starting today at 11:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org host: morn. i had it, we will talk about the upcoming trip to europe as well as a supreme court confirmation hearings playing out over the next several days. we begin this morning hearing from you on the topic of escalation. we want to know if you are concerned about increasing usaid to ukraine mid the russian invasion. will that escalate the conflict? what do you think should be the next move? democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text this morning. that number is (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media. a very good monday morning too. you can start calling in on this topic of escalation. several newspaper and editorial headlines from the past couple of days bringing up this topic of escalation. this is from newsweek over the weekend. poland pushes nato for potential danger escalation. from the new york times, one of their headlines a tenuous balance in confronting russia. from the pittsburgh post-gazette , the editorial board there says support for ukraine is crucial

in this crisis, a no-fly zone is still an unwise escalation. one more for you from the site raw story. u.s. media accused of cheerleading for u.s. escalation in ukraine. the column by james robbins talks about this idea of escalation and how it's playing into the u.s. response here. the headline it, give ukrainians the weapons they need to win. this is part of what he writes in the column. we will return to this a little bit. he writes:

we were return to that column in a bit and this idea of escalation. we want to hear from you. are you concerned that increasing involvement will escalate the conflict. as you were calling him, this is from the state of the union yesterday. this is a proposal we showed you.

sending nato forces and as a peacekeeping force in ukraine. this is what she had to say. >> poland says they will submit a proposal to nato for a nato peacekeeping mission to ukraine. what might that look like? would the u.s. support sending nato peacekeepers into ukraine? >> the president has been very clear that we will not put american troops on the ground in ukraine. we don't want to escalate this into a war with the united states. we will support our allies. we have troops as you know in nato countries. the president has made clear that if there is an attack on any of our nato countries, we will support those countries and defend those countries. >> i assume the opposition to sending troops into ukraine

would include sending nato troops and nato peacekeeping mission, even if there were not u.s. service members in that mission? >> again, i can't preview what decisions will be made at this conference and how nato will respond to the polish proposal. what i can say is american troops will not be on the ground in ukraine it. the president has been clear on that. other nato countries may decide they want to put troops inside ukraine. that will be a decision they have to make. host: that was cnn state of the union. you heard her use the term escalation in this context. are you concerned that further u.s. involvement will escalate that conflict? (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans.

independents (202) 748-8002. we will get right to your calls. mike, go ahead. caller: good morning. there are other ways that we can escalate other than sitting in troops and military. the soviet union was on the un security council. why is russia on the un security council? maybe we should move to get them off the un security council and take away their veto power. also, we should put more pressure on china for their support of russia and stand up to them and their human rights abuses as well. just going after russia is not enough. we need to go after every country that is supporting russia in this. also, we recognize the

territories of ukraine. how can russia just take away their territorial integrity? if we want to send humanitarian aid in there, we should. if russia fires on any country, even us sending in nonlethal aid it, medical aid, whatever assistance they need, if russia attacks us, that's an unprovoked attack against a non-military entity. host: this is tom in oklahoma. are you concerned about escalation? caller: good morning. the first thing i would like to talk about is the sanctions we are putting on. every time we put on a sanction, the russian start bombing more and more. why don't we say these will be on for at least a year?

let them think about this. the other thing i want to talk about is we can't have the ukrainian people come over here. we let these mexican people come across the border. that i don't understand. the other thing is saddam hussein was raping women. we can't go into ukraine to help those people. that is basically what i wanted to talk about. i am registered as a democrat. i am afraid to admit that i am a democrat. i called on the republican line. host: it works better if people call in on the line they identify with. it makes for more equal conversation. dana is in new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. i am not worried about the u.s.

escalating things. i do think he could retaliate. if that does happen, i think he is willing to implement a scorched-earth policy. regarding impacting the people of ukraine. i think he's going to do whatever it takes to achieve his ends. i would like to see more u.s. intervention. i think worldwide democracy is at stake. i don't think it's just with the ukrainian people. i think because vladimir putin has been revealed to be so dangerous, the u.s. is trying to implement other strategies. i don't really know if they are doing the job. host: that was dana in new york city. a little bit more from that

james robbins column in the usa today. he talks about the history between the united states and the old soviet union, concerns about escalation during the cold war. he writes: james robin their decoupling the concerns about escalation with ongoing negotiations, looking at historical ties. we want to hear from you.

are you concerned about escalation. don is in riverside, california. caller: i'm very concerned about the escalation in ukraine. it is day 26. celeb ski says he is in a third world war. it's a shame the rest of the world won't help him by giving him those airplanes he needs to close down the sky. he's been bombed for 26 days now. what is everybody waiting for? let's give him some help. i wish biden would do something. he's going over to europe because i think he hasn't got a clue. he wants to ask everybody in europe, what should i do? what kind of a president does that? host: let's talk about that trip

that's happening later this week. as we noted, he will have a high profile trip through europe. the white house correspondent for the mcclatchy newspapers is helping preview it this morning. when does he arrive in europe? who is he meeting with? guest: he is expected to depart on wednesday, arriving wednesday evening. he will meet with leaders of the g-7 nations as well as nato allies. the white house announced he will be flying to poland to meet with the polish president. he will be coming back to the united states over the weekend. this morning, he started off the day with a call with leaders of the g-7, including emmanuel macron and boris johnson. host: what is the most high foil

-- high-profile point? guest: listening to your collars, it's interesting about what the definition of escalation means depending on who you talk to. when it comes to a no-fly zone, americans are broadly unsupportive of a no-fly zone. that split comes down to whether or not that means americans should be helping to send over troops or helping more with planes. should they be sending over drones? just sending over more money for military assistance? i think that will play out this week. the presidents helping coordinate with european allies over some of those matters. some of these things the u.s. does on its own, they are largely coordinating with the nato alliance. host: what is your read on the warsaw addition to the trip in light of poland with this

proposal, to have a nato peacekeeping force in ukraine. thomas greenfield talked about that and the concerns of escalation if troops are on the ground in ukraine. what is your read on the timing of that? guest: there have been reports that president biden could go to poland. it was not surprising when they confirmed that last night. you have to put that in the context of the fact that bipartisan groups of lawmakers had been going over to poland. we saw the vice president recently go to poland. there was some agreement after her visit about transferring planes from poland through nato to ukraine. we've seen why the timing might not be right right now.

we have heard more about the united states on the agenda. host: because you are a reporter who wears a lot of hats, shifting gears to your story about the supreme court confirmation hearings. specifically the second part of the headline, it puts the spot white on judge action -- judge jackson. guest: the judiciary committee has a number of republicans on it who are expected to run for president in 2024. there are several democrats who have already run for president. the legal background of these republicans will be in the spotlight this week. you have three republicans on their who worked for supreme court justices in the past.

ted cruz is one of those. they have begun to bang ahead of the committee, lines of attack they will be using. they have said they won't make them personal. they are going after her sentencing record in the past. i do expect you will hear more of that this week. we just don't know yet. you will see again in the story there are people talking about how this is a high-profile moment. host: there is that escalation word again. francesca join us from mcclatchy elite. -- mcclatchy. guest: thanks. host: those hearings start happening today at 11:00 eastern. you can watch on the c-span network. we will talk more about the confirmation hearings in our 8:00 eastern hour.

this first hour, we are focusing on u.s. involvement in the conflict in ukraine. are you concerned about u.s. efforts escalating that conflict. that's the word we are talking about, escalation. it's been thrown around a lot. robert is in louisiana. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. how are you doing? all about this escalation, it's already been escalated. when the republicans have been escalating, trying to help the american people, they are ghosts. now they are getting together and want to give all this money to ukraine. i don't think they should give more money to ukraine. they need to help the american people. we had an insurrection in our country.

we need to figure out how to get america together and stop this foolishness going on across the world. host: this is mark in new hampshire. good morning. caller: i've got a question that no one seems to have asked or come close to. where is the united nations and all of this? back in the 60's, they had a peacekeeping force. why are we diddling with nato? where is the united nations peacekeeping force. why are china and russia numbers of the united nations? host: if it's a peacekeeping force, would you want u.s. troops to be a part of that? caller: absolutely not.

however, the united nations was formed after the -- before world war ii. the league of nations. they've done really nothing as far as keeping peace in the world. i'm very concerned about the fact that this is just a big smokescreen in order to keep the democrats in power. it's very simple for them to call martial law and put an end to the elections and maybe even into 24, keeping the wrong people in power. the united nations situation is what has me upset. billion's of dollars are spent on the united nations and it does nothing to unite anyone. host: the u.n. headquarters are in new york city. sean is in new york city. good morning. caller: i hear people calling about escalation and the definition.

this means in terms of escalation, what it means to us economically. commodity prices are skyrocketing. russia doesn't seem to be hurting from this. they are trading oil with india and china. they are not using the dollar to trade the oil. the dollar is the reserve currency in terms of trading. this is de-monetizing the dollar as well. if you look at what it's done to us overall in terms of how much money we've sent over there so far to ukraine, what this means for the american people, this is escalating to an extent where this is not going to go well for us here. i just hope that cooler heads

will prevail. it doesn't seem like it. this is going to keep escalating until we get into world war iii. i don't know. that's all i've got to say. host: one of our earlier collars said this conflict has already been escalated. the author of another columnist from usa today has a series of tweets that vladimir putin seems to have no qualms about escalation. this is a series of tweets from him late last week. actually, over the weekend.

that is one of those focusing on the idea of escalation, who should be worried about escalation and what it all means in this conflict, especially what the u.s. should do next. minneapolis, good morning. caller: it's kind of a funny

game of words going on with the topic of us being involved. clearly, we are involved. we are applying sanctions. we are involved. it has escalated. what is scary to me is it seems like it's part of the overarching plan, to devalue the world economy and get an advantage. i'm afraid of china and iraq and russia working together and seeing the cracks in our structure. the afghanistan situation it, this was in planning before that happened. they are learning a lot about our weaknesses as we respond and the cracks. i'm terrified. i woke up dreaming about tanks outside my yard and how to get my animals away.

i saw bombs exploding in the distance. i've got to turn off the tv. i don't know how to stop. i feel it's coming our way in ways we don't understand. thank you. host: this is eric in las vegas. good morning. caller: good morning. you are the best. i'm afraid of nuclear player of ration in the world. we signed off. host: eric, you are going in and out a little bit. you are talking about that treaty was signed after the breakup of the soviet union and

the signatories of that about ensuring the integrity of that country. are you with us? caller: i apologize. the united states, the u.k., the soviet union said if you give up your nukes, your borders will be sacrosanct. tell me, what other country will ever give up their nukes? how many small countries are going to put their money toward getting nukes? it seems like we didn't keep our word. host: that was eric in las vegas. we are spending the first hour talking about the idea of escalation. are you concerned that further u.s. involvement will escalate the conflict? that is our question for you. democrats (202) 748-8000.

republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. we have a lot of discussion about what the united states should do next as president biden heads overseas. members of congress on the sunday shows discussing what they think president biden should and shouldn't do in those meetings. this is senator john barrasso. he was on this week. >> he is going to nato this week. he is going to nato this week and if he wants to lead from the front, rather than leading from behind, there are three things he needs to do in my opinion this week. >> what are the three specific things? >> number one, who used to tell nato that we are going to supply

the people of ukraine things they know how to use, whether it's drones, planes, muscle systems. he has to say he is going from brussels to the eastern front of nato to show the resolve of nato and the united states commitment. third, he needs to say to the people of europe who are really in a tough situation with energy and the dependence they have that we are going to increase the exporting of natural gas from america to them, even germany has come up to the fact that energy security is much more important than climate zealotry. the president needs to increase production in the united states. we are going to send it to you. that's what leadership is all about. i have legislation to make that possible. host: that with senator john

barrasso yesterday. back to your phone calls. andrew is in new york. your thoughts about escalation? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we are going to have to escalate because of the fact that vladimir putin has no place else to go. he's going to have to be removed militarily. that may be spoken for by european countries like the baltics and poland. this conflict in ukraine is coming to a point where it's almost out of our hands. it may be overtaken by events and european countries you see an opportunity to get rid of pruden. thank you for taking my call. host: james is in louisiana. good morning. caller: thank you for providing a forum for us. i'm going to change my statement.

i just heard your senator. he said what we ought to tell nato to do. nato doesn't work for us. it's a treaty organization. we need to continue to do what our president is intending to do. that is comply with our obligations and treaties, our constitution, our obligation to what's right by law and what we should do that's in our best interest with what's going on with the world. we need to show people we are strong. we need to comply with our own laws. we need to show some unity, especially whether we are right or wrong. there is a war going on. i've got a grandson.

one of his favorite books is if you give a mouse a cookie. also read the art of war. we need to listen to our generals. they've read those books. they've been educated. we need to start trusting our institutions again. host: tell viewers who haven't read it what the lesson of if you give a mouse a cookie is. caller: it's escalation. he's going to want a glass of milk, vladimir putin is going to do stuff. we need to continue what we are doing. thoughtful, deliberate, controlled responses to his idiocy. we don't need to just knee-jerk and do things based on feelings and emotions. we are going to have emotions.

the person who wins this thing is going to be the person who does the right thing and does what the treated -- treaty says we are supposed to do. if we stay moral, we are going to win. host: what are those obligations? we were talking about this as well. one of those is article 5 of nato, an attack on one constitutes an attack on all. the previous caller was concerned about other countries taking the decision away from us. on whether it's to go to war or something that happens in paula -- poland. that could drag the united states into war. is that a good moral commitment?

caller: yes. we can't control what other nations are going to do. we can only hope they abide by the nato commitment. if poland wants to get out of nato, it's up to us as americans to decide do we still owe poland a moral obligation? they are doing something we can see is to help immorally. if i couldn't stop someone with a stick and he pulls a knife, i don't think anybody would lock me up for shooting them. we need to do what's appropriate in accordance with our laws. host: we've been talking about james robbins in usa today. his column is the impetus for this question. here is a little bit more about

what he writes in the column. and will return it to it again. this is west virginia. it good morning. caller: good morning to you.

i was watching this go on about ukraine. between ukraine and russia, i think there shouldn't be no sanctions. we shouldn't ever get involved. both countries will get along. the thing with this is if it

goes to world war iii, it will be the end. it will be the end of all humanity. what if china and russia gets involved and attacks the u.s.? we are going to be vulnerable here. host: earl is in mississippi. good morning. caller: we are about to step into the biggest mess ever. america has never been a moral country. we were moral country, we would

lock up george bush for what happened in iraq. this is at least equal or worse than what vladimir putin is doing right now. we are not the world's policeman. we should back off of this as far as we can and let a family feud play out. to hell with ukraine. host: this is edward in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i think perhaps from listening to many callers and listening to the news, and people being interviewed, we have lost our collective minds. hello? i've never heard such

warmongering in my life. the casual manner in which people say let's go over and give vladimir putin a bloody knows. they think it's just going to end there. given the ukrainians make fighters because they know how to use them is just wonderful. they are offense of weapons and they will be going into russia and bombing russia. nuclear weapons are going to be flying back and forth. this is the last act for the world. people talk so casually. just go in there and give them a bloody knows and wash your hands. we just came out of afghanistan after 20 years and a very ugly scenario getting out of there. at least everyone who hasn't gone there is still alive. you are looking at nuclear

conflagration, the kind this planet has never seen. host: do you think the russian military or vladimir putin draws a sharp distinction between offense of weapons and defensive weapons? caller: i certainly do. i think if there are jets flying toward the border of russia and ukrainian zeal to get in there and exact revenge, what do you think is going to happen? whoever is supplying those weapons is going to be catching some nuclear missiles in new york city, d.c.. host: that is edward in new jersey. one more twitter thread. there have been a lot of twitter threads throughout this conflict.

this is from last week. she was watching last week's sunday shows and discussions about what the united states should be doing. it applies to this discussion we are having today about escalation and what that means and what we should be concerned about. this is what she wrote on last sunday after watching the shows. this is a series of about nine tweets. bear with me.

host: that was a former navy officer and democratic

congresswoman from virginia. that is from last week. robert is in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know why ukraine ain't getting along with russia. they've got drones up there. they could bomb them just like they've been bombing ukraine. they say we need to do more. we would never see the more. i'm 78 years old. it never happens. have a good day. host: michael in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i just wanted to say my thoughts are i think the only way we are going to get out of this and help ukraine is by doing it diplomatically. that's the only solution at this

point. are we going to send u.s. troops and nato troops and get everybody involved? you will have a full-blown war. i think vladimir biden and putin and zelenskyy have to sit down. everybody has to get there thoughts out. that's the only way it's going to be solved peacefully. host: dennis in ohio. good morning. your next. caller: how is everybody today? i have a crazy idea that i want to throw out there and see what everybody says. in 1939 when the russians invaded poland, they took the eastern portion of the country. they divided it up into several different portions of land.

part of it was given to belarus. part of it to russia. my thinking is, since vladimir putin wants to rewrite the borders and treaties, let's go to work on that. let's make sure we punish the russians for doing the things they are doing. i think belarus should be divided up and basically disappear. it's a country that doesn't really exist in the truest sense of the word. we need to consider the idea of creating a country for the kurds or the proroguing sin iran and pakistan. we need to make sure that vladimir putin understands they are nothing more than a third world country with nukes.

we aren't going to end up with some escalation. whether he is stupid enough to fire off tactical nukes, that remains to be seen. if the polish give planes, they have a border right with russia. how many troops to the russians have in that little area? would they attack lithuanians? these are questions that some of these senators that pontificate about escalations need to consider. there are other issues than just having planes to russia. host: we have just about 15 minutes left in the segment. we went to get as many calls as we can and let you know about what is happening on capitol hill and c-span today.

the house is away on a district work time. the senate is in. today, a lot of things are happening on capitol hill. jerome powell is speaking today at the national association for business economics. that is coming up in just about 15 minutes. you can watch that on c-span 2. we mentioned the senate being in. the biggest focus this week will be the supreme court confirmation hearings. the senate is in at 3:00 today. they will vote later today to advance the bill to increase u.s. competitiveness in china. that is happening on c-span 2 in the senate.

you can watch that here on c-span. we are going to be talking a lot more about the confirmation hearings for judge jackson coming up in the at :00 hour. there is a lot going on today. george is in georgia. you are next. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks for letting me speak. i've got a lot of things to get out right now. first of all, we live in the united states. we forget all of the destruction and conflicts we get into. we have killed so many people, women and children, babies. as well as other countries.

nobody has the moral ground to say what vladimir putin is doing. the world needs to get a grip. this is not the end of the world. god is in control of when the end of the world comes. i am so excited. if you understand the bible, there was going to be wars and rumors of war. that's what's going on now. nobody understands prophecy. all of this is foretold to happen. host: we will hold off on prophecies and focus on what's going on right now in ukraine. joe is in new jersey. caller: good morning. before i get to my point, i have a question. i don't know if you have any senators or congressmen today,

can you get democrats and republicans together? host: having members come on together? caller: i know you have them on all the time. they are always by themselves. you never have them together. will they just not do it? host: we will occasionally do that. a lot of times they will join across the aisle on a specific issue. we don't try to make this a debate program or a crossfire program. we want to give members their time to talk about their issues. we have and will have members on at the same time. it's a three-hour show. we have to fill it every day. that is something we try to do. caller: i think your question is loaded.

what you have to look at is exactly what people have been reporting, will russia used chemical weapons? will they use nuclear weapons? this is all on the by demonstration. these are the same people who when they invaded crimea, these are the same people. this is all on the administration because they can't handle it. he's been lying to the people for the last couple of weeks. people don't know it or are not reporting it. you have to get bits and pieces. they reported the doomsday plan is back over the united states for the first time in decades. has he reported that? the other thing that happened that was very interesting was on abc news saturday or friday.

the supersonic missile, our b-52 forces are on ground alert. they have not been on ground alert since the end of the cold war. half the force is on ground alert so they could be fueled and ready to go. they are waiting for the go orders. that is half the force. that has not been said to the american people. i believe he is not telling the truth on what's going on. they are concerned about russia's next move. i think this is not escalating by us. this is escalating by vladimir putin. i think that's the thing we have to be ready for. it's like president lincoln said

it, sometime war is forced upon you. host: you started talking about the concern about chemical and nuclear weapons. that is certainly causing of bit of concern. it was a topic yesterday on meet the press. chuck todd asking liz cheney about that topic. >> the use of chemical weapons, is that a redline in your mind for whether nato should at least intervene to protect civilians in some form? >> i think it should be. in the west, we need to stop telling the russians what we won't do. we need to be very clear that we are considering all options if chemical weapons are used.

we need to understand that we shouldn't be in the business of self deterrence. vladimir putin's actions so far have demonstrated the russian military is nowhere near is capable as the world thought it was, not as capable as vladimir putin thought it was. if the brutality here increases, the united states will consider every possible range of action. i think it's important that we will contemplate changing the calculation in terms of humanitarian challenges. host: that was liz cheney yesterday. back to your phone calls. we are talking about the idea of escalation, how concerned are you about u.s. efforts supporting ukraine.

how concerned are you about escalation. new jersey, good morning. caller: how are you doing? i'm going to tell you what i think. this is a problem with men in the world. we are so violent. it's disgusting. we have to find out why men think they can do the things they do. this is not a local problem. this is an international problem all over the world. we've got a start talking about what is wrong with the culture, what is men for men to think they can do what they want to anybody. that is ridiculous. host: this is brian in california. caller: how are you? i would like to know why we are letting vladimir putin get away with killing women and children.

that is part of the geneva convention, to leave women and children alone. why are we letting him get away with that? host: what would we need to do? what do you want to see? peacekeeping force? what? caller: i would like to see us get more involved i am in army ranger retired. i do think we should let him get away with it. he's not going to stop there. we know he is a nut. host: tom in new jersey. go ahead. caller: i'm just calling to say what we really made a mistake. i think the trump aide or should step back and see he could at least talk to pruden. biden can't talk to saudi arabians, he wants to talk. he canceled all of the oil

deals. we were in good shape. at least they could've had a better understanding. the reason they didn't put a lot of arms in there to protect themselves is because the same thing might've happened like afghanistan. we had billions of dollars sitting there to be taken. i think they're going to have to hold the line. i don't think they are going to nuke anybody. with all of screaming amount being bombed, it's just crazy. it's crazy like it was when i was a kid. host: i want to come back to that column we read a couple of times. it is by james robbins. it was published late last week in usa today.

this is how he ends that column. we been talking about this idea of deterrence. that is james robinette, the opinion column is for usa today. we will in this hour with your phone calls. jerry in california. your thoughts on this idea of escalation?

caller: i don't think we should be escalating. vladimir putin is going to take over ukraine. no matter what. we can delay it with more weapons. it's just going to pour gasoline on the fire and more people are going to get killed. just let him have ukraine. try to cut some of deal where they save the people that are there. even if these weapons do good, in the end, he will resort to chemical weapons and it will be worse than it is right now. just give it up. they should surrender. just let vladimir putin have ukraine. that's all we can do. otherwise, it's going to be even worse. host: this is mickey in delaware. good morning.

caller: good morning. my opinion is they need to furnish ukraine with whatever they need as far as offensive weapons or defensive. without putting our ground forces on the ground over there. give them everything they need to overcome this. that's all i've got to say. god bless america. god bless ukraine. those poor people are really suffering. host: one last call. in morning. caller: yes. i am really upset over this. at of the queen need to be going to another war in ukraine. newt gingrich made a good point. the weapons that have been sent over there are only one fourth

of what was left in afghanistan. this is fruitless. i agree with the caller before me. let him have it. i feel sorry for the women and the children. i feel sorry for any war. we keep having them in africa. there are conflicts always going on. are we going to go win and take care of all of those women and children it? there are some things out of our hands. this is all been political. it's been going -- all the things in ukraine, fraud and corruption and continual. there is article after article in the paper about it. when you only spend one fourth of the weapons in making the public think you are doing something to help these people,

what we left in afghanistan is ludicrous. host: that was our last caller. in this next hour, two perspectives on judge brown's supreme on the supreme court nomination hearing happening today on capitol hill. we will be joined by the president of the judicial crisis network and then after that we will be joined by melanie campbell. but first from her u.s. court of appeals confirmation hearing last year, judge ketanji brown jackson spoke about her views. [video clip] >> your general thoughts without any specific case in mind about justice in america today. how you've seen it and how it's

changed in your time. judge jackson: i had the privilege of serving at the federal public defenders in washington, d.c. i think it was 16 years ago. as part of that experience, i represented people in the appellate division of my office so all of my clients were convicted. i think the insight that one gains from that time -- kind of professional experience really can be very helpful in future endeavors especially going into judicial service and i have. i can give you a concrete example. when i worked with my client as a defender, my job was to talk

with them and to try and get their health -- help to identify errors, things that have gone wrong so they could raise them on appeal. one of the things i noticed that i was struck by was how little they could help me with that project. most of my clients didn't really understand what had happened to them. they had been through the most consequential proceeding of their lives and no one really explained what they were sick -- supposed to expect. i remember that experience from all those years ago when i became a trial judge. one of the things i do now is i take extra care to communicate with the defendants who come before me in the courtroom. i speak to them directly, i use

their names and explain every stage of the proceedings because i want them to know what's going on. when i have to sentence someone in a sentence more than 100 people today, i always tell them, i explained to them this is why your behavior was so harmful to society that congress thought it had to be made a crime. i say this is why i is a judge believe that you have to serve these consequences for your decision to engage in criminal behavior. i think that's really important for our justice system because only a people understand what they've done, why it's wrong and what will happen to them if they do it again so that they can really rehabilitate. there's a direct line from my defenders service what i do on the bench.

host: as we look ahead this morning, the first day of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court nominee hearings, we get the first of two perspectives on this confirmation hearing today. remind us what the judicial crisis network is and how it is funded. guest: our organization is a 501(c) 4 organization. there was a lot of hostility towards george bush's nominees in the first time historically the filibuster was being used to block nominees so we were making sure nominees would be faithful to the constitution and the rule of law were able to get through the process and re-advocate into commentary on major supreme court issues. >> host: what type of nominee is judge ketanji brown jackson. guest: she has a record on the

bench but his is not point to someone who is committed to interpreting the constitution as it's written. when she was asked what her method of interpreting the constitution would be by senator cruz and by senator grassley during her appellate court nominations, she said she really has no approach to interpreting the constitution bring i find that very troubling. it's a surprising statement from someone who's had common-law in law school. it's really surprising from someone who sat at that time for a years on the federal bench. so i'm concerned public statements are i don't even know how to interpret the constitution, that means we are asking senators to vote for what is a blank slate on the issue, but her record shows a pattern of particularly high reversal rates, not just -- in a vacuum

that might not be concerning because appellate courts may -- there's a lot of reasons that could be paid but in this case we have some of the most liberal judges on an already liberal circuit who said she was going beyond her authority as a district judge, in particular doing so in political cases that had to do with trump era regulations and executive orders print that something that concerns me that she doesn't fully understand the limits on the judicial role in her policy preferences mixed in and intermingled with those legal analyses and i think in my mind that does not bode well for her nomination. host: for folks not much is in the weeds in this, explain what a reversal rate is and what that means and how judge jackson's reversal rate compares to other judges and now justices on the supreme court. guest: judge jackson has a

different background a lot of judges in that she spent most of her career as a district judge and most of the judges don't have that experience. in the federal judicial system, district judges will be hearing trials and dealing with the first level of litigation. after that, say you lose, there is an opportunity to appeal the decision. of her decisions that were appealed to the d.c. circuit judge, the court she doubts sits on, an appeals court for that region which is small in the case of d.c.. of those cases that it been appealed the district court decision, 10% of them have been reversed and that is a very high number for a district court judge. in a vacuum that might not mean much but if you look at the opinion, one opinion in which she was dealing with an immigration regulation that had to do with when immigrants --

illegal immigrants could be expedited for removal, she spent a lot of time on that opinion talking about the merits of immigration, talking about the policy issues. that's not really a judges role. she came to her conclusion she said she tried to overturn what the department of homeland security had determined on that issue, expanding the eligibility for expedited removal. said you don't have the authority said you don't have the authority to do that. you might not agree as a judge with what the administration is doing but you are bound by those limits. you can go in and second-guess that because you think they should come to a different result. that really shows to me the incorrect understanding of what a judge should be doing and in particular, a judge to be on the supreme court needs to be one who has really thought through

how do i interpret the law and the constitution. in the lower courts she's bound by the other decisions either of the appellate court when she was a district judge with the u.s. supreme court. even if she disagrees with them she has to follow those print now if she's on the supreme court, all bets are off. now it's how do you personally think this should be determined under the constitution. so it becomes critically important to know is this someone who thinks the constitution is a living document, it can expand and change and the judge can kind of breathe new life into old phrases and make them mean different things. if that's true we really need to know a lot about her own opinions about where that's going, but if she says i'm actually bound by these rules of how to interpret the text, the text is what was ratified by the

american people in the text of the laws what was passed by our representatives. even if we disagree with it we have to follow it and then leave it to the proper role of the political branches to change that, it's really important to know that in how you interpret our founding document. we don't know from her mouth how she would interpreted. all we know are people who supported her who are in favor of reading their own views into the constitution and president biden who said he wants to appoint someone that as he said would enforce the unenumerated rights of the constitution. he wants someone who will enforce the aspects of the constitution that are in fact not written down. reading into it, other rights, we don't know what they are, that is a huge difference. saying i can read in new rights and who knows what those will be for a judge that could serve 30 years.

versus i'm good at consider myself bound by the text and if the american people want to amend that. or if congress was to rewrite a law i will be bound by that that not to try to bring my own views into the law because that's not the role of a judge. host: let's give the american people a chance to join in on the conversation print about 20 minutes left. phone lines as democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. 11:00 a.m. today's when the first of the hearings will begin today. she was confirmed to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit court on june 14 of last year by a vote of 53-44. she had her undergraduate degree

and law degrees from harvard and clerked for justice breyer back in 1999 and 2000. she would be the first former public defender to serve on the supreme court. carrie severino, as we heard president biden even before she was nominated, she would be the first black woman on the supreme court. what role, if any do you think her race or gender schroeder would play in these hearings the next couple of days? guest: obviously according to the president they played a narc -- large role in narrowing the field for him. at the end of the day the question isn't what her race or gender is, the question is what is her approach to the constitution and we know that's not determined by your race or gender. we have women on both sides of the bench right now. our first black justice, a

thurgood marshall on the left, clarence thomas on the opposite end of the spectrum. the real question for senators has to be what is the approach to the law and how does she carry out that role as a judge. host: you mentioned clarence thomas. news out of supreme court yesterday, justice thomas hospitalized since friday after experiencing flulike symptoms. being treated with intravenous antibodies for an infection and expected to be released in the next day or two so that comes ahead of the supreme court hearing. plenty of calls already. spencer is up first out of clarksburg, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. you have crisis on the name of the title of your group. do you have any problems with

justice not answering questions to the senate and kind of bypassing their answers to the questions? after the ripoff the republicans pulled, why is there such a crisis now? >> we had crisis in our name for quite a while now. i think the crisis is when we have judges who aren't considering themselves bound by the actual laws passed by our elected representatives and the constitutional text ratified by the american people. returning our judiciary to that, that's something that crosses the ideological spectrum. you do interpret law by democrat or republican legislature. as to how judges were potential nominees answer questions, this is something that's long been frustrating to a lot of people. even elena kagan well before she was a judge when she worked on

the judiciary committee as a staffer wrote in a law review article complaining like it's turning into kabuki theater we can get any answers. and the reason is because as a federal judge. you had to be careful not to answer questions that commit you on a case that might come before the court because that would be prejudging the case. any really good judge realizes even if you go in thinking i know this area of law, you may find things that come up in the briefing and the argument that says i think i was wrong. justice thomas had a recent decision he said when i voted to take this case i had an instinct it would go one way and after hearing the argument in the briefing i realized its strength wasn't borne out by the history and the text. that's what all judges should be open to doing.

is she going to be able to talk specifically about cases that might come before the court? no. that doesn't mean there's nothing you can talk about. you can still talk, and judges regularly do talk about cases they've already decided, that will be a topic we will hear a lot about. cases that are been reversed or beyond the jurisdiction. issues that she handled and she was a private attorney or public defender, and her overall philosophy and approach to law. that is something that nominees on both sides of the aisle have talked about and should be willing to talk about. another issue likely to come up is whether she would sit on a case having to do with harvard university because she's on the board of overseers for harvard. normally if you're sitting on the board of an entity even if you own stock in the entity, you can then sit on a case where they are a litigant. i think senators will want to

know. i think an area she can talk about is broader issues that come before the court like court packing, that was someone she was brought up, something the liberal dark money groups who have been the strongest proponents of her nomination have advocated very firmly, one group from demand justice has said he would be happy with up to 40 members of the supreme court. he's also set some shocking things like the constitution should be scrapped. so i think she might be asked about things about that group. are you get a distance yourself. we know justices ginsburg and breyer also talked about court packing so justices can talk about those. i hope we have the opportunity to learn about the nominee because this is someone who could sit on the court for 30 years so we can just kind of breeze through this and go on a

complete lack of information. host: there's always the tape so you mentioned that ask about court packing in the circuit court confirmation. here is that moment with judge jackson being asked by senator john cornyn. [video clip] >> are you familiar with an organization called demand justice? >> i know of demand justice yes. >> do you know they are spending money to promote candidates -- your nomination to the circuit court? >> if you mean by advertising or placements in various publications, i am aware of that. >> and on their website they say they advocate adding additional seats to the supreme court. do you think congress should add additional seats to the supreme

court? >> senator, as a sitting judge, i am bound by the supreme court and i don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the structure or the size of the court any more than it would be to comment on the court's rulings. regardless of the size i would follow the precedent of the supreme court. >> demands justice claims the supreme court is broken. do you think this record is broken? >> senator, i have never said anything about the supreme court being broken and again, i am not able to comment on the structure, the size, the functioning even of the supreme court. >> demand justice says the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interests on their website.

judge jackson, do you agree with that or disagree or do you have no opinion? >> again senator, i am not able to make any comment about whether or not the supreme court is influenced in the way the demand justice apparently, as you say, believes that it is. i don't have a comment. host: terry severino, are we likely to see a replay of that exchange? guest: i hope not because listening to some of her comments she said she's bound by supreme court precedent. it was of the appellate level pitch wouldn't be in this case. she may still try to take it but i don't think senators should allow her to say she's bound by it. she's not. every one of the nine has said

multiple -- has a multiple times overturned former precedent. on top of which supreme court precedents doesn't speak to how many justices around the court. everyone agrees that something that can be changed by congress and has been changed multiple times so it's a question of do you think these ideas of a partisan motivated packing of the court, adding justices for the goal of shifting the balance of the court, are you in favor of that were opposed. many supreme court justices have spoken about this. there's no rule against a sitting judge or justice commenting on it. while i know she will want to say that, i hope we don't have four days of simply i'm not today answer that, i can answer that. because that's can provide -- if we do that, why are we wasting our time with hearings at all? this is a crucial moment for our country. it's a historic moment every time we had a supreme court justice.

this is not something that happens every day. we need to make sure we are doing due diligence and understanding the judges approach and not just simply rubberstamping anyone who comes across the desk because that is the role of the senators in the constitutional check on the president. they have a duty and they've taken an oath to uphold the constitution. host: rick, republican. caller: good morning. i hope she is given a fair chance. i watched the cavanaugh hearing and it was definitely not fair and it was biased and i would be disappointed if they go that route again. guest: 100% agree. i think that something you will not see today. you're not, see all the crazy protesters dressed up in cosplay outside. you are knocking to see personal smears being brought against the

nominee. i think that all should be completely abandoned by whatever party. we have seen one party only engaging in those kinds of attacks on the politics of personal destruction and i think brett kavanaugh and justice thomas's confirmation hearings stand out historically as examples of that. this will not happen now and i would never support it happening grade that doesn't mean we just let the nominee through the whole time because it is a serious debate and we need to revise in our country the ability to have a serious discussion, to engage with real facts and to even disagree about them in a way that still civil. it doesn't mean you have to vote for every single person. but it can still be a civil discussion that really gets at the meat of the issue and that really holds someone's record in close scrutiny because that's what we are required to do as

americans and that's what our senators are required to do. host: i wonder your thoughts last week on that twitter thread by senator josh hawley, a member of the committee will be asking questions on judge jackson's record in child pornography cases in the sentencing of child predators. he got a lot of pushback after that. i wonder your thoughts. guest: i think that's an issue that will definitely be delved into and this been some debates about the quotes. it's hard to read a transcript or look when she's engaging in a conversation with someone else, is she taking seriously some of these claims being made or is she really just reflecting the argument being made to her. in terms of the sentencing, she definitely does have a pattern sentencing well below guidelines. there debates whether those guidelines are correct, but when you look at her all record, that pattern of sentencing well below

sentencing guidelines plays out in other areas. i think that will be interesting to watch out in these hearings because people need to know especially for someone who's talked a lot about sentencing, she was on the sentencing commissioning -- commission for years. is this someone who has a broad view of crime in general or sex crimes in particular that says i actually don't think they should be treated this harshly. she was a law student she published a note that suggested perhaps sex offender registries came out of a climate of fear and invention and may be should constitutionally not be allowed. i think that might be the idea that shouldn't be real concern about the recidivism of sex offenders something that i thing a lot of americans might disagree with. there's a lot of room for discussion for these things. i think the challenge will be to get to the bottom of what judge jackson's real approach would be and i hope she's willing to

answer questions on it. this is something she has dealt with as a judge. she can talk about what her reasoning was in this case or we can find out if she still stand behind her words in those notes she's written. it's been cited a number of times. that suggested we shouldn't be as careful in tracking and monitoring sex criminals even after they are convicted and when they are back in society to help prevent further abuse of particularly women and children. host: this is 45 seconds from yesterday's abc's this week, dick durbin was responding to that series of tweets by josh hawley, he was asked about it. [video clip] >> as far senator hawley is concerned, here is the bottom line. he is wrong. he is inaccurate and unfair in

his analysis. judge jackson has been scrutinized more than any person i can think of. this is her fourth time before the senate judiciary committee. the three previous time she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support. now senator hawley is making these charges that came out of nowhere. fact checkers have discredited these claims already. there's no truth to what he said. he is part of a fringe within the republican party. this was the man who was fist bumping the murderous mob who descended on the capital january 6 of last year. he doesn't have the credibility he thinks he does. host: senator dick durbin yesterday. just a few minutes left for you, callers still waiting. mount rainier, maryland. independent. caller: thanks and good morning. you mentioned somewhat dismissively president biden's preference to protect americans

unenumerated rights. i wonder if you can tell your listeners what the ninth amendment to the constitution says and how a narrow originalist interpretation of the ninth amendment would go? guest: the ninth amendment does reserve certain rights the state gives to the people. the enumeration of constitution of certain rights should not be denied or disparage others by the people. that doesn't mean the federal government then -- it does not list certain rights that the federal government is required to protect in a certain way. the danger is if that language is red completely broadly to allow judges to insert their own opinions and their, that's really dangerous. if you're reading it as an originalist, what were the rights generally presumed to be out there and you can just say

i'm good to read it in my own favorite right of the day. in particular when president biden use that language, he has used that repeatedly particularly in the board hearing which he presided over in the 80's as the senate judiciary chair. as kind of a shorthand for abortion. roe v. wade did not rely on that, it had different arguments. but the way biden uses that, i think most of that for him was a shorthand for thinking abortion is one of those rights. clearly abortion having been illegal throughout the time would not of been one of the rights that the framers would've understood as retained by the people. this would have to be a right that was well understood in british law going into the founding in the first place. it couldn't be a new right because then you're not retaining it, you are inventing it post hoc. host: let me try to get in one

or two more calls. baltimore, a democrat go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call in and say i think you guessed today -- your guest today is a perfect example of what we will see from the senate. it will be let's talk about a memo you had as a law student 20 years ago. i think there's a bunch of ways caller: maybe your guests can speak to that. the last three justices, none of them was under any scrutiny. have a good one. thank you. guest: i take issue that the

last judges had no scrutiny. all of them, just this george's for example, just as brett kavanaugh, there was a lot of discussion of things she had written, her approach to the law. it is always a frustrating moment. i can't comment on how i am going to decide this case. there was still a lot of discussion about, can you at least discuss how the supreme court has approach this issue. it is frustrating for all of us there is not a little bit more, that we cannot get some more

details. we understand why that is true for judicial ethics reasons. we can't just throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can know about this judge. why are we spending four days on this hearing if that is the case. we have to talk about her records and the things she has written. she can illustrate by her career since then if she has changed her position on those issues. that is fair game and this is her opportunity to do so. it is fair for the american people to know that. and for those who vote for her to know what her position is on these issues. it is fair if you say i cannot endorse the way this person will

represent the constitution. you cannot ignore that. we need to be able to have that discussion. and say you could be a nice person but i have to vote against you. host: four days of hearing starts today. carrie severino thank you so much for your time this morning. up next, another perspective on the hearings. ketanji brown jackson will be joined by melanie campbell national coalition on black civic participation of the. she is the president of that organization. stick around. we are back after the break. >> c-span's new website is your one-stop guide to your nations commander-in-chief. find short biographies, video resources and rich images that

tell the story of their lives. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of c-span resources, today. >> c-span's 2022 directory, go there to order a copy of the directory. your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also contact information for state governors and the biden administration coverage. >> washington journal continues. host: another perspective on ketanji brown jackson.

melanie campbell serves as president of national coalition on black civic participation. remind viewers what the coalition is and how long you have been around. guest: it has been around since 1976. a we are a civil rights organization that focuses on voter empowerment, women's leadership, use leadership. we focus on social justice issues. policy host: you are speaking at a rally today. who is speaking at that rally? guest: about 30 or 40 other

organizations. today is his story in itself. we celebrate that we have the first black woman in 230 three years who is going to be elected and going to the hearing process. as black women, women of color, we tended to have a harder time and not treated fairly in this confirmation process. host: she has been through this process before. a bipartisan vote was delivered nine months ago. is your assessment this will be any different from that one? guest: biden and his administration announced he was going to keep his campaign promise that the next time he had an opportunity he would

appoint an african-american black woman to be his nominee, there was very negative backlash . people were being attacked, affirmative action, all kinds of things. that in itself over the last few weeks have shown that we needed, as black women in leadership, know what we would be. on capitol hill, more than a power summit. we were here last week and back again this week. host: we are taking your calls this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. what role do you think judge jackson's race will play in the hearings over the next couple of days? guest: what that represents is lived experience in this nation. diversity, inclusion. we have always had exceptionally qualified black women but we have not seen in the highest court of the land that represented in the highest court of the land.

she walks in the door with that lived experience. having being black and a woman, i can relate to how challenging it is for us to have these opportunities. we have had limited opportunity of women sitting on the court. that is a plus for the bench. host: what about the experience --? guest: that is unique. being able to have that experience, i have heard her speak about her experiences. she understands the rule of law, she understands the constitution. she is going to bring that to

the bench when she walks through the door for this confirmation process. i am confidently optimistic that today she will be confirmed. hopefully by the majority of the senate. that may be a pie in the sky -- but bipartisanship could stand versus partisanship. host: the court of appeals position nine months ago by a bipartisan vote, 53 to 54, judge jackson is 51 years old. a harvard grad. she will be the first public defender to serve on the supreme court. elizabeth is calling for marilyn. independent. you are up first, go ahead. caller: what do you think the republican senators on the judiciary committee are going to

drill her with? do you think she is going to have a hard time with the republicans or not? what do you think? guest: those of us who are advocates of many others, what is happening and we are challenging that the republicans speak up. that they don't use her as a political football. you have a right to ask about questions of her experience on the bench. you have the right to ask her opinions but just don't make it personal and try to attack her character. that is where the concern lies. host: where you concern last week about josh hawley's series of tweets questioning her record on child predators and child poor and cases? guest: yes.

it is the delivery and what are you inferring about her? that is a problem with folks trying to --, her name. as a senator, you have the right. ask the fair questions, ask the hard questions but don't attack this woman's character and her experience that she went through. host: in kingston, illinois. a republican, morning. caller: i am very concerned about abortion. i believe abortion up to 12 weeks is everybody's choice. but not knowing that the child or a lot of people believe it is a child. i do but if i was in that

situation, under three months, i thought that was the law for a long time. i didn't know about electoral abortion that that happen. that is my main concern. if she is a christian, not just a christian, but anything believing in higher power would be nice. i am very concerned about a, ap. i just found out that means minor attractive person. that is pretty scary. people are born bisexual or how they are born, they should be accepted. however god made them attracted to other people. guest: i'm not quite sure what the question was. i would say i don't think she

should let the other jurors sitting on the supreme court be a litmus test. the key for her or anyone is to look at the problem, look at the constitution and assess fairly. host: to orlando. a social circle georgia, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a question. with 95% of the inmates being like male and a black woman judge, it's only one, why wouldn't she be the most qualified candidate to orderly decide a highly 95% black inmate , the fate of what could possibly be.

guest: her lived experience on the bench as not a prosecutor, but a person who defended those who were charged. that will be something very unique, such as someone in that room who can bring that conversation host: to cases moving forward. host: back to the confirmation hearing of judge jackson. the role that rachel biden can play in criminal justice in this country. her experience in cases. here is about a minute i have of that exchange. [video clip] >> your experience as a judge

and as a lawyer, would you agree or disagree with someone who said most racial disparities in criminal convictions result from an unconscious racial bias. would you agree or disagree with that statement? >> as a judge now, it is important for me not to make personal commitments about angst like the question that you asked. my personal views about anything don't impact my rulings. i am aware of social science research. there is a professor at harvard who has done implicit bias work.

there are studies from the commission when i was in the policymaking world that talked about and indicated. all of us have biases we are operating on and we have to think about that when we are making decisions. especially policymakers in the criminal justice system. i aware of those that i don't have social biases. >> i understand that. host: melanie campbell your thoughts on that exchange from last year? guest: even if she has a viewpoint, she is looking at the law, the constitution, and that

is what she will bring to the supreme court. as a judge, she has to set aside personal views to look at the law and make sure she uses exact justice, based on the rule of law. host: north carolina, independent, good morning. caller: first of all, we can start with the supreme court justices going back to clarence thomas, he should never have been on the bench in the first place. not only that, his wife, a trump fanatic still walking around doing things, saying things, --

was not investigated properly. neither was cavanaugh. they have thousands of tips they would not even respond to because they were told not to buy the justice department and by the president. the fbi cut down the investigation. host: do you have a question? caller: the question is, how come every time the democrats have somebody up, we go through this dog and pony show? when republicans come up, these last couple, they have been taken advantage of the situation. host: melanie campbell? guest: those in power push the

nominees. one thing about this administration, they have put a lot more judges on. in some cases that is historic. when you have nominees, from the democratic party, democrats go overboard on trying to find out on the other side of the aisle -- at this point i have seen strong support for her from the white house. the senate is ultimately responsible for pushing her candidacy through. host: joe in tennessee for republicans. you are next.

caller: good morning, melanie. it is amazing how people cannot get over the fact, leave trump out of this and look at the facts on hand. the question i wanted to ask you, do you think that cavanaugh and barrett were given the same amount of scrutiny as this person is going to be given? that is the only question i have got. the democrats grilled these people through the mud. guest: when it comes to this process it would move rather quickly compared to things that happened to mayor collins.

what has happened in the senate is too partisan. depending on which side of the isle you are on, it is very important for this country. it is how you look at it. they have the right to their opinion. if this process is moving along fairly well at this point. we will see what happens when the question start. that will let us know what the tone of this will be and hopefully it will be one of fairness. host: do you have a view on whether more justices should be added? do you think judge jackson will be asked a question to that point today or in the next couple of days. guest: i don't have an official

opinion or a comment on that. she doesn't have any control over that. she hasn't control that process. it will be unfair for her to make a decision --. . i think it is not a decision they would make. i believe the idea of term limits, that is not more interesting to me. could that happen is a question. i just don't see it. host: why is that more interesting to you? guest: because a lifetime appointment could be a very long time. all these other that come before

this court would be a long time. the ability to bring diversity would be good for the country. host: a tweet, derek writes in with this comment, "anyone who thinks we are moving in post-racial america. watch as we have the hearing this morning. it will be a real test of fate." guest: we think about the difficulty. this is fact, not fiction. when you look at elaine greaney are and what she went through many years ago. when you look at loretta lynch and what she went through.

in her confirmation process. if you look at just last year, and even when they's -- the president says he is going to nominate a black woman. we have to continue to push, for our organization, we are about inclusion and having the opportunity for our communities, just like everyone else. the numbers speak for themselves. you are talking about -- sculpted on here for a lifetime. we talk about the reality of

what it means. it matters that i can see myself in ketanji brown jackson. i love saying the name, ketanji brown jackson, because it represents a culture in which i grew up. i can see my nine-year-old great-niece can look up and say i see myself in ketanji brown jackson. we say we are the united states of america, why are we the united states of america? because we are diverse. when you have a space like that that has been majority of white men, that is not good for the nation. i hope we go -- even dealing with the issues of race.

besides living wages and economic justice issue, it is a still issue of race. host: democrat in texas, could you make it quick. ? caller: i want to thank all the black radio stations that speak up for what is going on in this society with our vote. the way they treated president obama, the way they treated his wife and calling them out of their names, all you have to look at our country. black people, stop trying to fit into this country. they are telling us they do not want to have anything to do with us, quit trying to fit in this

country. guest: i pay my taxes like everyone else. i want to make sure wherever my tax dollars go, i have a voice in. she is three is history and we can't rewrite it. we have to put forth things we want to see in this nation. this is our nation. we built it. i am excited for pushing for us to have opportunity, especially in this country. not just for myself but for generations that will come behind me. host: first day of confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. you can watch at 11:00 a.m. here on c-span and c-span.org and the c-span now app. melanie campbell is the president of national coalition

on black civic participation. you can check her website. thank you for your time. we returned with the topic of ukraine in our next half hour we will be joined by a senior fellow at the strategic international studies. to stick around for that conversation. we will be right back.

>> take the c-span 2022 survey on our website. you can watch complete unfiltered live coverage of the upcoming supreme court confirmation hearings starting today at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or on our free app, c-span now. >> in the dedication of his book, mark donovan tells parents, teachers -- thank you for letting me have such a good time when i go to work. he graduated from harvard

medical school in 1979. he was diagnosed at age 25 with severe schizophrenics. he has had four psychotic breakdowns in his life but manages to successfully practice pediatrics for close to 40 years. mark's parents named him after another mark with the last name twain. he writes in his newest book about patients, determinants and insurance. >> on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on c-span3 or the mobile app. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop. c-span 2022 direct -- preorder

your copy today at c-span.org. every copy purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit organization. >> there are a lot of places to get information, but only at c-span do you get it right from the source. c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, if it happens here or here, or anywhere that matters, americans watch it on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we have returned with the topic of russian invasion of ukraine. benjamin jensen, a professor of

strategic studies. good morning to you. we are now a little over four weeks into this invasion. i want you to start by outlining your view of what you think russia's object news were at the beginning of this invasion, four weeks ago, and how or if that has changed over the past four weeks? guest: we look back at the campaign, every indication is russia initially thought this would be a short campaign. they seemed to think if they rolled across the border, there would be such a shock in ukraine, the armed forces wouldn't put up much resistance. they could quickly, within less than 17 days the in the capital of kyiv and effectively cause the administration to put in some type of caretaker government.

19th-century of a man who aspires to be -- in the 21st century. that plan grounds to a halt. it shocked many military observers because the military power, they would overrun any resistance. it started with different resistance around kyiv where the ukrainians held off. an armed seizure is a very difficult operation. one of those major turning points within the 72 -- the first 72 hours of this conflict, ukrainian forces in the east put up extremely good resistance, stopping the russians from rolling through the second largest city. and effectively seeing the russian logistic problems.

it also shows an extreme lack of planning on the russian side. when you saw is the russians knew the resistance and ukrainians fought. it turns out a lot of vehicles had dry rot, tires, leaky seal. a son of a professional force is how you can maintain your equipment. russia moved to a contracted professional force, could not maintain you see the russians struggling to maintain any

meaningful progress. they are still subject to large ukrainian terror attacks. most people look at this conflict and assume it is -- ukrainians are still fighting in mechanized formations. that is large-scale combat. this is not just ukrainian surgeons ambushing russian vehicles, this is combined with that partisan warfare. that has caused the russians to pivoted and think more about siege warfare. how can they use terror and punishment, targeting civilians deliberately to force the ukrainian regime to some type of negotiated settlement? that is where you are at. the first week they lied to themselves.

all they are left with is the ability to increase in ukrainian cities. the war is all-too-familiar with these battle maps host: they are showing. host: in general, we are looking at three frontier out of crimea as the south. your assessment of the objectives for those three fronts, the end goal and which fronts hasn't russia have the most success and the least success? guest: from north to west, the capital, to the east, to the south, large-scale combat coming to ukraine over the next two

weeks if this isn't resolved. starting in the north, russia has done one thing successfully, without firing a shot, if forced della roos to become a supporting state. russian ground forces, and missile forces, to have a taller, fatter version of putin. just like him, have an indefinite term in office. russian field nuclear weapons from belarus. one thing russia has done successfully has already absorbed belarus further than it had. push the shortest distance from belarus down to the capital. this is where you get the neighboring stories of the 60 kilometer -- both partisan and

professional soldiers ambushing those lines. a lot of countries across nato and the world have seen bits of transfer. the objective of that north to south advance is that at this point, siege the capital and if there is a window of opportunity, began to take territory. the russians, at this point, must be realistic enough. they are taking more and more gambles by the day. to realize they don't have the forces to fight we are talking less than 20 kilometers range. that is a key point for the west to consider trying to help ukraine.

the marine corps looking at organic precision fire system or the israeli systems on display recently, you need to have the ability to counter to stop them from shelling civilians in kyiv. it is 20th-century warfare. it is not like what the u.s. or our partners would do. it is laying waste. get their position, hold at risk and negotiated. ukrainian forces have the preponderance of their army in the east. at some of their better units to stop the russians. they want a six ukrainian combat

in the east. main effort, get in position to seize the capital. with that resistance, they started to bypass other cities because of such resistance. that is going to create a conundrum for the russians. they have communication. the ukrainians are going to have more success in the coming weeks i imagine. despite what we are seeing bailey, you are seeing tanks blown up in front of you. you have to steal food from the local economy because your officers didn't take care of you and now all of a sudden you're tank is being attacked.

you can see how this is creating morale issues in the russian forces. the crimea break out, the idea was to push combat power out from crimea and turn right towards mary opal, where you are seeing the large siege. host: -- guest: that is where you have seen that fighting. even when the russians have taken that territory, they have experience counteracts. maybe as many as 30 helicopters damaged or destroyed by the ukrainian artillery range. that civil disobedience by

ukrainians to see their -- who are not content to see their cities occupied. you saw in the last 24 hours, the ukrainian government and the mayor of mary opal refused to surrender. they are fighting block to block in the city. it might seem like the russians are about to win, there is no hard fight than that harder fight. some of the images coming out of mary opal are deeply disturbing and fascinating at the same time. the russian goal of this crimea breakout is to be successful even in negotiated settlement

--. create that land corridor where you connect crimea to russia. and you connect the forces were russia has a site for military presence. host: we are going to invite viewers to join the conversation. go ahead and start calling in with your questions and comments. phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. all the writings by various scholars on this issue, benjamin

jensen's you will see frequently if you view that webpage. benjamin jensen, you mentioned some of the drones. what has russians shown and is able to deliver, how much of the sky are they able to control in the sky -- in this fight? guest: we think the russian ground forces have a failing report card, it is even worse for their air force. being able to put up the size of inventory and ballistic missiles, they should be able to have joint shaping priors to launch its airbases. they have only used 45 minutes.

they do not have the inventory precision. they have to shoot long range missiles to ukraine and target cities in the west. russia wants to have an effect on the west to stop the supply lines keeping ukraine in the fight. ukraine's bravery to keep it in the fight, weapons range -- what that means is russia is susceptible to air missiles. i don't know how many aircraft ukraine has left.

they still want these to increase their inventory. at this point the airspace is contested. you can keep airspace contested either by challenging someone aircraft to aircraft or by challenging them with service to air missiles. ukraine becomes even more important because many of their service air and missiles can interject those missiles so you get to for the price of one. host: this question is from twitter. jeff writes and wants to know a little bit more about the ukrainian drone operators. who are they? they operate out of apartments? are these civilians or being my operated out of a military installation? guest: it is all of the above. an interesting twist in modern warfare. early on in the conflict, a

number of ukrainian citizens and international folks donated class one group one -- like your hobbyist squad copter. the drones do not stay up high and does not stay up long. you have one level of partisan warfare repurposed sing off-the-shelf capabilities. if jeff, for example, would have put up one of those drones and he had the right frequency, trying to support the nation at war. we have a deep understanding of that.

more for intelligent systems, to spot for artillery. a history lesson, one of the origins of combat aviation who led it air force. they are able to shoot artillery and other artillery or concentrations. one of the real heroes of the battle have been a turkish manufactured strike platform. it is able to carry four. what is shocking is the missiles the russians have are not able to stop the --.

one on why that is are they are able to operate their missile system. the radar involves power. no fuel, no radar, you cannot use the service missile. host: joey writing in they are fighting a war of -- it is being brought to a standstill with the will -- when javelins and the will to fight." we hear about javelins so much. before the actual fighting

began. the javelin missiles and how many we provided? guest: i don't know how many we provided and that is a good idea. you want to keep the adversary guessing. you have thousands mentioned but you might have double that or half that. there is a bit -- there is a benefit to ambiguity. the great point about the maintenance, i don't think russia has enough forces to take over ukraine. even without the tremendous support the international community has given to ukraine, ukrainians are fighting a brilliant campaign.

you multiply the benefits of your combat forces. ukraine has flooded in major areas. using dams to make passageways. they have been using this change in coming to the front to slow down vehicles. and dropping vehicles to create can rising up next. russians might be moving toward the water crossing. you have a long start out of vehicles. the interesting thing that hasn't been picked up by a lot of folks, ukraine is showing tremendous ability with drilling operations. if you look at battle assessments done. either video or photographic

confirmation, look at the vehicles they are targeting. that shows not just wild targets, that shows control and intelligence to pick the right type of vehicles to hit. i hit fuel trunks and tanks, they cannot go. armor has a benefit when it is out in the field to provide arms. i hit fuel, i hit bridges. host: before we leave you, talking about tanks, a weapon system becoming the calvary charge of world war i or the battleship of world war ii, is

proving to become outdated in the battlefield? guest: i would be careful assuming that yet. what we have noticed is the russians have not bought their armor the way we would in most other countries. armor combines -- this nelson infantry hunting down those weapons so that armor can be wet -- used as an assault or exultation force. ukrainians have fought brilliantly in a way that even if russians were trying to do that, it would have made it difficult to perform. i give you a may on that one. it depends on how we fight it and how we integrate with other elements. host: this is kelly. good morning, for republicans. caller: the ukrainians,

zelenskyy have become an inspiration to the world. i am having a hard time understanding the weapons and everything we are giving them. i am so glad that biden, we all agree that is the right thing to do. i agree there should be no fly zone at this time. nobody wants world war iii. it takes money to conduct war. china is a piece of the puzzle. we don't know where china stands. but why would we turn off russian oil? it makes sense, but we still know that germany needs their natural gas and yet we are going

to go with other dictators -- saudi arabia backing money to russia. we all live in the same world where it is still the same environment. why can't we turn on our oil? host: we are going to let benjamin jensen jump in. guest: thanks for your call about energy security as a strategy. you hit the nail on the head here. infrastructure is a bipartisan issue. it is not just a national security issue. energy infrastructure is an international security and -- international security issue as well. if we would have had an increase in the number of gas terminals

to the u.s., in north africa, terminals to receive -- viable green investments, still have a long way to go because of the issue. the combination of those infrastructure investments over a five to 10 year. put you in a place where you start to reduce relying on corrupt autographs for your energy. climate change is a viable concern. this war is showing us we need to balance or concern about climate change. whether it is russia, iran, we have to look at the infrastructure investments that will allow us in 10 years to keep time frames and not be late to the party where we clear out old stockpiles.

to keep key countries like ukraine in war for their life. host: columbia, south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate this conversation. i just feel like they are preparing us for putin mass destruction. i know this is asking for a bit of a prediction, what is the next space going to look like? how should we take this as americans, considering we are effectively powerless right now in the struggle? i wanted to know what his thoughts are on the next phase?

host: benjamin jensen, go-ahead. guest: thank you, for your question. you are asking me to make a prediction. i don't mind making a prediction. i will speak to the noble concern about how you brought the average american putin and at is increasingly a small in our circle. right now, nobody likes to tell the truth to dictators, like that movie horrible boss. nobody wants to pass that information up. i think for the first couple of weeks, it was probably uncertain because nobody wanted to assess how bad it was going. at this one, he is probably getting the information. putin has to decide how far is he going to press this in order

to for some favorable concession. my bet is that he wants out, but he has to have some type of face saving measure, he has to have something that he can turn around to the russian public and say, i actually --. he can actually go back to reversing the economic sanctions , and frankly arresting another 20,000 of his own citizens who shown that they are unwilling to rescue this war. that means the real decision maker is putin. it does not get as much parks -- press as it should, has actually been making process -- progress. effectively, it looks like the ukrainians are signaling they will be willing to accept neutrality. probably what is going on is high-level delegations are now trying to decide what territorial gains or concessions

would be in the mix as well. russia clearly wants crimea to be formally recognized as part as russia, but likely is pushing . pre-conflict highly industrialized industries in the east. what does that mean in terms of the battlefield? it means that russia is only able to conduct siege warfare. right now they are trying to use that bargaining time to reconstitute, resupply, put forces forward, even do crazy things like pulling mercenaries into the fight. they are trying to reconstitute, resupply the frontline versus which are currently are digging in. that is why you're not seeing a lot of advancing. what i do think could happen in the next two week as well, the second board of predictions, i

expect to see an acceleration of strike in western ukraine. russia is going to signal to ukraine, international backers that it is unacceptable to supply weapons that are used to kill russian soldiers in ukraine. be on the lookout for some expansion in the west. at this point, they can't push the russian army because of legitimate difficulty. they could tell melrose to invade. they have not been successful in doing that -- they can tell a belarus to invade. they have not been successful in doing that yet. likely, he is playing a weird game where putin is telling him to go and he is coming up with every excuse why he won't join the party. that is my prediction. watching the negotiations a while the negotiations are ongoing. watch for russia to increase the punishment it is laying upon ukrainian cities.

at the same time, beyond the lookout for a possible expansion of the conflict to cut the supply lanes, or at least make it difficult for other countries to some right weapons to the ukraine. host: we spent the first hour of the program talking about the invasion as well. there were one or two colors who were wondering why -- callers who were wondering why ukraine has not brought the force into russia. she says why doesn't ukraine attacked the russian military compound but i staged in russia near the ukrainian border, to take out the tanks are the military equipment. what are your thoughts? guest: they have. ukraine has a limited number of short range ballistic missiles. they fired those at least two occasions into russian military bases on the border of eastern ukraine.

that has happened. the other thing to bring to the forefront, which you did a great job in c-span talking about, is escalation. another dimension of this is in modern warfare, especially when you're fighting a nuclear armed state, you are always managing escalation thresholds. you are trying to get the best possible outcome short of entering the next round of the escalation ladder crane had medium range, immediate range missiles, they would have to be in careful consideration that if i destroyed a russian tank depot, fuel depot outside of moscow, have i now done some that gives them the pretext to do even more to ukraine? likely, the ukrainian military is doing a phenomenal job. again, i would highly recommend

looking at that twitter feed appeared they do a best job in compiling information. for every one ukrainian of vehicle loss, about five russian vehicles lost. even weirder from modern war, it leaves two to three at times. every vehicle the ukrainian lose, they add two to three new vehicles. they are actually recapitalizing their armed forces while they are fighting the russians. that is the only truth in war that will only be tragedy is what comes in the expense of the ukrainian population. host: plainfield, illinois appeared independent. in morning. . caller: i have a hypothetical scenario. if ukraine were to follow and russia takes over the ukrainian

banks and financial system, putin decides to put his money and russian money in natural systems and makes it altogether so that russia and ukrainians, the banking systems are all kind of together. how are all financial sanctions that have any effect of the country that is decimated? i mean, that is basically my question. how can we avoid that? guest: great question about scenarios. in fact, we have began a series of crisis demolitions on ukraine at csi, using great support to model some of the critical junctures that produce alternative futures in scenarios you are speaking about. the scenario deals with modern economic warfare. one of the major ways that many

country band together in this case, frankly did not anticipate was the degree of sanction that were to short order brought to bear. have they gone far enough? the two largest russian banks can still profit. the earlier color pointed out. aller pointed out. they have not quite has gone as far as they could. if for some reason, russia was in some form of success, you would expect there to be a large form of uncertainty to continue in ukraine. they could pivot to target russian interest. i think they could pivot quite quickly to cut up these narrative you are worry about --to cut off the scenario you are worry about. what happens in that scenario. russia would essentially be absorbing all of the death of

ukraine to formally and i said. that is why you're seeing this interesting move about russia that prefers warfare appeared they are always loosely independent but they know all of their interest back to moscow. i think the dinero you are taking it would be something like tha -- i think the e scenario you are talking about would be like that. mr horrifying aspect would be, in any scenario, even right now, planting season has already started. you're going to see a massive spike in food prices and shock in global food markets given the war in ukraine and black sea supply line. back to the earlier caller, what does this mean as to what we can

do for -- as american citizens? donate to american -- humanitarian relief efforts to ukraine. this will spread beyond ukraine through food prices. it is already hitting american spirit i gassed up my car last night and it seems to be more expensive each time. especially, in ukraine. this war will end, but rebuilding of the ukraine is going to take decades. we can't forget them when it is time to do that. host: a couple of minutes on this segment. fort lauderdale, florida. republican. caller: ok. it is a sorry excuse that we have such, you know, a dark phase on the liberals that have scared up the whole channel that runs down to the basement every time putin yells nuclear

weapons, stand up and be a man and the president of the united states. if i was the president, i would have dropped on putin's mansion and flattened his mansion to the ground. host: got your point. guest: some of these other operations that have been proposed. guest: i think it is always easy. it just like we watch football on sunday, it is easy to say could have, would have, should have. but when you really look behind the curtains, it is real. i would encourage the caller to google plume spread.

while everyone loves, i get myself into it to, speaking like a tom clancy novel, this is not a game, this is not fiction, this is a real-life, real-life against an adversary that has retooled this arsenal to be capable of limited use and precision strike nuclear attack. it shows they are willing to assume more risk than we are. i am all about finding great ways to conduct positions, relative to the regime of the kremlin, but has to be done with this escalation management. i know for most of us, it is weird. we unfortunately think that violence is unscalable, we try to use comparisons. two individuals fighting with their fists or broken models or even a pistol is not the same as nations and states armed with

nuclear weapons. sometimes our search for examples can disturb us because we have to assess what different as the order of higher extraction, whether it is about u.s. versus russia, u.s. or nato versus russia. this war has a long way to go. host: what you think about the people who says why isn't putin worried about escalation? guest: i think he is. i do not think he will ever give an honest view about it. you are not going to see him sitting on oprah's couch talking about his greatest fears. i think he is deeply afraid. this is a man who will not sit within 20 feet of his own security officials. my suggest is putin is a man full of fear. he is afraid of his generals, he is afraid of the elites, he is afraid of the u.s. military, he is increasingly afraid of the ukrainians.

he is most afraid, most afraid of his own relation. because --operation. population. many servicemen have died writing in ukraine, there's a equal number of russians arrested across the country. the mark for us would be to manage that narrative. we could learn a lot about president zelenskyy about how to manage a narrative, and make sure the russian people blame their own regime. host: we will have to end if they are. come back and join us down the road. you can see his writings there. also, strategic studies at the marine corp. advance. thank you. guest: thank you. host: 20 minutes left in our

program today. we will end as we often do in open forum. it is time to hear from you about any topics. phone lines are yours. democrats, republicans, independents. the numbers are on your screen. go ahead and start calling now. ♪

"washington journal" continues. host: time for open forum. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. senators voting later today to advance the house has billed to increase u.s. competitiveness with china. the main action when it comes to the senate today is going to be the beginning of the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge catania brown jackson.

you can watch here starting in about a hour and 15 minutes on c-span or c-span.org. you cannot watch in our video app. plenty of ways for you to joi n watch in our video app. a democrat, go ahead. caller: i have one thing i need to say. there's a lot of people out there that believe that this russian and ukraine situation has just come up out of nowhere. i want to take people back to when vladimir putin and former president formal donald trump had their meeting in the oval office. i am almost one hundred percent sure that this was a conversation that he and donald trump had. it was almost, i believe that

that conversation went as such. hey, we're going to invade ukraine during your second term of presidency, as soon as he went this any duty to keep united states out of the --i need you to keep united states out of the fight. we will help you out as much as possible financially. we will do our best to make sure you stay in office for a and help you become long-term president. host: that is michael with his prediction. this is fred in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i just -- i am blown away about the way people talking about nuclear. people have been talking about what happens when the nuclear bomb launch and computers take

over. people talk about economies and money, all of the strategic ideas when we are probably on the verge of a one of the worst catastrophes that could happen. that is all i have to say. host: illinois. you are next. republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. i love c-span. he was never afraid of controversy. is there any chance you could get maranda on their and to get the facts out there to everybody in the country? everybody is afraid to speak of it. everybody in the world knows about how corrupt they are.

the january 6. the police officers did not die on january 6, unfortunately they commit suicide. president biden keeps saying they died on the day and that is not true. host: this is a lynn in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning c-span. i do not think it is rocket science what is going on in the ukraine and with vladimir putin is a doing is a war crime. and why the free world to the world court is beyond me. it is horrible what is going on. and why the free world doesn't join together and say that this

guy is about news and the world court should take care of it. what he has done to children, to places that was marked, it is putin's playbook. it is a repeat on what he has done in the past, when he is doing now, it is a horrible situation. what is your view on it? host: our job is to hear your view on it. it is a chance to express your views. you can do it everyday on "washington journal". this is a james. a republican. caller: i wanted to comment about your previous presenter. at the he has done a great job. i do not know a lot about war, but it seems to me if putin being so powerful, he could just go in and take the capital,

kyiv. to me, it seems to have some me i'll tear your motive or alterior motive. maybe putin has some motive. i don't know. that is host: what i have to say. host: do you think putin is bad? caller: that is not the type of leadership you want. with all of the corruption that is happening in our country. i do not know what his motive is. there was a government in ukraine. what is his motivation now? i don't know. host: do you think he should be charged with war crimes? caller: i think in --any

leadership, i think sure, i couldn't agree with that. i think the u.s. has done terrible things too, and a lot of countries have. i just do not know the motive for putin this time. i can't resolve that. with all of this information about biolab's and what is happening in wuhan, some type of connection. that is all i am suggesting. host: the russian ambassador to the u.n. who continues to bring that issue up. the u.n. pushing back strongly on that topic and other members pushing back as well. did you watch those meetings with the u.n.? i think we lost the caller. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: i am good.

how are you? caller: i am great. it is just a shame that everything has to be ran by dictators and want to be dictators, speculators and a lobbyist. nothing is going to change. but if they do not do something with putin, he will look just go right on down the line and there will not be in u.n. anymore. nato will be the thing of the past. the leadership will be led by dictators. i won't vote again because all we have is crooks in politicians. host: have you ever not voted before? fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment about the first color that you had. i think it is kind of sad that

people are still blaming donald trump for the action in today's administration. we were not in war with donald trump. before donald trump, if you want to go back, it was barack obama who leaned over in a conference stating wait until i get in office and that kind of conversation. so, i think it is sad that people are blaming donald trump. host: ok. to terry in oklahoma. republican, you are next. caller: i believe that he had shut our economy down. electric vehicles and all of that. if you do not stop the fossil fuels, economy is safer and

better. we should have done more. we should inspect the planes. we should stop bowing down to putin. host: more conversation tomorrow on this program on drilling and pipelines and oil in gas as well in our nine a.m. eastern hour, we are to be joined by news on that topic. we will come back to that tomorrow. just a couple of minutes left this morning. michigan. independent. caller: good morning. what is concerning to me is that we knew months ahead of time that this was going to take place. i can't believe we would not have supported him prior to this. basically, they are responsible for what is going on with

ukraine and the deaths that are involved. it is foolish that a strong country that we could have spent in place the weapon system. now it is a difficult and taking so long to get in. i know there was some concern because of the goof up in afghanistan or all of our military weapons were left behind. probably thought the same thing about ukraine. however, our cia and forces should have been aware of how ukraine would have handled any, this kind of issue. yet, they would allow that to happen. this whole presidency is just a mockery. people get off of trump. trump would not have allowed this to happen, i do not think it would have happened. that is all i have to say. host: in to minute we are

expecting the gavel to come down in the confirmation hearings. we will show you what the hearing room looks like this morning. the press gathering the standard pictures by capitol hill photographers, they are likely taking a picture of her nameplate in the front of her seat. you always see that picture on a big hearing day. the room is starting to fill up. it is going to begin at 11 a.m. eastern this morning and you can watch it here on seas and, c-span.org or the c-span radio app. more phone calls this morning. marsha in new york city. thanks for calling. caller: i just wanted to say no one is perfect. biden is a very skilled politician.

i think he is a doing the best he can with our country. i am a little tired of all of the people talking to trump who really does not care about americans or the united states. poor ukraine is suffering because we have to watch putin and be careful of what he does. is he going to use of nuclear weapons? is he going to use other kinds of things? he is already destroying the country. so, i just hope it is over soon and people wake up and realize that donald trump was a crook. host: marcia in new york city.

our last caller. we will be back here tomorrow morning. in the meantime, have a great monday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television