true individual of firearms ownership comes through in the book. and whatever steps this country takes in its effort to control firearms, a knowledge of the past, a knowledge of the early history of the country and its relationship with firearms is important. >> john banbridge jr. and his book "gun barons," on q&a. you can listen to our free c-span now app. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the q.r. code at the right bottom to sign up for this mail and stay up to date for everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today use the q.r.

code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe any time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] ♪ g. it is saturday, june 18. yesterday marked 50 years since the watergate break-in that led to the resignation of president nixon. many say the public trust in government has never recovered. we are actually asked -- asking your views on the leading -- legacy of watergate. you can call us. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your comments at (202) 748-8003.

tell us your first name and your city. we are on social media. send us a tweet at c-span wj. i want to show you this headline from the washington post. it says watergate happened 50 years ago. it's legacies are still with us. the author of that article was on washington journal yesterday. here is a portion of what he said. guest: the interesting thing is not simply what watergate did to push down trust in government or shatter americans faith in government, it marked a dividing

line between an era of trust and now a very long era of distrust. that chart has never really returned to anywhere close to what it was before watergate in vietnam. there have been a couple of moments, 9/11 the most obvious one. there was a stronger feeling about trusting government. that receded again. an updated version of this came out on june 6. at that point, only 20% of americans said they have trust in government to do the right thing some or all the time. watergate is a dividing line in the history of the relationship between the american people and government. host: that was a washington post

reporter. he mentioned this report from the key research center. american views of government, decades of this trust, 65% c most candidates run to serve their own interests. the article starts this way. you can see on this graph, low public trust in federal government has persisted for nearly two decades. this goes from 73%, who say they

trust the government to do what is right, down here to 20%. i'm interested to hear what you think about this, the watergate legacy and the trust in government. can the trust in government be restored? we will start with the republican line in georgia. good morning. caller: i guess what bothers me the most about the question is every year the democrats like to bring up watergate. they never bring up the fact that when the democrats during world war ii invented the atomic bomb. they set it off in the united states. that's where they set off the bomb. host: you are talking about

nuclear testing? caller: nuclear testing in the united states, they blew up the bomb in our country. they set it in our country. how about ayden gives the middle finger to our immigration system? i just and understand why you keep ringing up watergate. it was only a few people. it was the president and the plumbers. it wasn't all the republicans. host: we will go to deborah in dallas. caller: there is no trust in the government, i do believe the people on january 6 should be in trouble. i also believe the rioters the

democrats allowed and told police to stand down and burn businesses, i'm 65. i never thought my government would sink that low. we've just gotten away for some reason. they just want our country in chaos. they want shortages. none of this is because somebody is stupid. americans have woken up. they don't need it to take a paycheck. host: cj is next in minneapolis. caller: good morning to you. yesterday we had the lady on the show who wrote the book about

watergate, she made a comment about trump is a smarter crook than nixon. trump had the senate on his side and nixon didn't. trump is the reason the senate is still in there. there is no way you could get away with it without the senate. host: do you think that is a reflection on how america is different now? caller: when barack obama got elected in the senate refused to work with him. they kept getting reelected. there is something about the senate and the way they get reelection, especially mitch mcconnell. they must have a stranglehold on

the system. mitch mcconnell should've been voted out a long time ago. host: let's go to rochester, new york. caller: good morning. i was listening to the lady that called in earlier who said she was 65. i will be 70 in september. i'm in the same boat where she is in terms of seeing the government up close and personal. it is hurtful. even from when i was in school and jfk was president, there was such a distinction and high regard for government.

the main goal was to do the work and what the people of the world needed them to do. host: since you would have been around 20 years old when it watergate happened, how did you react? was that it? you would never trust the government again? caller: i was thinking about that. i just watched the cnn special. it didn't -- i see how bad it was. i got the impression that they broke in and took some things. the media did not pursue it to the extent that they would do it today.

it seemed like they were it was ok. that would not have happened today. knowing the things that go on with the capital riots and those things that we see, they say it didn't really happen. it boggles my mind that we could see things and continue to allow the deceit and the blatant lies. host: thank you. philadelphia, pennsylvania on the independent line. good morning. caller: i was raised a republican. i became a democrat when i went to college.

after bill clinton, i became an independent. i don't trust either party. i was 15 when watergate happened. my mother watched it nonstop. that's when i became interested in politics. the one redeeming thing about watergate is the republican party policed itself. republicans convinced nixon to retire. i admired that. i have seen both parties show terrible weakness and then rise to the occasion when needed. i am seeing less and less of that. both parties are out for their own personal gain. neither party cares about the country more than its own influence. it has been depressing. people feel helpless. host: your mom watched it all

the time and you were raised republican, what was her reaction? caller: she was a democrat. her family was all business people who were republicans. my father's family was rural. they were born-again religious republicans. i got it from both sides. i also saw the hypocrisy on both sides. nobody really listens to each other. the politicians don't want to address our problems. they persisted for decades. why don't they attack corruption? the government itself, how did watergate affect the politicians? what would they have done different? i would like to hear that as well. host: this is from the pew research organization.

this is public trust in government from 1958-2002. you can see from the eisenhower administration, you can see the downward slide here. this is nixon. this comes down here as well. nick is up next on the republican line. caller: hello? thank you for letting me call today. i don't care if you are republican or democrat, if you can trade on inside information, that is a distrust. you shouldn't come out being a millionaire when you leave office. the same people that are writing

the laws are going to make the rules? that is laughable. i can't believe this is happening. host: what do you think should change? is there a law or rule? caller: i am looking for a group of people to make the new rules that aren't a conflict of interest. a stand aside organization that will set up rules. host: you don't trust congress to do it? caller: no. if you are making profits, how are you going to write the laws to determine people from cheating online? host: medford, new jersey. hello. caller: good morning. i am calling. i'm 87. i was about 40 when watergate happened. i was very interested in it.

the thing that bothers me the most now, there is distrust in the government. it was enhanced by ronald reagan who ran on the premise that government is the problem. the publicans set out to prove that. they passed laws limiting the common person. they destroyed the unions. right to work laws mean you have a right to work for low wages forever. no pensions, no insurance. no wonder people are upset. the republicans are the problem in the country. government has to be watched on both ends. people have to use common sense. they don't. they fall in love with somebody like donald trump who was a criminal at heart and has

profited from his time in office , as his family has by millions of dollars. that's about it. host: at the watergate 50th anniversary event, bob woodward was asked -- he broke the story with carl bernstein 50 years ago. he was asked his opinion of the january 6 hearings so far. >> it's amazing. at the same time as has been pointed out, what nixon did was concealed. it was open from his secret recordings. a lot of what trump does is out in the open. he has said the election was stolen. we've all spent a lot of time looking for the evidence to

suggest this was a stolen election. i've spent a lot of time with robert costa, is there evidence? it turns out to of his biggest supporters both conducted independent investigations. they went to the senate floor and as lindsey graham said, count me out. there is no evidence. the real marker here is what are they going to be able to show? they have demonstrated a lot, it is a crime to subvert a function of government. this is a clear case of

obstructing an essential and necessary function of government. what's more necessary than certifying the next president? the diabolical genius of trump and his associates, they found a weak point in the system. the votes are presented and counted. 1000 people violently descended on the capital. host: we are asking you this morning about the watergate legacy and trust in government. let's hear from virginia beach on the and dependent line. caller: thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. i was 21 in 1972.

i was in east africa. i came to the united states in 1980. i followed the watergate scandal quite closely. i think the current question we are asking about trust in government is an important one. it's not really the issue. if you think about the main thing. the division the country has because of the race issue that seems to be with us from the founding of the country. when reagan said government is not the solution but is the problem and he wants to drown it in the bathtub, he is saying civil rights laws that were

passed are really government trying to make this a union which is not based on race. reagan wouldn't say this openly. the country is easily divisible that way. now, if you keep thinking about it, it's not trust in government we are to worry about, americans who are easily divided. trump comes along and is superb at that. he is an evil genius in that way. the problem is not january 6, not trust in government, the underlying issue of who we are and how we treat the other. host: bill is up next in missouri. caller: why is gas so high and

we are getting gas from overseas, why don't we use our own gas in the united states. host: you have a comment on watergate? caller: no. i don't trust the government one bit. host: ok. let's go next to georgia on the independent line. caller: i tell people if you want to see government and look government in the eye, go to the bathroom mirror. we are the government because we give our power to other people. the government -- we are the government. they try to discourage us from becoming the government.

the largest industry on the planet is politics in the usa. it is a multi trillion dollar industry. the number one goal is to get reelected. there is big money in politics. host: how would that trust in government be restored? caller: we have to educate ourselves. c-span it does a good job. we see congress, we see how they work. other stations are out to make big money. the solution is we've got to educate ourselves. what dr. king said, the most dangerous thing in the world is sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. he said that was the most dangerous thing in the world.

host: let's go to texas. caller: hello. it's nice to be with you. i want to talk about watergate. i was in my early 20's at the time. the thing i think we can learn from it is the pardon that president ford did stop all the investigation into specific criminality for the rule of law with respect to president nixon. i think our country would have been better off, even though it's nice that we got through it. if we had done that, the present situation would be less likely because a president would realize i could go to jail. my only input this morning is that we need to go ahead and

make sure that if there is any criminality that we set an example. worse things could happen in the future. it is just to protect ourselves and our kids. somebody is going to come in and speak about taking over for his own power. who knows what would happen if there is a complete dictatorship. . it's a huge threat. if nixon had gone to jail, if criminality's had been investigated and found to be true, if there was a sentence for him, it might have stopped of future self-centered president from trying to harm the country. remind everybody, every word out

of president trump's mouth is potentially a terrible light. this is the most evil man. we need to stop it. we need to stop him. host: melvin is up next in fort lauderdale. good morning. caller: good morning. the question -- government worked because they stopped him from doing what he was trying to do. if he succeeded, that means some part of the government would've been in cahoots. that was just part of the -- that tried to pull that situation. if the government wasn't there to stop it and prosecute, it

wasn't government. the government work. that's why it is not a dictatorship. the government actually worked because there were three different parts that were able to combat one part. it wasn't government. the party is trying to overthrow the government. that's what they were trying to do. it wasn't the government. the government actually worked. host: larry hogan from maryland wrote an op-ed in usa today. it says this.

i wonder what you think, we want to talk to read from ocean shores, washington. good morning. caller: i have comments to make about trust in government. i will be very brief about that. i wanted to ask the question, god bless you. at what point will brian lamb who cut his teeth in journalism in the watergate area, he's never gone off it. how many times do we get a segment on watergate? the issue of watergate is like comparing someone who just j walked to an 18 wheeler with a

driver that crashed into the town square. host: you are saying it's not a big deal? caller: what i'm trying to say is the context of whether you trust government or not has anything to do with watergate. these are two separate issues. the issues of today are far more important. i do not expect c-span to do everything perfectly. there are not enough hours in a day. brian lamb keeps throwing watergate up. it's a republican president. you can look on rumble and see a video of president biden who said we have built the most comprehensive and inclusive organization of voter fraud in american history and we did this during the obama administration. go to rumble and search it. you will see the video for

yourself. look at that in comparison to watergate. there is no comparison. we are in a crisis for many reasons. i remember during the obama administration, the second term, that's more recent than watergate. that is not that you approve of government, that is so diverse. just wrought trust, only 13%. host: one of our callers talked about how we need better civic education. this is from the fulcrum.

that was introduced by the act with the hope of sparking a senate wide vote to improve understanding of civics and history. joseph is up next from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i will eventually get to the mistrust of government. when abraham lincoln freed the slaves, the republican party was angry and they went to the democratic party. they stayed there until johnson signed the civil rights act. they were angry at that and then they went to the republican party where they stand right now. the republican party and republican politicians know they cannot win a free election

without cheating because their platform is basically trickle-down. tax breaks for the rich. host: let's talk to randy in kentucky on the republican line. caller: good morning. i don't keep up with the news as much as i should. trust in government, c-span is doing an outrageous job. you haven't reported that we had military troops fighting in ukraine. i just heard they got attacked by russia. we are at war. i did not know we are at war with russia. we have troops that are captured with a nuclear country we are at war with.

host: are you saying you don't trust the media more than mistrust of government? do you miss trust them equally? randy? caller: the media gets its license from the government. you are the government. everything we hear is through you people. you are totally in with the government. you are just like russian news media. host: let's hear from sherry in florida on the democrats line. caller: thank you to c-span. i am 75 years old. i remember watergate vividly. i was in my 20's. the government did what it did.

in terms of my trust in government, if they looked at campaign-finance reform again and limited campaigns to a certain dollar amount and limited the ability of anybody in elected office to get bribes and payouts from major companies in the form of advertising or whatever, you find out what the politicians and government who have been there for years have gained over those years. it is staggering. in regards to the years trump was in office, i felt that i was observing a fascist government. it made me think of nazi germany. the major population believed

him. in regards to the gentleman that card -- called earlier, we had to earn our flags in elementary school. there was a great respect. it doesn't really exist now. maybe people should just say the pledge of allegiance. host: take a look at this quote from sarah chamberlain.

we want to know what you think about that and the watergate legacy on trust in government. you can feel free to give us a call. the numbers are on your screen. what needs to happen to restore it, to bring back trust in government. let's talk next to walter in florida. caller: good morning. first of all, i was 15 years old when watergate came out. i went to a school system that taught civics. it was covered in high school.

as far as politicians being corrupt, they will always bend the rules. whether it's right or wrong, power corrupts and people find a way to use it to their advantage. that 15 years of age, talking to older people, both sides cheated on each other act then. the bottom line is we are the government. the people we elect represent us. thank you very much for having me. host: lou is up next in portland. caller: that's a great topic.

i support and believe in journalism and the democratic party. journalism is not necessarily the government. in oregon, she defeated a conservative incumbent democrat. she's not taking office yet. at the local level, there is progress. i met richard nixon in person in washington for speech contest two months before kent state. i read a good deal. i have read all the presidents men, i read i alone can fix it by woodward and bob costa. the question of restoring faith in federal government and whether it can be performed depends on whether there is a way to get around the republican a blockade, particularly in the

senate. that's the remaining question. what do you think about restoring it? what do you think about the possibilities for restoring trust in government now? host: i am always hopeful. i am here to listen to what you think. robert is in virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. for the trust in the government, if the justice department doesn't take care and convict these people that tried to commit the crimes they did, after that, if they don't convict these people and put them in jail, nobody can believe in the government.

that's just the way i feel. i am 74 years old. trump was on yesterday and what comes out of his mouth is garbage. some of things he said make sense, it's the messenger, the type of person he says. why do half the people want to have somebody like that running the country. he is for himself. people will believe anything. thank you very much. host: let's hear from former president trump. he was at the conference in nashville. he criticized the hearings. >> and republicans retake control of congress, they should

turn the table and launch a full investigation into the abuse of power that has taken place in the name of january 6. the very first people to receive subpoena should be crazy nancy pelosi, liz cheney, they say she is down by 35 points in wyoming. we love wyoming. she is horrible. she is never in wyoming. she is always in virginia. she represents wyoming. adam schiff is another one. remember in the end, they are not after me, they are after you. they are after everything we stand for.

it is your values, your prosperity, your country. they are trying to take it all away. these people are crazy. the reason they are attacking me so relentlessly and making up lies like the story about mike pence, send it to the legislatures. look at the report the attorney general in arizona came up with. look what the committee came up with, massive fraud. they are complicit. they are every bit as guilty. every bit as guilty. host: that was donald trump criticizing the january 6 hearings. a programming note that we will be covering those hearings.

the next will be on tuesday and we will have live coverage. you can also watch that on our free video app. also, the federal reserve chair jerome powell will testify on the economy. watch that coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three and on our free video app. we are asking you about the legacy of watergate and trust in government. next up is the independent line in louisiana. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this the first time i have ever called. i was exposed to this watergate issue. i was a newcomer to the country.

i went to law school and i read the united states versus nixon. can you hear me? for me, the supreme court ordering him to turn over the tapes was a powerful decision. it told everybody you are not above the law. this problem is a problem of all the branches. the president of the united states basically -- the problem with nixon is the president of the united states can commit a crime.

he can lie about it and get away with it. that's what happened. host: one of our callers said the pardon by president ford was a mistake and that he should of been prosecuted. caller: i agree with that. this is a country. host: let's look at some tweets that have come in. we will go next to william in

pennsylvania on the republican line. william? caller: i don't think anybody voted to go to war with russia. that is because of the election fraud. going war to about declaring war. so much other stuff you do like the russian hoax. the ukraine hoax that you are giving weapons to and trying to take our weapons away from us. host: what do you mean by the ukraine hoax? caller: you guys said that there wasn't no biological facilities, which there are. dr. fauci -- it doesn't seem like nobody is getting in trouble for the stuff. host: next in north carolina.

hello. caller: hello? can you hear me? host: mute your tv. i can hear it in the background. caller: i wanted to express the fact that us who are rational people realize that the republicans who follow trump are leading this country down the tubes. the college age students who understand how things are going will vote for the democratic party because this leadership that we have had it previously has proven that they are acting.

this justice department hopefully with all that's been proven through this hearing will act accordingly and help this country by punishing those who have performed the acts they have performed. when it comes to watergate, president ford should not have pardoned nixon. he created a crime while being in the highest office. i don't know how you teach young people civics and expect them to act rationally and good for the patriotic country when it has shown that those who do wrong

can get away with it. host: take a look at this poll. it's at the democrats are more likely than republicans to trust government statistics. the statistics that come from the government are rocha and down. the most trustworthy turns out to be from ocean temperatures. the ones that are least likely to be trusted was a number of sexual assault reported and the number of illegal immigrants in the u.s. joe is up next in florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

glad to have an opportunity to discuss this. i'm sure you don't have a lot of time. i watched the program last night. the situation we have today is way worse than then. we don't have any respect for the law today. we have corrupt operations enforcing the law. we have lost our moral focus. unless we maintain the christian values that this country was established with, we are going to be a destroyed culture. that is going to happen. when we talk about what happened in watergate, that's a small thing compared to the corruption that is going on. i don't trust any of our

government agencies. i don't have that much confidence in our politicians. it's really sad. we need to stop wearing about having power. host: the partnership for public service came out with a report called trust in government. it's a close look at public perceptions of the federal government. it says the lack of trust has serious implications for how the public interacts with our government and how well agencies can respond to major challenges. let's talk next to mike in new jersey. host: mike? caller: my opinion about things goes back to watergate. i was in my mid-20's.

that was a very big deal for people at the time. i've been around a while. i've noticed it's not just the government that has been less than what it used to be. it's the whole culture. what we really need is term limits. people get stuck in there and they continually have bad policies and corruption. if there were term limits, there would be a way to get them out and have fresh ideas and fresh blood in the government. the government has to pass that law before we have changed. host: let's talk to bryce in

maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think if you're going to go back to watergate, i was 22. it's the continuing process of our government misleading us. you've had bill clinton's impeachment. you've had george bush in the 2000 election, you had weapons of mass destruction, you've had the obama administration investigating the tea party people. they continue to do all of these things. all they are trying to do is retain power. the key thing is for the people to educate themselves and quit voting for incumbents. how many continuing resolutions

do we need to have before they can put a budget together? what happened to the social security lockbox? how do you know when a politician is lying? when their lips are moving. host: let's talk to donna in wisconsin. caller: yes. i think we can't trust the government because of all the corruption. the money that was senate through these programs, it is nothing but fraud. politicians are making a fortune off of covid. how can we trust the government? they are using their power to make a fortune. host: what do you think needs to

be done it? caller: the doj should be following the law. they are letting it happen. they are picking what laws they want to enforce. i thought all laws were supposed to be enforced. how is watergate any different than when they were trying to put taping devices in trump's campaign. is there a difference? what she did with the lawyer? and got away with it. host: all right. let's talk to california. caller: i served on the school board. i served in multiple government departments and also committees.

i really think government is more honest than it's ever been. we only get very few stories that have corruption like some congressman in louisiana who has money in his refrigerator or something. the overwhelming majority of people who served in government are honest. there are too many different opinions and too many contrasting opinions for anybody to get away with any corruption. host: we are almost at the end of the hour. you are the only caller who has said they are all honest and we should trust him. why do you think that? caller: because i think people are basically honest and they have a conscience. they don't want to go to jail. host: let's talk to lois in new

jersey. caller: height. i don't believe anybody has trust in the government. we can start with the hunter hyden laptop and how the news media buried that. there is no fairness. the doj picks and choose. they went after moms and dads at school board readings. they won't go after those destroying. this is supposed to be pro-choice. they are choosing to have children and they will go there and throw windows. nothing is ever done about it. that is why no one trusts the government because they pick and choose who they will go after. host: dale is next in missouri. caller: good morning.

how are you today? host: what do you think about the watergate legacy? caller: the watergate legacy, i think nixon should've been prosecuted by the attorney general, the same way that merrick garland should bring charges on trump because things. that is conspiracy to murder mike pence whenever they showed the gallows on the steps. this is a conspiracy of a gang of people that is like -- these people should be voted out of office or have term limits. if they have term limits, they

won't sit around and think about things they can throw away for the taxpayer. it's a game. the game should be busted up whether it be democrat or republican. we need people that are going to work for the benefit of the american people. thank you. host: that was our last call for this segment. up next, after weeks of speculation, the white house announces the upcoming trip to saudi arabia. we will get a preview. later, a podcast called politics in question, it examines political institutions and ways to improve them. stay with us.

>> the weekly podcast brings you over 40 years of audio recordings from our video library, comparing the past two today. >> the watergate break-in happened 50 years ago. police arrested burglars in the democratic national committee headquarters. first, we remember gordon liddy in this episode. he went to jail because of the watergate break-in and served five years. then he reinvented himself as a radio talkshow host. he used his radio show to offer provocative history. >> it occurred to me they might have me assassinated. i didn't want some amateur doing it with a shotgun through the kitchen window.

i would just go stand on some then he reinvented himself as a radio talkshow host. used his show to -- i did not want some imager doing it with a shot gun. i said it they wanted to go that route i would goes and remote corner. common was you can find the week lee on now or wherever you are

-- and and find a fall schedule on

your program guide -- anytime on book tv.org. >>your program guide c-span nowh the day's biest events with livestream's of white house events, the courts, are all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available.

-- hugh: feel for -- host: we have our phone lines broken up. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. steven, i want to start with gas prices. national average just went over five dollars a gallon. what will president biden be asking are and what is saudi arabia capable of doing for us at the pump? guest: the president is clearly going to saudi arabia to plead with saudi leadership to pump more oil into the market.

saudi arabia is the second largest producer of oil in the world but it is the biggest exporter. even though the saudi's are pumping a lot, they have the capacity to pump more barrels per day. the hope is that if they do that it will bring more oil on the market and americans will get some relief at the pump. it is the summer in saudi arabia and the saudi's use about one million of -- one million barrels of their run production every month to air condition the saudi's who live in this hot place. even if the president gets a commitment, a lot of it cannot come online fast enough. host: how long does it take saudi's thing more oil to us

having lower gas prices? guest: there isn't that much slack in the system. this alreadys -- the saudi's are already pumping 7 million barrels per day. there is this other issue. they have an agreement with opec plus. the saudi's have been reluctant to break their commitment with the russians through opec plus to pump a certain amount. i think president biden is going with some goodies in hand to try to grease the wheel of saudi production. host: first to take us through some of the recent history with the u.s. relationship with saudi arabia.

it has obviously had its ups and downs. guest: of course we have the 9/11 attacks, 15 of 19 hijackers were saudi nationals. there will are -- there are sections of the saudi report that remain classified. it is an open question what role the saudi government may have played. the note -- then of course you have the u.s. invasion of iraq. iraq became a vassal state of iran. you have the civil war in syria and the u.s.'s refusal to enter -- interfere with that. iran has been able to capitalize

on the chaos in syria to establish a presence in the lamont. then you have the jcpoa, which from the perspective of the saudi's benefited the iranians out there and spent -- at their expense. iran attacked saudi oil facilities and trump did not respond to that provocation. they have sought to get the united states back in the iran nuclear deal. host: why would they even talked about? guest: this has undermined the trust saudi arabia has for the united states and our security

commitments to saudi arabia, which are not written down, and of course president carter announced to the carter dock room, that the united states -- the carter doctrine, that the united states would defend the oilfields of saudi arabia. president biden is going to saudi arabia, and he will likely offer some kind of enhanced security arrangement with saudi arabia and other gulf countries. the crown prince of saudi arabia has floated the idea of a nato agreement where an attack on saudi arabia would be like an attack on the united states. that is unlikely. there are other things the united states can do, things like the security framework agreement, greater consultation, integrated air defense systems.

those are things you can expect to be part of the discussions. host: president biden did say he would make saudi arabia a " pariah." explain the path from that statement to a presidential visit. guest: he sought to take a principled position with regards to american values and human rights. saudi arabia's human rights record is not a good one. 2018 had the grisly murder of jamaal shelby who was a saudi national and a critic of the crown prince. he was dismembered in saudi arabia's consulate in istanbul. this far five the world, particularly here -- this horrified the world,

particularly here in washington. during the campaign, the president in keeping with his ideas about american values vowed to make saudi arabia a pariah. host: that never really happened. guest: he put a hold on munitions to saudi arabia. he made it clear that he would deal only with the crown prince's father. they implemented a band that prevents those who have been credibly accused of harassing and intimidating opposition activists from entering the united states, but saudi arabia is a big, important country, and

its gas prices have crept up because of supply chain issues, because of a whole host of things, as well as more recently the russian invasion of ukraine. president biden has sought relief for americans up pump. efforts to rejoin the iran nuclear deal have not yet been successful. the united states is moving in another direction, and that is to gather together a regional coalition to confront iran, which is a source of instability in the region. saudi arabia, being a big, importing country, and the only major arab state still standing, saudi arabia will be a big part of that regional coalition. host: aside from the obvious oil

reserves, what does saudi arabia offer the united states, versus other arab countries in the region? guest: in the abstract, it is the energy issue. saudi arabia has the postage. the saudi king is the custodian of islam's two holiest places. when president biden entered the oval office and surveyed the region, the middle east out the time, he would have found that egypt had turned inward. iraq still suffering after the american invasion almost 2 decades ago. united arab emirates are a very small country. jordan, also very couple, but small -- capable, but small. saudi arabia is the only interlocutor for the united states when it comes to issues of whether it's oil security,

geopolitical issues, and and lansing american interests. -- and advancing american interests. host: what is happening with the war in yemen and american weapons sales? guest: the war is complicated. when saudi arabia intervened in yemen, people believes that is the beginning of the war. the saudi's and via -- intervened in that war on the side of the recognized government fearing that the who these -- the houthis would create an iranian militia on the arabian peninsula. the saudi's went in expecting to be out in a matter of weeks or

months. here they are years later. there were fears have come true -- their fears have come true. a cease fire has been extended. it is one of the worst humanitarian crises. rampant cholera, starvation, the air campaign has been brutal. a cease fire was recently extended, which is good news. the united states, the obama administration was supportive of the saudi's because they wanted to bring the saudi's along when it came to be a rainy and clear deal with they remained ambivalent about it -- came to the iranian nuclear deal, but

they remained ambivalent about it. the administration claims it has ended. the saudi's are flying american airplanes. those airplanes are serviced through maintenance contracts with american contractors. host: let's talk to some listeners. stan is up first in scottsboro, alabama on the independent line. caller: good morning. the government will lie to you. let's go back to opec during the 70's. you could not buy gas to go to work. opec screwed us then. they will screw us again.

guest: thank you. i'm barely old enough to remember the oil embargo in 197 3. that was the only time saudi arabia and opec specifically embargoed oil against the united states. saudi arabia and other oil producers have an interest in high oil prices. the price of the barrel of oil is helpful to a government where most of its revenues are derived from oil sales. in iraq it is 97%.

other oil producers have a confluence of interests in high oil prices, which is painful for americans at the pump. host: let's talk to karen in alabaster, alabama on the republican line. caller: a couple of things. when the whole issue was -- with kashoggi happened, the democrats were horrified that trump would have anything to do with saudi arabia. now here we are aware biden has to go over and grovel for oil. everybody is ok with that. i guess they forgot about kashoggi. why doesn't he say something to china about the uighurs? we need to drill our own oil in this country so we do not have

to grovel to other countries. guest: thanks for the question. the u.s. is the largest producer of oil in the world. the problem is that we consume more than 20 million barrels a day. if we had a more rational energy policy we may not need the saudi's to pump more oil, but as long as we continue to consume oil at a rate greater than we are producing, we will from time to time run into these problems. when it comes to the kashoggi murder, biden is facing lots of criticism to the point where he has agreed to go, then backed away from going. just yesterday he said he was

going to a meeting of the council, he was not going specifically to meet with the crown prince. a point to be made is when the president came into office and sought to make -- he did not give himself enough room to maneuver, not anticipating the russian invasion of ukraine or the fact that gas prices would run up to between $5 and $7 for a gallon of gas. host: i want to show you a quote and ask you to comment. they say " mr. biden's brand of internationalism is ineffective at protecting u.s. interests. trump practice to global politics that ignored human rights and applauded dictators, but mr. biden has gone so far the other way that some allies

do not trust him. u.s. adversaries are on the march. the u.s. needs allies in rough neighborhoods. some will be unsavory by american standards. guest: the middle east is certainly a rough neighborhood! i would challenge the wall street editorial ward. when -- editorial board. when they shot down an american surveillance drone over international waters, when they attacked 2 oil processing facilities that took half of saudi production off-line, president trump said " they attacked saudi arabia. they did not attack us." the saudi's had enough in storage that they can make up for that loss. the broader issue at work here

is values. can the united states inject values into its foreign policy in a consistent manner? that has been difficult in the middle east. many say " we can walk and chew gum at the same time." thus far our efforts to do that, the record has not been very good. at each moment presidents have stepped away from the issue of values, democracy, and human rights to secure what is an important national security interest of the united states and in this case it is the free flow of resources in the persian gulf.

host: united states has never been able to move the needle on human rights in the middle east. guest: these are leaders who can calculate their own interests and are intent on maintaining political control and the way in which they do that is through massive human rights violations. the way to make the united states less complicit in that is to have a more reasonable energy policy. we are going to seek to ensure the free flow of energy resources out of the region. host: don is next in centerville, virginia. caller: i have an idea. maybe supply food to saudi arabia. lower the oil prices. host: to supply food to saudi arabia from the united states? caller: yes ma'am.

guest: there is not really an issue of food insecurity in the kingdom. this is a country that is not as wealthy as many make it out to be. there are poor saudi's. this is not a place where food insecurity is an issue like another parts of the world, africa for example, are major -- or middle eastern countries struggling with food insecurity as a result of the war in ukraine. food is not what they are looking for. host: quincy, massachusetts on the independent line. caller: why are we going backwards with saudi arabia? we should be the aggressive and tell them what to do for us.

we are always making these accommodations for them. what happened to kuwait when they were in trouble? we sent our military over there. we lost american troops. whatever comes of that? where we defending these countries and they are telling us what they will do for us? guest: it is a good question and it is a subjective policy debate, web there saudi arabia and other gulf countries need us more and therefore we can drive politics as opposed to them demanding things from the united states. the caller referenced operation desert storm. the median age of people in saudi arabia is 30. most saudi's do not remember

what the united states did. their frames of reference are those issues i outlined before -- the invasion of iraq, a whole host of american policies in the region, which they perceive benefited iran, which is a major security threat to them. there is that issue in addition to the factor that throughout the 1990's and the first decade or so of the century, the united states was really the predominant external power in the region. now there are competitors. china is the single largest investor in the gulf region. russia has developed a good relations. it is part of opec plus. the saudi's do not want to break their agreement in opec plus and have a price war with the russians. it is a more complicated region then it was 30 or 25 years ago

when the united states was the predominant power in the region and we had not inflicted our own mistakes on the region, including the invasion of iraq. host: linda is next in mountain home, arkansas. caller: i have a question. i am old enough to remember jimmy carter. i am old enough to remember donald trump. people have yelled " let's make our own fuel. let's be independent of the saudis." then we get a president who comes in and says " i am going to do away with the pipeline." he says " institutions should not belong to the oil companies because i am going to do away with them."

he gives them stuff they cannot afford to find out if the oil is there to drill, then he begs them to give up their money, when they did not make any during covid to finance his green deal. they green deal maybe perfect. it may be great, but it will not be for 30 or 40 years. in the meantime, i have to travel to -- i have to go places. host: let's get a response. guest: what linda is articulating is the frustration though a lot of americans with high gas prices. the united states is the single largest producer of oil in the world except we consume more than we produce, which means we need to rely on another parts of the world to your -- to make up that difference.

when it comes to regulation, the cancellation of the keystone xl pipeline, what the administration has done is tried to nudge forward alternative energy than the fact that climate change is upon us. i think there is a wealth of evidence. the storms we have experienced in the region have been accelerated by the climate crisis. what they try to do is solve the problem, yet a number of geopolitical shocks, including the russian invasion of ukraine, have created this run-up in oil prices. when it comes to the oil industry in general i think the problem is -- there is an issue of regulation but we would like to protect our lands and make sure there is not unmitigated

drilling everywhere. one of the issues is the market. there was a dramatic drop in the price of oil. i remember filling up na at -- an suv for $12 at that time. fracking companies went under. they chose not to invest in larger capacity. it is harder and harder to bring fields online because they have not been invested in, in a period of 4 or 5 years. host: let's talk to peggy next in centralia, washington. caller: good morning. i would like to know -- do you

think saudi arabia is withholding this oil flow to make biden look bad? guest: i do not think the saudi's are withholding oil. they pump 10 million barrels a day. they want to maintain balance in the oil market. the way to do that is to continue with the agreement they have within opec, which will lead to the pumping of moral oil. the agreement is that come the fall there will be modest increases in production. the problem is americans are suffering now and went relief now, which is one of the reasons biden will have this conversation. the saudi's can pump up to about

12 million barrels of oil a day. because it is the summer months they use a portion of their own production to air condition the people who live in saudi arabia during the very hot summer monthss, s -- months, so relief will not come quickly. when you speak to saudi officials and deletes and journalist -- deletes -- elites and journalists, they do not make a distinction between the bush administration and the obama administration. they perceive that the united states wants to pursue a policy in the region that is friendlier to iran rather than maintain

links with saudi arabia. host: they have launched an investigation into gerrard kushner. there was a $2 billion investment into his private equity fund by the saudi crown prince. guest: i do policy not politics. the most important issue that was reported is that advisors to the saudi investment fund headset that an investment in mr. questioner -- mr. kushner's firm -- take what you want from that. host: let's talk to sergio in florida on the democrats' line.

caller: good morning, mr. cook. my question is going to saudi arabia -- i admire president biden. how would that help him to reduce gas prices because people are frantic at how high the gas prices are. how will that help them to reduce gas prices, especially in my state, and climate change issues? guest: the biden administration is looking for every possible way they can in order to relieve the pain americans are feeling at the pump, to the extent that the president has dispatched a diplomats to venezuela, a country the u.s. has had difficult relations with.

venezuela is a major oil producer. the problem with venezuela is there has been said it's little investment in their oilfields, it is hard for them to increase production. the president is seeking relief through the saudis. the saudis have enough slack and can produce oil leased expensesly that can bring -- least expensively. it should moderate prices for a bottle -- barrel of oil, which will in turn bring down gas prices. the question is whether the saudi's have enough to pump more in order to bring relief to americans quickly enough, but that is what the president is calculating, that the saudi's have enough slack to put oil on

the market. host: we got a tweet " can you talk about then president trump's 2020 threat to remove troops from saudi arabia unless they increased oil production?" guest: president trump who had vowed to bring troops home from the middle east send more troops to the region, but what happened in 2020 is at the height of the pandemic, there was too much oil on the market, and the future price of oil actually dipped to 0. this was a huge problem for oil producers. oil -- the president actually when did the saudis -- wanted

the saudis to reduce their production to get the price up. at first you have one president who wants them to reduce their production, no we have another president who wants to ramp up production. but -- that was really what president trump was about. the low oil prices were hurting american domestic producers. the laws of supply and demand. host: let's talk to chris next on the republican line in bolingbrook, illinois. caller: good morning to you both and thank you for taking my call. i have a comment and a question. the comment has to do with something you mentioned, which

is the fact that although we produce 18 million barrels of oil, our demand is really 20 and what is the likelihood that even if we did anything within the united states, it is going to really change anything? there is a misconception by a lot of people will that whoever the president is, that is the reason why we have these high oil prices. my question is about what is the real reason for biden's visit to saudi arabia? there is more going on with respect to the financial system where russia and china and saudi arabia are moving away from the

dollar, and it seems more likely he is going there to plead with the saudis to stick with the u.s. system. nothing they can do can change the reality on the ground. guest: thanks for the comment and question. i think it is true. you sense the president's frustration. there is limited things he can do to bring down the price of oil. i do not think everybody knows that. previous callers -- people are looking to the president to do something about oil prices. when it comes to other issues on the agenda for the president, it is true the saudis have flooded the idea of do nominating the price of a barrel of oil in chinese currency, but it would be extremely difficult to unwind dollar denominated.

i think it is quite unlikely they will do that in the foreseeable future. there are other topics that will be on the agenda when the president is in saudi arabia. that is gathering a coalition of countries to deter iran. it will also be about the power competition shaping up between the u.s. and china. there will be discussion of steps that countries in the gulf country can do -- host: joel is up in belleville, illinois. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am old enough to remember the carter administration. i don't think either one of you are. i recall something former president carter required

companies become more fuel-efficient. then when president reagan took office, he removed that requirement. what i find interesting is what mr. cook said. we produce oil, but we use more than we produce. it sounds like those chickens are coming home to roost. host: -- guest: thanks. i remember the carter administration. the carter administration led to mayan just in the middle east. as a young kid i followed the iranian hostage crisis area carefully. i remember my parents changing in their gas guzzling -- there was a change -- along the line americans forgot about the energy crisis.

americans drive around in very large vehicles that are not quite efficient. we are not going to drive our way out of this crisis with everyone it doing electric vehicles. american consumers can insulate ourselves from these market forces that periodically lead to these run as in the price -- grown-ups -- run-ups in the price of a barrel of oil. host: our next caller is in new york. caller: you keep emphasizing the demand-side. it remindeds me -- it reminds me of jimmy carter telling everyone to wear sweaters. we have 430 to 530 years of

energy right here in this country. why do we have to go hat in hand to despots? do you think nature distinguishes where the fuel is earned in terms of global warming? where are the 500,000 charging stations that were promised? the transition to green energy will take decades. in the meantime, the population is suffering. morality goes out the window. we can produce our way out. we don't want to, because it defeats the green energy initiative, which is not in place and may not be in place for decades. we should not be dependent on despots for energy. guest: thanks very much. i want you to know it is great

to hear from you. i am a native of new york. hopefully we can have this conversation at plainview family bagel. there is an expectation among some bad a transition to alternative energy sources would be smoother than it has been. that was a myth. what is a more realistic approach is to have a rational energy policy that planned for the future and began this transition to alternative energy as well as using fossil fields to continue. this has been a policy of governments throughout the past couple of decades. as americans are suffering and paying $5 to $7 for a gallon of

gas, biden has stepped away from values in american policy. that is not a good luck. there is a number of solutions to it. the united states is producing at the higher end of what it can as well as preparing for an energy transition that will make countries like saudi arabia more important because of the transition to -- 500 thousand charging stations is more difficult to implement than people imagined. it will take decades. this is not something of a presidential administration were two. it will be 20, 30, 40 years

before we see the fruit of that. host: let's talk to our next caller in lawrence, kansas on the republican line. caller: a lot of people have spoken to what i was going to speak to. canada can send us oil, so we would not have to be going to saudi arabia. also, i don't know why we can't produce more. it would not happen right away, but if we produce more oil here, it would lower the price. the saudis would not like.

that is basically what i have to say. guest:. thank you -- guest: thank you. canada, venezuela, and mexico are suppliers to the united states. what the president is asking from the saudis's to get more oil on the global market. we cannot just think about it in terms of the united states. the laws of supply and demand do not just apply in the united states or outside of the united states. we are getting oil from canada. we are getting oil from mexico. a small amount that we import comes from saudi arabia, but you have to look at the market in a global way. in terms of more production in the united states, that has been the story of this country over the last 10 or 15 years. i remember when palin said "

drill, baby, drill!" the obama-biden administration did oversee tremendous production of fossil fuels in this country. being energy independent is sort of a political goal, but because you have a global oil market, we are still going to be subject to the laws of supply and demand. host: what would make this visit successful? guest: the visit would be successful if the president did in fact move the saudis to pump more oil, if there were some visible steps the saudis can take to normalize their relationship with israel, that would make the trip more palatable to congress who have in critical of the president's decision to go.

if you got the saudis to acknowledge once again responsibility for the murder of jamaal kashoggi, that would be important. that would come at a price. we are sitting here by capitol hill. many members of congress have serious questions about that. host: coming up later on the program, we will talk to lee druckman and james walmer. they will discuss their podcasted that examines america's political institutions and ways to improve them. coming up after this break is more of your calls on open forum. we will be right back. ♪

>> the civil war and other events, firearms played an important role. john bainbridge junior talks about firearms inventors colton, wessen, and their role. >> my book does not even mention the second amendment, but the notion of the individual freedom and the devotion of the early colonists and the early revolutionaries, true individual firearms ownership comes through in the book. whatever steps this country

takes in its effort to control firearms, and knowledge of the past, a knowledge of the early history of the country and its relationship with firearms is important. >> gun baron on c-span's q&a. >> the january 6 committee enters day 4 of public hearings as they continue disclosing evidence they gathered during their investigation. watch a live tuesday at 1:00 p.m. on c-span3 or anytime online at c-span.org. you can visit our website c-span.org/january6. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> wednesday federal reserve

chair jerome powell testify on the nation's economy and efforts to curb spikes in inflation. watch on c-span3, also on c-span now or online on c-span.org. >> listening to programs through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker " play c-span radio," and listen to washington journal daily. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the events of the day. listen to c-span anytime. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. . it is open forum for the -- it is open forum

until 9:15 eastern time. i am interested to hear your opinions on anything public policy related. we were talking earlier about trust in government. before we start with your calls, former president trump was yesterday in nashville, tennessee and he talked about pardoning january 6 defendants. >> even while january 6 defendants are being treated worse than terrorists and murderers, despite most being charged with parading through the capital, most people should not be treated like they are

being treated. if i become president again in the future, i will be looking at them very seriously for pardons, should i decide to do that. host: that was the former president talking about the january 6 defendants. i want to know what you think about that. we will start in new york with rob. caller: good morning. i wante to talk about -- when did to talk about-- i wanted to talk about what you spoke about earlier, trust in government. have zero trust in the government. -- i have zero trust in the government. host: you mentioned your congressman, your senator. what about your local government?

what do you think, about state officials, local officials? do you trust them? caller: no. he is just typical. he won't talk about things that matter. it is disgusting. i have zero faith in our government. host: let's talk to betty next in california, republican. caller: i wanted to ask the previous guy about oil. it causes a lot of pollution. host: we have a bad connection. if you can get a better connection, please do call us back. marianne is next from

albuquerque, new mexico on the democrats' line. caller: i was calling in regard to the last speaker about saudi oil. host: go ahead. caller: i thought it was breathtaking in the context of his conversation, he appears to be a disbeliever in any form of meaningful climate change, which given what is going on in terms of climate seems stunning. host: all right. next up is deborah in pennsylvania on the independents' line. caller: i thought the last speaker was excellent. -- i thought the last speaker was excellent. the republicans want to make the next election about inflation when it is truly about our democracy.

mi on -- please! patriots, authentic american patriots, please pay attention. the coming elections will not be about inflation. it will be about the democracy and our constitutional republic. please get out and about and thank you for my time. host: next, anderson -- liz is next in anderson, south carolina. caller: with this insurrection business, o people in washingtonur -- our people in washington are lucky people do not rise up and march in the streets for what they are doing to destroy, our livelihoods, our

schools, our kids. you are in washington, wasting our tax money, and they're not even cross-examining anyone. host: have you been watching it? caller: it is a joke. liz cheney, adam schiff, they are wicked. host: as you are watching it, have you learned anything new? have you seen anything -- caller: i see exactly what i know. they are deceiving. people who keep voting for these idiots are going down the rathole period. host: let's talk to james on the democrats' wine -- line in florida. caller: gas, gas, gas.

all you gotta do is look at that pump. gas, gas, gas. host: let's talk to debbie in fort worth, texas. caller: hi,, can you hear me? i hope you're having a good day. i'm calling on various topics, but the last person you had on as your guest was thinking biden is going over there to help beg for gas from saudi arabia. a caller called in with the idea that biden was may be over there because they're switching over to this coin currency thing and he was going to persuade saudi arabia to stay with american money.

on a whim, i typed in biden's investments. it pulled up several sites for him. the site i chose said he has several investments in china. his son has several investments in china. his daughter's husband, which we never hear about, who is a doctor has several investments in china and has always been involved in china, and advises the president on other matters, and he is not even on the board or anything. this is something i read.

my gut tells me it is something that should be looked at. host: all right. we will go to some tweets next. one of our previous scholars said the next election will be about democracy. cement tango tweeted us and said " -- samantha tango tweeted us and said " actually, the next election will be about the economy." " it's big oil companies cared about republicans, they would all -- if big oil companies cared about republicans, they would lower gas prices today." let's talk next to robin who is calling from redwood falls, minnesota. caller: i'm calling from london.

can you hear me? ok, great. i'm calling from three vacation homes. --

i want to show you a quote from the washington post jennifer rubin. she is a columnist for the post and with respect to trusting the government, she says this, one must acknowledge that the government has gotten plenty wrong in recent decades. a misguided war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

the 2008 -- failure to arrest climate change are all legitimate reasons to despair about the effectiveness and competence of government. treating cynicism as a sign of sin sophistication -- thinking the government is out to replace them or other wrongs and coverage ramming everything is a political stunt without acknowledging good faith efforts in the government is corrosive to our system of self-government. perhaps -- energy should be sent -- spent to make the government better. it's a open forum for another 15 minutes. carol is up next in lafayette, louisiana. on the democrats line. >> i appreciate you taking my call. i am going to say this and i will tell you something that you must think about everyday of your life.

how would you like to be charged with murder and the victim's family -- global warming. they have the same panel. no opposition. let me tell you what you will think about everyday of your life. let's say that you were the united states

-- i'm not saying i would or wouldn't. i'm just saying if human nature says i would. and this is what is happening in washington. how do you -- >> does talk next to john in indiana. on the democrats line. >> good morning. i was saying on the faithful freedom. see if trump -- since he is a christian i would like to see him say something like word for

word that satan and -- are going to help. something like that word for word on camera. see if he is a real christian. and let's go from there. >> let's go to christian and reset a california independent. >> i am out of los angeles county. it's a suburb in los angeles. i have been -- i was a democrat throughout the bush years and antiwar democrats. and i graduated high school in 99. it makes the 40 now. i am on the verge between gen z -- one thing that i've noticed over the last -- for the first 10 years of 2000 two the bush administration and all of this civil liberty violations.

war mongering and etc., i don't -- i thought that i was a democrat. i thought in my sole that i was a democrat. after he left office, and obama took office i actually worked for obama for a little while. over 11,000 calls for the gentleman. bet -- anti-civil liberty and pro-war. it makes no sense to me. >> how do you mean anti-civil liberty. >> national defense authorization act which was passed in 2011 and 2012 allows him and his government to spy on americans is -- citizens using the cia -- and -- americans is -- citizens abroad and here at home. >> you do not think that was -- given the war here at home.

>> absolutely not. it is embarrassing. that's why i switched over to the independents. but now that i'm trying to rationalize my stance of how i feel against war and foreign meddling and how it such as rand paul and his father ron paul, michael e. there's a vast majority of republicans that are anti-lord -- war and pro-civil liberties. and so i find myself as an independent wanting to change to the republican side. it is an identity crisis because i am seeing democrats completely out of line. completely out of line. from hillary clinton to being satan spohn at the top all the way down to adam, jerry nadler, and these poor were -- pro-war mongering folks that -- don't

care about the american citizens. i am trying to apply for the ppp loan. and the year before during the pandemic and they ignored me. a flat out ignored me. i applied three times. yet i see all of these major corporations that suckle at the t and received loans because they had pricey accountants on their loan who were able to shift and move through the system. and small business loan or -- donors. i'm a single father. i am struggling to pay my rent. because we are sending so much money to ukraine. this is a second israel. if no one sees what is happening right now no one is talking about it ukraine is a second israel very we are sending all this foreign aid to ukraine, >> to be fair, christian it is under attack by a major army.

whatever. it is all and alive. the media has been lying to us over again what about our borders. we are the ones being attacked. >> let's talk to paul next in pennsylvania. republican. >> hide their thank you very much. i just -- the next election needs to be all about democracy. again, i'm a lifelong republican. i think cheney and a few republicans are great. that they stood up to trump. for dictators throughout the world on how to remain in power, lying, and keep repeating the lie. i am saying this is a republican discussing with the many and the top of the republican parties that they can support trump and continue -- just totally

disgusting. in the democracy of the world. at one point we were. >> alright paul. we will remind viewers that january 6 hearings are continuing. we will have live coverage of that on tuesday at 1 p.m. on c-span three. you can also make sure you have the c-span app downloaded on your devices. and always on our website c-span.org. continuing on wednesday, federal reserve chair jerome powell. he will testify on the nation to call me and curb spikes in inflation. that is also on c-span three. at starts at 9:30 a.m.. let's talk next to lease in alpharetta georgia on the independence line. >> just real quick, i want

everyone to keep on term limits. it seems that so only way out of this where -- nightmare on both sides of the corruption. it's amazing how much money goes through our politicians now politicians get rich off of us. -- neither side can get it done but i think that is the answer. and coming up with a way to have limits. i think we can get a lot of presentation from our government. thank you. >> let's talk to richard next in gary, indiana. independent. >> hello. i have been dealing with politics on my life. i'm about 70 now and what has happened -- people don't remember the history of politics over the last 50 or 60 years. it all started in 1965, when president johnson signed the

civil rights act he was told by the louisiana senator that because you sign this bill, you've got to lose the whole south. and the dixie kratz which were the democrats where the whole self. after he signed that bill, they all became republicans. and ever since then, that was the first takeover of the republican party. this is the second phase that we have been going through now with trump. now, he runs the same ideas of the old dixie kratz which are democrats which have become republicans. and that is our problem. republicans at this weight don't pass anything it is all about

power from the republicans. it is just being in office. they don't pass anything. -- have the republicans ever passed. the democrats being social security. they did medicare. >> let's talk to bob next in illinois. republican. >> high. good morning. the reason i call in is there is stuff going on. my point of view is i want to this -- you want to stop killing people killing people -- you kill somebody with a gun you die with the gun. no playing no more games and get these people squared away. if the law cannot do it, arrest the parents of the shooter kid. and then it will change. i appreciate you taking the call. >> that will be our last call

for this segment. up next will be our weekly spotlight on podcast. we will have james woolner. they will discuss plug cast politics in question. it addresses american political institution and ways to address them. we will be right back. >> january 6 committee enters day four of public hearings as they continue disclosing investigations. watch it live tuesday at 1:00 eastern on c-span three. our mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. you can also visit our site c-span.org/january 6 and to watch videos and other things related to that. your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span the weekly podcast brings you over 40 years of

audio recordings from our video library comparing the events of the past two today. on this episode, watergate -- watergate ng gordon lee. it have been 50 years ago. police arrested burglars in the national committee headquarters at the watergate, x and washington dc. but first, we remember gee gordon liddy. in this episode of c-span's the weekly. -- the watergate break-in. answer five years of the 20 year sentence. then late reinvented himself as a radio talkshow host. he use this to offer provocative history and watergate. >> it occurred to me that that might have me assassinated. i didn't want some amateur doing it with a shotgun on the sunday morning in the kitchen window and take out not only me but misses lydia and the couple of the kids. i said if they wanted to go that route, i would just stand on some remote street corner that

we could get it done without harming any taxpayers. and the, -- the comment was i don't think we've gotten there yet. >> you give on the weekly on c-span now or on the mobile app or where ever get your podcast. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only in c-span do you get of her -- no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issue, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, and america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word

recaps the day for you. from home, from congress -- daily press releases. -- stay up-to-date on everything that is happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to just -- subscribe anytime. >> washington journal continues. >> welcome back to washington journal i am joined by lee jetton. he is the new american -- america and cohost of politics in question. james longer is another cohost of the podcast. he is from the art street institute. welcome both of you. >> thanks for having us. there is a third cohost of the podcast. julia is not able to join us. i want to start with asking you about the podcast. what is in it about and how to use decide on a guest?

and when you do started? >> well, yeah it is about trying to figure out who gets to speak. mostly. that is half of the podcast. it is about american political institutions from the perspective of political scientists who are engaged in thinking about how how our institutions work and how they could be better. and we started it about three years ago when james said to me at some event on the hill hey, you want to start a podcast? and i said sure yeah let's do it. three years later, here we are talking about it on see them james. >> yeah. i want to add that lee and i -- come from issues of politics part of completely different perspectives most of the time. we always have really good

productive conversation. i learned from him and i would like to think he learns from me. you don't say you don't if you don't. and we try to replicate the process of thinking and grappling with complex issues and trying to understand issues. we wanted to replicate that on a podcast. thankfully, julia was standing next to us and said she wanted to be a part. that is the second greatest -- >> viewers can join us if you have a question for our guests. if you are a republican you can call us on (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 and independence -- independents on (202) 748-8002

-- >> -- what is wrong with american politics. what i think is wrong with american politics as we forgotten to think about american politics we forgotten about what winning in politics is all about. we forgotten it takes conflict and disagreement before you have compromise and agreement. that is a major part of our current dysfunction. until we try to eject that conflict back into the places where it should occur, with the conflict, it will continue to be dysfunctional. >> lee, you have an episode titled why have doesn't anyone try to win in politics today. is that what you guys are talking about? winning? >> that is very james framing.

i will confess. >> james is all about winning. he is even telling you how he tries to convince me. i think we get to a new lace third place which is greater than the sum of our individual parts or hashing things out. in arguing and being uncertain and bringing on all kinds of interesting people and just reevaluating a lot of the myths that we have about how we think politics works. i don't know if we forgotten how politics work. or if we ever really knew how to do politics. and part of it is that we are in this world in the 21st century where we have this large, diverse nation in which we are trying to simplify everything. everything down and simple for them. i don't know if it is about winning actually. i think it is about trying to convince people.

i agree that politics are about conflict but sometimes i have to tell james that he is wrong as part of a conflict because it is not just about winning it is also about resolving differences. maybe you resolve differences also by the ink to lose. >> take a look at these numbers. this is from yahoo! news. i you go full. 55% of democrats and 53 -- about half the country believe it is likely that the -- that america will cease to be a democracy in the future. i find that shocking. what are guys think? >> i would point out being told. >> that is precisely why we are not thinking about politics. it is an activity but takes place on capitol hill. it takes place around the country.

it is democracy -- it is where the people rule. in america, we don't have rulers. our constitution is set up so that no one can rule this nation. when we think about politics in terms of well the majority needs to rule or the minority needs to rule. who ever thinks that. when we think about it in those terms, we dramatically have shifted and changed how we think about politics. i think it is an incorrect way and disturbs the activity. >> let's check in with one of our callers. harry in florida. on democrats line. >> yeah. i couldn't is agree with you guys more about that. the reason everything is going haywire is because -- really the risk in voting. as long as people keep voting against their own best interest this is what is going to happen. the republicans are the problem.

everybody complains about democratic states, but i will tell you what. most republicans in any of the top 10 republican states are the poorest states in the country. and if people don't wake up, i nothing is ever going to change in government. it is up to. and q. >> what do you think -- thank you. >> what do you think? >> well he has written -- read a great book about how to fix the parties. >> my great book is talking about breaking the two parties. -- democracy in america. in which, my core argument is that problem. it is exactly this mindset that if somebody votes for the other party then they are ignorance and therefore and if everybody

voted for the democrats everything would be great. and that is just not. and politics requires a diversity of opinions. i think we need more than two parties to get that diversity. but with all due respect. i think your mindset is it's ackley what is wrong with politics right now. you think that just if democrats can win more elections and crush republicans they would vote for democrats if they have more information. that is not how politics works. that is not how politics has ever worked. it's not her productive way of thinking about politics. the productive way is to understand there's a lot of different values and interests. and more than what can just sit into parties. -- i think the problem and to disagree with james is that no but -- is that nobody tries to win. is that people only think about

winning and politics but they only think about winning elections. it is not about policy. so, i think, we are at a moment in which we don't know how to think about what democracy is. we just think it is about winning elections. which, i think has just been such a limited and cramped and destructive view of what democracy is. >> i will remind viewers of the phone call that you can go ahead and start calling in if you'd like to talk to our guests on this podcast segment. republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002

-- that is 25% and in order to form a government -- you cannot form a government 25% anywhere you have to build a coalition. multiple parties to govern. and it winds up being a much more representative system in which parties except that they are not going to dominate everybody else. they are going to build broader compromise and broader coalitions. i don't know. germany is doing well. denmark is doing well sweden is doing well. a lot of these european countries are doing quite fine. it is the u.s. that's falling into a binary bipartisan polarization and we have two parties and we lit on geographics and cultural and

increasingly educational devices. well we cannot see the other side as our fellow americans because every is us versus them by an airy struggle for control. and it undermines the purpose of democracy which is to work together to solve our problems. rather than just trying to dominate the side by winning elections. with all due respect, i think it is a misunderstanding of how politics work. >> let's talk to thomas in minnesota on the democrats line. >> good morning. i'd like to congratulate the panel as they try this discussion. i think every point has been made we are not here to be a political. that democracies are the direction of our -- from the people. not from leaders. and i really appreciate that point of view.

it is something we need to get back to. i think there is a weakness in our culture right now that we are not teaching civics in our schools and and of course, we have a problem -- improving education in the long term what is going to enable us to come back together as a culture and be. until we prove our educational -- tear down -- we will suffer from what i think we can't build upon the ignorance that we have in our society. you don't give people information, they do not function with the right departure point. so thank you gentlemen. >> all right. james what do you think? >> i think this is an important point. the majority is not meant to rule.

the minority is not meant to rule. in the minority not getting to play and the majority not getting its way is not the room -- minority ruling. it is nobody ruling. that's a point of the constitution and america. we don't have rulers in america. we are self govern. we are the people that are ruled and rulers at the same time. but we stopped teaching civics and we stop teaching these types of ideas in our classrooms and in our families and our communities. what happens is we see the get federal government is a giant factory whose job is to produce a certain specific outcome that we want. and then we focus on trying to control that outcome. we focus on winning elections which is exactly how you control the factory what you control the factory, you can produce that outcome. and then you -- control the factory instead. the problem is once you control the factory you may policy in

between elections. you participate in the -- politics. that's the way self-government happens. when you stop doing in between elections because you are concerned about winning an election, you end up not doing anything. look at congress. it is a great example of how it is hyper focused on elections and how it led to a status is lost inside the house and it. >> can we refund his point about -- i mean, conversation civics and how the government should work. the question of what you teach and how you teach it and i think when we teach civics to the senate. we mostly teach a fairytale myth about how democracy works. and we have elections. elections are decisive and then the -- policy and vote them accountable.

we do not talk about the complexities of pressure and identity and politics. we don't talk about the way in which politics actually works. and i think -- another point that is not well understood is that the people who are most educated and know most about politics are the most intense partisans. the people who know the least are often the moderate voters who -- on both sides. -- into questions. more information. only if people knew more. somehow our democracy would be fixed. people know a lot about politics. they just know a lot about politics in a way that confirms their beliefs about which party should win. and it confirms their beliefs

about which party is evil. until we get past that fundamental problem, you can give people on the information in the world. you can get them all the education in the world. it is not going to solve the core problem. i am all for people having information and education but with that -- if we think that is the way we fix politics then, we have a launch. people should listen to our podcast is when i am saying. >> following up on that point about education. january 6 hearings are going on. we have numbers about -- from a bowl from yahoo! news -- from a of yahoo! news. this is that the january 6 opening hearing. and 76% of the hearing did not

follow it all. -- what you think of as numbers? do they surprise you? what are they tell you? >> i think that is a bonanza for the american people. they are not paying attention to anything. that is -- those hearings -- it is crazy numbers. i know people are telling pollsters the truth. at 25% of these people will watch anything but that is a killer. but, of course, most of the people are watching it and they are wait for it democrats and most of the people who do not want to watch it our way. republicans. so, again, this is partisan polarization. republicans they read a lot of information and is. but all the news tells them is these hearings are chamois hearings. it is not about how much people are watching things.

it is about the lens through which they watch things. and the extent to which people are rooting for their partisan team and viewing everything through partisan lens. >> let's talk too long -- tom in winter haven, florida. >> high. first for democracy gets thrown around so willy-nilly pill you -- willy-nilly. even the last presidential -- we are democracy. no we are not. we are democratic republic. we haven't a lot of democracy laden appeal that we are not -- our founders understood what was being fundamentally problematic. about that. never mind the people back then were even educated enough.

never mind trying to get to the polls. but democracy was being throat around. -- thrown around. and i guess if you are a something enough it becomes the truth but we are not democracy. >> james, what do you think? >> tom is absolutely correct. if you remember, -- the very first constitution we have. the articles of confederation was very we. the states were very powerful and though lower assemblies in each state house are especially powerful. in the majority's rule. this is something that james madison and the other framers of the cost to ship -- this is something they were concerned about. how do we prevent majority rule. that is exactly what are constitution is designed to do it creates a space where no one can rule. >> maryam is next on the democrats line.

>> i wanted to say that i think democrats -- my dad was a democrat i am a hispanic and my dad was -- every day i learned from him and he told me about politics and so forth. so i like politics because of my dad. he would tell that democrats are for the poor people and that stuck with me. so as a group and everything, i believe in their agenda and philosophy and platform and i tried to compare it to the republican and as a group, i learned -- they have a different agenda. but at the same time, i am a teacher. and i went to school. and i totally believe that our two democracies have to have at

least two sides which is democrat and the weekend. there are a lot of things i wanted say about the republicans but we do need -- the thing that you are doing and what you are saying is for the betterment of the united states. so i think even that -- however when truck came in, -- truck came in -- -- trump came in. -- not only is he getting the christians -- and all the kinds of stuff. now he is getting the nationalist. and the racist people. and that is not cool. that is not right. >> that's get a response. either one of you -- either one of you want to respond to that? >> yeah. trump is bad. that is my opinion.

but the question is why did -- everybody in the republican party in 2016, we have a crazy person who doesn't respect our institution at all and he starts winning. and then you have all these republicans who know better who say well he is our guy. whatever columns we have about him at least it is not hillary clinton and lacey is not democratic. this is the logic are our two system. in which all these republicans just say well, you know, trump is the republicans so i will back anything. and then january 6 happens and a bunch of republicans in the congress say this is really bad. and then suddenly this is the republican position to basically defend trump and say january 6 was not so bad.

and all the republicans go along because they only have two options. you can't be a democrat though you've got to make some sacrifices. this is a core problem with our system. >> the color made this point. it's a good one. we all have our own biased views. there's no such thing as a objective human being without having any kind of opinion. this is an important point to remember. we anticipate politics to achieve our goals to win whatever we want to call it. and we recognize that fact and recognize the fact that the other person has a legitimate on the other side of debate. they may have a gym and -- legitimate claim -- a whole notion of legitimate opposition. it is absolutely dependent upon it. you can pull -- hold your views intensely. i want you to hold your views intensely.

get up in the morning put your feet on the ground go organize and run for office and go vote and do whatever you can to change the world. then engage with people who disagree with you. because it is not a problem of agreement or disagreement and engagement. -- it leads to transcendence and he gives us a better idea of what reality in the round is. this is why i keep talking to lee all the time. i know he disagrees with me and i like having that disagreement because it gives me a better understanding of my own use area -- my own views. >> -- what he has done there has to be down trees. telling supporters -- boundaries. there has to be a boundaries. -- we cannot say that anything is legitimate. we have to accept legitimate opposition.

and we have to have boundaries around that. i don't know if you're explicitly defending what trump has done there and what his supporters are doing -- >> continuing on the former president. you do have a podcast episode asking the question is trump in the decline. what have you come to? what do you think now? >> our conclusion in that episode -- julia had a lot of great insights. i encourage viewers to check it out -- and the podcast on places you can find podcast but this episode in particular we came to the conclusion that trump is about more than just trump. it is about the republican party and his coalition of supporters to a different scent of issues. and you see this continuing. in people like governor from

florida and others. right now, i don't know if trump is necessarily in decline. i lets talk about trump's personal power. that may be a question. as far as the agenda he was concerned with iran on, i think the immigration, trade. these issues will be the top of america for the next generation. -- concerned with he ran on, i think the immigration, trade, -- these issues will be the top of america for the next generation. -- >> talk about civics. i do think that is important. a lot of our problem is that the media is a market driven group of businesses that tells us and have a vested interest in

telling us what we want to hear. if i turn on msnbc and hear something good about trump. i am not going to turn it off same as fox. i think it is critical that -- when i go to the polls i see many names on a ballot and i only know maybe two of them. so, we really don't know -- at least most people are like i am. we don't know enough to vote intelligent. -- intelligently. i don't know any of those people. >> heavy research them? >> -- have you researched them? >> -- lee was asking you have you researched the candidates for office?

>> sometimes i go as far as trying to find a list of people that have tried to interview all the candidates. the judges. i have no idea what the judges did. >> ok. let's get a response. >> yeah. it is true. it is hard to get information about candidates. all parties are important because they provide labels. and they should offer some vetting and newsom -- mechanism. -- washington dc there's like nine people running in the democratic primaries in my local ward. what i do is look at who is endorsed by which groups. that is the best we can do.

again, in politics, we are somehow evaluating character of the politicians when with these people it is hard for us to really read their statements. are they telling the truth? are these policies legitimate? but we don't like the idea of political parties or institutions that help us. we think we should all figure things out for ourselves. but it is hard to find information and evaluate. parties are useful in this respect. when we only have two of them, we can: these binary efforts. we have heard from some of the colors already. that people say why don't people just vote for democrats because republicans are awful. that is not a productive way of thinking about things. so, i don't know. the media. i don't know do you support public media? npr? public broadcasting?

do you consider bows to be liberal? the media is a business, but we can also choose which media we want to support. and we can spend it on corporate media and here we are. i think, also there is a way in which we can blame the forces in our politics. we also have choices and what we support and what we don't support. >> let's talk to rover in virginia on the democrats line. good morning, rover. >> good morning how are you? >> good. >> inc. you for answering my call. i understand but when you have people that don't even believe with their own eyes they don't want to know the truth. >> explain that rover.

when you are talking about other people who don't agree with you politically? >> i am talking about people that you see on tv that were breaking into the capitol. they had the trump riots and they still don't believe -- they believe that was a bunch of regular people going to the capital. >> james, comments on january 6. >> i worked in the capital for over a decade. i met my wife there and raise my family several locks from the capital. the place is dear to my heart personally. it's a sacred space for the nation. what happened on january 6 is absolutely horrific. the people who did it and broke into the capitol were hooligans. they should be punished to the full extent of the wall after being tried by a jury of their peers. that is very simple. they were not engaging in political conflicts they were engaging in violent conflict. there is a big difference.

when it comes to political conflict, i think that we can, it is critical for people to get together with other people that they disagree with. this is by frederick douglass told us that you can have all grass without struggle. you have to have disagreement before you can have agreement. before you can have compromise. we forgotten the compromise is not -- the issue that we are talking about -- they are really tough issues. we negotiate the non-negotiable and congress. therefore people are naturally going to disagree. and it is that disagreement and the act of trying to prevail and achieve your goals in a debate that ultimately lays the groundwork for agreement. but if we sit around and wait for consistence -- consists s -- -- to emerge. >> larry on the republican line.

>> good morning. i will go ahead i'm sorry. question for you. for both of the people. the gentleman. on january 6, lot of a -- i will call back allows my thoughts i am sorry. >> that is ok larry. let's go to roosevelt in new york on the democrats line. >> did morning. i have -- good morning. i have three statements and i would like both of those guys opinions. dave got some there -- they have got some very high ideals but i would like to throw a little dirt on some of those ideals.

what about money? do using money should be our guiding force in politics? because this is -- we are a capitalist country. and money rules. until we can find a way to spawn each party -- i don't know how you would go about doing that but until we can find a way -- the corporations and billionaires and trillionaire's -- they really are what i would call rulers. they are the rulers. money rules. i would like your guys opinion about money in politics. >> thank you roosevelt. who would like to start? >> i will say. yeah i mean look i think he is right and that money has a

distorting influence on politics. if i were to rewrite the rules, i would say that the project money should play a limited role in politics. however, we have a first in this country where -- that is somewhat unique. that affords a lot of protections for political speech and this makes regulating political money somewhat difficult. i think the supreme court went too far in the united decision and subsequent decisions that really created a tremendously open space for money and politics. i think the answer would be to have a much more robust public funding system for parties and candidates. for some reason, we don't like giving politicians money to run their campaign. we leave it to very rich people who have very distinct parties

and tend to be much older and much more conservative on economic issues. i do think it has a distorting influence for sure. >> james, any comment? >> absolutely. the first amendment rights empower americans to participate in politics. it is hard to be able to -- imagine to participate in politics to be -- without being able to speak. the question that the caller asked really comes down to -- it is not, we don't have rulers here. it is a people participating in politics to make that decision. the decision could be better or worse depending on our perspective. we all participate on politics in a different way depending on the amount of resources we have i would like to point out that if you put -- look at the -- brothers in the 2012 election they spent a lot of money. a lot of money. and they did not win. >> what you mean?

they did not win the presidency but they want a lot of state offices. >> my point is they are competing for votes. at the end of the day we all have the same vote and money is going to -- >> but we don't all get to decide who can run for office. running for office be means being able to raise a lot of money. come on, jane's. we are not on a level playing field here. let's not have a fantasy vision about how money and politics works. >> let's talk to lisa on the independence -- independent's line. >> -- we look at policy as being -- policy which is based on psychology. how we interpret and see the

policy is how it's communicated to us. there is one side of the fence that is extraordinarily good at using human psychology to communicate those policies as either being very good or very bad night using a sick human psychology. that is it. thank you. >> any comments. >> it's a great point. the commit -- we focus too much on economic behavioral type modes of analysis and we do not use enough psychology. i worked in congress for a very long time and the way that the leaders exercise power inside the senate is through social pressure. that is how it works. and we miss that when we only focus on statistics. and we only focus on numbers and arch -- lots of data.

-- and large -- lots of data. -- ultimately create something new. >> tim is calling us on the republican line from florida. good morning tim. >> good morning. take back and look at history. in the great society where they introduced social security welfare which was a good purpose it coming out of the great depression. then you look at candidates john adams where he says not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. ok. people are expected -- expecting handouts. you gentlemen -- about january 6. ok he made a statement that trump said go raid the capital. he didn't say that. he said go up there and make

your voices heard. people ran past and -- reagan created more small businesses in this country than any president. plus, with the tax cuts, and the different tax brackets that we have. we have a regressive tax system. should congress. but it was democratic-controlled representatives in congress yet decided instead of saving that money and applying it to our deficit said they wanted to go out and spend it. this this stuck with immigration. the stuff with immigration has been going on -- he offered -- democratic-controlled congress that they would work on a solution to fix our immigration system.

it is a political football. nobody wants to do anything. >> let's get a response. who would like to take that one? >> it sounds like a bunch of republican talking points to me. >> i don't even know where to begin. it is not an argument. but there's a lot of republican talking points here. but with trump people get on c-span and give a bunch of talking points that are totally incoherent argument without actually thinking something. >> i would say rick in respectfully disagreeing with him we have a moment right now where we could go too far and make it harder for people who want to change the system. what do i mean

what i'm talking about is when you oppose to status quo, if you're a donald trump, it doesn't matter. if you are a post of the status quo, you have one way to change it. and that is to go outside of congress to do so. and you use language like you need to tell your representatives like you think. you need to go time. -- fight. that's the kind of stuff that we've talked about. and when we say that that is ordering a mob to the capitol to burn it down or whatever -- >> come on! come on. host: we can't settle it right here, but i want to thank you both so much for being on the program. thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having us. host: and that's it for "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning. join us then. in the meantime, have a great

saturday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> the january 6 committee enters day for a public hearings as they gather evidence in their investigation. watch the hearing live tuesday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now, our free mobile app, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can visit our website c-span.org/january 6 to previous hearings and other hearings related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered you of government. >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act of the 1964 presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war on

vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson secretaries new, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones made sure the conversations were taped, as a would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> will also your blunt talk. >> yes sir. >> i went and remarked of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died. i wanted right quick. >> yes sir. >> if i can't ever go to the bathroom i won't go. i promise you i will stay right here. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> dr. anthony fauci, who recently tested positive for