to consider a text message sussman sent after the fbi alerted james baker, saying he was not meeting with him on behalf of any client. that does hurt the prosecution's case. it makes it harder, because now, the jurors have to do -- have to rely on what baker says sussman told him in that meeting. nobody else was in the meeting, james baker is not an investigator. he did not take notes. it has his word versus michael sussman's word. that is going to be a problem for the prosecution. host: are you covering the verdict? guest: yes, i will be covering closing arguments later today. host: will you be tweeting about it? the twitter for jeff is @jeff mordock. washington journal continues. host: charlie sykes is with us

this morning, founder and editor at large of the bulwark, a news and opinion website. he is the author of how the right lost its mind. esther sykes, you wrote after the school shooting at the texas elementary school that this is a time for grief and also for incandescent anger. what did you mean? guest: we have been here over and over and over again. i'm still haunted by what happened at sandy hook and the lack of response to that. how do we not react with anger when we watch the slaughter of innocent people? and the recognition as a country that we are not serious about this? we can have a sober debate about what needs to be done about guns. but the reality is we are so upset with picking sides in our

culture wars that we are willing to say thoughts and prayers when we have dead children we are not willing to actually do anything about it. and so, no one is going to say that they find the death of children to be acceptable and yet, as a country, we have accepted it. as we watch this, i am shocked, horrified, i'm a father. i'm a grandfather. it is very difficult to imagine what it is like to lose a child under the circumstances. the more we learn, the more tragic it gets. and to watch the political posturing and the same arguments over and over again, the same sound bites, the same talking points, it is frustrating. and so, this many years after columbine, after the nation pledged never again, we have seen it again and again and again.

and the reality is it will happen again because nothing will change unless we make a change. inaction is a choice. host: what was your reaction to the republican leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, appointing john cornyn, a republican senator from texas to be part of bipartisan talks in the hopes of bringing legislation forward? guest: i would like to see bipartisan talks. i would like to see bipartisan registration. there are reasonable compromises here that would be supported by the vast majority of americans. americans are very divided on whether or not we should have stricter or looser gun control but there is an overwhelming consensus on a variety of issues including background checks. limitation on the size of magazines. raising the age for the possession of guns. red flag laws, we have seen republican governors signed

these red flag laws. we have seen them signed them into law. there are things that, if we deal with this in good faith, we could come up with incremental reforms. my problem with this, of course, is that we have seen this over and over and over again. i think it would be naive to think that this time is going to be any different. i saw one analysis that said it takes americans three days to get over there shock and grief over these school shootings and then we go back to normal. i think that is likely to happen again. host: what do you think about the national rifle association holding its convention days after the shooting, in houston, texas? guest: this is what the nra does. remember after the shooting in colorado, there was discussion about whether they should postpone their convention that year and they don't do it. the question is what is the

nra's response going to be? are they going to sit back and go we need to rethink these positions? this is shocking, this is horrifying, how can we come together in good eighth and come up with things that will keep americans safe? i think what we have seen over the years is the nra has become absolutist, refusing to go along with virtually any of the measures that might make a difference. i'm not so naive to think there will be a law that is a magic wand under the circumstances. what you see with the nra is that they have become a culture warrior. they have encouraged treating guns as a fetish. i am old enough to remember when the nra was into gun safety. when they would have emphasized the need to be serious and sober as most gun owners are. most gun owners are very serious. they are safe, they are

concerned about safety. and yet we have this culture where we have politicians posing for christmas cards with weapons of mass destruction, treating them like a fetish. i think the nra has gotten deeply into all of that. so, again, i think it will be interesting to see what the folks at the nra say, what they do. if you are looking for any sense of shame or any sense of rethinking, i think that's not going to happen. host: what about what the former president might say? he will be speaking at that convention today. guest: we will have to see what the president says. what the former president says about this. donald trump -- over the years, he has gone back and forth about this particular issue that he is -- but he is all in with the nra and the nra is all in with donald trump.

if the past is any indication, one of the things we learned is that you never apologize, never admit you were wrong and never backed away in trumpism. i am going to be interested to see whether they continue to talk about -- part of this is the ground hung date nature of this. it is the same old, same old. let's armed teachers, we need more good guys with guns. one of the things we are learning on almost an hourly basis in texas is that the good guys with guns narrative has taken quite a beating. there were lots of good guys with guns, but they were not able to stop the massacre of the innocent. i expect to hear the same talking points over and over and over again. host: what's pivot to the primary season, charlie sykes. what is your take away from the georgia primary results? guest: there are two.

this is still donald trump's party. i think it would be naive to think donald trump doesn't have an iron grip on his base. what happened is significant. it showed his endorsement is no longer a golden ticket. and republicans who defy him on the big lie are not automatically committing political suicide. i was struck by the margins in this case. you had governor brian kemp lead by more than 50 points. brad raffensperger, who was republican in a meet number one in trump's and given up for dead by everyone i spoke to not only won easily but avoided a runoff. this was a bright red line that donald trump, himself had drawn. he made this his number one priority. this was his obsession. the big lie. he has been demanding that

politicians not only believe the big lie but take action. and in georgia, you had a really stark choice for republican voters. and even though donald trump drew the redline, the republican voters in georgia stampeded across the line. you can read double much into it. but it was not nothing. it is significant. it is also significant that you see republican governors now be increasingly emboldened in standing up to trump. trumps endorsed candidates were defeated in idaho and nebraska for governor. then mike pence came in in georgia, opening even wider with trump. chris christie, governor larry hogan from maryland are now more willing and now more emboldened to stand up to trump, particularly on the issue of the big lie.

host: mike pence endorsed brian kemp and campaign for him. what does that say about his influence? guest: i don't know what it says about his influence. by the time mike pence showed up, it was obvious brian kemp was going to win and win easily. so, he was betting on a horse that was several lengths ahead. on the other hand, i think what you are seeing is that mike pence is -- pence's willingness to separate himself from donald trump is growing. i think it is very clear, he has been very tentative about it. but he has said that trump was wrong in thinking he could overturn the election on january 6. he has been somewhat critical. but this was, really, i think one of the most traumatic steps he took. i also think that the odds of mike pence winning the republican nomination in this

current environment are slim. they might be slim and none. but it is interesting that somebody like pence would have chosen this particular race to make it very, very clear that he is off the trump train. host: let's hear from phil in capitol heights, maryland. good morning and questions for charlie sykes. caller: good morning, is that me? host: it's -- yes. caller: it's bill. i will make my point quick. our country was founded on two things. religious freedom and right to bear arms. i think if you look at our atmosphere and landscape now, we are probably not the most religious country in the world but we are founded on the melting pot phenomena and it is very questionable now as we look at things in our landscape if we are truly a melting pot.

i know for a fact if we look at it, there is a lot of hate in our atmosphere and we point fingers at each other. i think if we can step out of ourselves, speaking to not only the -- our political leaders, but even as citizens, if we step out of ourselves and try to look at each other from their perspective, maybe we can have a conversation that is sound and legitimate, that is reasonable. there is to double much hatred in the atmosphere. -- there is too much hatred in the atmosphere. guest:

i would like to tell you that we are reeling back from the consequences of this debate. maybe we ought to tone things down, stop human eyes and each other, maybe we ought to push back against the racist conspiracy theories. but i don't see that happening. i agree with the caller that we live in very dangerous times. host: south carolina, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call let me say i am an 82-year-old

christian. i know that some of what i'm saying can be interpreted different from what i mean. so far, nothing has worked. we are fighting fire with water. maybe those who are in a position to do so should fight fire with fire. look at some of the tactics used against abortion clinics. why not use those tactics against gun distributors? i think the wrong children are paying for this wrong thing. or like weapons have no place. they should be banned totally. i come from a family of hunters.

nobody ever killed anybody. i had guns around in a gun cabinet since i was two years old. host: ok, we need. -- juanita. charlie sykes? guest: there are a lot of people with guns paid the vast majority will not commit crimes with guns. my experience is most gun owners are very serious about the responsibility. i think it is important not to craft solutions or responses that target law-abiding gun owners. but i do think, and the point she made about weapons of war, we need to understand what an ar 15 will do to human beings, what it will do to the body of a child. i have been reading people

talking about how we need to keep pictures to shock america. i understand why we don't because it would be too horrible and graphic. i don't think we could take it. understand that these are weapons that are not the necessary tools for hunting. as we upset over and over and over again. military people are or if i'd to see weapons of war in the hands of teenagers. this is something we absolutely need to address. until we address it, we are not going to get a handle on it. one more point. even though republicans will cast themselves as the party of law and order, it is interesting the block the domestic antiterrorism bill again yesterday. it is also interesting despite the rhetoric about backing the

blue, that's a reality note with millions of powerful weapons on the street, our police are outgunned. part of the story out of texas which continues to get worse all the time about the delay of the police going in is because the police who were heavily armed themselves were being extremely cautious about other people who work heavily armed. the reality is when you have heavily armed individuals wearing body armor, it is not just enough to have good guys with guns. even police officers will feel themselves at a disadvantage. that is something we have to deal with honestly and forthrightly. host: let's talk about the messaging of democrats and the president heading into the midterm elections. you have heard them refer to republicans as mag are republicans -- maga republicans. what are they trying to do?

guest: they are trying to put donald trump back on the ballot again. the understand the headwinds are very stiff for democrats. the big problem for democrats is donald trump the remains somewhat politically toxic. when they use terms like ultra maga, they're referring to what the republican party has become. most of the candidates running, even those who do not have trump's endorsement are trumpian or pretend to be. a lot of the debates are between super maga and ultra maga. if this is what the party has decided to become, if they have embraced these extreme right-wing policies, they need

to own that. i think that is the strategy behind it. i also think the democrats need to hone their message more to go after those most extreme elements. the reality is right now with the economy, with inflation, with crime, republicans have an advantage on a lot of those issues. host: tell us about how the january 6 committee could play out ahead of the elections. kevin mccarthy along with jim jordan writing an opinion piece in today's "wall street journal." if republican leaders were to participate in the political stunt, it would change the house forever, they argue. guest: that is disingenuous. it goes back to the flip-flop of kevin mccarthy who for about five minutes understood exactly

what happened january 6 and the gravity on our democratic norms and has yet decided afterwards he needs to go down and kiss the ring at mar-a-lago. i don't know that the january 6 committee will have that much of an impact on the midterm elections. at some point, people need to do their duty. we need to find out the truth. we need to treat this attempt to overthrow the election with the seriousness and gravity it deserves. i have been impressed by the work of the committee, the amount of information they have been able to gather. i think republicans made a mistake, a big mistake, by not going along with the bipartisan commission. i think this should have been a

moment where both parties came together and said if we can agree on one thing, it is that the peaceful transfer of power is central to the american system, the american constitutional system, whether you want to call it democracy or being a republic. remember what it was like on january 7 we had republicans who understood this who were willing to hold people accountable including president trump. you had mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy give speeches on the floor. to watch them now pretend there's nothing to see, i think it is tragic. i think that is what will have long-term consequences. the refusal of the republican party to stand shoulder to shoulder with colleagues from across the aisle defending a free, fair, and secure election in the process for the exchange of power. we don't have a functioning

democracy if the losers of an election refused to acknowledge the validity of the elections. that is a real existential threat to our system of government. host: we will go down to arkansas, frank, a republican. caller: yes, good morning, america. you covered so many different conversations while i was listening. i don't think i can cover all of them. as far as gun control, the only thing that has made america strong over the years is every household has a gun. you can figure out what an army is going to do but you cannot figure out what a family will do protecting his family, a man or a wife. instead of worrying about the guns, worry about the cause. you have to go back to the mind of the man that pulled the trigger, not the gun.

the gun is only a tool. if you want to stop mass shootings, figure out why the man is doing it, not the gun. just like you talked about past killings, what did they do about the guy that ran through the parade some time back? are they going to ban cars? you have to figure out what is causing it, not the equipment he uses. host: ok, frank. charlie sykes? guest: that took place in waukesha, wisconsin, a few miles from where i am right now. i am sorry. with all the respect, that is the tired argument i have heard over and over again. the reality is these mass shootings are so much worse because of the tool. and ar-15 that can murder 19 children in minutes is not the same as a hammer. could we acknowledge that? look around the world, these

shootings are not taking place in places like britain. there have been mass shootings in other countries, but they have dealt with it. they have said this is not acceptable. what can we do to stop it? look around the world. i am a strong believer in american exceptionalism, but this is a dark part of american exceptionalism. we are exceptional in the frequency of these mass shootings. there are people who are evil, who are mentally ill, who are twisted, all over the planet. but only in the united states today have access to these weapons of war and so, on a weekly basis, we have this weekly conversation of, how did this happen? to the caller's point that the only thing that made america great is guns, that is simply not true.

a lot of other things made america great. the fact is american greatness should be able to stand up against the massacre of children in our society. that is a challenge to american greatness. it is not a collateral part of american greatness. host: in new york, democratic caller, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i want to first tell you i am very proud of you. i know as a conservative, you're taking an independent stance. that is truly patriotic, american democracy at work. traditional conservatives i knew from world war ii and the rest through the last decades until this decade. in any case, i want to thank you for standing up for sanity in this country. i also want to mention that, in

listening to c-span, i see how powerful the talking points are that are just repeated without thought. there's no defense against that. what i would like to introduce is the idea that is different that this is about marketing. this is about the people who are the arms dealers around the world. this is descending on america. this is not arising from the second amendment. this is the sending -- descending from arm stealing and the money behind that. we see the ascendance of mass shootings against innocents beyond reason, beyond belief. we know this is an irrational development occurring in our american culture. the globe is stunned by it. host: i'm going to jump in. guest: he is right.

on my podcast next week, i'm going to have an author that has written about the role of the gun industry in pushing these narratives. i am not an expert in all of this. it is globally shocking that this is happening in this country. the previous caller did not want to focus on the gun. he wanted to focus on the people wielding the gun. and yet, when there are efforts to focus on who has the guns, those are also blocked by the nra and the modern republican party. republicans used to be willing to engage in gun control in the past. this is a relatively recent phenomenon. there are red flag laws that say if somebody looks like they are going to be a danger to themselves or others that you can get a court order to allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns. one of those laws was signed,

enacted under a republican governor in florida. universal background checks are supported by more than 80% of americans. that focuses on who is getting their hands on the guns. how do we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? how do we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers or criminals? and yet, every time those bills are up, the same folks who say there is nothing that can be done about guns also say that nothing can be done about the men, and they are usually men, who are wielding this guns. spare me some of these talking points. host: in the d.c. area, lee is watching, and independent. good morning. question or comment? caller: good morning. enjoying the show. i would like to get your opinion on this. i think the democrats are going to retain the senate in the

midterm elections, mainly because they are nominating very good candidates. look at ohio. they nominated ryan. i think they have a good chance to flip that seat. the republicans have nominated vance. vance said he did not want to take sides in the ukraine-russia war, that he did not really care who won the war. then his handlers got on him and told him it was an ignorant thing to say. i think the democrats in pennsylvania and ohio and places like that are nominating very good candidates and the democrats will retain the senate. what do you think? guest: i think will be hard for democrats to retain control of the house and senate given the overall political environment.

one of the questions i don't know the answer to is, how much have the rules of politics changed? as you were talking, i was thinking about the 2010 election which was an overwhelming republican landslide and yet republicans flew their chances to take the senate back because they nominated terrible candidates in places like delaware and nevada. remember "i am not a witch" in delaware. around the country, you have republicans nominating flawed candidates. the possibility of the disgraced governor winning in missouri. maybe dr. oz in pennsylvania. if the old rules applied in politics, the republicans might pay a price for this by nominating candidates too

embarrassing and bizarre as they did in 2010. but i don't know, given the polarization of our politics, given the incredible pull of partisan loyalty, we will have to see. in a country that elected donald trump president, anything is possible. i think right now we have to assume the odds are against the democrats in both the house and senate. host: john in beaverton, oregon, democratic caller. caller: one of the things you have been hitting on is in good faith. i have been thinking about what has been happening. i think what has happened is faith and what is sacred. the gun is not sacred. guest: right. caller: people's lives are sacred. that is what gets lost in all of the political part of it. for me, politics is not

necessarily about power. but it has got to be about public service and the common good. common good, compromise, working on things. i totally agree with you on the nra. they have gotten away from education and gun safety and conflated in their marketing the sacred second amendment. as one religious leader said, the second amendment did not come down from mount zion with moses. and the final thing is, i used to work in a sporting goods store when i was very young, let's say, in my 20's. and there was one time when i was in the gun area. one of the things we were told never to do is to have the gun

and ammunition together on the counter with the customer. i remember one time i had a customer come in. he pulled out an ar-15 that we were still selling. he goes, can i have some ammunition? and then, he started to point it around without the ammunition, but still. i knew it could happen. and so, it is this whole idea, what is sacred? life, not guns. host: charlie sykes. guest: very interesting point. i was thinking about a candidate for governor in georgia running last week who held a rally. the big slogans behind her were "jesus, guns, babies." this inflation of guns with god i think is dangerous. the caller makes a great point.

what is sacred? what do we value the most? the lives of our children? particularly if we are a pro-life culture. can you be pro-life and yet be in different to the slaughter of children? is the second amendment important? yes, it is in the bill of rights. does it mean that we regard guns and the possession of guns as sacred in the same way we regard human life as sacred? i think that is an interesting point. maybe that is something to challenge people on, particularly those who would say the most important issue in their lives is pro-life, saving the lives of children. why would that be the number one issue for them if they also believe gun ownership is sacred? i consider myself pro-life. one of the shocks the last few years is the way in which the abortion issue has become

separated from all of these other issues involving human life, human dignity, and how we encourage people to make the right choices, how we protect and nurture children, because there is a real contradiction there. host: tina is a republican in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i have a question. when people go in and purchase these types of weapons, it is like the people that are selling them, when they are purchasing this, like when this young man purchased all of this stuff, did the people selling it think, what do you need all of this for? there's nothing major going on in the state of texas. and then he goes back and purchases ammunition. is there something that like a local owner or store that sells these weapons makes a call to

say i just sold ladada to so-and-so and i think something is going on? wouldn't that be like the beginning of the end? guest: i don't know the beginning of the end because we have millions of these guns. if you are asking about whether we should have a sense of responsibility, i think in a community that had a sense of responsibility, somebody would have been looking out for this. somebody might have said something who knew this young man. that is why red flag laws are so important. when someone is behaving in a way that appears to be dangerous, let's do something about it. let's separate that person from the guns at least temporarily until we can figure out whether they pose a difference. you have to ask, was there a mother or father, a grandparent, a neighbor, was there somebody else who knew what was going on?

this is why you want to have background checks to make sure a person who has a history of mental illness or a criminal record does not come in and buy these weapons. i would make one you have to be 21 years old to buy a beer in this country, at least in wisconsin. yet we allow 18-year-olds on their birthday to come in and buy ar-15's. is it unreasonable to think we ought to raise the age of purchasing guns? that we ought to have these restrictions? there are a lot of common sense things we used to do in the past that were not a violation of laws that i think would make a difference does anyone need that much ammunition? honestly seriously, if the size of the magazines were limited what it make a difference it

would not save every life but it might make a difference. this is the kind of thing we ought to be considering, but, because of the nra stranglehold over the republican party, this is not likely to happen. host: carolyn in texas, democratic color. -- color -- caller. can you hear me? caller: ok hold on. can you hear me now? host: you go ahead with your question or comment please. caller: people always trying to say guns are not the ones killing folks, if you don't have a gun, how could that person die? somebody is lying down that the deal to keep all the money rolling on.

somewhere down the line this needs to stop. this is a talking point that says, guns is not killing people. but guns, few don't have it, is killing people. this year, i want to make sure people get out and vote for those people to get out, because too many of our people are getting killed. with guns, not -- with guns. host: i will have you jump in. guest: the point,, of course these guns are not irrelevant. the whole idea that, i think i heard it marco rubio saying, if you been some of these guns, the killers would still find a way to do this, well, no, you can commit mass horrific acts only with some of these guns. yes, you can kill someone with a knife, with a revolver, but

let's be honest about it. we understand. the worst mass shootings always involve specific kinds of guns. i don't know whether we are going to go back to a ban on assault weapons, but i think it is incredibly naïve and disingenuous to suggest the actual nature of these guns does not matter. you would not have had the kind of death toll you had in las vegas if he did not have a certain kind of weapon -- you did not have a certain kind of weaponry. if the murderer do not use bump stocks. must be honest about this. if you are opposed to any sort of restriction on it, then explain, why it is in people's interests to have a proliferation of these kinds of weapons. host: charlie sykes, founder and editor, we appreciate the conversation this morning. >> we are