house. first, kat cammack of florida and steve cohen of tennessee. be sure to join the discussion with your calls, texts and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is friday, june 24th, 2022. day 5 of the january 6 hearings are in the books. . the panel used yesterday's time to detail what was called a pressure campaign on justice department officials to support former president trump's claims. the committee also played testimony indicating at least five house republicans. this morning, we are getting the reaction to yesterday's hearing. our phone lines, as usual, by clinical party.

republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. you can catch up with us on social media. a very good friday morning to you. we will let you start calling it and get your phone calls in just a second. i want to take you to the action on capitol hill in just the past 10 hours. last night around 10:00 p.m. eastern that the senate passed that bipartisan gun safety legislation. politico notes it is the most significant response to mass shootings in nearly 30 years. it was a 65-33 vote, 15

republicans joining democrats in passing legislation. the bill now heading to the house for action. right now, hehe house rules committee, which sets the rule on the debate that will eventually happen on the house floor, the house rules committee meeting at 7:00 a.m. eastern to tee up the bill. a vote in the early afternoon. speaker nancy pelosi has promised to put it on president biden's desk today for his signature. you can watch all the action in the house on this legislation starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern. that is when we are expecting the house to come in. we will go live from gavel-to-gavel coverage. that is all later today.

this first hour of the "washington journal" this morning, we are getting a reaction to yesterday's january 6 hearing. the fifth of these hearings. there are expected to be seven total. the last two will take place sometime after the july 4 recess, after the house leaves today, they are not expected back until july 12. your thoughts this morning. did you watch yesterday? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. springfield, illinois, the line for democrats. what did you think of yesterday's hearing? caller: thank you for taking the call. i thought it was very good, very informative. those who have been following the corruption of donald trump

the last 17 months, it is fully pressed into the "washington journal." we are learning a lot more details. a strong case is being made on multiple fronts with the corruption of "45." there is nothing to be debated anymore in terms of changing people's minds. listening to c-span, -- there should be some person in there doing the investigation that is a republican. what about this, what about that? we will not be able to convince these people. we have to disregard them,

democrats, independents, more reasonable republicans need to hear this and judge whether or not this man should be able to run for president. host: let's go to our republican line. mike is waiting in new york, out on long island. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the entire committee and all the related hearings, when i served in the infantry, we used to call it the dog and pony show because that is what it is. it is symptomatic of other democrats blew so badly this november and the house and maybe this -- democrats will lose so badly this november in the house and maybe in the senate. host: why is it a dog and pony show? caller: the average voter in america is not thinking about this committee. the average voter in america is

thinking about how much a gallon of gas costs, how they will feed their babies or our borders being defended. host: washington, d.c., good morning. caller: the hearings, it is very clear no matter what the problems we have in our country today, as an independent i understand how frustrated people are. the crimes that were committed by the former president against the constitution, and republicans claim to be constitutionalists, they have been claiming that for years. how can they ignore what donald trump was doing against the constitution? it is un-american. they claim to be patriots, they claim to want to make america great, but they want to ignore the crimes against the constitution and against america, american democracy that

the former president has done. they are so obsessed by the fact that he lost and they cannot believe he lost, although the majority of people are against him and they still are, they want to believe in all these conspiracy theories. that was what was so striking to me. donald trump and his followers are so upset by these conspiracy theories, and none of them have been proven to be true. host: as we said, the focus, the theme of yesterday's hearing focusing on former justice department officials, what was described as a pressure campaign to get them to go along with claims of election fraud. here is one of those exchanges yesterday. committee member, republican adam kinzinger leading the questioning yesterday. he was speaking to former acting

deputy attorney general richard donoghue about his discussion with president trump. [video clip] >> let's take a look at another one of your notes. you also noted that mr. rosen center mr. trump, doj cannot and will not snap his fingers and changed the outcome of the election. how did the president respond? >> he responded very quickly and essentially said that is not what i am asking you to do. i am asking you to say it was corrupt and leave the rest of me and the republican congressmen "washington journal >> he said the president said just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. that is a direct quote from president trump, correct? >> that is a direct quote, yes. >> the next note shows the president kept pressing.

the president keep saying the department was obligated to tell people this was an illegal, corrupt election. >> that is also an exact quote from the president, yes. >> did the department find any evidence to conclude there was anything illegal or corrupt about the 2020 election? >> there were isolated incidents of fraud, nothing came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual state. >> how would you describe the president's demeanor during that call? >> he was more agitated than he was on december 15. the president throughout these meetings and telephone conversations was adamant he had won and we were not doing our jobs. it did escalate overtime until ultimately the meeting on january 3 was the most extreme

of the conversations. >> i want to make sure we do not gloss this over. just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to us. the president one of the top justice department officials to declare the election was corrupt even though he knew there was no evidence to support that statement. the president did not care about actually investigating the facts. he just wanted the department of justice to put its stamp of approval on the lies. host: adam kinzinger there, the republican congressman member of the committee. part of his back and forth with acting deputy attorney general richard donoghue. the other key witness, jeffrey rosen and the other named you heard, jeffrey clark, former assistant attorney general. the discussion focusing on jeffrey clark, his efforts to draft a letter and try to get

other officials that would sign it that would urge officials in six states to -- alternate slates of electors. what was being described as a pressure campaign. the news we found out earlier this week about jeffrey clark, who did not appear at the hearing. federal agents searching his home, seizing records from jeffrey clark. authorities searching his home in virginia. he was known to champion donald trump's claims of election fraud. >> agents are searching his home. we showed you that picture of jeffrey clark because he was not at the hearing yesterday. back to your phone calls. getting your thoughts on the january 6 hearing. marilyn, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. let's set the stage here.

since donald trump became president, the left has been after him every day, using the media to deflect blame from anything they have done. he has every right to challenge that inquiry. what they did to him was wrong. they do what they got away with. they set this up, in my opinion, it is obvious, the proof is there, biden, who has been paid off by russia, they work together to bring in this virus that anthony fauci knew was coming. just like this sham hearing that is going on. host: are you watching these hearings? caller: i watched the first week. i cannot watch a one-sided clown show. these guys are corrupt. they are picking and choosing what laws they want to enforce. host: what was described as the

bombshell, the big reveal from yesterday's hearing was testimony from former white house aides to president donald trump about pardons that were sought by a handful of house republicans, asking the president for full pardons for various pardons before he ended up leaving office on january 20, 2021. what do you make of that? caller: you have to understand, these are government employees. it does not matter what rank you are at. this administration is corrupt. they will threaten your livelihood if you do not play ball. it is one-sided. when will hillary clinton be brought in for the russia hoax that she comprised herself? her campaign manager admitted. when will we see a hearing on that? crickets. host: toward the end of

yesterday's hearing, part of that testimony played from recorded interviews about the issue of house republicans seeking pardons. [video clip] >> my colleagues took an oath. some of them failed to uphold their's and instead chose to spread the big lie. some of the same republican members requested pardons in the waning days of the trump administration. five days after the attack on the capitol, representative mo brooks santa email on the screen now. as you see, he emailed the white house, pursuant, requesting a pardon for representative matt gaetz and others. witnesses told the select committee that the president considered offering pardons to a wide range of individuals

connected to the president. let's listen to some of that testimony. >> was representative gaetz requesting a pardon? >> i believe so. >> the general tone was, we might get prosecuted because we were defensive of the president's positions on these things. the pardon he was discussing, requesting was as broad as you could describe. from the beginning of time until today. he mentioned. >> i sent nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. >> are you aware of any other members seeking pardons? >> mr. gates, mr. brooks.

a handful of members. preemptive pardon. mr. gaetz -- i'm not sure why. a meeting with mr. roosevelt. >> you mentioned mr. gaetz. >> they talked about congressional pardons. [indiscernible]

host: that is from yesterday's january 6 hearing. the members you heard mentioned, the republican members tweeting responses yesterday afternoon and evening. here is a few of them. marjorie taylor greene saying i heard means you do not know. spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the january 6 witchhunt committee is all about. matt gaetz saying this is a political sideshow. rapidly losing the interest of the american people and now resorts to sicking law enforcement on political appointments -- political opponents.

scott perry said at no time did i speak with ms. hutchinson or any other white house staff about a pardon for myself. this never happened. another statement saying i requested pardons for brave military contractors who were railroaded by the justice system, saying i have nothing for which to seek a pardon in my request were for others unassociated with government and washington, d.c. any assertion to the contrary is false. andy biggs saying, like the many selective leaks from this illegally formed committee, today's video testimony was deceptively edited to make it appear as if i personally asked her for a presidential pardon. these hearings without cross-examination or advanced disclosure of evidence have become a soviet style show trial. the truth is less important than the outcome.

back to your phone because. patricia, upper marlboro, maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the first thing i would like to share, let's set the record straight. number 1, a lie is a lie. what part no one is getting of what they are seeing and what they are hearing. yes, they have a special channel that feeds them the lies. yes, everybody else in the world has the neutral channels. the only thing they say is, biden, hillary, the border, inflation, all of this would have occurred if trump was sitting in the white house. we all have opinions but a lie is a lie. if they cannot understand that,

with the bright minds we all supposedly have to think for ourselves, this is a problem. they give their money to support donald trump's lies what they do not understand if their children or grandchildren come with a lie to them, they are punished. they do not want this man to be finished. host: alexandria, virginia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, nothing about donald trump surprises me. this is the question i have for most republicans. should any african country -- [indiscernible] i think that is food for thought for most americans who believe donald trump did not do

anything. they do not have the moral courage to say. can they say that? caller: plantation, florida, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know if they will ever prove the election was illegal or if it was fraudulent, but the best thing that could happen to the united states would be far somehow to this happen. the biden administration is in shambles. they are destroying this country. let me interject a few facts that are incontrovertible. number 1, 130 representatives of the u.s. congress voted to object to the election. are they liars?

i do not know, are they insurrectionists? that happened after the january 6 riot. states changed their voting rules without the approval of their legislatures. by law, the election should have got back to the state legislatures because something happened they had not approved. when donald trump wanted to throw it back to the legislatures, that was a perfectly constitutional and legal move he wanted to make. it allowed -- these changes allowed fraud. there were no changes by state legislatures as far as mailing out ballots. they were note changes to the signature requirements. host: you said there was fraud.

these officials yesterday, these trump administration justice department officials testified yesterday, saying mother might have been isolated, individual cases of fraud, there was nothing on the scale that could change the results of these various states. caller: they never made a serious investigation. they never made a serious investigation, that is the problem. congress wanted to have a commission to examine these things. a bipartisan commission to examine these things, just for two weeks. this country would be a lot better off. people were trying to do things constitutionally. there were strong statements made about this election. when you have people stopping by drop boxes for ballots, you have

to wonder how much of this happened. there is a lot of justification for the strong statements about fraud. people try to constitutionally look into this but they were blocked. host: this is steve in vienna, virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the republican people -- i have neighbors tell me the only time they feel good is when they are watching fox news, that is nothing but emotion. they are not looking into the facts. there was no fraud. it took arizona four weeks, they did not find anything.

i think it is interesting because these guys are emotionally vested, it is not about the truth. it is like a bad marriage that you cannot get out of. thank you. host: cleveland, tennessee, good morning. caller: just to follow up on what the last caller said. 130 republican representatives were on the take for donald trump. they are loyal to donald trump, nothing constitution. there is no way you can watch the hearings and believe otherwise. they do not want to believe the truth. they know what the truth is. this is a group of people cursed by the spirit of deceit. that means they are liars. liars love lies. there is no way you can watch any of the hearings and listen to donald trump read tweets and not know this was an effort to

overthrow the government. and the republican is so desperate to stay in power, they were willing to put people's lives at risk. they were willing to go along with the lie just to stay in power. host: ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: good. go ahead. caller: i have a comment to describe the justice system and how broken it is. if this was some sort of criminal case, an actual high-profile criminal case, and the juror was brought in like this panel was brought in, they would throw most everyone out. you are supposed to be unbiased. everyone knows what this is. we live through millions of dollars of the russian hoax, the nonstop attacks. what the problem in this country is we cannot get in alignment

with what people need and want. in turn, we are being pushed around by the politicians. their money, election machine is driving the country. with the election, anyone that has the comprehensive knowledge to be able to get out of bed in the morning should be able to look at themselves in the mirror and say the many accounted cases of fraud that they are hearing all around this country, there is no way to deny it, they have put people in jail. host: the testimony yesterday by these trump officials saying they looked into many of these leading up to january 6, saying they did not find anything that could overturn the results in the states. they looked into allegations of trucks full of ballots and did not find anything. caller: i am sure they talked

about the ones that were convenient to them. when you look at the video knowledge everyone has seen in the world about people hovering around stuff in boxes, pulling ballots underneath the tables, unexplained water leaks that did not happen. this is the united states. we are supposed to set the law in the world for civility. every time we turn around, we are trained to subvert the vote, whether we are killing martin luther king are changing some tradition in this country about what family basic values are. we walk over to the ballot machine, we make a vote. not some computer algorithm with no way to even look back to see if you voted. i am able to talk to you right now on this small -- from this small state of ohio but we cannot figure out how to look back and see how are ballots were cast? you can tell right there, in a technological world, we are

being duped. host: you mentioned ballot machines, the idea of seizing ballot machines and requests from president trump, questions why the justice department could not do that. that came up yesterday, too. [video clip] >> all the president trump's plans for the justice department were being rebuffed. the president became desperate entering into the new year with january 6 fast approaching. president trump rushed back early from mar-a-lago on december 31 and called an emergency leading the department leadership. here is mr. donahue describing the meeting at the white house. >> the president was a little more agitated than he had been during the meeting on the 15th. he discussed a variety of election matters.

he did say, this sounds like the kind of thing that would warrant an appointment of the special counsel. there was a point where the president said something about, why don't you guys sees machines? >> the president asked you to sieze voting machines from state government. what was your response? >> we sought nothing improper with regard to the voting machines. i told him the real experts had been dhs and they briefed us that they had looked at it and there was nothing wrong with the voting machines. that was not something that was appropriate to do. >> there is no factual basis to seize machines. >> i do not think there was legal authority, either. >> can you explain what the president did after he was told

the justice department would not seize voting machines? >> the president was agitated by the response. to the extent that machines and technology was being discussed, the acting attorney general said dhs, department of homeland security, has expertise in machines and certifying them and making sure states are offering them properly. since dhs had been mentioned, the president yelled out to his secretary to get him on the phone. she did in very short order. he was on the phone, he was number 2 at dhs on the time, it was on the speakerphone. the president essentially said, ken, i am sitting here with elected -- with their attorney general said it is your job to seize machines.

>> during this meeting, did the president tell you he would remove you and mr. rosen because you were not declaring there was election fraud? >> toward the end of the meeting, the president again was getting very agitated and he said, people tell me i should just get rid of both of you. i should just remove you and make a change in leadership, put jeff clark in, maybe something will finally get done. host: that from yesterday's january 6 hearing. if you want to watch it in its entirety, you can do so on our website, c-span.org. it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. we are getting your reaction to yesterday, the fifth of what we now know will be seven january 6 committee hearings, the last two set to take place in mid july.

today, we know the house is already at work at that bipartisan gun safety proposal. it was passed late last night in the senate, 65 votes including 15 republicans, supporting legislation. the house expected to come in at 9:00 a.m. eastern than a vote expected around midday today. we will be taking you to the house live at 9:00 a.m. to see what happens on the house floor. we should note that that legislation, the votes of senate yesterday and the expected vote today coming just after the supreme court delivering as the washington times described as a forceful affirmation of gun rights by striking down a new york law on thursday that required residents to show they

faced a particular danger before they could attain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. the 6-3 ruling was the first major decision in years. happening the same week that this first major gun safety legislation in decades could pass congress. nancy pelosi has promised to put it on president biden's desk today. about 25 minutes left in this segment of "washington journal." we are getting your responses to yesterday's january 6 steering. (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. caller: good morning. host: i am doing well. caller: nice tie.

i want to say a couple of things. i was born in the 1960's. i believe our voting process has worked very well. we have always had corrupt politicians, but not as bad as people control the department of justice. none as bad as the people who have come in and corrupted our system the way the republican party has. i see this as a movie. it was called now you see it, now you don't. what we really need is we need to get better republican presidents, better democratic presidents. we truly needed independent president in the united states. i believe that, unfortunately, when we have people like donald trump who control the department of justice, who control all the

aspects of government that would even allow, with any excuse, for any of this to happen, that is truly detrimental and has been detrimental to our democracy. i do want to commend all of the caucasian people that live in rural communities or are in higher positions that have come out in society and put their lives at risk and their jobs at risk to come out and tell the truth about the last election. host: you mentioned you do not have great feelings for the folks who control the justice department. what about the two gentlemen who controlled it at the end of the trump administration? richard donoghue and jeffrey rosen, the deputy attorney general, acting deputy and acting attorney general? caller: i feel as if you have the actual attorney general, who

is in a position to control everything, those people can only do so much. now that people under that individual have the opportunity to finally share their honesty, that it somehow broken the system, these are people that if they have the opportunity to be heard in the beginning would have spoken up for the american people, but they were oppressed by the leader in office. they could not have their voices heard and it shows how much power one person is given in a particular position that i can corrupt a whole system and affect innocent people that truly want to allow democracy to exist at its best. host: that is dale in north carolina. this is bradley, marietta, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to. . say a couple things as far as the committee, the republicans

had the opportunity to take part. they asked him to take part. they could be calling witnesses right now but they chose not to. they thought they could act like the thing never happened. the republicans who are now being praised, the justice department, mike pence, yes, in the last minute they chose to do the right thing. do not forget that 99% of the rest of the time, when they refused to do anything, everyone who donald trump was. it was not until he was literally forcing them to break the law that they finally grew a spine. i am not here to throw a parade for these republicans. republican people are never going to accept the truth. they are dug in. nobody leaves a cult. the people were james jones, they drink the kool-aid.

host: wendell in tennessee, republican, good morning. caller: i would like to know what the differences between the democrats and republicans. [indiscernible] host: todd, california, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i honestly think the democrats cheated in the last presidential election. there was widespread valid harvesting, ballot destruction. not letting election poll watchers look at the count. they would count a bunch of ballots that came in overnight and all of them were former vice president joe biden in many cases. that does not make any sense. host: what do you think about

the testimony to the contrary by trump justice department officials to some of those points yesterday? have you been watching the hearings? caller: i pickup news blurbs or read news articles because i cannot sit through hours and h ours of that. another caller said 130 republicans voted in favor of trump, that the election fraud was correct. all of those people cannot be lying. one more thing. even if trump was guilty of the alleged insurrection on january 6, they already impeached him and he was acquitted. i do not know what their point is having us go through all of this right now. host: that is todd in

california. a lot of questions about what comes after these hearings. we know the justice department is continuing their investigation. the federal agents searching the home of jeffrey clark, who is one of the key players mentioned in yesterday's hearing. that search happening just two days before yesterday's hearing earlier this week. we will see what happens with the justice department in the wake of these hearings. two more expected, and a couple of storylines to perhaps watch in the coming weeks ahead of those hearings. this article from the new york times, focusing on what congressman mo brooks may or may not do when it comes to this committee. from his resounding defeat in alabama's republican runoff for the senate on tuesday and a snub

from the former, representative mo brooks appears willing to testify as part of the january 6 investigation. he signaled he would comply with the impending subpoena from the house committee leading this inquiry into the attack of the capitol, saying he would only do it under certain conditions. he would only testify on matters religion january 6, 2021 and he wants to see copies of documents you might see before hand. we will see what happens with mo brooks, at one time a staunch supporter of the former president trump, especially leading up to january 6. another name to keep track of, alex holder, a british filmmaker who had access to president trump and his family ahead of and after the 2020 election. he has emerged as a key witness.

his documentary footage, some 11 hours of it with the trump family discussing the campaign and the election for a planned documentary was subpoenaed by the committee earlier this week. precisely what the footage shows is unclear. mr. holder interviewed president trump once before the january 6 riot and twice after the january 6 riot. a name to keep in mind as the committee continues with its work ahead of those two hearings in july. back to your phone calls. indiana, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am amazed at listening to some of the callers who continue to deny that this was a sedition that took place on january 6, who continue to deny that the highest levels of our

government, all the way to the oval office, try to put a big lie out to steal an election. the stop the steal slogan should be reversed. it is unbelievable to me. i taught the constitution for several years to junior high students who could grasp what was in the constitution much better than what i am hearing from adult callers. it is amazing to me, as a poll worker, because in my local polling place, i am one of the inside people who -- i have watched my fellowit safe and sed to doubt that thatdoubt what was of ballots coming into my state

of pennsylvania, or to arizona, is unbelievable. people still refuse to accept the truth. they have allowed themselves to be -- i do not want to use the term hoodwinked -- but they have allowed themselves to be taken away two satellites circling the earth trying to change ballots. it is amazing to me that people grasp these theories that have been debunked from the beginning of these hearings. the truth is something that will set us free if you allow it to do so. host: crank is next in ohio, independent -- greg is next in ohio, independent. good morning. caller: it should have been sent

back to the states to be recounted. nged the election or not, oh well, so be it, but there would not have been this uproar. as far as mr. trump, i did not know anything about that man. i watched his tv shows. ever sense he got in there and exposed the swamp creatures, this is the problem. the swamp. the swamp. cnn and msbs. host: another greg in ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. republican, democrat, independent, we are all americans. let's be civilized. adam schiff did the same thing.

he testified about the january 6 so-called insurrection. american taxpayers, don't we deserve a sovereign united states? section 8, article 1 of the u.s. constitution -- that is in the constitution. i heard a democrat caller earlier talking about jim thorton. he was asked to be on the committee but nancy pelosi blocked it. i am a senior citizen, i am 66. i doubt we will see another presidential election. host: if we do not see another

presidential election, what will happen? caller: you are talking about the department of justice and the fbi. there is the kgb. look what happened to brett kavanaugh. there was nothing done about it. it reminded me of the kgb. our nation is in serious trouble. the democrats like to distract the american people with investigations that cost millions of dollars in our southern border is wide open. why don't they investigate that? it is crazy what is going on. host: you mentioned brett kavanaugh, assuming you are referring to the man heavily armed that was arrested outside his house. the latest this week, he was in court, pled not guilty to federal charges of attempted murder of a supreme court justice.

the 26-year-old california man was arrested near brett kavanaugh's maryland home. that news from wednesday this week. reston, virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: sorry, i am a republican. i am a lifelong republican voter. i went into these hearings thinking the nation just needs to heal, that donald trump had not done anything to cause them, but after listening to the hearings, it is the duty of every citizen to be listening to these hearings. it is all republican witnesses. are we just going to doubt anyone who speaks out against trump? it feels like a cult to me. i changed my mind and i think trump should be held accountable.

i think everyone involved should be held accountable. it is the rule of law and it has to mean something. it is very obvious from the evidence that this committee has produced that he is guilty. i think he needs to go to prison. host: this is tim in minnesota. good morning. caller: hi. i think it is pressure on the doj. pressure he has put on every other department, it is ludicrous. these conspiracy theories lead to the elections worker, i heard her testimony, it wrecked her life. i call it the ginger meant conspiracy -- ginger mint conspiracy. you see it hurting the common person.

that is unacceptable. that is all i really have to say. host: you are talking about the fourth hearing. do you think that was the key moment of these hearings so far? caller: the reason it hit me so hard was because she is a regular citizen. she was performing her civic duty. listen to her testimony. she gets death threats. her mom and grandma get death threats. that is unacceptable. host: what does it mean for people performing their civic duties from here forward? caller: what was your question? host: do you think it will put a chill on people working? caller: yes, sir, i do.

yes. host: this is adrian out of greensboro, north carolina. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening for the last hour. all i get from this -- these people will not watch the hearings. all of these republican witnesses testifying, a lot of them trump appointed. all dismissed because of a lack of evidence. donald trump is the biggest compulsive liar and con artist in history. if you check his records, all the bankruptcies, racism, corruption, money laundering. donald trump should be held accountable and locked up, along with giuliani, eastman.

host: what did you think about the republican caller who said these hearings have changed her mind? caller: i yelled at the top of my lungs, finally, someone with common sense. someone said there were 127 republicans who went along with donald trump. all of them asked for pardons. you do not ask for a pardon unless -- host: there was not that many who asked for pardons. the caller was referring to how many rejected various state counts on january 6. we are talking about a handful, according to testimony, but after pardons, maybe five. caller: meadows asked for a blanket pardon for 147 republicans and that was denied.

six of them asked matt gaetz, mo brooks, marjorie taylor greene and somebody else. they all knew they were wrong. when the people stormed the capitol, they all ran like roaches when the lights came on. donald trump, election fraud. not one case has been proven, people. what is wrong with you? host: this is fred in virginia. republican. good morning. caller: i would like to comment on the doj. things are supposed to be done for the people. why is it for the last six years, it has all been about donald trump and nothing has been brought up about these crimes committed by other

politicians. quit nitpicking over what you need to do. there is too much more in this country that needs to be taken care of. host: are you watching any of these hearings? caller: i have watched every one of them. i think it is scripted. i have read everything they are saying. host: we heard from a caller today that she has changed her mind by watching these hearings. do you think there are more people out there that you their minds changed by what did or did not happen on january 6? do you think there are that many

open-minded people? caller: so many people are tired of hearing all this for six years that they do not want to listen to it. host: that is fred in virginia. paul in tampa, florida. good morning. independent. caller: let me make two editorial comments before i get to my main point. i voted for trump twice. on january 6, at that point, i am wondering, what is he trying to do? this is ridiculous. on the election itself, it is the first time a president ever got more votes, 10 million more votes than he got in the first election and lost. it is really odd that biden gets 6 million more votes and loses 15 house seats. even worse, california, he gets

3 million more votes and a lose four house seats. what are these people do? just vote for biden and not other democrats? host: democrats flipped the senate, including seats in georgia. caller: say that again. host: democrats flipped the senate after the election. the runoff elections happened in georgia and democrats did up taking the senate. caller: it is 50-50. they thought susan collins was going to lose, the lady in iowa was going to lose. my main point is this, what trump wanted to do on january 6, if that is not a thing that exists that can be done, when trump won, what was maxine

waters asking the impeacher, they were asking the same thing. maxine waters, what was she trying to do? i would like to get an exact answer. what were the democrats trying to do when they wanted to reject electoral votes in 2017? i wish i could get an answer. is it a legal thing? . he had the backing of 121 congressmen and seven senators. does it exist? host: are you talking about 10 members of congress reject to state counts? it has happened throughout the counting of ballots. host: temple, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning.

it is sad to hear republicans defend this man. this man is not a great man. his record has never been great. i want to say this to all the people calling in. this is the united states of america and we go by the constitution. no man, no matter who he is, runs this country. the constitution runs this country. all you people who are following in line behind trump and know his record. it is very sad. it is about time -- trump has gotten away with it for so long but he will not get away with at this time. host: our last caller in this first segment of "washington

journal." we are expecting the house to come in at 9:00 a.m. eastern. we will talk to two members of congress. out of florida, republican kat cammack to discuss the senate legislativethat is now headed te and also the issues of supply chains and the economy and then we will be joined by steve cohen, a member of the judiciary committee. we will be right back. ♪ >> booktv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern join our coverage of the san antonio book festival including will heard on his latest book "american reboot." he argues that america needs a reboot to discuss the challenges

of the 21st century and offers his thoughts on how to move the country forward. on afterwards, rafael norwalk -- raphael warnock talks about his way -- a book "a way out of no way." he is interviewed by james clyburn. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 community hearings investigating the attack of the -- on the capital. notice c-span.org/januarysix to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of the coverage on the attack and subsequent investigation. we will also have a from members of congress and the white house as well as journalist and author's talking about the

investigation. goto c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you cannot see it live. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word from word. if it happens here or here or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by florida congresswoman kat cammack who has the distinction of being the youngest republican woman ever elected to congress and serves

on the homeland security and agriculture committee guest:. good morning. guest:good morning. good to be back. host: we want to start on this gun legislation, we are expecting a vote early afternoon and how do you plan to vote? guest: typically i do not announce that, but because the bill is egregious i will be voting against this legislation. and for a litany of reasons, but notably it does not make the headway that we need in securing schools or addressing the root cause of mental illness in this country. host: why? guest: look at the text. i know it is uncommon for members to read the bills that they have to vote on, but when you get into the text think about how much money or lack thereof is being allocated to schools across the country. $300 million for 137,000 schools. when you do the math that is roughly $2400, which will not go a very long way and you can

track that with what we have done in terms of aid to ukraine over $40 billion. and we know of course at the root cause of all of this violence are sick and evil people. they need mental health counseling and that is why earlier i was proud to support a mental health package that addresses the root causes, but when it comes to securing our schools and doing this in a bipartisan way we could be doing it through richard's bill where there are real solutions to the schools, to training, communication, a strategic review of how we can go about this any way that makes sense for each community instead of a one-size-fits-all approach which we know that ultimately fails. we need to be serious about securing our schools and addressing mental health in this country and it does not do it. it infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and it is more for a political show than actual solution. host: you mentioned bipartisan.

i wonder your thoughts on the 15 senators who last night voted to pass this legislation. guest: you know i think that everybody has their own reasons for why they vote. to each their own. but i stood in front of god and my family, and my colleagues and took an oath to uphold the united states constitution, and we shall not infringe on the second amendment because we know that taking weapons out of law-abiding citizen's hands does nothing but empower criminals. the senate will have to answer to their constituents. and of course every member is free to vote as they see, but it is the people back home that they send representatives to washington and they are representatives of the people. so my folks back home are firm in understanding this issue and they understand that school safety and mental health is a completely separate issue from the violence that we are seeing, and this can be done with a litany of different weapons. it is not the gun, it is a person behind it. host: earlier we saw the supreme

court strike down a new york state law that sought to limit concealed carry. in the wake of that and then the senate voting to advance this legislation, do you think that the senate and judicial branch of government are on the same page when it comes to second amendment rights? guest: i really do not. on a day where we saw one of the biggest wins for the second amendment and constitutional advocates in that ruling that was really restoring the right that new yorkers should have had all along, keep in mind to new york being one of the toughest cities in the countries when it come -- in the country when it comes to increase crime across and strictest gun laws. you see that incredible win and then on the flipside you see democrats in the house of representatives pushing a political event -- a political agenda and narrative that is not rooted in basis in fact are data

and it is almost like whiplash. when you pull back a little bit americans are sick and tired of the whiplash, it is one extreme to the other and it speaks to how we have become so incredibly divided in washington because members are not chasing what is best for the country, but for their political agenda, for their elections and for the political parties. for me that is not sustainable we will stick to the constitution and do what is best for the country at the whole. host: she is with us until 8:30 eastern. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. as folks are calling in, i know that you were down on the border last week, and to your homeland security work part of the efforts down there. or did you go and what did you

say? guest: there is no denying that what is happening on the southwest border is a failure and crisis of epic proportions. you can call it a humanitarian crisis, a national security crisis and a public health crisis. the fact remains that it is a crisis. i was there for my homeland security committee work, but also i sit on the select committee for the economy and it was the first bipartisan congressional committee that has been held at the border in this congress. yet my democrats colleagues cannot acknowledge the fact that 3.5 miles, an 11 minute drive, from where we were having a conversation about the struggles of these border towns with infrastructure and natural disaster recovery and economic development, they could not acknowledge the fact that there was a problem, literally 3.5 miles down the road there were 2400 people being processed and

subsequently released into our country. this is a daily occurrence. and we think of what that impact is. it really is hard to wrap your head around. 239,000 people in a single month, more than enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child in the country several times over. more than 50 internet -- individuals on the international terraced watchlist that has been apprehended and that -- and that does not consider the ones who got away. these people who run from border patrol are running for a reason and it is typically because they have drugs on them, narcotics that ultimately pour into the community is and they are killing our families and coworkers, our neighbors, that is why the number one cause for people ages 18 to 45 is not climate change are covid, it is fentanyl and opioids. if we are going to get serious

about addressing what is killing us in the communities need to talk about border security from a national security standpoint, but also from a humanitarian standpoint because the drugs come into our communities, but about the kids being harmed in the process. i myself have met small children, young children who are being recycled and used by the cartels, who controlled 35% of all territory in mexico. let me repeat that because it is shocking. 35% of all mexico is under cartel control. this is big business and they are making $1 billion a month, $1 billion with a b. they do not care who they hurt or what they have to do. but they are rivaling the mexican government in terms of resources and infrastructure in order to conduct this narco terrorism and it is a national security threat. while i am down there it is

important to note that every man, woman, and child has a wristband on them. they are being marked by the cartels, they are being used as pawns for this illegal and illicit activity. if we as americans do not stand firm and say no, we have to secure our border because our sovereignty is at stake, then all is lost. without secure borders. -- without secure borders you cannot protect the country, or your hometown. that is so important to put an emphasis on border security now more than ever. host: willie in sydney, ohio. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, i was just wanting to talk about infringing upon the second amendment. the assault rifle used was used for its purpose, an assault

which is horrifying in that particular setting. there are train people who know how to use those weapons. my question would be we are not trying -- i do not think anyone is trying to abolish the second amendment. my comment would be if you look at the first amendment we do not want child pornography or pornography and we did not destroy the first amendment. we did not cancel it because of that. an assault rifle to attack children is similar to child pornography if you look at it that way. we are not trying to abolish hunter's rights or the right people to defend themselves but there can be policies made to protect the second amendment and to be used in the direction that is safe for everyone also. guest: willie? i think i got it.

i appreciate your comments, and it was not an ak, it was an ar. and there is a lot of debate about what an assault rifle is. i have spoken with texas cps and experts. if you look at how the tragedy unfolded the lives of these children were taken very early on and it could've been done with really any weapon. my heart breaks thinking about the situation as it unfolded. and you think about how this very sick young man drove to the school, crashed. he did not have a drivers license, did not have a car or license, stole his grandparent's car and crashed it because he did not know how to drive. he could have killed people driving. when he entered the school and was firing shots, the way that he could have done this, he could have inflicted a ton of carnage with a pistol. i go back to the fact that no one can really define what an

assault rifle is. and we have seen instances across the country where pregnant women, single mothers have defended themselves and their families with ar ms. mckenna: -- ar's and i think about who is behind the weapon, what kind of destruction and chaos and hurts do they want to inflict. they could have done it by any means possible, and that happened to be his weapon of choice. i go back to we have to address the mental health issues in this country. this is something long-standing and we need to invest in our community's mental health capabilities and that is why i am so proud that i supported the bill earlier this week and hopefully that money goes instead of bureaucrats trying to manage programs, to the programs and people it is actually intended to help. i appreciate your comments and i think we have to get back to a place of recognizing that people who are intent on committing violence and acts of people will do so by any means necessary.

a car, pressure cooker, knives, it does not matter the weapon, it matters that we are addressing the issues surrounding these people intent on committing violence. host: this is clayton, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning congresswoman, all. i appreciate the second amendment ruling yesterday from the supreme court but i want to know when we will get towards a national reciprocity. in the spirit of full faith and credit, in the constitution. it is silly that my virginia drivers license is good in every state in the country, but my virginia concealed carry permit is making me a criminal if i make a wrong term and end up on the friendship bridge and cross into d.c.. that is what i wanted to say. guest: i appreciate that.

and i am actually a cosponsor of the national reciprocity bill. i am making kit -- a concealed carry weapons holder. when i traveled through my district, and my new district butts up to the florida-georgia nine. i carry because i'm a 5'3" woman and in some of the rural areas of my district if i were to find myself in a bad situation law enforcement could be 15 to 20 minutes away. so i need to be able to protect myself, family, and team if the occasion were to call for it. if i happen to be in that area, and i have to cross the line, all of a sudden i am breaking the law for simply having my weapon on me, and there is no ill will or intent behind that. it is a burden some law that does not make much sense so i agree with you. we have a real opportunity to get the law caught up to the realities of what life in

america is a light -- is like today so i am proud of the fact that we have a lot of brand-new faces and voices behind the national reciprocity law, but you will actually see forward moving action on it. you will get to see that that law is common sense. i know common sense is not common, that it is a common sense move to support law-abiding gun owners. host: as someone who carries, have you been in a situation where you've had to draw your weapon? guest: never, because when you're draw your weapon you are taught when you go through the training that you only draw if you are seriously intent on using your weapon. while i have been threatened, i get death threats pretty much every day. i have been approached by very angry and violent people who get in my face and scream, push, and shout, i will never draw my weapon unless i actually have to use it. and so, i carry. it is definitely a comfort

knowing that i can protect myself, family, and team. i always think of it of a last effort and a last-ditch option if i have to. and we always try to make sure that law enforcement is contacted at the first sign of danger of -- danger or violence, but we have seen this massive defund the police movement and that has resulted in record retirement, a lack of retention so police departments are hurting and stretched thin so they do not have the resources to cover every single situation in some of the communities. it is really important that people have the ability to protect themselves and their families, especially if we are seeing a record crime wave across the country. it is likely we saw the other day, there was a viral video of a man who had a black belt and he was able to do, a man who came in intent on committing violence and he was able to take him down. as a 5'3" woman i do not know

that i would've been able to do that, but it levels the playing field if i have a six-foot plus man trying to attack me, i know that i have a fighting chance. i think that every woman should actually be a concealed weapons carry home -- told her if she chooses, this is an issue when we talk about protecting ourselves and our families. host: pennsylvania. this is nancy, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am tired of all talk and no action. what do we do to stop the innocent people from getting shot in shootings. the assault weapons, i agree with the gentleman we can get rid of those kind of style weapons, but we need to keep the responsible gun owners able to

hunt and there should not be -- we can make the laws that are respectful to those that can protect themselves or use their rifles in the right manner. we are never going to conquer all of the mental illnesses out there. we are adding to it. we are really adding to it by everything being so complicated instead of making rules and keeping to them, keeping that the police can do their jobs and -- host: do you mind if i ask you, have you looked into this 80 page bill that will be voted on today? do you think it finds that sweet spot that you are describing? caller: i do not know it thoroughly, but i do feel that they are not hitting -- i do not

know why they do not want to want to put the clause in and have the assault rifles -- i asked that to the representative , what if that was your child in there? at that shooting? what would you do differently if that was your child. guest: well, thank you for the questions and i do appreciate your comments, and i hear this from folks all over the country, and to your point about it is all talk and no action, i agree wholeheartedly, which is why this bill is garbage because it is all talk and aimed at achieving a political outcome that does nothing really significantly to make our kids safer in schools or to address the mental health issues in this country. i am sick and tired of politicians putting the bills

out here with these incredibly fancy names or emotional names that say things like we will feed the kids and it has nothing to do with feeding the kids. or we are going to protect our schools for mass shootings when it has nothing to do with doing just that. we need to get away from the massive comprehensive bills that are just riddled with issues and poison pills that really just grow the size of government but do not help our communities and the way that they are intended which is why i am a huge advocate for single issue bills because they talk about one issue and one topic and you have a fair vote on it, yes or no. no additional fluff added. that is one of the issues. this particular bill, there are 137,000 schools in america today and they are only allocating $300 million to "school safety?" we have a real failure of

communication, training, and leadership in the case of uvalde , and today marks the one month anniversary of that tragedy and my heart breaks for the parents, families, and communities. you cannot really think about the horrific things that went on in that moment and in those minutes without your stomach turning. when i think about how we could have been better there is a litany of things we could have done. i wish there could've been a teacher that had a weapon, a gun. in my district we have the guardian program where teachers and this is completely voluntary, they are trained to take down in active shooter and trained to protect children. they are trained very well, carefully and thoroughly that if any threat comes through they will respond. let me tell you that the gun free zone sign in front of every school in america does nothing to deter these violence and evil people intent on committing violence and horrific acts.

host: you mentioned single issues, is there a single issue in this bill that includes a lot of different things, incentivizing states with grants to have red flag laws, expanding background checks for gun buyers between 18 and 21? is a single issue in this larger bill that i could support -- that you could support? guest: there is a good step towards a mental health aspect of the more mental health counseling for the schools. that is a good single issue bill that i think would go bipartisanly unanimously. no one will argue against needing more resources for kid'' mental health in your schools. and you wrap it up in a litany of grunt -- of gun grabbing issues which i have to say the second amendment was not designed for his hunting and it certainly was not. and when we talk about rifles, it is not about hunting, it is

about protection and protecting yourself, your family from a litany of different issues. but to your point about single issue bills. if we had taken the approach and if speaker pelosi and my colleagues on the other sides that we would take this one issue at a time i think you would've seen a more productive process. you would have seen an overwhelming sense of support for certain issues within this topic, things like the mental health aspect. you talk about kids. social media is destroying our kids. when we have created a culture of participation awards and everyone gets a blue-ribbon and you are special and there is no adversity, these kids are not experiencing what it is like to live in a society. everything is online and you are dealing with bullying and people who haze you through social media through a keyboard, but they are faceless and that is the health of our kids in the

toilet. there is a reason why we are seeing historic levels of teenage suicides. they are depressed and it is really a societal issue that we are not going to solve by attacking the second amendment. it just happens to be the closest thing to the tragedies. and it will not solve anything. so when we have, god forbid, another mass shooting or on another match -- mass casualty incident with a knife, car, or pressure cooker we will have to step back and say did we really do everything we could to support mental health fitness for our kids? we did not, and that is why i am not supporting this bill and i want to keep pushing my colleagues to make sure that they are pushing the issues forward in a way that makes sense. host: let me try to get one or two more calls in. mableton, illinois, independent. go ahead. caller: former soldier, retired police trailer from california

and i trained with all agencies. first of all, you are not qualified to make any kind of evaluation of anybody's mental health. if you are, you would be on board with the shootings in the inner cities of being a mental health issue as well. secondly in my 23 years, most people have never even been in a fistfight. i carry a firearm in pepper spray. most people do not know what violence looks like. i can tell you that you are not qualified in terms of sizing up a threat and if you are, i'm glad you said you would be absolutely the last resort. unfortunately most people these days that i see, they are out of shape, they do not take any time to train. it is irresponsible and ridiculous. host: what is your question? caller: i just want to say that she does agree also that terry versus ohio fourth amendment is

-- second amendment is? that is my question. guest: his name was valdes? i appreciate your comments. despite the fact that they were more of a personal attack, and quite frankly a stereotype of a woman. i have experienced adversity, and i have been in violent situations. it was about a decade ago that i found myself homeless living in the toughest neighborhoods. paying for gas with pennies, dimes, and nichols. i know what it is like to be in scary situations and i know how to handle myself. to make a broad statement that i do not know how to handle myself and that i am not qualified to assess someone's mental health i respectfully disagree. i think that when you are married to a 15 year first responder, career first responder. my husband is a swat medic that deals with some of the topics it

asked toughest situations, men who are barricaded threatening to kill their own children, situations with domestic violence, some of the toughest, most uncomfortable, scary and violent situations, i have stood behind my husband and watch as he has navigated this. i have been a part of the trainings that the departments offer for tccc and active shooter's. we have help support sro's and dealing and navigating active shooter incidents and also from the psychological aspect of that. so respectfully, sir, it is not fair to say that i do not know what i am talking about, because you making an assumption about me without knowing the fact. so respectfully, i disagree. next question. host: that is about all the time we have so we will have to end it there. you will have more questions the next time you come back. guest: i appreciate you, thank you so much to all of your

viewers. host: up next in the 30 minutes before the house comes in at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we will be joined by steve cohen, member of the house judiciary committee, senior member of the committee and member from tennessee. stick around for that conversation. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on lectures and history of the university of south carolina professor on the 1960's civil rights movement and the involvement of martin luther king jr. and robert kennedy. she talks about the racial unrest in urban areas such as detroit at the creation of the kerner commission and then at 2:00 p.m. on the presidency, harry truman signed a presidential section act of 1947

after franklin roosevelt's death elevated him to the presidency. they discuss how the act has worked since then through presidential illness, assassination attempts and death. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span2. and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter "word for word" recaps the day from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks on the president. again the qr code for the right -- at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date for everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to describe any -- to subscribe anytime. now available at the c-span

shop, 2022 congressional directory. though they are to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book as your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including committee assignments. also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-spanshot.org or scan the two sure scan the code. every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: steve cohen joins us, democrat from tennessee and senior member of the house judiciary committee. good morning. as somebody who has a longtime watcher of the justice department and knows it very well, what is your read right now of what the justice department is doing when it comes to their january 6

investigations, what you are expecting from them when it comes to any prosecutions from these ongoing investigations. guest: it is a very unusual time. we have seen that the narrative of a crime that was committed in public, but the background of it has not been seen and is being exposed to all of america at the same time as the justice department sees it. we do not know what they have done in the past and what witnesses that they might have spoken to, what evidence they might have secured, but i believe that they are proceeding in a judicious and cautious path to see if there is a likelihood of probable cause for the evidence that will be seen by a jury as sufficient to get a guilty verdict by unreasonable doubt for unreasonable levels. so the fact that they went to

jeffrey clark's house with a subpoena and search their records shows that they are pursuing this case. i believe it is an obvious open case of the most serious crimes that have ever been committed in this united states of america, and regardless of a fact that it is the attempt to overthrow our government and constitution and it was done by a man who was charged with and took an oath four years earlier to defend and protect the united states against all enemies domestic and foreign, and here he is supporting domestic terrorism and directing domestic terrorists against our country. it is the most astonishing thing that could ever happen and it has been laid out for the republican witnesses. i have listened and i am amazed that people have not understood what has occurred to this country. and part of it was zoe lofrgen

showed it it was a ripoff of trump supporters where they raise $250 billion in an effort to allegedly help with the lawsuits on stop the steal. they did none of that, we do -- they put what little money they know about in the hands of a man for a two minute speech, and then money to the trump hotels and the trump coffers. it is just astonishing what has happened to our government, what i think the january 6 committee has been fantastic. adam kinzinger and liz cheney have been encouraged. in the democratic members have been outstanding as well. host: have you been listening to the show, and you know that we have been talking about gun legislation that is going to be on the house floor today. the senate passed it in a

bipartisan fashion, 65 votes. on the same day that the supreme court hands down a decision that rules against state law in new york that limits concealed carry. i wonder if you think the legislative and judicial branches are on the same page when it comes to the second amendment right now. guest: i do not know if we are on the same page and we are not supposed to be. we are checks and balances. i had not read the supreme court opinion and i heard some analysis of the opinion and it seems like it really was over-the-top and unusual. any time clarence thomas is the author of the opinion you have to wonder about where it comes from. it was shocking to me. so many times they give deference to local governments and said that they should have the right to legislate their areas because they know best what is going on. the idea that people can carry a

gun in new york city, which is so crowded, just thousands of people packed on the streets and all around each other, it is an invitation to horror and terror and death. and in tennessee where i am a congressperson and have been a state senator, i have passed the rights to carry bill for people in tennessee. it did not have a restriction like in new york but you had to show a purpose. but it did say that you had to have a background check to show that you had not had a criminal record that would disallow you to carry it. no health problems, and a firearms force to understand the law and self-defense. and to show proficiency on the range you had to take a test. and i was proud of that law. at the time it was a bit out there. but since then tennessee has gone to constitutional carry when anyone can carry a gun

without any training or restrictions or restrictions were background check. the police were against it. i was against it. you ought to show some proficiency and understanding of the laws and there should be some restrictions. keller, the main supreme court case that i think it was in 2010 or 2008, they said you could have reasonable restrictions on carrying guns, and that was the debate on having guns in your home to protect your home, and that is where scalia went. this is a long distance from where scalia was and it was scary that it was a 6-3 decision. john roberts joined with the other five. john roberts has been somebody that i looked to, i like john roberts personally and i look to him as being the standard that would not deviate. but he has moved around. he is the chief justice and he kind to maybe -- and maybe that is part of the role, to make

sure that the case is -- cases, that he goes with the majority and keeps things above the board. this was a dangerous opinion and it went pretty far talking about historical precedents that was not there. we have had restrictions on laws and new york city is probably the most crowded city in the united states of america. downtown and everywhere, people are walking on the streets. the city fills up so high-rise apartments have more people per square mile. they are different laws and there would be in montana or wyoming. host: i want to get the phone numbers and get a couple callers to join the conversation. publicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. steve cohen is with us until the house dabble -- gavels in.

ron, independent, already up for you. go ahead. caller: i would like to speak about the constitution and the subcommittee from the constitution department, i would like to talk about gun control, going back to the constitution. it was set down, if we were writing the constitution today after all of the school shootings, i do not really think the constitution and the woman was before you was right it was not about hunting. the right to bear arms and i guess when they wrote the constitution it would've been back in the days where there were wars and battles all over the country and the country being invaded, and probably it was about something being able to protect themselves against the dangers. and i want to be back going to

the age from 18 years old to 21. host: your question is how congressman cohen would change the constitution if it was being rewritten today? caller: yes that question. host: let me send that his way. guest: i certainly would not put anything in the second amendment about a well-regulated militia because that is in there and the reason it is and there is nobody is quite clear arrive -- clear why. it was put in because the bodies -- the militias where the bodies in the state to protect the government and enforce the laws and we have a different system, we do not have militias at the gun and the right to carry but to possess and bear arms, that was the language was what was related to a well-regulated militia. so that puts location -- the cases into all sorts of territory and discussion. if you did it today we would not talk about a well-regulated

militia into whether or not the right to bear arms could be conditioned by a local government or local demographics and social issues, and whether or not it is inside the house or outside the house or what type of weapon it is. they certainly did not envision when they were writing the constitution assault weapons, they did not envision machine guns. they did not envision high-capacity magazines, bump scott's -- bump stocks, or ghost guns. there were a lot of things that did not exist when the constitution was drafted. when the constitution was drafted we did not have the bill of rights, that came some years later. the constitution is a living document and the courts can see it and have it applied to the conditions of society. because certainly there was no thought about that. one of the reasons people had the rights to carry weapons was because it was protection when they lived in the country, but we also had slavery, and a lot

of people were certain about slave uprising and they wanted to have guns to protect themselves. that was part of the situation. we have no long as we no longer have slavery and slavery was permitted. the whole idea that people say the constitution was divinely inspired. god did not have any thought about slavery and did not approve. for every person of every race, he thought of them to be equal. and to not be enslaved. and they had the right to vote. host: maine, democrat. good morning. janice, are you with us? caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i am here. hello? host: go ahead. caller: hello? i wonder why they cannot get rid of semi automatic weapons.

the same way that they got rid of automatic weapons. i do not think it has anything to do with the supreme court, i mean the second amendment. people should be allowed to protect themselves and their homes, but they have to get rid of these semi automatic weapons. host: congressman. guest: i agree with you. i am going to vote from the bill from the senate. it does not do a lot, it does something. it does not do a lot. the house bill does a lot more, and i voted for that. i would've gone further for the house bill. it would've restricted the right to automatic weapons until they were 21 because several of the recent mass killing's have been by young people age 18 or so. most of them by people under 21 with automatic weapons. i think there should be restrictions on automatic weapons. i think there should be an assault weapon ban as i was in the 90's after president reagan

was shot and mr. jim brady was shot and disabled the rest of his life. he argued strongly for gun regulations, hence the brady bill for background checks and in assault weapons ban, and we had one for 10 years and mass killing's went down during that time. we had a problem. what happened in uvalde, he got that gun for the 18th birthday. it is just terrific. and it certainly shows that a good guy with the gun stops a bad guy with the gun. when a good guy with the gun, even when they had are for -- armored rifles they were afraid to go in and those kids were killed. so we have to protect people and restricting access to the guns. the guy had a bump stock on his rifle. and nothing that we did. killings.

security is important and god, but i do not know that school security will do too much and that is to protect people in movie theaters or houses of worship or nightclubs on the street of las vegas. we had the killings in orlando which is a nightclub and synagogues and churches. we had people stand up and got -- and started shooting and then we have had them in motion picture figures as theaters. it is a problem we need to deal with and assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should have been outlawed as well. i think that bump stocks should be outlawed especially in the shooting out at florida, parkland. president trump asked the justice department to pass a regulation to outlaw bump stocks but they did and the courts questioned if they have the authority to do that. because folks were interested in selling more guns. they may not rule that that was

a proper regulation and that they had the authority to do it. i thought we should have and most of the democrats. we should a past bill statutorily so we should've outlawed the bump stocks. there is a lot of things that we should do that we have not done. i agree with the lady to outlaw the automatic weapons. host: texas, cynthia. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. some of the statements that the representative is making, i do not believe they are backed up with data. yes, there was an increase in shootings, but the data shows that the banning of assault weapons did not really decrease anything. and, i read the bill, the draft of the bill. it is amazing that a draft can be out the day before yesterday

and all of a sudden everybody wants to vote on it. let us look at it. let us not do things so quickly. let us decrease the 80 page document that apparently, i have not added up all the numbers and it looks like it will cost $1 billion. really? do we have $1 billion to spend to encourage states to fund red flag laws. isn't that a little bit prejudicial. and when you said -- host: let me give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: first i tend to agree with you on the fact of the money. this bill was dictated by 15 republicans willing to vote for it in the senate to get beyond the filibuster. the bill in the house to not cost that much money. we had a federal red flag law that would have not given states money to encourage them to do it. i think giving states money to encourage them to do it is wrong.

that is republicans throwing money at a problem, and that is what the republican senators did. they are encouraging money to the states and not giving much guidance on mental health and that money can go to what that the governors will want to do. some might put them into the mental health program to stop people from being gay because some people believe they can do that through mental health, so who knows what they will do. i think it was throwing money at the problem and the house bill was the -- was better when we prohibited 18 to 20 oats from getting ar-15's which would've stopped the shooting in uvalde. and i think the young man in buffalo was under 21 also, and he was reeking of racism and hate, but he was not able to get it done, and they might've been able to find out that he had mental problems. he killed some animals and that

was assigned a potential danger lynn out -- danger another well -- and others. host: iowa, good morning. caller: please give me a minute to ask this guy some questions. i want to ask you about brett kavanaugh, you stood in front of the national television with your bucket of chicken and stood there and slammed that man left and right. and now a threat against his life and you want people to protest against -- in front of his house, why don't you enforce the law? you are in the judiciary commission, why aren't you enforcing the laws? you other question. host: we will stop and go on that one. guest: i did not say anything with brett kavanaugh when i had my bucket of chicken. i pointed out that attorney general barr was a chicken and he refused to come before us. brett kavanaugh was not referred of at that time. that is the first thing that was wrong.

i like chicken, and i thought it was a good way to show that barr was a chicken and then when he finally quit and told trump that i will not attempt -- participate in an insurrection. i think it was wrong for that guy to go into his -- and threaten his life. i hope that they convict him if the facts are there. it might be mental health, but even then i hope he goes away. not for -- i am not for any public official being threatened or assaulted in any way whatsoever, and i never stood up and said anything about brett kavanaugh, that was the senate who questioned him. and there was something else that throughout there. we passed laws, there are three parts the government. we passed law, the executive branch enforces the law, we are not law enforcement officers. the executive branch enforces the laws, the state government, the sheriffs and the police do. not the city council and members

of the judiciary committee, we do not enforce the law. host: richard out of missouri, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the bill against the ar-15, that dangerous is that that is more -- that is more dangerous than the atomic bomb. if they had that gun with them when they went in there would be a lot of people dead. that gun is capable of overthrowing a government in the right hands with enough people. and you know, the good guys who are going to take out the guy with a gun, the bad guy will have a gun first so you will not get your chance to shoot. as far as the supreme court goes, that is the biggest joke there ever was, what they have up there are -- what they have up there right now.

thank you. guest: i think that man spoke a lot of wisdom and i agree with him and i think that the idea of the automatic weapon, they are for military and they are for killing people, a lot of people for what -- at one time and there is no reason that anybody needs to use that to defend their homes or themselves. some people might like them for support, it might make them feel good to see the bullets fly and they get some kind of thrill. they should not be able to have them and carry them. what they call constitutional carry when you carry a weapon any place in the public and i think texas might have that. if you carry the gun on the streets the police cannot stop you. we need to protect our police officers and we need to have some protections. host: on concealed carry i promised i would come back out to justice thomas' decision and

i want to bounce one part of that off of you and get your response. he wrote and this is again the concealed carry decision that came down yesterday. "the second and 14th amendments protect an individual's rights to carry a handgun outside of the home. we know of no other constitutional rights that a visual my cash might exercise to government some special need. that is not when the the first amendment works and it is not how the sixth amendment works when it comes to the right to confront the witness against him, and it is not how the second amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense." i wonder your thoughts on that argument. guest: well, you practice your right to religion or your right to petition the government for redress and grievances and etc., you do not have the ability to kill people. the same thing for the other amendments mentioned. the rights that you are given our protect you but in no way do you deputize -- jeopardize or

threaten someone's safety. second amendment you can and may cause danger or injury to others, and if you carry even for your own personal protection for defense which is like the other -- like the wild wild west who had everyone had a gun and walked around. there were people getting into fights, people getting into skirmishes. if you are at a bar and people are drinking, they will do the usual thing, especially if they get drunk. we should not have guns allowed in places where people drink and etc.. i think new york has special circumstances and that they were right to restrict the rights to carry a weapon, the second amendment is no more important than any of the other amendments. they all have limitations on them and you cannot defame a person. you cannot holler fire in a theater. there are certain limitations

and what you can do with the first amendment and limitations on others. and the second amendment was clear from scalia in his opinion that you can have reasonable restrictions on the places you can carry a gun and the type of gun and it was not envisioning any type of gun that you can carry in public. host: as we wait for the house to comment and we are expecting them at 9:00 a.m. eastern, it is unclear how long they will stay in before gaveling out as they await the legislation being worked on by the house rules committee. we will go to the house floor when they come in. as we wait, one or two more calls. let me give you a fellow volunteer stater. this is ron in dunlap, tennessee. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. this country has a ton of problems and we had 55 terrorists caught at the border on the terrorists watchlist and

we do not know how many got away. we have inflation through the roof. they are choosing between medication and food. and this country has many more problems and it does nothing, use it there and call an ar and automatic weapon and that is not true and you know it. why cant you tell the truth? politicians do it all the time and it makes me hate the government because you cannot tell the truth. ar is not an automatic weapon, it is a semi automatic small caliber, and it is not a weapon that they even use in the army. host: let me give you a chance to respond. guest: i am not an expert on the names of guns, that i know what they can do and i know that in uvalde, texas they decapitated some of their children and blew the bodies up to some extent that they could not be identified to the parents. that is a weapon of war whether

it is used in war or not anymore because they have come up with a more lethal weapon, i do not know. the fact is you do not need that weapon. in the whole thing about chewing gum and walking at the same time, we do that in congress. we are working hard on bills to control inflation, trying to get it checked and the price of gasoline and other issues. we have a bill in the conference committee hopefully to get some supply chain unclogged and get more chips in the country to help with automobile production and so many things need chips now that a lot of areas have slowed down. it is a worldwide problem, or inflation is awful and when i the menu prices are high and the grocery store prices are high, but it is a worldwide problem caused by the pandemic, what is happened in china where they have had to close down and so much of manufactured goods come from china, and the chain has

slowed down tremendously. china shut down to trying the covid pandemic. and other places have slowed down business because of their employees have had the virus and had to stop working for some period of time. that is part of it. the gasoline prices are set by opec inns -- opec in russia. the gas prices are much higher in europe and the same thing in europe. if you look at the range -- host: we are going to have to end because the houses coming in. plenty of topics that we can talk about down the road. we always always appreciate your time. guest: you are welcome. host: we will take yours to the house floor. the house getting ready to gamble in and we will see how long they do as they await the bipartisan gun bill that is getting worked on by the rules committee. live coverage getting right now here on c-span. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 24, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable lucy mcbath to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. eternal god, you created the world and called it good. and it was good. as we acknowledge that our heritage is deeply rooted in the first human beings we ask