talk about their podcast "broken doors" and the use of no-knock warrants by police. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: the further we get from january 6, 2021, the closer we may be getting to see the ultimate legal consequences of that violent and deadly attack on the u.s. capitol. new audio revealing the views of kevin mccarthy. marjorie taylor greene in court yesterday defending her views before and after the attack. jamie rankin on the generous six committee warning the final report will blow the roof off the house.

saturday, april 23, 2022, good morning and welcome to washington journal. for our first hour, we will ask you, will the january 6 attack be a factor in your vote? (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. your text messages are welcome at (202)-748-8003. we are on facebook, you can post their and on twitter and instagram, @cspanwj. that time of year when primaries are getting closer. ohio primary is may 3, we will talk about that later. we will cover a senate debate in the upcoming week. the pennsylvania senate debate coming up this week. the hearings on january 6, the house and senate return next week. those deliberations continue.

we should find out more about potential public hearings and a possible report from the january 6 committee. on the court hearing yesterday in georgia, the atlanta journal-constitution, their headline, a fiery marjorie taylor greene flights a challenge on her candidacy. she gave testimony on the witness stand friday to fight the legal challenge filed by a group of her constituents who want her banned from seeking office for the role she may have played in last year's attack on the u.s. capitol. she responded to questions posed by an attorney for the challengers saying she did not remember many of her remarks or actions leading up to the riot on january 6, 2021. disputed video clips and news articles documented her statements, she dismissed them

as "manipulated by the biased media." she admits she promoted the rally that day but said she never encouraged or participated in the riot that sought to block the formal vote that certified joe biden's victory. is the january 6 attack a factor in the midterm election vote? (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. we will hear more from marjorie taylor greene and that audio from kevin mccarthy. let's hear some of the back-and-forth between the attorney and representative green yesterday in that georgia courtroom. [video clip] >> if someone broke the law in an effort to interfere with accounting of the electoral votes, that person would be an enemy of the constitution. am i right about that? >> breaking the law is unlawful.

there have been over 700 people charged for what happened january 6. >> those people were trying to interfere with the lawful process of counting the votes for the electoral college? >> i i i would think, yes they did, they stop the electoral count, yes. >> those people were the enemies of the constitution, you would agree with that? >> i don't know i don't know, i don't know if i would define it that way. >> well, having taken the oath we saw on the screen, if you were aware someone was going to lawfully, excuse me unlawfully interfere with the constitutional process of counting the electoral vote, you would be obliged by your oath to try to stop it, right? >> i object. host: the attorney is asking the questions, marjorie taylor greene yesterday. our opening question this morning, is the january 6 attack

a factor in your midterm election vote? (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. first up, new york city, brandt on the republican line. caller: good morning. [laughter] your introductory was a little biased by the way, you know, assuming the left-wing point of view introductory. anyway, i watched all of marjorie taylor greene's trial or whatever you would call it. this january 6 investigation and trial coming up, to me, it reminds me of what the soviet union. first they find you guilty, then they give you a trial and then

they hang ya. this is what is going on. first of all, you are supposed to have a bipartisan mix. you did have when you had jim jordan and congressman banks. at least you had two republicans. nancy pelosi stepped in, took them away and put two trump hating types in there, liz cheney and the other guy. it will not be a fair trial, number one. number two, i watched barack obama just get finished talking. barack obama created black lives matter. a reporter asked him to, three months before he was ready to retire from his second term, he said, aren't you afraid, what do you call them, fascists out

there that might do you some harm? the president, he answered no. as we speak i am creating my own private army. no reporter asked him what the president of the u.s. meant by that strange remark. about a month after that, he went to an all black college -- host: we will move on. donald, florida, republican, will the january 6 attack be a factor in your boat? -- vote? caller: these people that say that wasn't nothing, 144 police officers -- [indiscernible] -- we are hitting them over the head with the flag. they cut fingers off. donald trump went there, going to come to this place. he brought them there. they did not come on their own.

-- [indiscernible] -- minority leader in the senate that stopped it. it was supposed to be -- [indiscernible] -- past the house, went on to the senate. [indiscernible] it was going to be people that didn't work -- [indiscernible] -- it will be remembered for history forever. he will always be -- 14 senators in the house, democrats, republican senators convicted him. [indiscernible] lindsey graham said that is it. i have it. that is it. i had it. mccarthy said he had it. he also said he is responsible for it. host: the audio came out

yesterday, that story breaking in the new york times, thursday. "i have had it with this guy, gop leaders privately blasted trump after january 6. in the days after the attack, kevin mccarthy and mitch mcconnell told associates they believe president trump was responsible for inciting the deadly riot. mr. maccarthy went so far as to say "i have had it with this guy." here is some of that recording. >> you on the phone? >> i am here, kevin. when we were talking about the 25th amendment resolution. >> yeah. >> you asked, what happens, is there any chance he might

resign? any reason to think that might happen? >> i have had a few discussions. my gut tells me no. i am seriously thinking of having that conversation with him tonight. i have not talked to him in a couple days. from what i know of him, i mean you will know him too, do you think he would ever back away? what i think i will do is call him. this is what i think. there is a good chance it will pass the senate, even though he is gone. i think there is a lot of different ramifications for that. i have not had a discussion with the dems -- [indiscernible] -- this is one personal -- [indiscernible] -- i do not want to get in any

conversations about -- [indiscernible] the discussion i would have with him is i think this will pass and it would be my recommendation -- [indiscernible] i mean, that would be my take. i don't think he will take it but i don't know. host: when that audio came out, by the way speaking there with liz cheney, some reaction from democratic members of the u.s. house, reaction from brendan boyle saying a reminder that "my kevin ingratiated himself to trump personally by picking out his favorite jellybeans." also from adam schiff of the intelligence committee saying " authoritarians don't come to power alone. they come to power on the backs of men like kevin mccarthy, men

too weak to adhere to any principal." our opening question for you is about january 6. will that be a factor in your midterm boat? -- vote? maryland, terrel, good morning. caller: good morning. if i had a representative, i am in maryland, if i had a representative that agreed with the people that did this thing and wanted to hang mike pence and harm nancy pelosi, you know i would not vote for them. they had the trumpsters of their calling the black policeman the n word. they do things to see how far they can push the button. when they saw donald trump getting away with no harm no foul after he said he could put his hands up young girls

dresses, he could have sex with a point star without protection -- donald trump got away with all these things. there was nothing done. now all of a sudden the commission comes out. kevin mccarthy is lying. marjorie taylor greene is not answering questions. jim jordan don't want to answer questions. they are all running now. donald trump is losing his power. he is going to go nowhere. that is why the american people voted him out. host: omar, republican, lacrosse, virginia. caller: hello? host: you are on air. caller: good morning. i think they should not vote for this lady. come on. if you vote for anyone that said the election was stolen, you

know they are lying. they are following donald trump. donald trump is a loser. they keep following donald trump, they going to lose too. we need to take money out of politics. take money out of it. host: we ask that you call in on the line that best represents your views. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. tom, mount vernon, new york, good morning. caller: is it going to affect the way i vote in 2022? host: that is the question. tom, make sure you mute your volume. caller: i just it. -- did. it is not going to affect my vote. for anyone that participated in any violence, broke windows or whatever, prosecute them.

the way i understand it, a couple dozen people are still being held. they have not been charged with anything. donald trump had nothing to do with that. he said patriotically and peacefully protest. anyone that committed acts of violence, they should prosecute them. it is not going to affect my vote. i am not a republican or democrat. i have always been an independent. donald trump had nothing to do with it. if he runs in 2024, i will vote for him again. i voted for him in 2016 and 2020. i would vote for him again. adam schiff is a liar. he lied about the phone call between donald trump and the ukrainian president. he has no credibility. that is it. host: some response via text. (202)-748-8003.

"and i guess every loud angry protester that got away with disturbing cavanaugh's hearing should be in jail as well?" "it will absolutely play a part in my vote." "anyone who fully appreciates what the first amendment means had to have gotten chills. the mtd hearing was a soviet style show trial." here is more from that hearing. a question about a tweet sent out earlier that week that said something along the lines calling for, fighting for trump. [video clip] >> one of the things you are communicating to the people who read this tweet was that you want them to come to washington on january 6 for a demonstration. is that right? >> for a march for trump.

>> fight for trump, the phrase you used his #fightfortrump. >> that is what it says on my tweet. >> you posted that because you in fact wanted people to show up on january 6, 2021, d.c. in order to help you stop the 2020 election from your point of view. ok. i am not sure we got a clear answer on this. you believed at this time the 2020 election had been stolen by the democrats from mr. trump? >> i was asking people to come for a peaceful march, which is what everyone is entitled to do under their first amendment. i was not asking them to actively engage in violence or

any type of action. >> my question is simple. it is about your opinion. when this tree came out, it was your opinion the election had been stolen or was about to be stolen? >> under my opinion, there was a tremendous amount of fraudulent things that happened in the election. under my opinion, i want to do anything i can to protect election integrity and protect the people of my district in georgia, the people's vote, they should count. >> is it fair to say that from election night, 2020 until january 6, 2021, your personal opinion and wish was that congress not certify joe biden as the winner of the 2020 election? >> that is not accurate. >> he believed joe biden -- you

believed joe biden had lost the election to mr. trump? >> well yes. we saw a tremendous amount of voter fraud and we have investigations going on right now in georgia. there are investigations going on in multiple states. my own husband showed up to vote at the election and when he went into vote in person, he was told he had already voted by absentee ballot, when in fact he had never even requested an absentee ballot. there are many instances. host: the u.s. house returning next week. they are on a timeline to complete the work the january 6 committee, the headline from msnbc, "revelations will blow the roof off the house." representative raskin suggested the committee's upcoming hearings will be dramatic and include explosive revelations the panelists have been piecing together for months behind the scenes. members of the committee plan to

hold those hearings in june and aim to have a report out about the investigation by the end of the summer or early fall. some comments on social media. "republicans are beginning to realize words have consequences." "marjorie taylor greene just doing what hrc did about benghazi, i don't remember." "one side uses a majority to ruin america, the other uses it to do nothing. the rnc has taken more money when nfd;s are driving the bus." they showed us what they are capable of. back to your calls. avery, new york, john you are on the air. caller: i think this is the

beginning of a kind of brown shirt mentality. what we need is to get back to democracy. the republicans have lost all sense of what democracy is. democracy is not authoritarianism. the north koreans talk about their dear leader. we need to get back to common sense. host: kenton, north carolina, terry on the republican line. caller: good morning. i keep hearing you bring up the false claim that donald trump lost the election. well, what about c-span and allies you committed for the last four years? you lied to us about russia. which, in turn, not only stole

my vote, it stole 75 million americans vote, based on your interpretation of what the president was doing. everyone generally six deserve to be up there and try to take our country back from the lies that were going on. host: and are, democrats line, andrew, sterling, virginia. caller: definitely. the attack on our capital, on our democracy should prove to every american that the republican party is unfit to lead this country from dogcatcher up to the presidency. they have enabled this talk about trump being totally innocent when he inspired the entire attack on our democracy. the republican party has been

come -- has become the party of insurrection. the party of anti-democracy. to vote for any republican at any level in these midterms is the first step toward destroying our democracy. they have become the pro putin party, the pro-russian party. if americans continue to vote for republicans, we will become just like putin's russia and our democracy will be destroyed forever. they are unfit to lead or govern. the only thing is their quest for power. americans, you better wake up because we are on the verge of losing our democracy and we will lose it quick and we will never regain it. host: michael, independent line, stanford, connecticut. caller: good morning. yeah, fortunately enough, i don't have too many republicans here to vote for. i am independent. there are not too many republicans here.

it just seems like what we hear from these people, they are just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. mccarthy, from what he said on these tapes, to now, he has turned it all around like oh no trump is great. if you wanted a dictator, why would anyone want trump? the guy is dumb. desantis is dumber than trump. i can be stupider than trump? where is this country going? let's race to the bottom? how dumb can we get? where is this going? what are these people thinking about? are they thinking at all? i don't think there is a brain amongst them? marjorie taylor greene forgot everything but she knows there is so much fraud going on but she forgot what she said and where she was and what she -- i don't know. host: joe, republican line,

alabama. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i will vote for anyone who supported the protest, january 6. the impeachment is going to start, first week in february, 2023. get rid of joe, who has ruined this country. then we are going to get rid of kamala. have a good day. host: richmond, virginia, democrat line, keith. caller: hi, good morning. good morning america first of all. specifically, this is a great topic. it is a good discussion. my comments, first of all, i want to say sorry to c-span because that was inappropriate,

the other caller gave about you being responsible for lies and content that is totally erroneous. you do a great job of staying in the middle is much as possible. all of you republicans and democrats that are part of the staff. i want to say three comments. first of all, i believe trump was totally responsible for january 6. i do not want to take one ounce of weight off of his shoulders for what happened. he should be held accountable for that. he is a smart enough man to know exactly what he was doing. anybody that stood by him, around him or with him including marjorie taylor greene should not be put back in office again. i want to say another thing. republican party, you are losing credibility with this. you are losing credibility.

your vote count will go down. i want to say to the democrats, we must vote. you must stand up to vote. we cannot lay down and let ourselves be rolled over by this republican party who is trying to take this country. i'm sorry, i don't mean to say this bluntly about all republicans. i am democrat. i'm calling on democrats. there are times when i have found fault with the democratic party and wanted to change to the republican party but i am telling you now, what they are doing is causing people to divide and away from your party. i am asking the american public, democrats especially, focus. we need every vote to stop what is going on. host: wall street journal this morning reporting on the reaction from the former

president donald trump. the headline in the online edition "mccarthy relationship not damaged." he said friday evening his relationship with kevin mccarthy remains good after reporting emerged of mr. mccarthy telling other gop lawmakers he would advise mr. trump to resign several days after rioters stormed the u.s. in january 6, 2021. in an interview at his mar-a-lago resort in florida, mr. trump said he was not pleased to learn of the comments on the call but he said the california republican never ultimately advised him to quit. he said mr. mccarthy quickly changed his stance "when he found out the facts." i didn't like the call, said mr. trump, but almost immediately, as you know because he came here and we took a picture right there, you know the support was very strong.

the photo was an image seen as formalizing mr. trump's continued dominance in that party. fort payne, alabama, republican line. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to say this, i do not appreciate you running the clips and letting the f word be on the tv for everyone to see. i think that should be blotted out. i don't have any respect when you do that. second of all, both virginia callers you had, their comments are very empty. second of all, i think we rode this horse to death. we have got people dying in

ukraine. yes, this will change my vote back to the way it was. i will support any republican that runs because biden's administration is ruining our country. senior citizens are suffering in america on account of the things he is doing. nobody addresses the senior citizens. as senior citizens have already put our time in. donald trump, what if he told you, go jump off the bridge would you do that? he did not tell anybody to break into the capital. if he tells me to jump off the bluff, i would tell him hold my hand and we will do it together.

you do not do things people tell you to do if you know that they are wrong. i feel like this has been blown out of proportion. i am a republican and i am proud of it because i am a christian. i do not believe in abortion. i do not believe in same-sex marriage. i do not believe in interracial marriage. i think we should stay with our own kind. as far as the washington journal, i will not say that you guys have lied. i will say that you are one-sided. i used to watch you every day. if the democrats call and you let them say their whole rigmarole. if the republicans call in and they are telling the truth about what they see, you cut them off. i would appreciate it if you would query -- quit showing the

f word. host: we will get to more of that story and a moment. let us hear from greg in ohio on the independent line. caller: good morning. as far as january 6, it does not change my vote it all. i will vote for trump. all i know is that thing was set up. host: how do you think it was set up? how do you define that is being set up? caller: december 14 she was briefed as to what could've happened. she turned down the national guard.

as soon as he walked down the steps, let's impeach him. it was all set up. people have been brainwashed by cnn, ms nbc. host: the committee says that meadows knew about the threat of violence. they asked a federal judge to enforce a subpoena of mark meadows because he had been warned of potential violence ahead of the riots. he has provided some. minutes -- some documents that have since made -- been made public. the latest filing asks the court to reject the former white house chief of staff challenges to the authority. they argue that he could provide

information despite his claims of executive privilege. on the democrats lined up from scranton, pennsylvania. caller: january 6 will influence my vote. not only that, the appalling conduct of the republicans for the past couple of years. it will influence my vote. i will say this, we have a good system of government. we have a good system of elections but we also have a lot of bad people in office. that is one of the main problems . the biggest problem is we have a lot of idiot voters, 70 million one trump as president. that is our main problem. the voters are putting the wrong people in office. that is all i have to say. host: on the democrats line, louise in north carolina. caller: i was listening to the

conversation this morning and i don't understand why our republican callers don't believe what they see or hear. with marjorie taylor greene, she will denying, deny, deny. you see what is going on, people have to know that trump lost. you had the lincoln project that did not vote for trump. that is why he lost with democrats and the lincoln project. people need to stop this and get their nation back together. trump is calling the shots on everything right now as if he is still in the white house. any time an ex-president takes

secret documents and takes it with them when they are supposed to leave them in washington. that is a croak. that is why we are having so many problems with russia. he must have something on kevin mccarthy and all of those who went along with them. host: based on some of that audio from the new york times from kevin mccarthy shortly after january 6, and his testimony -- and the testimony from marjorie taylor greene with her candidacy being challenged. all of that video is available on c-span now and our mobile app. we will re-air that court hearing tomorrow shortly after 1:00 eastern on c-span. we are asking you, will the january 6 attack be a factor in your midterm vote?

(202) 748-8001, is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000, for democrats and for others (202) 748-8002. democrats prod biden on his stalled agenda. they are pressing president biden to take quick action when lawmakers returned to work and they hope that even modest policy moods can help temper republican gains in the midterm elections. elsewhere in this piece in the washington journal, they have a chart, this is a chart based on data from the political report, democrats are under pressure to retain the majority in the house and senate. here are the tossup seat numbers. the tossup seats for democrats are 19, far fewer for republicans which are eight.

it is close in the senate. tossup seats where they cannot predict where the vote is going in the fall. three democratic tossup seats and to for republicans. this is from the political report. marjorie taylor greene in court being challenged by a liberal group in georgia on being allowed on the ballot in georgia. she was asked about the potential for violence at the gathering near the white house and later on the capital. >> your testimony under oath is that you did not talk to anybody in government about the fact that there would be large protests on january 6? >> i don't remember. >> you spoke to representative biggs or his staff about that fact? >> i don't remember.

>> how about representative gosar? >> i don't remember. >> did you talk to people at the white house about the demonstrations on january 6? >> i don't remember. >> prior to january 6, did anyone mention to you the possibility that there might be violence in washington on january 6 2021? >> i don't remember. >> was it possible that someone told you that things could get violent on johnny where is six -- january 6. >> i don't remember those conversations but i remember nancy pelosi was not taking protection seriously. >> did anyone ever mention to

you the possibility of violence? >> i don't remember. >> so you are not denying it you're saying that you don't recall. >> i don't recall. >> people said they are having these demonstrations in washington, and some of these people coming to the demonstrations might become violent. that never happened? >> i have seen the blm riots and i've been to trump rallies and i have never seen violence. >> and the people coming january 6 were trump people, right? >> i knew that people were coming for president trump their objections. >> and some of the people came because you asked them to come? >> evidently i tweeted about

january 6. host: those recordings from the new york times. the headline the greater political danger for mccarthy was the truth. representative john breyer saying that mccarthy has been caught lying, this story was published today. the majority leader saying that american voters should not have well-funded political activist. marjorie taylor greene is undemocratic and un-american. in baldwin, missouri, rick is up next on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i voted for trump for the past two times. people have said they

will vote for trump but he is not up for election in the midterms? a quick history here. going back to 2015, 2016 there was a populist candidate running for the nomination. he conducted a hostile takeover. they did not want them as their candidate. at the same time, there was a populist candidate running for the democratic nomination, bernie sanders. the republicans did not have anything in place to block trump from winning. the democratic party, you need to look at yourselves. you blocked bernie with a few hundred people, superdelegates, keeping bernie from taking that

nomination. we could've had a different history on the democratic side if you did not have superdelegates, party elites overruling thousands of primary votes to get their preferred candidate hillary rodham clinton. trump gets involved because he had been fought by washington on both sides. republicans fighting against him, it could have been a different story. democrats have to look at their party with the superdelegates. trump's super popular and i would vote for him again. host: as an independent, does it every frustrate you that as an independent, it is really hard for you to have influence in those parties locally and much

more broadly, nationally? caller: i have called them before and said that the two-party system is limited. that is frustrating, yes. the democratic party has had a difficult history for decades. i hope that answers your questions. host: we will go to arizona next on the independent line, this is richard. caller: good morning. i don't think i will let it interfere with my vote. i don't think i will give it a whole lot of consideration. host: to sharon on the democrats line in new york. caller: i would like to say

thank you for taking my call and i am calling to counteract some of these other calls. all of the crazy calls, i should not call them crazy. the calls that come in from people who watch two hours of the january 6 massacre and still say that they would vote for the republican party, i cannot believe it. we all watched that for two hours. it is ridiculous. how can people put their heads in the sand and vote for this party? this is the klan party. i think the midterm elections will be won by the democrats because of what happened on january 6. host: if you don't mind hanging on for a second. you are calling from new york city that has flip-flopped between republican and democratic leadership.

is the same dynamic happening now? ? is there strong support for a republican candidate for example there? caller: in certain parts of staten island. that will always be. if we could have held on to the congressional seat, we were trying everything. it just did not happen. host: thank you for your call. we will go to tom in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. the january 6 committee, i will not change my vote. the reason for that is nancy pelosi and the mayor and washington were never subpoenaed to report to that committee and tell them what they know. they were asked for support to protect the capital and they

both rejected it. there will never be any legitimacy to the january 6 committee do that simple fact. they need to be brought on board and tell people why they did not provide support for our capital. and story. have a good day. host: to maine on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. can i comment on the last caller? he is just an idiot. that is all i have to say. the mayor in d.c. does not control the national guard. keep listening to fox news. we are talking about january 6. it was an insurrection. you cannot get away from it. the gentleman lost the election,

did not like the results and started telling lies. as you can see from the testimony now that nobody wants to believe, even though it is on tape, even though it is their own words, even though the republicans contradict themselves. kevin mccarthy makes a complete fool of himself. lying right to the american people and then they get caught and they pull a trump when they get caught on tape saying grab them by the word. then they say it is alive. republicans, you can dream and believe anything you want. another question i have for all of you, why isn't donald trump

saying he is running for president? host: this is from cnbc. liz cheney denies recording that phone call urging trump to resign on january 6. she denied recording or leaking the audio from a phone call that shows kevin mccarthy's being he would tell president trump to resign after the january 6 capital riot. a portion of that call aired on msnbc. hours earlier, he denied saying that he would tell trump to step down. in the audio clip he told liz cheney that he believed trump would be impeached and convicted in the senate after the january 6 riot. in north carolina, mike is on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

the january 6 committee is a hoax. that will not affect my vote. i will vote republican because we have an administration in office and a president that does not know what he is doing. every body in this administration does not know what they are doing. we are in war in the ukraine. i am sticking with the republicans. nancy pelosi enter whole crew are a hoax. they need to get out. host: on the democrats line and south carolina. caller: the january 6 insurrection will have a factor in my decision. what has more of a factor is the fact that all of these people

that are running for office that were in office that lied and continue to lie, you can see it on the hearing with marjorie taylor greene. that hearing alone, that was a catastrophe for her. that is my opinion. there are 70 things people are believing. they are seeing things with their own eyes and i fear for this country because it is a mess. people are believing trump, you should never believe what comes out of his mouth because it is something out of one side and another thing out of the other side. i won't vote for any of these people i have been watching on tv and hearing investigations of how they said one thing, did something else or turned around and said i don't remember.

host: a politico story here, the january 6 panel has inconsistent -- the committee has received inconsistent testimony on key witnesses on one point. three months ago, the panel sent a letter to a ivanka trump asking them to voluntarily cooperate. investigators wanted to ask her about former president trump as the attack unfolded. that letter leaned heavily on testimony from now retired general keith kellogg who was mike pence is national security advisor. kellogg explained that the white house staff wanted him to take immediate action to quell the protests.

ivanka trump said that kellogg felt that he could get trump -- she could get trump to quell the violence. let's hear from palm beach. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. i think donald trump is the greatest president in the last 25 years. all the people who voted for sleepy joe, go to the gas pump and he is doing an excellent job. 20 million people came into the country after he got the job. you have been brainwashed by cnn, and all the liberal media. i never watch those shows anymore. i get my news from other sources. thank you for taking my call. host: we will hear from hattie in houston, texas.

caller: thank you for taking my call. the onus on january 6, for anybody as an intelligent grown-up, what is going on with trump saying go down and fight like hell. now this man, there are people who are hurt and killed at the capital -- i do not understand why these republicans are still in congress and they act like nancy pelosi and everything. even trump's vice president said he was ready. and now trump is out there

saying now, go down there and fight and people are going to vote for him again? he made our country really bad. we had a surplus when president obama left. and now, with the violence and everything that is the reason for gas prices. every time the republicans get in, we are so much in the whole because they don't want to pay taxes. host: a couple of stories about the white house. this is from the washington free beacon. , liss chief of staff becomes the 12th --, harris chief of staff will be the 12th staff to walk away from the white house

following the vice president's deputy chief of staff, and communications director among others. that is from the washington free beacon. the latest poll from the gallup organization, biden low approval stuck in the low 40's. the average approval rating is unchanged for the fourth quarter. all prior presidents had higher fourth-quarter averages. in tacoma, washington, next up is karen on the republican line. caller: good morning. january 6 will not change my vote. i want to know why the police officers let people come in and gave them a tour. why didn't nancy pelosi beef up

security? i am going to vote republican. i don't support what is happening in this country since biden took office. 42 known terrorist were caught. the fentanyl that is coming in this country. the cert that is being taught and how they want to indoctrinate children regarding trans sex and all that. this country is going into mayhem since biden took office. when trump was in office, gas was low. host: to sean on the independent line in indiana. caller: my vote will not be affected in any way from january

6. i will be voting republican. this administration, like you are talking about with the vp. she can't even keep people in her group, and the white house, but she is supposed to be running the country? it is scary. and what biden has done to this country? everything is going downhill. i will be voting republican all the way. host: there is more ahead on washington journal. we will be talking about retirement. the retirement associations will hansen will be talking about efforts on capitol hill to improve americans ability to

save for retirement. we will talk about broken doors, which looks at the use of no knock warrants by police. that is ahead. >> next week, on the c-span network. members of congress are in session. they will take up legislation to increase aid to ukraine. they will consider the federal reserve nomination. throughout the week, members of the cabinet will testify before congress on their departments budget including secretary of state antony blinken. attorney general, merrick garland on thursday. on wednesday at 11:00 eastern. live coverage of the funeral for madeleine albright from the

washington national cathedral. homeland security will testify at the hearing. c-span.org and on the c-span app. saturday, coverage of the white house correspondents dinner with sites and sounds from inside the ballroom at six clock p.m. eastern. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, trevor noah headlines the first correspondents association dinner since 2019. president biden and vice president harris are expected to attend. watch next week. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the presidency, the final episode of our series "first ladies." we will look at the role of the first lady and the issues important to them in their own words. this week will feature a melania trump. >> i am very excited to be here today and thank you for sharing your story and your thoughts about your struggles and challenges. i want to encourage children everywhere to do their best. >> and discussion about hollywood's take on history with jason herbert and executive director christy coleman. watch american history tv and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

live, sunday, may 1, mary kudlow will be our guest to talk about wall street, the economy, and taxes. he served as director of the national economic council under president trump and is author of several books including "insanity once more: the rising tide." and a secret history of american prosperity. join with your phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweets sunday, may 1 on the tv on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to talk about retirement savings programs. we are joined by will hansen who wears two hats.

the chief government affairs officer for the american retirement association. also the executive director of the plan sponsor council of america. tell us what each job involves. guest: the american retirement association is an organization with 38,000 members and all of our members have a 401(k) or retirement plan. we have members who are financial advisors who advise 401(k) plans. we have consultants administrators, record keepers who do the daily functions of retirement plans. the organization i oversee, that is your hr folks, human resources, individuals who are sponsoring a plan, running the plan for the company. as an officer, i advocate on capitol hill, even on the local level, ensuring that we have a strong private retirement system for americans to be able to

retire with a secure retirement. host: we have a big private retirement system but what role does the federal government play with those private retirement systems? guest: back in 1974, gerald ford signed the rate -- the employee retirement security act and a law. it was roughly $138 billion in assets at that time. we are nearing $40 trillion, which includes government plans as well. with the passage of the employee retirement income security act in 1974, that is when government got involved and started to put more protections in place for participants. also, more incentives and more structure on how companies should be providing these plans to employees. host: what is the relationship between what you do and what the pension plan in america -- these

are different from the plans that many hr systems are setting up across the country, correct? guest: some of our members are engaged in pension plans. some of our members are actuaries and consultants of pension plans. we focus on them in a small matter. it is not our greatest area. we heavily focused on the 401(k) plans that are out there for government workers and teachers. pension plans are still there. they are still viable. they are still an option for certain companies. it all comes down to your workforce. host: we will break up the phones. i will tell folks about that. by age group seems appropriate because of the way people are saving for retirement. the latest figures we have in terms of retirement savings by age, the overall average of american savings is $132,000 between the ages of 65 to 69, the average is $207,000. between 45 and 49, $138,000.

between 25 and 29, under $25,000. those figures surprise you or please you? guest: we are aware of these figures. one of the benefits of my job is going to congress and try to pass laws that will increase the amount of savings, also increase the amount of americans that have access to a plan. we need to do better to ensure more americans have a secure retirement and that is why i am grateful that capitol hill is currently working on a law that will do that. host: in march the house passed secure 2.0 and some details from that plan, it would expand the auto enrollment in plans, it would increase the required minimum distribution age to 75, would change federal tax credits for contributions, improve coverage for part-time workers

in 401(k) plans and create new incentives for small businesses to offer retirement programs. if ever there was a bipartisan issue, it seems this is one. it passed the house, but was it on a bipartisan basis? guest: a huge bipartisan basis, 414 to five. it has been in the works for several years. it builds off of secure 1.0 which passed in september of 2019 on a bipartisan basis. host: what is the reason for increasing the minimum distribution? explain what that is and why raise the age? guest: up until a few years ago prior to the passage of secure 1.0, the required minimum distribution once you hit age 70.5, you need to start withdrawing dollars from your 401(k) plan. the policy reasoning behind that is that a retirement plan is set up to help you during retirement. it should not be used as a tool

for estate planning. but we are living longer. we are working longer. they wanted to ensure that as we age and as we continue to work longer, we do not retire at 55 or 60, but some do, they can keep that money for a greater number of years. secure 1.0 put that at 72 and secure 2.0 would push that over a number of years up to 75. host: the piece that would expand the 401(k) offerings to part-time workers, is that a new thing and what is behind that? guest: it is not new. it was insecure 1.0 in 2019 and we have resorted to see data that shows that it is helping. the council of america does an annual survey and we could see that more individuals were being covered by their employer plans.

in secure 2.0, it will increase or decrease the timing that will allow a part-time worker to become eligible. to become eligible for -- for a plan, in a more quicker manner under 2.0. host: here is how we are setting aside the phone lines. (202) 748-8000 is the line to use if you are 65 years of age or older. if you are between the ages of 30 and 64, that is (202) 748-8001. for those of you under 30, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a question via text, (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from and i will read some of those. for those age groups, what should people be doing as they get to these age groups? 65 and older, they are entering

the potential of retirement age at 65 and older. your general guidance when people approach that age? guest: if they are working at a company that has an hr person, go to hr and start having that conversation with your hr folks and figure out what are your options as you approach retirement and once you hit retirement, they will be able to give you options on what you should be looking at doing, whether you need to be working with a financial advisor, what kind of distribution options are available under the plan. that is the best option for you if you are working for an employer that provides that. host: that age group between 30 and 64 is a big spread but your general guidance for that age group? guest: start saving. make sure you are putting those dollars away. every dollar counts. we realize that there are other barriers to that. you may be saving for a home. you may have student loans.

there are some great provisions in secure 2.0 that will help. host: the average retirement savings for folks between 25 and 29 is under $10,000. is there a different strategy for those who have not yet hit 30, for those who have come out of college, graduate school, or in the workforce, paying off student debt? guest: one of the provisions in secure 2.0 would help those individuals who are repaying student loans. there is a popular provision that is sponsored by the chairman of the senate finance committee that would allow an employer to put money into the 401(k) plan, basically a matching contribution based on the dollars that an individual participant is repaying student loans. host: to ask you about the headline from cnbc, "crypto poses a serious risk. the biden administration warns that cryptocurrencies and other

investment like nft's pose significant risk to investors. they warned that employers should proceed with care before adding them to a retirement plan." what is the responsibility of the employer when they sponsor a 41 or 403 b plan? guest: the employee retirement secured act of 1974 is still one of the strongest financial standards that is out there currently on sponsors of a retirement plan. they must act with fiduciary duty of care. they have to use a number of standards when reviewing the types of assets or investment funds that are included in that 401(k) plan. when it comes up that -- when it comes to things like crypto, they need to determine whether or not this is an asset or an investment that should be included, whether it is the

right investment that should be included. host: you are with an organization long enough and you have a 401(k) plan or a 403 b plan, sometimes that organization changes that plan sponsor, that investment company. what are the reasons for those changes that employers make? guest: employers in simply reviewing their investment lineup. they are making changes. they probably have an advisor giving them advice. it might have a bad year or a bad couple of years. the track record is not great. if the company that is running the investment fund changes, they will flag that, review it, and determine whether or not they need to switch to a different fund. fees are dropping like crazy. the fees imposed on these end -- investment funds are prudent of the plan sponsor to analyze the fees and make sure they are finding the lowest fees or the lower fees out there on the match with the investment.

host: what is driving the drop in fees? guest: competition, also transparency. there are a lot of great rules that have been imposed upwards of one decade ago that have started to shine a light on these fees and force more publicly these type of fees that are being imposed on these funds, which is great for all involved. host: we are talking with will hansen of the american retirement association on retirement savings plans. we welcome your calls and comments. we will go to the 65 and overlying in plainfield, ohio, michael. caller: thanks for catching that technical correction. it was the ombudsman reconciliation act of 1984 that created the 401(k) provisions, which i believe is the core of what this gentleman is talking about.

here is my concern and question. when you retire, people who have these fat 401(k)s because of an inflated stock market because the fed has kept interest rates low for so long, it is not even a joke, you have this big amount of money. but as soon as you start to withdraw it, it is subject to regular income tax and if you happen to be getting social security also, which almost everybody does, after social security starts to become taxed and it works its way up to 85% of social security. the original plan when people were retiring with roosevelt, it was supposed to be three legs of the stool. social security, private

savings, and private pension plans and we have gone away from the private pension plans. my question is this. another technical correction, there are tons of people in the united states who do on paper have 401(k)s in that they are offered to them. but not everybody can participate because of low wages. the bottom line question is there is not enough money in any of these plans for the average person to have any kind of a comfortable retirement. the only associations other than aarp that talk about this are associations that are lobbying for putting more money so that the brokers get rich and the rest of us get their money lost.

if anybody looked at the news yesterday, the market took a big dive. unless the 401(k)s, this is what i wanted to comment on. unless they are highly regulated such that when you get within time of withdrawing the money, it should be transitioning by law to more fixed income-type investments so there is actually some money that is not at risk. host: appreciate the call. will hansen? guest: i appreciate it's thoughts. -- i appreciate those thoughts. i want to respectfully disagree. working directly with an advisor, there are fees associated working with that advisor. in the long run, individuals will be able to retire with a secure retirement because of working with that advisor.

401(k) plans are heavily regulated. when it comes to financial products out there, an advisor that is working directly with an individual and their assets as i mentioned has the strongest standard of care out there. if they are working with an individual on a product not associated with a 401(k), a lesser standard of care. those advisors need to be working in the best interest of their participants and there are a lot of regulations out there. with respect to wages, that is a tough subject. there is a lot of debate out there on whether or not wages should increase. i will push that aside and focus on encouraging more americans, even low income americans, and the data income -- the data shows that low income americans who have access to a retirement plan are still saving. the average contribution annually for low income americans is around $2000 to

$2500 per year and that can add up. host: you talked about the drop yesterday in the markets. what has been the performance of america's 401(k) plans? guest: overtime, i do not know that all -- i do not know that offhand. if you look at the assets, it is a proven track record that if you have access to a retirement plan, you are 12 times more likely to save on that retirement plan compared to on your own. if you do so consistently, you will set yourself up for secure retirement. host: let's hear from sandusky, ohio. this is eric on the 30 to 60 line. caller: thanks for taking my call. how about this one? i am a 50-year-old man this year. i am starting a new job which will be a pretty good job with a retirement plan.

i think that is a 403 b technically. i don't know. with my available funds, where should i prioritize my investments with matching investments with my new company or by focusing on my ira that i have already established going forward? guest: great question. i do not want to give any investment advice. i am not an investment advisor. i do encourage you to talk to your new employer. see what resources they have for you. yes, most likely it is a form three b plan if it is administered by tiaa. see what resources are available to you. it is probably working with a foot -- a financial advisor to

take into account all your assets and figuring out where you should prioritize yourself financially over the coming years to set yourself up for a great retirement. host: the truth is for someone that age with the potential of 50 or more years until retirement, a substantial amount of money could be squirreled away. guest: once you hit age 50, there are catch-up contributions. you are able to currently in 2022 max out upwards of $20,500 into your retirement account that is tax-free. with age 50, you are able to save away a few additional thousand dollars. in the secure 2.0 provisions, there is a provision that would increase that amount. host: we pensioned it -- we

mentioned it passed the house? what is the story? guest: the two committees of jurisdiction are the senate finance committee and the senate health education labor and pension committee. we expect both committees will hold what is called a markup so they will put forward a bill. they will mark up that bill, make changes to it through the committee process. from there, what will happen is those bank -- those two committees, along with the house ways and means will get together and figure out what is the final bill they can put together and get it over the finish line by the end of this year. host: let's hear from james in ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning. c-span may hold our little democratic republic together all on its own. for your guest, i started work at 16. at 29, i decided to be a teacher.

i worked a number of years paying into social security. you probably know the question that is coming. my first contract was $8,450. i kept working part-time. i had a lot of social security money built up, all those quarters that they count. naturally, i was subject to the windfall reduction act, i believe it was called. i think it came in during ronald reagan's administration. because i retired from teaching a public service kind of job, i had my social security reduced from $1000 to $300 per month. whether that is fair or not, maybe you want to address. maybe you won't. the other thing is, that amount

after having been reduced once by windfall reduction is also income that is federally taxed and state taxed. i was wondering if there is any chance that i contact maybe sheriff brown or someone in the senate that we could maybe get windfall reduction act reduced amounts subject to a lot less taxation, maybe no taxation since they have already been cut down drastically, if you were a teacher or public employee. thank you. guest: thank you for that question. thank you for being a teacher. i am actively trying to go over the recesses of my brain to remember that specific provision from when i was on capitol hill. it is an active issue that has been discussed for decades. i think it was first back in the 1980's that change was made.

i would encourage you to reach out to your elected officials. reach out to both senator sheriff brown and senator portman. senator portman is one of our leaders on retirement issues on capitol hill. we are sad to see he is retiring. many elected officials get engaged in retirement issues. senator sheriff brown has been very engaged on some of the union issues. reach out to them and encourage them to look into this issue. host: the bureau of labor statistics says as of march 2021 68% of private industry workers had access to retirement benefits through their employer with 51% choosing to participate. 92% in state and local government had access to retirement benefits with 82% participation. the take up work -- the take-up rate, the share of workers was 75% for private industry. workers in 89% for state and local government mark --

government workers. for people who don't participate in of the reasons? -- for people who do not participate, what are the reasons? guest: it is most likely that there are financial pressures that are discouraging them from taking up participation. participation has other financial incentives. most likely, -- host: do most private employers offer matching? guest: yes. a significant percentage of employers offer some sort of match on contribution. that is one of the reasons why 401(k) plans offered by an employer are superior to other products out there like your individual retirement account or some of the state plans that have been popping up that have been auto enrolling individuals. host: to the employer, is that a tax benefit, when they offer that match, is that a tax

benefit? guest: there are incentives for the employer when they are making these contributions. in secure 2.0, there are tax incentives for small businesses in particular to provide employer contributions to the individual employees. host: let's hear from allen calling from pittsburgh on the 65 and older line. guest: my question -- caller: my question is on the required minimum distribution. if you are still working, do you have to take this distribution? guest: if you still are working, you are not required to take that distribution. host: to michael in florida. good morning. good morning. you are on the air. we will go to our 30 to 60 line and hear from omar in brooklyn. go ahead.

caller: good morning. host: can you do me a favor? it is a little echoy. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: is that a little better? host: a little better. caller: i used to work for a brokerage firm. i really do not want to promote it. i used to work in 2002 for a brokerage firm. i am very aware of how require a -- how ira works and retirement account. from what i understand, it is a tax that employees -- protects employees from being fired while contributing to these programs. the funny thing is while i was

working there through the 9/11 thing, they started making cutbacks. i am saying that to say this. isn't there something to protect employees from being let go? say for example, you were in a car accident, which i was. i got long-term disability. that is supposed to be protected. if you are a salary employee and you are told to go back four hours. if you are a salary employee and your doctor tells you to go back , what protects the employee from being let go because if they are let go while you are getting those medical benefits, that will get lost.

host: i think we have the gist of it. thanks for your call. i think we got it. to answer your specific question to protecting an individual from being let go or fired while disabled, there is no direct link between firing and letting go of someone who has been disabled. there are potentially other links and other laws there might be protections. within the 401(k) space, if they do not become permanently disabled that is one way to withdraw from the 401(k) if they have not reached age 59.5 to us is that individual with expenses that are popping up because of that disability.

host: a question from new york from a text, many should know that seniors are paying to loans in their 60's and 70's and federal loans how can this be changed? i don't know if this is out of the realm of legislation. guest: it is something that we understand, many of the student loans can be contributed to the 55 year old and plus. it is an issue. if they are currently employed, hopefully allowing the company to help reduce some of the loans so that hopefully they can have some money put into the retirement account. host: let's go to new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have been retired since 2015. i think the idea of the 401(k) in place of the traditional pension was probably not a good move for the majority of americans because they need a pension they cannot outlive. i think there is an attempt to try to shore up the programs to get more people participating and the kids to do that in the 20's and 30's he can't save for retirement. i think one of the biggest things i have noticed, i am essentially a single woman and if you are the sole income into your household, you have to have provisions made that bulletproof

for various conditions, and one of them is from 60 to 65, people think they may wish to retire but they can't get on medicare and the cost of medical insurance is so high if it is not part of your retirement package, luckily mine was but most aren't, but that is what prohibits people unless they have a spouse who they can jump on his or her medical coverage plan. when you're single, there is no one to jump on. so i think that is a narrative that needs to be shored up for all of americans, especially single retirees. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: first, your focus on 401(k)s and the fact that the provisions are trying to get more people access, and that is

true and we do need to shore up coverage and make sure more americans have access to the retirement plan. the bureau of labor statistics stated that 60% have access to it when you dig into the details and look at the employer's of 500 or more, it is 91 percent so it is really small businesses. the senate does happen we will put some provisions that will encourage small businesses but that is where we need to shore up coverage. you mentioned. up to medical expenses, that is true and what i encourage any american right now is to talk to your hr department and figure out, do you have a health savings account, which is another tax-deferred see -- vehicle that will help individuals be able to put funds away from -- for their medical expenses and savings into their 401(k). that can also be used as a retirement account if you are

not utilizing it for medical purposes. host: you pointed out the original social security seems to be coming into retirement is now four-legged, you have an element of social security but you have to concern yourself about your medical care or medicare and how that is going to be handled and then your individual retirement account. the other piece is dealing with the tax implications of taking both funds out. guest: i think we need to re-look at that. you definitely have to take into account the tax implications, and there are new options becoming available. there is more encouragement on broth contributions, contributions you put in after-tax but when you are withdrawing those they come out

tax-free and those are provisions you have to keep in mind. host: there was some's -- some criticism that said, why is congress aiming to expand the use of roth accounts. if you raise revenue the u.s. treasury get more money upfront. the legislation known as secure to .0 would manda bay that all catch-up contributions, extra contributions to workplace retirement plans would have to be made as roth contributions, no pretext contributions. what are your thoughts? guest: it is a bipartisan bill that is fully pay for. there are provisions that would cost the government and those that would raise money for what they cost you one provision is increasing the requirement of the distribution age to 75. that is a provision but it is for catch-up contributions but is for a sliver of people doing

the catch-up contributions. you have to contribute 20,500 dollars first before you start to make catch-up contributions. so there is a population impacting their peer for the most part, most of that population is probably well off and roth contributions will not have a big impact on their ability to retire. host: let's are from -- let's hear from james in aurora, illinois. caller: yes, i'm calling into rick talk -- in for a 403 program which is for the pensions and churches may have some employees enrolled in a 401 3(b) which is

government-sponsored for the private sector. who are the shareholders, stockholders? who are the ones who own all of these state, municipal and county government pension plans for public sector employees? guest: all of those plans which do fall out of the scope of arisa protection. they are provided by the state and local governments themselves. there are county plans, estate plans, teacher, police, fire plans but all administered at the level of the county or state. host: question from diana and teacher, she asks, why did prudential sell their retirement division to empower and what is behind the ongoing trend of pension is transfer. how did the 2017 tax law in tax rate increases advances. guest: on prevention --

prudential, you will have to divert that question to them. there has been a lot of consolidation within the retirement industry. a lot of that might be is that there are lower fees associated with retirement plans. you need to scale up the business to make sure it is still profitable. on pension risk transfer, i don't dive too much into that area, but the driving reason behind why a lot of companies are trying to offload liabilities within their pension plan is because the administrative cost associated with operating that plan. congress, for years, continue to increase fees they would charge employers to operate these plans and it was most like a budget gimmick. they were raising money on paper to pay for something else and that is that to the point where

employees started to shut down pension plans. am i getting rid of these pension risk transfers they shed the cost of operating the plans. i don't remember the third one. host: how did the tax increases advance this? guest: i'm not able to answer that question. host: let's get to rob in grand junction, colorado. caller: thank you for being on. i taught consumer math and i had my students write a paper on social security and the importance of putting away 10% of everything they earn into retirement accounts. i'm also part of the vep -- wep. the campaign that president biden said he was going to get rid of the vep though we have

not seen it. our question is -- presently, i have to pay taxes on 85% of my social security benefits if i make more than $34,000 a year. i believe that went into effect in 1983. the problem is i don't believe that is been adjusted for inflation. has it been increased from $34,000 and was that law in 1983? if we put into inflation, that account today would be at fort texas over $98,000 income and it began with only one in 10 people being impacted but now it is over half of those. is there any legislation at all to increase this and justice for the inflation rate? guest: i don't know the answer to your russian on whether there is a specific provision to the one in mentioned. there are constantly elected

officials putting out proposals to reform social security. i, myself, and the organization i work for do not advocate on the social security changes. our pipeline is retirement. as a former staffer on capitol hill, it is a very hot topic, social security. my hope is that congress would tackle at the same way they tackle retirement policy, in a bipartisan manner and hopefully that is something they will focus on soon. host: you have any anecdotal stories from younger workers who are concerned about whether social security will be there when they retire is propelling them to invest more in their employers' plan? guest: definitely. when i was working in hr for a large company, i would hear little quips from individuals, why should i pay into social

security because it just kept going to be around or why should i start saving for retirement, i will have to work forever because there will not be security. so we would consistently hear those. host: let's hear from frank in utah. good morning. frank, in utah, you are on the air. all right, we will go to benny in virginia. caller: good morning, c-span. i am 66 years of age, and i know we are taught me about retirement benefits and things of that nature is morning, but i retired as a military in 1997. my wife retired at the military in 2008. so we have a great retirement program, and with that retirement program we have come up we get a cost-of-living allowance every year from the military. my wife was able to take

advantage of the tst program also and we also receive disability income from the military. we decided not to take social security until we are at the age of 70, because we want to continue to let that social security income grow. i am self-employed right now as we speak, and i focus on residual income, so that is going to take me beyond a stalemate in income. my income is going to continue to grow. my question is -- social security as we retire is taxed so heavily and i think that income on social security, those taxes need to be reduced going forward. so i think in my personal opinion, if you are healthy i am, and my wife, some people are

retiring just to early. host: i want to go to will hansen' s final thoughts. guest: dimension from the -- the mansion from the earlier color that hopefully we will find some social security reform down the road. host: will hansen , on america's retirement association programs and plans, thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: there is more washington journal, we will talk about no-knock warrants. we will be joined by washington post reporters jen abelson and nicole dungca to discuss their podcast on no-knock warrants. the lines are open at (202)

748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002, for others. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday on q and a, a journalist talks about his book the hundred year war for american conservatism, a history of the republican party and the risk that led to the election of donald trump in 2016. >> when you see the through line of figures who have a populism that becomes a negatively charged, that is conspiratorial, that points to scapegoats. that often can lead to places where they are arguing not just against the left but america

itself. it is dangerous for the right. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can talk -- listen to q and a on our free c-span now cap. >> -- our c-span now app. >> at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we will feature the book festival with maryland democratic councilman with his book, unthinkable, trauma, truth, and the trials of american democracy and journalist susan page and her book nancy pelosi and lessons of power. and then on afterwards, a political reporter talks about his book on georgia turning purple during the 2020 presidential election and its again in future state and national elections. he is interviewed by national

reporter eugene stott. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two. find a guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, as well as congress. we also have international perspective from united nations and foreign leaders. all on the c-span networks, the mobile app, and our web resource page where you can watch the latest deals on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: is open form, your chance to weigh in on any political issue you are a form impaired for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for dem that, -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000 for all others, (202) 748-8002. the lead political reporter at cleveland.com is joining us to talk about the ohio primary that is coming up in just over a week or so and the political rally happening today in the state of ohio. donald trump in support of assented -- a senate candidate. on both sides, who is in the ohio senate race? guest: on the democratic side, you have congressman tim ryan,

who is seen as the favorite. there is an upstart challenger who is a former attorney at the protection bureau but to brian has garnered -- but tim ryan has garnered most and is seen as the odds on favorite. the republican site has been much more chaotic as plenty of your viewers know, where you have five or six candidates. you have former treasurer josh mandel, who is to been seen as the front runner for quite some time in known around the state. most recently, the author and venture capitalist, he recently received a trump endorsement and has shot into the upper tier of those candidates. then you have cleveland businessman mike gibbons who has spent a massive amount of his own fortune, more than any other

candidate in the country as of right now. you have the former ohio republican party chairman but he has seemed to falter as the contest has gone along he has the endorsement of former senator rob portman but has not picked up steam. then you have a senator from chagrin falls who has tried to position himself as the only candidate who isn't really seeking donald trump's endorsement. he has actually said he is net doing that or that is unlike the other candidates who said that anytime they had the chance they were the most trumpian of the candidate are the most closest to the president. host: the former president's influence in ohio senate races is still very strong.

what has that endorsement meant to jd vance? guest: you would think an endorsement would completely clear the field, president trump won the state by eight points in both 2016 and 2020. he is popular here. one of his senior advisers is the now chair of the ohio republican party. he has a lot of connections in his words carry a lot of weight. when he came out and endorsed jd mance, i think your viewers know that vance has a long history of being very critical of the president, saying things people might find vitriolic, especially fans of the president. but trump endorsed him but it has caused some fissures in ohio politics. you've seen quite a few county

chairs sign onto letter saying this kite hasn't been around and he was bad mouthing you while we were doing work. you have supporters of the other candidates saying the same things. there is a grassroots pushback on vance because he has not really been in the state doing anything. unlike the rest of the field who have been operating here, he has not been as active in republican pauly -- party politics and that has soured someone. whether that is enough to overcome trump's word, which who knows how many people paid that close attention to what is going on to the networking of republican party politics, that is something we will have to wait until election day to see. host: your most recent piece talks about the fundraising on the republican side as they are spending $50,000 in the gop senate race. where is most of that money coming from? guest: is coming from the

candidates themselves would just kind of different from what we normally hear. it is always about super pac's and independent expenditures coming in. don't get me wrong, they are spending a lot of money, but you have a guy like mike gibbons who has put $16 million of his money in the race, i mean -- i think between $9 million has gone into advertising. a guy like matt dolan, his family is the owner of the cleveland guardian has put $10 million, a significant son has -- some have -- sum have gone to advertising. they have spent a lot of money on ad spending. mike gibbons before the race started, he had run in 2018 the field was cleared for jim renee

esi. not too many people knew who he was. he has been bombarding airwaves with his advertising and it seemed to have work to a certain extent. there was pulling showing him around first or second place. the candidates and some super pac's have turned their eyes on him. that will probably change with the torp -- trump endorsement. a ton of money flying around this race. right now it is the most expensive. i suspect we will see probably pennsylvania might get up higher than ohio, but $50 million in a primary is nothing to sneeze at. host: on the democratic side, tim ryan, what is the issue driving his lead as the presumptive leader on the democratic side? guest: i think there is familiarity within the democratic party of who he is.

the democratic party is very familiar with him and there is also this idea that the only democrat who has had success over the decade here beside barack obama's sherrod brown, the democratic senator, the m1 elected to a partisan office statewide peer he has been very successful at it. democrats see him like a blue color mentality. he comes from youngstown and sort of talks about the same things. i think they think that tim ryan can replicate that success and hopefully pick up a senate seat. host: that primary in ohio is may 3. seth richardson, with cleveland.com, thanks for the update. guest: thanks for having me. host: care is our upcoming political coverage this week. on monday -- here is our

upcoming political coverage this week. on monday, a debate from the pennsylvania senate race. that is live here on c-span. you can follow it live on our free mobile app, c-span now. it is open forum, so let's get to your calls on any public policy in the news you are following. on the independent line, joe in laguna woods, california. caller: i would like to encourage privity to invest some time in educating yourselves about false flag operations. the one sore lining in ukraine is bringing up false flag operations saying rush is going to do something. listening to the january 6 coverage, only one person alluded to that. if you look at ray epson, his haver and more important of senate -- evidence of the fbi

when asked whether agents committing criminal acts of violence that day, the representative said i cannot answer that question. that blows the whole thing that it was a white flag operation. -- false flag operation. it has been used from the boston tea party to 9/11 to tremendous, horrible things going on by people who just lost power and they use deception as a tool to advance their agenda at the heart of humanity here let's all learn about false flag operations and hold those accountable and we have a lot of fixing to do. host: let's go to pat in temple hills, maryland. caller: how are you today? host: i am doing fine. caller: i have a question in regards to student loan.

a person commented earlier. is there any program out there that anyone might know of two assist the person who is not a public official? i will be retiring cap because i want to continue working -- i will be determined, because i want to continue working. i still have student debt loans. it was just to get an associates degree, but after getting the degree, i was unemployed for quite a while and was unable to pay back. host: how did you handle a moratorium on student loan interest, payments during covid? what did you do? caller: i kept up with the

program. i did not make any payments to that process, because my husband is now retired and i have children who i still support. so financially, it was just on postponement. host: we will put the question out there. we will go to spring, texas, and mike on the republican line in open forum. caller: what i would like to say about the january 6 committee and the 2000 elections is, if we go and take the 30,000 foot view and focus, it is clear that mr. trump's strategy was either when the election or claim fraud. that obvious. in the primaries when he lost

the iowa caucus to cruz comic-con there was massive fraud in the iowa caucus. no basis in fact, -- i will caucus to cruz, he claimed there was massive fraud in the iowa caucus. it is clear he attempted to overthrow the election. he reported on tape trying to overthrow the election, tried to get both out of georgia. there were audits in arizona, georgia, recounts, and they all showed, i think in georgia they found two people fraudulently using dead people's names. it is clear, and i understand republicans supporting trump for certain policies, antiabortion and other things, school

education and so forth, but my point is, these policies won't make a difference if we don't have a country. right now mr. trump failed in the coup attempt. he studied and knows why and now he's putting in the groundwork so that next time the coup will be successful. he is working diligently to get elected officials, state and county election officials in place so that next time he will be able to overturn the result of an election if he needs to. host: an update on ukraine from cnbc. the headline zelenskyy said the ukraine invasion only beginning. there is deep concern on the border of ukraine. on friday, a major official for russia released at moscow's goal

is to fully control the donbas area and it is unclear if it reflected official comment from russia. he also said the russian-speaking population -- was being oppressed with unrecognized breakaway state that is officially part of moldova which borders ukraine to the south. president zelenskyy said the comments meant that russia had ambition to invade other nearby nations. next up is james in canton, ohio, on the independent line. caller: yes, he had a couple of questions about the social security the guy was talking about a little bit ago. why aren't they doing anything about it and why are they paying any of the money back they have stolen out of the social security fund all of these years? host: our guest is no longer

here, james, but we appreciate the call. diane is in jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning how are you? host: i am fine. caller: i am so happy to see a republican person from texas calling to talk about our elections. i thought i was the lone republican that new that donald trump did not win. nevertheless, i am calling about the court hearings with marjorie taylor greene. i am very upset about the way she appears to be disrespecting the court, making a mockery of it. this is a very serious case, and she is sitting there as if it is a joke and that really disturbs me and i am wondering what is happening to our country that even our leaders do not respect our court system. they sit there and they plead

the fifth, which they are entitled to do, but the problem is some of the questions are just simple yes and no questions and they sit there and make a joke out of it. in the audience is clapping during the court hearing. the judge is stopping to tell the court -- to tell them to respect the court. it is like everyone is taking january six and joke and people died. host: this is reporting from political, gop lawmakers deeply involved in trump plans to overturn election. they write that republican members of congress were heavily involved with calls and meetings with former president donald trump and his top aides as they devised a strategy to overturn the election in december 2020, according to evidence filed in court. excerpts, part of an effort to

force former white house chief of staff mark meadows to appear for an interview, suggests that some of trump's top allies in congress were frequently present in cash present in meetings and efforts -- present in meetings and with figures who would sow doubts about the legitimacy of the election. you can read that at politico.com. it is rosetta, next up, in danville, virginia. caller: i want to speak about donald trump and i would like to know come out of all of these little things that he has done and everybody knows he has done, i am just wondering why the republicans keep holding on to a man like that. in our country, we all should be free, but it is so sad that our country is not free. i am an 86-year-old black woman

and i worked all of my life, and now, it is so sad that america is in this condition now. if we read our bible, people wouldn't be like the way they are. thank you for taking my call. host: minnesota come up next on the independent line, clyde, go ahead. caller: i would like to make a few quick points here about the retirement issue and the a couple other things if i can get them in. the corporations that lobby congress, and that is one of our biggest problems, corporations tend to write laws more than our representatives. systematically they worked to whittle down the unions to lose the power of the worker and the pension plans that used to be in order, the corporations decided,

we needed to get something done here, so the 401(k) was a supplement and that eventually became the beast a resistance for -- p stay resistance -- peace day resistance -- piece date resistance. they know they would make more money getting rid of pension plans and if they could control the workers and take away their power. what we need to do in this country is make the service of this country unattractive to those into prestige, power, and money good when you run for office, you should get your basic income, period. you should not be allowed to buy stock or anything and as a matter of public record, that oath you take should be taken seriously at if we get rid of the dark money and all of the lobbyists, which it should be a capital crime to be a lobbyist,

the representatives we elect should be our lobbyists. but it doesn't work that way. that is the point i would like to make. host: dominic is on the republican line in jakarta, florida. -- punta gorda, florida. caller: that is a great point. lobbyists and lawyers are running politicians and the politicians are supposed to be our lobbyists. on january 6, if we add all the crime that happened on january 6, does it equal half the crime that happens all summer in all of these cities and riots that went on over one stupid police officer? and archery green will go down -- marjorie greene will go down saying she had a role in the right and what is the difference between adam schiff and the

official that went on trial for the russia collusion? that will take everyone that had a false story, cnn plus, everybody out. host: a couple social media stories. this is from writers -- reuters. meta-and other large platforms will have to do more to tackle illegal content or risk hefty fines under new internet rules agreed between european union countries and eu lawmakers on saturday. let's hear from james in new york city. james is on the independent line it. go ahead. caller: on false flags, i just want to elaborate out in 1999,

president bush at the time had just been reelected -- or elected and they found billions of dollars missing from the pentagon. the false flag, we got two planes hitting the towers and one plane hit the pentagon in the bookkeeping department. host: to plano, texas, republican line. caller: just to follow up on the caller from florida. i was watching tv last night and i guess it was fox news, i don't know, and they were showing i don't know if it was a riot or

something, but a kid comes running out of a store, hit a gentleman who is walking down the street, not some into the street, and a car, i don't know if it ran over his head or what. but this is the kind of stuff we have put up with for the last year or so and everyone is concerned about trump and january 6 and law, blah -- and blah, blah. you have them turning killers, thieves loose and they are out doing this work for him so he could become possibly president of this country. takei look and listen to what is going on -- take a look and listen to what is going on, especially in california and new york. you have seen what is going on. host: islands in the new york

times on the potential effort by elon musk to buy twitter, there take on it from a media column. musk takeover twitter could endanger trump's truth social. they say it is slow and clunky and artemis -- audience participation remains low and the merger could bring $1.3 billion in cash to mark donald j. trump of hospice media seems far away. elon musk's plan for a potential hostile takeover of twitter is the latest challenge for trump media technology group of hospice flagship truth social app which strip trump has put his freewheeling conservative counterpart. mr. rupp -- mr. musk had received financing for the takeover bid and suggested he would loosen twitter moderation policies that he has shaped

under an famously led the service to bart mr. trump for inciting violence over the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. it just buckeye, arizona, on the republican line. jerry, go ahead. it looks like we lost jerry on that line but thanks for your calls. there is more ahead here on "washington journal." we will focus on a podcast with the western post jen abelson and nicole dungca in their podcast called "open doors," about no-knock words from police. your calls coming up next. >> next week on the c-span networks, both chambers of congress in session. the house will take up legislation to increase aid to

ukraine. they will consider president biden of hospice federal reserve nominations. members of cabinet will testify before congress on their departments' budgets, including secretary of state anthony blinken. on tuesday, how the air becerra and michael j mccord -- heavier -- javier becerra and michael j mccord. live coverage of the funeral for madeleine albright. and homeland security testifies the -- at the judiciary oversight committee on the next can border. watch on c-span.org and c-span out cap. and cover of the white house correspondents dinner from sites and sounds inside the ballroom and highlights from past dinners at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and then trevor noah headlines a

first white house correspondents association dinner since 2019. president biden and vice president harris specter to attend. watch next week, live on the c-span networks or our free video mobile app. to see video live or demand on live, c-span, your unfiltered view of government. first ladies, in their own words , are eight part series looking at the role of the first ladies, their time in the white house, and issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage and know what it was like to work in schools because education is such an important issue, both for a governor, but also work president, and so that was very helpful to me. >> using materials from our award-winning biography series, first ladies.

>> i am very much the kind of person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and c-span's online video library, where we feature lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, laura bush, michelle obama, and melania trump. watch on american history tv on c-span two or listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> now available, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. order a copy of the congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments and

contact information for state governors and biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-spanshop.org. every shop purchase of support c-span's nonprofit parisian. -- nonprofit operation. host: and on "washington journal," our regular focus on podcasts. we are joined by two investigative reporters with the washington post. jenn abelson and nicole dungca , who are not only reporters of the team that produces the podcast "broken doors" for the washington post about the police use of no-knock warrants. i will ask both of you if you want to dive in on this in terms of how did you come to this story, i should take issue because your podcast has many stories on the issue of no-knock warrants. what was that prompted you to investigate? guest: we began this

investigation in 2020 after the police killing of breonna taylor and that set us on this journey of trying to better understand what no-knock warrants are, how aggressive they are and what are the consequences. host: did either of you think, this is a substantive story, this is probably worth not only a lengthy story, but we can put this in terms of making a podcast out of it? guest: i actually think when we first started we thought it was going to be a traditional written investigation, which we have done a lot. but when jenn started getting some of the recordings out of monroe county, she saw the potential for something that was much bigger than just a couple of stories but to make it a six

part investigative process and it started snow balling. host: an episode income i think you have six, it introduces first to a man named benji taylor. tell us more about him and his story. guest: his name is benji taylor and he is a member of a rural tone. i was looking for drug busts in monroe county and i started with this case because they had a search warrant to raid his house for drugs on a saturday night several years ago. there were no drugs listed and two cars taken here and i had so many questions about how officers were breaking down his door. there were two kids and a young

woman at the time there. we learned how low the bar was to get a no-knock warrant in montgomery county and unwrapped the depth of the allegations of misconduct in the community. there were so many problems we identified that led up to the warrant and so many things that really opened our eyes into the community and what was happening where no-knock was the role and serve the exception. host: i want to ask you about the term no not -- no-knock. so the fourth of men it says this -- the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no one shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and people to be seized.

the term no-knock warrant is nowhere in the fourth amendment. guest: it might be helpful to kind of talk about what a no-knock warrant is compared to a typical search warrant is. the fourth amendment clearly is saying you have a right to be still safe in your home. if the government is going to come in, they are going to need a search warrant. typically when police come into your home they have a search warrant that has been approved by a judge has probable cause that shows they have a reason to be in their. -- in there. with a typical search warrant, they are going to knock and say they are police and identify themselves and give you a chance to come to the door. they have been given permission with a no-knock warrant to come in your home without knocking on the door and waiting for you to get up.

what we found is this has been more or less rocked to the supreme court, in the world that no-knock entries are allowed, but that there are certain conditions that must be met for a judge can approve them. there is supposed to be some reasonable suspicion that there might be grave danger for the officer or evidence might be quickly disposed of or something. what we were seeing as that even at the supreme court level, no-knock's are allowed and that has led to some police departments, for many police departments actually, to go after no-knock warrants that give them permission from the beginning to say, ok, we can come into house without knocking and able to do this because it has been approved by a judge. host: do you have any idea about the percentage of criminals nationwide are allowed as

no-knock warrants? guest: that is one of the issues with no-knock warrants is that there is so little transparency about when these are used, just because people are not actually tracking it. we called court systems across the country and all of them said we don't track when they are used. nobody is tracking when no-knock warrants lead to deaths by civilians or police officers and we had to turn to the washington post database which tracks how many people across the country have been killed by police and we used that as a way to find out how many actually came from searches that work carried out as no-knock warrants. since 2015, 22 people and 21 raids have been killed while police caring out no-knock search warrants. that is just the number that is

at least 22 people because we do not know how many no-knock search warrants. sometimes the court system would give us the documents. sometimes the police department would not confirm it was a no-knock search warrant. it is an issue that is difficult to get your hands around because it is so difficult to find out how many no-knock search warrant are being carried out across the country. but what we know from experts is that tens of thousands of no-knock raids are being carried out across the country every year. host: jenn abelson and nicole dungca , the reporters behind the no-knock warrants. for the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001. you began the first podcast

episode talking with this benji taylor in mississippi. i will not say the word he uses, but he said in terms of probable cause in mississippi, he said probable cause don't mean "s." guest: that was another individual that we talked to, another black man in mississippi whose house was raided in one of these no-knock raids and he said probable cause doesn't mean -- in mississippi and the bar was so low they didn't have any reason to enter these people's houses without warning. what was how repeatedly, as in benji's case, that officers had information from an individual who had told police later he had not been in the house for more than a year, but the affidavit claims that this confidential source had been in his home within the last 72 hours and saw

cocaine there and that simply wasn't true. what happened to benji is he figure out who the confidential source was because that person identified him and sent him a text message and said this is what you get for messing with a white girl. it revealed so many problems for whatever is motivating these drug busts and how people can enter these homes. it happened one in seven years ago for benji but still to this day he lives in fear to police coming back, understanding how little it takes for police to knock down your door and had to move out of his house because he didn't feel safe there. without that in so many communities across the country. in episode four, we saw people in louisiana, st. louis, this week we have another case where people left their homes because they didn't feel safe being there anymore. i think really what we took away

was the lack of sense of security that people have after this happens to them. not every case is a breonna taylor case where they found no drugs, sometimes they do find drugs and then it becomes how much is with human life to break into the houses. so many people we talked to thought they were intruders which was just like the breonna taylor case where her boyfriend said he didn't know it was police knocking down the door. to be fair to police, we talked to a number of law enforcement for this investigation he talked about how dangerous policing is and how no-knock's are a tool that protects them and people on the others had of the doors and prevents the destruction of evidence. a lot of people feel strongly these are important tools in policing and have pushed back in efforts to change and make reform. host: any evidence from police

department's across the country that there are changes taking place to their no-knock policies? guest: if you look across the country, even beyond police department, there are states and cities enacting restrictions on no-knock search warrant. we saw a lot of that happening after breonna taylor's death, when people really started waking up to what a no-knock warrant is and how it is being carried out across the country. so a police reform group found more than 20 cities, more than 20 states have you enacted legislation have looked into proposed legislation to restrict these. i think for a lot of these cases, they might not necessarily ban no-knock warrant they might just have

minneapolis is an example of a place that restricted no knock search warrants, but because it was not banned, they were still able to carry out a no-knock search warrant that led to a death, which has been in the headlines. host: i'm sure you've probably heard this question or response in your investigation. a we hear from gary asks "depends on the warrant, seems to give violent criminals the chance to escape. not once, twice?" guest: that is something you will hear from police officers, you know, that they don't want to give people the chance to flee or to be able to dispose of drugs, but you will hear from police officers who will see that this can sometimes introduce a dangerous element considering how many people do have guns. like jenn was saying earlier, there are some people who will

hear this and you might not know it is a police officers so people have the right to defend themselves within their homes and, if that happens, we have seen in a number of these cases that they might shoot and they say later that they didn't know it was a police officer. when that happens, the swat teams or police officers will often have the right to defend themselves as well, so you introduce a dangerous element and that's behind a lot of concern about this. host: our guest, nicole dungca, formerly with the spotlighting team -- the spotlight team of the boston globe and jenn abelson. the podcast is "broken doors" at washington post's website. how many episodes? guest: we have six. four have landed so far. episode five will be coming wednesday. it has been a privilege to

travel to all these communities around the country and hear the stories. many of them get attention when it happens and then they sort of fall off the map and for us it has been important to understand the stories and people behind these raids and so many of the cases we have come across were survivors, people who made it through it, and when we talk about the low bar to get a no-knock warrant, we found instances where police did not have the right address. they didn't know that children were in the home or did not tell a judge about it, so there's this whole level of accountability and the lack of accountability we dove into, especially when it came to the judges approving these warrants, because they are not asking a lot of questions, not pushing back. these warrants are supposed to be used sparingly. they are not supposed to be the default, but we have found in many cases that narcotics squads and swat teams are using these as the default when they pursue drug cases.

host: was here from callers. a couple already. david in orange park, florida, you are on with our guests. caller: good morning, ladies. this might be a tiny bit off show object -- off subject but not much. how much have you looked into the fbi raid on roger stone? what the fbi did to roger stone would have made the ss and kgb blush when all they had to do was call his attorney and have him come in. that's it. host: in your reporting on local police departments, do you look at the federal agencies and their use of warrants? guest: there were not many raids we found when looking at fatal raids when there were federal agents carrying it out. there were a couple where federal agents had been involved in multijurisdictional raids, but for the most part, a lot of the problems with fatalities

involved local police departments, sheriff's office. i think that leads to an interesting point made by someone that nicole interviewed, if you want to talk about it, the skills and training needed to carry out these raids. guest: it not a broadbrush, weather law enforcement want -- broadbrush, whether law enforcement want to use these often. tactical officers have been saying for years that these should only be used in dire circumstances because of the inherent danger in coming to someone's home without announcing yourself. they are saying if it is just about preserving evidence, then that shouldn't be why you are going into a home using a no-knock warrant. that's not a big enough reason. i mean, and there needs to be a lot of training for this, because it is a dangerous situation.

they can be highly militarized operations. we have seen that and a lot of the raids we've looked at. and on the federal side, i would say that the department of justice has restricted whether they can use no knock search warrants, so you will see that it is more difficult sometimes on the federal level to get these depending on any kinds of restrictions that are currently in place by the current administration -- by the current administration or department of justice. host: nicole, you mentioned the lack of tracking of the effects of these raids. does this national tactical officers association, do they keep track of the no-knock warrants or raids done by some of their members across the country? guest: that is the thing. there are so few people that are actually tracking no knock search warrants. often, with a spot raid, it can either be a no-knock warrant or an unannounced warrant and some

activists are saying that there is little difference sometimes with a knock and announce versus a no-knock search warrant, so it is sometimes difficult to get your head around what is a no-knock warrant, and the only way to know if it is is to see the warrant and see that there's actually some sort of sentencing, you know, we don't have to knock and announce. that is what we did with our investigation. you were getting dozens of documents, trying to get these warrants to see if these police departments had actually gotten permission to go in without knocking and announcing. host: this comment from our viewer, mark, in california, who says that if a law cannot be enforced without no-knock raids, than it should not be a law. let's go to samuel in georgia next. caller: good morning. thank you for accepting my question. i'm 94 years old.

i grew up in southern mississippi. during the 1930's and the 1940's, there was no such thing as a warrant, but in later years, in chicago, we had two instances on the west side where people broke in, the wife and the husband were in the bed with the children and they had to put a blanket around them. the second case, the police broke in and the lady was taking a shower, and they had to give us a blanket and cover it around her. so in my 94 years, i have experienced -- and do you have any data on whether they -- whether the raids are mostly on blacks for our the executed mostly on vacations -- blacks or are they executed mostly on caucasians? caller: we found that when the

word -- guest: we found that there were federal no-knock laws enacted in the 1970's. we found that as soon as that happened, there were botched raids everywhere, wrong addresses, exactly what this man was talking about. to these violent confrontations have been happening from the beginning. in the cities we were able to look at when we identified these 22 for tallies, we found 13 of the people killed -- these 22 fatalities, we found that 13 of the people killed were black or hispanic. we find that this is often targeted at communities of color and poor and vulnerable communities. the questions you are asking about being able to track data on no-knock warrants, it is a problem throughout policing, and that is why they created this database, because no one is keeping track of all these -- of this behavior, how often people are getting killed by police and in what ways.

i think there are efforts to get more data, to have more accountability, but it is really difficult and that is why i think nicole and i feel so grateful to have a job like this, to shine some accountability on what's happening. host: the caller points on an issue where the element of surprise -- and he listed a couple examples -- but the element of surprise bring surprise. you don't know what is on the others to the door. it would seem to me the element of surprise puts a real risk factor into some of these raids. guest: yes. i would also point out that a lot of the raids we saw that lead to fatalities were often going after drugs or narcotics. so there are a lot of police officers and law enforcement who say this is needed for very dangerous situations, but what we were finding as a lot of these cases, you know, what they

actually seized after these fatalities were amounts of drugs that were not in the pounds, not in the kilograms, but might sometimes lead to a possession with intent to distribute charge. so i think their families and lawyers asking, you know -- think there are families and lawyers, you know, is this tactic worth it when you are finding drugs that may not even amount to a huge charge? host: new mexico, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for letting me talk. i'm 34. i am a teacher in albuquerque. and i must say that i totally for the ultimate value on the protection of life and property and, you know, i have worked with students who have committed

school shootings, worked in detention centers, and this is an incredible american situation, you know, our second amendment and fourth amendment rights, public safety is critical, crime must be limited, and i just think it is really interesting what these people are talking about with that element of surprise. they basically just seems like if lawmakers or judges are causing violence and other people's rights to be, you know, tangled with, i think that's an issue. and also, i think if people want to become involved in this situation, if people are really concerned, they should become police officers. i hope that you two awesome young ladies get the chance to work, to go to schools to share information and maybe tell people to get involved in whatever way they can because this is an incredible situation.

thank, guys. host: jenn and nicole, your thoughts? guest: thanks for your comment. we are hoping that people listen to these stories because it is illuminating. what is illuminating for us as reporters who have reported on the criminal justice system is to see how often this happens and what they are looking for in these kinds of no-knock searches and the fact that it often leads to drugs and, you know, not large amounts of drugs. host: nicole dungca and jenn abelson are investigative reporters with the washington post. their podcast is "broken doors" about the police use of no-knock warrants and the process of getting one in the first place. how is this typically done with a judge? guest: sure. it really varies from agency to

agency in terms of how much surveillance they want to do before applying for a warrant. we have seen cases where police to six weeks of surveillance and one where a simple traffic stop led them to a judge. police will fill out an affidavit where they have to swear that everything is true. they will put all the information in there about why they need the search warrant. specifically, they are supposed to identify why they need the no-knock warrant with specifics of the case and then present that to the judge. typically, it is an in person interaction but what we explore in episode four, which dropped last week, was this newer technology of electronic warrants that make it incredibly easy and efficient to get no-knocks with a few clips of a button, and it would be helpful for nicole to illuminate what that is like, because it was shocking to us how easy it can be, not just the lack of resistance from judges but

literally pre-populated forms in other ways to these warrants -- forms and other ways for officers to these warrants. guest: one of the ways they market their electronic warrants, these companies, is how easy and quick it is. they will say it can bring warrant processing times down by 98%. so basically, you are seeing people signing off, judges signing off on warrants very quickly, and that's led to a lot of activists saying, you know, we already know sometimes that judges don't spend a ton of time looking at warrants and this is going to make it even worse, this idea that, now, you can scroll through your phone or just quickly glance at something on your phone to be able to approve something. and in the case of jeff richardson, he was in west baton rouge parish in louisiana.

we were able to get the timestamps to show how quickly it was that an officer was able to submit this warrant and then a judge was able to approve it, and it is in the minutes, you know? it can be a very quick process that somebody can submit a warrant and then someone is fatally shot. one of the issues we also saw is that the warrant itself didn't have a ton of reasoning for why these officers needed to have a no-knock search warrant, which generally, you are supposed to make an argument that it is going to be very dangerous or there's a reason the evidence is going to be destroyed at some point, so we read this warrant and didn't see that reasoning there. so what we are seeing is that it can be very easy to get a no-knock search warrant and, with these apps, it could be even easier. host: about 15 minutes with our guests left, abelson jenn and

nicole dungca with the washington post. the lines for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000, and mountain and pacific, it is (202) 748-8001. jenn abelson, did you want to say something? guest: you did not cut me off. i was going to say that in terms of the lack of transparency, there is a lack of transparency around the sources of information that police are relying on. almost all the fatalities that we looked at were narcotics searches, as we mentioned, almost entirely based on confidential sources and informants, which is a tricky part of policing. these are individuals who often have a reason to cooperate with police whether they have a financial arrangement or criminal charges pending. they are hoping to get out of these charges or reduce

sentences, so they are feeding information to police that's leading to these no-knock warrants and there's very little vetting. judges are not asking to have interviews with these confidential informants to verify that what they are saying is true. i think of judges had that opportunity and asked these informants questions, in at least two of the fatalities, there would have been red flags raised ahead of time, both in the ben jefferson case and the benjy edwards case. host: lynn in philadelphia next. caller: i know you all made broad statements of how many cases you looked at. how many cases did you all look at? because i know in the city of philadelphia, the no-knock warrants issued, actually, police officers got shot. i have been out on no-knock warrants when i was a social worker back in the 1990's and most of the time they are issued as a no-knock warrant but the

police have to announce that they are the police before they open the door. most people know that they have a warrant issued on them. it is not just arbitrary. the cases of amir locke, unfortunately, he was set up by his own relative because the warrant was not for him. it was for his relative. that was established. as far as breonna taylor, unfortunately with her, that was an issue with the courts. whoever the court clerk was, she issued -- put the wrong address on it, and that, unfortunately, is a clerical issue, so there are a lot of cases like that and as far as investigating these no-knock warrants, when they use informants, correct, i agree, just like informants or people who call about people with child abuse. those need to be investigated longer, but the majority of no-knock warrants are issued

based on police surveillance, and normally, drug cases, they are surveilled for a long time before they do the actual warrants. host: thanks for your perspective. nicole or jenn, do you want to respond? guest: go ahead. guest: no, i mean, i was going to get to the point about police officers often being shot. in the 22 cases where we did find that people were shot by police during these no-knock search warrants, we found that there was an officer who was killed during one of these no-knock search warrants, and there's at least one other we found in our reporting where officers were killed. and so, you know, from what we have seen, the civilians are the ones who are getting killed more often than officers, but it also brings up the point that many other people make, that this is

very dangerous for police officers as well. you know, policing is very dangerous. there's no doubt about that. and you actually hear from some police officers that if you carry out a no-knock search warrant in the wrong situation, it can be even more dangerous, and i think that's something to also bring up when you are talking about somebody from the national tactical officers association, that these should be used sparingly because it can be a dangerous situation and there should be training. we also have cases where there will be surveillance on some of these homes, but we also know that in some of these homes, people are in there that are not involved with the case at all. in st. louis, in this no-knock raid that involved three separate homes at once, there was a four-year-old on the first

floor of the home, and it is politically -- it is pretty clear that the four-year-old did not know police will be storming into the home that night, and so you do see a lot of people who get caught up in these who do have their lives irrevocably changed because of no-knock search warrant's that may have had no idea that the police were surveilling a home of somebody they know or love and then have their life changed because of this. and i think that's something that we were very struck by. i mean, there were maybe five cases where people who were killed were not actually involved in the warrant at all. they happened to be there and they were looking for someone else. amir locke is one example of that. so when you think about carrying out these warrants and who gets caught up in it, i think there will be people who wonder if police are killing people who are not involved with these

alleged crimes at all, that there are going to be questions about whether they should be carried out as much as they are carried out. host: go ahead, jenn. guest: no, go ahead. host: we will go to carl in chicago. you're are on the line, carl. caller: in chicago about four years ago, a female social worker did a no-knock warrant on her home. she was naked. she was naked for almost an hour before they put anything around her. she just sued. i think she got a couple million dollars. in at least 10 more cases, chicago pays out thousands of dollars every year for no-knock warrants, and i think the city just passed a ruling that the

police have to get a warrant before they go to a place. often times, the police are not trigger-happy but they just kick your door down, point guns at little kids. channel two in chicago is an excellent source. they have been keeping a record of no-knock warrants. they all happen in black neighborhoods. host: ok, carl. you two report on the liability suits some cities are facing. guest: that is a great question. three of our colleagues really dug into the cost of police misconduct, in the billions, and there's actually a massive story

that our colleague worked on that answered that question. i mean, we don't know specifically how much of those come from no-knock search warrants, but there is a lot of money across the country paid out by departments who are settling these kinds of misconduct lawsuits, and we have looked -- or our colleagues have looked into that. and also -- sorry. host: no, no, go ahead. guest: i would like to say that he brings up a good point. there are a lot of great local outlets doing work on this, and it sometimes, those are how we found these kinds of warrants. the way we populate the database is oftentimes because local outlets are doing great work trying to log all these instances where the police have killed civilians during their jobs and i think it is great when you do see different local outlets keeping an eye out on no-knock search warrant's. i think we worry about,

sometimes, that not everybody jurisdiction might have the resources to track these and because it is so hard to track these, there are unknowns about how many no-knock search warrants are carried out across the country. host: go ahead, jenn. guest: our investigation is a limited window into the fatalities that happened. i remember the case this man was talking about in chicago, where it was an egregious set of circumstances but there were no for tallies -- no fatalities there. we did not tally people who were traumatized after having the police storm their house. we have a very limited window, looking into the very worst case scenarios, but there are hundreds if not thousands of cases where people have had police storm into their houses with these no-knock warrants and we have no transparency into what the consequences are. host: if you don't have time to

listen to the podcast, you can find more of your reporting online at washingtonpost.com, including the article "what to know about no-knock warrants." in liverpool, new york, david. good morning. caller: excellent work, ladies. my conclusion from listening to all this is the police department is incredibly unprofessional and lazy. the police department is not supposed to be a detriment to society, just whacking people whenever they want to. that is all i have to say. have a great day. host: go ahead. guest: i think so much of it depends on leadership in the police department. there are police that have made changes and put policies in place but it depends on what happens in practice, which is what nicole referenced in minneapolis, where they made changes in no-knocks, but what

was happening on the ground was different and there was a disconnect. i hope our reporting contributes to a larger conversation around this not only in communities but the law enforcement people. it is important to be able to have these discussions about what policing and america should look like -- policing in america should look like. host: and, nicole dungca, any final thoughts? guest: we are grateful to have been able to spend the time on this issue that is really top of mind for a lot of people. you saw this with breonna taylor and write as -- and right around the time the podcast started we heard about amir locke. these stories have big consequences for communities across the country and i hope we are able to shed light on some of -- on a topic we will all be talking about for a while. host: our guests are investigative reporters with the washington post.

there podcast is "broken doors." four episodes online already. a total of six coming to washingtonpost.com. thank you for speaking to our viewers this morning. guest: thank you for having us. host: that'll do it for the program this morning but we want to remind you about our podcasts on the network, which you can find on c-span.org/podcasts, all the podcasts that we produce also available, linked on the mobile app, the c-span now mobile app. check them out. that will do it for the program. back at 7:00 eastern. hope you enjoy your weekend. we will see you tomorrow. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? >> it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled rooms so students from low income families can get what they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. sunday on q&a, journalist -- a journalist talks about his book "the right: the 100 year war for american conservatism" on the history of the republican party and the election of donald trump in 2016. >> you see the through line of

figures who have a populism that becomes negatively charged, that is conspiratorial, that points to scapegoats and often can lead to places where they are arguing not just against the left but against america itself. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." ♪ host: the further we get from january 6, 2021, the closer we may be getting to seeing the ultimate legal consequences of that violent and deadly attack on the u.s. capitol. new audio from that day revealing the views of house republicans leader kevin

mccarthy. marjorie taylor greene in court yesterday defending her views before and after the attack. and representative jamie rankin on the january 6 committee warning that their final report will "blow the roof off the house." saturday, april 23, 2022, good morning and welcome to "washington journal." for our first hour, we will ask you, will the january 6 attack be a factor in your vote? in the midterm elections. (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8002 for independents. and your text messages are welcome at (202)-748-8003. we are on facebook, you can post there and we will look for your messages on twitter and instagram, @cspanwj. is that -- it is that time of year when primaries are getting closer. ohio primary ima