schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality because of mediacom, we're built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span as a

public service along with these other providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. han. we will get your confidence level in the attorney general in just a minute but first i want to share with you a bloomberg capitol hill reporter this morning tweeting out that democrats have agreed to a framework on the biden agenda but no final deal yet. also, covering capitol hill for nbc, biden is set to visit at nine a.m. eastern to meet with house democrats and then he will address the nation at 11:30 a.m. from the east room. we are expecting, according to reporting, the president could be announcing a sort of framework on the social spending bill. more to come on that, we will keep you updated as we go along this morning. first, your confidence level.

here is senator tom cotton. [video clip] >> turning to your courageous directive to sick the feds on parents and school boards across the america -- across america. did you consult with senior leadership at the fbi? >> my understanding was the memo or the idea of the memo had been discussed at the fbi before hand. >> did anyone express doubts, disagreements, or hesitation with your decision to issue that memo? >> no one express that to me. >> no one? >> not to me, no. >> a lot of them contacted us and said they did. >> sorry? >> a lot of officials contacted my office to oppose the decision. >> i doubt any of them spoke to me about it. >> alright, alright. judge, you have repeatedly dissemble this morning about that directive.

for instance, about the national security division. chuck grassley asked a simple question, why would you sick that division on parents? john cornyn asked you the same thing and you said it wasn't in the october 4 memorandum. it wasn't another memorandum, it was a press release from your office, right here in front of me, october 24, immediate release, you were going to credit a task force including the national security division. what on earth does national security have to do with parents expressing disagreements at school boards? 3 nothing in -- >> nothing in this memorandum or any memorandum is about parents expressing disagreement with school boards. the memorandum makes it clear that parents are entitled and protected by the first amendment to have vigorous debates. the justice department is not interested in that question. >> the national security

division, these people are supposed to be chasing jihadists and chinese spies. what do they have to do with parents at school boards. >> it's not, again, about parents at school boards. it's about threats of violence. host: the attorney general this morning defends memo on threats to educators. that is the headline on yesterday's hearing and the question by republican senators and it continued with ted cruz of texas. take a listen. [video clip] you based -- >> you based your direction on this letter and i will tell you what, they are selling barest of the letter they have apologized for it and retracted it you don't apparently have the same willingness to apologize and retract what you did. let me ask you something else, a big part of the letter is they are upset about parents not wanting critical race theory

taught. your son-in-law makes a very substantial sum of money from a company involved in the teaching of critical race theory. did you seek a decision from an ethics to -- ethics advisor at the department of justice before you carried out the action that would have a predictable financial benefit to your son-in-law? >> the memorandum is aimed at violence and threats to violence. it has no addict double -- >> you know how to ask questions and answer them. did you seek ethics opinions? >> on something that would have a predictable effect on something? this has no protectable effect in the way you are talking about. >> if critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money? >> this memorandum has nothing to do with critical race theory. >> will you answer if you sought an ethics opinion?

>> this memorandum -- >> did you seek an ethics opinion. >> are you refusing to answer? >> i'm telling you there is no. -- no possible -- >> did you seek an ethics opinion? >> i'm telling you that if i thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest, i would do that. >> why might you just say no? you are not going to answer the question? did you seek an ethics opinion? >> i would seek an ethics opinion. >> so, no is the answer? >> senator, your time is up. >> let the attorney general record reflect that ethics are not a terribly high priority in the biden justice department. >> that is not a fair reflection of what i said. >> senator, you have gone way

beyond any other senator's time. you ought to be at least respectful of other senators at this point. >> mr. chairman, do you know the answer? >> you have exchanged that so many times, we know where we stand. host: the headline from yesterday's hearing, the attorney general before the judiciary committee, garland refuses to rescind memo asking fbi to probe school board threats. john, illinois, democratic caller, what is your confidence level in the attorney general? caller: well, that response didn't bother me much. simply saying no over and over again. but i don't think he's willing, doj doesn't seem to be willing to prosecute the people that incited the riots and insurrection at the capital. every prosecutor in the state would have had all sorts of charges against those people making speeches prior to the

insurrection. they deliberately incited the violence and they did it leading up to january 6. it's not even debatable amongst any criminal defense or prosecutor in the country. they don't seem to be headed in the right direction, charging people with insurrection and sedition, which is right there in title 18. you just need to look it up. it's verbatim insurrection and sedition committed on january the sixth. prior to that, and i don't see any willingness, i don't hear any rumors of anybody being investigated, including trump. no reason you couldn't have gotten trump's phone records. get the opinion of everyone else in the host: he said he can't

say much in that it is an ongoing investigation. caller: we would have heard rumblings from people under investigation saying no, i'm not going to give up my phone records or whatever. an investigation of the people, you know, the people that broke into the capital being charged with simple trespass? you know, they committed assault over and over and over again and it's right there on video. the belief being that the only violation was some sort of misdemeanor trespass? it's astonishing. he's hesitant with what happened to him, he doesn't want to seem political, not prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law he is being political. host: ok, going to sydney,

republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm not sure what that caller is talking about. there is 400 people in jail still being held on trespassing charges. people who were at january 6 that were just not even in the capitol building are being rounded up and losing everything in legal fees. are we really sure with that? it's still ongoing. i'm not sure about that comparison. really, all the democrats have is january 6 to cling to after a year of violence, cities being burned, everybody getting let out of jail with no bond. nobody is being prosecuted. of course they were all wearing masks, we don't know who they are. chest, back to merrick garland, i don't know why he won't rescind his letter when the

teachers did. there are some reports that the biden administration ask them to write that letter. -- asked them to write that letter. there's a lot of stuff going on. a lot of suppression. we have definitely weaponized the doj, the fbi, we are in big trouble in this country. thanks so much. host: more of your calls, coming up. joining us right now is eric watson, bloomberg news. capitol hill reporter. your tweet, democrats agreed a framework for biden agenda according to your sources. what have you learned? guest: looks like the president will be going out at 9 a.m. to the house democratic caucus to talk about a framework. we don't know how fleshed out it is. it sounds broad brushed. we can probably expect some kind of detail on climate being nailed down, but we know from

late last night that many details of the attacks, the provisions, some of which were being rolled out even yesterday morning, like the billionaires tax and the surtax on millionaires, isn't all worked out. the biden administration is preparing this has the president goes to europe later today and in some ways he wants to show some progress and try to nudge the progressives in the house to vote for this infrastructure bill that is being held up as they hope for a deal on this larger social spending bill. host: is that his ask as he goes before the house democrats behind closed doors? "i've got this framework in hand, let's vote on infrastructure"? guest: i don't know exactly what he's going to say but nancy pelosi set a framework deal should be enough to pass the bill and we have been hearing from progressives, the new york

liberals, the head of the congressional caucus, they want to see a final bill before they line up their votes. this might be a tough sell. the moderates and the party are pushing them to do that. also in the gubernatorial elections with terry mcauliffe are in a dead heat. the idea is that biden needs to show deliverables soon to increase confidence and turnout democrats. host: you have president biden heading to the hill at 9 a.m., addressing the country at 11:30 a.m., leaving for rome a little afternoon. what are the moving pieces right here and how quickly does this action take place, if indeed he has a deal? guest: you know, the house is trying to pass this infrastructure bill by october 31. otherwise they have to pass what looks like a six week extension of highway funding.

there's a real deadline to get this done and a concern that if they don't meet the deadline for a deal on everything that they will push for another four weeks and in december we have to deal with the annual government appropriations bill for the debt ceiling and there is a real sense that that could cause a car crash in terms of the agenda , so in the next few days they are trying to seal this deal. host: what has been taken out of the social spending proposal that, that could upset the progressives or the moderates? guest: we were reporting that paid family leave is out of the deal now. some progressives like kiersten gillibrand are trying to get it back in. she just got some compromise proposals. really, it's joe manchin who said that he wants to use the bill to create new programs. he might be open to expanding or bolstering medicaid or the

affordable care act, but as far as creating a family leave program, he's not on board with that. as for now i think that's out of the deal. we already saw years of college drops and a scaling back of the child tax credit from four years to one year. there will be shorter duration for some of the progressives, some have dropped out. democrats want to sell this as a huge transformative package but internally they are still grumbling about the things they could have had but probably won't. host: what about the billionaire tax? in or out? guest: the head of the ways and means committee, take what he says it seriously, he's not on board with it. even though his senate counterpart is looking at it. we reported late last night at bloomberg that kyrsten sinema gave a list of revenue raising ideas to the white house, and one of those was a surtax on

billionaire millionaire income and wyden says that it won't be able to hold assets without claiming income, writing it scot-free it bothers him, but at the same time it's not politically feasible, it's hard to implement how to mark to market and value the assets, as they say. guest: eric -- host: erica, i know you need to get up and cover capitol hill, you are in a hurry, thank you for taking the time to get up and talk to us this morning. appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: back to our conversation with all of you about your confidence in merrick garland as attorney general. johnny, thanks for hanging on the line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning, greta. listening to wasson, that's a whole other subject for us. i could see a little bit more

now why the attorney general wasn't put onto the supreme court. at first i thought it was a lot of politics as far as mcconnell was concerned, but this guy doesn't seem to, he's not in touch with how everyday people, i'm a grandfather, a couple, three granddaughters, three great grandkids that are in school and i could tell you, just in my town alone, if you came and went to the elementary school, and this is not, i'm not lying about this, pictures have been taken. the american flag was taken down and a black lives are flag was put up and that is what our little kids have to see on the board rather than doing what we did with my grandchildren, my

great-grandchildren, pledging allegiance to the american flag, loving the country for what it stands for, with its bad points and good points. that's how we get advanced as a better society. garland is out of touch with that. the memo that was sent out, my kids go to these school board meetings. they have concerns and they should be able to be respected. if i could add one thing, i'm a registered independent. i had been a democrat my whole life. i fought for justice for people in my union for years and when we had the supreme court nomination and our now standing vice president did such a disgraceful job on discrediting

the gentleman who had a family, and because i'm upset his name went through my mind. host: justice kavanaugh. caller: yes, thank you. i wish i was a professional talker, i would have my things all written down. host: it upset you so much that you became independent? caller: the next day, the next day, it hurt me to do it, but i went to city hall and i changed. host: all right, johnny. what is your confidence in the attorney general, chris? caller: zero. we can all thank god in jesus that that man, merrick garland, is not on the supreme court. america, that is why you vote in our republic because we cannot allow individuals like that on

benches as judges or even in places where an individual might be a prosecutor or district attorney. these individuals should not be in power. don't lose your voice inside of these school boards. step up, stick your chest out. use your first amendment rights to ridge rescuer grievances to petition the government, like i'm going to do today here in arizona. i'm going to stand up for the parents and students. education is the key to economic opportunity and the democrats are against the wall. they know the mistake that they made with this crt, the masks and vaccines. so, stand up, speak out, don't be afraid. don't worry about the powers that the department of justice and the fbi. they are going to continue doing what they are doing, following

the american bar association rules. >> ray, what do you say? >> any republican senator has chutzpah to even mention ethics or integrity. they were browbeating merrick garland, who by already -- by all rights should be a supreme court justice. but because of the ethics of mitch mcconnell, he wasn't. that's about all i got to say. the whole circus kind of disgusts me. host: taking a look at another moment from yesterday's hearing, the questioning from sheldon whitehouse on the investigation being conducted by the fbi. [video clip] >> i've been pursuing this since

early days, starting with a letter on january 8 and the resources being deployed into the investigation and whether a task force, prosecution task force was being set up and so forth and another letter from the 24th with regards to domestic extremist violence groups, their potential role. we have learned a little bit more now, learned that there was a lot of money sloshing around in the background behind the january 6 rally and behind the raid, the riot in the capital. for instance, we know that the bradley foundation, a big funder , gave money to turning point usa and to public interest legal foundation. it gets even more interesting, turning point usa has a twin called turning point action. a 501(c)(3) 501(c) four combo that got money from the judicial

crisis network to support the so-called italy gate, the debunked italy gate theory. at the same time, the public interest legal foundation had as a director mr. eatmon with a memo to trump on how to overturn the election. the judicial crisis network is the same thing from a corporate standpoint as something called the honest elections project, bringing a fanciful case in pennsylvania regarding election fraud. and the judicial crisis network also funded the republican attorney general's association in rhode island making robo calls to get people to come to the riot. i don't know what's going on behind all of that, but i'm hoping that the due diligence of the fbi is being deployed not just to the characters who trespassed in the capital that day and who engaged in violent

act's, but that you are taking the look he would properly take it any case involving players behind the scenes, funders of the enterprise, and so forth, in this matter as well, and there has been no decision to say that we are limiting the case to the people who were in the building only that day with no serious look at anybody behind it. >> i'm very limited as to what i can say, i have a criminal investigation going forward. >> please tell me it has not only been constrained to people in the capital. >> it's being conducted by the prosecutors in the field office and the attorney general's office and we have not constrained them in any way. >> great. the old doctrine of follow the money, a well-established principle of prosecution? it's alive and well? >> it's fair to say that all investigative techniques of which you are familiar and some may be that you are not familiar with, because they postdate your

time, are all being pursued in this manner. -- matter. >> thank you, chairman. host: from yesterday's hearing. james, myrtle beach, independent line. what do you think of the job that attorney general merrick garland is doing? >> i personally think that garland is doing a good job. he stood up, he stood his ground yesterday in front of three of the worst republicans that we could ever have in washington, d.c. we all know that ted cruz, tom cotton, they love fox news. they get on there and they talk about things that, that just hurt this country completely. i mean, it, i am so fed up with these three people right here. if donald trump had never won

that first election, this country wouldn't be where it's at. he ruined this country. that's all those three were doing yesterday. they were performing for donald trump because he has brainwashed them and they are so scared of him. three grown men, scared of one man. and the rest of those republicans? why don't they stand up and grow a back loan? all of them flying down to florida, tell him they've had enough, donald trump. no more. and start working for the people of this country. host: janice, your confidence level the attorney general? caller: i don't have any confidence in the biden entire administration. they are all far left, it doesn't even make sense, the things they are doing, taking

away peoples several liberties. the rights. rights we have been born with. it's just outrageous what is going on. from afghanistan to the crt to them going there with the military, trying to turn everybody against everybody based on race. this is just insanity. yet the left and the democrats still want to talk about donald trump. get trump off of your mind. he's not running anything anymore. at the end of the day, i don't see not one democrat go there and put the blame where it belongs. biden is a colossal idiot. i can't even believe that he's still sitting there. why they haven't done the 25th on him. at the end of the day the bottom line is that i'm sick and tired of hearing the democrats always talk about donald trump.

host: all right, leaving it there, let's stick to the attorney general's performance. pat lahey asked the attorney general yesterday about the issue of voting rights. [video clip] >> it's hard to overstate how urgently we must act to protect the constitutional right to vote and there is reason for alarm. many states are rapidly moving to restrict access to the ballot for tens of thousands of americans of all walks of life in the wake of the shelby county decision. the departmental tools to stem the tide of vote -- of voter suppression has been greatly diminished. i know you are doing whatever you can to defend the right to vote. how does congressional inaction in response to these supreme court decisions limit the ability of the department to protect americans and their

constitutional right to vote? >> thank you for the question, senator. the right to vote is a central pillar of our democracy and as i have said many times, it's a central pillar that allows all other rights to proceed from it. the justice department was established in part protect the rights guaranteed under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment to vote. the voting rights act gave us further authority in that respect. we are doing, as you say, everything we can, doubling the size of the voting rights section case, but there are limitations on the authority that the supreme court has imposed. one of which is the elimination of section five of the voting rights act, which provided an opportunity to do preclearance reviews so that we didn't have to review each matter on a one by one basis.

and then the recent, that was shelby county, as you pointed out. in the burn of its case a narrowing of what we regarded as the meaning of section two and our authority under section two. both of those can be fixed by this congress and if it was it would give us considerably greater opportunity and availability to ensure the sacred right to vote. >> didn't the supreme court make it clear that we can fix that, if congress wanted? >> that's correct, the opinions indicated that these were matters that could be fixed by the congress. host: voting rights legislation and executive action by the justice department, a topic of yesterday's hearing with the attorney general. related to this is this headline from "the washington post," wall street journal publishes a letter from trump claiming rigged election. twitter reporting that twitter may be maintaining its ban on donald trump at the former president finding other ways to

get his message out, wall street journal publishing a lengthy letter to the editor from trump charging inaccurately that the letter -- that the election that was won by joe biden rigged, replete with loosely sourced and largely debunked cases of fraud in pennsylvania, a state that biden one by 80,000 votes. they argue that the state wide margin was too fast for a debate over the status of approximately 10,000 mail-in ballots that arrived after the election day deadline to be germane to the outcome. brenda in houston, texas, democratic caller, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. good morning. listen, i'm so confused, i just woke up and had coffee and i heard a couple of your calls and

i just had to call in so prague me if i'm a little groggy, still. host: i'm with you. caller: john of illinois, he might've bee i was not impressed. the democrats seem to be very heavy in brain matter, but they don't have the -- [clearing throat] that i want to see. if they are they are being

suppressed by the old-timers. the biggest problem i see for the democrats is, of course, cinema and manchin -- sinema and manchin. i know i am going to get some criticism for this and i felt this a while. i just saw it a long time ago. schumer is the third problem, because if they have gun-willing person in that senate, the one that looks like mr. magoo, wouldn't be running everything. i am so tired, greta, of these blood-thirsty jackles called the republican party. they are very ambitious. they are very antagonistics. they are the biggest liars i have seen in my life. host: how do you think the attorney general did under that

scrutiny? caller: he looked shaky. he held his ground but he looked a little uneasy but he held his ground. he never folded. and that's good. but i just -- host: ok. terry in boone. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yeah, my confidence level is about a 10. if you give me a minute i'll explain why. host: go ahead. caller: ok. because i'm definitely confident that he's a democratic operative and he's going to do whatever they ask of him. that's totally obvious to america in just what happened to his memo. four days, two days a weekend, the guy -- they sent a letter on a friday, and by tuesday, this man has sent out a memo. now, you're telling me that that just happened out of the goodness of his heart, out of the kindness of his thoughts,

that he's rooking out for -- looking out for everybody and he doesn't want violence to happen to anybody, are you serious? and then the gentleman that called in earlier, i have to rebuttal his statements. he's talking about the january 6 insurrection and all those people and how they're not going to prosecute those people and do this and that to those people. what about all those people, all summer long from black lives matter, antifa that coordinated, that got on their phones and coordinated and got people to come together and riot and burn down businesses, destroying people's lives, killed people, maimed police officers? and you want to talk about january 6 insurrection and how they're not doing enough about it, are you serious? they have people in solitary confinement over walking into the capitol, no more than that. sure, they walked in on a day

when they shouldn't have, but you're going to put them in solitary confinement for that? the people in black lives matter burned stuff to the ground, hurt people, get put in jail and let out the next day and nothing ever happens to them. host: terry in iowa. we'll go to south haven, mississippi, linda, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i was never so disgusted and sick to my stomach listening to merrick garland yesterday. he just absolutely would not tell the truth. he would be asked yes and no questions. he wouldn't give an answer. if someone was in his court throughout his lifetime and did that, he'd probably would have jailed them. i just never seen such

corruption in the democrat government and the republican government. they need term limits for people going for candidates being elected. corruption can stop. host: ok, linda. the attorney general was asked yesterday by senator lindsey graham of south carolina about immigration and a caravan headed towards the southern border. senator graham: do you know about the caravan with thousands of people headed to -- attorney general garland: yes. senator graham: they are headed towards texas. what would you tell those people? attorney general garland: i would tell them not to come. it's the job of the justice department has to do with prosecution and with the way in

which asylum and removal claims are adjudicated. senator graham: so you would tell them not to come? attorney general garland: depends on why they're coming. senator graham: asylum claims, what would you tell them? attorney general garland: the -- senator graham: you are the attorney general of the united states. do you think our asylum laws are being abused? a.g. garland: asylum laws are passed by the congress. senator graham: do you think it's abused? a.g. garland: that's one that has to be -- senator graham: when was the last time you've been to the border? a.g. garland: a week ago, 10 days ago. senator graham: did they tell you about asylum claims being held by people that are economic claims, not asylum claims, did they mention it to you?

a.g. garland: i don't recall exactly. i think it's senator graham: you don't recall being told by the border patrol that they are overwhelmed, they can't hold the line much anymore, that we've had 1.7 million people apprehended, and the big magnet, the pull factor is the way the catch and release program around asylum, that didn't stick out to you? a.g. garland: that was not a discussion i had when i -- senator graham: who did you spoke to? -- speak to? a.g. garland: i was at nogales. it's what they were doing at the border -- senator graham: they never mentioned to you that they got a problem with being overrun by asylum seekers? a.g. garland: i know from reading the news media that border patrol agents feel that way. senator graham: it's not about reading the paper.

you talked to them. a.g. garland: i am not -- senator graham: i am stunned you can't recall that. host: your confidence level in merrick garland as attorney general, that's the conversation with you this morning. lawayne in georgia. caller: i'll get to merrick garland. let me address that guy from arizona. he sounds about the same age i am. he is better to be thought a fool than remove your mouth and relieve all doubt. don't go up there with that crazy talk. discussing the issue that's made up. now, as far as merrick garland goes, i'm upset with him because the minute -- the day after congress voted to hold steve bannon in contempt, he should have had a memo -- he should

have had him in prison. merrick garland is trying to be too nice, as far as i'm concerned. anybody that passed that line, the police line on the capitol should have their name on their chest in prison today. thank you, america. host: betty in blacksburg, south carolina, is a republican. betty, go ahead. it's your turn. caller: yes. i hope you don't hang up on me. yeah, he needs to go. because he's biden's man. and like january 6, donald trump said go peaceful and let your voice be heard. he didn't say go in the capitol. but most them people was -- i'd say nancy had some of their people to come. i don't think -- and as far as

the fraud about election, i think it was a fraud. and another thing, this racist stuff -- and i am not a racist person. the democrats are the ones that keeps doing that. not the republicans. and what you seen with donald trump -- that man -- i don't know if he was from texas or that man from south carolina, and fox news, they show what -- the truth. they don't show -- they show it to you. you see it your own darn two eyes. i don't understand why people don't see that. host: we'll go to freddy, indianapolis. what do you think about the job that merrick garland is doing? caller: i think he should be on the supreme court myself. being attorney general, he's too nice of a guy to be attorney general. but let me speak on this matter.

you know, you have these republicans who think they should be able to go to colleges and get on college campuses and everywhere else and practice and preach hate speech. then, you got republicans who seem to think that c.r.t. is something bad, should not be taught in high school. they want all the right -- have the right to speak but at the same time they don't want to have their children taught black history in our schools. i think they're a little bit hideous myself. how can you talk about you want all this freedom of speech but don't want anyone else to do the speaking? and yet, at the same time -- is it somebody's right to be able to teach black history in american schools? host: freddie in indiana. reed, ocean shores, washington,

republican. reed, we'll go to you next. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. you know, it's an interesting topic. i just called in to make a brief comment about the distinction between what the memo was. i watched the hearing. i work out of my home. and sit there and listen to it on c-span. and it was interesting to note that the memo that was such the rage in the hearing. he spoke of the words -- he spoke of the words harassment and intimidation, but he kept trying to defend the narrative that this was only about violence and, of course, anybody left or right, you know, decent people don't want to see violence against anybody. public sector, private sector. but it wasn't about violence. and he used the words intimidation and harassment. it asks people to consider -- if you're a public worker on a council for education or city

council, however the hearing is being conducted, don't these people sort of look at someone opposing what they're doing as harassment? you see, that's where the rub is. because that's why he was interrogated, if you will, by republicans about the freedom of speech factor. yet, he kept saying over and over again he supports freedom of speech. but you can't have it both ways, i'd say. i don't have confidence in him. one side of his mouth he's saying that the people have the right under the first amendment, which they do, to address the grievances with their government. but if they do, then the council could consider it and the f.b.i. should consider it intimidation and harassment. there's the hypocrisy. i think that needs to be focused on. host: ok. reed, washington state, republican. another moment in the hearing was when the attorney general was asked by republican chuck grassley of iowa about the settled lawsuit with former f.b.i. deputy director andrew

mccabe. take a listen. senator grassley: the nonpartisan justice department inspector general established that andrew mccabe lied under oath to f.b.i. investigators. he lied under oath to the justice department inspector general. it should be noted that mb cake leaked government -- mb kab -- mccabe leaked government documents. under your leadership instead of punishing him, the department reinstated his retirement, expunged his records as part of the settlement. he will reportedly receive $200,000 in retirement back pay and his attorney will reportedly receive $500,000 in legal fees. so it seems to me that's beyond incredible. so general garland, did you authorize the mccabe settlement, and if not, who did?

a.g. garland: it was the recommendation of the career lawyers litigating that case based on their prospects of success in the case. the case did not involve the issues about lying. about lying. it involved the claim that he was not given the amount of time necessary to respond to it was about he was not given time to respond to allegations. litigators concluded they needed to settle the case of the the likelihood of loss on the merits of that claim, the inspector general's report still standards. we have not questioned in any way the inspector general's findings. the reference with respect to false statements was made to the justice department in the previous administration, and declined in the previous administration. the only issue here was an assessment of litigation merits. >> short follow-up. do you agree with the taxpayer, since you didn't, somebody else authorized it, do you agree with the taxpayer picking up a

multimillion dollar bill for someone that lied under oath to government officials? attorney general garland: the assessment made by the litigators the bill to the taxpayers would be higher if we don't resolve the matter as it was resolved. host: tom in battle creek, michigan. a republican. we are asking all of you to tell us what you think of the performance of merrick garland, the attorney general. your turn. go ahead. caller: thank you. i think an attorney general that focuses on local parents planning about curriculum and mass mandates -- mask mandates and local school boards, that hardly merits the attention of the justice department. as such, that kind of focus coming from the attorney general causes me to have very little confidence in the man. there are so many other major problems going on which are far, far more serious than this issue

that our legislators are basically wasting their time covering. violence in chicago and other major cities. the situation on the border. especially in regards to gang activity and drugs. my goodness, a parent is concerned about curriculum? a local school in podunk, iowa? and this guy is sounding alarm bells? this is a perfect example of what a joke our federal government has become. it's really disgraceful that the citizenry of this great country has to endure this garbage. i guess that's all i have to say on the topic. i appreciate the forum this morning. host: bernie in louisville, kentucky. democratic caller. bernie, what do you have to say? caller: good morning. wish someo

me what exactly civil liberties we are losing or that we have lost. i just don't understand it. is it about the mask mandate? it's no shirts, no shoes, no service. it's just good sense. that's all i have to say. >> happening all right. capitol hill today, the president is expected to arrive to talk with democrats on the house side behind closed doors. according to reports, he has a framework in hand that he will try to pitch to the progressive democrats in the hopes for a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal. as the president gets ready to talk to his fellow democrats, he

then will talk to the nation at 11:30 a.m. eastern time and at the same time he is preparing to head out to rome for his international trip to meet with the pope and he will be going to that climate change summit as well. all of that happening on the hill, as well as the ceos of oil -- ceos of oil companies like chevron and british petroleum, as well as chevron, testifying about climate change. we will have coverage of the hearing on c-span3 at 10:30 a.m. eastern time and you can watch online at c-span.org or download our free video app called c-span now. you can get it on any of your mobile devices. mary, let me go to you. waterman, illinois, independent caller, good morning.

caller: hello, discussing merrick garland, i saw parts of his performance. he looked -- he looked old, weak, constantly repeating the same line about what his memo addressed. it wasn't particularly compelling, interesting, or responsive to the question. i have sat on the school boards, the national association of school boards is a lobbying organization that exists to get money out of taxpayers. the educational establishment is lying democrats. it's clear to me that merrick garland is simply protecting and doing the bidding of a very powerful democratic interest group. having sat on a school board, people come in, they make public comments and that's the job of a school board, to hear and listen to them and try to address what they can.

but largely school boards just rubberstamp superintendents anyway. so, i just think that merrick garland demonstrated how weaponized at the doj has become and it is disturbing how much his family and other people in washington make money off of taxpayers. host: all right, mary. it's your turn. democratic caller. caller: three quick points. if c-span would play some of the threats the parents made at the board meetings. they were not in response to someone getting up and making a comment. there were several threats made and there have been plenty of tapes that c-span could play and you can see the school board

members. second thing, i don't recall, did c-span have a segment on the previous president's ag? it's a topic that seems to imply that there was no confidence. third, it seems like a lot of people who were calling in seemed elderly. myself included. i wonder if some of those who hate the biden administration so much, if they get the medicare expansion and the home health care, do they hate him enough that they wouldn't accept those programs that he's working towards? thank you. host: all right. conrad, philadelphia, republican, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. when they christened our community that we had, all this

stuff from republicans in donald trump that they did, all this stuff, january 6 and beyond that, if you tolerated that, all of that nonsense and lies the republican party has been preaching, if the united states can tolerate that, this is chicken feed from the attorney general. all these republicans that didn't open their mouths for four years with donald trump, those pipsqueak's and cowards wouldn't say anything. donald trump that they sold out. it sure is funny, don't he know that the so-called ones he said it's all about that sold him out, how come he's the only one that lost? host: ok, independent line, what do you think of the attorney general? caller: i think he's doing a fine job, but i'm a little surprised on the subject that we are talking about today.

i had decided not to call in but after listening to one guy talking about harassment and intimidation, it doesn't seem like he even understands the difference between the two. so, now it's very clear to me why people are able to behave the way that they behaved during january 6, when they thought they could beat cops and push their way through the senate or the house, just to get away with it, you know? there has to be a difference between harassment and intimidation and expressing yourself. you know? like the other caller said. these people were threatening teachers and school boards, you know? it seems like, and people keep talking about he wasn't interested.

wasn't interested in the entertainment culture for you to see, ted cruz out there just performing for his crowd. this is just shameful. host: all right. sam, fredericksburg, what do you think of the job that merrick garland is doing? caller: so far i think he's doing a nice job. when he's independent, yes, you have to think before you talk. you don't just open your mouth and say whatever you want to say. the gentleman that just got off the phone, i think that what people need to understand is that some of us migrated into this country because the country , this is why some of us are here and we appreciate the opportunity we have.

when people are ok with harassing people, when for some reason it's ok, you don't need the fbi to get involved? >> c-span is your unfilleddered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet. connect to compete program. bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged. cox, bringing us closer. >> corks, supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> live picture here of the u.s. capitol. late on this thursday morning.

house speaker nancy pelosi was scheduled to brief reporters at 10:45 eastern. that has been rescheduled we understand to 2 p.m. eastern. we are also expected to hear from house minority leader kevin mccarthy at some point. he's scheduled for 11:30. you should know that president biden is scheduled to speak from the white house this morning in just a couple minutes. 11:15 eastern. we are planning to bring that to you live when he starts. the president was on capitol hill this morning to speak with democratic lawmakers about the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that passed the senate in august. today, he outlined a framework for a $1.75 trillion budget plan, scaled back from that original proposal, $3.5 trillion. we'll bring you the president's speech from the white house as soon as it gets under way here in a couple minutes. live on c-span. here is president biden from this morning as he left his meeting with house democrats.