diplomat academy danielle gilbert. and later, jason kander talks about his battle with ptsd and his new book invisible storm. as always, be sure to join the conversation with her calls, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone on this friday july. we begin with a conversation what media sources you trust for your news. you can dial in this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans you can answer the question by dialing in at (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call in to (202) 748-8002. you can text to (202) 748-8003.

during the conversation on facebook.com/cspan. or send a post with the handle @cspanwj. international breaking news morning. the former prime minister of japan, shinzo abe, was shot and killed yesterday when he was campaigning for his political party. he was shot by a handmade gun in his country and was reported to this morning. more on that coming up in our last hour. we can talk about that and get international reaction as well. turning now to our conversation about trusted media. which sources do you trust? before we get to your thoughts, take a look at what axios put out today based on surveys that gallup did. trust in the news has collapsed to an historic low.

take a look at the numbers in their chart. the percentage of americans who say they have a great deal of confidence in newspapers is in purple or the blue color. you can see it is very low, 16%. and those who say they have quite a lot of confidence in television news is 11%. wide matters, axios says, is political party affiliation has become the primary driver of opinions about the media's trustworthiness. this is according to gallup's pole. this coincides with a conversation that was happening in washington, d.c. yesterday that we covered here on c-span. it was a discussion on public trust in media. fox news's taco carlsen -- tucker carlsen participated in the conversation and here is him talking about reducing political division. >> is there anything you can do

and it is every journalist's job to tell the truth. is there anything that we or you ought to be doing to diminish this false information? >> and not just us. >> d racialized things -- deracialise things. that's a cul-de-sac, we know where that ends and identity politics is the root. >> people left and right, your friends and enemies, see her doing that. >> i me just answer your first question. the most important thing we can do and we should do, people of an audience is deracialise a conversation. everyone says it is white men versus everyone else. that is not true.

i despise the republican party. i do not ever want to defend the republican party. what i want to do is point out the divisions are not fundamentally racial. look at biden's approval numbers among self-described hispanics. i think it is 24%. you can see that is -- say that is good news for the republicans. it is good news for america. what is not happening is white people over 50 versus everyone else. you do not want that. that is an unsolvable divide. you see people lining up on the basis of their actual interest, not racial interest, actual interest, mostly economic interest, against the people who are hurting them, the people in charge. i believe that. host: tucker carlsen at a discussion yesterday on a discussion on public trust in the news media and political divisions. which media sources do you trust

for your news? that is our conversation. dial in. we want to hear from you. where'd you go in the morning or throughout the day to get your news? a little more from the axios breakdown of the gallup survey. a 2021 pole from pew research center found republicans are far less likely to trust media sources that are considered mainstream. television news is today considered the second least trusted institution in the country following congress according to the poll. while other institutions have also experienced precipitous decline including banks and the medical system, others like small business and the military help to steady over the past few decades. the trust in the news media has been driven mostly by republicans. 5% of republicans say they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers compared to 35% of democrats. only 8% of republicans say they had a great deal or confidence

-- great deal of confidence in tv news compared to 20% of democrats. independent views are generally closer to republicans. that is how we have divided the lines, democrats, republicans, independents. what media sources do you trust for your news? john in brooklyn, you are up first. good morning. caller: i trust cnn, msnbc. they are pretty much -- the media is pretty much truthful. you can compare one media with the other. the only news i have a problem with is fox five. lord have mercy. they don't seem to care what they say. i don't know why people analyze what they say and check it out. to see if it's true. it started with trump. media, to some extent, will

always -- you can always find some untruth in it but overall i would say 90% of it is true. i compare with other news, but -- host: give us an example of a headline you have seen or store you saw you said i will check that out, i will look at other sources. caller: like this investigation into this january investigation about -- host: january 6? caller: breaching the capitol. yeah. this is news out of people's mouths, this is a paper trail. some people still don't believe it. i compare. when channels 2, 4, 6 says

something, you curate on other stations as well. you compare the news and you can tell, mostly, about the truth in the story. but this thing for the investigation into the white house, it's on tape, they're showing it, and fox five, oh no, that's wrong. they say that what they're doing is not just. i remember when it first started. trumped in one investigations so he said do not cooperate with it. host: before we go too far down that path, we will go to kevin in new jersey, an independent. when you get your news? caller: well, there is a new station on my tv, 63, it is called ntb.

most of the time the station just as and selling things, but about one third of the time they have news and they have a china section, they have so much else you do not learn in regular news. let me give you an example of why people don't trust the news. the other day, i was washing dishes and i heard on the news, bombshell by david mmurr -- murr to channel seven. immediately i ran to the remote control and turn the tv off. the next morning, i found this woman claimed trump was in the front of the secret service thing and reached over to the wheel and everything. what media would believe something like that? they print it like it is true.

i honestly believe the espionage from china controls these heads of all of these major news stations, including fox. so the trust there is not there. i will keep watching ntb. thank you, c-span, for finally addressing this. host: all right, kevin. yesterday at this discussion on public trust in the media, there were also other reporters and we showed you tucker carlsen. i want to show you this discussion between how people engage in politics and how the media is integral to that. >> a lot of people do engage with politics the same way they engage with sports and they throw in stuff -- they are throwing stuff at the screen and we do not to drug metaphors anymore. our advertisers did not like it. [laughter] but to be honest, if you watch modern political culture, it

obviously is some sort of an almost narcotic reaction that gets people so consumed and spending 12 to 15 hours a day on the phone and popping off about this or that. your previous conversation with taylor, i think she can speak to that scum of the mania people bring to this, in my view, is not a great way to live. i think maybe we were reflecting market opportunities, i don't think he excepted the very margins we would -- i don't really feel culpability about contributing to the decline of the culture. >> we had a lot of people accusing us of contributing to its, who i fought with on twitter all day, but now sometimes -- >> they condescend about political or obama would talk about cable-tv chatter. i don't pay attention to cable-tv chatter. his whole team lived on it day by day and now the so-called cable-tv chatter for better or worse basically is not the

chatter, it is like the arena for one of the principal arenas for our politics. host: from yesterday's discussion in washington on public trust in the media. we turn to you now this morning to tell us which media sources do you trust. tom in new mexico, republican. hi, tom. caller: hello and good morning. as far as what i listen to, i listen to a "washington journal" and c-span for sure. i also listen to msnbc, cnn, i read my local newspaper in new mexico, and i also use the main paper here, the albuquerque journal, and i was told years ago when i was in school, middle school, a teacher said read your paper every day, every day. get all of the information you can. the only thing i do not listen to is fox.

there is an interview with george will talking to hannity. i got the impression that hannity did not care for it. that is why i don't listen to fox news. when i talk to people that know this, i can tell when they're listening to fox news, there is something in their voice. to me, it is pretty scary and i do not expect a lot of people take the time and effort to reach a newspaper. make sure you vote. make sure everybody is voting in the new midterms. host: are you a republican because you called on the republican line? caller: yes, i am a registered republican but the only problem is -- the problem i see with the republican party is it is not the same party anymore. i have a quote here from president eisenhower and i think he had a good idea of what was going on and what happens a

couple decades later is watergate. let me read this particular quote from eisenhower. this is back march 6, 1956. "if a political party does not have in its foundation a determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, that is not the equivocal party. it is merely to seize power. -- power." that is what donald trump has done. the republican party needs to itself and its original roots and be a party like it should be. host: some other breaking news this morning, the white house has sent out this statement, the ap with the story, facing pressure, the president is a spec to design an abortion access executive order -- is

expected to sign an abortion access executive order. he will take action to protect abortion as the white house faces mounting pressure from fellow democrats to be more forceful on the subject as the supreme court ended the right to the procedure two weeks ago. biden will speak friday morning on protecting access to reproductive health services, the actions he is expected to outline our expected to mitigate potential penalties women seeking abortion may face after the ruling and in their ability to safeguard access to abortion nationwide. look for that coming from the white house. today, you can respond to this later on in our last half-hour of today's "washington journal," 9:30 a.m. eastern time we will be an open form then. you can save your thoughts for that. in our first hour this morning, we are getting your media sources that you trust.

calvin in new york, democratic caller, your next. caller: good morning. i trust you and i trust c-span, period. i trust the raw unedited footage of the event itself. i'm a filmmaker and i think what is crucial in our society is not a lack of understanding of politics or history but a lack of media grammar, media language, videotape editing, what the camera shows, and what it does not show. i do not understand why anybody would watch anything else but the live event where you see all of the other reporters from all of the other new sources getting that information the same time you are who are going to chop it up into whatever it is they want to chop it into. it does not make sense to watch anything else. also i wanted -- i was dying to call in when you are on to thank you specifically in the c-span crew for what happens on january

6, the way you covered it. i was of course watching anyway the house as they certify the election when everything started to fall apart and i had no interest at all to turn any other network into -- and to listen to any other block, blah, blah -- blah, blah, blah. i thought how cronkite kept it cool when kennedy was murdered. you are clear and informative and bringing in the aspect of all the other networks. there are no other reasons to watch anybody else other than you folks. host: we appreciate that. thank you. victor in texas, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i watch all networks. then i weigh what i hear here and there and everywhere else and align it with what i live -- with the way i live.

i've been in the military, traveled around the world several times. i think it is wrong today with the smartphone trap. i do not own one but it is ridiculous, people walking around holding that machine. a lot of people say [indiscernible] i meet a lot of people, over 100 people per day i would average, and i talked to them. i love to talk, i'm 81 years old. i asked questions and see what they think. some people --majority of the people -- not some, the majority of people have no idea what is going on in the world today. what's happening in ukraine. we were saturated with it for 30 days. nothing today. a little divot here or there. we have no idea what is going on

anymore. nor could we care less. i think our president is out of his mind really. he has no idea what he is doing. host: ok, victor. bill in georgia, democratic caller. a lot, bill, good morning. -- hi, bill, good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say i'm 72 years old, so i'm kind of an old walter cronkite guy. i do get a lot of my news from reading. i am subscribed to the nation for a long time. there are other publications. i like to come on television, get my news from the pbs newshour, that sort of thing. rupert murdoch products are relatively new to me. i do not pay much attention to

them. i will occasionally look over to be like spock on the old star trek, my reply is just fascinating. but i do not pay that much attention to it. the truth is i get from the older sources, cbs, nbc, abc was the news station to me, so that is kind of where i get my news and get my knowledge of what is going on in the world today. i am blessed. i have my daughter, her husband, live in japan. i have my son who has traveled all over europe and has good friends that are still in cigars oh. i learned a lot about what is going on in the world because of

getting that information and hearing and talking to people. they go. that is pretty much where i get my news. host: bill, what about local newspapers? what is it like? what is access like an there in georgia -- like there in georgia? caller: the newspapers are small. they have little editorial content. the one newspaper i used to get -- and i cannot buy it anymor here, was the atlanta journal-constitution. -- anymore here, was the olanta journal-constitution. for the most part as far as news goes and what is happening day-to-day and so on and so forth, i can see that reported as it turns out i get jacksonville, florida news stations, tv stations here at

waycross. they report on local things so on and so forth. we had a train wreck up. and a few things like that. with regard to editorial commentary, i pretty much try to go online and see what is being reported by the new york times and washington post. some of the other newer publications. host: so listen to this conversation yesterday here in washington about public trust in media. you had wesley lowery, two journalists, and jerry side talking about the local newspapers, the decline of the local newspapers and impact that has on people consumption in view of media. [video clip] >> what i will say is this

becomes politically nationalized . speaking of some of the stuff jim mentioned earlier that the knight foundation has done, i think we have to rebuild our trust in our communities by having media in these communities, re-engaging the public. i think it matters more if there's a local newspaper in champaign, illinois than if the washington post calls donald trump's racism racism. i think it should call its racism, but i think what is extremely important is the fact that, for so many americans, they no longer have a direct, local, or communal relationship with the news or institution of news or media. i think that is important. beyond that, again, the best thing we can do to earn trust is to be trustworthy. when we write something down, have it be true and cover all communities the way we say we want to. i was suggest even in the best organizations we do a much worse

job than we are willing to admit and a lot of our distrust is learned. i say that as some communities who have never been in these communities first single day in the history of the community. >> there are a lot of people who live in communities, every type across this country, and we are talking about urban, rural, flyover, who don't have local journalism. so they don't have any sense of trust in the media that does not exist for them. i think that is a factor. host: from yesterday's discussion. now it is your turn to tell us what media sources you trust. when you get your news? mike in new york, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i find that in order to properly

educate yourself as far as the media, people need to understand that basically six major corporations on the media and what you see on tv and read in print, even down to your local 3000 watt radio stations, you really have to be diligent. you have to be -- to a bio on everything you read, find where these people came from. did they come from a think tank? are they like a tucker carlsen that is groomed by the cato institute? you have to understand the monopolization of this country. the washington post, owned by jeff bezos, you will hear pretty much a particular narrative that wants to be presented by the

owners of monopolization's or monopolies. host: ok. micah, take a look at ugov america and the bully did. americans view the weather general, pbc, and pbs as the most trusted organizations. those top the list. following that is the wall street journal, cbs, the associated press, national public radio, reuters, the post, washington post, abc, the guardian, nbc, "new york times", usa today, "time magazine," cnn. msnbc, fox news, breitbart, one american news, those are all in the negative numbers with the weather channel, bbc and pbs topping the list. diane in michigan, good morning to you. who do you trust?

caller: thank you. just a question. negative numbers, you mean they watch those sources or do not watch those sources? what does the negative mean? host: it is how trustworthy do you report the news raided by the following media organizations. i will have to find what the negative means. why don't you tell us who you trust. caller: yes. i trust a source -- i kind of look around and see does it inflame me. if it works me up and makes me mad at another, like fox news does, if they ping-pong you and make you mad at this person, mad at that person, and i'm thinking do they put the facts out? no. it is a commentary. they want to sick you want somebody, make you mad so you will watch again. if i watch a source, do they make me mad or do they inform me? do they make me aware of what is

going on. do they put their source in front of me? not manipulated and say this is what they said, put the original source in front of me so i can view it and say yeah, i think that is true or i do not. many times, if you trust a source, they can inform you, such as the supreme court is -- has a case coming up about the electoral college and msnbc explained how the electoral college, if this goes through with the supreme court, can manipulate and throw our elections. i did not know that nor do i have the time nor maybe the intellect to investigate what the consequences of the supreme court decision is going to be. that is the sources i go to the do that.

again, many are on msnbc, a lawyer, he looks at things from the perspective of a lawyer. i do not get the feel he is trying to manipulate me. if someone tries to course me or make me think -- coerce me or make me think a certain way, i will not think of that. host: you mentioned tucker carlsen. they do not ask plane the negative numbers but from their survey, among americans who are familiar with news personalities, the most trusted people all are with fox news. tucker carlsen, 65 percent of republicans who are familiar with carson trust him, laura ingraham, 61%, sean hannity, 59%, and 54%. among democrats familiar with news personalities, the most trusted people are anderson cooper, msnbc's rachel my doubt, george stephanopoulos, and will split her.

-- splits are. anderson cooper is 75%. you mentioned people who make you angry because you do not feel like you are being told the other side. at this discussion about the news media and trust, tucker carlsen responded to questions of whether he could speak against president trump, the former president at fox news. take a look. [video clip] >> would you go particularly negative on trump in a sustained way? could you support someone else without your audience turning off? >> yeah. when you and everybody else in the american media were cheering on a new war with syria, iran, or some other insane neocon quagmire and you guys pushed constantly and trump fell for it and i went after him directly,

multiple times on that. >> you don't have to clear that with -- >> i don't clear anything with anybody. the truth is it is just so interesting to me. you may hate my politics, if you do, fine with me. the fact there is only one tv channel and the entire country, a country of 350 million people, that allows actual free speech and that is the one that everyone in the new york times, washington post, or other -- >> i wanted to talk to you. i'm not tried to silence you. >> the media matters. >> i guess there is -- i'm curious about your ambitions. there are friends of years in washington that are talking about your running for president in 2024 and i'm curious what

your thought process around that is. >> i have zero ambition, not just politically but in life. my ambition is to read my script. i do not think that way. i do not want power. i have never wanted power. i am a nord by things i want them to change, but i've never been motivated by the desire to control people. i despise libertarians but my instincts are almost libertarian in that way. >> you are not running? >> no, i'm not running. [laughter] on the talkshow host. and i enjoy my job, by the way -- i am a talkshow host. and i enjoy my job, by the way. what a blessing it is to say what you really think. host: you so that was a conversation happening in washington yesterday. i covered it here on c-span -- we covered it here on c-span. if you want more, we covered it on the website. it triggered this conversation

with you this morning. your media sources that you trust. sammy in north carolina, republican. we hear from you next. caller: good morning. i get my news from the internet. why should i get my news from people who are 95% democrat? both journalist and media. it is a known fact 95% of them are democrats, 95% to support the democrat party and 95% of them are advocates for democratic policies. i get mine from the internet and do my own analysis. i don't need democrats or liberals telling me how to think. let me prove how hypocritical these people are. say for example if eric trump or don trump junior, if they were on video and they were smoking crack waving a gun around with a

horror, the news would cover it -- whore, the news would cover it. i have not heard a thing about crackhead hunter biden. you guys did not even cover it. the laptop, waiting for you guys to coverage. in the journalists that cover the russian hoax. most of them got pulitzer prizes. did they ever return them? we all know it was a hoax. have you apologized to trump for spewing the collusion? i don't think so, c-span. host: when you go to the internet, where do you go? are you talking about social media websites? facebook? caller: i go to all of the websites. i go to reuters, i go to daily mail, i go to fox, i go to cnn, and msnbc is not a real website so i don't not even go there. but why should i get my news

from people that are 95% democrat? host: heard that point. john in baltimore, independent. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i find among the news channels on tv the bbc is by far the best. there are two reasons, first i have a -- they have a sober way of providing the news. i find the increasing sarcasm, the sort of kill your enemy criticism and dismissal is disturbing. i find that as a teacher or college professor, that is -- that is not something i want my students to pursue as a dialogue with other people with differing opinions than they do. it also has an international focus. i saw stories about the economic crisis in sri lanka, the persecution of questions in nigeria. they have worked on contemporary slavery which still exists in

parts of asia and africa. juneteenth, we heard so little about it. there was a teacher saying this is a teachable moment, that there was slavery in the past. in the world today, there is a serious problem we need to document. i admire the bbc for that and i do not find that quite honestly on the major american news networks and cable networks. if i could add another comment, we talked about daily newspapers. when i first came to baltimore, i was disappointed with the baltimore sun. it seemed a lot of things coming from the associated press, did not seem to be much original reporting. in recent years, the investigative journalism done on baltimore politics managed to pressured two mayors to resign, to deal with issues of corruption in our police department. this is a city with serious social problems and violence and the writers, the investigative team at the baltimore sun

rightly received a pulitzer prize for their local investigative coverage that was not being done by big national networks. or national press groups. that is the real contribution, professional journalists hungry for a story and committed to fighting corruption can still do right now. host: you mentioned bbc and of course the news story that dominated bbc yesterday was the resignation of the british prime minister, boris johnson, after a series of scandals and a mass revolt from his own party. in today's washington post, here are the members of the conservative party who will choose britain's next prime minister. here is the picture of some of the contenders. let's take a look. and those faces, you may see one of them more predominantly in international politics soon.

we go to chuck in west virginia. a democratic color. hi, chuck. caller: good morning. this is a fascinating topic for me because i graduated from west virginia university with a degree in broadcasting journalism in 1981. in 1981, there was really no such thing as the internet. three of the things that were always hammered into us in journalism school was accuracy, accountability, and attribution. you had to have credible sources and you are always accountable for what you reported. today, things are quite different in the age of the internet and social media sites. there seems to be a big lettering between news and commentary. you were talking about the personalities democrats trusted most and personalities republicans trusted most and those were not news reporters,

those were commentators. people seem to rely more on commentary these days than straight news. as far as what i trust, first of all, i have had a newspaper delivered to my doorstep all my entire life, so that is what i start off in the morning with my coffee and my newspaper. c-span, naturally. i do not watch cnn because cnn or fox tend to send station lies -- to sensationalize everything when i hear people say they do not trust the media, and age of the internet with social media and websites, you have access to any -- a zillion different websites and social platforms. if you want your own biases confirmed, you can go to one american news or go to newsmax or i heard someone call in one day and say that he trusts alex

jones and info wars, if that was -- as if that was a legitimate news source. bbc is great. i like what the guy said, that bbc has a sober way of reporting things. national public radio. i listen to the morning edition and all things considered. there is also a number of international news sources like deutsche welle television from germany, stein news from england , france 24, bb's -- bbc australia. if people would broaden their news sources overseas and stop dwelling on how things are reported so sensationally in the united states, i think they would be better off. host: we go to florida, john, independent. where do you get your news? caller: i get the news from the internet. i go through a bunch of you

know, sites that conglomerate the news peered my favorite is citizenry press. they will give you news from all over the world, in the netherlands talking about the dutch farmers. we get a lot of good news stations from there. i cannot really watch regular news, fox, msnbc, abc, pbs, nbc, all propaganda at this point. all owned by three companies, so it is useless. "new york times," others, all by. when you were reading the associated press about the abortion and joe biden, you read in that article there was a constitutional right to abortion. we know there is not but the associated press decided that we should put that in there and you read it. i know it is not your fault, you are reading it, but it is still propaganda. you have to do your own research, people. host: wait, john.

the president is facing mounting pressure from fellow democrats to be more forceful on the subject after the supreme court ended a constitutional right to the procedure two week seo. -- two weeks ago. caller: when was there ever a constitutional right for the abortion. where in the cousin tayshau -- constitution doesn't say that? host: referring to roe v. wade as president. caller: propaganda. there is no such article in the constitution is a right to abortion and you read it on their, so completely wrong. i'm not blaming you, i'm blaming the associated press for writing it. host: ok. chris in port jefferson state, new york. independent. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: well. caller: i go to multiple sources and see with these people have

to say because i noticed democrats want democratic and republicans want republic so does not make any sense. if anybody says one thing, one party to another, the news channel says that is perfect. if it's republicans, they say that is perfect. what i do is i listen to what people have to say, how they feel, and on that i gauge who is right, who is not right. everybody has their own opinion and their opinion is this is the way it should be. they talk about all of the shootings going on and the republican democrats they say we will do this. right after they find it goes into law, another shooting. so what are they really doing? you have to pay attention to what is really going on. look at who is getting money from who, cnn, fox, msnbc, they

-- all the politicians are getting money from them, these people that want with the law should be rather than extending what the truth is. they want you to listen to what they have to say. that is it. i will go to c-span like i'm watching right now and listen to what people have to say, where they get the news resources, and i will say to myself, you can tell the guy is only going to one new source. he says he is going to multiple but he is not. when you say liberal, can't do that, just listen. forget republican, liberal, just listen. when you are against one side of the other, your not open to any real news. host: from yesterday's discussion, and we will take more calls here coming up about back to the discussion because i want to put this out there for all of you to think about for those of you who have not called in you can respond.

the editor of the wall street journal talks in this clip about what can be done to improve public trust in the media. [video clip] >> what we can do and what we should do is become more transparent about what we do. you asked how do you engender trust, and i think there has been too much of what we have done as my career as a journalist has been shrouded in secrecy, done in a dark backroom and then you bring a product forward and that is supposed to speak for itself and it should. i think we need to be more transparent about how we do what we do, what our sources are, where the information comes from , what the composition of our newsroom is and is not. if we are asking for transparency among the institutions we cover, particularly the government, we have to practice transparency. i've thought about this topic over the last few years. and try to think about the question you posed, what can we do? i do think we need to be fair and objective and i believe in

objectivity and impartial but we need to be transparent. we have not been very transparent in my business during my time which is 45 years in the business. we are getting better but are not there yet. host: jerry of the wall street journal saying -- gerald of the wall street journal saying it is about transparency about how they gather news, how they write their news, what is going on in these newsrooms. do you agree with that? john in texas, i democratic texas. can you answer that question? do you think you have more trust if there was more transparency? caller: i think so. i get my news basically from c-span. i like watching the government channels and listening to what comes out of the politicians' mouth. host: a on though, they are not government channels. c-span is not part of the government, we are offered by your cable provider. we are not paid with taxpayer dollars. we are not part of the government. caller: rights, rights.

but you cover the government. host: yes we do. caller: that's what i like to watch. i like to watch the congressman in the government and i just listen to what they say and i take what i can from that and one thing i have to say about this january 6 deal, this simple only fella, the lawyer for trump , i'm disappointed c-span is not able to cover his testimony. host: it will be behind closed doors today on capitol hill. caller: yes. i'm disappointed in that because i would really like to watch what he has to say. being able to see it in person goes a long way for me. host: it is not clear whether or not he actually appears in person. you probably saw from watching the january 6 hearing so far, a lot of these witnesses appeared

remotely while the committee gathered and conducted their investigation. they have announced the january 6 committee a seventh public hearing taking place tuesday next week july 12, that will be taking place tuesday. you can watch our coverage to learn more details, go to c-span.org. he lie in austin, texas, hi, eli, where do you get your news? -- hey eli, where you news? caller: i'm not a republican. i'm an anarchist. i probably get my news from other anarchists on youtube. that is only because local newspapers and local television stations are bought up by huge equity firms and people like the sinclair broadcast groups who,

you know, throw in their fascist ideology into our local news to make us scared of immigrants or you know drugs. what do we watch the most on television? it is about crime, it is about all this, who do we learn about from the crime? the cops. who is committing some of the crime? the cops. host: so why are you an and archivist? what is that mean to you -- an an hour kiss -- an anarchist? what does that mean to you? caller: i would say i'm against hierarchies and we have very strangely -- not even strangely, very targeted lee constructed hierarchies -- targetedly constructed hierarchies that keep our people at the bottom. there is a system that places people with money at the top, consistently. this is not in a meritocracy -- an ameritocracy.

where did you start your job, before you got onto the show? host: why do you think that matters? caller: why do i think that matters? money? why do i think money matters? money runs the world. there has not been a politician who has not received corporate money in america. host: so how does that tie with journalism and the start of a host's career? do you think that has to do with money? caller: well yeah, because corporate media company is not going to hire a journalist who is not going to talk about things in the way the company is hiring their journalists to talk about it. host: eli, c-span is a nonprofit. ned in an apple lists -- in an apple lists -- annapolis. where you get your news?

caller: i'm in ukraine right now. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i'm sorry. it doesn't sound like you can hear me. host: we will move on to rodney in california. rodney in california, democratic caller, who do you trust to get your news? caller: good morning. i actually search around for people who are good moderators that like to make their guests stick to the subject matter so they are not wasting my time, your time, anybody else's. of course everybody will go where they will find a new source, where people support their beliefs. that is where you got to go because most tv stations have more money than mostly everybody else so they can do the research we cannot do. at least i cannot do.

good moderators, i noticed a couple times this morning, the republicans are so slick. some guy wanted to talk about hunter biden. we are talking about new sources. this is where it gets screwed up at. and one more thing real fast, we live in a democracy and there are more liberals going on in this country than republicans. but people think news sources are liberal and democrat but they are not. it is just that there are more liberal things going on in this country. thank you very much. host: david in kingsford, michigan, independent. your turn. caller: mac how you greta? host: yes -- may i call you greta? host: yes. caller: amy goodman, rt, wi on out of india, france 24, al

jazeera, there are couple more but i forgot. cnn, definitely not. host: why those international outlets? caller: i get the truth. i really do. i like to watch nam chomsky, retired cia, retired mi six. i get the truth from them people. cnn, no. for the simple reason that the situation in kyiv, he interviewed a man talking about how the people were acting and they were talking about the fighting and he said the shooting did not come from the russian side and that was dr. steven cohen. thank you, greta. host: greg in texas,

democratic caller. caller: can you hear me? host: yes we can. caller: c-span is my number one channel. i want to give a shout out all of the black video stations that when the politics were going on, they were telling us the facts. they were facts checking everyone and those that don't what the facts check that don't want to hear the truths. we can do this on both sides. people shutting people down and telling people you don't know what you're talking about. then also they have like on tiktok, they have their talkshow or video show with the camera deal and everybody is on like a script camera on their phones and they are talking and what's so good about these republicans calling in, they went to get mad because -- matt and cuss people out but the democrats and republicans discuss what is going on in america and how we can fix this country. that is what i like about these

shows, be on tiktok and they talk about both republican and democrat. we talk about how we will start a problem in our country, not what somebody has done. host: we heard your point. we have a few minutes left here, a little over five minutes left in this conversation. to go back to where we started, take a look at where news media rates compared to other institutions. this is confidence in u.s. institutions put together by gallup poll. large technology companies at 26%, this is down three percentage points since 2020 one, newspapers at 16%, down 10 points since last year, and television news at 18%, down five points since 2021. thomas in lutherville, maryland, a republican. go ahead. caller: can you hear me ok? host: we can. caller: i'm glad that guy said

c-span was his favorite source because i think it is a lot of ours because we care what americans think. i get my news from cw, news france. i especially enjoy the countries that do not have our political tensions so they speak clearly. i want to say something, this idea the news make you angry is too much for me. your own beliefs about what you are hearing makes you mad. people saying how dare they have that opinion or you want to label them liberal or conservative, you are creating your own emotions to what is needed is more critical thinking. the reason many people who have said many with the trial or in and that -- in that trial was there a number of individuals that reported a counterargument. i think the news needs to say

more like the other fellows, that it is any opinion program, then let their rationale stand. thanks for listening. i think this idea an unnamed source needs to go. i know you cannot name it because of whistleblowers but we are not back in 1973 referencing heathrow. what we need to say is our argument and what is it -- what it is based on and we need critical thinking in schools and stop the dumbing down of america. host: why is it important to you to listen to other people's opinions on this program? caller: why is what please? there was a clip and the microphone. host: why is it important to you to listen to other people's opinions on this program? caller: oh man. i want to hear the unadulterated arguments. of individuals. i learned a great deal by listening to people more liberal than i am. if they have a good argument, i'm compelled.

i'm usually pretty republican but when i'd listen to bernie sanders and the quality of his argument, i thing it good. i do. people say then why did you not vote for him? i'm compelled by reason and not emotion. yesterday this morning, whenever it was, the former prime minister was assassinated, i had not heard anything about that. it affect my wife's family because she is from japan, assassinated with a homemade pistol. i think the idea to end up -- and thank you for all of this -- is there are too many filters to decide what we think is news. i think the example might be hunter biden or what as well. you have been gracious with your time. host: ron in new jersey, independent. go ahead. caller: yes, i am here and thank you. first of all, i watch pbs, bbc, deutsche world, msnbc, cnn, and

the japanese station. one thing on the abortion issue that i have not heard mentioned anywhere or maybe it was in that childbirth is a medical procedure and you have a right to refuse a medical procedure. so therefore, you should be allowed to have an abortion. host: we will leave it at that. we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to brittney griner's case and what is next and the wnba stars guilty plea in russia. that conversation with danielle gilbert, an assistant professor of strategic studies at the u.s. air force academy who specializes in hostage diplomacy.

later, a democratic party rising star and afghanistan war veteran jason kander will be discussing his book invisible storm. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at a clock p.m. eastern, author of realism and its discontent, the current state of classical liberalism and critiques it from the left and right. then betsy devos talks about serving in trumpet ministration enter book hostage is no more, the fight for education freedom and the future of the american child. she is interviewed by the former

divisions on the left and right. former secretary and the trump administration. watch book tv divisions on the left and right. former secretary and the trump administration. watch book tv watch but tv.org. divisions on the left and right. former secretary and the trump administration. watch book tv watch but tv.org. divisions on the left and right. former secretary and the trump administration. watch book tv watch but tv.org. the spiral-bound book as your guide to the federal government. includingincluding committee as, also contact information first city governments and the biden cabinet.

including committee assignments, also contact information first city governments and the biden cabinet. only on c-span2 you get get news straight from the source. no matter where you are from, where you stand on the issues. unfiltered, unbiased. if itif it happens here, or herr anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span.

powered by cable. powered by cable. washington journal continues. washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is danielle gilbert from the center forwashington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is danielle gilbert from the center for -- i want to begin with your piece on the usa today's editorial section leading -- needing to know why the wnba star is still not home. wnba brittney griner has been imprisoned in russia and the public silence has been deafening, what did you mean? guest: when brittney grinerpubln deafening, what did you mean? guest: when brittney griner was first arrested in february there was total silence around her public silence has been deafening, what did you mean? guest: when brittney griner was first arrested in february there was total silence around her arrest and for a few weeks we heard nothing until the sixth of march when russian media broke

that they had arrested her. there was an intentional desire to keep the an intentional desie to keep the story quiet. her family, her teammates, they did not talk much about her case with the they did not talk much about her case with the hopes that they could resolve it quickly and that she could come home from russian prison. as the weeks and. as the weeks and months passed by it became clear that this was not a misunderstanding and it would take great efforts misundt

would take great efforts to bring her home. once the people around greiner decided to go around an olympic championship and all-star. brittney griner is one of the all-time greats in basketball. i talk about a couple of reasons why the american public might not hand, the circumstances of her have amerik

well, she did a crime she should do the time. we are not getting american pubk well, she did a crime she should do the time. we are not getting the kind of public outrage we might otherwise see that we would get for an athlete of her stature. host: brittney griner brittney a record-breaking athlete but she is also black, gay and gender nonconforming. some of these traits could make her far less likely to get attention than othersome of thee her far less likely to get attention than other victims might. white female hostages are far more likely to receive attention the receive attention the nonwhite counterparts. if this was a male nba star with similar accomplishments,similaro you think would happen? guest: a lot of people have similar accomplishments, what do you think would happen? guest: a lot of people have focused on this element and i th d have first plawomen who play in the e far less money playing basketball in their male counterpart in the nba in the make far less in the united states then they can make in the off-season abroad. the whole reason brittney griner was in russia was that for the last seven seasons she played for a russian team that pays her five times the salary she makes in the united states and she is not alone. a lot of the players in the league play abroad in the off-season for years. the pay and equity for women athletes is a huge part of the reason she was even in russia in the first place. i think that is an important part of the story that we should not ignore, female athletes in

the united states are not paid what they are worth. at the same time, research shows female hostages and male hostages are not receiving different kinds of attention simply based on their gender. people say what if it were lebron james? it is easy to say, he is such a star, a lot of female basketball players are much more prominent but the factors of her race, sexuality intern circumstances of capture will be much more important and how the public response. host: the united states said she was wrongfully detained, what does that mean? guest: it may sound like a

phrase that someone like me would say, it is a legal phrase from the state department. they look at cases from americans abroad and see gold out her case and dozens of others and a case in which the united states does not trust that the american will receive a fair and legitimate trial abroad. there is a long list of criteria that can designate an american as wrongfully detained. it may mean that the american government is that the american government believes that the american is being held hostage. or that there is something unfair about the criminal justice system abroad that they will target the american that

applies to brittney griner's case. once they designate something as wrongfully detained it changes how it is handled by the state department. it is moved to an office at the state department and the job of the presidential envoy is to serve as united states chief diplomat for americans who were taken hostage or wrongfully detained abroad. they are america's chief hostage negotiator. host: and she has that person, are they in russia? guest: i don't know where roger parsons is at this moment. i do know that he is working around the clock on this case but that he and his office has been in close contact with

greiner's family and team and that this is something that they are really working on. host: why did she plead guilty? guest: the most important thing to know about the guilty plea is that it does not change the fact that the u.s. government considers brittney griner to be wrongfully detained. they will be working behind the scenes to get her home. part of that is that something like 99% of court cases in russia go to conviction. it is not innocent until proven guilty like you may expect in the united states. we expect that she would be found guilty regardless of this plea. i can imagine three plausible reasons why she may have pled guilty. the first and we have seen it in her statement, is that she wanted to own up to a mistake

that she brought .7 grams of hash oil by accident. i am not an expert on these drug charges, but .7 grams is something that would be a misdemeanor in the united states. it certainly would not carry the kind of sentence she is being tried for. she might just have wanted to be honest and open up to something that she did not mean to do. there are two other reasons that i can imagine that she yesterday. one that this is a hope that it would lead to better treatment, a shorter sentence, better treatment and russian prison which i can imagine is a place that none of us would want to be for the time that she is already been there.

and then the last is that it might be required as part of a negotiated deal. it might be necessary for her to have the peripheral negotiations to bring her home. host: what do you make of her letter becoming public to president biden and now yesterday after her guilty plea there are quotes in the papers that an an official was able to give her a letter back from president biden as she was able to read it. guest: i can't imagine the pain her and her family are experiencing right now. she is fearing for her life. she has not convinced that she will be released anytime soon. she does not speak russian. for anyone who was in the situation for the wrongful detainee or hostage in their family, there is nothing more important than focusing on

bringing your loved one home. when a family or community decides to launch a public advocacy campaign of any sort, when they decide to go public. the audience is not the russian government, the audience is the white house. this is about the court of public opinion in the united states and time to convince the president and government that they should be working around the clock to make every possible consideration to make required concessions to bring her home. releasing that letter is all about reaching out to the president, emphasizing that she, and olympian, the daughter of the vietnam war vet is scared for her life and hoping that the white house will focus on it. i am not surprised the president wanted to focus on it.

the president is empathetic to her case and wanted to let her know he is working on it. at the same time we can be a little bit wary of what it means that the letter was made public. the fact that she was able to send that letter means that the russian government allowed it and we can be a little cynical there that may be the russian government wanted it to be public because it increases pressure on the white house to make the concessions the government wants. host: let's hear from our viewers, mike in fairbanks, alaska. caller: good morning, you have the most beautiful smile. i really love it. griner, should have known

better. host: we are going to move on. david in florida. i teach a critical thinking class and i appreciate you giving me a master class in gas lighting. brittney griner has broken the laws of a sovereign nation. regardless of your positions on the ukrainian-russian war. she broke the law in a foreign country. she is not a hostage, she is a criminal. host: hang on the line for a second. what do you think would happen to a russian who was caught with the same amount? what would happen then?

guest: the russian criminal justice system is nothing like we would expect here. there is a presumption of guilt not innocence. we have seen what vladimir putin has done to his rival. poisoning people around the world. this is not the kind of country where people are treated fairly. when i referred to brittney griner as a hostage, i am talking about the context of hostage diplomacy. this is when states like russia, iran, venezuela use the color and guise of law to keep foreigners hostage for leverage. they arrest foreigners when the entire point is to pressure of foreign government to make confessions. cessions. while legally she is

a detainee, functionally she is hostage. while russia is floating the idea of a prisoner swap. it means that the government is holding her because they want something in return. the russian government is engaged in a completely unjust and unfair war in ukraine. this is not a government we should trust. i think that applies to brittney griner as well. host: talk about how russia makes public these proceedings. it is not just with brittney griner, it is been with past americans. they go into court in handcuffs and put into a cage. what is happening here with perception? guest: unlike courts in america, this is not open to the kind of press we would hope.

it is not open to friends and family and an entire international press corps. they are there to publicize the show trial that brittney griner is experiencing. they have her sitting in a cage just like they would with anyone else they are trying in court. it is dehumanizing and tragic to watch. she is 6'9", an american citizen being completely dehumanized. host: from than newspaper reporting, it sounds like philip richardson, he is working on her case. he has had success in the past. can you talk about his group or what kind of tools do they have that has brought americans home

in the past? guest: in addition to the special presidential envoy which is the office inside the u.s. government that works on these cases. the richardson center has often been focused on bringing home american hostages and detainees abroad. it is run by a former ambassador, bill richardson, who had a track record of success in getting involved in these cases. he traveled around the world and managed these back channel negotiations and they do not represent the united states government. there are a couple of good reasons why we would want someone like bill richardson and brittney griner's case and in the case of other americans who are held hostage and detained abroad which is mainly that they don't represent the government. they can meet with actors that the u.s. government might

consider unsavory. they can explore a wide range of creative options without indicating that they are committing to something. in essence, it is a way to access options not available to the government. some combination of what the richardson center and the envoy can do is how we bring home americans who are kidnapped or detained abroad. host: does all of this cost money and can you characterize how much? guest: in some cases of hostage diplomacy there are financial concessions that are made for example, when iran takes foreigners hostage they are not

interested in a prisoner swap they are interested in diplomatic concessions. effectively the kind of thing that might look like a ransom. sometimes there might be money involved for the kind of concessions that are made. there is also a budget for the presidential envoy for the employees working on these cases. host: next call from tennessee. caller: i think miss gilbert has her own agenda. when she first speaking she was talking about gender bias in britney playing seven years in russia. first off, she should have understood what is going on in russia. i am going to give britney the

benefit of the doubt. somebody might have trumped up charges. she should have known to stay away from illicit contraband. host: danielle gilbert? guest: what i am hearing and a lot of these comments and questions is a lot of blame. we are not over there, we don't know exactly what happened and we can't trust the russian criminal justice system. to answer these kind of things with confidence. when we hear comments about she made a mistake going over there and she should not have been carrying illicit substances. this is the precisely the issue

of deservingness of how we should respond to americans captured abroad. whether or not you think a hostage is responsible for putting themselves in danger, whether they deserve any blame for needing help in the first place will dramatically affect if you think they deserve help in the first place. if you tended inc. poor people are unlucky, you will support policies to help the poor. if you think poor people are lazy, you will not support those policies. it is the same with hostage policy. we are talking about government time and resources that we may need to give up money or manpower to help someone in need and whether or not you think that person deserves any of the

blame or deserves help will strongly inform how you feel about bringing them home. host: danielle gilbert is a fellow at the center -- next up we have bill from ohio. caller: i am concerned for brittany and i am hopeful that mr. richardson will work something out. i want to know in my thought processes, why is the wnba in russia? we have american companies that have pulled out and gotten out of there. to bring lebron up is just wrong. he has never been associated with drugs or anything. i want brittany to get out of there. why is the wnba in russia?

guest: i would not be surprised if the wnba does not go back to russia again. it is not a safe place for american athletes to travel. they were treated like stars there. they made lots of money, they relished star athletes. i can't imagine any of them will go back anytime soon. there are other leagues and other countries around the world and you will probably see is shift of wnba players around the world. host: james in chicago. james in chicago. caller: i read that in russia if you have between one and five grams you only get maybe 10 days and defined.

brittany had only one gram of cannabis so what is the problem? guest: even the prosecution in her cases stated that what she had was something around .7 grams so it's not even one gram, it is less than that. they have not charged her with personal possession of point seven grams. they are trumping that up to say that she was smuggling illicit substances internationally. they are saying this trace amount of hash is the equivalent of being an international drug smuggler. even that exaggeration can help us see that this is not a legitimate criminal trial. they are trumping up these charges and yet another reason the government sees this as a wrongful detention and they are not waiting for her to be

exonerated in court in russia but working behind the scenes to bring her home. host: describe "behind the scenes." what are they and how do they work? guest: when we think about cases of hostage to clemency -- diplomacy these are countries united states has tension with. these are not allies that are arresting american citizens to use as pawns. one fear that we have is that the u.s. government has the kind of relationships to work on these situations. these are not countries that we have good relationships with. back in may, there was another american, trevor reed, who was released from prison in russia. he had been arrested and 2019

and there was a prisoner swap with the russian in prison in the united states to bring him home. in some ways, this brought really good news for brittany greener and paul wheel into was another american imprisoned in russia since 2018. the fact that there was a negotiation and prisoner exchange, showed that america and russia despite these tension these channels were open to work out these deals. it open the doors to be a little optimistic. there may be something in the future to bring these detainees home. host: what is your estimation of how long it could be before we bring brittney griner home? guest: i want to believe that it

will be resolved soon. there has been a lot of movement in her case recently. it is great to have hope in this case. i have some bad news which is that these cases often take months if not years to resolve. there is an american imprisoned in iran since 2015, paul wheel and has been in russia since 2018. i hope brittney griner and paul whelan come home any day now. host: you can follow her on twitter as well at danielle gilbert. thank you very much for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: when we come back, we will

talk to democratic party rising star jason kander about his new book, "invisible storm, about ptsd. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2. experience the people and events that tell the american story. the white house historical association shows how the white house has changed. the national world war ii museum host a virtual event with a look back on how she started her career during the spanish civil war and went on to cover world

war ii. explore the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide. watch online anytime on c-span.org/history. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of apparel, books, home to core, there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit organization. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the attacks on the capital. go to c-span.org/january 6 our

web resource page to watch videos of the hearings, briefings, and oliver coverage on the attack and subsequent investigation since january 6, 2021. we will have reactions from congress, the white house, journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter, world for world recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to remarks on the president. scan the qr code on the bottom to get this newsletter. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe any time. washington journal continues. host: we are joined this morning

by jason kander he is the author of this new book, "invisible storm." was elected to the missouri state legislator in 2008 making you the first -- you nearly unseated republican senator roy blunt. our viewers may be thinking i remember this guy. let me show them one of your ads that got national attention. [video clip] i am jason kander and senator blunt has been attacking me on guns. in the army i respected my rifle. in afghanistan i volunteered to be an extra gun. in the state legislator i

supported gun rights. i approve this message because i would like to see senator blunt do this. host: that was when you ran for statewide office in missouri and as we said, you nearly unseated the incumbent senator, roy blunt. you wrote this book about your political journey and also, the aftermath of living in afghanistan. i want you to take us back to your first visit to the kansas city medical affairs center. it was october 1, 20 18. what was happening at that time and take us back to the day you decided to visit there. guest: proceeding that i was gearing up to run for president of the united states as one does.

i didn't know at the time it was ptsd. i made this decision that i would go back home to kansas city, my family has been there a long time. i am generation. i was going to go there and run for mayor. i said to myself, i can see progress in my home town it will feel this void. the other promise i said to myself is that i would go to the v.a.. i started running for mayor. when you go from running from president, to going to running from mayor, it should be going well. the symptoms from ptsd, it'd been 11 years of dealing with it and i was having suicidal

thoughts. that had scared me. i found myself walking into the v-8. it was time to go get help. i show up at the v.a. and everybody is recognizing me. you can tell everybody is taking double takes and i don't look good. i am pulling by fall cap down trying to hide my face. i answer a few questions about why i am there and the next thing you know, i am on suicide watch. i am in the suicide hold room they have taken away my belongings and put me in scrubs. they put me in an isolated room and put me in suicide watch. the whole reason i got checked in, people are recognizing me. it is kind of humiliating.

the next thing i am laughing. the story is funny, it is well, i am here. then this young site resident has no idea who i am. at first, that was a big relief because it was not embarrassing. we talked for about a half hour i told him about my symptoms. things i had only told my wife at that point. i had nightmares, i was constantly on guard, i felt like i was in danger all the time. i was self-loathing, and shame and guilt. i'd tell him all the stuff and he says to me, do you have a particularly stressful career? and i said well, i am in politics. and he asked what that means and i explain briefly.

and i said i was going to run for president and now i'm running for mayor. and he said, president for what? and you have to member i am in a psych ward and told him i was a presidential candidate. he said, who told you you could run for president? at this point i had gone from excited to irritated that he did not believe me. i spent one .5 hours with obama and he seemed to think it was a good idea. this guide took a be and he said , how often do you think you hear voices? that was my first day of the v.a.. host: before you talk to this

young man who did not recognize you. he asked you if you are having suicidal thoughts. you are answering yes. he asked you how long are you having these thoughts? and you said 10 years. to which you said? guest: yeah 10 years. i spent years as an intelligent officer. i know i did dangerous and traumatic stuff. i was meeting with people who i could not know their allegiances. i was frequently outnumbered. i was virtually by myself with a translator. i can recognize that could be term attic for anybody.

at the time, i thought i never had to fire my weapon so there was no trauma because that is what i had learned from movies in the army. i didn't even consider myself a combat veteran. in the second part of it was, i always had a story i could tell myself as to how i was getting better when i was actually getting worse. my nightmares would change and evolve into something more dangerous and i would say, things are changing, they are getting better. and on top of that i was in politics. i was pursuing the presidency. it is hard to imagine you can convince people to vote for you when you are stuck in your house with the pistol. i was hiding for myself in the world. host: i am going to read from

your book, diana spent a decade next to a husband with nightmares. who would bellow with rage and anger and was convinced white supremacists were coming to murder her and her son. she was forced to bear her terror alone. guest: i was a real picnic to live with. one of the important parts of the book is that in every chapter, at least once, diana comes in with a first-person perspective of what it was like for her. that is important for two reasons. when you are a narrator, if it was just me you don't get the

full picture. i wasn't actually in danger when i was at home. the more important reason was, my wife and i did not know about secondary posttraumatic stress. diana did not go to afghanistan but living with me all those years and emphasizing safety, relay my terrible nightmares to her while she was half asleep. that soaks in and eventually, she ended up with secondary postarrest disorder. the book in that way is a love

story more than anything else. it is about our marriage surviving this fight with this monster of ptsd. host: knowing what you know now, what is the level of surprise and shock? guest: we have been best friends since we were 17. if you asked her, i think she would say she is pretty surprised. i have always had an irrational confidence even when i had ptsd. i told her that i loved her first when we were 17 and her response was, i'll get back to you. and my response was, you love me. i am not shocked, she may be more surprised. host: why did you to write this book, what are you hoping for? guest: this was the book i

needed 14 years ago when i got back home from afghanistan. this is for everybody, anybody who has been through anything. i believe that if i had had this book available to me i would've gotten help then. instead, i waited and i tried to walk it off. ptsd is an injury and when i went into the army i had to get physical therapy. and what i did to my mind is like an injury. that's what i did with my brain after i got out of the army. i said i am going to walk it off, time will heal it but it

gets worse. trauma is not like wind, it does not age well. it is like an avocado, it does not age well. host: does your brain feel useless? guest: my mind does not feel useless, my mental health felt useless. it was driving me to feel like i needed to seek redemption and that redemption was that i had to be elected president and save the world. that and not wanting to want to die prompted me to get help. host: i want our viewers to join us in this conversation. for eastern and central parts of the country (202) 748-8000, mountain pacific (202) 748-8001

and for active military (202) 748-8002 you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. for those in the military or retired we would like to hear your story as well. when you sought the therapy, your experience at the v.a. and where are you now in this journey? host: in the book i bring people inside my therapy sessions, i want their p2 feel very accessible for people who read this book. i literally got my therapists note and use them to outline the chapters about therapy. i did two types of therapy, both with the same arabist. cognitive processing therapy and exposure therapy. cognitive therapy is like getting a masters in yourself.

i would explain to my therapists what i was feeling and he would stand up from his chair and like a professor draw it out on the whiteboard and aligned to what was going on in my brain. he was teaching me about my brain, helping me understand why i was feeling why i was feeling and why i got stuck in certain places. that was interesting to me, i went to law school in d.c.. i have had an academic background and found that interesting. it was great, easier to do then prolonged exposure therapy. prolonged exposure therapy was sitting in a chair across from nick, closing my eyes and recording a voicemail on my phone as i relayed to him traumatic memories from

afghanistan and he asks questions as if he is never heard the story. we record that and my homework in between sessions was every day, we would do this for about 45 minutes. every day, i had to put in the headphones and i had to listen to myself recounting the story. i was not allowed to do anything else, had to close my eyes and listen. that caused me to access other parts of the memory and i would have to do it every day. every time i would i would reexperience it. my heart would race, i would get a little sweaty but then eventually, i got to the point where i was not having that reaction. i went into nick, and i asked him if i could do a new memory because i am getting bored with this. and he said, boredom is the goal. we would move onto the next memory. the other part of exposed --

prolonged exposure therapy. you put in headphones and listen to something because before that i had to be alert at all times and doing things like try to go of block without looking behind me. a lot of activities like that that were about trying to round out my coping mechanisms. to your questions about where i am now, i am doing very well now. i am in a phase of my life that i refer to as posttraumatic growth. i want people to understand that post about a growth is a real thing and worth pursuing. i am not cured of ptsd but i am at a point where it does not disrupt my life. i manage it, i know how to manage it. i noted is, i have the tools

necessary and there is nothing i cannot do because of ptsd. i just have to make sure that like any other injury i have the tools to manage it. host: we have a call from alexandria, louisiana. caller: good morning mr. kander. i salute you for your service and i want to thank you for your service. thank you for writing this book. i was a military police officer from 1979 to 1994 and you said you were an intel officer. what do you think our military needs now? nobody is joining the military now. what do you think -- to try to get people to join the military?

i happen to be a republican, you're a democrat. what can we do nationally to get people to join? and god bless c-span. guest: thank you cornelius for your service as well. i don't know if there is a recruiting issue right now. i tell you what i think the military should be doing for folks like yourself and me as they go in. that they don't do now, we should be educating people about ptsd when they come in. when you are in basic training, you get all sorts of different training. indoctrinated into basic markman

ship, sexual harassment policy, all sorts of stuff that you're supposed to know as a soldier. we don't teach them what ptsd is. we don't even give them basic information. i was checking into the hotel two nights ago and i was talking to the clerk and she had just finished basic training and i was talking to her about mental health, i gave her a copy of my book and she said i learned about some of this in basic training and i said, oh great are they teaching about this now? and she said no, no, no but most of my drill instructors were talking about it and i learned about it from that. that is not the way we wanted teach people about this. what we do instead is we do this necessary form of brainwashing

is when we got off the bus for the first time the service, the first message you get is what you are doing is no big deal. all the way through your service there is some version of that in the air. this is no big deal compared to what these people are doing. if not that, if we did it, it's nothing compared to what these other guys in this war did it. if they had not done this, i am not walking into rooms over and over again with people who could kidnap me and cut off my head. i am not doing that if i am not convinced if what i am doing is no big deal. that is all fine. you have to do that to get people to do frightening things

and doing those frightening are important to the country. however, when people get out of the military, nobody sits you down and says, actually, that was crazy stuff. i know we told you that was no big deal, actually it was quite a big deal and most people are not doing this kind of thing and you might need some help for it. you go into civilian life and start to experience symptoms that you did not expect and instead of having a context with which to understand those things you are making evaluations. you don't think i earned ptsd and then it feels like if i claim the mantle of ptsd and get help, that feels like stolen valor. that's like claiming a metal i didn't receive. i will not be doing that because i have integrity. then it is 11 years later and

you are on suicide watch in the kansas city psych ward. the last thing about this i'll say is that when i did a change of station from one unit to another, there was a readiness sergeant on duty at both of those places, there was a call that was made. the guy you sent, we got them. we got him to his room, his unit has him. there was a handoff. when you leave the military, they know where you are going. nobody does a handoff where you are going. it should, when you leave that you are as a soldier, you understand that your last job is to check in at the v.a. so that

you can report that you made it there. you don't go all this time without having enrolled so that it is insurmountable. host: is this the work that you are doing? guest: the veterans community project is a nonprofit in kansas city. i am the president of expansion. the way that i got there is an interesting story. the story about the v.a., the other part of that story is that they said it was four or five months before i could get enrolled in the system. six weeks before that i headed toward the veterans community project. what we are best known for, is creating villages and tiny houses for homeless veterans to

transition people out of homelessness. i was knocked out by this when i went to see it. six weeks after that tour at the v.a., i called the cofounder and ceo and i said i am making this announcement to go to the v.a. and they told me it was five months before i get in. so six months i walked into the outreach center and they handled my paperwork for me, i start hanging around the place. i am getting therapy, it is going well. meanwhile, in kansas city and communities around the country are asking them to help replicate their model. finally, brian said you are not working, you are growing a beard and going to therapy.

how about you come here full-time and that is how i become president of national expansion. host: is there a virtual component now that we live in this pandemic world? guest: not yet, so much of what we do is hands-on. the goal is to get to every population center in the country because our services are needed. if people are interested in it they can go to the website. or they can get my book. chris and kansas city, we will go to you. caller: i just want to thank you for your military service but also for the great service that you are doing for our community in the kansas city area because like you were saying, there was nothing.

i have annexed brother in law who's ptsd was terrible. he had done tours in iraq and afghanistan with something similar to what you had. i am also a ptsd survivor. once i could get out of my head so much and got some guidance and help, i also started a nonprofit. it really helps to pay back and give back, you have just done wonderful work. the tiny house villages incredible. i just wanted to thank you not only for your military service, but the great service that you are doing for folks in kansas city and we miss you and state politics but i know that is not the right place for you now, especially here. host: let's asked that question chris? any more political runs from you? guest: the politics question,

look, i have a very complete answer to this in the book. you should buy it. here is what i would say and i because i'm really not. the short answer to the question is i don't know. that is fine. that is really difference -- the difference between me now and before. when the presence was intolerable for me, when i had intrusive thoughts and memories and inside my own head, that was the last place i would did -- i wanted to be. i was going from endorphin high to endorphin high and that is what would get me by. meeting with president obama, a big donor meeting, an interview with high stakes, giving a --

pre-much announcing the most legal way you can announce for president without announcing for president and those requirements, those were endorphin highs and i would go from high to high. i would think constantly about the future and would play in the future all of the time. because if you're not enjoying the present, you can live in the future and it can get you by. my goal when i went into therapy was there were a couple things, one was to be able to be happily -- happy without external validation and to be present in my life and with my family. i did a lot of really cool things over that 11 years. i got to do great stuff. i met a lot of really famous people and some of them lived up to expectations and exceeded them and some of them you were like ok i met that person. i got some incredible experiences but i did not get to participate in any of it. what the worst part was, i had a

son during that time and was married to my best friend as i am now but i was not really there. now i am there. i am present. everything i get to do now, i'm here for it, if that makes sense. the answers of the question, i don't really think about the future that much, not in the way of politicians, i'm not thinking about that all right now. i'm actually not thinking about that right now. i have a job i love, the best job i've ever had. i am a little league coach and i'm pretty good at it. my dad was my little league coach, my grandpa was his little league coach. it is a thing we do in our family and now i get to do it. i play old men baseball. i'm on the kansas city hustlers of the national men's adult baseball league, play centerfield with a group of guys i really like, not softball, baseball. i am hurt all of the time but i love it. i really like where my life is.

the answer to the question is, one day i may get the desire to run for mayor or president, i don't know, but i might not. i am fine with either of those because i like where things are. host: when you think back to those adrenaline highs you are seeking, this 11 years being on this political journey, do you -- what do you think that was? was that self-medication? guest: yeah. yes. it was a couple things. here is a term i learned in therapy, it was avoidance. i was avoiding myself and my emotions because they were deeply unpleasant. it was self-medication. but it was also -- the only time i felt fully present was when i was doing that because when you are -- the job i did in afghanistan, to go in and sit down with people who might want to kill me, i had to know where

all of the exits were at all of the times, i had the peripheral view of who had a webbing, where were they standing, did i have the drop on them or they on me? is my translator fully exposed? would he be able to help? these are the thoughts you have to run through. which is scary, but you are also fully utilized. there is no other human experience like that. it is easy to be a little addicted to that. when you are in front of a crowd in new hampshire and you know you are auditioning to be somebody's candidate -- the party candidate for president at the beginning of that, that is an adrenaline high and only other time i can feel fully present or the only thing that quiets the invisible storm in my mind. i do not feel i need that anymore. now when i do things like this, i thing i'm good at it, it is fine, but the difference is when this is over, i will not be like i need it again. i will be like that was good. hopefully we sold some books. host: what is your warning to

other veterans about methods of self-medication and what they should watch for? guest: what i learned about avoidance and therapy is there are things that you like and prefer to do and then there is avoidance which are things you feel you have to do. for me, for instance, like last night, i had a booking here in d.c. but before that i went to dinner with a friend and afterward strings with a friend. the dinner beforehand, i set -- i did not sit with my back facing the door. it was a crowded restaurant. i probably could have but i prefer not to. i could've but i was like i will just relax here. make it where i can see the door. afterwards, without thinking about it, i sit down with my back to the door. my cousin said your back is to the door and i said i'm getting pretty good at it. that is the difference, that i would rather be able to see the

door, but i do not have to see the door. i like doing this, i like doing media, doing interviews, but i do not have to. i like coaching little league just as much, probably more. you know? and that's when it is an activity that you have to do -- you feel you have to do to avoid yourself, that is when it should cause concern. host: anthony in arizona. caller: hey. welcome. good morning from the edge of the frontier. in case you hadn't heard, a major general emphasizes that we are at the edge of the frontier, which puts us in that invisible storm. i do not know if you recall when the army had a marketing campaign and the theme song went like "we were needed, we were there."

if you look that up on the internet, it is interesting because it talks about how we accept being part of something bigger than ourselves and that is the military. two thirds of what we communicate is nonverbal whether most people realize it or not. you can talk all you want, but what people see when you are talking really is what they are hearing. one of the things i do, for me, i write a lot of quotes. i have just been writing my whole life since i can remember. i enjoy writing and reading. i have a quote here, when sharing resources, it is valuable to communicate, this will not hurt my bottom line however it should help your topline.

that is so essential to the connection between ptsd, the v.a., and any service member. for instance, when a service member signs up for any service, why can't they be dual enrolled at the v.a. at the same time? so what if they do 180 days they are technically a veteran. if they don't do 180 days, they are still in the system because they may come back in at some point but the bottom line is, when i was a commander for louisiana, one of things -- one of the things i learned to do, every soldier that came into my unit, i treated them like you're coming in but one that you will leave, and i will start with your awards, your awards

being started, your evaluations are being started, a year from now. you might get one earlier than that. we have the opportunity to say we need you. as you mentioned, we want to wear some of the shortfalls with recruiting dollars as far as the numbers but i am a retired veteran, don't have to work anymore but i have been working since i was six. do you realize it is a challenge now to not have to work, have all of the money you may want to spend, and have to put some value on your life each day? guess what i do with it, i go on to the military installation and i show them what it feels like and what it looks like to still be healthy of sane mind as best as i can recall and show them the military does not break you, you break yourself because you

did not share your resources, you kept your bottom line to yourself and you did not help someone else elevate to their topline. host: all right, anthony. jason kander. guest: i appreciate anthony's call. he is from where i went to intelligence school. his point about the v.a. is a good one. when you exit the military, it is kind of staggering years later when you go to the v.a. and you go, wait a minute, isn't this the same government that just knew about me and now i seem to have to introduce myself to the v.a.? you can literally separate from the military on a friday but when you do, you can take your little id card and put it into the computer and bring

up your records while you are active duty and reserve ended will have red, yellow, or green for every readiness statistic they have for you. almost down to the molar. because they need to know how deployable are you so they will know is your dental up-to-date, everything. i could be your last day. monday you show by the v.a. on they are like, you are? that is disorienting because you are like isn't this the same government that just knew everything about me last week? that's what he's talking about. that's right, you should be dual enrolled when you start. the reason you're not is another stupid thing, that the federal government has a ridiculously narrow definition of what a veteran is. we are sitting here and i can see the capitol from here, there are national guardsmen and women from maryland, virginia, up the east coast mobilized to come here and guard the building for five months. if you were here and mobilized on active duty for the entire

period but never deployed to afghanistan or iraq and get out of the service after four years, the government does not consider you a veteran and you do not have access to the v.a. there's a good 30% of people who meet the standard of they served in the military, wore the uniform, but they do not qualify for the v.a. because the federal government does not consider them a veteran. that is dumb. it is an unfairly narrow definition. that is why if you raise your right hand and spend a single day on the project, you qualify for 100% of our services. we have a commonsense definition of veteran. what anthony is talking about is that everybody says they care about veterans but in order to truly care about veterans you have to demonstrate you are caring for veterans. you have to do something. every time you turn on the tv, there is nonstop commercials were a surgical -- a soldier comes home to their dog and they say so buy this car, or

whatever. military is a brand people tend to approve of. if you are going to do that, you have to back it up with something. when we work with corporate sponsors, we make sure their brand association pays off for actual veterans. they are eager to do it, their employees are helping us build houses, putting real money and proceeds into what we do. those are the partnerships i think makes sense and the federal government can make sense -- can help by widening what they consider a veteran. host: brad, are you active or retired? caller: i am neither one. i formally served. i resigned. host: ok. guest: sure. caller: i was a warrant officer. mr. kander knows exactly what that means. guest: good to talk to you, chief. caller: i am the antiriot raw veteran thing -- rah,rah veteran

thing. i understand there is a problem. i wonder and worry sometimes, particularly as it relates to ptsd. we worry about the veteran who -- it does not as you mentioned much matter whether you put the uniform on for a day or played in what i call world war forever , because i started in bosnia which turned into kosovo which turned into afghanistan, iraq, afghanistan, iraq, and that is why i'm not serving. the public -- i have worked in a lot of civil service jobs since then and i cannot help but wonder, and i would like your input, sometimes dealing with someone who does not know or understand and you are saying, no, we've got to do it and it has to be done, and the way the

military teaches you to communicate, this has to happen, and they say well, ok, maybe, but no, and that becomes a problem in and of itself. it is our instruction misdirected toward the veteran? this is your problem? or is it the public who needs the instruction. i will get off now. thank you, greta, and i will watch online. guest: i really appreciate this question. what i think he is getting at is the military civilians and their disconnect. with her guard to ptsd in particular, one of the great problems i see is there has never been a time at which the military community and civilian community have been more disconnected. a lot of it has to do with the fact this is the longest period

in american history without some form of mandatory service. but that is not the whole so very -- whole story. when you look at native american cultures for instance, they had traditions like when the warrior came home, they had ceremonies that involved the entire tribe where the warriors would get up and they would tell their stories and would watch the steam rise and the idea was that they were giving the stories over to the entire tribe. what that did is it made it so there was not a separation between the warrior and tribe. so as the warrior reintegrated into the tribe, they would not feel isolated within the tribe. they would share their full experience so people understood what they had been through. that's not what we do in america. any veteran will tell you that they know their stories -- there are stories that they can share. they know there are stories they can sanitize and share, stories they can share, and then they learn pretty quick, i think

anyway, that there are stories that people want to hear that they -- stories that they think people want to hear but they don't want to hear. i can make you feel alone. culturally, you get used to a certain level of accountability from your coworkers and that can be difficult. when i was in the legislature and people would say they did things and sometimes politicians say they will do things that they do not do, that was difficult. highly difficult for me at first understand. it sometimes made me difficult to work with. this other piece is important because as opposed to letting the warrior come back and tell their story and not feel isolated within the tribe, what we do is do things like give veterans a free chicken fajita rollup on veterans day at applebee's and expect them to be the same person before the war. that is not how it works. what we have to do instead is have to listen to people, hear their stories, and embrace that. everybody says my grandfather

was in world war ii, my uncle was in vietnam, but they do not like to talk about it. i always like to say they did not like to talk about it with you because they did not think you would understand. if you have a genuine curiosity and can listen without judgment and they feel they can tell you a story and will not change the way you see them, then they are interested in talking about it. my grandfather did not talk about world war ii until i came back from afghanistan and then we talked about it because he thought he wanders to what i'm talking about. host: do you still do that today, hold back on stories you don't think people want to hear? guest: sometimes i do. not in this book. [laughter] they are in the book but when i meet a new person, sometimes you just want to give them a sanitized version and frankly sometimes i do not want to tell the whole thing. but when i'm with other vets, everybody -- not everybody but a lot of us at the veterans can unity project are not only veterans of iraq or afghanistan

but also the kansas city ptsd clinic at the v.a.. -- v.a. a lot of them are for stories, some, like card game stories from when we we're are deployed. host: the book is invisible storm, a soldier's memoir of ptsd. he tells the story, people are uncomfortable hearing it so read the book. host: also it has -- guest: also it has jokes. i don't want people to think it is unbearable to read. it is also funny. caller: our caller next from new york -- handout from -- hannah from new york, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? guest: good morning. are you doing? -- how are you doing? caller: i'm not a veteran but i grew up with veterans and if you

don't mind i would like to give two -- three incidences about posttraumatic stress disorder. because it did not exist during world war ii for my uncle. he was in patent units and he came home from the war, not injured, but he was never the same. he could never go any place he had never been before, which greatly impacted his life. because of being -- i've told the story sometimes -- being in a closed truck and he never knew where his unit was going. therefore, his whole rest of his life he lived to be 99 years old, fortunately, but there were not any facilities like you are speaking of like the v.a. it is just amazing.

the other people i know that they were vietnam vets drafted, they came home and they were my friends, never the same. never the same. they did not talk about the war, they just drink the war. -- drank the war. it was very sad to see this because don't forget this was not voluntary. you did not join, sign-up, or whatever. this was your number came up and you are in. if you don't mind, i would like to give two nonmilitary. excuse me. my grandmother was in a factory fire way back in 1917 or someplace along that line. she was trapped in the burning

factory. she was never the same again. nobody knew about posttraumatic stress disorder. she just could not get into an elevator, she could not sit in a car, she could not feel confined. there were no people at the time that dealt with this. this was ok, that is the way it is. that is the way it is going to go. it is just so wonderful that finally the v.a. is taking an interest in this and i'm just going to back up a moment. host: i'm going to jump in because we have a couple more calls for jason kander so i will have him respond to what he has heard so far. guest: it is really important that folks talk about this as what it is, an injury. so it is not surprising that janet's uncle did not want to be in situations where he was going.

sometimes these things are specific, sometimes they are harder to pin down, but the most important thing that she said is comparing her uncle to her grandmother, even though one served and one did not because we all experience trauma in life. living in america right now is traumatic, so one thing i really want to get across is you do not have to be a veteran or married to a veteran or anything like that to get a lot out of this book. this is not why i wrote it. i wrote it for the gobs of people walking around with trauma that they are not acknowledging because they think they are gaining perspective when they say "well it wasn't this." i always compare it to like if you broke your arm and then you looked around and you are like yeah, i broke my arm but i know somebody who lost their arm so i will not treat my broken arm. eventually that arm will not work at all as opposed to i have a broken arm, i thing i will get it treated. that is what i did with my brain. i was like i have friends that got shot, what right do i have to go get treatment?

that is what a lot of civilians do unfortunately because one thing is true, we have done a great job of -- we need to do better but helping veterans understand ptsd is a real thing and have legitimized it for veterans but not for everybody else. i talked to plenty of people who had a lot of the same symptoms i had from a completely different trauma that had nothing to do with the military. living in america right now can be traumatic. you don't have to have gone to afghanistan and been an intelligence officer to feel like you're may be a little uncomfortable with crowds right now. we are seeing mass shootings all the time, so it is a traumatic time to be in this country, so i think people can draw a value out of this. host: leonard is in ohio. are you active, retired military? caller: i am a u.s. army veteran. host: ok. caller: good morning, jason. appreciate your service.

i am a desert storm veteran. understand the ptsd aspect of it of it all. jumping through the v.a. hoops is a tough one sometimes. i did the self-medication thing like you talked about. i understand that as well. i do an armor union every year and listen, that is the great therapy -- greatest therapy in the world. we all understand where were coming from, it's tough jokes, all day long, so that helps a tremendous amount. we have local organizations in town that assist veterans in crisis and is a great program. i just want to say i understand it all and appreciate your service and god bless america. i will hang up. guest: thanks, leonard. host: ken in washington, d.c..

-- washington, d.c., you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. hello? host: we are listening. caller: living in america, it is not just a time where in, it is the history. i want to say two quick things. my father is still trying to get additional assistance for ptsd. he is a retired army sergeant major, two tours in vietnam, also served for pelham as well. the local community received a certain him money for the citizens because of the distraction and damage done to the community but none of the veterans or families that served there, stationed there, have yet to receive anything. if you could touch on this because what we see in america, there was a racial component as well, access to veterans because

in particular for black people, sometimes that public policy does not reach those communities in particular. one example is my great uncle who is a korean war veteran and he was discharged. i will allow you to explain that to the listening audience, but -- and of course he was married and had children. i'm sure you know the discharge is. host: your talking -- guest: you are talking about an outh. caller: they said he is not a blue man. host: i had never understood that term but i get it. caller: even now getting markers , and particular black veterans that have passed, it is difficult because how they were risen when they were discharged for something they did not do and then they were thrown out so they would not have access to

v.a. benefits and things of that nature. so until certain public policies reach every veteran, not just the majority of veterans but all of them, i'm not asking for anything for whatever disability i have because i still have my mind intact and i am a spiritual enough person talbot anybody in need. last week for every american dollar, nearly 45% of it, gets spent on the military. a certain percent of that amount gets detailed out to the members of the military. so until there is public policy change, it is not about representing doing our job based on orders and not necessarily choice. if we could address that and if you could explain it the discharge, it would be health there. thank you and god bless you all.

guest: i appreciate it. let's talk about what he is bringing up is something it's basically a criminal justice reform issue that no one talks about. that is that there is an awful lot of people who have had an other than honorable or dishonorable discharge and those folks served their country and cannot go to the v.a. regardless of what they did. some of that has changed but to his point that is a message that has not gotten out much either. at veterans community project, we served people -- i can thing of one guy where he had three duis so he was given a dishonorable discharge. he had four combat deployments, a dui in between each one. you don't have to be like a forensic detective to figure out the guy was self-medicating for ptsd and so we worked on his paperwork, got him -- his discharge status upgraded so he could get access to benefits he needed. but it can be, to his point,

very commander dependent. just like anything in the criminal justice system can be -- if you are a black person and you have a white judge, these statistics show you are not going to get the exact time treatment as a white person with a white judge. in the same sense, you can have some disparity with regard to how you were treated by your commander because those of the people that make the decision on how to trigger discharge, recommend how you get discharged, and i think this is important to compare to timothy mcveigh, if he had somehow lived 200 years and gotten out of prison and not been executed or anybody who served in the military and then commits a crime afterwards and ends up eventually getting out, it is not like they are not going to qualify for medicare. somebody like that, they will get their benefits. you could be a murderer and still get medicare at 65.

as you should. there is no reason you should not. if you made a mistake while you are in the military, we revoke any status you have ever had of having served. when you did serve your country. it is an underrated criminal justice reform issue that i think absolutely has to be addressed. host: danielle gilbert -- jason kander, his book, invisible storm. 100% of the proceeds go to his commission for national expansion and they are doing in cities. thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a break. when we come back we will be an open forum. any public policy issue on your minds. start dialing in now with the numbers on your screen. ♪

>> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get podcasts. ♪ at c-spanshop.org, that is he spends online store. browse through c-span products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessory. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> there are a lot of places to

get political opinions, but only as 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 for 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 back in open form, any public policy issue on your mind you can continue with our previous conversation with face and candor about ptsd, the military, we are also talking earlier about brittney griner and the diplomacy efforts to get her back home. this morning, we started off

with trust in media and all of those conversations back on the table as well as the news, and the news this morning as many of you know, the former prime minister of japan, shinzo abe, a retired politician, was campaigning for his party in japan yesterday and he was shot yesterday this morning very early we learned he died. the reaction from international leaders is pouring in. this is the polish prime ministers saying i'm deeply shocked by the news of the assassination. i talked with the family of our japanese friend who was always very kind to poland. may he rest in peace. so there are many more reactions that we can read as well because the president of the european council saying it is with deep regret i have learned of the passing of shinzo abe. i will never understand the

brutal killing of this great man. europeans mourn with you. my consumerist -- my sincerest condolences to wife and family. we will have more reaction as we go about. harrison in south carolina, democratic caller, what is on your mind? caller: thank for profiling jason kander. i want to point out you guys spelled his name wrong. it should have been candor. what a breath of fresh air with the way he speaks and the program he has going on and as i was watching that, i just hope that guys like him, women like him with these life experiences and whatnot come forward and demonstrate what true leadership is. it was so refreshing listening to him talk and everything in

our current society is begging for leadership. so i wanted to talk to him about expanding the program into the civilian side of things because as he had mentioned, ptsd is not just a military problem. especially if it is post-pandemic ash in this post-pandemic day and age in the school -- especially in this post-pandemic day and age. i myself am not a veteran. i would have liked to have served in the military but the timing did not work out back in the early 1990's. but i do appreciate everything that veterans do or what's not. i just think what jason has started needs expansion and i highly encourage him to get involved in politics and spread

his style of leadership. think for taking my call. host: then in brookland, republican. hi, ben. caller: yes, i wanted to point out as one who has been in combat and who treated people with ptsd that the situation where you take an average kid and put him in the military and put him in combat situation, for which you have no control, it really makes it difficult to bring the person back home. as a nation, compared to any other nation, while we do more for our vets then most other nations, we really do not appreciate what they have gone through and we really do not appreciate the physiology of stress and how it lingers in

them for the rest of their lives. so we never advance ourselves culturally to deal with a veteran in such a way that we make him feel comfortable rather than provoking him -- provoke in him any sense of stress which would mean uncertainty, which would mean what he has trained to do in a combat situation. i think one of the most important things we have to do is really try to personally reach into veterans as individuals and get to know them and know what the points are and some of the other things that can happen and we in the medical field can take care of the physiological side of it. there is a new treatment in california, very interesting where they stimulate the stomach , the parasympathetic nervous system -- i'm sorry, some pathetic nervous system has very

calming effects and such. so we have to see this as a medical problem as confounding as cancer and at the same time these people have to be especially welcome to because they went through an especially horrible experience in combat or near combat. if you are on guard duty and are expecting combat, that has an effect just like combat itself. i want people to think this through. host: other news this morning, the government announced the june jobs numbers, 3.6 percent is the un-appointment rate from the bureau of labor statistics, 372,000 jobs added in the month of june and the headline from cnbc is payrolls increased, more than expected. as job market defies recession

fears. the economy on the table this morning an open forum. rodney in south carolina, hi, rodney -- carolina, independent. hi, rodney. caller: the gentleman that talked, he talked about great issues, but the ptsd and some of the other medicals -- i am a 21 year vet and combat related as well. i notice it is a fight with the v.a. on compensation and every issue there is about it. so me as a soldier having to go out independently to a company to try to get the compensations after having back surgery and injuries repaired, i do not understand why we have to fight

so hard. i understand now, getting older, that the v.a. is fighting more so for the government but it would be a plus if we had someone to help support the veteran, the soldiers, to take care of these matters. they have a lot of good programs but at times they tend to fight you about every issue. host: all right, rodney. tony, connecticut, democratic caller. what is the public issue on your mind or policy issue? caller: it is the hypocrisy in the news and also the scent of omission. if you would allow me to give you a quick example. i am a democrat, come from a democrat town. i was so proud of aoc and a number of my representatives that, a few years ago, went to

the southern border. they showed babies and unfortunately showed dead babies in the water, and they are crying for help down there. i have not in the last couple years seen aoc say anything about anything about this. that is one example for that hypocrisy. the scent of omission is i would say when we have spoken a few times last year when they were doing these big budget stuff, the big bills and i called and i said hey, greta, you are only showing half of the bill, half of the money spent, whatever happened to the other half? i guess today we write bills and send them into law without reading them and we do not know what to heck -- what the hack is going on with the other half of the trillions of dollars and spent -- dollars being spent. we have no control. those are omissions. it does not make any sense to me. i would really wish we would

have a more thorough analysis of this stuff. it is really disheartening. my two things would be hypocrisy and the sin of omission. host: i remember the call and the point you make about following the money. george in missouri, republican. hi, george. caller: hello. the call i making today is i'm concerned about where are all of the liz cheney-backing republicans. when you say you are republicans, everyone automatically thinks you are trump. i am very against trump and i wish more of the liz cheney type of republicans would speak up. i just watched your program with jason kander. that is the type of president i believe this country could truly use, a young, enthusiastic

person that has very much experience. thank you very much. host: morgan in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to piggyback on the caller who talked about hypocrites. i want to talk about how fox news made a hero out of kyle rittenhouse, a teenage double murderer, yet they yell about right to life and the right against a woman having the right to choose. that is all i have to say. host: the white house put out a statement about the assassination of the former prime minister, shinzo abe. president biden saying, i am stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened by the news my friend, the former prime minister of japan, was killed while campaigning. this is a tragedy. i had a privilege to work

closely with the prime minister he says as vice president. he knows that she was the longest serving japanese prime minister. his vision of a free and open endo pacific will endure. president biden writes, above all, he cared deeply about the japanese people and dedicated his life to their service, even at the moment he was attacked he was engaged in the work of democracy. tom in charlotte, north carolina, republican caller. hi, tom. we are an open forum. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about joe biden selling oil to the chinese company his son owns interest in. this is more treacherous than benedict arnold ever did. he is the biggest trader in our country in the history of our country. we need to get rid of him and need to get rid of him fast. host: nira -- mira in north carolina, he democratic caller.

mira? caller: yes, mira. correct. host: go ahead. we are listening. caller: ok. a couple things. first of all, i had two uncles in world war ii and they called it shellshocked. -- shellshock. having a hard time hearing you. maybe you can call back on a different line. bob in arizona, independent. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say one thing. the gentleman who called before talked about the v.a. and his problems. well i am a korean vet and i spent 10 months on the korean front lines and i have to fight for everything. we need somebody to help us, and thank you. host: earl in nashville, georgia, democratic caller.

caller: are you doing? host: good morning. caller: i spent two tours in -- and i just heard about the v.a. veteran and i think, as a veteran, we have a lot that are suffering. it would be pleasant to have a young man at his age spares to be in the white house because a president, i don't think -- i don't see him as republican or democrat. we need someone like that to understand who would put their live on the line for the people at home sleeping in the bed. i'm grateful to hear what he was talking about because me myself, i have been with the v.a. for 10 years and had to receive everything but that is ok. as long as there are vietnam vets and those before me are

able to get help to help me because it was good to hear him speak about that. thank you. host: also in georgia is john, -- sorry, dixie rose, a republican. your turn. caller: good morning, everyone. host: good morning. caller: i'm calling in reference to the man that spoke. i wanted to thank him for helping me understand so much more about this posttraumatic stress disorder. i just wanted to thank you so much for allowing us to listen to your wisdom. i was diagnosed with it. are you there? host: yes, we are listening. you are diagnosed with it? caller: two years ago. i did not believe it until today and i may be seeking out help. i was wondering how we get a hold of what they do.

how do we get information? host: their organization is veterans community project at veteranscommunityproject.org. caller: you don't know how much we thank you for their being somebody out there -- this is like the man said, a breath of fresh air. thank you so much. host: ok. we go to augustine, georgia, john, independent. hi, john. caller: thank you so much for taking my call, mama. -- ma'am. my dad was a social security administrator under lyndon johnson in 1963. he was the social security director for the city. he got to georgia for 50 years before he died. just for the state of georgia,

you call [indiscernible] there are over 677,000 unpaid, pending v.a. clients just in georgia. i told rick allen this one day and church and rick allen, he thought that was for the whole country. i called mississippi because my dad is there and the people of the v.a., we worked in concert with several major issues. i have been, i don't know, i stood up for the issues at hand. the v.a., i have a 35 year v.a.

claim pending and the judge said pay him seven months ago and it has been 35 years ago. host: as we told you earlier, it was announced by the white house and reported by the associated press the president plans to sign an executive order in response to the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. he will do so at 11:30 a.m. eastern time and we will have coverage of that here on c-span, on our c-span now video app that you can get on your phone, and on c-span.org. after that, at 12:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span, we will have a conversation with the conservative women's network and conservative groups about the futures of pro-life movement post-row. that conversation also happening on c-span following the president's executive decision.

executive order, excuse me. terry in dixon, illinois, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i'm calling about when i hear all of this conversation about setting -- sending oil or whatever. under president biden, our resources of oil have hope paste any of the president and when i went to the gas station today, it was down $.60 in just the last 25 days. so i think that we have plenty of reserve, and just like trump did, he sold us on the international market to ever -- to whoever because that is how it is bought so let's go to an. he is the man. he is the man. host: mike is a republican in

rockford, alabama. what is the public policy issue you want to talk about? caller: i am a retired police officer first of all and roll tide. i talked to you about 11 years, roll tide, and i got a smile out of you. i would like to say the gas prices since the democrats had gotten an election, why are the gas prices as high as they are? i know what trump was in office the gas prices were down and i've heard the russian's war is that the prices are to be high. do know why that is? host: what have you heard from the president? caller: i haven't heard anything from the president. i'm always talking across the nation and i'm home with my life -- i wife listening but we are both concerned about the gas prices. why do they have to be so high when other nations prices are like extremely low? why is it america's?

host: it is high in europe too. i would suggest you use the resource of our website, c-span.org, go to our website and punch in gas prices. there are lots of events from different perspectives where you can listen to what people are saying as to why the price of gas is high. you can hear it for yourself in their own words from them and then you can make the decision yourself. also on the "washington journal," that is the page on your screen. we had an oil and gas analyst on the show in the last six months ago or so i would say who talked about all of the different factors that go into oil and gas prices, so punch in those keywords, gas prices, and you can -- you will find many resources for you to look and investigate yourself. audrey in fort lauderdale, florida, independent.

caller: hi? host: hi. caller: sorry, you got my name wrong, it is andre. host: sorry, andre. caller: hello. i wanted to ask, to follow up on what you are commenting on, what actually does drive the price of energy up or down if c-span has any links or websites? that is really my question. the other is a comment i will make and i will take my answer off of the air for the first question. every time i have called in the past, i have gotten your name wrong as well and arose would be a rose by any other name. thank you to c-span. host: before you go, i would say you can go to c-span.org and put in those keywords but you can also go to factchecker.org. the president will say something about why gas prices are going up, they will fact check it. or a republican leader will say

something, they will blame president biden, then you will have a fact-check there. you can use those resources as well. surely in mansfield, ohio, good morning. you are a democratic caller? caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: two things, gas prices and the v.a.. gas prices, i thought oil companies -- to me, they are gouging us because they are trying to make up for all of the oil leaks they had. they had to pay out all of that money and they are just getting their money back from one gas prices were so low. everybody is blaming the president. i do not blame the president, i blame the oil companies. they could lower it this morning if they wanted to. the second thing, my follow-up about the marine, he gave his heart and soul. he was about to get his benefits, 38 years old when he passed, never got his benefits. he wound up with 30%, he had

cancer, he fought until the day he died and lost his life in a fire. his kids growing up without him. nobody said anything and he was in the marines. the v.a. owed him completely. host: sean in pennsylvania, a republican caller. hi, sean. caller: how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. i also want to talk about donald trump. i have watched both sides, democratic and republican views, constantly i'm going back and forth, cnn. all over i am on. but what i want to say to america is they do not like the way donald trump talks. his style of speaking is off. i do not even like it. and i'm from pennsylvania. i can tell a northern new jersey

and anywhere they talk in the world and it is not too pretty sometimes but the message he gives, please try to receive it. thank you very much for taking my call and that is all i have to say. host: bonnie is last in maryland, republican. hi, bonnie. caller: i'm calling about this abortion krapp. -- crap. they don't have to worry about the babies aborted -- to them but in the next breath they get away with the death penalty of these murders and all. to me, that is sad because how do they know what happens to these babies? use it for science? body parts? sell them? somebody needs to do some checking. i am just upset over it. host: and that is it for today. thank you all for watching, enjoy your friday and the rest of your weekend. ♪

>> president biden will announce new access to bolster abortion rights and protect access to abortion medication and emergency contraception, two weeks after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, the constitutional right to an abortion. watch live at 11:30 eastern on c-span. later today, conversation on the future of the pro-life movement after roe v. wade, a number of conservative groups hosting this. live coverage begins at noon c-span -- noon eastern on

c-span, or watch online at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government and funded by these television companies, and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is a place you call home. at sparklight, it is our home to. we are all facing our rate is challenge. that is why sparkly -- sparklight is working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. close up next, supreme court reporters and legal experts talk about the courts recent rulings, including dobbs v jackson, women's health organization, which overturned the 1973 roe v. wade decision that legalized abortion. they analyze other high-profile rulings, involving religious liberty, the second amendment, and vaccine mandates.