about veterans health care and the effects of burn pits and other toxic exposures. "washington journal" is next with your calls, facebook comments, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." after a high-profile start last week, the january 6 committee continues his public presentation this week with multiple hearings. many conducted thousands of hours of interviews laying out for the american people what he thinks happened on january 6 and the violence at the u.s. capitol. however, many republicans and conservatives are calling the process political and a witchhunt not worth watching. others say we need to know what

happened on january 6 two ensure it is never happening again. our question for you this morning, is it important what happened on january 6? if you say yes, it is important to find out what happened on january 6, we want to hear from you on (202) 748-8000. if your answer is no, no it is not important to find out what happened on january 6, your number is (202) 748-8001. and if you are not sure, we want to hear from you as well. your number is going to be (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on facebook and facebook.com/c-span, on twitter, and you can always follow us on instagram. once again come our question for you this morning is, how important is it to you to find

out what happened on january 6? of course, the january 6 committee will begin its hearings again tomorrow, on monday, which of course you can watch here on c-span. but we want to know from you, how important it is for you to find out what is going on. once again come you can watch the january 6 congressional hearings starting live monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span, on c-span now, and of course you can always follow us online at c-span.org. cbs news has a poll of americans that they took before that first hearing last thursday from january 6 committee. and they asked that same question. how important is it to you to find out what happened on january 6? and i want to bring this pole to you. here is what cbs news.com said.

ahead of the first public hearings on the investigations into the events of january 6, 2021, most americans, 70% think it is somewhat important to find out what happened on that day and who was involved according to a recent cbs news poll. but republicans do not see it as important. a slim majority saying it is not important or not important at all to find out what happened. few republicans think it is very important. it is effective of the way many republicans view that day. most do not see it as an insurrection and do not want their party to focus much on it. once again, this was a poll taken by cbs news. we want to know from you, where do you think -- whether you think it was important to find what happened on january 6. president joe biden, who was in los angeles on friday, thinks it is important we find out what

happened on january 6. and we will bring you here when he said on friday on the importance of finding out what happened january 6. [video clip] >> the intervention on january 6, one of the darkest chapters in our nation past history, he brutal assault on history, brutal attack on law-enforcement, some losing their lives, and we heard about it last night again. it is important that the american people understand what truly happened and to understand that the same forces that led january 6 remain at work today. it is about democracy itself. to protect our democracy, i know it sounds corny to say it, but every generation has to protect it. i commit to you i never thought that it was going to be this straightforward a challenge before. the rule of law matters in democracies. we are seeing how the battle for the soul of americans has been

far from won, but i know together, and i mean this, we can unite and defend this nation democrat and republican, allow no one to place a dagger at the throne of our democracy. that is what those humans are all about. host: we want to know from you whether you think it was -- it is important to find out what happened on january 6. let's start with tom, who is calling from west columbia, south carolina. tom, good morning. tom, are you there? caller: good morning, sir. i do believe it is important to find out exactly what happened. however, i don't think we will ever know the true true story of what happened because how congresspeople -- have to protect themselves first and foremost. and that is what they do with the committees. they protect themselves.

they never tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. so, sadly, i don't think we will ever find out 100% what happened and who really was involved in this. i think mr. trump was really involved in it. but i just don't think we are going to ever really find out the whole truth about it. that is my comment for this morning. thank you. host: do you think it should be taken away from congress and done by -- tom jumped off. ok. let's go to georgia over calling from oklahoma. georgia, good morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: i am great. go ahead, georgia. caller: i think it is important to find out what really happened . [indiscernible]

both sides can be asked. i saw it from the beginning and i followed it to this point, you know, and there are so many unanswered questions, so many eyebrows raised. so, yes, i think it is very important to find out. host: all right. well, some republicans don't think that these humans are worth the time being -- these hearings are worth the time being spent on at all. on fox news, dismissing the hearings that are going on. [video clip] >> we all know what happened. whatever her reason was, i think most americans are just sick and tired of the politicization you are seeing by the democrats to try to change the subject. they know what the american people are angry about. american people are angry about what joe biden and nancy pelosi and their far left socialist agenda have done to people, and they wish congress was

addressing those things, not this hollywood production, not an attempt to take away your guns. it just seems like over and over again they think they can blame putin, anybody else. the american people are smarter than that. they figured out who is the cause of the pain their families and our families are suffering, and they want to change -- a change of direction. what is coming in november is something they are scared to death of because they only want power. they still want to shut down cities, defund the police, do the things the american people are tired of, and the american people are going to have the final say on november 8. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether it is important for them to find out what happened on january 6. here is one tweet that says, only an insurrectionist will think it is not important. another tweet that says, if you don't know what happened on january 6, then you are just not paying attention.

these committees are nothing more than campaign ads for democrats. another tweet that says, january 6 is not going to say biden --sa ve biden. another tweet that says, we already know what happened on january 6. what is important is anybody involved in the planning and execution of the coup attempt is prosecuted. and one last week that says, we better take the threats to our country serious. the rise of white nationalism and fascism is in the republican party. on january 6, they tried to overthrow the government. the traders are still in our government and state houses. we are dealing with the rise of white supremacy. once again, our question to you this morning, is it important to find out what happened on january 6? remember, if the answer is yes, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if the answer is no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text

us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always on social media, on twitter and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. let's go to martha who was calling from germantown, tennessee. martha, good morning. caller: good morning. the way i feel about it is they are scared to death of donald trump and they are trying their best to keep him off of the ballot of 2024 and it is not going to happen. and he will be reelected. i feel sorry for liz cheney because she will never be reelected if she wants anything else to do with government. she is just out of the loop. and i don't understand all of the to do about it since we all know what has happened and it will never, ever be put out, the exact things that happened

because they are not going to show the republican side of it. i am not letting any of our republican representatives on it. host: what do you think the republican side of it is? what do you think the other story that is not being told about january 6 is? caller: one of them is, why did they kill the babbitt lady? who did it? why don't they investigate that? host: i think a police officer who shot her already has revealed his identity. that happened a few months back. caller: well, but did they say why he shot her? host: i believe he said he felt threatened. caller: she didn't have a gun. she didn't have anything. nothing. i mean, you know, it is all just a big mess. why we can't get back to how the

bible teaches us to love one another and do unto others that you would have them do unto you? host: all right. let's go to stella, who is calling from new jersey. stella, good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is very important to find out what happened on january 6. and my deepest concern is the fact why the capitol was left defenseless when they knew weeks in advance that these things were going to happen, but yet the committee in its list of agendas has failed to address that issue. the fact that the capitol was left defenseless is at the heart of the terrible things that happened on that day, and that is what i think the american people need to know. why was the capitol left

defenseless? host: all right. let's go to wayne, who is coming from annapolis, maryland. wayne, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, we need to know all the facts, and i think we know the facts. i think you know there were groups that planned this well in advance. trump was at the head of it and was doing a painstaking investigation to make sure everybody can understand all the details of it. i understand fox news is not even broadcasting it, and they brainwashed a lot of people to think trump was not involved. we just don't understand. facts are facts my and if people take the time to watch this unfold, they will find out all about what went on, that we had a deranged president and power.

host: all right. let's talk to chris, who is calling from dallas, texas. chris, good morning. caller: yeah, how are you? host: i am fine. caller: i am so proud to be from the state of texas. i think we come a you know -- we, you know, are all americans that love the country. not as a democrat or republican or independent. we are americans. and i am so frustrated we are spending so much money and time on something that really was an unfortunate situation, but we don't have timelines for text for your dollars when we have more important issues like

getting baby formula to much-needed children. host: you don't think we can multitask and do two things at the same time? caller: no. host: you think that we should stop? you think the investigations on january 6 should stop. what should the government be focusing on them? caller: now, everyone that did not -- all of us, we are all americans. we all have the same interests i hope. that was an unfortunate situation, but we are spending too much time in committees and meetings and stuff. right now, we need to focus on getting our economy back on track, trying to do what we can to benefit all citizens of the

united states of america, and its people trying to have better lives, doing what we can to assist them. we are not against each other. we are all americans. it breaks my heart we are not focusing more on trying to figure out a way to lower cost or figure out what we can do. instead of attacking the current sitting president, vice president, and our congress, which we have congress as democrat, republican, and independents. we need to stop cutting down our

president and attacking something that happened in the past and just move forward. host: let's go to charles, who is calling from alexandria, tennessee. charles, good morning. caller: good morning. gentlemen, i am charles w. anderson. good morning. i am charles w. anderson, jr. now, i am a vietnam veteran. i served in vietnam 1964 to 1967. and i guess god saved me for something. host: charles, turn your

television down. caller: you know, i know this is television. but what i am saying, i am an american citizen, ok? and i watched all this, what happened in washington and everything. it is time. it is time for us to get on with the program. do not, i repeat, do not blame president biden. he's got a lot on his plate right now. he is trying to balance peace across other countries and our home country. and we have all got to work together.

you know, i am a god-fearing christian. and yes, i do believe in the second coming, whenever that is. and we don't know when. but my point is we have to learn , no matter who we are or where he came from, i feel that it is time for everyone to put down these darn ar-15's, get them out of the hands of these people that want to go out and kill. host: let's go to danny, who is calling from denver, colorado. danny, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead, danny. caller: i don't know where to start.

it is very important that we find out what went on here and prosecute the people that were breaking the law, even if that includes president trump. i am sorry for the people who realize this. i don't know what happened to the republican party. my mom was a lifelong democrat and it appears she was brainwashed by the trump propaganda machine to vote for trump. and now she is claiming she never voted for trump. the senior citizens that are out there, a lot of them were brainwashed by the trump propaganda. and as a result, he has to be prosecuted, and so do the other people like jim jordan and everybody that is over there with the propaganda machine. hello? host: you are still on, dan. caller: hello? i can't believe why we listen to what the republican party says anymore. and anybody that is a republican member because they are hypocrites, they are liars, and they are thieves. they stole two supreme

court picks. they still never garland, none trump rushed one through, which was hypocritical of mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell has to go. he is an obstructionist. we are not getting anything done because the republican party wants to fight the democratic party on everything they want to do and this is a shame. a lot of voting people that voted democrats for their life were brainwashed and are still brainwashed. until we prosecute trump and all his cronies and all the people involved in breaking the law, these people are going to get away with it. host: during the january 6 committee hearings, vice chair representative liz cheney laid out former president trump's role in the attacks on the u.s. capitol. and here is what representative cheney said. [video clip] >> you will hear testimony that quotes the president did not want to put anything out, calling off the buyer, or asking

his supporters to leave. you will hear that president trump was yelling and "really angry" advisers who told him he needed to be doing something more. and aware of the writers -- ri oters' chants of their desire to hang mike pence, maybe they have the right idea, he deserves it. you will hear evidence that president trump refused to do what his staff, family, and many of his other advisers begged him to do, immediately instruct his supporters to standdown and evacuate the capitol. tonight, you will see never before seen footage of the brutal attack on our capitol, an attack unfolded while a few blocks away president trump sat watching television in the dining room next to the oval office. you will hear audio from the brave police officers battling

for their lives and hours, fighting to defend our democracy against a violent mob donald trump refused to call off. tonight and in the weeks to come , you will see evidence of what motivated this violence, including directly from those who participated in this attack. you will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. you will see their posts on social media. we will show you what they have said in federal court. on this point, there is no room for debate. those who invaded our capitol and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what president trump had told them, that the election was stolen and that he was the rightful president. president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether it is

important to find out what happened on january 6. here is one tweet that says, we know what happened, reactionary anti-republicans stormed the capitol in an effort to install their president for life and in the republic -- end the republic to get another tweet says, of course this needs to be investigated. it is so obvious the democrats are using this to their advantage about him. great detractor from what is happening in our country right now, just saying. another tweet that says, talking about guns and january 6, it made a distraction from the real issues like inflation, open borders, record high gas prices, baby formula, many other issues the white house does not want us talking about. another tweet that says come of course it is important. however, we have lost our way. patriotism has been displaced by fascism. and one last week that says, the reason why republicans do not

take the hearings on january 6 serious, because they were part of the insurrection. they tried to overthrow our government right in front of our faces in the media, and why do americans act like it did not happen? we are going to lose our country. our question to you again is, how important is it to you to find out what happened on january 6? once again, if your answer is yes, (202) 748-8000. if your answer is no, (202) 748-8001. if your answer is not sure, (202) 748-8002. i want to remind you that the next january 6 committee hearing will be monday at 10:00 a.m. c-span will have live coverage of that hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. you can watch it on our apt, c-span now, and you can always watch it online at c-span.org. now, that is monday. on wednesday at 10:00 a.m., you

will be able to watch live on c-span3, c-span outward, and on the c-span app. and thursday, the last hearing of the week will happen at 1:00 p.m. you can once again what's that on c-span3, c-span.org, and on the free c-span now app. once again, we want to know what is important to you what happened on january 6. let's hear from earl, who is calling from idaho. earl, good morning. caller: good morning. listen. for five years prior to now, congress intimidated the president, which was trump, continually for four years. and intimidated the nation as a whole and brought this problem on themselves and onto this nation. host: earl, let me stop you real quick.

how did the republican-controlled congress intimidated president? caller: it was constant conflict there. nobody wanted to get along. they cap just poking away at each other and did not allow the president any time to really smoothed out things for us to be a nation as a whole. and it just broke us up for the last continually from the time trump was elected until now. host: ok. mitch mcconnell was the senate majority leader and got through several supreme court justices, so it seemed like he at least had the senate under control. caller: it just seems like we could have done a lot better with cooperation there. and if you could words -- good words could have been spoken to clean it up in the past. it just brought on what we are

seeing here today. host: ok. so do you think it is important to find out what happened on january 6? caller: yeah, it is. but we are going down the wrong road. we need to look back at the problems we had in the past that brought this on. host: what problems were those, earl? caller: well, the constant intimidation of the president and no cooperation between congress, whether they were republican or democrat. host: ok. let's go to angie, who is calling from new york, new york. angie, good morning. caller: good morning. hi. it is my first time. host: welcome, angie. go ahead. caller: i think it is important to find out what happened on january 6. i think it is important exactly that we find out because it was what the guy said before me, the guy from idaho. there was no cooperation between

congress and the presidency besides mitch mcconnell and donald trump and his cronies, you know, his people. and i think that maybe something might change, maybe something might not. hopefully something will change and they take out all of those wrong people in the judiciary and trump presidency too because right now i do not believe in the presidency. it is going downhill. host: now, angie, what should they do with the information they find out? should this just all be done for history, or is there something they should be doing with the information that they are finding out, the january 6 committee? caller: i think what they should do is they should start making laws so this does not happen again. i think this should be put into -- i am nervous. it should be put into place so

they do not do this again and the american people can see there should be real change, that there can be something that can be done when something like this happens. host: ok. let's go to greg, who is calling from ridgeville, wisconsin. greg, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thank you very much. well, we need to see what happened on january 6. and i think there is plenty of video that shows the lack of security, the open invitation, the open doors, the security people not protecting the capitol. that was the biggest thing. if they had protected the capitol, none of this would have happened. thank you for c-span for being such a mouthpiece funded by the government that does not present both sides. you, my friend, are allowing

both sides to be represented because the videos are clear. the capitol police stepped back, opened the doors, and actually invited people in. host: so, greg, what should they do with the information they are finding out, the january 6 committee? one of our previous callers set perhaps new laws need to be passed. should they turn all of this information over to the justice department? what should happen to this information? caller: well, i think the biggest thing is they improve the security because when you look at what happened and the videos, the videos are very clear that the initiation of entrance to the capitol, the capitol police stepped back, opened the doors, and in some cases waived people in. it is obvious that is what happened to start the whole intrusion to the capitol.

if the capitol police had secured the doors, not allowed people to come in, and allowed them to peacefully protest outside, we would not be talking about this now. do you agree? host: now, greg, that rings of a great question. i am glad you brought that up because there are people in washington -- because the people in washington talk about a lot. there are fences around the supreme court. right now, there are eight-foot fences put up around the supreme court. people are always arguing about the security gate being put up around the capitol and how it makes it look. you think they should have hardened security around these buildings 24/7 like they do at the white house? caller: well, if we are talking specifically about the january 6 event, i don't think they need to put up fences. they just needed to keep the doors close.

but then if we talk about steve scalise and the shooter that tried to attack republican congress people in 2017, that is a different topic. you are confusing the topics. let's say unfocused to january 6 -- on focus to january 6 and the fact that the capitol police failed miserably, who were being led by nancy pelosi. host: i think what we are talking about security at the u.s. capitol. and my question to you is, do you think they should put a permanent fencing around the u.s. capitol? many people in washington, d.c., have been fighting against that, saying it makes it look like an armed camp. do you think there should be permanent fencing up around the u.s. capitol to ensure what happened on january 6 does not happen again? caller: i do not think that permanent fencing needs to be put up. we have never had this issue before.

and i think we are talking apples and oranges because if you have better security, that would have prevented what happened on january 6, the capitol police were not waiving people in, we would not have this conversation, my friend. really, very simple. and you are creating an apple and orange scenario. host: all right. let's go to lorraine, who is calling from new york. lorraine, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am very interested in hearing the various viewpoints from callers because so many people have fallen from the propaganda and the false lies that have gone out. it is important that we know who put together this demonstration. it did not just happen. it was organized.

now, people think that the truth has come out. it has not come out. unfortunately, our country is now divided because of this. if we think of world war ii, entire countries fell under propaganda. hitler was good at selling propaganda. he said the jews were the cause of all their problems and they all finished in the furnace. we have to do the same thing here in america, listen to the propaganda and the lies that came out until now. we need to get to the truth, and i am hoping this committee will tell us who organized this. why wasn't the capitol protected with enough people? if it was an american demonstration, african-american demonstration, we would have had

hundreds of guards on the street. there were no guards because the president did not see to it. he did not call. he spent two hours calling the national guard. the vice president did call for the national guard and help. they have the truth. host: lorraine, what do you think should be done with the information that the january 6 committee has collected? should they be turning it over to the justice department? should they be crafting new laws and regulations around the inoculation and around the electoral college presentation of the new president for 2024 what should they? be doing with this information ? caller: i am just a simple 83-year-old grandmother. i think it is very important that the truth get out and our country -- not all believe it.

some people will still follow the falsehoods. it should go down in the history books so 100 years from now people will know what really happened this day. should it go to the justice department? i don't know. perhaps it should. but i think the better mines in the government will decide upon that. i think america, we have to open our eyes and get to the truth of what happened. there was a gentleman who called and said that the police opened the doors and let them in. i mean, this is we did kilis. one woman testified. she had a concussion. she was sloshing in the blood of the other workers, the other patrolman being beaten up. is he blind? put on your glasses. host: let's go to rachel, who is calling from palm beach, florida. rachel, good morning. caller: good morning. this is all propaganda.

8:00 at night on prime time news just to sway the election for november. that is all. that is all it is. host: now, rachel, do you think these hearings are worth it for the historical aspect just so there is a correct historical record? caller: no. historically, let's see, for two years we burned down cities across the country and people got sick and tired of it. that is why this happened. that is why this happened. the bottom line. host: so, rachel, you think the black lives matter protests caused the january 6 insurrection? caller: i think a lot of it had to do with that. people got sick and tired of seeing cities burned and police standing down and police

precincts being burned down. the media did not do anything. they did not say anything. they did not report on it. and it went on and on. people got fed up with that. host: if the media did not report on it, how did america find out about it? caller: through fox news really. host: which is the media. caller: that is the only way. that is the only way anybody ever found out about it. that's it. host: ok. let's go to jackie, who is calling from oakland, michigan. jackie, good morning. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i have been sitting here listening to some of these collars and i cannot believe how diluted some of the mark. i think it is important that everybody knows what happened on january 6. and if people do not want to

know, they need to take the blinders off. host: all right. during the january 6 committee hearing, a chair showed a conference with attorney general william barr, who made it clear he did not think the budget was stolen. it is what chairman thompson had to say. [video clip] >> trump lost the presidential election in 2020. the american people voted him out of office. it was not because of a rigged system. it was not because of voter fraud. don't believe me. hear what his former attorney general had to say. i want those who are watching that this contains strong language. >> i have had three discussions with the president that i can recall. one was on november 23.

one was on december 1. and one was on december 14. i have been through sort of the give-and-take of those discussions. and in that context, i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out the stuff, which i told the president was bull. he did not want to be a part of it and that is one of the reasons that led to me deciding to leave when i did. i observed i think it was on december 1 that you cannot live in a world where the incumbent and ministration stays in power based on its view unsupported by specific evidence that there was fraud in the election. >> bill barr election day 2020, he was the attorney general of the united states. the top law enforcement official in the country telling the country and -- country telling

the president exactly what he thought of his claims of a stolen election. president trump had his days in court to challenge the results. he was within his rights to seek those judgments and the united states law-abiding citizens have those tools for pursuing justice. he lost in the courts just as he did at the ballot box. and in this country, that is the end of the line. but for donald trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling, multi step conspiracy aimed at overturning the presidential election, aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of americans, your votes, your voice in our democracy, and replacing the will of the american people with his will to remain in power after his term ended. dollar trump was at the center of this conspiracy.

and ultimately, donald trump, the president of the united states, spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the constitution to march down to the capitol and subvert american democracy. host: let's go back to our phone lines and start with patrick, who is calling from carnegie, pennsylvania. patrick, good morning. caller: good morning. the morning. you know, it is stunning. i am a democrat. i voted for trump. and as i see the unfolding of lies, deceit, and manipulation by the media to fabricate a reality that this insurrection, and if it was an insurrection, it was the most poorly crafted insurrection in the history of the united states. the only person that died in this "insurrection" was a woman who was unarmed and was gunned down. when you look at the capitol,

when you have been in the capital before like i have, you know what a fortress it is. there are barriers. there is technologies that can disable crowds. everything was disabled directly. we knew for a fact that fbi agent ushered people into this, into this capitol in order to create the reality of a super event, which was not a super event. people were going in there with their cell phones, taking photographs. they were praying. the absurdity of this, the sale of this riot by a meticulously crafted stoking media is not going over with the american people. and anybody saying there was not an agenda here, all you have to do is look at the election. it was completely, absolutely, utterly fabricated. host: now, patrick, i am going

to have to disagree with you on one part of what you are sent have been working in the capitol for years as a reporter. there are no things in the capitol to disable security, which is why they have capitol police. caller: no, that is not true. what you are not seeing is you have a capitol with advanced technology you are not privy to. i can tell you right now, there are all kinds of technologies that were available that a real insurrection would have been stopped by. this was not an insurrection. at best, it was a mob of people who got ginned up and we don't even know what type of declassified technologies, which should be made public, were either used or not used to amplify the sen. -- the situation. we know they're are all types of technologies that can create scenarios like an iraq where the

iraqi soldiers heard the voice of god. when you look at this reality, nothing, nothing is beyond suspect. host: again, i have to disagree with you there, patrick, having been a decade or more working in the capitol. i don't think that stuff exists. let's go to tim, who is calling from rochester, new york. tim, good morning. caller: yes. good morning. how are you doing? host: good, tim. caller: yes. it is going to be quick, but my son is 16 and i am an african american. if you ask me why why people get influenced so easily, i have no answer because since 2018, trump is yelling fraud, the election and everything because he knew he was going to lose. but they need to get down, see

what is going on, find out. and somebody needs to be prosecuted. and some people need to go to jail. those who rated the capitol, those who got convicted, they should never get a job or anything in society again. thank you. host: let's go to patrick, who is calling from palm beach gardens, florida. patrick, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and all that you do. it is interesting as i am listening over the last few minutes as to what is transpiring. both groups, both left and right, are saying the same thing in one way, and that is that it was propaganda. and it is propaganda. we are under a propaganda situation going on right now with the media in collusion with the government as they tell us what happened, this "insurrection" that happened on january 6. i have never seen an insurrection with no guns. i have never seen an insurrection where people walk

into the place they are trying to occupy with flags, where they are praying, as has been mentioned before, walking around. many of them never been in the capitol before. i think there were four groups that happened. and i am going to get to some should be convicted. proud boys should be convicted. oath keepers should be convicted. and those government officials like ray apps and other fbi people who are talked to prompt people to go inside and break the law. those people should be convicted as well. also, i think that nancy pelosi saw an opportunity here. she did not call in the national guard. she is the one who is supposed to protect the capitol as the sergeant in arms. she did not do that. she held back and did a jiu-jitsu move, which means let the opposite side do their move

and off of their move and mistakes, you kind of move out of the way and let them throw themselves through onto the ground. host: actually, patrick, you know the speaker of the house has no control over the national guard. that is the president and the d.c. guard was handled by the mayor of washington, d.c. caller: well, all right. the mayor of washington, d.c., did she do anything? she did nothing. she did nothing. they let this thing happen. as i said before, many of the capitol police, not all of them, but many of them, i think they backed out of the way because they were overwhelmed and they knew it. but those groups i said before should be convicted. 95% of the conservative people who went there, who believed there was wreaking going on in this election, right or wrong, i am not saying it was, that biden did not win.

i know there is a lot of people in the country who hate donald trump, especially special-interest groups who he has not catered to as former presidents have done on both sides. that is why liz cheney hates donald trump, because her special-interest groups that she represents are not getting what they got when donald trump stepped in. and now we have the inflation, we have an invasion. the real insurrection is going on at the border. the invasion at the border and all the mess with biden, and i will say this just in closing, donald trump is not a perfect person, but he got a lot of stuff done for the american people. host: during the january six committee hearing, u.s. capitol police officer carolyn edwards, who was knocked unconscious during the january 6 attack, shared her story with the american people. here is what she had to say.

[video clip] >> officer edwards, i would like to start by asking if you could tell us why you believe it is important for you to share your story this evening with the committee and the american public. please, your microphone. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate it. thank you to the committee for having me here to testify. i was called a lot of things on january 6, 2021, and the days thereafter. i was called nancy pelosi's dog, called incompetent, called a hero, and a villain. i was called a traitor to my country, my oath, and my constitution. in actuality, i was none of those things. i was an american standing

face-to-face with other americans, asking myself many times have we had gotten here. i have been called names before, but never had my patriotism or duty been called into question. i, who got up every day, no matter how early the hours or how late i got in the night before, to put on my uniform and to protect america's symbol of democracy. i spent countless hours in the baking sun and freezing snow to make sure that america's elected officials were able to do their job. i, whose literal blood, sweat, and tears were shed that day defending the building i spent countless holidays and weekends working in. i am the proud granddaughter of a marine that fought in the battle of the reservoir in the korean war. i think of my papa often in

these days, how he was so young and thrown into a battle he never saw coming. and answered the call at a great personal cost, how he lived the rest of his days with bullets and shrapnel in his legs but never once complained about his sacrifice. i would like to think that he would be proud of me, proud of his granddaughter that stood her ground that day and continued fighting, even though she was winded, like he did many years ago. i am my grandfather's granddaughter, proud to put on a uniform and serve my country. they dared to question my honor. they dared to question my loyalty. and they dared to question my duty. i am a proud american. and i will gladly sacrifice everything to make sure that the america my grandfather defended is here for many years to come. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to marisa,

who is calling from oakland, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: ok. so i listened to all the people who called you this morning. i know they went to the capitol and all of that, but the problem is why these people were there. the people were there because there was propaganda trying to make mr. trump being the best person in the world, to feel sorry for him because all the people are trying to attack him. it was lies, corruption. a bunch of lies, a bunch of corruption everywhere. and also, they used social mishandling.

people feel like they are replacements kind of. i'm sorry. this is coming from another country, but this is the propaganda. they do this everywhere. that is why they came across to the white house to celebrate the inauguration of him. this is the main reason why all of this has happened. they are missing that. the good people, they are listening with the propaganda, the corruption. that is what they do to sustain power. the question is, what do we want? do we want to stay there forever and ever empower -- in

power? is that what they want with trump? if you see the pictures, he has all of the war military equipment. they say that they call nancy pelosi, why she didn't call. mr. trump, he is the president. he is supposed to call people to come and help the capitol, but he didn't. he didn't. host: well, once again, the january 6 committee hearings will continue on monday, but each one of the hearings will have a different focus. i want to bring to you what the focus of monday's hearing will

be. on monday, the second hearing will focus on post 2020 election claims. they will have another hearing on i believe tuesday. no, i'm sorry. they will have another hearing on wednesday, that will focus on william barr and the justice department. a third hearing will be next week on thursday, which will focus on former vice president mike pence. a final fifth hearing, which will be on pressure on state legislatures, legislators, and officials. keep in mind -- i'm sorry. the sixth hearing, which will focus on the actions of former president donald trump on january 6 and the rioters. a final hearing will be focusing on the white house staff. so once again, i want to remind you, all of these will be here on c-span. once again, starting tomorrow, you can watch here on c-span beginning at 10:00 a.m. on

wednesday and thursday. switch over to c-span3 on the live january 6 congressional hearings. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to richard, who is calling from broken arrow, oklahoma. richard, good morning. caller: good morning. it took a little while. i think i am calling on the not sure line. the reason i am calling on the not sure line is because it is impossible to hear through all the noise what the truth is. i get this one email from a reputable news source that says he ivanka trump says that her father's thoughts on the election are blah blah. bad words, i am not going to say it on tv. i listened to the video to a ivanka trump. turns out she agrees with william barr. i don't know. i biggest problem is i don't

know what i can believe. maybe that will sway me to wanting to listen to the hearings, but it sounds like a lot of it is political theater. i think what these folks need to do is do what they can to shorten the message because i think a lot of us have a hard time listening for a long period of time to what the message is. it is really tough. and like i said, i am not sure what side i am going to fall on. but i think the media has created a mess. i think the media's reputation right now in this country is terrible. it is awful. and they have to do a lot of work to build and back. maybe they have to get together and stop saying it is all about the money and how much money i can get for shocking news.

and they need to think about the country and think of what -- do the best they can to provide the truth. there are rumors everywhere. social media does not help. it spreads rumors. it is a mess. that is why i called on the not sure line. norfork, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe it is important to get down to the bottom of what happened on january 6, but i also believe that nobody is going to jail, all these shenanigans going on. the media is trying to tell a story. let's go to richard who was

calling from savannah, georgia. richard, good morning. caller: i feel like media and even c-span sometimes -- democrats as far as their incompetence. the gas station of the grocery store, one of the greatest tragedies is nobody discovering, including you, a terrible situation, ghislane maxwell sits in prison for a list of names for people that was on jeffrey epstein's profile when we know for a fact adam schiff, bill clinton was regulars. why isn't the press covering that? queen of england actually paid off. host: richard, if the media

isn't covering it, how did you find out about it? he hung up. monty from oregon, good morning. caller: thanks for having me. the radical right, meaning the trump supporters, have all of these assumptions going on the hearings are here to get to the bottom of the facts. i keep hearing all of these people making assumptions, and they need to be watching the hearings to get to the bottom of it. host: john is calling from new york. john, good morning. caller: good morning. the first thing, the question that you asked what was in orton, of what happened, that should have read what is important that did not happen?

there are a lot of things that did not happen, especially with the national guard in a situation like this. i do a lot of history reading. the first fake news is from the media. john adams reading his newspaper says why are they lying about george washington? that is the first fake news. but they didn't call it fake news. thank you. host: all right. we'd like to thank all of our callers from that first segment. coming up next, we will have more on the january 6 hearing and other political news of the day with two top political writers. and later, we will be joined by jeremy butler, ceo of iraq and afghanistan's veterans of america. he will be year to talk about

the effects of earned pits and other toxic exposure on veteran health and what the federal government should be doing about it. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ announcer: the january 6 committee continues its public hearings. evidence gathered in their investigation. tune in monday at the committee examines former president donald trump's role in the assault on the u.s. capitol of previously unseen material and witness testimony. watch live monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, the free mobile video lab, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can also visit our website, c-span.org/january6 to watch previous hearings and other videos related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. dick army talks about his book where he gives a behind the scenes account of his time in congress during the 1990's and republican legislative successes afterwards, kellyanne conway talks about the 2016 campaign and her time in the trump administration with her memoir, "here's the deal." watch book tv and find a schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks on the

president. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. host: we are back with our political, the nations john nichols and the washington examiner to talk about the january 6 committee. all of our other great political topics. gentlemen, good morning. we will start with you, james. talk to us about with the highlights were from the january 6 committee meeting. guest: were there any highlights? what the leaders of the committee are trying to do, it is a democratic-led to many but you do have a couple of never trump publican audit, if they

are trying to take the events of january 6 and weave a narrative around it. i think the basic facts of the riot and donald trump contesting the election results and not wanting to leave office, i think those things are generally known, but what the committee is trying to do is weave them together a narrative form. marry trump's efforts to remain in office with the violence that took place on january 6 and put them together as a coherent, cohesive package and then talk about that as something that maybe, number one, maybe republicans would be accountable for their position from these things because, you know, i think that the events of january 6, while they may be pretty far out of the mainstream, there are a lot of that the 2020 election was widely shared by rank-and-file look and that were held by the people who were

riding, and number two, get them on the record about donald trump, who may be a candidate again in 2024. i think in a lot of it is to reset the idea that trump is somebody who should not be put in power, somebody who should not be in the white house holding that kind of influence based on the events january 6. in terms of anything that is going to happen for this year's elections, obviously the democrats want to make this much more of a binary choice and less of a referendum on the biden administration. certainly, that is what trump and the republicans wanted to do in 2020. i don't think it worked very well for the republicans in 2020 and i don't think it is going to work every well for the democrats, but obviously it is a lot harder to answer some of these questions in 2024, especially if trump is the nominee. host: john, highlights for you? guest: i appreciate how james

laid it out, this is about creating a narrative, creating an understanding of what happened on january 6, and i think the best way to understand and put this into context is that what happened on january 6 with so overwhelming, so unprecedented for not just the average american, but for a lot of the media and a lot of the political class. as a result, people struggled with what words they would apply. with a call it a riot? with a call it an insurrection? with a call it an attempted coup? as time has evolved, the language has become clear. this hearing on thursday night was an attempt to present some clarity. what was interesting to me was that it was actually in the

context of a congressional hearing, a very simple hearing. it was not complicated, it didn't have every member of the committee making a big, long, opening statement. it didn't have a lot of the elements that slow a committee hearing down. what it did was have the two basic, initial things. one for liz cheney and one for betty thompson, the chair of the committee. they tried to lay out some basic talking points, for lack of a better term, and what thompson did in making a connection historically to the civil war era in times of great division, and then to say very bluntly, there was a conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and that conspiracy and the assault on the capitol

could be described as an attempted coup. that is a dramatic statement especially in the united states, and then they obviously spent the reminder backing that up with some basic evidence, testimony from a couple of individuals, police officers as well as document refill makers who had first-hand experience of it, some films showing the dramatic film of attorney general barr. the end result is they did pretty well in creating their narrative, putting these ideas out there. now the challenge will be to fill that in with information that is at least as dramatic as what they put forward, and also, ultimately, they have to make that connection and i don't frankly think they will, but they have to make that connection between suggestion of the charge that donald trump was at the center of a conspiracy

and that that conspiracy had as its golden attempted to, and attempt to put an unelected individual in charge of the country for four years as an illegitimate president. that is a very powerful statement to make and clearly what the committee has said. host: you've been watching congress for years, like myself. this was a completely unique thing we saw on thursday, like no congressional hearing we've ever seen the or. in fact, it was more like a production than a congressional hearing. the question is, despite all of the production they put on, do you think they changed any minds? guest: i think production is the correct word. there was professional level production value to this hearing.

typically, you see just members of congress each trying to get their own television time, being seen by their constituents, maybe repeating the same questions over and over again because each individual member wants to be seen asking that particular western, and you didn't really get a whole lot of on thursday night. i think it was because they are trying to tell a story. i think they viewed it as a good way to do it. they were making the most of their primetime opportunity. i do think that just in terms of who was watching it, it is difficult to say that it changed any minds. i think a lot of the people who were attracted to watch in the first place were already pretty outraged and the people who are not really focus on that right now were not watching it first place. you know, there may be some

number of people who watched in and had their minds changed, but i doubt it was a very large number of people. one, new cycles moved very quickly right now, which was very much to the benefit of donald trump. a lot of controversy that would have taken down some other political figure simply didn't because trump was able to power through them and you're starting to see other political figures use the same tactic. you just wait it out and things change. the public attention span isn't very long. there are always new tactics. gas prices and inflation and things like that. i suspect a large portion of the audience were people who already were very upset about the events of january 6 and wanted to see how this committee would resent those facts. host: john, did it delegitimize the hearing that there was no

one saying this is completely wrong, nobody anything wrong? there was no opposition at the hearing to the fact that the committee hearing on thursday, everybody was on the same page. guest: i don't know if that would say it delegitimize it. it is one of the deep complexities of the deep divide we had in the country today. we're in a situation where people are so deeply into their own hands that you had a great problem putting the committee together, great challenge setting up an independent committee initially. i don't necessarily think it delegitimizes get. the legitimacy of the committee will be determined by the quality of information that they provide and by the narrative that they develop. it is just powerful enough that people, arguably a relatively small portion of people who may be the swing voters in this very divided country will say i think

i know him more about this and it troubles me more. maybe has some impact on elections this year, maybe a bigger impact in 2024. but i do think that that is where it comes down to. if i could just address the production sample, i've written a lot of books about media over the years. one of the things that i have been powerfully struck by the fact that congress has not adjusted to the 20th century. remember, we are in the 21st. congress hasn't adjusted to the 20th century. as an entity, it's hearings are so structured around the egos of politicians that it takes hours sometimes to get the point of what hearing is doing. i think the production was highly beneficial to this hearing because it did get to the point very, very quickly. i think that is a progression

into what they should have been doing decades ago. i give them credit in that regard. one final thing i will suggest is that we do have to be careful. i know we live in such a media age that it is very easy to go straight to production, straight ratings and things like that. we do have to be careful. but at core, this committee will be to a set of recommendations. those recommendations about what should be done as regards the central prosecution, as regards to legislative action, that is what legal matter. in a sense, that is where your legitimacy comes, if the recommendations are sound and make a lot of sense, and if there is action on them, as difficult as it is, this committee will have done service. at the end of the day, my sense is that it will come to that.

host: i want to actually bring you back into this as well. do you think that other committees will see the production that was done by the january 6 committee and will adopt it for future hearings in congress? guest: i don't think it is going to become routine necessarily because most hearings are not going to be watched by a very large number of people, but i think anytime they are expecting hearings to be televised and they are really trying to move the needle of public opinion, this is going to be a model that people are going to look at in the future. obviously, any time you are trying to put together a real story rather than simply give each member of the committee 5-15 minutes to ask whatever questions they want their constituents to see them asking, it is better to do it in a way that this committee did. i think this is going to be a precedent that is going to be followed, but i don't know that that was going to be the standard way congressional committees do business going

forward. host: let me remind our viewers at this point that they can take part in this conversation. regular lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter, and on facebook. gentlemen, i want to show you a few seconds of what representative liz cheney said in her message to republicans who defend former president trump's actions on january 6 from thursday's hearing and i want you to react here is liz cheney. >> an act country, we don't swear to an individual or political party.

we take our oats to defend the united states constitution, and that must mean something. tonight, i say this to my republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: there will come a day when donald trump is gone. that your dishonorable remain. host: i want you to react to that. guest: is interesting in the context that liz cheney is facing a primary challenge over holding these views and over her sort of rebellion against former president donald trump and unless the polling is wrong and unless our impressions from visiting wyoming are wrong, she is very likely to lose by a pretty big margin. this is going to become a pretty significant part of her legacy. she's clearly going to be somebody who goes out and finds herself as having taken the correct viewpoint, interview, that this is a defining moment for the republican party.

republican primary electorate may not, in her mind, get it right this upcoming election, but it is going to be something republicans have to consider going forward. there is going to be a question to republicans, even if they are not persuaded by the committee and the narrative of liz cheney, that they are going to have to think about for 2024. is this really what we want to be talking about in 2024? obviously there are a lot of other things that are going to be on the ballot and that republicans are going to want to say about the biden administration, the state of the country right now. do we want to be litigating in 2020 at a point when 2024 doesn't really come at the moment, look like too bad conditions for the gop? you have the former president running against mike pence in the republican primaries. there's going to be a lot of 2020 talk. if you are a republican, do you

want that, or do you want something much more forward-looking? host: john, your thoughts? guest: i'm going to attest that mike pence is not going to be a successful candidate the republican nomination in 2024. the fact of the matter is that i think most of what jim just said is exactly right. in a way, what liz cheney was saying was not a message to obviously the hard-core trump allies, the hard-core trump apologists, of which there are a lot, many of them running this year. here is one thing to understand about the cheneys: that is a family of hyper ambitious politicians. i think her message was exactly what jim was suggesting. if the republicans keep making

the defense of trump such a central aspect of who they are, in defense of this absolute lie about the 2020 election, central to who they are, that is going to ultimately damage them. sometimes republican friends will say focusing so much on trump at this white when there is inflation and everything else, back at damage democrats. similarly, focusing on 20 damages republicans. liz cheney is trying to break them out about most. the bottom line in reality is that it will not have an immediate impact. what we have seen in the primaries so far is that donald trump's worst candidates have done very, very well. they didn't do so well in georgia against entrenched incumbents, but the bottom line is places like pennsylvania and other states across the country, people donald trump has endorsed have done very, very well that is an indicator that donald trump does remain the dominant gear within the republican party.

it would be fascinating if these hearings have the impact of causing a substantial portion of republicans -- maybe not a majority, but a substantial amount to start to really think about trump, and if so, that could mean that one of the bigger impacts of the committee hearings could be a slight transformation of the republican party that creates a situation where it may be more viable, but it won't be viable with mike pence. frankly, it will be viable with liz cheney who sometimes sounds like a presidential candidate. what you would see would be the rise of someone who is modestly sympathetic to trump but just doesn't want to talk about it in 2020. host: let's get some of our viewers into this conversation. we start with john who is going from east hampton, massachusetts on the republican line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call, i have just a

few russians. i just saw that fuentes from arizona just pled guilty to voter fraud and ballot stuffing, she was caught stuffing thousand ballots in there and there is video of it and i'm wondering why they are not going to nancy pelosi about the security on january 4. everyone keeps lying and saying that donald trump didn't authorize the national guard. he authorized the national guard on january 4. on january 6 they had already denied it. they denied it, nancy pelosi and the democrats. quit saying that it was trump that didn't authorize it, that is a big lie. i don't like you saying that. host: i think there were a couple of questions in there somewhere, so i will let you pick and choose which one you want to start with. >> i struggle with that question. i respect the caller, but the

fact of the matter is that donald trump, the commander-in-chief of the united states of america, the commander-in-chief have the ability to defend the homeland from threats that are external and internal. he has every ability as president of the united states on january 6 to take the actions that he needed to do as commander-in-chief of the united states and has someone who has sworn a note to protect this country and its constitution. he failed to do that and he failed miserably to do that. in fact, he went to a rally and told people to fight like hell to try to overturn the election results that he lost. those are the bottom line facts, and that is not going to be changed by any amount of spin or so-called questions. the fact of the matter is we know the answers. people can have different reactions that, they can have different reactions to january

6, the severity of them. but the bottom line is that donald trump as commander-in-chief, he had a responsibility certainly to protect the capitol of the united states and he failed to move with the deliberate and certain force that it commander-in-chief would be expected to utilize in that sort of situation. host: anything to add to this? guest: i do think there are legitimate inquiries into whether the security was inappropriate and i think it clearly was. if there had been a stronger response to the riots earlier on, a lot of the injuries and deaths could have been avoided. what happened to ashli babbitt clearly would not have happened if that officer have had appropriate backup and wasn't defending a group of lawmakers against a mob all by himself, he would not have had to have responded with the same level of

force. clearly, there are questions about why were people not better prepared? there were a lot of election- related protests that didn't really get that far out of control, so you essentially had some proud boys and nt for members punching each other in the face, but it didn't really spiral out of control in the way that january 6 did. maybe the people planning security for that day didn't think it was going to be a much larger event then some of the prior demonstrations and rallies of that nature, but clearly those decisions, at least with the benefit of hindsight, were not right. once the police did respond with appropriate force, they were able to clear the crowd fairly quickly. in terms of the national guard, i think one of the few things that at least factually was new

as opposed to maybe better presented with the committee did have some information about the degree to which mike pence had to take the lead on getting the national guard involved to a degree that president trump at the commander-in-chief at that time maybe wasn't involved. there had to name ambiguity about that. if they can highlight some of that information, that would be an important factual development in the case. host: let's talk to james was calling from collins, mississippi on the independent line. caller: good morning to you. sirs, i would like to ask you all a question and then i have a statement. have you all ever watched ...uh...the nixon debacle? when nixon was involved in the same thing, matter fact, i

watched the whole thing, and there is a lot of similarity to that because it wasn't just nixon as the culprit. it was also some politicians. it was people who were close to him. you've got people close to president trump, you've got politicians spreading lies. you saw it on fox news. i watched fox news, i had both channels on fox news and on another channel. they did not let one of those people speak, they just showed pictures. they didn't show the pictures of the violence that was going on, they just showed the pictures of the walking and being nice and. not only that, you had attorney general barr, you had his daughter, you have his son-in-law. you had other people coming as republicans saying that this was what it was. and now they try to think because they have a movie

producer, all these things only spell one thing. it is not president trump alone, it is these politicians trying to be elected. i know that they don't want to say do you remember when president biden became president? and he said build back better? they did not get go back better money. we have a democrat who said that was too much money, it was too much. now they are trying to play this debacle, blame it on biden. guest: i appreciate the viewer closely watching the different sort of reactions to this hearing. yes, at some fundamental level, what the question gets too is a really important aspect of the hearing. thompson got to that point.

he said that donald trump was that donald trump was at the head of a conspiracy to overturn the result of the 2020 election, and to install donald trump as an illegitimate president for an additional four years. that is a really critical aspect of what we are talking about here because yes, if donald trump had done that on his own, no, he could not. there were people who were supportive of his big live. the question becomes how much communication did donald trump have with people who were close to him, another level as regard to what happened on january 6? that is where you really get to that question of the conspiracy. obviously, bennie thompson would point to that, liz cheney to some extent, but that was not a

central aspect of what you saw on the first night of the series. that is something that the committee has to bring out. they have to make those connections in a much deeper way. and frankly, if they do, and i'm not sure that they will have that much trouble, but if they do make those connections, if there is real clarity that donald trump was from the very early stage seeking to manipulate the process in a way that assured that he would remain in the presidency despite the fact that the american people had voted to remove him, if that is the case, and certainly to my view it is, then we are talking about a classic attempt by someone to derail that american democracy, that american government. and the more clarity that is brought to that question, the more clarity be get in that regard, the more that as the more that as a country, we have

to think about this process of transitioning, which the is a sacred process. and what steps do we make now to assure that we don't go through the same crisis on january 6, 2025? guest: in my view, liz cheney talked about a sophisticated seven point land to prevent donald trump from remaining in office. i don't think the adjective sophisticated really applies. now, i don't think they were very many people in the white house that endorsed the views that you can simply set aside the electoral votes within the states that were narrowly won by joe biden on the basis of various claims and perceive an alternate group of electors, but there was one very important person in the white house who held that you, and that was donald trump. the question for me isn't so

much whether there was a particularly serious effort on january 6, the question for me, if donald trump has returned to the white house, i think he now has a better understanding that you have to have a lot of people seated in positions of government who agree with you, not like in the trump organization where you are just the boss and you can put in whoever you want. having subordinate to actually share your government matters quite a lot, and i don't think trump understood that when he was elected, but i think he understands it now. do you have a lot more of a john eastman type, who is the white house counsel on january 6? that makes a very big difference. and a lot of the people who were advising trump who were inside the white house as opposed to outside activists and agitators

were telling constitutionally, you just can't do this. we may even agree with you about some of the irregularities and so forth, we may even credit some of your election claims or we may tell you that you do so you don't get angry at us, but we can't do this constitutionally. i mean, trump isn't the first person in the 21st century to lose an election because he believes that they wanted, -- won it, but he certainly pushed it further and had supporters who are willing to push it further than anybody ever has in our history host: steve scalise reacted to the hearing on fox news. i want you to hear what he said, and i want to hear if you agree with that. here is steve scalise. >> we all know what happened. whatever her reason was, i think most americans are just sick and tired of the polarization that

you are seeing by the democrats to try to change the subject. they know what the american people are angry about. american people are angry about what joe biden, nancy pelosi and their socialist agenda have done to people, and they wish congress was addressing those things, not this hollywood production, not the attempt to take away your guns. over and over again, they think they can blame food and, they can blame every else. the american people are smarter than that. they have figured out who is the cause of the pain our families are suffering and they want a change of direction. what is coming in november is something they are scared to death of because the only want power. they still want to shut down cities, they still want to defund the police. they still want to do that thing of the american people are tired of and the american people are going to have the final say on november 8. host: is steve scalise right? are their minds made up? are they ready to talk about other things?

guest: i do think that these other issues are going to be a much larger priority in the midterm election. republican voters are married but -- very motivated to turn out. independents have swung very hard against this administration and congress, and i think rank-and-file democratic voters are kind of demoralized. the democrats are perceived to have unified control of the election branches and the federal government. really, that control is fairly nominal because the majorities are so narrow and in the senate, they are so reliant on the most conservative members of their caucus to get anything done. for a lot of democrats, these majorities haven't accomplished very much. for a lot of republicans and independents, the things they have been able to do or not to their satisfaction. midterm elections, historically speaking, have not been very good for the party that holds the white house, particularly

the first midterm election. is variable data that suggest this one is going to be any different. does that mean you don't talk about january 6 at all? i don't know that it does. but in terms of how much january 6 and how much we are litigating donald trump, it is understandable that that would be a big part of the counterargument i just don't think that this year is going to work. maybe 2024 will be different. it will be in little harder to avoid some of these questions that donald trump is again on the ballot, or somebody was positioning themselves higher than donald trump, but if you look at some other recent races, is hard to see that it will take ground and some of the midterm elections. host: john? guest: i was shocked listening to steve scalise to learn that there may be politicization of

something going on on capitol hill. obviously, as politics all around. there's politics around this committee, rn people who criticize this committee. at the core, we should look at the evidence that it brings out, and the recommendations that it makes. putting the committee in that context, that makes the question of how will it resonates in an election year? to be very broad, i think the committee average on thursday night were certainly not held by the news on friday morning that inflation was continuing to rise. the fact of the matter is that people have a lot of information coming to them, but that information about their own lives becoming more difficult economically is something that people have to be conscious of. you end up in the situation very

much like 1974 with watergate, and if you will recall, in 1974 with watergate, you have everything with nixon, but you also have all sorts of economic challenges including inflation and a host of other issues that were in play. from a political standpoint, with the democrats have to recognize is going to the heart of the matter as we get to january 6 is a big deal. the fact is looking at just the core recommendations of the committee, that matters because in this country, there was an attempted coup. you need to identify the players, you need to take action to be sure that that doesn't happen again. at the same time, if democrats don't come up with a much better explanation for how they are going deal with laois and in many other issues, particularly inflation, if they don't come up a better reclamation for that, they are going to be a difficult

place, no question. congressional leadership. they can and should focus on january 6, but if they exclusively or overwhelmingly -- and a host of other issues, they are not going to be speaking as well as they must in the midterm election year to the great mass of americans. host: a couple more calls, we will start with kathleen: from chicago, illinois. democratic line. kathleen, good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. if the democrats don't come up with a better plan, you know, we have a two-party system.

the democrats, nancy pelosi, all kind of bills to help the american people. but when they come to the senate, nothing, nothing. joe biden is 50-50. he's got two democrats and republicans stopping him on both sides, but my thing is why is it that republicans can just walk in like it is nothing? why would you want to sit here and let them do that? what do you think they are going to do when they get into power? host: go ahead and respond, john. guest: the democratic -- the

color should be put in charge of democratic messaging, and i will tell you why. the back of the matter, they went right to the heart of the matter. if there a harry truman sort of way, if you recall. in 1948, harry truman visited very difficult situation. he was still president of the united states. he clarified that the reason he is president and has been able to accomplish the things he was is because what he called the do-nothing congress. in this case, i do think that what the caller says is exactly right. you have a situation in the senate where two democratic senators have prevented democrats really delivering on a host of major issues, but it does going little deeper than that in one area, and that is that there needs to be accountability. we talk about accountability with january 6. there needs to be a lot of accountability.

we need to figure out what the truth of the different problems are, and to talk about that. i think the democrats do need to do more. certainly, some of that relates to how republicans have obstructed angst, but a bigger part of it also relates to the fact that we have inflation, we don't have price gouging, we have corporation 13 full advantage of the situation and seeking to enrich themselves at a time they already have record profits. that is the sort of thing that roosevelt, truman made very effective throughout history. the question of whether the democrats in this time will do so. if they do, they may be able to move the needle. if they don't, then they do run the risk of all his obstruction, of getting the blame in a situation where they have power. they should have power. but they are not able to

exercise it. host: jim? guest: i think an interesting historical question, would biden have been better off if republicans had won the runoffs in georgia? that would have allowed him to be one of two things. he could have either governed anymore bipartisan fashion because he would have had to, because republicans have still controlled the senate, or he could have much more cleanly and clearly blame republicans for his inability to get things done because republicans control the senate. there was a contradiction in biden's campaign argument, and at the root, it was because there were two different groups of people who need to motivate to go after the polls.

he would be able to solve problems that other people were not able to solve. that motivated a lot of suburban voters who historically voted republican, who were unhelpful with donald trump and needed some kind of cooperation from a democrat. that became very key to him in a number of battleground states that elected him president. but at the same time, he needed to motivate a lot of bernie sanders voters who were not necessarily enamored with him, who had stayed home or even voted for trump in the 2016 race against hillary and. he needed to motivate those people, so he simultaneously argue bipartisan dealmaker and he would be the most progressive president since fdr. very difficult to keep both of those promises at the same time. he was going to have to break one of them. looks like he has broken both of them. host: i want to ask both of you with the high inflation, high gas prices, seemingly

demoralized democrats, what can by them do to change things around? guest: i think it is very difficult. if the democrats had been able to do more and spend more, inflation would be even worse right now. but obviously, president biden has to make some kind of argument. i think that they've been trying this month to show that they consider inflation a priority. the problem is they don't really have any action items that they are able to pass that seemed to be sort of responsive the problem. there may be something that he can do through executive authority on my chain issues that might alleviate some of these problems. i think the first step is to be seen as somebody who cares about this issue and i think that is what they are trying to do, but that can only get you so far. inflation is the real thing that people can see and feel. host: john, what can president

biden do to turn things around in the midterm election? guest: there isn't a lot. the president of the united states, you are able to document issues and communicate in a big way. i think that president biden has often said that he has great regard for franklin roosevelt. he posted a picture of franklin roosevelt in the oval office when he came in. the president needs to really imbibe from fdr. one of the things that fdr was good at, he had a lot of power, he had control of congress, he was able to actually do things. famously, fdr said i welcome their hatred. whose hatred was he welcoming? he was welcoming the hatred of bankers, ceos of the investment class, if you will, in the midst of the great depression. that was a very, very message.

he actually did really, really well. i don't say that biden can do the same, i'm not suggesting that biden the same timing with the seams of circumstances, but that core message of identifying who you are concerned about, identifying where you believe the problem is becomes go. the democrats, not just five, but all the democrats have to talk a lot more about not just inflation, but price gouging. they have to talk about profiteering. they have to move in that area. ideally, at the very core level, what they need to do is talk about it and make real decisions and effective way is that the american people here. not nearly that they can see the problem and identify it, not merely to say that they care, but also to say that they are

angry about this and that is appropriate to be angry at specific corporations, at specific billionaires flying into space at a time when other people are trying to pay for gas. you can talk about that and you can be very effective. frankly, i think that is something that joe biden should be doing, and one final thing i will say is the biden administration has tried to cover a lot of ground moving on a lot of issues. so when they raise a concern, when they come up with something to talk about effectively, often the next day they move on to something else. if the democrats are going to be effective, going into this fall, they've got to be much more laser focused on some of these economic issues, particularly inflation, and on accountability. points and blame at those who

created the crisis and are now trying to pawn off blame to the democrats. if they do that, i think they can move the needle to some extent. we will see how far, but the fact of the matter if they do have to become much more focused. host: we would like to thank john and james for being here for our roundtable today. gentlemen, thank you so much. guest: it was an honor to be with you both. host: next, jerry butler, the ceo of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america will be here to talk about the effects of vern pitts and other toxic exposure and with the federal government could soon be doing about it. but first, we are going to move to our open phones, where you can call in and talk about your most interested political topics of the day. you see the numbers on screen. start calling in, we will get your calls in just one second.

we will be right back. announcer: tonight on q&a, a look at recent advancements in space exploration in the image of the sagittarius star, a supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way. >> we are in orbit around that blackhole as surely as the sun. it is something very moving to see, but also have the entire globe comes together to look at this image. >> and geochemistry professor jessica whiteside on the progress made by nasa's severe into rover in the search for life on mars. >> there are very important

implications if we do find life on mars, because if light is the same age on both planets, there are implications that possibly all life on earth actually name from mars. that is, earthlings are actually martians. and vice versa. announcer: you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the re-c-span now and >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from arabia stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here were here or here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span.

powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: we are back for our open phones segment. this is when you can call in and talk about your most political topic of the day. we are going to open up the regular lines. that means republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading social media on twitter @c-spanwj and facebook.com/c-span. let's start with don calling from louisiana on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning.

we just want to know, what is the importance of this inflation when you talk about who has it really affected? is it affecting those very wealthy millionaires of that nature? i'm sure it has, it is next some more profoundly than others. i want to know with the baby boomers, if you will, the wealthiest class of people, if there is such a thing as class, what happens to their wealth? do they pass it on, do they go there to philanthropy? and why aren't our philanthropic industries, institutions out

front with the issue of inflation? because we know that the insight on philanthropy and volunteerism , over 70 million americans volunteer at least 20 hours a year. and we know that with the hours of volunteers, they estimated to be something like almost $26 an hour. how had our philanthropic institutions, how have they handled inflation in that regard? we are talking about inflation as though it is the bogeyman, but we have ways to offset inflation and save money through senior discounts, coupons, and millenials are leading, using more online coupons, and that helps the manufacturers and producers because it allows them to gather data.

host: tuscaloosa, alabama on the democratic line. caller: yes, i have a concern here, and i was listening to the previous guest on the program trying to call in, but my concern is first of all, i would like to say this is not a republican party anymore, it is a putin party. and the other thing i would like to say is the american people, the all-white nation, there are people of color. where do they fit into this narrative?

a color which has affected black people in this nation, people of color forever. mcconnell is still start on obama and using his power to overthrow biden's path to get anything done for all people, and i don't understand it. host: this go to teresa calling from florida on the republican line. teresa, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for the segment. at least we had a good idea from both sides of the issue on january 6. the committee made one big mistake when they didn't have any opposition. if you want a fair hearing, you must have both sides. they eliminated that right off the bat.

they needed both sides. and i think it would have been really helpful for all americans, even those that are confused, the whole think is confusing. the media keeps saying we are losing our democracy. we are a representative republic. we are not losing our democracy over ragtag rioters january 6. that never should've happened. i have lived in d.c. my whole life. the capitol has been attacked before and we are still standing and we will continue to stand. the republican party and the democratic party need to communicate, compromise, and work together on many, many issues. host: let's talk to circe calling from st. petersburg, florida on the independent line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few questions. how different will public opinion be if barack obama had called on black americans to call on the u.s. capitol to "fight like hell." do you think like-minded media like fox news would have supported that? that is all i have. thank you. host: ronald calling from gretna, louisiana on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: two things. anybody can see there was an attack against the capitol.

anybody. you can see that, anybody could see that. that should never have happened. i know we got issues with inflation, i know we got issues we need to be dealing with, but it is the 1% causing the problem. but the 99% are feeling the effects of the 1%. the 99% have created none of this. the people in power have created all these issues we have. until they get it right, we are going to have issues. make no mistake, you could see there was an insurrection at the capitol that should not have been. if anybody say anything about the hearing, please look. thank you. host: for the washington post has a story out of idaho where

police say they may have stopped what could have been a major event, a major riot, happening near an lgbtq event. i will bring the story to you this morning. police and idaho arrested 31 people who have face coverings, white supremacist insignia, shields, and an operation plan to riot near an lgbtq pride event saturday afternoon. they were affiliated with patriot front, a white supremacist group whose founder was among those arrested. authorities received a tip of a little army loading into a u-haul at a hotel saturday afternoon, said the police chief in idaho. the city of 50,000 sitting on the border of washington, they pulled over the truck 10 minutes later. many of those arrested were wearing logos representing patriot front, which rebranded

after one of its members plowed his car into a crowd of people protesting a white supremacist rally in charlottesville in 2017, injuring dozens. this coming out of the washington post where at least 31 people have been arrested who officials say were part of a possible plan for a riot in idaho. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to ray calling from delaware on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. thank you for having me on. i wish they worked this fast when they were doing the riots out west. my main question is, to see both sides of this issue going on with january 6, they have got to release everything. they are picking and releasing parts of it. until we get the whole story, we don't know. the other part is, you have got

to look at both sides. you are looking at the january 6 thing. i suggest every viewer look at the other side. watch 2000 mules and then make up your mind. host: john calling from connolly springs, north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: biden said they got 81 million votes? obama did not get close to that. when they were together, he was standing behind him. people did not pay attention to biden. my wife and sister got seven ballots. they were handing them out like candy. that is the reason he got 81 million votes. i voted once. host: let's go to sharon calling

from minnesota on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. boy, that stuff in idaho is awful. it shows you how crazy this country is and the insurrection and all that stuff. i mean, honestly, we are talking about a bunch of so-called adults playing dress-up and behaving badly and committing violent crimes. that is what we saw, we all saw with our own eyes. i don't understand how anybody -- and we have had lots of callers this morning. a lady called and said there is so much confusion. there is no confusion. open your eyes, watch the videos, and you will see the facts. for heaven's sake, grow up, people. thank you. host: angela calling from

washington, d.c. on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i wanted to clarify something said in the first segment. mayor bowser and speaker pelosi are not responsible for calling of the national guard in washington. they don't have the authority. it is the secretary of the army who works out of the pentagon in this state and the territory. that governors have the authority, but the mayor has no authority. frankly, mayor bowser and speaker pelosi are only being blamed because they are women and these people feel women are supposed to follow, not lead. i am disappointed that was all the good information we get on c-span that other networks people are still trying to say that january 6 was not an insurrection. it was and it was wrong. a federal building is only one

and what happened should not have happened. host: floyd calling from jonesville, virginia on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you, jesse. i would like to say -- i have a couple of issues -- but the first thing, i wonder why the democrats will not answer the question why were these people who swore to tell the truth took up lying on tv? the other thing is on nbc the other day they was questioning these vehicles flying real fast through the air. they have no idea how they get that speed. but they are god's vehicles.

you will be able to find out they are god's vehicles. host: betty is calling from waukegan, illinois on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i am 83 years old. born and raised in greenville, south carolina. what i really want to say -- we had to listen to donald trump. we would not be in this predicament today. her niece explained about her -- his niece explained about her uncle thoroughly. they talk about abortion. if i could have kids, i would not want to bring them into a world the way it is today. thank you for listening to me. have a good day. host: charles calling from florence, oregon on the

independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. as far as the january 6, we will have to wait and see but it is pretty compelling. mr. nichols brought up the magic word for me which is "ego." i would add "fevered ego" and we know where it starts. there are a lot of troubled people that were down there in the riots. that woman was killed. interesting that it was a woman. she was very troubled. anyway, the video shows it for what it is. but the biggest thing right now for me is gun legislation. no matter what they are proposing or not going to do, it is not enough. the magic word is "financial

responsibility" for any consumer of firearms. host: carl calling from jacksonville, florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: i want to say a few points. the fellow a few calls back echoed what i was going to say about january 6. until they have a fair hearing with both sides and witnesses and questions from the opposition, it is just a show thing. i would like to know what happened on the hearings of the summer of love. there was a lot more destruction during that time. host: what are you calling the summer of love? caller: we had all the riots after the george floyd killing. the total chaos that was allowed to just sweep the country. host: let's go to john calling from cincinnati, ohio on the

democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say real quick there is really no more communicating to the republicans, especially the ones calling talking about they need to show both sides. you have had your head in the sand for over a year. there is really no more talking to them. about these white supremacists in the u-haul, if you watch the whole video, it is just sad how there was not a gun drawn when they opened that door of the u-haul. it would have been such a different thing if they were not white. it is just sad. just sad. i am a veteran and if these people had an ounce of patriotism, they would put it toward better use. if they were not cowards. that is all i have. host: jeff calling from indiana

on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two things real quick. first of all, we can safely look back five or six months before the last presidential election and donald trump was telling people then if he lost, you know, it would be a big cheat and would not -- that there would be corruption. that is two years that that con man has wasted everybody's political efforts on a big lie. two years that con man wasted everybody's time and effort. one other thing real quick. i appreciate your show, love your show, i just wish when you

have guests on if you could time their answers to be a little shorter so you could get more people on. i think that might help everybody. love your show. thank you for having me on. host: kathleen calling from saint augustine, florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am still confused about calling the national guard. it is my understanding that while the president can authorize it, it must be the head of that state or community that actually does the ordering of that group. so the president, the way i understand it, cannot directly order the national guard of the state. he can only order federal troops. host: we know for a fact the president is the commander in chief and in charge of all of

the national military forces. he can actually give orders to all of them. caller: that is true, but when we had riots been states in previous times, the president was told he could not order troops into that state. that the order had to come from the head of that state. host: i think the difference is between the national guard and the state guard for those states. if they are part of the national military, the president is the commander-in-chief. if they are part of the state military, the governor is in charge. caller: then what was the point of authorizing them if they were not dispatched? host: good question. we would like to thank all of our callers who have called in for our open forum. coming up, we will be joined by jeremy butler, ceo of iraq and

afghanistan veterans of america. people talk about the effects of burn pits and other toxic exposures on veterans' health and what the federal government could be doing about it. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive a schedule of programs, discussions, festivals and more. book tv every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at booktv.org, television, or serious readers. ♪ ♪ announcer: at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson.

you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, 1964 presidential campaign, gulf of tonkin incident, march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many conversations. in fact, they were the ones who make sure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. announcer: and blunt talk. >> yes, sir? >> i want the number of people who signed to kennedy the day he died, the number to me now, and of mine are not less, i want them less right quick. >> yes, sir. >> if i cannot ever go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will stay right behind his black gaetz. announcer: presidential recordings, find it on c-span's mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jeremy butler, ceo of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. he is here to talk with us about veterans' health care and the effects of burn pits. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: thank you for being here. first, remind our viewers what your organization does. guest: the thing we are most known for is our advocacy in washington, d c we represent post-9/11 veterans. there are many issues that overlap through generations and we will talk about that when we talk health care. we fight in washington, d.c. in congress, the v.a., department of defense to make sure our veterans are represented at they are getting what they need. that is our number one effort. we also try to do things like this, talking nationally.

so that not just department of defense or service members, but everyone in the u.s. understand what veterans are dealing with and how they can help. finally, we have a direct support program to work with veterans to support them in anything they need. it is called the quick reaction force available 24/7, 365 days a week. they can go to our website to get more information. host: how many members do you have? guest: about 425,000 but the reality is it is more. our reach on social media, through programs like this, you do not have to be a member of iava but anybody can be a member. we are here to represent all veterans of all eras, but civilians can be members. we are going to keep you informed and for those veterans and service members, they can get involved directly with the work we do on capitol hill. they can make their voices heard

through our surveys. they have an extra level of ability to really move the needle on veteran issues throughout this country. but i encourage everyone to go to iava.org. we will let you know how you can help. host: for our viewers, explain who sergeant first class keith robinson was. guest: glad you asked. sometimes it gets lost. he is the face of this legislation we are fighting for. we will talk about that in a second, but sergeant first class keith robinson was an ohio national guard member. he did a deployment to afghanistan, 13 months long, he was two times the army national guard and ceo of the year. outstanding citizen soldier. he was serving his country in a civilian role and servicemember. he did a 13 month deployment to

afghanistan, at least three of those were placing him within yards of a burn pit burning around the clock. not only was he living, eating, exercising, but for several months within feet of one of these burn pits and all the smoke that came from that. he was an incredible person. he came home from deployment, had plans to try out for special forces, but shortly thereafter found he was unable to recover from training runs. sadly, he diagnosed with an incredibly rare form of cancer. i am not going to try to repeat the name because it is really long and it took doctors a long time to pinpoint because it was rare. and because it was rare, they did not know how to treat it. sadly, he passed away from that lung cancer, leaving behind a

wife and now a nine-year-old daughter. if you watch the president's's state of the union, you can see his wife danielle robinson as a guest. if you watched our press conference we did last week on the capitol before the honoring the pact act, you can see his mother and daughter. they have been advocates for this legislation. host: for our viewers who may not know, what is a burn pit? guest: it has been around for decades. it is not new but what is new is the size and duration of things that were burned. there were massive holes dug in the ground and you jumped jumped everything that the military and contactors -- dumped everything that the military and contractors did not

want. they were covered with jet fuel and lit on fire. year after year, day after day they were burned around-the-clock. some of the largest were 125 tons of trash a day that were dumped and burned. this is a practice that has been banned in the united states for decades. but they were used year after year, decade after decade in iraq and afghanistan of getting rid of the trash. not surprisingly, we are seeing the health effects. they were evident from the time they started, but now so many years later we are seeing it in people like keith robinson and people coming down with rare illnesses and cancers and dying. unfortunately, the v.a. denied there is connection. 70% to 80% of veterans who come home and file for burn pit related problems the v.a. says,

you are not making a good enough connection. that is unacceptable and that is what we are fighting to change with this legislation. host: how prevalent are these toxic exposures among members? guest: they are basically everywhere. if you deployed to iraq and afghanistan, you could not avoid a burn pit. you landed on one of these major bases. even if you were further deployed, one, you probably had a smaller burn pit at your deployment, but no matter what you were spending some amount of time on these large installations were massive burn pit were used. this was in testimony by a v.a. official who's asked that question prayed her response was basically everybody, everybody who deployed to iraq and afghanistan. it was not limited to there but everybody was exposed. the question is how much exposure?

what was being burned at the time? how much exposure they had and whether or not their body was able to process it or, like too many, you come down with illnesses and are dying. host: we heard what happened to heath robinson. when other ailments are be hearing from people that were exposed? guest: president biden believes that his son beau, his brain cancer was a result of his deployment to iraq. and you have so many others. you have dr. kate hendrix thomas who was an incredible officer. she fought to her dying day because of breast cancer that spread throughout her body and she died from those. she deployed as well. sergeant first class -- sorry, sergeant wesley black, vermont national guard. deployed to afghanistan and

iraq. came home and died of cancer as well. again, was fighting and advocating on this issue up until the day he died. left behind a wife and child. there are numerous cases in so many veterans that are fighting to get health care so they do not succumb to injuries. the v.a. needs to give them the health care they deserve. the numbers are growing. many came home immediately from their deployment with burn pit related health conditions. but we are seeing the affects of them really escalate as time goes on and conditions deteriorate and more of these cancers are allowed to spread. in the legislation we are talking about, there is 23 illnesses, cancers, respiratory illnesses, etc., that are covered. if you come down with one of these and you deployed to one of these countries, the v.a. is going to give you health care, disability, and we are also going to continue to identify of

the diseases correlated to burn pit exposure to make sure those are covered in the future. host: let me take two seconds to remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we are going to open regional lines. that means if you are in the eastern or central time zones, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number is going to be (202)-748-8001. and we are going to open a special line for iraq and afghanistan veterans. iraq and afghanistan veterans, you have a special line where you can call that is (202)-748-8002. remember, if you are in the eastern or central time zones, (202)-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202)-748-8001.

iraq and afghanistan veterans, (202)-748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text at (202)-748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/c-span. jeremy, talk about the challenges that veterans are seeing trying to get someone to treat them or diagnose them from these burn pit exposures. are we seeing this both in the private medical community and at the v.a.? or is it just at the v.a.? guest: it is everywhere because, you have to remember, how convoluted these were. depending on where you were at the time you were there it could have been different things being burned. the department of defense has no record of all that was dumped

into these pits because there was no policy. everything was dumped. who knows what was dumped? who knows how much time you spent around it? depending on the wind you may have had more or less exposure. veterans are coming home and, in some cases, it has been several years. they might come down with symptoms that take them to the doctor, especially to private care, and they are not making the connection this could be connected to their time in uniform. certainly, as i explained at the top of the program, civilian providers have zero idea what a burn pit was. it takes the veterans making the connection to service, discussing that with their doctor, and then the doctor getting some sense of the breadth and depth of things that were burned, how illegal this is, and the results. what we have seen on the v.a. side is clear. 70% to 80%, even when a v.a. official knows what a burn pit

is, they are demanding the veteran make that connection between their burn pit exposure and whatever illness or symptoms they are coming down with now and say, hey, show me the line of evidence that shows because of your exposure to those burn pits this is why you have come down with this. 70% to 80% of the time they say, we don't believe there is a connection, but good luck and get that taken care of. this is a widespread problem. a lot of people don't realize just because you served does not mean you get v.a. health care. that is a myth that is pretty common and that is why this legislation is so important. not only would it remove the burden of proof from the veteran to make that connection between their burn pit exposure whatever illness there coming down with, but it would also add another five years on so that every transitioning servicemember when they become a veteran, they would be eligible for 10 years of v.a. health care, regardless if they have service-connected

disability. they would get into the v.a. system, get any issues they are having documented by the v.a., they could learn about the things they are coming down with in the types of conditions other veterans are suffering from, and we can begin to collect more information about what burn pit exposure does to a servicemember. this legislation is huge. all it is doing is asking, if not telling, the government to keep the promise they made when all the servicemembers raised their right hand and were promised if you are injured, if you are sick because of your time in service, we are going to take care of you. the government has backed out of that promise and maybe it is too expensive. maybe we do not want to deal with the hassle and that is why this is important. it would be the sweeping change to bring and fulfill the promise the government made to so many servicemembers 20 years of war over. host: this is going to come up in the senate which is said to

pass this next week. it is called the honoring our promise to address comprehensive topic act, honoring our pact act. it would expand v.a. health care eligibility to noncombat veterans, ads 23 burn pit and toxic exposure conditions to v.a.'s lists of service presumptions, it expands presumptions related to agent orange exposure, it strengthens federal research on toxic exposure, improves the v.a.'s resources and training for toxic exposed veterans, and sets aside additional money to bolster v.a. claims processing and v.a. health care facilities. much of that is pretty much self-explanatory, but explain what presumption of services is. guest: glad you asked. basically what it says is if you

served in one of these countries, iraq and afghanistan being two of the list but also includes syria, yemen, kuwait, and it goes back to before the post 9/11 era. if you served during these time periods and you come down with one of these 23 medical conditions, we will presume that you got that medical condition because of your time in service. therefore, you are eligible for v.a. health care and disability benefits. it removes the burden of proof from the veteran for proving their illness was a result of service. it presumes the eldest was because of service. that is an incredible change and something long-overdue. glad you put that list up. you saw agent orange listed. this is how far back the government deniability comes from. we know about agent orange's used during the vietnam war and have veterans had to fight for so long to get the government to recognize that. this legislation would continue to bring overdue benefits to

vietnam veterans who served in the surrounding countries that were still exposed. we are still catching up with the vietnam war and the unkept promises the government made to veterans. in addition to what you listed, something else this legislation would fix is the fact that the u.s. government poisoned many of its own service and family members at camp lejeune in north carolina for years. this will finally rectify that situation and bring much-needed relief and benefits to those veterans. this legislation is huge. to add more point, it will be voted on hopefully next week. to get into the walkie weeds, there was a vote to end debate on this last week. it passed by a huge majority. 86 voted in favor but 12 senators voted against this bill, which included three senators who serve on the veterans affairs committees, two

senators who are veterans themselves, one is still serving in the reserves, and a doctor. three of the people that voted against should be the most knowledgeable dow important and overdue this legislation is. want to encourage everyone who is listening to call your senators and ask them to vote yes on the pact act. even the 12 that voted against can turn around and vote yes. we need everyone to call their senators and tell them to vote yes. this should be 100-0 vote. this is keeping the promise the government made to its service members that they would take care of them, but for too long they have been turning their back. and these 12 senators decided we should keep our back turned to our veterans who are sick because of their service. it is unconscionable and shocking really. host: does this need to go back to the house? or does it go to the president after and when the senate

passes? guest: it will go back to the house. the house voted on a version of this several weeks ago. it passed with large bipartisan majority. it should have had more. it should have been another unanimous vote, but unfortunately it wasn't. when it got to the senate, the senate improved it. senator jerry moran, ranking member on the v.a. committee, and senator jon tester actually improved the bill they got from the house. it is going to have to go back to the house but we think this is a good thing, because it is a stronger bill. that is what we want to see. a unanimous yes by the senate so it can go to the house and they can do the right thing. the president has already said he will sign this. the secretary of the v.a. says they want it. they understand how necessary this is for them to properly support our veterans. it actually provides additional resources for the v.a. so they are able to handle and take care

of the increased number of veterans turning to the v.a. for health care because of this. it is really a win-win across-the-board for everyone. again, i do not mean to keep hinging on this, but it is shocking to any member of congress who almost guaranteed when they were running for election or reelection talked about how they love our veterans, yet so many have voted no. it is shameful and we need to call them out for it. host: let's get into our calls from our viewers. we are going to start with a veteran. we will start with bob calling from mountain home, idaho. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. on these presumptions things jeremy is talking about, you have bladder cancer covered, but the prostate is not covered on these things. but if a female gets a

hysterectomy, she is 50% disability for that. what is your opinion on that? guest: thank you for calling and asking. i don't have the list of presumptions in front of me. i should have brought it so we could touched on them. it is a broad list but another part of this legislation we did not cover is the framework put in place so the v.a. has an easier path to understand where there are toxic exposed illnesses that are more common and more expected to those exposed. they can be added to this presumption. this is just the starting point. these 23 are the starting point. more will come as we learn more. this is not the final list, but it is a huge step forward and there is a framework in place to continue to learn more and add more presumptives as time goes on. host: there is some people who are looking at this bill and

looking at the presumption of service connection and say, that should be a reason to oppose the bill. here is an editorial from "reason" magazine that i want you to respond to. the pact act would create presumption service connection for 23 conditions, including several types of cancer, leukemia and bronchitis, for veterans stationed in 17 countries during particular times. including iraq through the goal and the gulf war. we could add more conditions and the bill would relieve veterans of having to prove any of those conditions were linked to better service in order to get v.a. coverage. that is obviously a pretty expansive set of eligibility criteria. someone who served in iraq and diagnosed with lung cancer decades later would be eligible

for federally funded health care under the pact act, even if they were never exposed to a burn pet and were a lifelong smoker. that column argues we are making the categories too broad and allowing people who may be injured by something else to get veterans' care for something that did not happen during service. guest: it is kind of shocking the extremes some folks will go to to deny health care to veterans who deserve it. that writer is saying we might get health coverage to someone who may have gotten his or her lung cancer from some other pathway. if that is the worst case scenario, i don't think we are in a bad situation. the fact is right now, the government is denying the vast majority of those who definitely are coming down with debilitating and deadly illnesses because of their service.

if we are going to start nitpicking any possible way in which someone might get health care that may or may not be directly related to service, i think we are talking about the wrong thing. it is unfortunate. the other argument you might hear from some senators -- although they will not say this out loud, this will be behind closed doors -- is that it is too expensive. that is another spurious argument. this is part of the cost of going to war. that is why it is called keeping the pact act. when you send service members to war, part of that cost is taken care of when they come home. for 20 years the senate had no problem authorizing billions of dollars year after year to fund these wars, and now they are trying to nickel and dime the health care of veterans second because of service. the other rationale -- although it is not rational -- for some in congress to vote against it is because the v.a. cannot

handle the influx. again, a spurious argument. the legislation addresses that. it increases funding for the v.a. it increases physical space for the v.a. it increases staff. it increases claims adjusters. the v.a. itself, the secretary on down, they want this legislation to pass so they can turn their attention to treating veterans instead of having to do the research to try to come up with the clinical diagnosis to link these things. we know they are linked. this legislation would expedite the process the v.a. is already trying to do. that really is no good argument against this. host: let's talk to james calling from orange park, florida. james was a contractor in afghanistan. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i am retired military. retired in 1998 but i was a contractor. i went to afghanistan in 2009 to

2018. nine years i was there. the places i was stationed, tehran, kabul, they had burn pit. are there any agencies that will look out for the contractors? and mild conditions. i have severe sleep apnea and a tumor on my brain. it is not malignant or anything like that, but i am trying to see if there are services or agencies that look out for the contractor. guest: i am really sorry to hear that and thank you for your service. i think you're bringing up one of the things we don't talk nearly enough about and that is the extent to which the u.s. government used contractors in iraq and afghanistan and other places. unfortunately, you're getting the short end of the stick. this legislation would not help you. it is one of those where we need

to hold our government contractors accountable for the things that they did and sent you to do. they are the ones that should be making sure you're taking care of. i wish i had a better response for you, but i appreciate you calling in. i hope you get the health care you deserve and you earned. as a country, it is something we are not talking about and that is the broad use of contractors throughout these engagements we relied on. the job would not have been able to have been done without contractors. host: let's talk to brian calling from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. jeremy, thanks. i am a veteran up in a pristine land. we closed our air force base. you are going through the same problems with the department of defense. they polluted the finest, pristine lakes and rivers appear

with peafoss for decades. we have cancer among citizens. we cannot use our well water and it is the same stall pact until the people died. furthermore, as a veteran the first thing i was assigned is a proper gas mask and how to use it. it was in my kit the whole time i was a veteran. it is the same thing at 9/11. you knock down buildings, you put cloth masks on people and you expect it to work. you have to spend the dough other real masks. you know what i'm talking about. guest: you are right. this is not something just a problem in overseas bases. you talked about the pollution happening in michigan. as i mentioned earlier, we talk about this legislation provides support for camp lejeune service members and veterans poisoned by

tainted drinking water. we have the same issue in hawaii with the redhook refueling facility that the navy uses. we talked about agent orange. this is an ongoing problem where the u.s. government often through neglect, sometimes their willful ignorance, pollutes the areas where our service members and families are operating, playing, going to school. and when they are caught they deny responsibility. this is not something new. this happens overseas and it happens in the u.s. that is why we talk about toxic exposure. we are not just talking about burn pits but they are the biggest perpetrator in the post-9/11 era. there is so much more than needs to be addressed. that is why it is frustrating when you have members of congress voting against this. you could not have more evidence showing this is the right thing

to do. showing the u.s. government is responsible for these injuries, yet they are still voting no. we have to keep up the fight. that is why this is important. not just for what it is covering but it brings attention to the fact this is happening not only overseas but on u.s. soil. host: one of our social media followers wants to go back further than vietnam and talk about the stuff her father encountered in korea. i want you to react to see if they qualify under the spell. -- this bill. my dad who fought lasting korea said they had burn pits but they did not burn 24 hours a day. they burned everything that could be reused by the koreans. i can only imagine with depleted uranium weapons we have today getting burned releases toxic illnesses. i have heard several talk about this morning on social media of depleted uranium weapons. can you talk about that and does this bill -- can this bill reach

back to those who served in korea? guest: this bill would not reach back to korea, but it does reach back even farther than vietnam because it does address service members exposed to radiation when they were forced to clean up contaminated nuclear exit sites. this goes back to what we are saying. the bill unfortunately does not cover everybody, but i am glad we are talking about this because it shows the extremes to which these things happen on a regular basis. depleted uranium, building a base in uzbekistan for use in the early days of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, it was built on the top of soviet waste dumps and ammunition dumps and chemical munition facilities. these things we knew off the bat were going to make people sick. but because war was the top priority, we pushed on and we

did it. the service members knew there was a risk but they wanted to get the job done. they deserve so much better than to have to fight as they are literally laying dying for the government to finally recognize what the problem here is. this goes back decades and decades and this legislation would finally bring some closure to some, but not all. i am glad you're talking about the korean war because it shows the breadth and depth of the government's responsibility for poisoning our service members. host: senator jon tester, who is the chair of the veterans affairs committee, came out to the senate floor last week to talk about our country's failures to address toxic exposures over the years. here's a potion of what senator chester had to say. [video clip] >> we have made some incredible advances as a country. when it comes to taking care of

of service members when they get back home. the survival on the battlefield has been improved amazingly. prosthetics, we have done amazing work with prosthetics for the folks who have come back missing limbs. we have been working hard on mental health. we are not where we need to be but we are making advances. we have more to do in the area of transition and implementation of alternate forms of mental health care. but the fact is toxic exposure we have never done a good job. host: react to senator tester. guest: he is right. he has been an advocate and leader on this issue for a long time. edit it should be important to point out as has the ranking member of the senate v.a. committee, jerry moran of kansas.

they worked to improve the bill that came from the house to make it better and stronger and together, they put forward bipartisan support. when it came out of the senate v.a. committee it had unanimous support. unfortunately, some members of the senate v.a. committee voted against it, senator sullivan, senator tillis, and senator cassidy. they voted against it in the closure vote and hopefully next week, if it comes to a floor vote, they will realize the error of their ways and vote yes to get passed. but it will have to go back to the house and we did not get that unanimous support from the house veterans affairs committees. incredibly shocking because myself and others from iava an military service border organization, we have testified before both committees countless times over the years about how important this issue is and how important this legislation is.

we really need if anyone the v.a. house committee to drive us forward and making sure every member of their party votes yes. host: let's talk to jim calling from ashton, west virginia and served in iraq. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, jim. caller: morning. host: do you have a question? caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: can you hear us? caller: yes. host: go ahead, please. caller: what do you need? host: what is your question? caller: i was in iraq from 2004 to 2005 and we were within hundreds of yards of a burn pit

that burned around-the-clock. and we was exposed to a lot of that smoke. later that fall we was exposed to oil being burned. they caught a pipeline on fire or something and it burned the whole duration. so, yeah, then burn pits -- them burn pits, they are out there and they used them the whole time we were deployed. guest: i am glad you called and mentioned that. one, you lending credence to the fact these were used so widely. but you're touching on something we did not talk about which is even outside the burn pits the other pollution service members were forced to deal with. the burning oil wells, the surrounding cities these u.s. bases were located at where they were burning trash and other

things. the amount of toxins service members were exposed to during their time in service, it is unimaginable and you cannot quantify it because we do not know the extent of everything burned. so much was thrown in and it was done without any regard for what the effects might be. again, it was burned with jet fuel, something we already know causes cancer when you burn it and breathe in the fumes. the accelerant used is cancer-causing and it was the accelerant to burn a myriad of other things around-the-clock. the fact the government continues to deny responsibility is shocking. host: jeremy, until this legislation is passed and signed by the president, what should veterans who think they were affected by these burn pits do? where should they go? who should they talk to? guest: they need to be registering with the burn pit registry at the v.a. i know it is not the best

website, but because -- especially now because we are on the cusp of hopefully -- and i don't want to count my chickens before they hatch -- but we are on the cost of passing legislation that will open the aperture for exposed veterans to get health care. the sooner they get on the registry the sooner the v.a. can get an understanding of how many have been exposed and are suffering from illnesses. that is a great start. i recommend that. two, be aware of any changes in your health care. be aware some things might be caused by your exposure overseas. that is something to make sure you are tracking as you go to your civilian provider or v.a. health care provider. finally, call your senators. we cannot underscore how important it is tomorrow, monday, tuesday, wednesday. contact your u.s. senator and called both of them. you can find email addresses and

phone numbers. they need to hear from you and they need to hear from civilians that those senators must vote yes on this legislation. host: let's talk to howard from georgetown, texas. howard was deployed to iraq. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i was deployed to iraq three times. i was in the department of army civilians. is there anything being done to address our situation? guest: yeah. appreciate you calling in. similar to the contractor that called in, almost just as much as the service members who are over there you were over there directly employed by the u.s. government. and you are deserving of health care on your exposure. this legislation is focused on service members, but again, this goes back to how important it is

we talk about this and make sure the government is aware of the need to take care of those it sent over to these countries to take care of us as a country to defend our freedom. that includes the civilians that work for the department of defense. there were so many that were exposed and more that needs to be done. this is a great first step but not everything. host: as we wrap up, tell us what we should be watching in the senate and the house and who we should be watching as this bill passes through? guest: keep an eye on the senate this upcoming week. we will hopefully get a full floor vote. it passed last week with broad bipartisan support. right now, the senate is debating amendments that have been proposed, none of which improve the bill. they would only weaken it. we need the senate to vote those down and vote yes on the pact act that 65

organizations sent letters saying vote yes. they need to send it back to the house. the house needs to pass it and send it to the president who said he will sign it. we could get this done this month if they move expeditiously and understand how important this is. if i could address the fact that it is also pride month. we need to be focusing on the unmet needs of so many more of our veterans and service members. we saw the breaking news yesterday and today about white nationalists looking to disrupt a pride parade. right now more than ever, but especially this month, and the fact it is pride, we need to pass the equality act and make sure that all service members, all americans that want to serve in this military are given the chance to serve. we have such a small percentage of our country that are willing

and able to serve in our military and we need to make sure we are recruiting all of them and getting the best and brightest to do so. host: we would like to thank jeremy butler, ceo of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america organization for coming on with us and talking with us about veterans health care and the effect of burn pits. thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: thank you. great being here. host: we would like to thank all of our guests, viewers and callers for another great "washington journal." continue to stay safe and wash your hands. everyone have a great sunday and we will see you again tomorrow morning for another great edit ion of "washington journal." have a great day everyone. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government, funded by these television companies and more. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at sparklight, it is our home, too. we are facing our greatest challenge. that is why we are working around-the-clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part, so it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as well as his other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. tonight on cumin day, a look at recent -- q and a, a look at recent space exploration. the supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way. >> we are in orbit around the black hole as surely as we are in orbit around the sun. something very moving to see,

but the entire globe paused together to look at this image. >> geochemistry professor on the progress made by nasa's perseverance rover and its search for life on mars. >> there very important implications if we do find life on mars. if life is the same age on both planets, their implications possibly a life on earth actually came from mars. that is earthlings are martians and vice versa. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q and a. you can listen to cumin day and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now at that q and a and all of the podcasts on the free c-span now app. ♪ good morning and welcome to "washington journal."