>> c-span's washington journal. everyday we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day, and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, our guest from the quincy institute for responsible statecraft, discusses the potentials of nuclear conflict in russia's invasion of ukraine. and we look at the bedded administrations management of the pandemic with a former health and human services official during the trump administration. watch live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning on c-span, or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with our phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets, and text messages. this week on the c-span network, both the house and senate are in washington, d.c. to work on passing a bill to fund the government before friday's midnight deadline to avert a shutdown. the senate also plans to vote on the house-passed postal service

reform bill. on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, directors of the top u.s. intelligence agencies testify before a house intelligence committee on security threats facing the united states at a analyze. then at 3:00 p.m. on c-span3, the senate foreign relations committee discusses the invasion of ukraine, and the u.s. and international response. on thursday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span, testimony continues as the heads of the intelligence committee neat about global and national security threats. watch this week live on the c-span networks, or on c-span now, our mobile video app. also had to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand,

anytime. your unfiltered view of government. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to washington journal. the russian invasion of ukraine is continuing with the countries attempting to come to a cease-fire to allow the evacuation of ukrainian citizens and allow some humanitarian aid. one point 5 million refugees have crossed into neighboring countries from ukraine, the greatest european exodus since world war ii. sanctions are intensified on russia. vladimir putin begins to crack down on his own people through media and online. our question for you this morning, what do you think about what's going on with the russian invasion of ukraine? we will open up our regular

lines. that means democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media. you can always follow us on instagram at c-span. this is the top story in the world right now. let's see some of the things happening over the last day or so. that's go to a story in politico this morning that talks about the ukrainian president talking to the u.s. congress. i've read a few paragraphs from that story to you.

once again it, that is coming

out of politico. get more information about what's going on in ukraine, we will go to a national security reporter with politico. good morning. first of all, bring us up-to-date with what's going on right now on the front lines in ukraine. guest: the main thing it to know is the russian forces are still struggling to get into key, their top objective. they've been fighting to the north of the city, still unable to make much progress. that 40 mile long convoy we've heard about, that is barely making moves because of broken down vehicles, because of low morale, a lack of rations. troops are struggling to get to where they need to go. there is different story in the

south for the russians are making a lot of gains and continue to take different parts of ukraine. this dispute about whether they've taken a city, it's undeniable that the troops are there. they are using it as a resupply point. they might not have captured the city. we have a tale of two battles. at the top, it is slow by the russians to take the capital. in the south, a lot more success. host: if we looked at a map of ukraine it, how much is russia controlling right now? where do they seem to be headed? do they want to take the entire country? do they just want the capital? what do we know about their intentions right now? guest: it's hard to know in terms of territory taken. the map shows a lot of red. it's misleading because it's not

like they control all of that area. they mostly control roads and service points. it's more like what three ways are they in control. that's a decent amount. as of yet, no real confirmation of taking over a city. in terms of what their goals are, it really does seem like a full out assault. clearly, they want to topple the government. key is a number one objective. -- kyiv is the number one objective. they want further control of crimea, land bridges to moldova and the southern and eastern parts. how much control does russia have in western ukraine, which is pretty progress turn --

pro-western. there is no real infantry attempt to take over. host: as politico reported, there was a conversation between the ukrainian president and congress yesterday. do we see any shifting of what the united states plans to do to help ukraine hold off the russians? is there an offramp in the planet for the united states for what's going on between russia and ukraine? guest: shifting it, maybe. we see strong support for this russia oil band. the white house is not super supportive. the press secretary said we are in touch with members of congress. the main reason that the buy demonstration is worried about rising gas prices and hurting

the driver. they don't want to see prices rise too much and cause more economic pain. one thing that seems to have shifted his there is broader support in congress to send eastern european countries send their planes to ukraine have the u.s. backfill those with her own warplanes. we reported last night about a three-way deal the white house is considering with poland. the u.s. would back them. that is where we see things change on the ground. in terms of offramp's, we don't really see any. that's what is disconcerting to people. it is still early days. we are about one week into this. russia has no signs of wanting to scale down the operation.

it seems like the only potential offramp to give is if somehow they make a deal diplomatically. nothing has come from that to date. host: you mentioned the lack of interest and hurting american drivers through rising gas prices, is there appetite, is there interest to put direct sanctions on russian energy? >> it does seem that way. there is a bill that would do that. it's unclear if chuck schumer would support it. he does want to see that. he would be shocked if there weren't at least 60 senators who would support such legislation.

a bill to ban russian oil imports. i think it's a bipartisan issue. congress would be in support. the question is with chuck schumer, would he put it on the floor? he is likely to do that. host: the recently -- u.s. canceled and intercontinental ballistic missile test. will there be more tests like that canceled? guest: we should remember that the u.s. did this shortly before president biden and vladimir putin met for their first summit in geneva last year. there was a planned test. the pentagon was wanting to do it a week or so before that

meeting. the white house said cancel the test. they don't want to give the wrong signal before those two presidents met. this is a pattern, it's -- if we are talking about offramp's, there is a small offramp to say were not going to do this. we would like to keep tensions down. we would like to make it seem we are not going to war or moving militarily. i would expect the other planned test will also be canceled or delayed or not announced. that is something the administration is also doing. we are providing weapons to review crane. we are not announcing it that much. everyone is hush-hush about ascending stingers. host: what you be looking for

when you look at news with russia and ukraine. guest: i would keep looking at ukraine south for good reason. a lot of focuses on key of and the russian advance there. it's the tale of two battles. i would see how much progress they make in the south and eastern parts. they continue to make a lot of gains. if they make more gains, they will push upward or take more territory which would make it harder for ukraine and russia to make a deal seen as ukraine would not want to negotiate its territory away. where is congress on all this? it looks like they will push for an oil band, for the u.s. to send more advanced fighter jets to eastern european allies.

it looks like we are going to get these piecemeal deals, where poland sends its planes to ukraine and we will give planes to poland. is there any sign at all of the escalation? we really see none. host: are you hearing any whisper of sending american soldiers in the conflict? guest: not remotely. that is not a thing that's on the table at all. president biden took that off the table early. the white house says they will not do so. they will not put troops in ukraine. this is not something that nato as a unit wants to do. what they have said and they demarcated a line. they have told russia that if

you try to take nato territory, poland or romania, they will defend every inch of nato territory. we will help ukraine as much as possible. we will help them stop the russians, but contained in ukraine. if russia would spread its attack to nato, they will fight russia there. if anyone is worried as of this moment about joe biden or nato at all sending troops into ukraine, that is nowhere near the table at the moment. it's very unlikely in the near future. host: we would like to think alexander ward from politico for coming on with us this morning and bring us up-to-date on the border crisis. thank you so much for your time

this morning. we want to know what you think about the russian invasion of ukraine. let's go to our phone lines and start with marvin from pennsylvania on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i disagree with them saying they wouldn't go into poland. i think he will go into poland. giving airplanes would start a nuclear war. i think they have to hold out and fight as long as they can so the sanctions can work. he went into a country that didn't want to fight. he declared war on them. he should be the one that finds a way out of this. and make some reason to get out of it.

host: joseph is calling from boston on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. my idea is growing up in the countryside, let sleeping dogs lie. i voted for president trump for this specific reason. he would try to bring peace to the world. he is speaking to turkey. turkey is a member of nato. he was speaking to north korea. i joined the marine corps with the intention of fighting russia

in 1984. we are back to where we began. we used to have nuclear fallout drills. the idea was the russians are coming. sleeping bear got up early and its aggravated vladimir putin has been planning this for a long time. host: tyrone is calling from new york city. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we need to pay attention to the fact that we are not going to go over there and kill vladimir putin. i think that would be completely irresponsible of lindsey graham to say 70 should take him out.

this war is not going to be over overnight. it's going to take time. it's going to take some time. i understand some of what russia's stances. i think it's wrong for them to invade another country to protect their sovereignty. i don't think anybody was going to attack russia. they feel like they're getting squeezed by nato. all of these other countries are talking about joining nato. we've got a rough row ahead of us. i hope they don't put up the no-fly zone. it's going to put up more problems for americans. people are talking about stopping taking oil from russia. when they are calling to stop the oil and they shoot up more, don't start crying about it cost

too much money. we do have the money to pay for the oil because we stopped taking oil from russia. remember, jimmy carter was trying to get us off oil. ronald reagan came in and tore off the solar panels from the white house roof and then drill baby drill. we have gotten worse. our earth has gotten a lot worse. host: steve is calling from ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: first time it caller here. my comments are on a number of points.

historically, there is a precedent for the american revolution, how successful would our fed have been if we didn't have help from other countries, especially france. go back to the 1990's with our involvement in the middle east and with different alliances we relied on, getting those other countries together so we could go in and basically -- noah knew what resistance would happen there. we thought we would be in a war. our forces were successful. we fast-forward to this situation where we have another dictator forcing his will on a sovereign nation. we have to decide as a country what our will is to respond to this. it's similar to the 1940's with

hitler's. what if with all the media attention we have to this now, back in the 40's the attention to what was going on then with the elimination of the jewish people, what if we saw that happening rather than it being more behind the scenes of the time. what with the willpower of the world have been to prevent this in an earlier stage? could we be in that same situation? we may want to stay out of the war and not commit troops. at some point, we have to have an indication that we rely on being reactionary or being proactive to promote democracy in ukraine. it's a will of powers. what can we do? it's important that diplomacy,

talk is cheap. talk is the most important thing with diplomacy. we need to find a way to bring vladimir putin to the table, where it's in his best interest to talk. host: sam is calling from arkansas. sam, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. thank you. i do think there is a lot of propaganda and conditioning going on. our government and the media wants everybody to think this is all on russia. i really do think we have a lot of responsibility in this. ukraine is not a nato country. they promised no nato expansion.

it has expanded under 14 countries, including latvia, lithuania, and estonia. nato says they are not an offensive organization. in the 90's, they attacked the former yugoslavia. when yugoslavia broke apart, all of those nations except serbia are part of the european union. two of those republics are part of nato. we claimed this is an illegal thing by the russians. we leave out that we went into iraq. iraq was a sovereign country. why is it that our country is now centering russian new

organizations like rt? if we are writing all this, what is the harm of hearing from the russian side of things? host: let's go to lawrence calling from washington dc. good morning. caller: good morning two. i have an interesting perspective. i came here in the mid 50's as a refugee from germany. my mother was born in latvia. i'm just looking at the hypocrisy of what's going on here in so many ways. sam made some good points about how nato is expanding and i can't believe some of the propaganda. sam pointed out how nato wasn't

supposed to expand. every treaty the ned states has made has been broken. he brings up iraq. i could speak about libya, how we invaded it. we don't hear anything about all of the intrusions into the southern hemisphere, africa, central america. i really feel sorry for anybody who is being invaded and the refugee crisis. i came here as a refugee. i found out a few years ago that my maternal grandfather was a latvian equivalent of then ss soldier. we came here to america. my mom had to deny my existence because i am a brown baby.

look what's happening in palestine. i'm not anti-semitic or jewish. palestinians are somatic as well. it's just the hypocrisy of it. host: the wall street journal has a map on the front page of its website showing the exodus from ukraine going to neighboring countries. 550,000 headed to poland, 133,002 hungary, romania 50,000. some are heading into russia. many people are calling this one of the greatest european exodus is since world war ii. some people are warning about a humanitarian crisis happening in europe right now.

samantha power last week talked about this, her recent visit to ukraine and the deepening humanitarian crisis happening right now. this is what she had to say. >> what i will say, 360,000 was the figure three days ago. that gives you a sense of the scale and it's accelerating every day. if some of the towns the russians are beseeching, if people can be -- you can imagine those numbers are going to go up even more. what i will say is to commend the neighboring states other than belarus for opening their borders and welcoming people

with these great needs. there are very few questions, people's names are taken and they are registered. even mulled over which did not expect to be a major source of refugees, they've already taken more than 100000 and they have expected them to move on to germany or elsewhere in europe. half the people are choosing to stay in mulled over. we are hoping this will end and by staying close, they can go back to their homes. nobody wants to leave their homes. there have been and students where third country nationals have been pushed to the back of the line. it's important that the polish government has come out.

there's a much more orderly process now and hopefully we will see no more of those incidents. any incidents is terrible and something to record. we also see the russian federation disinformation machine make it seem like this is a very widespread phenomenon. this indicates the nazi-ism of the government and so forth. from the minute we heard those reports, the response was instant in terms of getting instructions out to border guards and getting it into the chain of command. that's very important as well. host: let's go to bob calling from kansas city on the independent line. good morning.

>> i just got a comment to make. russia telegraphed this whole operation. why on earth didn't nato or the u.s. or whoever send every bit of arms. you've got people over there who are dying to fight. i know the horses already left the barn. i just don't get it. all of those people who got displaced, much money are we going to have to spend to take care of them? you're not going to shame vladimir putin into anything. that's all i've got to say. thanks for taking my call. host: shane is calling from kentucky on the republican line. good morning. caller: i was in the marine corps for four years.

i've almost seen my brother log get sent over there. he's going to retire in two months. that's fine. i don't understand why we can't do something about this. we've got big things going on in the world. people are fighting with each other over color and race. who cares? host:host: we are all brothers when it comes to the military. that's the caller: bottom line.

caller: milton, wisconsin on the independent line. good morning. get rid of that son of a bit >> i can't believe that lindsey graham made the remark about somebody bumping off vladimir putin. everybody knows that should happen. his generals need to step up and try to take charge of the situation. he needs to be held for war crimes, anything but blatantly stating someone should take him out. that sounds like something trump would say. that doesn't look good in front of the world for our politicians to be acting like nazis, ordering a hit. i don't see where this is going

to go well for any of us if politicians start making remarks like that. host: last week, lindsey graham accused vladimir putin of war crimes in ukraine. here is what senator graham had to say. >> i think the entire world, those who believe in the rule of law need to speak on this complaint. we're not prejudging the outcome. this is a legitimate complaint. i want to let the russian generals and pilots know that you follow the orders of vladimir putin at your own peril. you can find yourself in the hague if you drop cluster bombs on civilians.

the world is watching you. i will do everything in my power as long as it takes to be a voice for justice for the ukrainian people. one of the most vicious people in the planet should be held accountable. enough of the murder, enough of destruction, and carnage on your behalf. host: let's see what some of our social idiot followers are saying. one text says vladimir putin already lost this war, even if they take over the country, it will be destroyed and we won't have support of the people. russia will be economically

decimated. a text says a nuclear war would make the world uninhabitable. biden has done a great job of uniting nato nations. trump withheld military aid from ukraine and praised vladimir putin for invading ukraine. another tweet says i'm tired of talking about it. another text says this war wouldn't be happening if we weren't financing this conflict with our oil purchases. we were energy independent before this administration took office. it's the perfect opportunity for america to work to turn the russian people against vladimir putin. if we help ukraine destroy the russian army, it benefits us. we should send everything we can to help the ukrainian people

defeat the military. they attacked us with the largest cyberattack ever. we want to know what you think. let's go to the new york times for the latest of what's happening in ukraine right now. here's what the new york times is writing today.

that's the latest of what's going on in ukraine right now as rush threatening the critical infrastructure of ukraine. we want to know what you think about what's going on in ukraine right now. mary is calling from philadelphia on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. we have been providing ukraine with military aid. for the president now of ukraine

asking for his countrymen to return to ukraine to fight for this war, every country should have mandatory reservists and a draft in place to assist nato, i am a product of when we had the draft in place. for any country that doesn't have their own citizens. people are claiming refugee status, dual citizenship status, if you are at a point where you are not going to fight for your country, you're not going to fight for the united states when it becomes mandatory.

that means our men and women will be drafted for the united states. host: heidi is calling from florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. i'm looking for some information. they were talking about the sanctions and how they are seizing yachts and these accounts, how long have they known about this? is there any story on that we can find out? i would like to know what was the agreement made when ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons? are there any ways to research this?

i'm looking for more information on how we may be complicit in all of this. host: joseph is calling from riverview, florida. good morning. caller: this is just unreal. it's making me sick. where is our future president? every congressman should be forced to go to poland and sit with those people. it's like looking at george floyd. they are killing innocent people. we as americans should be telling the world, look at this.

the people can change this. this is unreal. we've got to do something about it. i have the same feeling that i had during 9/11. i wanted to fight somebody. this is wrong for the world to sit back and let this holocaust in front of our face, we are doing nothing. thank you for taking my call. host: bill is calling from massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i've got three or four points. how come we closed down the pipeline of the united states and we opened up the pipeline near russia in europe? that cause them to get billions

of dollars, to afford to fight the war. how come we are not going to -- no investigation is being done about the chinese who are infiltrating australia, canada, the united states on this global reset. they are probably in the process of going to taiwan to take over. if they take over taiwan, that won't make the news. remember the censoring of all american news. that won't make the news. it won't make it to c-span. only russia. we cause the war by shutting our pipeline down.

how come the trucker thing isn't being part of the show right now? bye-bye. host: let's go to teresa from new york on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am listening to this. i've worked in news media myself. i know how important images are. it's amazing, i feel sorry for the people of ukraine. nobly wants to see their homes destroyed and their children's future possibly destroyed. this is much bigger than vladimir putin versus the rest of the world. nobody is talking about the far

right groups that have invaded ukraine. they see ukraine as a place to expand worldwide. this is a very serious thing. all you have to do is type in google far right extremism in ukraine. this is what vladimir putin is fighting for. you cannot have a country like ukraine with possible nuclear weapons and these people taking over. even just an hour ago, usa today reported a regiment in ukraine's military was founded by white supremacists. they are battling russia on the front lines. i think our mainstream media are

manipulating americans who know nothing about the history of ukraine. i was in panama when america invaded panama. i was working when we invaded in 2003. i was there when we attacked iraq. the american people need to take over their airwaves again. they need to hold these executive producers and owners of our airwaves who are -- they never give you a balanced information. host: dave is calling from louisiana. good morning. caller: i want to say i think

it's an embarrassment that we have the ukrainian ambassador to the u.s. sitting at the state of the union address the other night, we are not going to do a damn thing. i don't see how we can't recall this presidential election before he destroys us. to finish what obama started. host: are you there? let's go to washington on the democrat line. good morning. caller: my grandmother left ukraine when she was six years old. she was just rest of kyiv. so far, we've heard one of your

callers -- she did an outstanding job echoing vladimir putin's talking points. he's claiming that nazis are in ukraine. president zelensky is jewish. maybe she missed that. the ukrainian people are asking for and what president zelensky is asking for, this is certainly a profile in courage. he is willing to die for his country. the ukrainian people are asking for a no-fly zone. i keep hearing about the u.s. and nato. there is also the united nations. the u.n. can enforce a no-fly zone.

i doubt that vladimir putin wants to go to war with the entire world and wants to fight everyone. he talks about he has nuclear weapons, so do we. we don't want to use them and we are not going to. if we had a fraction of the courage of the ukrainian people, maybe we would find the ability to advocate for the u.n. enforced no-fly zone to stop the slaughter of civilians and women and children. there is something we can do. we have to remember that -- host: senator lisa murkowski and others joined a bipartisan group of members of congress supporting legislation to ban russian energy.

this is what she had to say. >> he is not afraid to weaponize energy. he's been doing that all along. there has been an approach and a policy from this administration that says we don't want to put that on the table. it's already on the table. what can we do to respond? our message should be pretty clear and simple. no more russian energy should, into the united states for the duration of this horrifying and unprovoked war against ukraine. this measure is in direct response to what russia is doing with the bombing of schools and hospitals and apartment buildings. they are killing the innocent.

they are using some of the worst weapons in the world. these are not just acts of war, they are war crimes. there should not be an additional american dollar financing these atrocities. the president said he will use every tool in the toolbox. this is a tool. the one tool that might just force vladimir putin to -- host: let's see with the latest is from the washington post on what's going on in ukraine right now. this is the washington post story from this morning. escalating its onslaught on ukraine it, russia obliterated sources of heat, lecture city, and water across major cities. one called it medieval.

the ukrainian president warned that russian forces were preparing to attack odessa, the most economically strategic port on the coast. this would be a war crime he said in an emotional video. they said they would try to evacuate people from the battle zone. ukrainian officials accused russian troops of shelling what was supposed to be a safe escape route. a rocket blast ripped through the south of kyiv. russia is responding to the scale.

russia deployed similar tactics in chechnya in 19 99. it could be a long haul with the debbie prime minister singh thwarting the invasion could take months if not years. that's from the washington post again this morning. we are interested in what you think about the russian invasion of ukraine. that's go to charles from virginia on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of your callers have made some interesting points. if you look at the u.s. foreign policy, it is pro can and has been for quite a while. we operate in these lulls through election cycles.

lisa murkowski is making her points. others will make their points. there is no consistent foreign policy one can look at for 10 years. putin has been sitting back for almost 20 years, playing one game of chess. he knows what his objectives are. you get clinton, obama, trump, now you have biden and who knows what the next president will do in terms of foreign policy. they tend to be short term initiatives from the united states. they change with every political cycle. one of your callers mentioned that we should been preparing for this. i agree. we saw this before trump. we knew that he had his eyes on ukraine. we made a decision to cater to him for the oil.

we basically put ourselves in the situation. these are things we could've controlled. it's going to get worse before it gets better. host: pennsylvania on the republican line it, good morning. caller: yes. my question is why hasn't joe biden sanctioned the oil from russia yet? it's just like the croatia russia -- russia went in there in 2016 and took over croatia. i think this has to do with a bunch of oil issues, even here with the pipeline.

i think it's some kind of conspiracy. host: let's go to nancy calling from pennsylvania. nancy, good morning. caller: i just have to say that when i hear the we and we should have, i am calling to really say that we have a good example of uniting and everybody pulling it together to get this in the most peaceful way. everybody has their own ideas. do you want your family member to be going over there? we are trying to make this the best response that america can have. it's not about what obama did or politics. that gentleman that called in about foreign policy, the foreign policy is what we need

to do right now, to be the america that we should be but we have gotten so under -- with misinformation, we no longer set the information that the strong ukrainians do. those truckers when over there at a time when this is going on for that petty crap really discuss me. that is not the most pertinent subject right now. host: larry is calling from michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: this is all about the oil. why do we just stop using russian oil and turn the

pipeline back on it. we could supply the rest of the world. we have enough. i just don't understand it. joe biden has started this. it's time for the american people to stand up and say turn it back on it. let's get this under control. host: atlanta, georgia on the democrat line. good morning. caller: just like that last caller with the disinformation same biden started this. that's just another light. the republicans want to blame this all on the oil pipeline. vladimir putin had dropped and the apartment party was backing in. why wouldn't you feel emboldened? he interfered in our elections.

what did they do? they stood back. i told these people when you back vladimir putin, it's going to backfire. what did it have to do with it? it didn't have to do with columbia. it had to do with ukraine. now they want to try to fool you and say it wasn't about that. it was just about a pipeline. despots as they always do come into power and do economic uncertainty. now, they want to blame everything on joe biden. host: let's go to elizabeth from tampa on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i don't really think this is a partisan issue. i know we call in on certain lines. i don't understand where that fits in. i'm a big supporter of politics in general. i think this is a large threat to our democracy. he was already involved in the cyber attacks. he's always been about eliminating democracy. he is a desperate, just like other callers have said. this is going to be crimes against humanity. i learned in my studies in college, the u.n. and nato have

been diminished over the years. with all of the cyber attacks, we need to recognize there is no ending for this desperate. when he was involved in our war, he was starting the plan and just enjoyed that attack on the capital. it put a crack in our democracy. host: we would like to thank all of our callers. we will be joined by law professor kim whaley about the january 6 investigation and her new book. later, max boot discusses russia's invasion of ukraine and what u.s. and nato can do to avoid further escalation. we will be right back.

♪ >> weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on "in depth," author and journalist sam quinones discusses immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. his books include "true tales from another mexico," "dreamland," and, most recently, "the least of us" about the neuroscience of addiction and the deadly impact of synthetic drugs. on "after words," daily beast journalist kelly weill reported on the rise of the flat earth movement and other conspiracy theories disseminated through online platforms. she is the author of "off the edge: flat earthers, conspiracy culture, and why people will leave anything. she is interviewed by reason magazine books editor and author jesse walker. find a full schedule on your program guide.

watch online anytime at booktv.o rg. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with author and university of baltimore law professor kim wehle, who is here to discuss the january 6th investigation and ketanji brown jackson's upcoming supreme court confirmation hearings. good morning. guest: good morning. host: let's start with the

january 6 investigation. the general sixth committee filed a legal brief that got a lot of attention across the country related to potential terminal activities. can you tell us exactly what that brief was about and explain what they were talking about? guest: the brief was not much of a big deal in terms of the legal issues presented. what was important was the arguments made in the brief relating to potential criminal activity by the former president, donald trump. basically, the committee is getting as much information as it can as congress, in theory, to legislate and make congressional decision on the how to avoid another january 6th . a man called john easement used to work for jack pinto -- chapman university as a law professor who was in contact with donald trump and others leading to the lead up to january 6th.

he has been interviewed by the committee and pled the fifth amendment over 146 times. but they want documents from him as well. he used the chapman university server, so those emails belong to the university right now, not to him personally. so he filed a lawsuit to stop the university from producing the records to the committee. basically, he has raised the kinds of argument we would hear in all kinds of regular civil litigation -- attorney-client privilege, something called the work product doctrine. attorney-client privilege probably does not apply anyway, but what the committee argued was even if it does apply, there's something called the crime fraud exception kate even if you are communicative with a lawyer, you have to have hired the lawyer, has to be confidential, and has to be something leading to the law, or

it does not apply at all. even if you talk to a lawyer, it does not apply as privilege. but you cannot talk to a lawyer about how to get away with a crime. you cannot go to your lawyer and say i killed someone, how do i get rid of the body? that "how do i get rid of the body" part would be produced in court, even if it was privileged communication. even if it is attorney-client privilege between john easman and donald trump, there was conspiracy to fraud the united states that would make these emails and texts and documents producible to the committee. it is important in part because the people running this investigation congress already former federal prosecutors, so i do not think they would say that if they did not believe they had the evidence to back up that statement. that is what is so important about it. congress has no power to indict or prosecute anybody, but we

will see, in april, public hearings letting the american people know new information about january 6th, and then there will be a report that report will be handed off to the justice department, and then the justice department could take steps to indict people based on that report, which is being produced and created by former prosecutors. these are prosecutors speaking to prosecutors, essentially. host: exactly what defines a criminal conspiracy? and did anything in these briefs provide evidence, or is this just politicians, as you say, former prosecutors just talking and speculating? guest: just to be clear, the big difference between -- i talk about this in my book, which i know we will get to -- the difference between politicians and lawyers and prosecutors is that lawyers and judges are bound by rules. they are not allowed to speculate when it comes to producing evidence before a jury or a judge if that means making

a decision about someone's life, someone's liberty, somebody's property. that is the big distinction. we have lawyers who have amassed lots of evidence. i think it is over 100 pages. it is a very long brief. they explain, step-by-step, a lot of what we know already publicly. there was a question of collusion and conspiracy. conspiracy is a term for lawyers, which means that has been a meeting of the minds, an agreement not just that people took steps on january 6th to invade the capital. we have seen hundreds of those prosecutions. but there was actual agreement to overthrow a peaceful transfer of power. and the lawyers walked through this. there was no evidence -- i know there maybe some callers who still believe there was evidence of some kind of fraud in the election. the good news was there was not

care that is good for american democracy. even there was no evidence, given the president was told there was no evidence -- we have seen lots of public information relating to what he said on january 6th, the communications he had with others relating to let's have the department of justice stop this, call brad raffensperger in georgia to stop the vote -- all of these steps taken to basically stop the peaceful transfer of power and cancel the electoral college votes properly determined by the states for that is the conspiracy part. it is very hard to approve a conspiracy, because you have to show there was an agreement. another critical piece that happened, there was a member of the oath keepers who pled guilty to a conspiracy, a seditious conspiracy. there is now at least one person publicly who has said -- i do not know if there's anything

relating to mr. trump specifically -- but he faces multiple years in prison, said yes, i did agree -- engage on an agreement that day to overturn the election. that is critical, that someone faced with this is the evidence you have against you, your either going to plea or we will throw the book at you. his lawyer probably said you have to plea or this will not be pretty for you if we go to trial. host: how close, based on your reading of the documents, does this get to former president trump? guest: it goes directly to former president trump. this is not the first time we have seen a filing. there was also a decision by a federal judge in washington, d.c. -- remember, federal judges are united states government judges. there are a number of lawsuits filed by members of congress, police officers that were at the capitol on january 6th under

civil laws, basically the" clan act that was passed to avoid violations -- basically the ku klux klan act that was passed to avoid violations of civil -- donald trump says i am immune to what happened january 6th because i was president. we had a federal judge say no, those losses can go forward, i am soberly and carefully making these rulings. i reject the idea that donald trump is immune from his actions, because seeking to overthrow an election, which looks like potentially happen here, that is not part of your article ii power as president. your power is to leave the troops, execute the law, negotiate treaties, but you do not have the power to do that. just like we are talking about the crime fraud exception takes you out of the attorney-client

relationship, if you're going to engage in sedition, attempts to avert the will of the people -- it is the people in charge -- then we will not give you immunity. this is getting closer to donald trump. we now have lawyers on the committee who say we have evidence of a crime involving the former president, and we have a federal judge who, in a ruling, saying i will not through these -- throw these lawsuits out. he throughout these lawsuits when it came to rudy giuliani and don jr., but not to president trump. does it mean he will actually face a lawsuit or indictment that would have implications for him personally? it is impossible, in this moment, to predict how all of that will unfold. the key element, and i am sure we will talk about it, is the november election, which could change a lot when it comes to the january 6th committee. host: you are jumping ahead to

my next question, but let me stop here really quickly to say to our callers and viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we will open our regular lines, which means democrats, you can call (202) 748-8000. republicans, your number is (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter, @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. kim, with everything we now know, what happens next with the january 6th committee? do they make recommendations to the justice department? are they going to be filing new legislation? what happens next? guest: what we understand is

what happens next is public hearings in april. congressman raskin of maryland said there will be public hearings that will blow the roof off things. i am paraphrasing him. what that means to me is we will hear, as americans, more information, more facts, more of the record developed then we are in the second impeachment. if you recall, there was a trial in the senate for donald trump's second impeachment, where, under the leadership of jamie raskin, we saw a lot of information about what happened january 6th. donald trump was not convicted in that trial. what this suggests is we will hear new stuff. this is not just a rehash. it is supposed to be primetime in april. we will see if that happens. but it is really important that americans watch that. in my mind, there is legal jeopardy in the courts, and then there is the election. what we will see in april is

information i think people need to bring to the ballot box in november. because it was not just donald trump involved. there were members of congress, people inside government, some of whom still have power of the people, and we need to decide, are those the folks we want to see stay in power moving forward? we are watching a democracy -- i was listening to your last hour -- we are watching a democracy in ukraine being attacked from the outside-in. our democracy was attacked from the inside-out, and it is still corroding. we could talk about that. the ukrainians, moms, dads, regular teachers, are having to learn how to bear arms, hunkering in subway stations by the thousands, having babies and bunkers. what we have to do is vote. we have a lot easier. that is step number one. step number two is what will the media in terms of legal liability? many years ago, i worked on the

whitewater investigation, an investigation against former president clinton. that is a little different from a committee, but it did produce a report that, in that instance but went to congress. here, it is the other way around. congress is -- producing a report that would go to the department of justice and the american people. even if the house of representative's or the senate shifts to republican control, merrick garland and joe biden will still be in charge of the justice department. so they will take that information, and they are probably looking at similar information now -- we do not know if there is a grand jury going, but they will take that information, which i assume is very thorough, and develop as if it were a prosecutor doing it for, -- doing it, because they are former prosecutors, and do it against people who had the power to stop it. that is the critical piece. host: speaking of the november

election, let's see if we can get clarity on what happens in congress and the justice department if republicans take over the u.s. house. let's assume the republicans will take over the house in the november election. what happens to the january 6th committee if republicans take over the house? guest: my expectation is that it will cease. if you recall, there was an attempt to have a bipartisan committee, and that became highly politicized. house speaker kevin mccarthy propose some people to be on the committee that our witnesses, like jim jordan, for example, witnesses to what happened january 6th. that is a bias or a conflict of interest. so we just have adam kinzinger and liz cheney. the beauty of it is it is chugging along in an efficient way because everyone is on the page -- same page.

we need to get to the facts and go where the facts lead us. the biggest challenge of a committee -- i have no insight information -- it is getting it before november. they have a lot of stuff to do between now and then to get this going. then i expect we'll see more politics play out. there have been calls for potentially joe biden's impeachment, more investigations against the democrats, all of that. that is somewhat visits as usual. unfortunately, in the last 20 years, has been ugly and sniping and not actually about the american people, producing legislation for the american people. but whatever would happen with a republican-led house of representatives, whatever issues they are looking into, is nothing as close to being important as january 6th.

everyone loses, every voting mirror, -- member of america. because that means we lose our power to decide our own leaders. with that goes people civil liberties. if you do not have any kind ability as a politician, that is you can just ignore the vote and say i will wrest power through shenanigans and cute maneuvers, take power for myself -- we see it with vladimir putin across the pond -- then there is no accountability for your they do not care if they start violating people civil rights. this is really important, that we all hang onto democracy. elizabeth made a comment about this in your last hour, that we all hang onto democracy, then go back to the business of debating about issues, like what do we do about climate, the economy, crime, immigration. that is what those people are in congress to do, represent us on issues, not to take the power

away from us. so again, what we learned between now and november, people watching, is how to vote in november. and please, please, please vote. it is getting harder to vote. this is another step in the degradation of american democracy, putting up artificial barriers to keep us from the polls. just like those ukrainians are having their guns and hanging onto their two-year-old, crossing the border into poland or whatever -- jump over those hurdles and vote, because that is how we can save our democracy. host: what happens with the justice department if republicans take over the house in november? does it affect anything merrick garland is doing or wants to do with his investigation? guest: no, it doesn't. three different branches of government. the president and the justice department answers to the president. then we have article i, congress and its own chain of command.

there could be political pressure. any indictment of a former sitting resident is unprecedented. it would be a huge deal. there is, traditionally -- donald trump is an exception -- traditionally the president and attorney general have not communicated on who to indict, because we do not want to sit where if you do not agree with whoever is in power, you will get indicted. we do not want that massive power to be used against people's political beliefs. that is not democracy. but they will chug along. there could be rusher in congress by investigating doj are doing political pushback on that, but merrick garland has his own authority, regardless of what congress does. he also mentioned, could congress legislate? after watergate, which was a big scandal that led to richard nixon's resignation, there was a

lot of legislation passed to shore up democracy. the freedom of information act. there were amendments made to that so that you and i could sort of ask the government, what are you doing, give me the documents. there is a lot of that come a lot of legislation to shore up american democracy in the wake of a visa power by a president. the problem at this moment is the filibuster. so we are not seeing basic legislation around this passing, because republicans have a super majority through the filibuster, which is nowhere in the constitution. it is not in the law. but there are two democrats, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, who will not take steps to get rid of the filibuster. for example, the john lewis voting rights advancement act, that is designed to put in place a provision of the voting rights act from 1965 that the supreme court gutted in 2013.

the supreme court said congress, update that. we cannot even get some thing is basic as that. that is not even happening. regardless of what happens in november, unless there is a landslide in favor of democrats in the senate, frankly, which is unlikely, that we will see any meaning legislation. congress is broken right now. what americans need to do is put people in office who will do the work of the people and get away from this nonsense around the big lie and dividing us. we should get together and say we want you to do what we pay you to do through our tax dollars. host: let's let some of our viewers take art. we start with howard. caller: you clarified one issue i wanted to ask with regard to the november election and republicans taking a majority

with regards to the committee. but i am curious about the department of justice and why i do not see any insurrection charges being raised. mostly, it is petty trespassing and violent kind of stuff, small penalties. i want to see people locked away. that is where i am coming from. guest: that is a good question and one a lot of people have had. but as i mentioned earlier, there are indictments, at least one, for seditious conspiracy. that is that meeting of the minds, the attempt to overthrow the government, and we have at least one oath keepers, member of the oath keepers, who has pleaded guilty to that. why is more of it not happening? a couple things. one is that it is harder to prove, because you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt, in theory -- 99% prove, not 51%

proof like in civil action. you have to provide that high level meeting of the mines, like crawling into people's minds at the time. we have texts and documents i can get to that. that is number one. part two is this concept of precedent. prosecutors are used to mee too, not it. like me too, here's my case similar to that. without that precedent, lawyers are hesitant, because they go out on a limb to create new precedent. the use of existing criminal laws to that day, there is creative lawyering going on, new

paths being forged here. i am not saying they are not legitimate. i have looked at a lot of these legal papers, and they are solid arguments. but when it has never happened before, people get a little sheepish and worried, that they are going out on a limb and could lose. prosecutors do not do that. they do not bring cases unless they are sure they can win. but we are having those bigger claims being brought, but they are still against the regular people on the ground. what we have not seen is indictments against the people inside government. they are there to represent us, and they let it happen and did not stop it. and donald trump did not either. he let it happen, egged people on, and did not take steps, with his massive power as commander-in-chief, in those early moments to stop the carnage and save some lives. i used to live near washington

many years. i used to push my kids and their strollers around the capitol, and they used to be very strong law enforcement presence there, particularly when congress meets to transfer power. it was shocking to watch on television. where is the law enforcement, why is this such chaos? that, in my mind as a citizen, still has not been answered. that is not about the people on the ground, that is the people in leadership at that moment. host: let's talk to diane, calling from missouri on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: ok. kimberly has left a lot of things out and put in facts that were not truthful. but i'm curious.

what hillary clinton did trump with the russian and everything else, they are just scraping that under the carpet and attacking trump. what about what hillary clinton did, spying on a candidate and spying on a sitting president? i am curious to what she has to say about that. guest: well, let me just be clear. use the word "lying." no, i'm not lying. it is important that you raised that, and i talk about that in my book, "how to think like a lawyer and why." it is really important that you, and all of us, learn how to get the facts. as far -- get good facts. as far as i know, there are no good facts on hillary clinton spying on a candidate. facts, for lawyers, we have to authenticate them.

we will lose if we do not authenticate that. many years ago, 20, 30 years ago -- maybe diane had this experience -- when you wanted to get information, you would start with an encyclopedia then go to a library, to microfiche. our job was to get the facts. now, with social media, it is flipped. there is overwhelming information, a lot of it not only inaccurate, but because of computer algorithms, it is being fed into our phones to confirm our prior biases. it is really important, before we jump on this bandwagon or that bandwagon, that we learn for ourselves how to find good facts. i have some tips in the book. number one, read original source material. if i see an indictment against hillary clinton, i will read it and i will go to whatever original documents might be

associated with that and read it for myself. the other thing i do, that we all did many years ago, is make sure that the information we are getting is from a source that cares about having accuracy. 20, 30 years ago, it was major news networks, major newspapers, local newspapers. they did not make sure they had accurate facts because they cared about going to jail, it was because they cared about their professional reputations and their craft. there are still those outlets out there, but it is garbage in, garbage out. it is important we teach our children how to do that. there should be something in k through 12 that is as basic as reading and writing -- how to sort what comes through your phones that manipulates the rights and the left. i am not just picking on the

right. it is people across the board. how do you sort through that and get accurate information. host: you brought up your book, and i want to dive into "how to think like a lawyer and why." you have written about the constitution before, written about voting before. what made you decide to explain how to think like a lawyer and why we should think like lawyers? guest: we are talking about it right here. i wrote the first book on constitution, so people could understand their government. one third of americans at the time could not name the three branches of government. if you cannot name it, you do not know how to vote. and i realized after writing the first book is it all comes down to voting. your vote is that powerful. then we are in this moment where we are divided over whether facts exist. are divided over whether facts exist. it occurred to me, i have been

teaching for many years, there are some skills that can be brought to bear on thinking in making decisions that only an elite number of people get in america. lawyers look for the gray areas, the nuance, the uncertainty. we dive into the uncertainty rather than pick a side and defend the side. you will see it on tv people picking a side. that is after they have done all this work. why do they have to do this? they will lose in court or be sanctioned. the book gives a framework or methodology for taking a hard problem in your life, health care, divorce, whether to take a big job, and gives a five-step process for breaking that down by looking for the nuance and facts bearing on both sides and coming to a conclusion where you

realize you are not always going to win, you are not always going to get everything you want. lawyers understand that. it is an attempt to empower people to have another tool in their toolbox when it comes to overwhelming problems. lawyers don't just go on gut feelings. that is a great way of making decisions sometimes, but i am offering another way that has not been commercially available to people outside of law school. that is the goal of the book. host: how does your book connect to what we see going on in ukraine or what is going on with the january 6 investigation? guest: there is a connection, i think the last caller, this question about hillary clinton. there is a connection around my third step. i have a five-step process.

break questions down, identify your value system, seek and collect information. vladimir putin is giving the people in russia that information. there are accounts in the new york times of russian soldiers thinking ukrainians are going to welcome them with open arms because they have been lied to and told ukrainians are oppressed, and we need to relieve them. here is bad information coming through national television that people distorts their ability to make good information -- decisions for their families. being put in this situation where many russians are dying as well. the connection is how to break this propaganda down in america, which vladimir putin has been feeding for years.

we know in 2016 he said lies around the presidential election. that is established. the goal is to give people another tool to start to unpack the propaganda and manipulated information we are getting. that is powerful. analyze both sides. lawyers have to do that. they have to understand their opponents arguments as well as their own. tolerate uncertainty. tolerate that you are going to have people that don't agree with you. this idea that if you are not on my team, i don't like you. if i get a sense you are on a different political team, i am going to alienate you, that is not the american way. it is not life. the hard stuff means give-and-take. lawyers have a reputation for

being sharks, mean, too aggressive, but the legal method is a very solid way of walking through what can feel like an overwhelming situation, lots of uncertainty, and get to some resolution you can feel good about. host: let's go back to our phone lines. we will start with christine calling from rhode island on the democrat line. good morning. caller: the morning. -- good morning. i think i missed my calling. i should be a lawyer. i have been writing notes. i have been writing on everything. i have been watching this from the beginning. it is frightening what is happening in our country. i might be a little old, but i see everything from the governance -- it is just

destroying our country. the lawyers, when i would first start listening to them, i had a hard time understanding them. i am like that is now what was said. that is not what was done. it is almost like they are debating what we saw and heard. i know there is a lot of propaganda, dangerous propaganda for our country. all we heard, us, them. we are americans. we are supposed to be united. we are so divided over an entertainer. that is how i feel. he had a show that, i don't know if it was popular or not, i

never watched it. who is funding? for any republican not to pass a bill, work with the democrats on anything, deny, deny, deny, and nothing getting done. host: go ahead and respond. guest: christine puts her finger on a problem. government by we the people, not we the politicians, the democrats, the powerful, the privileged. it is government by the people. early americans fought a bloody war because they did not want a king anymore. the difference between a president and king is a king has unlimited power. in theory that power came from the divine. it was unlimited. i speak for the divine, so what i say goes.

american democracy broke that monarchy into three pieces. no one gets all the power. everybody's papers get checked by the other two branches. the legislative congress gets their papers graded by the president, who can veto. or the court can strike down legislation that is unconstitutional. that is the concept. you don't need to be a lawyer or constitutional scholar to understand whatever we have is not unlimited power in one place. that is what january 6 was about. if we came to that, it is over. if people want to think american democracy is special, we are not like ukraine, that is not borne out by history. we are seeing it unfold before our eyes. someone who wants unlimited power, vladimir putin, taking it by force. america, we have oceans around.

it is not going to be taken by force. vladimir putin working to corrode it from the inside out. it is getting people to not trust each other. that is the power. the book is designed -- a five-step process. if you are skeptical, i applaud you for being skeptical. don't listen to me. pull out the book. take the five steps. apply it to something in your life. i challenge everyone to change your mind about something. our kids are good at that. kids adapt. they are agile. older people tend to be stuck in their ways. try to change your mind. i give you a five-step process that is a nod to what christine is talking about. trying to get us back to where we are communicating with each other. shaming, canceling, alienating, that stuff just makes people feel bad.

that is the kind of thing that people like putin want to see in america. host: let's talk to craig. caller: i appreciate c-span and our guest today. you are doing a great job. i want to say i support the continuity of government and don't want to rehash the election. i think our election system is the best in the world. i have a constitutional question. i know the constitution says the states, they determine the times and methods of how they do their elections. four of the six states in question violated the constitution. they changed the times and the methods and then send the vote to be certified by the president of the senate. he certified it. it is over.

that is a hot potato. who is going to handle that hot potato? there is a real problem in this election. will it be the supreme court, house, or senate, and the constitutional professional i saw it said it would be the congress. we need to address that problem because there was a real problem that was constitutional. i hope somebody addresses it. as far as fraud, i'm talking about violations of the constitution by four states. if we can address that going forward, i think you will because a stronger country. -- i think it will make us a stronger country. guest: thank you for that question. high-five to oklahomans. i lived there. craig is right that from a primary standpoint the constitution gives the power over elections to states.

what is a state? states are just like the federal government. states are made up of various branches of government. you have got a legislature, courts, and a governor. a governor has people that answer to the governor just like the president has people that answer to the president. the changes that were made in the lead up in the various states to deal with covid, which i am assuming is in part what is being discussed here. those were made according to the laws of the state by actors that were authorized to do that under the law of the state. the constitution just says state. the state can decide how to manage their elections. some states put it in different parts of the government. across the country, judges' job is to decide whether a law has been broken.

i am quite confident as a constitutional scholar that there was no violation of the constitution in the changes that were made and the certifications that happened leading up to january 6. if there had been strong arguments, there would have been court action. there were 60 cases that were filed. they all failed with one tiny exception. there was no law backing it up. not because judges are better than other people in terms of their integrity, but because they are bound by facts and law. we do need changes to our electoral college process. there is an old statute called the electoral count act. it is kind of a mess. it has gaps in it. it implements the electoral college, which is mentioned in the constitution. congress has the power to pass laws across the country that affect the federal elections.

that trickles down to the states. there have been proposals to amend the electoral count act. it is probably the top of my list in terms of electoral reforms so we don't have nonsense happening around certification of the election. i can talk about where the holes are. part of the problem with the holes is people do not believe in the election. that is corrosive to american democracy. i want to give a shout out to craig to his point that he feels it was a good election. the reason i think we should feel proud is there are thousands of americans who went out during a pandemic to make that election work. this is not top-level level officials. these are regular people that went out and counted the ballots and work the polls. those people did not commit fraud. the auditing procedures are quite tight. the problem has to do with the

end when states are certifying and the congress is certifying. there are some holes in the statute. this time i think it was done properly. the holes are there. it needs to be fixed. host: before we run out of time, what are you keeping your eyes on for the confirmation hearing of judge canton g brown jackson? -- judge ketanji brown jackson? guest: we had a bipartisan support for her for the d.c. circuit judge, republicans and democrats, if they are going to adhere to their prior votes. this is a stellar candidate. she is not some liberal or conservative ideologue. i would like to see the republicans in the senate standby their prior votes, reflect that this woman is strong and belongs on the court,

and not turn it into a circus. bring dignity back to the process. she should be confirmed. once on the court, is she going to make a difference in the votes? no. i think having all women in the minority, which is more the moderate part of the court because the conservatives are quite radical now, it is interesting to have only women representing that part of the population that is more into singing the praises of individual rights on a number of fronts. it is really more the minority wing in the moment that is going to be a champion of that. host: we would like to thank kim wehle, author of how to think like a lawyer and why. thank you so much for being with us. guest: i enjoyed it very much. thank you. host: coming up next, author max

boot will be here to discuss russia's invasion of ukraine and what if anything the u.s. and nato can do to avoid further escalation. stick with us. we will be right back. >> the book hitler's american campbell recounts the five days that upended everything. those days include december 7 through december 11, 1941, from japan's attack on pearl harbor, tracing developments in real-time. british historians reveal how america's engagement was far from inevitable. professors quote martin gilbert as saying hitler's decision to declare war on the u.s. was

arguably his single greatest mistake of the war. >> brendan sims and charlie lederman on this episode of booknotes+. book notes is available wherever you get your podcasts. c-span's new american president website is your one-stop guide to our nation's commanders in chief, from george washington to joe biden. find video resources, life facts, and images that tell the story of their life and presidencies. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of resources today. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with author and columnist max boot, who sits