: under jcpoa, iran -- new militias, it prevents aid to the who sees, it did all these things under a moderate president. it killed press -- it killed protesters in its own country. under the moderate. it invited russia into syria and lead to 600,000 deaths. this argument that iranian elections have -- moderates can retake the government and somehow reform it was an argument made in 2015 with the if this deal or more argument. the republic with iran have been a war -- at war with united states. it is a series of provocations for concessions. that stopped under the trump administration.

we should wait until after iranian elections to renegotiate dhcp oa -- jcpoa and see what governments come to play. at the end of the day, there are no moderates in the government. there are moderates in prison and moderates trying to stay out of prison. at the end of the day, the supreme decides everything. [indiscernible] so, this argument that we need to get in there and renegotiate the iran deal so we can empower moderates has failed. sanctions in 2015 didn't benefit the romney and mom, dad and child, it benefited the regime. it use that money to create new militias and spread what they called the revolution across the region. the jcpoa empowered it.

we should not do it again and that is what the biden administration is getting ready to do. guest: let me just correct a couple of those gross misstatements, the jcpoa did not enable iran. the jcpoa restricted its nuclear program. let me finish, you've had quite a bit of time. the situation with iran has worsened in the region since the trump administration came in, and since the trump administration pulled out of jcpoa. what we have to remember is that one agreement on nuclear matters is not going to solve every problem we have with iran. it is not going to make them nice guys, but it is going to solve the most important problem we have and we have to be serious about what has worked,

the maximum pressure policy has not worked the jcpoa, when it was being implemented worked to roll iran's nuclear paper capability, give the international atomic agency or access to iran's facilities, it provided us with the foundation for dealing with other issues, but unfortunately, former president trump squander that possibility and we are now in a worse fix than we were in 2016 when the deal was enacted. host: tim from wisconsin, independent. caller: hey. i notice mr. kimball just stated a bunch of, let's say, his own fact we are entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. you are right up at the jimmy

carter school back in the 1970's when they crashed down on the shaw overran, who is no angel, but was better than what came in afterwards when jimmy showed his full support for the ayatollah, we all know what happened, mass murder no more relations with israel or surrounding states, he made them the biggest terror state in the world i don't know what you talking about with this jay oc pa, how much better we had it when obama and biden were trying to implemented. we gave them i don't know how much money, i believe i think it was $1 million, i can't remember. we all know what they did with it. they put it right into their nuclear arsenal. they are going to use it for worldwide terror, just like they always do. your absolute ignorance about

that country and about the islamic state is just mind-boggling. host: tim from wisconsin. guest: facts matter. it is difficult in this format, even on c-span, to make sure the facts are what we are working with. i would encourage folks who are interested in finding out what the 2015 iran nuclear agreement does and does not do, there is information on our website armscontrol.org. on twitter, we have fact sheets that describe what it does, what these timelines are on the restrictions on various elements of the nuclear program, and what types of things iran has done since 2018 to breach some of the limits of the agreement. host: let's go to melville, delaware. caller: country, thanks for having me.

i was in iran in 1967. you get off at the airport, you're in the fourth century. a kid got caught stealing, they took him to the center of town and cut his finger off. it would be a shame if the iran nuclear program came to for issue and, and if israel has the best intelligence, they are going to smell it coming. it would be a shame if they take it out before it comes into fruition and try to drive us into war. there are two middle east, what actually goes on over there and what they tell us. let's talk about the good things from iran, you've got a lot of people there that have gone to the finest schools in french and are well like -- well educated. that is not iran, that is the nation of iran. cyrus turned that into the nation of around 2000 years ago. they have a three-part government, and just like we do. like the other person was

saying, they've got the house, senate and congress like we do, the only differences they have a premier who says you live or die. trump did the right thing. you have to keep pressure on these people. they all want to wipe out israel. host: thanks for calling. we are running short on time, let's hear from our guests. guest: that is where we are now. the intelligence communities and assets are looking at iran for the move towards a bomb because intelligence communities across the globe do not trust this regime. i would just argue that the biden ministration has leveraged, the regime has weakened, it needs to do more than we do. it will come to that regardless. we will have to take a military strike of some point to go against iran pozner clear program because they are going to move towards it anyway.

they even -- by 2024 because they do not what -- they do not want what happened to happen again, meeting any place -- any deal biden puts in place right now simply goes away with another administration. the biden administration has leverage. we all have concerns about iran moving towards a bomb. we should be able to work together and look at what happens with the timeline within the jcpoa. anything that begins to expire in two years, we can't hope the regime will somehow change its mind and renegotiate a stronger, longer deal when it already has become an economic powerhouse, a conventional military threat with the ballistic missile capability and be able to put a nuclear weapon on top of the ballistic missile in 2030 and be in compliance with jcpoa because jcpoa has died. it has terminated.

host: final thoughts? guest: this is an important few weeks for the u.s. and our partners to get iran back into compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, the u.s. back in compliance. if we don't, we are going to see a more dangerous situation which iran further increases its nuclear capacity. the risk of conflict will grow. we need to get back on a path toward diplomacy on the first step to doing so is to get back to the agreement. we know it has worked. despite misinformation from the critics of the joint conference of plan of action, the 2015 deal rollback iran's nuclear capabilities and it is the foundation for any future negotiation with iran and work by the international community to curtail iran's capabilities. we have heard a lot of criticism

about the jcpoa. the problem with that criticism is that the iranian capability has only grown because the trump administration pulled out. i think we need to recognize that policy was an abject failure. there is no point continuing on that path. we need to get back on a more successful path in the next few weeks. host: our guests have been derek kimball, excessive director of the -- and michael pridgen, senior fellow at the hudson institute. thank you for your time and taking calls from viewers on this important policy. guest: thank you. caller: with -- we thank everyone who called in. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 with another edition of washington journal. coming up next, some portions of the derek chauvin trial. from minnesota. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪

♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide cease and to viewers as a public -- provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> coming up alive on monday on c-span, the house meets for a pro forma session with no legislative is this scheduled. at 1:00 p.m. discussion on supply chain vulnerabilities. at 5:30 p.m. liz cheney talks

about the future of the republican party and the conservative movement at georgetown university's institute of politics. on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m., the trial continues for derek chauvin who is charged in the death of george floyd. at 3:00 p.m. the u.s. senate returns to work on the nomination of the transportation secretary. >> now i look back at the ninth day of the trial for former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin accused in the death of george floyd. the prosecution began questioning of dr. martin towbin, a pulmonary -- martin tobin, a pulmonologist.