>> c-span's washington journal. every day, we are taking your calls live on the air of the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, we will talk about the rising crime and murder rates during the pandemic. with the director of the research and evaluation center at the john jay college of criminal justice. and we will take a look at efforts to develop the next covid vaccine with insider health care reporter andrew. watch washington journal, live at seven eastern monday morning on c-span or on c-span it now, our new mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. discuss u.s./russia tensions over nato. good morning.

first, tell us what is going on right now. what is the latest news between what is happening with ukraine and russia and the negotiations between the russia and the united states? host: first, moscow's build along ukraine's border continues. they are ostentatiously sending equipment from their far east 8000 or nine size -- 9000 miles west at a flotilla of six ships from their balkan fleet heading towards the mediterranean and presumably the black sea. moscow said after the three rounds of talks not this past week with the week before that there was no reason to talk further. then, when engen -- antony blinken went tokyiv and berlin, russia reached out so blinken could meet with his counterpart as they did friday. both sides spoke of the need to

continue talking. so moscow is building up its capacity to launch a maser -- major invasion but also willing to talk. they have flexibility in either direction. host: the new york times had an intriguing story this morning that i want to bring to your to get your reaction to. i will look at a couple paragraphs. the british government said saturday the kremlin was developing plans to install a progression leader in ukraine and had already chosen a potential candidate as president putin waits to order forces to attack. what you think about that story in the new york times this morning? yes: i should've mentioned that as well. -- guest: i should have mentioned that as well. that is the latest development. if moscow decides it will seize ukraine's capital this is something that will naturally follow. the figures that they mentioned

are odious. known to be controlled by the kremlin. other names are equally odious. the only way that could happen is at the tip of russian bayonets. otherwise -- other words, the people of ukraine would not in any way except a russian opposed leader. it would have to be done by force. host: what are you watching right now on the international stage? what are you looking at that says this will tip into war between ukraine and russia or it will be the thing that makes russia perhaps move back and wait? are you watching now? -- what are you watching now? host: there are some who believe that moscow will definitely send those trips to ukraine. i'm not one of them. i think the major factor is vladimir putin's understanding of where western leaders are, especially where joe biden is.

if he is persuaded that the reaction by this promise to russian troops and ukraine, in other words, huge sanctions on russia's economy, a major redeployment of nato forces to the border with russia, as well as additional arms to ukraine, i think that food would back down. putin would also choose not to engage if he sends his military in of the united states and the rest -- the west in diplomatic conversations shows a willingness to make major compromises against our interests. so these are the key factors. if biden can be strong and proactive area and right now, he has -- proactive. and right now, he has been kind of ok but not proactive. if he can show putin that there are costs for provocation, the chance of russia sending troops to ukraine go down. of course, we made a necessary

compromises to contradict our interests. host: what is vladimir putin's objective now in all the things russia is doing with ukraine? is ukraine the objective? are other countries i know europe the objective was to mark -- in europe the a jet if -- the objective? are former soviet union satellite countries the objective? guest: putin's objective is to reestablish russian political and military control over the space of the former soviet union and also reaching out to the warsaw pact space. eastern european nations that in soviet times were under moscow's thumb. the treaty he offered us to sign make that care. he wants the removal of all nato equipment, all nato military forces from territories that used to make up the soviet union including the baltic states. countries that used to make up

the warsaw pact. ukraine is the focus of this fight. if putin wins in ukraine you can be sure he will go on to provocations against balkan nato allies and perhaps also against nato allies that used to be part of the warsaw pact like poland in particular and romania. so there are a few stakes at play. america has a great interest in ensuring who tends defeat in ukraine. let's keep in mind that putin has been conducting this war since 2014. the reason why he is threatening a major conventional offensive against ukraine is because the war in ukraine's east is a failure for him and he has not persuaded ukraine to change its western oriented foreign policy. host: our viewers can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. democrats, your number will be 202-748-8000 .

republicans, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8001. independents, your line is 202-748-8002. you can always text us a question or comment to 202-748-8003 . and, we are always reading on social media on twitter at c-spanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. john, remind our viewers what this entire dispute is all about. what is russia demanding? what has been the u.s. and nato response? guest: russia is demanding that ukraine essentially change its national security policy. ukraine understands that moscow wants to control the country. therefore, it is seeking to become a member of both nato and eu. -- the eu. if moscow's policy had not been

uniformly aggressive over the past 20 to 30 years this would not be an issue. but moscow's policy has been so aggressive that traditionally neutral countries like sweden and finland are also thinking about joining nato because they see moscow as a danger. moscow's demands also include that nato cannot enlarge to include ukraine and georgia on the one side or sweden and finland on the other. so it is putin's aggressive foreign-policy that created the crisis. host: -- putin launched a war in georgia and paid almost no price. he seized crimea and paid almost no price. his war in eastern ukraine he is paying a price in the form of serious sanctions and therefore he wants to enhance his aggression. because, the war he is conducting now is failing. if he cannot achieve his goals by aggression, he wants to intimidate the west, the united

states in particular, the ukraine as well, into making concessions that give him what he wants. but, in the negotiations that took place two weeks ago and this past friday, he did not achieve those objectives. but he wants to continue talking because he is afraid of the threats coming from washington. that if he sends those troops into ukraine we will issue punishing sanctions and enhance nato forces along russia's border. he does not want either of those things to happen. host: why should americans care about what is happening in ukraine? the war in afghanistan just ended. why should we care about another war going on in europe and outside of russia? guest: u.s. policy in the middle east over the past 20 years was a great failure. our reluctance and refusal to acknowledge that failure is one reason why americans do not trust foreign policy leaders. those were serious mistakes.

but that is a different conversation. we have a great interest in ensuring that putin fails in ukraine. putin's objectives in europe go beyond ukraine. they want to weaken nato. they want to weaken the eu. and they want to weaken the united states. that is why we saw numerous cyber attacks from russia over the past year to which the administration response was rather weak. if putin succeeds in ukraine we have to worry about our baltic nato allies. the smart place is to provide all the assistance ukraine needs to survive the russia attack and to make it clear to putin that if he sends forces into ukraine the sanctions coming down on russia and we will greatly enhance nato forces on russia's border. but the administration needs to be stronger on the policy. they should be moving the forces to the east of nato right now. they should make it crystal

clear, not just a russia, but also to the weak willed in europe, that if russia sends those troops in major sanctions are coming including if in fact russia seizes the capital of ukraine. host: there is a story in nbc news that talks about the first american shipment of lethal aid to ukraine. i want to read a couple paragraphs of the story and get your comment on whether you think this is a good idea or not. this is from nbc news.com. the first american shipment of lethal aid to ukraine has touched down in kyiv, less than 24 hours after anthony blinken met with his russian counterpart. the shipment demonstrates u.s. commitment to helping ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of growing russian aggression. the ms he said in a tweet that the shipment included close to 2000 pounds of lethal aid including ammunition for the frontline defenders of the

ukraine. washington approved a $200 million package of additional military assistance to ukraine in december. john, do you think that she met a lethal aid to ukraine is a good or bad idea -- shipment of lethal aid to ukraine is a good or bad idea? guest: it is a very good idea. finally, the a ministration to necessary action. but the ministration -- administration needs to do more. for some reason the administration is reluctant to send missiles that kill russian troops. they should be sending duster ukraine now. -- to ukraine now. the administration has been reluctant to send more efficient antiaircraft ukraine. they should be sending that too. we want peter to see that haley's sins -- putin to see that if he sends those troops in there will be serious casualties. those weapons will be a sign of american determination and we need to demonstrate american determination if we want putin to back down.

host: let's let viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with andrew calling from danbury, connecticut on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for letting me on your show. my question is, this kind of piggybacks what we were just talking about. what does ukraine produce or export that justifies the u.s. protecting ukraine against russian encouragements -- encouragements? guest: ukraine is a country of people very savvy in high-tech and internet. it has wonderful military that we use in operations in the middle east. you need to understand that tens foreign-policy is aggressive. -- putin's foreign policy is aggressive. his current focus is on ukraine

but he wants to roll back the security arrangements in europe that guarantee 30 years of peace. that has provided huge prosperity. putin is not hitler's. , but, putin's foreign policy is dangerous to american interests. in 1938 chamberlain, prime minister of britain said what does checklist of aki a matter to the u.k.? he found out when german troops went to france. host: one of our online followers has a similar question about what russia wants with ukraine. can the gentleman comment on whether to tens endgame -- putin's endgame is to capture ukraine's natural resources to bolster the economy?

guest: putin would certainly like the economic bounty ukraine has to offer but putin's objective is geopolitical. he wants to make sure that ukraine remains under moscow's thumb tip or two -- pursue his next steps, putting pressure on the balkan states and other american allies. we do not have to do much to help defeat putin in ukraine. we have to put sanctions on moscow and send military equipment to ukraine and strengthen nato forces. it is better doing that then having to defend baltic allies and american troops after putin takes ukraine. let's be putin now. he is coming -- beat now. he is coming for us after that. host: president joe biden had to clarify a statement he made that the u.s. will not accept a minor incursion of russia into the ukraine.

here is what president biden said. >> i want to be absolutely clear with president putin so he has no misunderstanding. if any, any assembled russian units move across the ukrainian border that is an invasion. it will be met with severe and coordinated economic response. i discussed it with our allies and laid it out clearly for putin. let there be no doubt at all that if putin makes this choice russia will pay a heavy price. it is also not the only scenario we need to be prepared for. russia has a long history of using measures over than overt military action to carry out aggression. paramilitary tactics, so-called brazen attacks, and action -- gray zone attacks and actions by russian soldiers not wearing uniforms, this includes little

green men in uniforms as well as cyber attacks. we have to be decisive with a range of tools at our disposal. the ukrainian foreign minister said this morning that he is confident of our support and resolve and he has a right to be. host: react to what president biden said. are we sending the right message to russia now? call -- guest: he misspoke during his press conference, but, i believe our response needs to be stronger than at the present time. finally, in the last week or so we decided to send the additional military assistance to ukraine before invasion. that was a good step. but we need to send more military equipment. we need to also demonstrate

clear leadership with nato and begin the process of moving nato forces to the east. then we can tell moscow that those forces can be moved back after moscow removed its forces from ukraine's border. finally8, -- finally, we need to demonstrate clearly in the economic round what will happen with sanctions. the biden administration has been very weak dealing with germany on the nord stream 2 pipeline between russia and germany. the administration should state publicly that if russia sends any of those troops into ukraine , if germany does not stop the nord stream 2 pipeline from going to operation, the administration will. that is and i'm very -- that is a very important signal and in the past we have salad -- said the wrong thing but he said the right one now. host: on the independent line,

good morning. caller: we will probably have a disagreement on this. i know you said you welcomed lethal aid being sent to ukraine. but, you talked about russian history. go back to those ours -- the czars of the russian empire. they have always had exercise on the borders of the countries around them for geopolitical reasons. the concern i have is that nato has an open border policy and that could be perceived as a threat. now, i know putin is not a democratic leader by no stretch of the imagination. he is very undemocratic. but we have made deals with undemocratic leaders over the years to avoid conflict. i do not believe that certain actions we have taken lightly have really worked towards stability there. i do not see one -- want to see the ukraine invaded either because i believe in self-determination like you do.

we have had a history of that. but we need to do something, if we can, to avoid a potential conflict over the ukraine. i want you to respond to that comment. guest: vladimir putin's objectives are not limited to ukraine. not at all. he conducted, again, many cyber attacks against the u.s. over the past year. demonstrating his hostile intent to the u.s.. you are right that at least for the last several hundred years, moscow has controlled much of what is today ukraine. over the last 75 years, between 1945 and 1990, they controlled all of eastern europe. putin's objective is to reestablish that control now. why would we want to give a hostile power, and, putin is hostile towards the u.s.. he has said it regularly over

the past 17 or 18 years. while what he want to see to that power --cede to that power control over not just ukraine but eastern europe? you talk about nato getting larger. that was not because the united states asked for it. that was not because nato asked for it. it is because of the countries of eastern europe, of the former soviet union, recognizing moscow's aggressive intent, asked to become members. this was all driven by their very rational fear of russian mansion. -- expansion. we do not have a geopolitical interest in making it easier for moscow to conquer its neighbors. we have a geopolitical interest in making sure those neighbors are strong pursuing their own policies. you say you want -- stand for independence and sovereignty so i think you should be sen. sasse: to ukraine as it deals --

you should be sympathetic to ukraine as it deals with aggression and a potential military invasion from moscow. host: what would an invasion or incursion from russia look like? the bbc has a chart showing the differences between the military in ukraine and the military in russia. russia by far has more troops and more equipment than ukraine. so what would an invasion or incursion by russia into ukraine actually look like? guest: russia has the second or the third most powerful military force in the world. we are easily the strongest, far stronger than russia and for that matter than china. but russia has a very strong military and ukraine has a reasonable military for country that has 40 million as opposed to 150 million. well, moscow has it the military ability to seize any point in

ukraine it wants. it will pay a serious price and terms of ukrainian resistance but it would win. but putin is worried about not just in his abilities to take assets, to take land in ukraine. it is the possible american-led western response. the unfortunate biden press conference highlighted the problem. we are pretty strong in terms of our determination to impose sanctions on moscow. some allies in europe however are rather weak. putin, they figure, if he launches a limited military strike, for example, if he seizes a town in ukraine's east where there is fighting now, if he seizes snake island in the black sea, he might reason that everyone will be so relieved that they will say, let's not sanction moscow. that is a real danger.

that can be averted with a american leadership. the point is that putin can send troop into the capital. and that article mentioned installing a puppet government. they can seize a large swath of land on the territories of eastern ukraine that they already occupy all the way to odessa and the crimea to establish a land border from russia into crimea. that would make the cost of their occupation of crimea much smaller. or, they could seize the second largest city in ukraine, only 50 or so miles from the border with russia. there are any a number -- any number of things they can do. put in will want to demonstrate why military action, if he chooses military action, that he can cause great pain in ukraine and forced ukraine to change its national security policy. he has the military ability to do that.

host: let's talk to harriet calling from saint augustine, florida on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i so appreciate, sir, your ability at reading really good from your prepared notes this morning. you sound to go back to sleep or possibly take some ivermectin for that cough area >> i am speaking extemporaneously. -- cough. guest: i am speaking extemporaneously. host: let's go to don calling from salinas, california on the republican line. caller: what i am not seeing is much honesty to the american people about what is really going on in ukraine. then he put a little bit out there. number one, ukraine is a

splintered, balkanized country. number two, it has a highly corrupt government and putin feels that all he has to do is do a march around the outside of ukraine and put on the pressure and it will collapse in on itself and he can walk in without firing a shot and that is pretty much what he is doing. as far as our great allies in europe, europe will not publicly say it will cancel the pipeline from russia over ukraine. france wants unilateral talks with russia over ukraine. we are fools. the ambassador is sitting there telling these lies to america about ukraine wanting to be a democratic country. look a little bit at the history of ukraine. their government has a temple to machiavelli somewhere. that is a corrupt, lying, stinking country. and us defending it, we are

getting into a real quagmire. host: respond, john. guest: i think the disinformation was coming not from me but from the gentleman who just spoke. first, ukraine is not balkanized. it is true that there are different ethnic groups in ukraine although a majority of ukrainian -- are ukrainian. even ethnic russians in ukraine, especially in the east, were involved in fighting the kremlin aggression going on now. it is true that ukraine is a democracy and has been a democracy for at least 20 years. i agree with the caller that ukraine has a corruption problem. but, no greater corruption in ukraine than in russia. again, we have a great interest in make sure -- making sure this country can defend itself from kremlin aggression. i do not understand why that caller chooses to defend

moscow's aggression in ukraine. host: john, we have heard references to it. i want you to explain more about the importance of the north stream gas pipeline in what is going on with ukraine and russia. we have a couple internet followers who have questions about it. the first person wants to know, is russia literally negotiating with the individual european countries while it is negotiating with the u.s.? the second internet follower wants to say, nord stream 2 has always been about russia. it cuts out the ukraine and many other eastern european countries from being transit points for existing gas supplies. it saves the russian money -- russians money and makes their gas lever larger. what does the north stream gas pipeline that goes guest: nordstream 2 is a geopolitical project designed to enhance rush be ya's influence

in europe. one, it is a blow against not just ukraine but poland and for that matter belarus because as there are currently gas pipelines that run be through ukraine and poland to western be europe, and be with nordstream 2 in operation, russia can use nordstream 2 and nordstream 1 and not use the other pipelines. so it's a blow against the countries of eastern europe. but even more insidiously it inbe hanses -- enhances the response in germany. their response to ukraine was not too bad under merkel because she led the fight within europe and put sanctions on russia for its aggression in ukraine. but germany has been weak especially in the current crisis, and that reflects

russian be influence within germany and nordstream 2 only inbe hanses that influence. the biden administration has made a serious mistake with nordstream 2. they've accommodated germany and they have let germany dictate our policy. congress was on the verge of putting sanctions on the pipeline which would have stopped it and the biden administration waived those sanctions. the biden administration claims it's against nordstream 2 but that's more for show. everything they've done has made it possible for nordstream 2 to go into operation. that cuts against american interests if we don't want moscow's influence to increase in germany and to be able to use the pipeline against countries in europe it doesn't like such as poland and so on. host: let's talk to eric calling from south carolina on the independent line. eric, good morning.

caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: let me preface my remarks by saying i am as patriotic and american and the one person i have been listening to on this issue is the late husband of your next guest who i believe is the only russian scholar in this country that has presented a fair and objective view on these issues. i wish he were still around to talk more about this. i look be at the last 30 years and i don't see putin as the aggressor. i see him reacting to some very dangerous american provocations along the way. so let me give you two examples. number one, this whole issue of crimea. we have heard from the mainstream media over and over again russian aggression, russian aggression. in 2014, there was a deal reached after the cold war, there was a naval base where the

russian black sea naval fleet was based. they were leasing that base from the use rainians. -- ukranians. it was the national endowment of democracy, an extension of the c.i.a., which organized a coup in ukraine. they were caught talking about it on the phone, all right, and there was a coup organized and a democratically elected person was overthrown and a pro-american regime was installed there. it seems to me the objective there was to take away that naval base, which is the russians' only strategic court that they were leasing. if you can have a country organizing a coup and the national security of russia is at stake without that naval base, that is a pretty dangerous provocation and it seems to me putin had to take crimea for that reason. secondly, you didn't mention the

treaty that we unilaterally withdraw drew from in -- withdrew from in 2002. we put missile defense in romania. that is as provocative an action to destabilize nuclear parity. it gives us the ability to shoot down their neuk be leer missilen case there was a crisis. we were trying to gain nuclear superiority over them. that is highly provocative, sir. host: go ahead and respond, john. guest: ok. first i think you need to study up on ukraine. what happened with mr. yanokovich is that he rejected under massive russian be pressure a free trade agreement he had been negotiated with the european union. that led to demonstrations, tens of thousands of demonstration

-- be demonstrators in the streets of kiev in 2013. he cracked down on those demonstrations with force because he was an authoritarian by nature. as a result he had demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of ukraine. he then either permitted or ordered the use of snipers to fire on those demonstrators in february, at which point the ukrainian people said this man must go and which i understand. a quote-unquote western regime was not installed in ukraine. they rejected an authoritarian be leader who was using military force to kill innocent demonstrators. that's what happened in ukraine. the then assistant secretary of state offered her views regarding how the opposition might organize itself. if you go back and look at what she said and if you look at how

the opposition wound up organizing itself, you realize that what she said did not pan out. she also distributed cookies to demonstrators. that was about as nefarious as the american activities got. as for your position regarding the a.b.m. treaty, it's important to note that putin did not object to our ending the a.b.m. treaty. it's also true that the russians violated the a.b.m. treaty, the open skies agreement, the intermediate nuclear forces agreement, many things and i hope as an american patriot you understand that. so bottom line, the russians are conducting a war of aggression against ukraine because they don't like the political choices of the ukrainian people. as for crimea, they signed an agreement in 2010. that agreement was enforced when moscow seized prima.

those russian forces will remain there and so almost nothing you said has a basis in fact. as a -- it has a basis in myth and that's probably the best way to try and justify policies that justify, encourage russian aggression. aggression which is against american be interests, strong american interests. host: jeff says this is an ongoing news topic. there is news that is happening even as we speak. the hill newspaper has it from -- has a story in it that it just published with russia saying that the claim from britain that it's looking to replace ukraine government officials with pro-russian officials is misinformation. russia is dismigging a british claim that moscow is looking to replace the government with pro-russian officials calling the suggestion misinformation.

the disinformation spread by the british foreign office is more evidence that it is the nato country led by the anglo-saxons who are escalating tensions around ukraine. russia the -- the russian foreign ministry spokeman said sunday, according to the associated press, we call on the british foreign office to stop provocative activities, stop spreading nonsense, she added. what should we take of that rejection from this story from britain saying that russia is trying to replace ukrainian officials with pro-moscow officials? guest: look, i think that report was plausible. if moscow decides to seize the capital of ukraine, they will certainly have some puppets on hand who will then be presented as new leaders of the country. now, regarding her denial of the story, it's worth remembering that the russians claimed that those little green men who took

crimea in february of 2014 were not their soldiers until putin in ap speech bragged that in fact they were russian soldiers. that's how reliable the russian official statements are. host: let's talk to tim who is calling from arkansas be on the democrat line. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. what are the chances that america and russia, china, the flash points, we bumble our way into world war iii? guest: ok, i think there is almost no chance of an american-russian military conflict over ukraine. again we are not talking about sending american troops there. we are talking about a whole variety of measures to make it extremely painful if putin

enhances the current aggression in ukraine. a lot of people say we should allow putin to conduct aggression in order to avoid a nuclear war with russia. it's worth remembering that the united states was going toe to toe with the soviet union for 45 years after world war ii and be the soviet union was much more powerful than russia is now. we were able to defend our interests, whether it was in cuba, in berlin, elsewhere despite that fact. so as long as we are strong, as long as our policies are clear, rush be ya has to be very -- russia has to be very careful because we are powerful. we have a real economy. not like russia who is not quite developed. host: let's talk to mike on the republican line. mike, good morning.

caller: good morning. good morning, ambassador. about the only area i really agree with you -- i think your assessment of the biden administration is spot on. i really don't think that anything that they've done, especially the withdrawal from afghanistan, has sent signals of competence and deterrence and so on and so forth. that spreads throughout the middle east. we all know putin is watching. you've obviously got a much more in depth in the weeds knowledge of all this having been an ambassador there, so i can't really challenge anything that -- all i can say is that, you know, the statement that you just made really caught me and be -- about our defense be of democracy in western be europe. i am hundred be guerin by descent. eisenhower allowed them to waltz

into budapest and crush the invasion in 56. we didn't do shit. l.b. swrvment allowed the tanks to roll into czechoslovakia. we didn't do anything. we have a history of when it's not tenable be when we don't really have a strong be position to defend, we will let dictators and petty tyrants waltz all over the planet if there is really not a tenable position that we can hold. host: go ahead and respond quickly to him, john. guest: i think you are right. i don't think we had much of a choice in hung beery in 1956 or czechoslovakia. but we have choices now. all those countries that were under soviet thumb are now free. putin wants to change that. his current operation to make that happen is in ukraine. so we have the power. we do have the power without

sending american forces to shoot russians. to stop putin in ukraine. let's do it. we do that not only do we help save ukraine but we help save all the countries that you are associated with, now the czech republic, slovakia, now hungary. this is the smart play for us and it's not a very expensive for us. we should do it. host: we are going to stop there. we want to thank john herbst, senior director for the atlantic council and be the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine for being with us this morning and talking over the russian tensions with ukraine and the united states and nato. john, thank you so much for taking time out to talk with us this

>> since a day in 20, geithner has been known as the history guy. he has produced hundreds of 10-15 minute short documentaries on history and his home studio. he's surrounded by hundreds of artifacts including military hats, and lance geiger is always dressed in his trademark dark suit, dark rimmed glasses and a bow tie. >> lance geiger, the history guy, in this episode of book notes plus. available on the c-span now apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast,

presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. here about the 19 64 presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want to report of the number of people that signed with kennedy, i want it right quick. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. >> presidential recordings.

wherever you get your podcasts. >> treasury secretary janet yellen spoke about the u.s. economy and supply chain issues caused by the covid-19 pandemic at the world economic forum. klaus: we all know you are one of the most prominent and respected economists of your generation, but i learned and i should remind the audience, you are the first person actually to have led the council of economic advisors, the federal reserve, and now the treasury department. so if anyone is prepared for the task at hand, and what a difficult task, it is you, madam secretary. we are delighted that you can join us despite your hea