video app, c-span now. >> 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's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled sites so students from low income families can get what they need to succeed in school. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning, the wall street journal gives is the latest on the justice department 's investigation into the january 6 u.s. capitol attack. then lehman mary law school professor rebecca greene talks about efforts to reform the electoral count act and its relevance in the upcoming

january 6 hearings. also, council of the america senior director on this week's summit of the americas in california and u.s. policy toward latin america. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is "washington journal" for june 8. many americans say issues such as abortion and crime are reasons to vote in this year's midterm elections. we invite you to tell us about topics and issues you find important as you cast your vote this november. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002.

you can use that number to text us your thoughts this morning. you can also post on facebook and twitter and follow the show on instagram. abc news, a recent polling takes a look at certain issues as they had to the polls this november. the issues remain huge. according to their poll, fighting inflation is either extremely or very important 80% of voters. mr. biden's approval stands below 30% and that polling. the story adds after shootings voters in the poll think gun violence will be extremely or very important in their votes for congress with the supreme court expected to overturn roe v. wade in coming weeks. the issue of abortion is important to 63% of voters. when voters were asked to name the most important issue this

fall, it was inflation, chosen by 21% of respondents, the economy more broadly at 19%, gun violence at 17% when it comes to issues of importance. the washington post looks at the same topics as far as specific issues motivating people to vote this november. they add this on top of what you saw from abc polling. they talk about the topic of crime, saying republicans see other issues beyond inflation when major cities are suffering from rising homicide rates and increases of other types of crimes. it says echoes of the defund the police rhetoric continue to haunt democrats. when it comes to topics of the border, it says the surge of undocumented immigrants along the u.s.-mexico border is a concern biden administration has yet to bring under control. there is now a split in the party over the proposal to lift

title 42. several democratic senators have spoken out against the change, fearing such action would spur additional border crossings and threaten them politically. your issue may be one of those listed in the recent polls. you can add your own topics as well of what is motivating you to vote this november. here is how you can call us. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want, you can use the same number to text us your thoughts this morning and post on our facebook page or twitter feed and follow the show on instagram. to hear from you when it comes to topics of importance to you this november, in florida, our independent line. we start with linda. what is the main topic or

motivating factor for you this november? caller: the biggest thing to me is everything. the border, allowing anybody in and not protecting our own people, and the crisis from canada over to russia and blaming everybody else. that is ridiculous. host: are there specific races you will be voting in in november? caller: i am going to go for republican voting in florida because desantis has run florida beautifully through all the crises and everything with the schooling and things like that that people have a right, parents and things like that.

host: gwen is in detroit, michigan. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am going to be voting this midterm for our children, for our children and seniors come up for americans that cannot live their life peacefully. they cannot live their life peacefully and without someone shooting them up. the parents of those children uvalde, i believe they need to come together and demand that the crime scene in that room be shown to the public, even if it is just pictures, so people can stop talking about the pipeline, stop talking about immigration and the border. the number one top priority is our children and these guns.

host: what rakas -- what races are you focusing on in november? what races are you voting in or casting a vote on? caller: the specific races that deal with what i am talking about, the representatives in the statehouses and the secretary of state. this has to do with voting. republicans have already set up -- they have their ducks in a row. it boils down to voting in november. vote democrat. if you vote anything else, we are doomed. host: you can talk about issues, topics, specific races when it comes to this november midterm election. north carolina, independent line. this is matthew.

caller: thanks for having me on. host: as far as november, what is motivating you as far as issues or races or anything when it comes to midterms? caller: we all see what is going on with inflation and the lack of congress coming together to actually control legislation. and i realize people are becoming stressed out and freaking out and suffering from covid-19 for two years. inflation has been going through the roof. we stopped oil from russia. we used to export to russia. our gas prices are up. host: do you have a specific

candidate you will vote for this november? caller: no because it is all about political survival for congress at the moment just so they get reelected. my vote ain't going to mean anything and no one else's's is. host: abc took a look a couple months ago at the idea of voter enthusiasm when it comes to the midterm elections. it says in the poll they took, it shows an enthusiasm gap ahead of the midterms with numbers that look even worse upon closer inspection. looking at the most and least eager to vote shows an aborted aspect of the story. among republicans, 55% say they are enthusiastic about voting in the midterms compared to 35% of democrats, a number nearly identical to strong enthusiasm among independents, 34%. 13% of democrats say they are not enthusiastic about voting.

only 5% of republicans say the same. an encouraging sign for republican strategists worried about votes that will show up without president trump on the ballot. those are some of the issues when it comes to voting. you can talk about the top issues to you and mention specific races you may be interested in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. this is from alma in illinois, democrats line. hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: i will be voting in the primary and general election because i would like to see more democrats in the house of representatives. host: who are you voting for the

primary? caller: in the primary, i will be voting for governor, secretary of state, anybody running in the democrat race i will vote for because we need to stop these republicans who are racist, who are trying to get rid of certain groups, and i would like to see them get rid of the ak 15 guns for everybody. host: mike is next in new york, republican line. caller: i am going to vote on what i think is candidates for the job of common sense instead of just falling in line and

following whatever the lead member of their party says. we have a country that is becoming -- our businesses are shutting up. inflation is so high that i see a day coming soon where people are saying i cannot come to work because i'm out of gas. we have to get something out of -- under control in our country and it seems like parties want to bicker instead of working on it. host: which candidates are you thinking about in new york? caller: it does not matter if they are republican or democrat or independent if they are qualified to do the job and take steps to do it. that is the way i am going to vote. host: several states holding primaries yesterday. we will show you those results as the morning goes on to my starting in california, the reporting saying that san

francisco voted to recall the progressive district attorney in a campaign that divided them a kratz over crime, policing, and public safety reform. returns showed him losing what was expected to be a low turnout election. 61% of votes were in favor of the recall for a first time political candidate who narrowly won office as part of a wave of progressive prosecutors who pledged to seek alternatives to incarceration and hold police officers to account. it coincided with a friending pandemic and viral footage of shoplifting and attacks against older asian american people drove some residents to mount the recall campaign. that is out of abc seven, axios reporting also that a democrat from california and billionaire developer are headed to a november runoff in a race to

become the mayor of los angeles. they emerged in recent weeks as frontrunners. no candidate received the 50% needed to avoid the runoff. they finished as the top two and the race provided a window into some democratic power centers and whether voters may be willing to embrace a former republican as their next mayor. you can see more at the website there. from maryland, independent line, the issues that motivate you to vote this november. this is sean. go ahead. caller: pretty much i am very new to politics, pretty much since the beginning of the pandemic. my father never really put politics in the house and i see why. i never paid attention. the only difference i noticed growing up with my dad's opinion

was how every four years his paycheck changed. politics made it worse. i'm getting interested because like a lot of people during the pandemic -- host: are you there? keep going. caller: essentially, what i have noticed is it is nothing but misinformation and fighting and arguing, but everyone seems to know that. i am interested in people over the pandemic who started putting money into gambling and daytrading and all the misinformation out there and how involved money really is when it comes to politics and how they are getting donated to.

it seems like the money -- it is all about money and i'm interested in how the fcc is going to do a lot of stuff because there is a lot of legal stuff going on and it is really hurting investors. that is what it all comes down to. host: let's go to kenny, democrats line. caller: i am a long watcher of c-span and love it. what i'm going to vote for in the midterms, even the democrats do not call them out. i still remember when khrushchev said we will take over america by using your own laws against you from within. it does not matter if it takes 50 years. we are right on target except

for the gorbachev years. i am nervous. i am seeing the overthrow of my government when you have one party who will never compromise with the other and calls the other the enemy, not opposition, never willing to negotiate, and on top of that you have one whole party that still says about the ally. they not only don't believe in the constitution, they go against their own hand-picked judges. i am not real thrilled about anything the democrats have done. i have been unaffiliated for more than 12 years, but good

people on both sides in virginia -- no. not in my family. host: let's go to gerrit in new york, republican line. caller: there are a few issues i have. one is inflation. that does not make sense. new york city is not very safe right now and the mayor is not doing a great job about that. either way, the republican party is the way to go. host: he talked about inflation, what are the topics, the main topic of the treasury secretary yesterday. here's a portion of her comments talking about inflation issues from yesterday. [video clip] >> we currently face macro economic challenges, including

unacceptable levels of inflation and disruptions caused by. the pandemic. guest: -- the pandemic's effect on supply chains resulting from russia's war in ukraine. to dampen inflationary pressures without undermining the strength of the labor market, and appropriate budgetary stance is needed to complement monetary policy actions i the federal reserve. moving forward, proposed legislation includes the clean energy initiatives and plans to reform the prescription drug market to help lower the cost paid by american consumers. the treasury has actively been working with congress on many challenges. most important is our joint response to russia's war against

ukraine. the treasury is committed to doing what we can to ensure that putin's war continues to be met with resistance internationally. host: new jersey held a primary yesterday. a democratic representative won a primary and what promises to be the hottest congressional battle in the midterm election, a rematch of 2020. malinowski narrowly won reelection. he dispatched six opponents to win the nomination tuesday, including a state of some blue member, a pastor -- assembly member, a pastor who ran unsuccessfully last year. going to iowa, this is a state senator my projected winner of

the republican nomination for iowa's third congressional district, setting up a november battle with iowa's loan representative in congress. he has been a member of the iowa senate for two years and served four years in the iowa house prior to that. you just saw janet yellen. she will appear today before the house ways and means committee to talk about fiscal matters and inflationary issues. you can see that on c-span and follow on our website and app if you want to look at it there. we are asking you about issues that might motivate you to participate and vote in the november election. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. in tennessee it went democrat line, this is jasper.

-- in tennessee, democrat line, this is jasper. caller: those polls are not accurate. they are not talking to the real working-class people. the second thing is these guns, they talk about controlling these guns. the supreme court has to go back and look at what the constitution says. it says a well regulated militia. host: as far as what motivates you this november, what is it going to be as far as topics or issues? caller: the economy and guns. that is what it is going to be. the democrats talk and don't do nothing. the pipeline was not meant for the american economy. it was meant to send the oil somewhere else. and inflation -- host: this is the independent

line, ron. caller: my issue is one million people dead who did not have to die from covid-19. they completely mishandled the pandemic. they misinformed the public intentionally about how the public could protect themselves from the virus. do you know what the most -- hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: do you know what the most effective method is to prevent infection and spread of the virus? take a guess. host: just go ahead and tell me and then go ahead. caller: the most effective way to prevent the infection and spread of the virus is a respirator, a well fitting respirator. host: if that is the main issue,

how does that translate to how you will vote in november specifically? caller: the committee that is supposed to be watching over the cdc and people who are supposed to be taking care of the pandemic. she went to that hearing. host: that is ron and new hampshire. let's hear from rhonda in texas, democrat line. caller: the number one issue that will influence my vote in november will be gun violence. i am a surviving parent of the santa fe high school shooting that happened in 2018. i will only vote for democrats because they support those issues. host: when you take a look at the governor's race, that means support for beto o'rourke? caller: yes.

i will support him 100% because he is actually a friend of mine. we have gotten to know each other over the last several years and he cares about the children of the shooting, unlike greg abbott. host: rhonda in texas, guns her main issue. to give an example of what those in texas are seeing when it comes to ads on television, here's the latest from those running in the governor's race. >> ♪ -- [video clip] ♪

>> with regard to special session, all options are on the table. >> there are thousands of laws on the books across the country that limits the owning or using firearms, but that did not stop him. >> do we expect loss to come out of this devastating crime? the answer is yes. >> laws that have not stopped madman from carrying out people ask on innocent people in peaceful communities. >> the status quo is not acceptable. we are not going to do nothing about it. >> we urge everyone across the country to pray for those in uvalde. ♪ host: that is a sampling of ads

there. when it comes to the topics of guns, several things happening in congress today. right after this program in the house of representatives, the house will begin debate on several gun violence bills in response to the gun shooting in uvalde. one package increases the age to buy semi automatic rifles. another provision would create red flag laws come allowing officials to take some guns away for judge declares him to be a danger. a lot more to watch out for. at 10:00, there is a house oversight committee hearing looking at the topic of guns. it will feature a student who survived the shooting in texas by smearing herself and her friend's blood and playing dead. 10:00 is where you can see that. tomorrow, the january 6 committee will hold their first hearing, 8:00 in the evening. you can see that on c-span on interrupted, so watch for that tomorrow.

friday morning, devoted to your phone calls about that first hearing of the january 6 committee investigating the events. you can follow along there. we are asking you in this first hour about things that will motivate you to vote this coming november. in flint, michigan, democrats line. you're up. caller: i am voting to save our democracy because we have one party that believes in it and another party that wants to rig elections using voter suppression and other tactics to try to turn us into a one-man dictatorship under former president trump, so i'm voting straight democratic so we can preserve our democracy and have real freedom. high gas prices and all that are

important. if you have no freedom, it does not matter because a dictator like vladimir putin can make up rules as they go along. host: this is concern off of twitter, saying the price of fuel affects everything. i expect increases in everything, including the fee for cable. this is scotty off of twitter, saying it is all about the economy, inflation, and gas prices. wedge issues are a distraction. if you want to give thoughts on twitter, you can do that and post on our facebook page. you can text us if you want. bob is in arizona, independent line. you are on. we can hear you fine. caller: ok. i live in arizona and we are completely overrun with

illegals. they run dope and what have you. host: how does that translate to how you will vote this november? caller: because democrats do not seem to want to do anything about it whatsoever. the biggest thing with these illegals is we are the -- capital of the united states. we have a lot lemon fields and vegetable fields and these illegals get out there and they urinate on the plants. host: mike in wisconsin, democrats line. go ahead. caller: i am of aided to vote to protect our democratic republic. republicans do not care about

america. they have a whole new vision of america and the next thing in line is going to be these guns. we have to get control of these. this is ridiculous, that our kids cannot go to school now without having to look over their shoulders. the way republicans talk about hardening the schools -- they are going to make these schools look like prisons. there are going to be high walls around them and we are going to have buses pull up to drop our kids off at school because they are totally owned by corporations. they do not care about the people. host: if those are the issues, who are you voting for? caller: i am voting straight ticket democrats.

i do not expect much to happen out of these talks that they are going to have because everybody things it is the democrats should be doing anything. the way the senate is set up, you need 10 republicans to satyr their party we have to stop this. we cannot have our kids dodging bulletin school -- bulletin school. this blood is on their hands. host: let's go to douglas in ohio, democrat line. hello? you are on. go ahead. caller: i will be voting for gun laws. you can legalize marijuana, but why can't you make these laws that can stop gun violence going on in the country? another issue -- hello?

host: you're on. caller: my issue is in november. host: we got that part. caller: my issue would be inflation. every time we get a pay raise, why does inflation go up? another issue is housing. why is the government letting landlords raise these houses up when we cannot even afford food because inflation keeps going up? host: in the senate race, there are two people running for the open senate seat. who do you think you're going to vote for? caller: j.d. vance, the republican. host: what convinced you to vote for a republican in this case? caller: i would like to see a

change for republicans to understand our issues versus a democrat since we always seem to go at republicans. let's see if a republican can listen to a democrat voting for him. will he listen? host: that is douglas in ohio. to give you a sample of the ads that ohioans are seeing, here is the most recent. caller: you can make a pretty good argument that it was not bad trade deals. it is not that we have a terrible trade deal with china. >> in san francisco, j.d. vance made millions. i agreed with trump. we have to get tough on china. i will work with any want fix

our supply chain and bring manufacturing home. let's make things in ohio again. >> donald trump officially endorsed j.d. vance, the conservative outsider who will continue trump's fight to secure our borders, protect the unborn, get rid of the corrupt politicians, and stop joe biden. j.d. vance, america's conservative. >> i am j.d. vance and i approve this message. host: the ap reports that dusty johnson of that state won the gop primary contest. he defeated a state lawmaker who tried to run to his right. he is set for reelection in november because no other candidate has entered the race. he repeated the president's lie

that there was widespread fraud in the election. the congressman has also worked with a bipartisan group of lawmakers out of south dakota. that is some of the results from the primaries that took place yesterday, several more lined up as we head toward the november midterms. what is motivating you as you look at those contests? another person from ohio on our independent line, this is george. caller: we have heard this is probably the most important election and this one is. look what is happening a year and a half after president biden is in office. this is part of the great reset.

i am a senior citizen. i grew up and built our first house under jimmy carter when we had 13% interest rates and inflation was high. if we took those same rates in the 1970's, we would be at 18% inflation. i am tired of the government misleading americans. young americans today are busy working two jobs to try to supply food on the table. even if you have the money, some supplies are not even there. you look at the decline of this nation in the last 18 months. it is unreal what we see. give me a minute. anybody the votes democrat -- and i'm not a republican, i am independent. i do not agree with all republicans. i support j.d. vance, that is for sure. look with the democrats have done. they said they were going to fix medicare, social security.

obama had the senate and house and did not do a thing. host: why are you supporting j.d. vance specifically? caller: because tim ryan has a track record and it is not good. you mentioned the commercial about china. didn't trump to that of people did not like it? tim ryan has a voting record that is the reverse of what you just said. that is one thing. democrats, when their lips move -- reagan said with their lips move they do not tell the truth all the time. host: this is joe from kentucky texting us, saying abortion and gun control are top of the list. so far, republicans are doing nothing on these issues, only blocking democrats. this is pam in tennessee, saying get rid of republican traders who want to install a previous

trader is a dictator and they have no illusions to our country. richard says my main motivation comes from the administration refusing to change their failing policies. it seems like they are trying to figure out how to maintain power rather than make things better for americans. anthony in new york says issues such as auditing the pentagon, opposing the military-industrial complex, and pharmaceutical cartels that have corrupted our society. if you want to write out your topics, you can do it at (202) 748-8003. we will hear from kathy next in montgomery, texas. caller: i am voting for our wonderful republican party so they can stop the democrat socialist party from crippling our country with inflation, with high gas prices.

they are destroying our schools. they are harming our children. everything the democrat socialists are doing is destructive and they are insane. host: are you going to vote for governor abbott? the person hung up. a famous texan appeared yesterday at the white house text briefing -- press briefing, actor, a. you can see the complete statement he made yesterday on our website or app, but here's a portion. [video clip] >> we heard from so many people, responsible gun owners who will not give up their right to bear arms. they said we want secure and safe schools and gun laws that will not make it easy for the bad guys to get guns.

so we know it is on the table. we need to invest in mental health care. we need safer schools. we need to restrain sensationalized media coverage. we need to restore family values . we need to restore american values. and we need responsible gun ownership. we need background checks. we need to raise the minimum age to purchase an ar-15 rifle to 21. we need a waiting period for those rifles. we need red flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them. these are practical, tactical regulations. responsible gun owners are fed up with the second amendment

being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals. these regulations are not a step back, they are a step forward for civil society and the second amendment. is this a carol -- cure all? no, but people are hurting. families are. parents are. as divided as our country is, the gun responsibility issue is one we agree on more than we do not. it really is. host: looking at results in montana -- in his bid for a second turn. a representative fended off three republican primary

challengers. he served as a cabinet member under donald trump and is running for the seat to represent the western part of the state after montana was granted a second representative due to population growth. it is technically an open seat. he is widely considered the de facto incumbent. he stepped down in 2017 to join the trump administration. this viewer on twitter san, i voted with a republican ballot so i could vote for the opponents of steve womack. you can share yours as well for the remaining 18 minutes or so that we have. this is in sacramento, california, democrat line. this is john. caller: i'm just calling to let these black people know -- these

republicans are trying to start a race war. if you want to join a group of people that do not even like you -- host: let's stick to you personally. what is your motivating factor as far as november? caller: the republicans are a bunch of treasonous people. that is why i am voting for democrats. everybody needs to vote for democrats if they want to keep this country. host: was there a primary in your state yesterday and did you participate? caller: i did. gavin newsom is my man, straight democrats down the ticket. if there is a democrat, i am voting for it. i do not care what they do but i am voting against republicans because republicans will make your ass poor as hell if you

black people. caller: i am not going to be saying any specific names. i'm voting strictly republican and the reason is because i question the competency of the democrat party. the response to the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the subsequent injection was cited as a potential cause for inflation by larry summers during the voting of the bailout bills and i think we are seeing a direct cause of those legislations at the gas pump and food prices and goods and services. i think they should have known that that would be an effect of their actions and they seemingly

were in denial with transitory inflation. they either were incompetent or simply not being truthful to the american people. host: a quick look at the california governor race, npr saying governor gavin newsom cruised to a solid first-place finish in the primary election for governor there and he will face against a republican state senator in the fall, making him the favorite to win a second four-year term. the first and second place finishers in all statewide races regard lissa party will face off in november. this is lizzie in indiana, democrat line. caller: thank you, c-span. i am voting democrat, of course,

and everybody should really be paying attention to the hearing tomorrow, the january 6, because they are going to tell us the truth of what happened and what we should be doing for the american people. we need to keep our minds. we are being lied to. on news channels, they are lying to you. our government is still paying trump money. he is being paid money to pay for his court cases. this is ridiculous.

host: that is lizzie, and independent. she mentioned the hearing tomorrow night, the first of the january 6 committee, taking a look at the events of 2021, the ap reporting the panel announced tuesday that witnesses include a british lawmaker, reported members of the far right proud boys, and a u.s. capitol police officer who was seriously injured as members of the proud boys show past police officers and shoved into the capital. they also announced the committee would present previously unseen material documenting january 6, and provide the american people with an initial summary of its findings. 8:00 is when you can see that on c-span as we show it to you. follow along on our main channel. you can follow on our website and app as well. friday's program is devoted to

her phone calls. you can comment on it on our program friday. when it comes to guns again, right after this show, the house of representatives begins debate on the series of gun legislation packages, taking a look at a lot of issues and the house oversight committee. you can see that at 10:00 as well. the best way to find out more is our website. janet yellen also testified today, so a lot going on. in tennessee, this is ray, republican line. caller: -- 18-year-old, 21-year-old be able to have a weapon like the ar-15. it is kind of ridiculous. most men are drafted when they are 21 or older or if they

enlist by the time they get out they are almost 21. host: when it comes to the way you vote this november, our guns a top issue or are there other things? caller: those things. i think this democrat mess that biden has created -- we need to vote him out of office. if you're for what he is for, something is wrong with you. this country is going the wrong way. everybody knows it. it is like mcconnaughhay said. what he said is what america wants, so if politicians are listening, listen to people like him in words people understand. on the gun thing, i enlisted when i was 17. when i got out, i was 23. i hunted with a -- not in ar-15.

i hunted with a three round. at 21, you are kind of getting to yourself and you know what you are doing. host: let's hear from steven in kentucky, democrats line. caller: i have not called in a while, so if you could bear with me for a few moments. first, i love when these people in the opposition want to talk about the socialism of the democratic party. explain to me the fascism of the gop right now. host: let's start the topic at hand. when it comes to november, what are the main issues that are going to push you to vote? caller: i have a couple issues. january 6, that was an act of domestic terrorism. the truth is the truth.

the fact is you have the supreme court that has been politicized with abortion and this gun issue and i am sorry. i have read that second amendment. i have yet to see where it says that a psychopath has the right to own a weapon or that a law-abiding citizen has a right to own a military style assault weapon for protection. that is an abuse of power. let's call it what it is. host: are those specific things going to motivate you to vote for a specific candidate this november? caller: i am leaning straight democratic at this point. i think the republican party are crazy. i think that is what they are. when they had charge of the house for trump's first two years, what do they actually do?

they could not even get their own wall past. they care more about power than people. that is what it is. they gave the certifiable more access to these guns to begin with. when obama was in, we had gun control restrictions. the first thing trump did was reverse that policy. host: let's hear from tiny in texas. caller: i am voting republican because democrats are destroying this nation from the house of representatives and the senate. people do not seem to recognize that. they do not care about what is going on. look at the border. our border was good. we was energy independent. we got all of this bad gas from russia and we are funding a war in ukraine, but they need to get real.

host: are you going to vote for greg abbott? caller: i am. host: why so? caller: to me, he is doing a good job. host: what do you measure that by? caller: by the actions he has been taking for this estate and what happens down there with this 18-year-old boy shooting up everyone and then they turn around -- on the democratic party they want to take your gun so you will not be able to defend yourself against them because that is what president biden's lieutenant governor is doing, charging people with domestic terrorism for january 6. all of that was there doing. host: we will leave that they're taking a look at primary results from south dakota, south dakota's governor was elevated

to national prominence by her hands off approach the pandemic and won a primary against a former leader who accused her of using the office to mount a white house bid. all three republican incumbents held off primary challenges running to their right. a proposed constitutional amendment would have made it more difficult to pass measures that raise taxes and spend significant public funds. it gives her an advantage as she seeks another term in november against jamie smith, who did not face a primary challenger. in new mexico, this is from john and roz well -- in roz well -- roswell. caller: i will be voting

democrat. anyone who votes republican is voting for the nazis. what else can be said? host: did you participate in the primary yesterday? caller: i did. host: who did you vote for? caller: democratic ticket all the way, governor michelle lujan to get back in. host: why another term, do you think? caller: because she goes through all the bs at the border. there is nothing going on at the border that has not been going on for the last 1500 years. people forget there is a pandemic and trump had a crazy long that got everybody coming up from south america to hang out in mexico for two years and be subject to all kinds of crime and criminals there on the other side of the border and now they are just waiting to get in.

everything republicans are trying to tell you, take it from me. i am a few hours from the border. there is nothing going on like what they are trying to tell you. host: donald is next in columbus, ohio, independent line. caller: thank you. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm not sure what side i am voting for but we need to focus on his expansion of voting rights especially for those who are incarcerated, or form to -- reform to qualified immunity, student loan forgiveness, and reform of the election system. likely we will be democrat but right now i am keeping open to see which way things go. host: is there somebody you are thinking of as you list those

things that are most important to you? caller: i am just hoping a candidate from either party actually represents the issues. i'm not sure who is there. i have seen some democrats. i have not seen the gop talking about those issues. host: ihost: am leaning toward the democrats, but i will need a little more on what can actually be done to bring this country that is donald in columbus, ohio, independent line. stephen will finish this hour in yorktown, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on this show. i am not sure who i'm going to vote for. i will vote for whoever will be a solid leader. looking at our current leadership, we do not have decisiveness and direction for moving this country forward. it is disheartening to see. we need someone who will bring us together. we have problems that need to be fixed. host: is there a specific race

in virginia you're focusing on? caller: no. host: that is steven and virginia finishing this hour hearing from you. do not forget those things to watch out for as you go through the day. after this program, if you are interested in the debate, we will look at that package of gun legislation in the house side. that will begin today. you can see it on c-span at 10:00. you can also follow along on our website and c-span now app. there is a hearing on the oversight committee that will feature the student who survived the uvalde, texas shooting. that is also available on those main channels and the january 6 committee, their first public hearing is 8:00 tomorrow. watch it on our network. you can watch it uninterrupted on our network and follow along there as well. when he comes to the issues of january 6, that will be the

topic of our first guest joining us, sadie gurman of the wall street journal will talk about the latest on the january 6 investigation, a recent movement by the justice department to go through that. later in the program, we will look at voting laws with rebecca green of william & mary law school, talking about efforts and how election votes are counted in congress. those topics coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> after months of closed-door investigations come up the house january 6 committee is said to go public. turning as committee members question witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the capital. watch live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span, she's been now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> american history tv. saturdays on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. join us at 8:30 a.m. eastern for coverage of the american political history conference from purdue university as historians and authors across the nation discuss the past, present and future of democracy with an array of topics like energy politics, presidential scandals, the history of redlining and public housing. bob, a former speechwriter for christine todd whitman, administrative or george w. bush, talks about the epa's origin and the policies of the

next 70's. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule and program guide or watch online at c-span.org/history. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen. to receive those schedule of upcoming programs, discussions, book festivals and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime on book tv.org. television for serious readers. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is sadie gurman, here to talk about the latest when it comes to investigating the events of january 6. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: you wrote a story looking at the justice department and

the proud boys, which our audience is aware of but what happened regarding them? guest: the justice department brought what have been the most serious charges in the january 6 investigation, charges of seditious conspiracy. that has political overtones it requires prosecutors to show this group of people work together, conspired to overthrow the government, impede its laws and in this case, that law being the certification of president biden's victory. the justice department has signal that the proud boys, a far-right groups, played an outsized role in bringing together the mob and moving them into the capital. the leader or former leader of the proud boys is charged with seditious conspiracy as well. he was not actually in washington on that day but prosecutors have said he was instrumental in orchestrating

the plot and has said he played a leading role. host: expand then. you talk about seditious conspiracy, how is that elevated from conspiracy overall? guest: some of the writers have been -- rioters have been charged with other crimes, obstruction, generally six happened. as lawmakers were getting ready to certify the election results, the justice department has alleged in other cases that people work together to commit other crimes at the capital. but seditious conspiracy has a particular political element in that it is actually -- but requires prosecutors to meet the high burden of showing the this group of people worked together to specifically overthrow the government. it is a statute rarely used. it was born out of the civil war when lincoln and congress were trying to prevent this in the

union and it has been used sporadically and sometimes with mixed results. there was occasion -- that case in michigan involving a militia saying they plotted to kill a local police officer. a judge through the case out for lack of evidence. but prosecutors and legal experts say because the plot was carried out to some extent, people didn't storm the capital, in that case it might be a better chance for prosecutors to be successful. host: four others charged alongside him, who are they in relation to the leader? guest: they have been described as a lieutenants in the group. they describe himself as chauvinists. have been a prominent player in a variety of things and they were in washington for some of the pro-trump rallies before the

riot on january 6. these were people who played key roles in plotting to storm the building that day and preparing in advance. host: your story says the complaint says the group directed, mobilized and led a mob. if some of them were not in town that day, do the complete layout how they did that? guest: well, the complaint, and it is similar to another seditious conspiracy case brought against a different right-wing group called the oath keepers. in that case, the leader was also not present. in both cases, prosecutors are pointing to social media posts and communication between leaders and group members ahead of the riot, directing them, rounding them up, encouraging them to go and drumming up passion and these people to go to the capital.

there are pointing to social media posts but that will be one challenge prosecutors face in trying to prove the case. host: if the charges have been laid against these five people, what happens now? what is the timeline? guest: we are preparing for potentially lengthy court processes. some of these people made decide to plead guilty and that would give the government potentially an opportunity to get more information from them that could bolster their case against other members. but it is too soon to be seen what is going to happen in these cases. the oath keepers case has been playing out for months and we are seeing different members of the group take steps with regard to their seditious conspiracy cases. an interesting element about the proud boys, these people had already been charged with conspiracy a few months ago and the new indictment resembles closely the previous one. it is unclear what evidence they

have that warrants new charges, but something significant happened in the meantime, another person described as a high-ranking figure pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. that has provided the justice department with the evidence he needed to bring the case. host: sadie gurman, our guest until 8:30. and if you want to ask about the latest events when it comes to generally six, call the line guest: dust (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independence. -- independents. guest: -- it carries a stiffer

penalty than conspiracy alone and it underscores the gravity of the charge. host: also this week, two other names came up out of the justice department. mark meadows, the former president former chief of staff, former deputy chief of staff, could you told viewers what happened? guest: mixed results for the january 6 committee. they referred to the justice department four people, two who had been charged with contempt of congress for subpoenas and testimony sent by the committee. and those who -- peter navarro, who was indicted last week on contempt of congress, and former strategist steve bannon who was indicted on the same charges in november. the other people who were referred to the justice department by the committee, mark meadows, who the generally

six committee said later in outsized role and how did knowledge about the events leading up to january 6, but who has only -- who has not totally cooperated with the committee. and another white house aide. they -- the justice department said those two would not face charges, and in a short letter to the january 6 committee, the justice department said given the individual facts of each case, it was not going to pursue charges against those men. the january 6 committee said it does not understand the distinction and the justice department has not publicly provided any explanation for the difference, but in talking to people around town, it seems there were at least some communication between stiviano -- scavino and meadows, as opposed to bannon who did not

respond, where there was some back-and-forth between meadows, david's covino -- david scavi no and others. the justice department is looking at the individual case -- facts of each case. host: i will plate you display you some from earlier this week with adam schiff of california, he was reacting to what you talked about. i will play what he had to say and we will talk about it after we are done. >> the justice department as you know on friday decided not to prosecute the former chief of staff, mark meadows, or social media director dan scavino for refusing to cooperate. committee said that was puzzling, is it your understanding these men are under that sharp immune of prosecution? >> they are not and it is puzzling why these witnesses would be treated differently than the two the justice department is prosecuting.

there is no absolute immunity. these witnesses have relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of january 6, the propagation of the big lie and the idea that witnesses could failed to show up and when the statute requires the justice department to prevent those cases -- present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, it is troubling. we hope to get more from the justice department but i think it is a great disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can refuse to show up with impunity. host: so sadie gurman, could the case be made that these two avoided anything from the justice department, others can as well? guest: when you are seeing there is an example of the political pressure attorney general garland is under from members of his own party to prosecute trump and trump associates. garland, for his part, is somebody who has tried to

restore the independence of the justice department from partisan into -- partisan influence. he is in an uncomfortable position of having to pursue these cases without the appearance of political influence and it is tough when people like adam schiff and others who are criticizing him, but for his part he has said he is not facing any pressure. the only pressure he faces is to do the right thing. that is what he says. so he has tried to drown out this noise. but i think there is a lot at stake here for the democrats and that is something that is going to find itself at the doorstep of the justice department. host: before we take calls, we have the first public hearing of the generally six committee this thursday. and he timing was an issue as far as what we saw this week and what we will see thursday? guest: no. these investigations have been operating independently, but the

timing of these sedition charges if the january 6 committee a very dramatic backdrop for its first televised appearance tomorrow because the committee will try to sue -- showcase the violence that occurred that day and put an event -- an emphasis on the proud boys and their role in instigating. so to do that ahead of this hearing, and gives the committee a solid hook for talking about that. host: sadie gurman of the wall street journal reports on the justice department, our first call is from kate in oklahoma, republican mind, you're on with our guest. go ahead. guest: thanks for taking my call. i have a comment and a question. the people i have talked to about the proud boys and the situation with what happened at the capital as a whole, we feel that -- the people i've spoken to anyway, that it seems like this is a political ploy to try to trump up what happened.

because the vast majority of people meandered around and the idea that people were honestly going, we are going to overthrow the government, the united states of america, in a matter of hours, walking to the capital, we are going to overthrow the government, reinstate trump and appoint an education czar of our own, start appointing judges of our own and revamp the government, with basically no weapons of any kind, nobody believes that. nobody actually believes that. i don't think the people that are saying it even believe it on the democrat side. my question to you is what actual evidence do you have other than people who came to the capital, the proud boys had a plan to go to a concert later? do you believe the proud boys were going to overthrow the government and a couple of hours and then go to a concert?

it seems ridiculous and punitive. it seems like the doj is going against people that don't agree with them because we know they are biased. i would like your comments. host: that is kate in oklahoma. guest: i think the point you're raising has been already showing up as an argument being made by defense attorneys in many of the january 6 cases. there try to play down this idea that there was an attempted coup or an insurrection and have sought to present their clients as like you said, people who were showing up in town and taking up this mob mentality. that is an argument the defense attorneys are going to focus on as they try to fight these charges. but prosecutors are pointing to evidence that, in the oath keepers case at least, they are pointing to the stockpile of weapons the stock -- the oath keepers had at a virginia hotel

and naval strike forces they were going to a dutch the strike forces they were going to apparently bring on generally six that did not happen. defense attorneys have said the weapons were stashed for a different reason, self-defense, counter protesters showed up. but that's not happened so i do think prosecutors are going to be pressed to demonstrate there was a real collaboration here and to point out the statute. host: jim in florida, the democrats line. caller: i would like to know where the hearings are further antifa and blm rights, where those hearings? ms. gurman sounds like a mouthpiece for the prosecution. she repeats what they want to hear. host: jim in florida. guest: everybody is entitled to

their own opinion and that is your prerogative. but i will say journal has covered extensively the arrests you are talking about in portland, more than 100 people charged with writing outside of dusk rioting outside a courthouse for days on end. justice department has pursue those. the attorney general has said there is a distinction there. according to them, he sees the difference that on january 6, this mob of people was trying to stop a government proceeding, where's in portland, for the most part, the courthouse, there was no official government proceeding taking place inside. he has tried to point to some differences, but he has said that each of those cases is important. they have charges against both left-wing activists as well. i hear this comparison made a lot and it is trying to underscore the differences in

these cases. host: if you said the attorney general is trying to keep a distance of what is going on a come to the investigation, who are the people appointed to this? how much staffing, who is the lead person so to speak? guest: sure. that is not to say garland won't have a hand in making key and important decisions particularly as cases become more high-profile. over the most part, the investigation is being led by the attorney's office in washington. he has a team of prosecutors working at different elements of the case, including referrals and charges that there have been more than 800 people charged of with different crimes, some misdemeanors, some felonies. this required a lot of manpower and at least for a time, there were prosecutors from other parts of the country coming to help handle the workload. in his involving the attorney's office at different elements of this. host: brian in michigan,

independent line. caller: hi. it is just way overblown. the biggest fear -- on both sides of the aisle. i am an independent, we had a populist president, trump, and he can draw from both sides of the aisle. the liberals don't like him, but getting to the original point, it is just overblown and there is not fairness in this. i have watched enough of it to know we are making things bigger than they actually were. it was ugly, i certainly did not like looking at it that day. but the only ugly violence really was, whether anyone likes it or not, that cop who also school and shove it girl in the head. that is one thing.

we never really looked at that even though it got wrapped up within half an hour. let me end on this. eric holder was subpoenaed, you know well about that. there was a fine young man out of destroyed, the state i lived in. he ignored it and it was no big deal. no big deal. host: we will leave it there. anything from that? guest: i think what you're are saying is underscoring the challenge that the attorney general is facing and the justice department more broadly is facing, to try to fight domestic terrorism. the justice department is calling the january 6 attack a case of domestic terrorism and they cited what they see as a rise in homegrown violent extremism. they say the proud boys are part of this equation. so the challenge is how to fight

that threat without it coming across as an attack on the opposing political party or there is a political element here. it is a challenge. the fbi has said and agreed threat is posed by right-wing extremists and white supremacists in particular, but how do you fight that threat? if it appears as though the justice department is trying to do the bidding of the democratic party or go after the opposing political party, what you're talking about i think is a challenge for the justice department as it tries to come back. host: how many indictments have the justice department made for january 6? guest: as of last count, there been more than 800 people charged with different crimes, almost 300 of those people have been charged with impeding or resisting police officers and in

some cases assaulting them with dangerous or deadly weapons. the violence of that data something for january 6 committee is going to be trying to highlight tomorrow during a hearing. the justice department has said is the most significant and substantial, largest investigation in his history and the sheer number of charges here illustrate that. host: sadie gurman of the wall street journal covers the justice department for this question, the latest when it comes to the january 6 investigation, the hearing she referenced you can see on our network tomorrow night, 8:00 on c-span. this is james in new hampshire, democrats line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call, longtime viewer, pager, i think you're are great, very professional. hello, sadie. i am a little surprised somebody from wall street journal is so not opinionated.

i think that is wonderful. two quick questions. my first question is what is your view professionally and may be personally on why there is a media bias, especially on the republican side, where a lot of fox news viewers pretty much watch fox news. secondly, what do you think about the fox news network not going to show -- they have admitted to not going to show the hearings? and maybe, don merrick garland. host: she is more of a justice department reporter, any thing on that side of it? do you have a question regarding outside? -- that side? caller: if you can address those issues, my last question would be what she thinks about merely dust merrick garland and the reluctance to indict especially mark meadows. host: thank you.

go ahead. guest: stopping short of what i think about the attorney general, i will say think he is a fascinating person to cover because of the challenges piling up on his desk. he is facing an array of politically charged cases, the january 6 attacks are not the only one so it is incredibly fun and interesting to cover him. but the justice department has not really provided any sort of public explanation for why they did not charge mark meadows but they did charge bannon and navarro. it comes down to the individual intergranular facts of each case. i will leave it to the justice department to explain the reasoning there, but it is certainly -- it's only shows they are taking each case to hard. -- it certainly shows they are taking each case to heart. host: from oklahoma, our

republican line, go ahead. caller: here's the sad thing. we watched taurus diversion through secondary white house, two false impeachments with these democrats, we had a bioweapon on the shown the world and nothing has been done and now we have to watch this crap, january 6. why were the people really there? can you tell me that? why were the people really there? guest: i mean, you know, the justice department and in its indictments have said they were there to impede the suffocation of president biden's victory and they did that by storming to the capital. it certainly put a halt to proceedings taking place that day. they ultimately were able to finish what they started, but

those of the allegations laid out here and what it will be a focus tomorrow night as well. host: from the efforts of the justice department, have we seen any imprisonments come from the justice department specifically to january 6? guest: yeah, so some of the people who committed offenses like consulting police officers, the more violent crimes have been getting prison time. others have been getting shorter sentences or time served. many of the charges we have seen our misdemeanor cases. it is a mixed bag of outcomes for a lot of these people. many have pleaded guilty interfacing shorter sentences or less punitive sentences because of that. but in the case of the proud boys and oath keepers, that is one where prosecutors will look at jail time if they're convicted. host: elizabeth in california, democrats line. caller: yeah, good morning, c-span. i noticed some of the colors

calling in, such as the young lady from oklahoma, they don't see any connection between the insurrection outside of the building where people were using battery rams -- battering rams and throwing sharpened flagpoles like spears with what was happening inside the building. i think that is the point of what is coming up with the hearing. they're going to show the entire paperwork and research that was being done by trump and these attorneys where they were going to try to delay the captain of the votes. that is why they wanted to get pence out of the building, he is the main person that presides over the counting of the votes and officiating of the count. that is what trump wanted to delay. of course these callers would not know about that because they are watching fox news and

newsmax, they don't talk about it. host: what is your question for our guest? caller: my question is, you characterized it as a riot and i believe there is an insurrection , it is a difference. riots would spontaneously break out, which is being shown, this was planned. by trump and the attorneys. he was clearing out the attorney general. andy barr resigned because he could not stand what was going on, he could see was happening. it was unethical. host: fighter point, thank you. anything from that? guest: well, i think that is going to be one of the challenges the generate six committee faces when it opens its first hearing tomorrow, how to get people's attention. it is an unusual circumstance

they're doing this at 8:00 on a thursday night, eastern time, and they are hoping the public tunes in and has an open mind. what you're suggesting, and a lot of views on this issue are already fixed so it will be challenging for the january 6 committee to swing any minds. but i ink that is what they were hoping to do and they have an array of witnesses they are planning to call and hoping to lay this out for the american public. host: city government, is there any sense the justice department is -- sadie garman, is there -- gurman, is there evidence the justice department is investigating trump? guest: there is new evidence that is happening, most the people who were charged are people who are on the ground fighting cops and that sort of thing. there's some evidence the investigation is expanding, though. the justice department has sent subpoenas to focus involved in the rally planning and preparation.

recently, the justice department requested transcripts of interviews from the january 6 committee. it has done about a thousand interviews. it remains to be seen whether they are going to turn those over to the justice department. that could be seen as a signal that the probe is expanding and looking at different levels of the hierarchy of the roles here. for his part, garland has said only that the justice department is going to pursue accountability at all levels. that is what he said on january 6 of this year, on the year anniversary. we are seeing cases move up the chain. but at this point it is unclear whether that will lead to the former white house. host: this is donna from new york, republican line for sadie garman -- gurman. caller: my first question is, is it true there were no national guard there? was there national

guard there? guest: national guard was there. it is been well reported, the shortcomings of the response time and the response of law enforcement, but yes the national guard was there at some point. host: as far as next steps or things you are watching for as it plays out, what are you watching for? guest: i'm going to watch how the attorney general presents all of this, in a way that is up to his standards of maintaining nonpartisanship and sticking with the facts and the law. that is something he has said time and time again, we are going to follow the facts in the law. i will be watching how he handles this is the investigation of the justice department and the committee is moving into a new phase, and more intense phase. i'm eager to see how all of it plays out. host: sadie garman -- gurman reports, thanks for your time.

guest: thank you. host: don't forget the first public hearing of january 6 committee tomorrow, on c-span. we will hear from rebecca greene from william and mary law school about efforts to inform the electoral count act relevant upon the upcoming hearings, coming up and about a half-hour. until then, open forum, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independants. we will take some calls when we return. >> after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. tune in as committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the capital. watch our live coverage

beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our mobile video out, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> book tv. every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former house majority leader jay garvey talks about his book where he gives a look at his time in congress, and the republican legislative successes. and on afterwards, kellyanne conway talks about the 2016 campaign and her time in the trump administration with her memoir here's the deal. she has interviewed by former democratic national committee interim chair donna brazil. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online

anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter, "word for word," gives you daily press briefings, remarks from the president. scan the qr code to stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> washington journal continues. host: right after this program on this network, the house will begin debating the gun package. you can see that on c-span. there's a hearing related to guns in the oversight committee, go to our website for more information on that. yesterday during a hearing on

domestic terrorism the witnesses heard from the son of ruth what we have -- ruth whitfield, a woman who died in the racist attack in buffalo new york. her son about yes testimony, as they are working to strike a bipartisan deal. here is part of his testimony from yesterday. >> for her to be murdered, taken from us by someone so full of hate, it is impossible to understand. and even harder to live with. but we are more than hurt. we are angry. we are mad as hell because this should have never happened. we are good citizens, good people. we believe in god, we trust in god. but this was not an act of god. this was an act of a person and he did not act alone. he was radicalized by white

supreme assists, his anger and hatred metastasized like a cancer by people with big microphones in high places screaming that black people were going to take away their jobs and opportunities. every enforcement agency charged with protecting the homeland has conducted risk and threat analysis and determined that white supremacy is the number one threat to the homeland. and yet, nothing has been done to mitigate or eradicated. where are people of decency. we are taught to love even our enemies. but our enemies don't love us. what are we supposed to do with all of our anger and pain? do you expect us to continue to forgive and forget, over and over again? what are you doing? you are elected to protect us

and protect our way of life. i ask everyone of you to imagine the faces of your mother's as you look at mine. and ask yourself, is there nothing that we can do? is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy and the domestic terrorism it inspires? because if there is nothing, and respectfully, senators, you should yield your positions of authority and influence to others that are willing to lead on this issue. the urgency of the moment demands no less. host: if you want to see more of a testimony or the hearing on domestic terrorism still available on our c-span now app and our website and you can see more the bear. in this open forum, mike starts us off from savannah, georgia. independent mind, go ahead.

caller: thank you, sir. that is tough to follow and i do think that is a nomadic of what is going on. the last segment, it is what has turned me forever against the democratic party. it is the only narrative allowed. it is beginning to drive me crazy. you can only talk about whites premises violence -- white supremacy violence. the president can't get to uvald e or buffalo, but he ignores waukesha. too many resources? i want to get back to january 6, this is what drives me crazy, the referendum and your question was poignant, it went overlooked, he said charges -- have there been charges against trump, the referential against him is he is not the president anymore and the problem with the

democrats as they have nothing to run on. it is a right-hand, left-hand thing. and as an independent, for them to say their inability to take blame for anything and say don't look at everything we have botched. look at january 6. check out this hand. they hire an abc news producer to produce a primetime special about something that had happened to your to do with current events. host: we will go to bonnie in the spring, texas. you're on. caller: yes sir. i wanted to comment on another thing they needed to leave trump alone because he did his job, he did a dam good job, he stayed there and did his job and he was protecting us and he was telling the people to stop the riot and go home. that is what i heard him say. he was supporting the people that were there that stayed

doing their job and cops that were getting hurt, that were going to put out the riot and stuff. i also think they need to start -- the recession, they need to go down on the food prices and the water and the gas. then they can go up on liquor and cigarettes and stuff like that. the taxes can go up on that incentive the recession, they need to stop the recession from going on forever. the need to address that issue. and then abortion. they need to stop killing babies in america. host: bonnie in spring, texas. washington post talks about reporting they have come of going back to january 6 after the rally, that the president called for himself to walk down to the capital and what the

secret service reaction was at that time. they write that witnesses have told the house generate six committee that immediately after the president made the remarks, secret service agents contacted d.c. police about blocking intersections according to people briefed on the test money, officials declined that they were stretched thin. there were monitoring numerous protests and later dealing with the growing mob at the capital. the ideas were untenable and unsafe, idc official tuesday concerned the secret service saw d.c. police helped with the presidential motorcade. on generate six, we were asked in the response was no. you can read more about that in the washington post this morning. when it comes to the january 6 committee event tomorrow, the washington times reporting how plan to counter that. a chairwoman told reporters

tuesday the gop won't sit idly by as the democrat led panel consumes airwaves and is planning a series of engagements to chip away at the talking points. she says this week the house republicans on this conference be working with our members to set the record straight, sharing facts about how illegitimate the committee is. we will hear from the republican line in woodbridge, virginia. caller: pedro, again, i want to say c-span, you are a national treasure. some americans would not have a lot of information available because of c-span and it is by the grace of god i am getting on this morning on this day. there is a report out on -- you can get it on amazon,: inside the fbi's tumescent terrorism strategy, inside the fbi's --

you can get it on amazon, it is cold inside the fbi's domestic terrorism strategy. a more adequate title right now would be the causes, asked by several of your viewers today, for why people were there on january 6. i think in that report, it lays out what the real causes of hundreds of thousands of people converging on washington, d.c., there had been thousands of rallies throughout the united states. there may have been nefarious actors that took advantage of the passions of the crowd, which is what i believe. but i think the main point is -- in the report, there are three recommendations made. the first one being we have to have true faith and allegiance

to the u.s. constitution by everyone who is sworn to defendant. that has to be an absolute minimum and that is what has been put at risk by the activities of the fbi, etc. that caused people to be so inflamed and enraged against the government. the second recommendation is we do not have a gun problem. host: we will leave it there, we will let people search it out if they want. this is from maryland, democrats line, go ahead. caller: most of the gasoline and oil we use today is produced in the united states. my question is, if that is the case, why are we selling gas and oil at world prices when we are producing it at a price that should be american prices?

we have talked about americans being self defensive -- self-sufficient on gas and oil and we are. the wire week jacking up the prices of the world price of gas? thank you. host: let's go to paula of st. petersburg, florida. republican line. caller: good morning. your last guest talking vegan ray six dude at the end say something about the national guard. i know that nancy pelosi had refused help with the national guard because trump really expected there might be problems after the summer of 2020 that all of his problems had gone on and he wanted to prevent that. i guess my question is, did the national guard get there and the

troops that he wanted to come up before any of this happened? or was it just after the fact? host: the new york times reporting there might be a new vaccine to combat covid-19, from rebecca robbins saying if the food and drug emaciation accepts the panel recommendation on the novavax vaccine, it will become the flip shot to win the clearance for the adults in the united states. before the agency could authorize the shots, the fda would need to sign off on the manufacturing process. it would mean the vaccine is likely not available for weeks in contrast with the clear covid vaccine -- james in virginia, independent line. caller: thank you for having this topic on and just one comment, i understand the justice department needs to five

bigger -- fry bigger fish. we were people who went to d.c. who were exercising the right to protest, but there were people on video doing things that were against the law. why are we not absolutely hammering those people with everything the law -- yes, fry the bigger fish. but if you got caught up in the moment, there are consequences to those actions. i wish the government would hammer those people. host: the washington post highlights new requests from ukraine's government for more weapons assistance, saying ukrainians at least 60 multiple launch rocket systems to have a chance at defeating russia, adjusting the number pledged by the west so far may be inadequate along with access to sophisticated air defenses to protect vulnerable citizens from

relentless showing. the united states and britain provided plans to have rocket systems that can hit targets up to 50 miles away. washington is dispatching artillery that ukraine will need at least three weeks of training . britain says it will send launch systems ukraine. it says there is the possibility the united states could send additional rocket systems but no decision has been made as of tuesday. this is anne in new york, republican line. caller: hi, thank you. i just listened to mr. whitfield, he spoke very eloquently, i am so sorry for his loss. i live 60 miles south of buffalo. his emphasis, however, on white supremacy as the major reason for this mentally ill person

taking out those innocent lives, you need not only to talk about the supremacy but the mental illness of these people. yesterday i watched, i believe mr. corn, speaking about mr. trump. and just personalizing him as a liar. i thought, please can you say benghazi? can you say roshan collusion -- russian collusion? can you say bidens some -- son's laptop? stop characterizing president trump, who was more honest with

the public than anyone, -- but i have more faith in him that any politician. host: let's hear from the democrat line in virginia. caller: good morning, i want to speak about trump, the lady was just talking about him, everybody knew when they voted for trump that he was -- that he was a ku klux klan. his dad let it. -- led it. host: -- various pieces of legislation on the house side, debate on this package starts at 10:00. the story from lindsay white and savon hughes says we are talking about background check, juvenile records and areas we can get

consensus, republicans talking, the waiting period for people under 21 could be two or three weeks long, to determine whether any record is disqualifying. cushions remain about how this would be up lamented and it could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. he said senate negotiators are also looking to time the requirements for federal firearms licenses. it was yesterday senate minority leader mitch mcconnell was asked about the idea of raising the legal age to buy a semi automatic weapon. here's part of his response from yesterday. >> we have heard from some of the survivors and families of the victims who say it is time to raise the legal age limits to purchase a semi automatic rifle. is that something you would support? >> and will surprise you to know that i'm not quite is that here

and negotiate the deal with you guys. we are waiting to see if we can get an outcome that directly relates to the problem that brought this issue to the fore one more time. i would personally prefer to get an outcome, and i hope we will have one sooner rather than later. host: let's go to mary in maryland, independent line. caller: hello, i'm calling about the insurrection. we all heard and saw trump inciting violence, asking the mob to go to the capital and fight hard. because otherwise we won't have a country to fight for. anybody who saw and heard that would be -- would be picked up

and immediately put into prison. why is trump getting away with what he did? and it is not in prison already. and also, marco rubio called the january 6 committee clown. he called it a circus. if that is a circus, marco rubio is the biggest clown. host: that is mary in maryland, that first public hearing, the first for the generate six committee, tomorrow at 8:00. watch it on c-span starting at 8:00, our website is available as well. no interruptions while you watch. on friday's program we will take your comments during the course of our program. this is nancy in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am well, thank you, how

about yourself? i'm fine -- caller: i'm fine. thank you for taking my call and thank you c-span, i'm glad i got through. to add to the january 6 conversation. capital police can out with an after action report that can be seen in full from john solomon's just the news from the hill. he has got that on his website. also there is another viewpoint of it from the j six truth.org -- j6truth.org. should be many sites exposed to the what happened on that day. truth is coming out about it so do -- just a different perspective. thank you. host: nancy in florida, the

world bank looks at this topic of stagflation, saying the bank slashed its annual growth forecast 2.9 percent from january's 4.1% and said subdued growth will likely persist to the decade because of weak investment in most of the world, followed from russia's invasion in ukraine has aggravated the global slowdown by driving the prices for a range of commodities, fueling inflation. global growth will be roughly half of last year's annual weight and is expected to show little improvement in 2023 and 2024. from john in the u.s. virgin islands, democrats line. guest: thank you for the opportunity -- caller: good morning at think you for the opportunity. on the insurrection, it is quite clear if you want -- if one or more persons hinder or delay the execution of u.s. law it is a violation of the 12 amendment. it is clear.

there is no ambiguity abounded. if you conspired to do it you are guilty of it. on weapons, i believe we should have liability insurance for every gun sale. that would do what we do with cars, show accountability for the ownership of a weapon. there should be consequences. and a lot of people do heinous things with these guns and there is no accountability and in some cases, people have to bury their dead and they get no just relief. as far as political, this should be public funds only for elections. this dark money, foreign money, special interest money has to end. that is why we see what is going on in congress. host: we will go to eva in mississippi, republican line. caller: good morning. host: i want to ask a question

and make a cement. why wasn't the policeman that killed ashli babbitt charged with the same law as the guy they kill george floyd, and second, coming to american tv in primetime live is kabuki theater on thursday night, they will have to wear masks, they will pay their faces, they're ready for. nancy pelosi from bewitched, liz cheney and adam schiff should be in one flew over the cuckoo's nest. there is the department of justice man that could replace jim bacchus on mr. magoo commercials. they don't need no rap -- masks. they're ready. host: that is eva in mississippi. trying to start a party separate

from the typical republican and democratic party, a new political party in new jersey is hoping to disrupt the pattern by embracing the technique that was scored, fusion voting, with the idea of taking the i dia national. the party led by republicans, democrats and democrats has given itself a name that makes its ideological position crystal clear, the moderate party. the goal is to give centrist voters more of a voice in a time when the groups of voters say america's two political parties have drifted toward political fridges, but in hopes to nudge them toward the center, not replace and pete does compete with them. co-founder is a partner at the law form -- law firm of free frank and he is repulsed by the embrace of conspiracy theories and fealty toward mr. trump. more of that effort in the new york times if you want to read it.

maryland, democratic line, this is clarence. caller: yes, i am a first time color, i appreciate you taking my call and i listen every day. this is to all of my fellow democrats and independents. if you do not stand up for biden and vote for him, do like the right wing does, stand behind trump, we are going to lose rights. we lost women rights to choose, we are not getting voting rights pass because if we do not get to vote in the midterms and let the small minority of the right wing take over everything we tried to fight for. as soon as we have a hiccup, you turn your back on the man we put in office. biden is doing a great job, unfortunately all the stuff happening is not all his fall. if you look at the economy, it is doing good, we just have this

money or whatever going on out there with prices rising and stuff. that is not 100 percent his response voting, it is happening all over the world. stand behind the man just like the republicans, trump said. if i shoot somebody in the head which has been done, these people getting killed -- host: we will finish with samuel in oklahoma, independent line. caller: i would like to say even out here and obama, we believe the legislation directed at mitigating mass casualty events is a good idea. also, i would like to say the january 6 is very caller: january 6, what those people were there to do was impede --. it is very clear the actions of those who were there that day. regardless of whether or not

everyone was directly involved in the conspiracy, they committed the crime. host: nathaniel in oklahoma. on the topic of guns, you can watch on this network and see more of that debate happened this afternoon. there is a hearing at 10:00 as well with the oversight committee where you can see that testimony from that person who survived the shooting there. that will be on c-span3. the january 6 committee, the first at 8:00 tomorrow. watch on c-span and you can watch on our c-span now app. coming up, we take on a couple of topics. rebecca greenert will join to talk about the electoral count act. later on, we hear from the council lifted. the u.s. policy toward latin america. those conversations coming up on washington journal.

>> after months of closed-door investigations, the january 6 committee is -- watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern,

behind-the-scenes account -- the interim chair -- watch every sunday on c-span two find a program -- find the schedule on your program guide or watch online. c-span's online store. shop apparel, books and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan.

shop anytime at c-span shop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is rebecca greene. she is the codirector of the -- law program. rebecca greene, welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: one of the things we have revisited is something called the electoral count act. guest: the electoral count act is a set of rules set up by congress after the disputed election of 1876 that try to govern the process for congress to count electoral college balance. this was originally a part of the 12th amendment.

when the 12 amendment was passed, they didn't contemplate the problem coming from the same state. they didn't provide a process for how that would be resolved. in florida, the attorney general of florida certified one and the secretary of state certifies another. there was no direction in the 12th amendment for how that was to be resolved. by march of 1877, there was no bloodshed. there was a deadlock.

congress understood the need for accounting electoral college votes. they pass the electoral count act 10 years later. host: persons voting for the vice president and a number of votes for each to the seat of government united states. the president of the senate, house --. guest: when the wealth amendment was passed, in the early 1800s,

the only mode of transportation and communication was horse and buggy. the idea was you have the states sending these electors. there were some questions about whether they have the right one because of the communication system in existence back then. the role of the senate was to formally oversee the process that they had the right slate. host: when it passed in 18 67, is very clear cut path or is there still interpretation to the act itself? guest: it is anything but clear. if you want to read a very

poorly drafted, you can pick up a copy. it is on so many levels, and 70 instances, a huge amount of gaping holes. it is in part because it is written so long ago. in part because the situations have changed in terms of our modern elections. communication environment and all kinds of ways. thoroughly in need of updating. january 6 brought how an unclear and untested laura can bring confusion and chaos. host: if you want to ask her questions about the electoral count act and its relevance? democrats, -- for republicans,

(202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. all others, (202) 748-8003. guest: take some sort of role in deciding which to open. our system allows to give all the power to the states to appoint fear electors it's on the popular election in that state. the idea a president could unilaterally overturn votes of the state wasn't the part of the design. there are lots of other

problems. the question of objections. there is a question of what an objection should be laid out. that is not clear. there are all kinds of other ways that eschew can unfold. there are very easy, straightforward ways this statute can be made more clear. it can be made more clear before we know who will benefit. that is why it should be possible of members of both parties to come together and agree to these basic rules so that if we have a -- election in

2024, there is no confusion. it is a recipe for chaos if it isn't taken care of. rebecca greene. host: wrote -- wrote a letter. uniformly counter the act. it is my considered judgment that my hope the constitution and -- which vote should be counted and which should not. what do you think about the vice president statement and argument there? guest: any other system would be muddy. especially when the vice president is on the ballot.

to give unilateral authority doesn't make any sense. the electoral count in congress and the constitution very clearly intends to give power to the state to decide how to appoint electors. every state has decided to give that power to its people to a popular vote. unilaterally discounting voters. host: this week the january 6 committee will hold is first public hearing. guest: it is an example of the chaos that can ensue when you have a lack of clarity about this progress. -- about this process. both parties should be working

very hard and i know are working very hard to try and write clearer laws to try to help us avoid that kind of chaos. we are going to see this week a good example of the dangers that can unfold. host: the vice president in certain cases had the power to maintain a part of the act. what do you think about the strength of that argument? guest: i think what mr. eastman did this try to twist the words of the electoral count act. a goes to show it is so important to clarify, and that is not how things work. in the electoral count act, if

voters fail to make a choice by the appointed day, the power reverts back to the state appoint electors. there is no definition in the electoral count act of what a failure to elect means. there was no huge weather event that prevented voters from casting their ballot. everyone looking at that election, have been a failed election. court cases and court challenges. an outcome in any state. the believable argument they tried to make of a failed election, the process needed to be subverted simply didn't hold

up with the amount of evidence. it is again an example of how the language and the lack of definition gives rise to the idea you can explore your way around the popular vote. host: we saw some republicans maybe consider making changes. some democrats say more work has to be done on the voting process on a state-by-state level. do you think they will make the changes you have been talking about? guest: reforming the electoral count acts -- areas where there is a lot of bipartisan disagreement when it comes to rules for how people should -- the electoral count was formed in something the party should be able to agree on.

they should be able to come together and agree. before they know how those rules would impact. the issue -- in so many other areas. to make sure we have a clear process going into 2023 as possible. host: on the republican line, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning ms. green. i am republican, not a racist, not a white supremacist.

i think jaeger six was deplorable. do you think it is fear by not allowing over 1000 hours of video that could help republicans on the committee, trump aide or's are not republicans. do you think it is going to be fair tomorrow night? host: i do not know she wants to comment on the hearing tomorrow. ms. green, go ahead. guest: i don't have any comment on the hearing. i am here to talk about the electoral count act. host: on the democrats line. caller: hello, good morning.

thank you for c-span. i am calling about the electoral count act. i think you are hoping against hope for any kind of change. republicans have figured out that based on the minority party, this is the way they are going to continue to hold office in new elections. there is no need to be willing to change. unable to have minority rule, there used to be something around the country they were asking individual states to make it there law that whoever won the popular vote, that state, the popular vote in the u.s.,

the state would give its electoral college votes to that person. whatever happened in that state. i may have the details wrong. do you remember that? like six or eight or 10 states one along with that. but now it has fizzled out. guest: both parties, republican and democratic are in favor of an electoral count act. you have both parties under attack on january 6. fearing for their lives. that provides a good bit of motivation to make sure these processes are clarified before the next time. it seems again like low hanging fruit. it has been underway for quite

some time to get state legislatures to agree to push their electors to the national vote. in the last few years enabling legislation. caller: where would you start?

with the electoral count act? guest: there is a lot that can be done with the electoral count act. the role of the vice president -- the second is to look around to who cannot exact -- who can object. be very clear about what happens in a natural disaster or terrorist attack. also making sure the processes are very clear in terms of when i court can get involved and timing issues over the states can finalize. very obvious and straightforward. host: -- caller: how would that

change? what is the ideal to change it? guest: there is a lot of debate about this. do you require a majority in both chambers? 10%? something that would have to be relatively high because on january 6, after the riot, there were still 130 nine house republicans and eight senators who voted not to certify results in pennsylvania. there has been some back and forth about where to fit that number. i don't have an opinion one way or the other. host: in texas, democratic line, hello. caller: why can't we do away with electoral --

host: are you talking about the electoral college? caller: yes, sir. guest: the national no -- the national popular vote. caller: go with what the people choose rather than having the electoral thing? host: thank you. guest: there are a lot of people who agree with you who think this is an unnecessary, complicated and it is hard to figure out. you have to have a lot of knowledge. why not just allow everybody to vote and we will see who has the most votes at the end of the day and it will be more safer. there are some reasons why the electoral college actually helps us out. a couple of reasons are that if

there was the case that the national popular vote winner would take the presidency, it would change how candidates campaign. they will go to population centers. they will go to big cities and parts of the country that are more rural. if you had a close election, the national popular vote was very close, you can imagine, consider accounting recounts in very few places, you might have counts in tunnel places and it might be a lot more chaotic. those are some of the arguments people raise in the opposition to the way of eliminating electoral college. common sense suggest things might be more straightforward without it. caller: a closing argument from a viewer off of twitter says,

why do democrats always want to change what has worked for the constitutional republic and -- democracy? guest: that is the argument. we have this careful system to ensure our elections are pocketed and you don't have the nationwide -- ordeal. host: austin, texas, this is caleb. independent line. you are on. caller: how are you miss rebecca? what is your take on it? how can we make it more neutral? guest: one of the advantages we have here is that nobody knows which role will benefit which candidate -- which rule will benefit which candidate.

there is momentum on congress --. caller: hopefully there won't be ballads laying around and post

offices everywhere. small states would not have a choice. big states like california, new york, texas with large populations, florida would run the government. the government would be a republic whereas we are not a democracy. that is what i had to say. host: that is troy in pennsylvania. rebecca greene, you talk about the task force of election crises, what is that? guest: this was a group formed back in 2018. we had no idea how many crises would unfold.

the idea behind it was pressures of our system of elections. let's think about governing in those elections and think about if crazy things happen, you are thinking about things like cybersecurity attacks or weather events. but we didn't anticipate the pandemic. we had on the table at one point but not clearly enough. we were coming together to see things through from all different political stripes. and how our laws -- running an election in the pandemic. there is lots of resources if

you google won't national task force on election crises. there is a ton of information and reports that clarify what the laws are. host: this is rebecca greene we have been talking to. she is at marion law school with the practice of law. rebecca greene, thank you for your time today. guest: you are so welcome. host: president bynum is set to address some of the americans later this week. joining us next is steve woodson. he is with the council. >> the house january 6 committee is set to go public.

tune in as committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning -- beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m.. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span new podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights the 1964 presidential campaign. the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson secretaries new because they were task transcribing any of those conversations.

they were the ones that make sure the conversations were taped. johnson would signal to them --. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. host: in california this week, the president and -- and

immigrants -- -- in latin america. caller: a business foundation founded a few years ago with government officials and latin america. host: one of your previous jobs in government was helping put together something known as the summit of the americas. describe that. what is the servant of america's doing this week? guest: the summit process, clinton at the time launched the summit of americans. it happened every three to four years since then. this week is the ninth summit of americans. it is the first time the united states has host this meeting since the first one in 1994. it has been a generation.

host: what is the goal? guest: the goal started out with bringing leaders, innovation around democracy, free trade, it has grown and morphed over that time. this summit, it has been a little hard to tell what the objectives are. we are slowly seeing what is coming out of the summit that the united states is planned. it has a very last-minute feel to it which is not usually the case. even though work has been going on for two to three years. host: one of that common headlines from u.s. aid today, is off to a rocky start because -- usa today, it is off to a rocky start. can you elaborate on that? guest: setting what tradition

was, deciding who to invite. invitations went out very late. most of this work goes on the six wants to year beforehand. this was all done within the last couple of months. it sort of gave a reason for those who were looking for reasons not to go to put themselves in the process and complain about things. the president of mexico is one of those. disagreement over whether all the countries in the region should be invited or whether just the democratic countries in the region should be invited. we in the united states and many of us who have been following the summit believe what sets apart is a summit of democracies. there is disagreement on that in the region now. mexico will be there as well as

other governments without a representative on the state or government level. it makes a difference if you have one of the major countries in the region represented at the state level. host: the criticism comes because countries like nicaragua are not being invited to this event. guest: that is right. at the end of the day, the united states started it was not going to invite those countries. the president decided he didn't want those countries at the summit because they are not democracies. that decision came really late. it was finalized last week. that led to a lot of discussion that really shouldn't have happened. host: if you want to find out not only more about the summit but policy when it comes to latin american countries, (202) 748-8001, for republicans.

(202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8002, for independents. you talked about migration. what do you think they want to try to emphasize during this week as far as relations with these latin american countries? guest: the big? going into this and talking to a lot of the diplomats, the message in this last-minute run of the summit has been the u.s. doesn't care about the region. there is an interest in hearing from the leaders and sending a forward-looking agenda. recovery from the pandemic, economic recovery, health care,

those are things people want to talk about. the u.s. has been very focused on the migration issue. it is not the top of the leaders agenda. we hope the administration and the government can come to some agreements and for -- for innovation in the future. host: one of our goals was to expand trade access in some countries. guest: it could be done. it trade has not been at the top of the u.s. agenda. there are many things that could be done. one of the primary ones being with that, how to agree on

digital economy. people can benefit from this new economy we are all living in every aspect of our life. the digital economy is an inclusive economy. host: you talked about migration. we talked about vice president, light hair is was tasked with trying to come up with a way leading the undercurrents of migration. is that going to be a feature of this summit? guest: that is going to be a feature of this summit.

it is likely some sort of immigration agreement will come out. limitations to immigration agreement are a long-term solution. help them do better at home so they don't feel they need to move. an appropriate process can be launched host: the summit will feature first principle dealing with migration and going on from there? guest: right. that is what summits are good

for. summers are good for -- with the region want to do together. we will be looking to see what kinds of process i launched on digital recovery that the country can get behind. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002, for independents. a moment in grenada, eight kids

-- lead the pack with no real-world effects. it is become personality pensions. what do you think about the assessment? guest: to some extent, that is true. it is true to the extent there is in a follow-up and the plan goes on. summits are about meetings of leaders. they inevitably end up being about the individuals that are at the summit.

he is very good at these types of meetings. he is good at generating the type of consensus and the type of relationship that are going to help manage --. it is not worth a whole lot more than relationships that are built. migration, digital economy, health care. host: more to targeted countries --. guest: i think he is right. all of us would love to see an

annual gathering with subregions. several -- central america. these are important partners. the u.s. takes the region for granted. host: council of the americas joining us. you are on with our guest. go ahead.

you will have to take the line that best represents you. let's hear from our democrats line in florida. crystal, hello. caller: good morning. i am wondering if the latin american countries are expected to have amnesia? why would they attend the summit after we -- after the way we treated cuba, -- mexico? we overturned -- it is so unfair. these lead countries that designed to align with china and russia. host: ok, that is crystal in florida.

guest: these are 34 countries that have their own relationship with the united states. one thing they don't have without the united states is amnesia. they want to be there. because the united states is important to them. to try to have a meaningful relationship with the united states. they come for that reason. the ones that calm, the ones that don't, have made a political calculation.

it is not in every injuries to be there. it is that -- it is their right to do. it is hard for americans to imagine that every day, you over the paper you look on the internet, turn on the television the name of your country. we do not have anything like that. it is in their interest. policies about the mystic u.s. policies, is been going on so long. a lot of the intention it gets, it is beyond what any other country would get in the region.

every government, every u.s. administration struggled with how best to manage this relationship. we sell a lot to cuba. we have always have. we have a lot of students coming into the united states. we always have. it is a question of how to manage that relationship. there is a big debate in our country about how to do that. caller: i think how best to do

that would be to honestly acknowledge our history. our history of slavery in the u.s. and our history of the riep of latin american countries. starvation in wars. talk about countries not invited to the conference. it's nervy for someone to appear on tv and be so rational about the mess the u.s. has created in the world. especially in latin america. our neighbors have just been slaughtered by us for generations.

guatemala and the administration. columbia -- host: what would you like our guest to address specifically please? caller: viewers cannot -- without the history. guest: i agree. history is really important. as a u.s. diplomat and i was reminded constantly about the history with every country in the region. everywhere we went. i am well aware of the history. but diplomacy and what the summit is, a high level of

diplomacy is about optimism. you have to move forward. ask how can we make things better. you have to understand the past. understand where other countries are coming from. i hope more americans will look at that history. we have to look at how can we make this move forward. host: where would you start? i personally believe we have an enormous role to play in how we achieve the best economy and well-being for their population. inclusive growth, sustainable growth. these are things that the united states can really help these countries achieve.

if we engage meaningfully and in the long term, it was the trump administration that decided to vote -- that decided --. truly meaningful if we decide to do that. to work with our neighbors and in the interest of these countries. if we can help boost these come knees -- boost these countries, boost their population, improve the well-being of all of these populations of all their citizens, that is good for all of us. host: would you do that to foreign aid already been given the countries? guest: foreign aid has a role to

play. but foreign aid is never going to be sufficient. it is too small. to create the kind of prose, the kind of economy that these countries want and we would like to see in the region. what it really involves is working with these countries to improve -- to improve the supply chains. that is something the countries themselves have to do. but we can work together on what those issues are. as i said before, the digital economy has changed the equation. the u.s. is the leader in the digital economy. we have to be working with our neighbors to make sure the western economy is --. host: ohio. republican line. go ahead. caller: slavery is a world

problem. that is the history of the world. our country is the unusual part. we have a constitution. sending these countries money, i do not know we are going to these countries and killing people. why do we give the money when they are all coming here? the biden administration has total open borders. there is a caravan right now of 50,000 -- watch a different channel that tells true. potentially with this podcast. host: we will leave it there.

guest: the values that america share and care for is by engaging these countries, sharing what we believe, sharing what we know and listening to others. that is the value of these summit's and that is the value of this long-term engagement that we want to have. we need to do this. it is not easy. it can be hard. we don't always get everything

we want. in the long term, these payoff for us. host: one of the events at the summit will be a meeting. guest: i hope it happens. brazil is an enormously important country, globally. it is one that the u.s. doesn't give enough attention to. it is really important for brazil and the united states to have a good relationship on a presidential level. i really hope brazil will do that.

not clear who will win. whoever wins, we need to have a good relationship with the country that -- the problem is these leaders have not met. they have not spoken. this is a great way to work on, hopefully some common objectives. in particular, on some of the climate change issues and sustainable development issues. host: on the virginia independent line. go ahead. caller: we are hurting those countries by allowing their hard workers to come here and take

american jobs and money. the biden administration, it is a disaster. we are hurting those countries by taking their hard workers. thank you, guys. have a good day. guest: we need to help these countries improve their economy. we need to work with them to make sure investment regimes are good. that is where foreign assistance can be helpful. that is where the american development bank, the world bank can be a normatively helpful as well. these are long-term -- if we want see these problems presses

--. previous administration are trying to. it is not easy. the countries themselves doing most work. we can come alongside and help. host: california, was that a --? guest: it has a certain sense to it. i have here in los angeles where the summit is being held. a lot of americans -- for californians to focus on these other countries that have a lot of immigrant populations. right here in los angeles, and california, and around our country. and to understand the dynamic

and to look a little bit more closely. they have so much to offer and have offered us. i am glad to be here in california. being a california, i am super glad it is in california. host: the website if you want to find out more about the organization. the wilkes -- stephen liston. guest: thank you so much for