about congressional efforts to assist the u.s. computer chip industry and later, look at the house january 6 investigation with committee member jamie raskin. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning, it's wednesday, july 27, 2022. donald trump was back in washington, d.c. to deliver his first speech since leaving the white house. he touched on the election 2020, the midterms, and that 2024 presidential race. in the wake of that appearance we want to hear from republicans only in the first hour about where you stand on the former president running again. do you think you should be that you you know many in 2024 -- he

should be the gop nominee in 2024? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. send us a text this morning, (202) 748-8003. if you do, send us your name and where you are from. catch up with us on facebook.com/c-span and on twitter, @cspanwj. you can go ahead and start calling in now as we show the front page of open the washington times" this morning. clearly labeled under the election 2020 or coverage, the sub headline of the story, "former president returns to the capital with ni on a come back here -- come back." [video clip] >> under democrat rule, in

democrat run cities, democrat run states and a democrat run federal government, the criminals have been given free reign more than ever before. parents are worried that their kids will get shots. on the way to school, on the way back home. we pray that children are released. there is no bail. there is no bond.

never happened before. lunatics attack innocent victims. random. roving mobs of walking into stores and walking out with whatever merchandise they can carry. they are left alone. it's nobody tells them don't do this. put it back now. every public park and every patch of great space that was previously beautiful, the dangerously deranged roam the streets. we are living in such a different country. one primary reason. there is no longer risk act for the law and there certainly is no order. our country is now a cesspool of crime. we have love, death, and suffering on a scale once unthinkable because the

democratic party's effort to destroy and dismantle law enforcement throughout america, it has to stop. it has to stop and it has to stop now. host: that was president trump yesterday at the america first all the scenes to we will show you more of that this morning as we ask you think the former president should be the gop nominee in 2024. yesterday this came on the same day as the address of the former vice president, mike pence. the story in "the new york times," uneasy party," here's how michael bender put it yesterday. two hotel bell rooms less than a month -- less than a mile apart, "

host: here's some of the former vice president yesterday, asked about giving that speech on the same day as former president trump gave his speech. >> you and former president trump seem to have a divide on the outlook on the future of the conservative movement. do you think that the divide extends to the rest of the conservative movement and what do you think we can do to alleviate it? >> i will tell you, i couldn't be more proud of the record of the trump-pence administration. for four years we advanced the policies we just described to promote a growing economy and secure our border. we appointed 300 conservatives

to the federal courts at every level, including three supreme court justices, we rebuilt the military and i will always be grateful to have had the opportunity to serve as vice president. i don't know that the movement is that divided. i don't know that the president and i differ on issues. but we may differ on focus. i truly do believe that elections are about the future and it is absolutely essential at a time whence though many americans are hurting, so many families are struggling, we don't give way to the temptation to look back. the time has come for us to offer a bold, positive agenda to ring america back and i will continue to carry that message across the nation. host: the former vice president

there yesterday, also in d.c.. adding more fuel to the mix of speculation about 2020 work, the story today in the wall street journal focusing on ron desantis and president trump jockeying ahead of 2024. that's the headline there, focusing on the relationship between those two men in the pushing old among their supporters two years out from the 2024 election. in the wake of all of this in these double appearances yesterday, we want to talk to republicans only in the first hour of the washington journal, asking you if you think number president should be the party nominee in 2024. diana's first on the line for those who say yes. good morning. diane, go ahead. you have got to stick by your phone, diane. we will go to susan in

massachusetts, who is on the line for those who say yes. good morning, susan. caller: sorry, i'm not republican, i'm democrat. do you want my thoughts? host: i guarantee you that we will have time to get your thoughts. we will have open forum later in the program. just in the first hour, as we have done before in democrat only questions, we are talking to republicans only. we want to focus on what republicans are thinking inside the party. judy out of north carolina on that line that we set aside for those who say they are not sure. go ahead. caller: i'm very sure i want president trump to run in 2024. host: why, judy? caller: because he loves america and loves america and the

american people of america and he explains what the american people want. we want the country back, we want pride back. we need to make sure that we are taking care of the generations to come, just like the generations before us. he's the only one who has shown any strength or power for dignity. which this country still needs to have to go forward. host: what do you think about mike pence? caller: i think mike pence is an honorable man. i think he's a godly man. however, i don't think he has the strength to stand up for american people. especially against the liberals. host: that's judy out of north

carolina. sylvia, virginia, you on. caller: i think no, he shouldn't right now until he gets the january 6 debacle figured out. host: explain what you mean. until they get it figured out. you think there are charges coming? caller: i'm afraid so. i think it's going to be just, you know, the controversy is too great for him to run. i really do. host: sylvia, who would you rather see run if not in? caller: desantis? host: why do you like ron desantis? caller: he's younger. i'm 66, but i think young pull needs some, you know, someone younger, more promise in america to go forward. less controversial. i really do.

host: that's sylvia out of virginia. on the investigation into january 6, we will be talking to one of the members of the select committee, the congressional select committee later in the program. jamie raskin of maryland about the action on the justice department side as well, finding out today, the lead story is a criminal probe by the justice of the king specifically into the former president actions investigating that as a part of a criminal probe of efforts overturn the 2020 election results according to several people familiar with the case. "the washington post" reporting that the degree of interest from prosecutors and the actions of the former president sifter cleat had not been reported and that the revelations raise the stakes of a politically fraught probe involving the former president. we will talk to the house select committee member, jamie raskin,

more about that, next in give you the opportunity to ask questions as well, coming up in the 9:00 a.m. eastern hour here on "the washington journal." john is next, we are asking if you think that the former president, donald trump should be the party nominee in 2020. what do you think? caller: absolutely. i'm backing him 100%. i don't understand what they are trying to prove or anything. i backed trump. i think you will straightness back out. look what he did in the four years he was there. it was just amazing. i hope he runs and i hope he gets the santos as vice president. i think they will get some -- do some great things. host: a story in "usa today,"

some of the polling about january 6 in the select committee hearings saying that they are swaying few minds among republicans, 7% say that the presentation has made them view the attack is more serious than i thought. only 6% saying they now believe that donald trump was more involved than they had originally thought. more from that polling on the jump page, noting that 72% of democrats say that they are paying a fair amount of attention to those hearings, in stark contrast to the 78% of republicans who say they are paying not very much attention or none at all to the select committee hearings. new polling from "usa today," suffolk university old. you can read about it in "usa today." martin, you are next. caller: i think you should be and only be does anytime you

give an inch to an elector, they take seven miles. it's like dealing with ill tempered teenagers. if you think rationally that we could have another president that would do what he would do and be more diplomatic, it means nothing to electors. you have to go with what's truly right and screw them. trump was the winner last time and he can win it again, even though you think it will be difficult. it doesn't matter. us a bench -- against a bunch of crazed marxist. can't give them an inch. host: did you watch either of the speeches? caller: i watched part of trump sometimes, but he bores the hell out of me. he speaks like a simpleton. but you have a group of us that are so pissed off that we are

done being "tolerant." it's not forced acceptance. trump is the only man with the balls to make some thing happen. host: when you hear the former vice president, mike pence, saying that some people focus on the past but elections are about the future, saying he's focused on the future, implying perhaps that the former president is more focused on the past, what do you make of that? caller: if you want to talk about the past, we are all in this because of hillary clinton. what they put this country through for how many years now, this russia collusion, it's a farce. we all know. i don't listen depends. he has taken the approach of what you do when you deal with suicides trying to get to the truth. it doesn't work.

pence would get killed in a landslide. you have got to be dirty and mean. trump learned it in new york. we are pulling on them what they pulled on us, what we have to do to win because these are not right times because of the left. you have got jerkoffs who are market cysts -- marxists. host: got your point. on the line for unsure. why are you unsure, robert? caller: being here in georgia, we just had david do when against brian kemp. and you know, it costs a lot of campaign funds, money and advertising in this and that and i just, ron desantis? i would back him 100%, i am a trump supporter, i will vote for trump if he's on the ticket.

but my goodness, we can't have two men in my opinion, to good men that could run this country battling it out. you know? somebody's got to get out of the way. that's my whole point. so that one candidate can drive home their message. i hate to see two great americans, ron desantis and donald trump have to battle it out and waste all that time and energy to get the nomination. host: you mentioned the primary. you are talking about the former president's endorsement and whether he still has the juice in terms of carrying endorsed antedate across the finish line. what do you think about the senate race down there with herschel walker? caller: asking me about that senate race? that's a tougher one, two. you know, i'm not putting any

faith in any endorsement. i think that at this day and time, a republican candidate, from the senate, from the governorship, they will run on their own name. i don't think anybody need an endorsement at this point. i don't put a whole lot of backing, just because donald trump endorsed somebody. being in georgia i don't say, oh, well, donald trump back them. that has nothing to do with it. you know, i vote for people on what they stand for and their party and their politics. the senate race, yeah, that's going to be touchy. i wonder why herschel isn't fighting back a little bit more. out on the campaign trail and what have you, he's not really -- i don't know. hate to say this on tv, but he's not really backing himself up to

try. host: robert out of atlanta. another republican out of the peach state, lee, good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. what are your thoughts on a trump run for 2024. caller: i wish you would just step out. i was a trump supporter, basically just to have the alternatives, you have to vote for one of the other and i went him. basically, however, he just carries so much heat. he has such a problem with maintaining his emotional levels that he just doesn't win what i would call the independent, rational, convince a bowl voters who are going to turn this one way or the other. -- convinceable voters who are

going to turn this one way or the other. the people who want to to the mat for trump they have to remember that what we are really looking at here are the people sort of in the middle. i'm not talking about compromising principles. i'm just saying that there are a whole bunch of people that trump turns off big time and he just won't change. if you would, he has got some great policies but when you have people like dissent's, pompeo, haley. fits, even. -- dissent this -- ron desantis, pompeo, haley. i think we have got to move on. i hate to say it but he has been unable to change all these years. host: who would be your pick

among those other folks you mentioned? caller: i would probably do ron desantis at this point in time if i had to pick one. i would love to see pence come back in as a vice president. i think he did a super good job. host: what do you make of the clip? whole earlier this month that you perhaps heard about, 69% of republicans say they want the former president to run in 2020 four, that's a decline of 11 from the 78% who said the same back in october. caller: i think that's a positive in people realize they are not going to win if they don't get what i will call the independent or, there are a bunch of different demographics involved in that swing in the middle. these elections are going 51% to 49%. people can call the mandate if they want to.

you know, even the biting wind, it wasn't dramatically like you know, like 460 of 40 or something. the republicans are probably realizing they are not going to win if they picked somebody who just carries so much baggage. trump, unfortunately, to a large degree, just to shed himself of it. he's his own worst enemy. i think he did a great job for the country in a lot of ways, except for the attitude part he carried with him that was divisive. i hate to say it, but he just wouldn't stop. he's got a super bunch of policies in a lot of ways but come in as a leader in a group and to go ahead in just defeat yourself, really, when you can't

control the rhetoric? that's run coming from. host: catherine, washington, good morning, you are an. caller: hello. i'm 74 years old and i voted for trump times and i do want him to run again. very badly. i know his attitude is at. in his rhetoric is. his policies are great. that's what i wanted to say. thank you. host: while you are waiting, did you hear the previous caller and his concerns about him being too divisive or not being able to appeal to folks in the middle, that the caller believes that election will turn on? caller: yes, i do agree with him. i was hoping that trump could tone it down a lot and mean it. i did notice the speech yesterday. he seemed a little bit humble

for once, but it could be fake. i know i will vote for him again. i do not want pence. i would take ron desantis over pence. pence, nice guy, so week. -- weak. i want trump really bad. host: here's the former president getting attention for his comments on how to deal with the issue of drugs and drug dealers in america. [video clip] >> we know where they operate. streets. names, they know the names, police officers know the names. they can't do anything about it. if they wanted to. we need to get in there immediately and go into every drug den, every stash house, every hideaway and roundup dealers and killers and gang members and charge them with

every and any crime that we find. there are a lot of them, drug crimes. sex crimes. all sorts of crimes, vicious and horrible crimes like you've never seen before. not on a scale like this. it's a war zone. leading this effort you would need a joint violent crime task wars including the department of homeland security, hast with destroying these organizations. the penalties should be very, very severe. look at countries throughout the world. the ones that don't have a drug problem are those that institute a very quick trial, death penalty sentence for drug dealers. it sounds horrible, doesn't it? you know what, that's the one that don't have any problem. it doesn't take 15 years in court. it goes quickly. you absolutely execute a drug

dealer and you save 500 lives because they kill on average 500 people. it's terrible to say. take a look at every country in the world that doesn't have a problem with drugs. they have a very strong death penalty. if we are going to stop the scourge. host: the former president yesterday at a speech in d.c.. want to watch it in its entirety? you can do so at our website. c-span.org. 7:30 here on the east coast, we are asking republicans only if you think that the former president should be the gop nominee in 2024. if not, tell us who you think should be the nominee. (202) 748-8000 if you think the

former president should be the nominee. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. if you are unsure, that's ok, we have a line for you, (202) 748-8002 for you to call. looking for your questions and comments on social media, putter, facebook, and our text messaging service. as you continue to call in, a couple of the stories we have been watching that we will talk more about today, the senate yesterday, taking steps to advance that multibillion-dollar tech bill dealing with that shortage of chips in the country. the focus of that bill meant to boost the competitiveness in the production of semi conductor chips. we will be talking more about that bill and the final vote on the bill, expected later this week, with gavin bade in about one hour on this program. the other story as we watch later this afternoon, the

headline from open the wall street journal," chairman powell's next guidance, the federal reserve chairman set to announce today the lifting of interest rates again, expected interest rate rays of .75%, could be as much as 1%, expecting guidance on what the next interest rate hike could look like. the appearance by jerome powell, 2:30 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that here on the c-span networks. c-span3 is where it's going to be airing. c-span.org on the web. and the free c-span video app get back to your phone calls. on this question, donald trump, should he be the nominee for 2024? gary out of the garden state. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i'm not sure he should

run or not. far as i've got to say. host: did you support him in 2020 or 2016? host: no, -- caller: no i did not. host: who did you support? caller: 2016? i didn't support none of them guys. i didn't see no one i was interested in. host: angela, out of ohio, you are next. caller: yeah, no, i would not vote for donald trump again. he has destroyed the republican moral fiber.

if i would love to see anyone get in there, it would be lynn cheney. she's a strong courageous will many i would love to see her run for president. host: what do you think happens to her and her upcoming primary? caller: i don't know. i don't know. i'm from ohio, i don't know what they do in wyoming. people watching this january 6 hearing, they would be smart in reelecting her. i've never seen a more courageous or strong woman. yeah, like i said, i would love to see her run president. host: liz cheney tweeting yesterday before the residential appearance at that event here in washington. focusing on her work for the select committee of january the sixth, tweeting that the facts

are indisputable that while the capital was being attacked by an armed mob and donald trump, he would not tell them to go home for over 100 87 minutes, a dereliction of duty like we have never seen the or. we mentioned the justice department focusing more on the president's actions. a report from "the washington post" and others on the doj probe looking specifically into the actions of the former president, who yesterday was an interview with nbc news about merrick garland, the attorney general asked about how much the justice department is looking into the former president himself. this is a part of that interview. [video clip] >> the indictment of a former president, perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road? do you have to think about things like that?

>> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone on anyone mentally responsible for the events surrounding january 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transferral of power from one administration to another. that's what we do. we don't pay attention to other issues with respect to that. >> donald trump becoming candidate again, that wouldn't change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? >> i will say it again, we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, the legitimate transfer of power from one administration to the next. >> the attorney general, that aired yesterday evening. back your phone calls, asking republicans only if the former president should be the party nominee in 2020 or.

john says yes in california. why? caller: i said yes because he deserves a chance. he deserves a chance to finish the wall. electing him in 2024, january 6 is a moot point. host: john in california. david, west virginia, what do you think? caller: [indiscernible] host: are you with us? caller: am i on? host: yes, sir. caller: [indiscernible] host: just go ahead with your comment, david. caller: [indiscernible] host: all right, we will let you

figure that out, david. jaclyn, philadelphia, good morning. caller: definitely i would vote for him again. even though he's not popular in some circles, the last time i voted for him, i had a picture of him that i had to hide from my so-called friends because they would make comments about him. so i kept it like i was in some foreign country, i had to hide the picture. i would definitely vote for this man again. he's so truthful. host: would you feel like you would have to hide the picture of donald trump or hat -- hide your support for him again if he ran it 2024? caller: yes, yes, i would. i even wrote a donald trump song and i sang it on c-span1 time. host: i remember that. caller: my grandchildren were so proud of a. host: at this point why would

you think you would need to hide that support? caller: i see such hatred and jealousy out there. i don't see anything. i'm in a group at a senior center and i just don't say it, they just want to hate this man. i feel like a lot of it is jealousy. i'm not sure but it seems to be jealousy. host: what do you think they are jealous of? caller: like how dare he, a man who's not a politician put in for president and when? when like they did, i think that's what it is. but i love him and i will vote for him again. i'm afraid for him, but i will definitely vote for him again. he speaks for me. host: that was jaclyn out of philly. joe, michigan. does donald trump speak for you? caller: i do not support donald

trump for president. i support ron desantis. i love donald trump. i think you did a wonderful job and if he were to be the republican antedate again, i would definitely vote for him and i would send him money. but i think he brings in too much baggage. i think we need to get someone who doesn't have all the pent-up hatred by the middle. not the left. the left, you could put mother teresa in as a republican and left with a terrible things about her and hate her. it's all about hating any republican. i think that desantis is going to do a good job. i don't think he brings the baggage. but i'm afraid, and this is what i think is going to happen, i think that liz cheney is going to put her hat in the ring. i think that george soros and all the democrats are going to

say ok, go vote for cheney in the republican primary. so that she captures the nomination. and then she will lay down after she gets the nomination and throw the election to the democrat. i'm afraid that's what's going to happen. we are, we are in the inception phase of a civil war in this country. if the left doesn't get their way, they take to the streets and burn things down. we are in a dangerous situation that you cannot repair by pacification. you have to stand up and show these people this is the right thing to do, this is what works. i am very afraid for the lives of my children and grandchildren about what kind of country they will have to live in 30 years from now. host: do you think ron desantis

is someone who can fix that problem? caller: absolutely had he can then draw in the great deep bench the republican party has. the mike pompeo, the nikki haley , the kristi knowles, all of those team members who are, who are strangely capable instead of a bunch of people who do the wrong thing because it is a political thing to do. we had a head of the department of energy whose job is to make sure we don't have energy. a department of transportation head whose job is to make sure that the department isn't working right. it's an intentional sabotage of the system to destroy it so that

it can be re-created by communism. ultimately we have got to realize that and i it it if we don't, we are going to lose our freedom. host: joe in michigan, on ron desantis, before a 20 for election there's a 2020 to election coming up, trying to win reelection in november through the governorship of florida. interview on monday according to "the wall street journal," trump, resident of georgia, said he would vote for mr. desantis in georgia and then turned to his role quickly on how he helped him win four years ago. "if i didn't endorse him, he would not have one -- not have won." young conservatives in a teva

conference shows trump mr. desantis by a wide margin. that's looking there at the early jockey in between ron desantis supporters and trump supporters. robert, cedar city, utah, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to agree with previous callers. the fellow from michigan and the lady from philadelphia. our country is just so torn apart and i feel we are on the verge of civil war. i would vote for donald trump but i'm afraid that garland is going to bring charges against him and that's going to tear the country apart. i just, our country needs to be healed. biden ran on uniting the country and he sold that bag of good.

-- goods. this country is more divided than even before trump. it started with obama. the fellow from michigan talking about kids and grandkids. what we are leaving to them is a worry. i like this and test but trump is just not going to let it -- i like ron desantis but trump is not going to let it happen. lynn cheney, her dad, if anybody should be prosecuted, people forget about that, weapons of mass destruction. that's where she comes from. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: maryland, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. western maryland, anne arundel county, the majority of my

friends, 99% of them are liberal or progressive. which ok, that's fine. they see a lot about this or that. when i venture to the group like a more conservative viewpoint they just look at me like i'm nuts. now i'm a registered independent. i have voted all different ways. voted for losers and winners. i'm not going to say i would vote for donald trump. i think he's a little i don't know, maybe too far to the right, but so many people cannot stand him. his personality. i'm ok with a little bit of abrasiveness, personally. i would rather see somebody who isn't a politician when the vote. that's why i was happy to vote

for him. i thought needed he shaken up and that is what happened. host: what about your governor in maryland? caller: hogan, you know, he's ok. you know who was really great for us, connie marella, years ago. wonderful, a true moderate. even as a republican she was a moderate person. i think that hogan tends to do a little bit of lipservice also. i don't, i don't, i think it's ethically challenging to have a democrat promote a republican primary. i think that's a little, that should not be allowed. i would hope that someday we have public elections and everybody from everywhere and all walks of life are able to step up to the plate and i could see that happening with a public funded election.

you know who i really like? i like condoleezza rice. where is she these days? i would love to see her run, like i would have loved to see colin powell run. man of integrity. i believe that condoleezza rice would do the country great. i would hate to say that i would never again vote for a democrat, but that is how i feel. i don't like that word, never. it depends on who steps up to the plate. but really i'm looking for someone who is not a politician. i would never vote for joe biden or kamala harris. people thinking they do a great job? it blows my mind. anyway, thanks for letting me speak. host: democrats playing in republican primaries, this is the story in npr this week, a couple of different races where

midterm primaries going on, a strange phenomenon of democrats paying for ads supporting republican candidates in multiple states like colorado and illinois, attempting to boost far right republicans under the assumption that it would be easier to be them in a general election. a political gamble that has worked in the past, noting that 2012 senate race. claire mccaskill, the democratic senator from missouri, spending money on an advertising blitz during the gop to highlight the conservative credentials of the candidate todd akin. more money than his campaign spent throughout the primary. he went on to lose the waste in a dramatic fashion. npr reading that story, several stories about the national paper. good morning, sharman.

you are next. caller: i wanted to say that i would not vote for donald trump. i have not voted for him in the past. he is so divisive. he creates so much hate and continues to do it. he lost the election and to face up to that. if my other choice is ron desantis, i will vote democrat. been a republican my whole life. i do not know who these violent people are in the senate and congress, saying that they care about this country and supporting a man who did what happened on january 6. i hope we see him in jail, soon. host: who is the last republican you supported? caller: actually, it has been a while because the people i have wanted haven't made it. the last one was probably bush. i did like mitt romney.

but that didn't work out. host: this is esther, out of alabama. good morning. caller: yes, yes. host: go ahead. caller: i'm mary from alabama? host: mary, ok. caller: i'm a republican. i voted for trump twice, i will vote for him again. i love him. he gave us cheap gas and he helped us to keep us safe. this president we have now could do a lot better. he is sleeping with liberals and communists. his whole family is in bed with santa. it's hurting us. they are trying to buy all of our farmland and if we don't wake up and get these bad people out, we're goners. we're just, they are just taking

our country to hail. trump is a stern man. he's a strong man. he cap russia from attacking ukraine. and we weren't in war. he held afghanistan a lot better than trump had, biden had. just let it. let them just run all over us. we have got to come back. two, they are trying to get god out of everything. god created this country's world, people, man in his image. we have his word to go by. and i'm a christian. host: that's mary out of town obama. you mentioned -- out of alabama. a look in here on the status of

the several probes into the actions of hunter biden, the president's son. the story in the opinion section this morning of "the wall street journal," hunter and joe biden, "the current president said he wants mr. trump to run again and why wouldn't p, jenkins asked host: leon out of wilmington,

delaware, you are next. caller: thank you for c-span. a really important point here, pulling together the january 6 committee that is a whole joke, i want donald trump to run for president so that he can get reelected and he can ask merrick garland why he's not pursuing reyes. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: on the january 6 committee, a member of the select committee will join us in the 9:00 a.m. from our. former president trump mentioning the january 6 investigation and the speech yesterday from washington, d.c., here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] blm -- >> blm. nt. all the killing that took place -- antifa. pauly killing the took place

around the country. what they are doing to people who didn't even enter the building and you see the way they are being tortured and handled so horribly. kamala harris getting people out on bail that burned down buildings, killed people, getting them out on bail, you and even get these people out on bail. what a sad thing. something has to happen. people will take it much longer. there two sets of justice. we don't have to go into it but no one has ever seen what's happening today in our country. they are doing the exact same thing with january 6 as they did with these previous assaults on our country. host: the pro -- former president appearing the same day as his vice president appeared in washington, d.c. you can watch both addresses at c-span.org in their entirety.

sandy, for erwin, california. you are next. we are talking to republicans only. would you support another donald trump candidacy? caller: no, i would not. i actually did vote him the first time, with great brett. after making fun of a disabled man and stuff like that. i would love to see hillary clinton get in. howard stern, he had an interview with her, humanizing her. i have been reading the mary trump books. i would never vote for him. on the january 6 committee, it's not a joke. if any other company had something like this done, he would have investigated as well. that's all i have to say. host: talking to republicans only this morning.

republicans saying that they would support donald trump being the nominee in 2024. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. howard? caller: yes. i will vote for donald trump. we've got a whole lot of wishful thinkers in this nation. what we need are the wishbone. somebody with a backbone. donald trump's got a backbone. final words. seems to me that judgment is turned away backward. justice ann's far off. -- justice and this far off -- justice and -- and -- ends far

off and a lot washington, d.c. stinks. trump is the one man with enough backbone to stand up to it. it seems to me that they persecuted him. he must have a shield of faith, he's still standing strong. i admire that if we don't have someone up with a wishbone, it moaned last -- it won't last. host: another op-ed, this from "the washington times," trump in 2024 is the only answer against the political elite. that's on washington times.com. steve, arizona, you are next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead, sir. caller: this is a very confusing political climate we are living

in in america. america, think back to when they had all these candidates that were running for president last time. tulsi gabbard from hawaii, her platform made so much sense. she was speaking right on mid-america, everything we needed and wanted. she was a democrat in the democratic party. they snubbed her. they shooed her right out of the primaries because they knew that america was looking to put a woman in the white house, maybe a woman of color, either way, that's fine, they had a great candidate in a woman named tulsi gabbard, they shot her full of holes and i don't understand why . weak see these videos of joe biden sitting on the stage saying i told this guy he had better back off or he's not

getting the money and he admitted that on video. that is like a signed confession from a criminal. yet he became president. host: in terms of the republican party of 2020 for? caller: talking about how crooked trump was, i didn't vote for him the first time. i didn't think it would happen, it seemed so ridiculous. i voted for him the second time and he did. i would believe vote for it again. i'm a registered republican. i used to be a democrat. i consider myself an independent conservative. it's hard to stay with you, you can't vote straight democratic republican anymore. you have to look at each candidate on the individual air. some of them have dirty laundry in the basket and they try to it at the bottom of the basket so you can't see it. and then you have people trying to tell us, in the

advertisements, they are bad, vote for this guy, not this guy, they should stop all the advertisements. listen to those callers calling in over the last few weeks. there's a lot of angry people in america. i'm afraid it's like a pot with a lid type that will boil over and it won't be pretty. the justice system in this country sucks. i got beat up by a neighbor and the cops don't want to do nothing about it. fresh on parole and unlike guys, he assaulted me my own lace. host: allen, west milford, new jersey. you are next. caller: good morning. i appreciate you having me on. i will vote for donald trump again in 2024, when i hope he runs. i think that liz cheney has a bitter feud stemming from her

father, trying to run a vendetta for her father more so than any other reason. i think that jerry springer would be better for that circus sideshow that the left-wing liberal puke democrats are running, that one flop of the show made for tv ridiculous. host: have you been watching the january 6 hearings? caller: i watched it's and pieces. i really not interested in it at all, it's so one-sided with no cross-examination. it's a circus show. everything that is brought out, bringing these secret service guys, anything that's contrary to what the democrats want to put on television, they are not bringing it out. it's a farce. host: does it make a difference

that the majority of the witnesses are former trump officials? caller: just like liz cheney is a rhino, a lot of the other ones, it's bad for republicans and democrats. they are career politicians. that is one of the reasons i like donald trump. i didn't like him as a businessman, but he had the country running great. the border was secure. our energy independent, he's tough on the foreign leaders. not taking no crap from anybody. ever since i came in, first week, he flushed the country down the toilet. makes no i think the gas shortage thing is all caused by biden. host: i only have about 30

seconds left but do you still consider donald trump not a politician? he admitted yesterday in that speech that i guess i am a politician. caller: of course, i agree with that. he was not a politician and he came in fresh and he's not part of the -- the problem he has is that a lot of republicans are just as bad as the democrats, they are more worried about what they are putting in their pockets from the american tell worried about what american people want to stop they need to do with we want, not what they want us to do. host: that's our last caller in this first segment was stuck plenty more to talk about this morning including we will be joined by jeff murdoch of the washington times with an update on the federal investigation into hunter biden and later, we will dig into the multi-billion dollar chip deal moving through

the senate, focusing on semiconductor chips and that conversation is coming up in about half an hour. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> live, sunday, august 7 on in-depth, the talkshow host larry elder will talk about political correctness, the left and racial politics in the united states. he is the author of several books. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. in depth with larry elder live sunday august 7 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2.. >> now available at sees pawn

shop, the 2022 congressional directory stop or a copy of the congressional directory and this is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments and contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the qr code with your phone. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government government. the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit www.c-span.org/ connect to subscribe anytime.

>> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. what happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a focus on the ongoing federal robe of hunter biden. jeff moore. is our guest and has been following this investigation in a recent headline from the washington times. guest: from what we've talked about with people familiar with

the investigation, it sounds like it is nearing a conclusion. it's been a sprawling investigation and its gone on with prosecutor started looking into hunter biden in the waning years of the obama administration. the u.s. attorney of delaware opened his full investigation into hunter biden's taxes in 2018 and since then, it has turned into an investigation into possible gun crimes, possible money laundering, possible foreign lobbying violations. they are looking into a lot of different aspects of this investigation. this has been going on for four years and it sounds like we are coming to a resolution. what that resolution is going to be remains to be seen stuff i talked to several former prosecutors. they tell me how they look at it reading the tea leaves on what could come out and what has happened. we could be going toward some kind of plea agreement and the reason they say that is because a plea agreement to a possible

tax crime would check off a lot of boxes for a lot of people. it would give david weiss and merrick garland of the justice department the ability to send off republican critics by saying we scored a guilty plea and they charge him with something, it was not an investigation influenced by the administration because it produced a criminal charge and a spare the biden administration some embarrassing things coming out in the dykman because we would not get a report that would come out that would be detailed with a charge. that's what prosecutors say this is how they look at it but it remains to be seen if we see charges or a guilty plea. host: you mentioned taxes and guns and the possibility of looking into the president's

sons foreign business dealings. take us through the different avenues and if that plea agreement comes, which avenue would focus on? guest: let's start with the easiest one stop that would possibly be a gun charge. it is a federal crime to lie on a firearm application. in 2018, he purchased a gun and when you purchase a gun, there is a question on the application on whether or not you have a problem with drugs. hunter biden has been in and out of rehab. he's written a book about his struggles with addiction. in that book, he talks about having, going uncracked binges. it's possible at that time when he purchased the gun, he was fresh out of rehab, we don't know. it seems that's a very easy charge to prove or not prove.

the easiest one to prove in the smallest charge. i don't think the in delaware was spend four years on the gun crime when you think about whether or not it's what he checked up on the box. the other crime that would possibly be attacked is hunter biden had accumulated millions and foreign income from several entities, in ukraine and china. charisma is an energy company in ukraine and he was dealing with a chinese gas company. it's possible he was not reporting that income on his taxes and that's what sparked the investigation. that's also probably -- he has also paid his taxes last year. he had a one million-dollar tax

debt and that got paid. were not sure where the money came from. that will help his case if they decide to pursue taxes because he did make restitution and that could be a mitigating factor. the other charts we are looking at is the violation of farr which is the foreign agents registration act which means anyone operating in the united states on behalf of a foreign government whether it's lobbying congress or setting up meetings with influence makers or high level government officials or even printing editorials in newspapers must register with the justice department and there must be a record they are working on behalf of a foreign government within the united states step there is a couple of emails that have come out in hunter biden's last book between hunter biden and his brother and

which they talk about the possibility of what they are doing and whether it may violate farr. it is an insecure violation but we seen it gain in popularity because that's what the special counsel robert mueller used two sort of work his way up the chain of trump associates. paul manafort, michael flynn, george poppel up -- george papadopoulos were all charged with violations and it was used to get them to cooperate to build their case. the other possibility is a possible money laundering case. by that, it's possible that hunter biden had set up several u.s. entities which the money from the foreign entities would come in and it would be used to obscure where it came from and it would help and not be able to report that on his taxes. that's another avenue prosecutors are looking into.

there is for avenues that we are aware of where this case could go. the prosecutors i have talked to said they think if there is a guilty plea, and they think that's the most likely outcome, it would probably be in the tax case because that's the easiest one to prove and it would carry the strictest -- it would carry the biggest sentence you could make in a case that you went after hunter biden for something which would give -- get a lot of pressure off of attorney general merrick garland. he is facing a lot of pressure from republicans just don't like it because he's a democratic appointee. they feel he's been very harsh on the january 6 defendants, the individuals at the capital. democrats don't like merrick garland right now because they think he is too slow and they want to see indictments of president trump and his

associates for january 6. they feel he has moved to slow in that area. merrick is under ternary pressure. i think -- it merrick garland is under extraordinary pressure so there is a move to take some of the pressure off of him. host: you have been covering all aspects of this for the washington times. let me open the phone lines for viewers to call in. not to layer one more piece on this but this headline from the washington times [video clip] guest: this is embarrassing for the fbi if this turns out to be

true. what they are alleging is that some of the verified information that's been confirmed from hunter biden's laptop that's been in the media was falsely labeled disinformation. that cause the investigation the be on hold and it stopped the investigation for moving forward because some of the evidence said it was disinformation. i think that revelation will have a lot of impact that i don't think it will have a lot of impact on the hunter biden case but this is the latest accusation of partisanship against the fbi. i don't know how many more allegations the fbi can take before they lose their credibility in achieving their mission. once their credibility goes, it will hurt when you put agents on the stand and get witness cooperation.

they will have a real problem achieving their mission of keeping america safe stop host: the criminal probe on the generous six incident, finding out president trump's actions are one of the aspects they are looking into. what do you make of that revelation? guest: it's hard to say because we don't know where they are looking right now we don't know which aspect. i think merrick garland in his nbc interview did not rule out the possibility of president trump and this is starting to become a problem because we are starting to see if charges are warranted but we are seeing a tremendous politicization of the fbi both parties are using to achieve their political end. host: george out of lansing, michigan, republican.

are you with us? caller: i guess i'm george. host: do you go by a different name? caller: i thought i called it on the independent line. he said a minute ago the this was known about four years ago. i want to know why it wasn't properly disseminated before the last election as it should have. guest: we did see it try to get through the media but the problem is, a lot of media didn't cover it because people were quick to label the laptop as disinformation. what we have seen since then his many criticizing the new york post which was the first to bring this out. the associated press, the washington post and the new york times verified what was in the laptop step we are starting to see a little more acceptance in the media of this story. host: what was your connection

with that story when it first broke? guest: we looked into it. we took the time to confirm it. there was a lot in there and it was complicated to get confirmation of it. host: henry and port huron, michigan, democrat, your next. caller: in a perfect world, poetic justice affected the trump clan. they would probably suffer the same fate as the last czar of russia, the romanov family. host: before we go to this, why don't you go to your actual question? caller: i'm trying to go to my actual question, why don't you let me speak? host: we are not going to condone violence. caller: i was not condoning violence. host: robert is next out of

california, good morning. caller: yeah. host: go ahead. caller: i've seen investigation on the hunter biden laptop and people, the cia said there is no russian influence there. my biggest problem is i live in america where a president and a vice president can conspire against an incumbent president and also a president and the same people are conspiring with an english spy to come up with trumped up charges against trump and these people want to take my guns. i see a person who set off the light let of america, or industry, everybody uses gas,

oil -- the hunter biden and, this has been going on for years. these people know what they are doing. they are all in cahoots and if they can't you're out had to do a good job, find someone else to do the job. thank you. host: the person who is doing this job right now is david weiss, explain why he is the person heading this investigation? guest: the alleged crimes that took place, he is the u.s. attorney for deller were means he is responsible for investigating all sorts of federal crimes that occurred within delaware. he was actually an appointee by president trump. when a new president comes in, it's tradition the fire the u.s. attorney appointed by the previous residence of george w. bush fired previous attorneys,

etc. president biden did not fired david weiss because how that look -- would look would have been terrible. one thing i find interesting is merrick garland has appeared before congress twice this year and both times, republicans have pressed him on the independence of the hunter biden investigation and merit garland's response has been that you can trust it because being headed up by a trump appointee. it's problematic. in the end, merrick garland has the final say on what happened . it seems like a defense of -- my politics are not interfering because somebody else's politics are interfering with it and it seems like he is trying to say

it will not be run by a biden official because a trump official is running it and i know how that's takes the politics off of that and that's with the american people want to see. the american people are frustrated that they are seeing people of either party get away with certain crimes who are connected and they want to make sure these investigations whether they result in charges are above board. it's problematic to point to his politics. host: there were calls for a special counsel. guest: republicans have been calling for a special prosecutor into hunter biden. obviously, what the republicans want is hopefully that will touch on something embarrassing they can use against president biden especially if he runs for reelection. i don't know where that gets the

republican party. the special counsel still has to report to the attorney general. u.s. attorney david weiss reports to the attorney general. merrick garland will probably have the same influence and same control over that investigation. he can approve or supply subpoena or a warrant. i don't know what kind of independence that would give you that you will not get with david weiss. the other issue is you are hitting the reset button. you will start this investigation from scratch when we already know it's hitting a critical stage with the investigation in delaware. we sort robert mueller go on for 2.5 years and this investigation has hit three years and there's no sign of that ending. how long will that go on for? republicans want to use this in 2024 and now we appoint a special counsel, we are not

going to get an answer until 2026. i don't know how that helps republicans at all. host: joseph is a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, i have a direct question and then i have some comments i would like to submit. jeff murdock, do you believe in the rule of law? guest: i think everybody believes in the rule of law. caller: thank you, i'm glad to hear that. now, do you know that grand jury testimony is secret? guest: yes. caller: ok, you have revealed some pretty salacious details about possibilities, about hunter biden. do you have a source for that from the secret grand jury? guest: everything i've talked

about his widely in the public domain stuff there is nothing i haven't revealed that we haven't already covered in the paper and other news outlets about what prosecutors are looking into. what i was saying about the possible phillies and that's based on several former prosecutors i have spoken with. there is nothing in here that i've revealed or talked about that is top secret grand jury information. host: where does the grand jury meet? guest: they meet in delaware. it expired last month was the that doesn't necessarily mean anything. they can always present evidence to another grand jury. that's if it expires and there is no charges but that doesn't rule out further charges. host: they could have gone

forward with charges but they haven't an unsealed yet? guest: or they could've convened without reaching a decision either way maybe david weiss will re-presented to another grand jury. the grand jury for the last caller, we've gotten from public reporting. we have had some of hunter biden's business is is testified and we've had some individuals testify. i think some of the names people want to hear. president biden has not testified and we know his brother jim, we have not heard whether he's testifying and those are some of the things which shed some light on some of these investigations and on the grand jury.

there are some big names that would help a grand jury make a decision either way but we have not heard from them. host: i assume you have asked the white house about the president not testifying? guest: yes. host: how does that information come out? guest: people leak information all the time and it's been leaked to news outlets. host: newington, connecticut, line for independent. caller: what i'd like to speak about his icy this entire story is a story about the chinese government corruption of america's political and economic system at every level. most people don't realize one of

the things they talked about on the hunter biden laptop is that china wanted to buy two sensitive american assets, one is called the automated group which makes dampening technology for automobiles. that means metal vibrates less when you drive your car. that technology can also be used to make missiles more accurate in flight. it's illegal to sell it to a chinese company but hunter biden set up an llc i believe in the cayman islands to front for the chinese while his father was vice president and was able to get that approved as a sale. we sold a technology that made missiles more accurate for china to hit our aircraft carriers and that's treason. host: let me pause there, unpack that for us. guest: i have not heard that but

there has been so much about the president and hunter biden's chinese business dealings that it raised red flags. he got $4.8 million in a short amount of time stuff there is no evidence he had done any illegal work and another $3.8 million is legal fees. there is no evidence we have seen so far that the tangible work product was ever produced. that goes back to the access question step if there is not tangible work product for $4.8 million, it raises the question of why does he have access. host: roger is a democrat, good morning. caller: i've had a question on my mind for a long time. this goes clear back to the

trump presidency, i mean obama's presidency because biden was vice president and had $1 billion and he said i will hold it to you to fire this prosecutor which was investigating the company hunter biden sat on. the political people said you cannot do that because it's not your money. barack obama gave us that money and he said to call him if you don't believe me. why didn't anyone ever call barack obama and ask him? i've often wondered about that. guest: that's a good question as to why nobody has those that question to president obama. i do not know. host: a few minutes left with jeff moore dr. and this is

connecticut, independent. caller: good morning, it's interesting how the guest describes possible hunter biden investigation outcomes in terms of how it will take pressure off american garland instead of in terms of criminal accountability. it really shows how justice takes a backseat when it comes to washington. guest: in these politically tinged investigations, that's unfortunately always a factor. it goes back to what i said earlier that the fact that the political fallout is a calculus in these cases whether it's republican or democrat is why some of these people in this country have become skeptical of the justice department and the fbi. host: we started this program

noting that the hunter biden probe is reaching a critical stage and it took years to get to this critical stage. how long do you expect we will wait until we know what the next step is? guest: i think we will know soon. the specific timeframe is not clear. i'm not sure when it will wrap up but we should see something soon. host: that's a good place to check when the news breaks, washington times.com. we always appreciate your time . next up, we'll focus on the semiconductor bill moving through the senate and we will be joined by gavin bade of politico and joined by jamie raskin on the update on the january 6 committee investigation.

we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors talking about their latest nonfiction books. at 8 p.m. eastern from feed and fast, glenn greenwald talks about his latest, securing democracy, about freedom of the press in brazil under president bolsonaro and liberal media outlets in the u.s. at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwards, the george w. bush white house secretary on how the mainstream media has a leftist bias. why the press gets so much wrong and doesn't care.

watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span is unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of you ran, bringing the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department as well as congress and we have international perspectives from the united nations and foreign leaders. you can watch it all on the c-span now frozen at and www.c-span.org/ukraine where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to www.c-span.org/ukraine. >> the up-to-date and latest in

publishing with book tv podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus the bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are now covering trade issues for politico. he is covering the u.s. semiconductor chip industry so explain why congress thinks the semiconductor industry needs billions of dollars in subsidies now. guest: tens of billions of dollars in subsidies which should be passed today because we don't manufacture a lot of

computer chips domestically. it powers all of the devices in modern society. we produce them at the dawn of the digital hero but we don't produce much anymore and that's been up problem in the pandemic era. there's been difficulties getting microchips for things like computers or cars. tens of thousands of cars in michigan cannot get the microchips they need because of supply chain issues and trade concerns and because demand for the microchips skyrocketed during the pandemic. it's really a global shortage of microchips and we want to make more of them in the united states. we don't have enough microchips now but what if we have a conflict with china or something more serious? if they start cutting off our access to these chips, we would have a big issue economically so

the idea is to incentivize companies to make these computer chips here but the problem is, that cost billions of dollars to build those factories. other governments are giving them subsidy so we are lining up to do the same. host: we used to produce 40% of the world chips and now 12%. how long did that take to go from that amount down to 12%? guest: back in the 90's is when this started but in an effort to bring down the price for consumers for these digital devices weather goes into your car radio or computer, we outsource these things so china makes a lot of them and south korea and taiwan make a lot as well especially the most advanced chips. that's really cutting-edge for military technology. we really want to get the most

advanced chips back so that's why you see the senate lining up today to approve billions of dollars in subsidies for these plants but it will still have to go through the house after that stop host: do you know what the acronym stands for? guest: this bill has been through a lot of different names. there's been a lot of twists and turns. now are we are -- now we are calling a chips plus science. host: $54 billion in grants for semiconductor manufacture and research and technology hubs and tax credits for billions of dollars to promote investment in manufacturing and the tax credit runs through the mid 20 20's. will it make an immediate difference? guest: intel made a big announcement earlier this year that they will spend tens of

billions of dollars building and expanding microchip facilities in ohio and they say once they get these subsidies, they can move forward step they also plan to build more facilities in texas and arizona. policymakers are looking to make these regional microchip hubs. that's been contentious. as the negotiations dragged on over the summer, intel said we will delay the groundbreaking on some of the ohio facility because we need to make sure we are getting the subsidies approved and that put the squeeze of the lawmakers to say we have to push this thing out before the end of the summer and it's been a big ask of the white house and the democratic congress because they need something to run on when it comes to midterm elections. they need to say at least we are doing something to bring manufacturing back and they say it's combating many factory --

combating inflation. host: do we know how much china subsidizes its industry? guest: i don't off the top of my head. it's a closely guarded secret at the lehman's is a lot step they want a strategic advantage in these high-tech sectors. it's been a very strategic point they have made to capture the market on these chips. china doesn't make the most advanced chips. they make legacy chips but this is what you need for the everyday devices. i think of the seat heater in your car. you may get a car and maybe you will have this seat heaters but you need to bring it back to the dealer for the more advanced chips. host: the cloture vote yesterday

in the senate was 54-already two with 17 republicans joining? i'm sorry, 64 to 17. guest: there is a procedural vote today around noon and a final vote. it will get 64 or more votes. it's a protest vote to protest against the process which has been circuitous but we thank -- we think republicans will come on. mitch mcconnell may be part of this and he was critical of it. i wouldn't be surprised if he signed on as well. host: these are the numbers to join the conversation.

bernie sanders oppose this legislation and spoke on the senate floor and here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants and other establishments in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs while moving most of its production overseas. by the way, they did that after they received a federal grant and loans, much smaller than what we are talking about today.

here is the absurd situation that we are in. the crisis is caused by the industry shutting down in america and moving abroad and today, what we are doing is saying we will give you a blank check to undo the damage. host: you caught up with bernie sanders yesterday after that 64-32 vote to advance this legislation. what did he say? guest: he is supportive of the underlying goal to bring manufacturing back to the u.s. he says there is enough strings attached to this funding. it's been profitable recently and they are making big profits but the problem is, other countries are lining up to do subsidies like this. the european union is moving forward on this as well. the backers of the bill would

say we have built some guardrails in here to make sure companies cannot do what bernie says, take the money and run. there are certain provisions in the bill that if you take money from the ill, you can't do stock buybacks and benefit your investors and there are guardrails if you take money from this bill, for 10 years, you're not supposed to be able to build an advanced semiconductor facility in china or any other areas of concern. there have and people like bernie and on the republican side who have said the guardrails are not stringent enough. guideline they go with is a standard called 28 nanometers, and older chip. and if you build something more advanced than that, you wouldn't be able to do that in china if you got money from this bill but the bill lets the secretary of congress redefined the standard and there are people who think that could give some wiggle room to the administration to let

chipmakers do what they want to do stuff intel has lobbied for the wiggle room and they want to be able to do whatever they want overseas and i think you see some people were skeptical they will follow the rules and they will be lived up to. it's easier for bernie to say i am opposed to this because there is a few votes to spare. they got 64 votes and over the 60 vote margin. they really needed to pass this thing and you would see him put more regulations in their. is not the type of thing he opposes out right but i think it leaves a bad taste in his mouth. we can't do a lot of the things bernie wanted us to do. host: let me have you chat with

a few callers, john from, columbus ohio. caller: i love this because in our state, we love that intel is coming here. they been raising the land world they -- where they will build a factory. where i work, it's a lot of buildings and we call it future world. everybody is excited about intel coming here. we want the chips to be built here in america and we are building every day. the building i work out== at is all computerized. we're just excited for it to come here. i watch the senate yesterday

when they were passing the bill and it's exciting for our state to have a big company like this coming and there's been a lot of talk about property values and people are moving out there where it's going to be built. we are just happy it's coming here. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i work for a company and we deal with paint all around the world. we in a big, round two and the computer gets it sent out to amazon and fedex and the trucks are lined up. host: has that chip shortage impacted your company? caller: not really. our bosses are up on it. the company i work for is partially owned by walmart.

even during the pandemic, walmart said we would keep the work going even though they could have computers doing everything but you still need humans to operate them. host: thank you for the call. you mentioned the housing market story from nbc4 out of ohio and how intel may impact their housing are getting ohio. guest: he was calling in on the republican line? host: i'm not sure but go ahead. guest: that reaction is exactly what the white house wants. a city like columbus in a state like ohio, they want people to be excited for government action to bring jobs back to the united states and this is broader than

the chips bill. we have a new bipartisan consensus in the u.s. to try to use government policy to specifically bring manufacturing jobs back to the u.s. because there is a certain nostalgia for that type of work that used to be high benefits and good health care and high pay. this bill is part of that broader push step republicans used to be for outsourcing and free trade and trump changed a lot of that and democrats change their stance as well stop joe biden is more protectionist than more recent presidents. bill clinton signed nafta but we have not seen biden do as much trade stuff but is more focused on rebuilding domestic manufacturing step this is a new bipartisan consensus. maybe not complete consensus because there are always some people in congress opposed to it but you see this doubling up in

washington where people try to bring the manufacturing jobs back. host: the 17 republicans joined which is a sign of that consensus? guest: i believe so, people are excited about the idea of having chips in their state but there are republicans who see it as a national security imperative. todd young of indiana says we need to have domestic production of these microchips because we cannot be reliant on other countries especially china but then taiwan and south korea, these are strategic industries and you see people toying with the idea and see where other places they want to support in the future are as well. host: florida, mike, independent. caller: i'd like to know a couple of things. how is this bill being paid for?

also, i believe this bill is to make is more competitive with china. one of the biggest chip manufacturers has factories in china step how is this going to help us if they keep having these factories overseas? guest: a lot of this bill is not paid for. the congressional budget score said it would add 79 billion dollars to the national deficit. i need to look at those numbers again. most of it will be deficit spending and the idea is it's worth it to subsidize these industries and bring them back because they will help rebuild the text base in places like columbus. how does it benefit american companies if they are building chips in china? that's why you so the debate over the guardrails in the bill.

as it's written now, it would try to prevent any recipient of the subsidy from investing in new facilities in china and that's for 10 years. unless there's some way they can get around that, they will be barred for building or expanding any new microchip facilities in china and his company still have legacy facilities there but the idea is we don't want to transfer the most baths semiconductor technology to the chinese government and military. there is no division between the state and the economy in china. the technology could fall into their hands so lawmakers think they have accounted for that in this bill. host: the senate bipartisanship bill is expected to add $79 billion to the deficit. guest: thank you to the bloomberg report is for that.

host: hudson, massachusetts, republican good morning. caller: i'm sorry, i dialed on the wrong line, i'm an independent. this makes me crazy. the answer to the question is the american people is paying for this. the american taxpayers are paying for this. why are we subsidizing multibillion-dollar companies and were basically bribing them. they are holding us hostage and saying we will not build a factory in the united states unless the american people subsidize us. it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong and american people should not be paying for this. what we should be doing is perhaps lowering the taxes these large companies have to pay and getting rid of the regulations for them to build the factories here. we will be paying for this for a

million years and the subsidies will never go away. feel free to correct me. guest: i understand there is a lot of frustration from voters. we see a big deficit spending bill with subsidies for profitable corporations. the backers of the will would say we can cut the regulations and give them tax breaks in many places but at the same time, governments across the world are subsidizing these corporations. they will go over they get the best deal. if we want them to build microchips in the united states, lawmakers have said it's worth the deficit spending to entice them to come to a place like ohio or arizona or texas rather than taiwan or south korea or western europe. the european union is there working on their own version as well so they are playing world governments off each other and

hold a big sway in this debate. the influence over our political system is a big one. the response from the backers of the bill is it's worth the spending to make sure we are not reliant on other nations for the most advanced semiconductor technology because it's economically important and to the military as well. host: the tax credits are a big part of the final spending stuff explain how that works. guest: there is like 54 billion dollars in initial subsidies that are seed money to get these people off the ground. if you are a semiconductor company that has a factory here, then there is a tax credit, a production text edit to continue producing those for 10 years. that's from 2023-2027.

that's if you're factory comes into service between 23 and 27, you can take advantage of the text edit stop we will continue to give them tax breaks for continuing to produce microchips in the u.s. and this was added late in the process. it's something that i think is meant to make sure people don't just take the money and build a factory and then outsource a few years later. it means we are on the hook for more subsidies. host: what is a regional technology hub? guest: just putting money into research facilities whether it's a small college or things like that to try to boost research and technology to help get workers into these new factories and industries. one thing that didn't make it into the bill's provisions to allow science and technology

phd's to come here from other nations where there were immigration provisions that got left out of the bill. i think that will be a problem going forward because there is a worker shortage in many places in the u.s.. the semiconductor business is not immune to those and you need high skilled workers to work in factories. we are not turning them out at the numbers we need from our educational institutions in the u.s. republicans said we are not doing anything on immigration in this bill until joe biden addresses some things at the border so that got left out of the bill. there was a lot of stuff that got left out of this bill. another one is what would alter our relationship with china commercially. there was a whole part of the process to craft the chips bill but a china competitiveness will in the vast majority of that got left on the cutting room floor. host: we got about five minutes

left, sally from waterford, michigan, democrat good morning. caller: good morning, at the beginning, he defined a semiconductor as power and to me, power is a battery. i have a battery in my phone and i also have chips. my washer needed to get the chips replaced but the control unit but it was still plugged into electricity. in my head, not quite sure what chips are, they are not our but i know they are necessary. guest: absolutely and apologies, it's confusing. we're talking about the chip in your washer, the computer chip that is typically not providing power or electricity to your device, that's what a battery would do. the biden administration is trying to earn the battery

sector here because they see it as another strategic sector we are reliant on the chinese for3. we are talking about the basic computer chips that can make all of your devices work. it's everything from your computer to your phone your washing machine stop they are important to the economy. host: out of georgia, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, i have a simple question. what exactly are computer chips? what are they made of omma their source? guest: we are testing my technical knowledge. even just these memory boards that go into your devices and they are made by big robotic machines. i cannot tell you the materials that go into them but suffice to say that they are memory boards, the circuits that are the brains of every device you have.

it's the reason you can push a button and something else happened. these are the building blocks of the digital economy. i can't be more specific than that. host: in terms of when the industry started waving the red flag on a shortage in the united states, when did this legislation start moving? guest: it was about two years ago, there was a bill called the endless frontier act. that was the research funding and computer chip funding. national security experts have been raising the flag for years that we are reliant on other nations for these chips. that filtered down through the congress and the national security hawks that we need to address this. then the supply chain crunch of the pandemic drove it home because everyone is at home and they are ordering new devices and these things have new

devices so you have an increase in demand but there are supply chain disruptions. you have demand for computer chips go out and supply being curtailed. then they said we really need to do something about this. plan to see when you go to michigan that there are 90,000 vehicles sitting idle. bake sales in michigan waiting for computer chips and sometimes they will sell you one without all the chips in it. host: franklin, pennsylvania, jim, republican good morning. are you with us? caller: my question is rob portman had language in the bill that prevented people from

making the chips over china which would give china the expertise, this is critical infrastructure that goes to our security and chuck schumer took the language out of the panel. explain why he did that. guest: you are well read on the policy of this bill stuff one issue is the guardrail switch i talked about earlier and those of the regulations that would make it difficult or them possible to go and build a factory in china. those details are still in the bill. rob portman's thing, he was pushing for research security provision. it was more stringent screening for people receive federal research grants. you are not mistakenly funding

someone associated with the chinese military or someone who could be turned by them so it's increased screening. this has been taken out of the bill and there were last-minute wishes to getbill. there are last-minute pushes to get it in yesterday. there are a couple of things that could happen. portman says he will push on with the decision. it could go in the defense spending bill but lawmakers say they will pick up all of the pieces that get left on the floor and pass what they call a conference report, second bill that is dealing with a lot of the things that got left out of the legislation. rob portman will push on. there is generally support for that provision, just got additionally complicated between the house and the senate. they want to push this out so they say rob, you have to chill on it. host: a good place to go for the next step and to follow those issues, politico.com, gavin bade

is a trade reporter there. appreciate your time. up next we will be joined by jamie raskin, democrat from maryland, a member of the january 6 committee, we talk about what is next for the committee when the committee reconvenes in september. stick around for that conversation right after the break. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations during season two of c-span's podcast presidential recordings. >> nixon tapes are part private conversation and 100% unfiltered. >> let me say the main thing is it will pass in my heart goes out to those people who with the best of intentions are

overzealous. as you know, if i could have spent a little more time being a politician last year and less time being president i would've kicked thereabouts out but i did not know what they were doing. >> find it on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> if you're enjoying book tv and sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on this grade to achieve a schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals and more. book tv sunday on c-span two or online at c-span.org. television for serious readers. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house generate six committee hearings investigating the attack on the capital. go to c-span.org/january6 to

watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigation since january 6, 2021. we will also have reactions from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you cannot see it live. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by jamie raskin from maryland. congressman, appreciate your time. i wanted to start with a lead from the lead story today in the new york times. "federal prosecutors have directly asked witnesses about former president donald trump's involvement in efforts to reverse his election loss,

suggesting the justice department criminal investigation has moved to a more aggressive and prudent -- and politically fraught phase." guest: this is the moment a lot of people have been waiting for. people wanted to make sure the department of justice would not give some kind of special exemption to donald trump because he is a former president. our constitution does not create an office of former president that is somehow immune to criminal prosecution, and along the way in the impeachment process there were numerous people, including senator mcconnell, who asserted the senate did not have jurisdiction to hear the trial of donald trump even though he said trump was singularly morally responsible for everything that happened. he said it will come down to civil and criminal liability later. this is an indication the department of justice is not

taking a hands-off approach to donald trump's own central involvement in the events of january 6. host: it was last night that lester holt asked merrick garland about this investigation. here is about 45 seconds of that interview. [video clip] >> the indictment of a former president or perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road? you have to think about things like that? >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding january 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to the other accountable. that is what we do. we do not pay attention to other

issues. >> if donald trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward who do not move forward? >> we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next. host: your response to that interview? guest: it is good to hear. i think attorney general garland has been saying the same thing all along but people hear it in a different context now that there is reason to believe the grand jury has been receiving evidence about what donald trump was doing over the course of these events. this is what it means to be a democracy. all of us are bound by the rule of law. in a democracy, those who attain public office are not the

masters of the people, we are the servants of the people. there are a lot of mechanisms in the constitution to deal with people who think being in public office gives them the right to abuse the constitution or override the will of the majority or violate the rights of other people. i was glad to hear that. the department of justice has very specific instructions about when they bring a federal case. obviously they have to have probable cause to believe a crime was committed. beyond that, there charge again -- criteria charges they continues of gravity of the events. this is a very grave event to try to overturn their election. the culpability of the -- all of those things underscore the

importance of the department of justice promoting individual criminal accountability with respect to january 6. host: to get that accountability do you think there needs to be a conviction of the former president? guest: you are getting ahead of the process. even knowing what we know from yesterday's news does not mean they have opened a criminal investigation directly into donald trump. they are certainly asking questions as i read the papers. the role of the january 6 committee is different. it is going to be up to the department of justice and prosecutors in georgia and others to pursue individual criminal accountability. our goal is social and political accountability so that we prevent future insurrections and political violence attempts to usurp the will of the people in our election.

that is why we need to complete the investigation, fill in the details, and then move on to the recommendation phase, where we make recommendations to congress for the american people about what needs to be done to fortify our institutions. host: jamie raskin with us until 9:30. start calling in. democrats (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. you mentioned political accountability is one of your goals. a new usa today/suffolk university poll saying the january 6 hearings are swaying very few minds. when it comes to republicans, just 7% say they have viewed the attack is more serious, only 6% say they now believe the former president was more involved than they had thought. guest: i have not seen the one

you are referring to, that does not capture independents, which are a key group -- polling data from independents showed dramatic shift in opinion rejecting the big lie holding donald trump accountable for these events and considering them very grave. the overwhelming number of democrats are solidified in their original conviction that this is an intolerable assault on our constitution. even if it were just 10 or 11%, which is what some of the polls are talking about for republicans, that is millions of people who are beginning to defect from donald trump's adamant insistence that his mob confronted the police officers with hugs and kisses, which

would make it difficult to explain why so many of them ended up with concussions and traumatic brain injury and broken arms from heart attacks, strokes. more and more republicans are beginning to question the foundations of the big lie. we know public opinion shifts slowly. more and more republicans i talked to say even if they do not accept all of the testimony of all of these republican witnesses from william barr to the white house counsel, even if they do not accept everything they are saying, they agreed the ground has shifted underneath donald trump and the republican party at that is why much more life has been given to the prospective candidacies for president of people like the governor of florida, ron desantis. i just hope people who want to

take his place are rejecting not just donald trump but trumpism as a way of doing politics. host: let's chat with some republicans and democrats. this is james out of new york. independent. caller: good morning, how are you. i am a big fan. legally, since i've been watching this january 6 thing, you foresee lawyers coming up with legal theories to their clients being illegal in the future, like questioning governing actions and stuff possibly being open to government coming in and getting their phones and getting client information to find out if it is legal. it seems scary but i do not know all the constitution for that. thank you. guest: thank you for your kind words.

if i'm understanding you properly, the point i want to make is lawyers themselves swear an oath to the rule of law. their job is not to find a legal theory that would justify a coup. that is what judge carter said in the john eastman litigation, that it was a coup in search of a legal theory, and they find their diane shot easement who was willing to make up -- they found their guy in john eastman who made up utterly outlandish theories of the constitution that were ejected even in the trump campaign. i think you are referring also to people's constitutional rights. we want to defend people's constitutional rights just like we want to defend the public process that is attached to elections in the country.

we do not have a democracy if we are not respecting the norms and the law of governing the electoral college. host: george, democrat, good morning. ♪ i -- caller: good morning. i am amazed and on by your overall knowledge of american history and constitutional history. two things i want to bring up. number one, we know jared kushner -- financial ties. donald trump had a lot of foreign debt he might not have been able to pass a security clearance. it seems to me like people fell for a rabble rousing demagogue. one more quick thing is if there is evidence donald trump new the oath keepers and proud boys had

a propensity towards violence and they were coming there with the intention of violence, and i think the evidence is there. if he knew they were going to be violent that makes them culpable in that is the evidence that needs to be shown. if they could've vetted trump and shown he was not qualified for office -- guest: thank for those kind remarks and those two excellent points. on the first, i would say that is a whole arena we need to investigate very carefully. to my mind it has been shown that donald trump clearly had the intent to try to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election, whether you're looking at the counterfeit electors plot, looking at the mini-coup he attempted to stage of the department of justice, you look at the shakedown of brad raffensperger and other officials to find me 11,000

votes, and ultimately the plot against mike pence to force him outside of his constitutional role and get him to exercise wallace powers to nullify and obliterate electoral college modes and the votes of tens of millions of people. the intent is clear but you're going to the question of the motive, which is why do you happen intent. to my mind donald trump was engaged in lots of money making activities which would also explain his determination to stay in office at all costs. the founders of the constitution were determined to prevent that from happening. that is why we have the foreign emoluments clause which says no member of the federal government can't accept payments, offices,

or titles from foreign governments and yet we know donald trump was engaged in bringing millions of dollars into his hotels and involve courses and other commercial licensing deals from foreign governments, and also domestic emoluments clause which says the president is limited to his salary in office and may not take other money. trump reversed that. he said i will not take my salary. that is the only thing he is allowed to take. he also raked in millions of dollars through the hotels and the golf courses as he directed a lot of federal money in that direction. i think that is something that needs to be exploited under scrutiny by the american people and we to fortify our defenses against people who would use government as a strategy for private self enrichment and making money for their businesses and their families. he raised another point.

your other point -- guest: i think we lost -- host: i think we lost the caller. i did want to ask about yesterday's tweet from the january 6 committee about former acting secretary of defense this miller and alleged troop deployments on january 6. can you explain? guest: the committee found that the former president never contacted the secretary of defense on january 6 or the leaders of the national guard or the mayor of the district of columbia or the head of the capitol police or anyone in law enforcement. why would he? he was a young the mob, he was inciting the mob to prep their case against mike pence, his

vice president, even as he saw the mob storming the capital and committing brutal violence against our officers, never got in touch with the military. we have heard some rhetorical suggestions that donald trump had asked for a follow-up of 10,000 or 20,000 national guardsmen, and the acting secretary of defense miller refuted that. he said there had never been any request for national guard from donald trump that he knew of. he had never heard anything about that and we have no evidence of that and that looks like an attempt to cover up for at least what they are acknowledging is an egregious departure from the responsibilities of the president. he is the commander-in-chief of the army in the navy and the national guard when they are called up. presumably he has responsibility

to ensure laws are faithfully executed. he did none of that. he was acting as the insider in chief, not the organizer in chief. he was not acting as commander in chief of the military forces of the united states. host: this is roger, independent, good morning. caller: i want to thank you for all of the work you are doing. i am a disabled veteran and i heard how he talked about our troops and all of that. i remember hearing about bob woodward taping donald trump when he came back from overseas about the virus and telling him it was so deadly, and then didn't he go out and talk to the american people and tell them is just like your annual flu, it is not that dangerous.

is he culpable for his lies? guest: thank you for the excellent point in your kind remarks. i want to say i am hearing from it i know members of the community are hearing from veterans all the time who say they would've been immediately court-martialed or kicked out of the military for such an outrageous dereliction of duty and participation in an assault on the government. we have similar questions as you do about covid-19 where there were very serious warnings that were received by people in the government but instead we were told all of this is going to disappear by easter. it is like the flu. it is no big deal. there is this outrageous magical thinking that pervaded the response of the government for the longest time and you can read the book of deborah birx,

who was trump's own covid-19 advisor making the point we lost more than 100,000 americans unnecessarily because of all of the dillydallying and the ridiculousness like everybody inject themselves with bleach and fake medical cures like hydroxychloroquine. i definitely recommend dr. bi rx's book. host: dr. birx was on book tv talking about that book. c-span.org is where they can find that. congressman, we take you to stephen in new york, republican. you are next. caller: i want to know when you say dillydallying, what are you doing about covid now?

what are you doing for maryland now. how much is this costing the people, this kangaroo court. you are on tv trying to attack x president trump. what are you doing for the people today? what are you doing for maryland, what are you doing for covid, covid still spreading around america. now we have monkeypox. what are you doing about that? guest: we have been engaged in an effort to promote real public health efforts, including the spread of vaccinations, the pin queuing promotion of public health efforts, including masking around the country, and we have attempted to counter all of the propaganda and disinformation. the biden administration has been extremely committed and successful at revitalizing the public health infrastructure and effort that was pretty much to demobilize during the trump administration. we think we are making good

progress on that. in terms of the cost event, i think the cost is still less than what was spent on the benghazi investigations, the multiple investigations that ended up with nothing. i suspect he would oppose it even if it cost nothing. most people treat very seriously the fact there was a violent insurrection against our government that ended up wounding 150 officers, many of whom are still on disability and are injured today and are going to physical therapy and mental therapy because of the wounds caused by the proud boys, the oath keepers, and the other extremist groups that were mobilized as part of the call up to common stop the steel, which was all based on a fraud. host: south carolina. wade, independent. caller: my question -- i am not a trumper.

i hope nikki haley and tim scott gets on the ticket. i did have a question. i would've felt a lot better about it if they had had someone like jim jordan on there and i know raskin is saying something about making money through your position of government, what about nancy pelosi and her inside trade deals that her husband is making? i think that needs to be brought -- some light needs to be brought on that. so many things are one-sided. i wish it was not. hard to get truth when it is one-sided. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for raising those good points. number one, originally what happened was kevin mccarthy was advocating the creation of an outside commission, not members of congress but former secretaries of state model on

the 9/11 commission. in negotiations, the democrats accepted that. it was the chairman of our committee, bennie thompson who accepted that and negotiated with the con man from new york. then donald trump announced -- the congressman from new york. then donald trump announced he did not want any investigation and then kevin mccarthy pulled the plug on that and turned against the commission they had been advocating, five republicans, five democrats, equal subpoena power. that was gone. at that point speaker pelosi said we will not sweep this under the rug. we will have a select committee in the house of representatives and at that point mccarthy brought forth the slate of people. speaker pelosi accepted a

majority of them, but not those who were involved in the event, including jim jordan, who was at meetings related to january 6. at that point mccarthy said we will not include anyone at all. then speaker pelosi said we are still going to have a bipartisan committee. that is why we have bennie thompson as the chair, we have liz cheney, the chair of the republican conference on the house side, adam kinzinger who you know is a distinguished vet and is still in the service today. we have operated in a bipartisan way. you will note the vast majority of people testifying about what happened are republicans, whether people like secretary of state raffensperger, a trump supporter in georgia who is the one who reported trump trying to get him to fabricate votes.

or the republican speaker of the house in arizona, or william barr, who was an extremely loyal member of the trump administration that stuck with trump through thick and thin but ended up saying the big lie was bs. i will clean that up for c-span. he was the one who told him there was nothing there in all of these claims of election fraud. it is that big lie that was the source of all of these events. i agree with you if you are saying members of congress should not be involved in inside trading. i am strongly supporting legislation that would ban members of the senate and the house from engaging in individual stock trades. this should not be like the new york stock exchange. it is fine for people to be invested in mutual funds or other passive investments, but

the idea somebody goes into a meeting where they're getting briefed about something like covid-19 than they come out and start making trades on health stocks is outrageous, and i am certain the vast majority of american people would reject that. host: with that legislation include bands on trades by spouses of members of congress? guest: i think it does. it has not come up yet so i do not know we have gone to all of the fine print, but i assume it would. i know that raises some difficult questions. otherwise, you have the opportunity of people circumventing the band in that way. the founders of the constitution were determined those of us who go into public office be focused on one thing, the public interest and the common good. it is hard enough to get people

to agree on what that is. if people are out trying to make money, it becomes an almost impossible proposition. that is why we have the emoluments clause. the founders were saying do not go into the white house or congress with the idea of making money. that is a time to be thinking about the public good. guest: let me try to get in jerry out of broadway, virginia. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me. i would like to say jamie raskin is a liar. they had an actual hearing about the subject of the national guard and general milley and the others like to congress during that hearing and they are lying to this committee. i say they are lying to this committee because there are no consequences for lying to this committee. guest: i'm not quite sure what

you're referring to substantively. there are consequences for lying to our committee. people are sworn to tell the truth under oath. even when you are not under oath , lying to congress is a federal offense. i am not quite sure what lie our friend is asserting. everyone we have spoken to in the military has said donald trump made no effort to contact them. it was only vice president pence who was frantically trying to activate the military at the national guard to come to the assistance of the capitol police force and the metropolitan police department who were overwhelmed by this carefully orchestrated violent assault on the capital. of course the mob came in chanting "hang mike pence."

the mob was mobilized against mike pence because he refused to step outside his constitutional role and declared donald trump the winner and president for another four years. joe biden received more than 7 million votes then trumpeted and beat him 306-232 in the electoral college, which of the same margin trump had beaten hillary by, margin trump had declared a landslide in the 2016 election. host: can you give us a quick sketch of the road ahead for the select committee? guest: we need to fill in some missing details. all of the major elements of the plot to overthrow the election have been established, but there are a lot of details that remain to be filled in. i am very interested in what donald trump imagined he was going to do when he got up to the capital if he had gotten his

way to lead the mob up there. was there going to be a meeting with mike pence first or were they just going to oust mike pence? i am curious about that. there are details like that that all of the members are interested in and every day more and more witnesses are coming forward to talk to us. our charge is not just a report on what happened on january 6 and the causes behind it but also to make recommendations about how we are going to improve the electoral count act so we do not get an attempt to snatch victory out of the jaws of certain electoral defeat like this again and how we will fortify the capital and the congress to make sure we are not vulnerable to violent insurrections. most importantly, how we will strengthen the election process in our democracy so that people are not subject to voter

suppression and manipulation of their will and attempts to usurp popular decisions by inside groups that use the levers of power to thwart democracy. we have a precious thing going in american democracy. we know autocrats and dictators are on the march all over the world, but we have to defend american democracy in the new century regardless of political party. this is the inheritance of all of the american people we have to defend it for everybody. host: a book on defending democracy -- unthinkable: trial, truth, and the trials of american democracy. jamie raskin the author of that book which we focused on our book tv program as well. always appreciate your time. join us down the road. guest: thank you for having me. host: about 25 minutes before the house comes in. we will allow you to take the lead.

it is our open forum phone lines for democrats and republicans to call in. any public policy issue or political issue, the phone lines are yours. we will get your calls right after the break. ♪ >> live sunday, talkshow host larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness, the left, and racial politics in the united states. he is the author of several books, including 10 things you cannot say america, let's race got to do with it, and a lot like me, a memoir of his turbulent relationship with his father. join us with your phone calls and tweets. in depth with larry elder live sunday, august 7 on book tv at c-span two. >> there are a lot of places to

get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors talking about their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 eastern, journalist glenn greenwald talks about his latest, security democracy, about freedom of the press in brazil under president bolsonaro and liberal media outlets in the u.s. at 10:00 eastern on afterwards,

former george w. bush white house press secretary ari fleischer on how the mainstream media has a leftist bias in his book suppression, depression, bias, how the press get so much wrong and does not care. he is interviewed by juan williams. wash -- watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or find a full schedule on your program guide. watch any time at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: about 20 minutes before the house comes in. we will take you there for live coverage. a couple of other events we are covering on c-span you can watch on the c-span network. also at 10:00 this morning. the house oversight committee holding hearings on gun

manufacturers. gun manufacturer executives testifying on how they are marketing their products, the impact to this country come issues of gun violence on the table. you can watch on c-span three, also on c-span.org and the free c-span now app. at 2:30 today jerome powell hold a news conference on interest rates. an expected announcement of anywhere from .75% to a 1% rate increase and perhaps some information on what the next rate increase could be. live coverage begins at 2:30 eastern. also on c-span3, c-span now, and c-span.org. some of the events to watch on the c-span network. the house and set it on c-span in c-span2, respectively. before the house comes in it is

our open forum. any issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. on the line for independents, brian in michigan, go ahead. caller: can you hear me because i have a lousy connection. guest: go ahead with your comment. host: work on that connection. we will go to cedric in south carolina. caller: i would like to see jamie raskin run for president. i think he is very intelligent. i would like to see him run. host: would you like to see joe biden run again as a democrat? caller: he would be fine, but if joe don't run i hope jamie

raskin does. he is very intelligent. host: to don in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i was listening to mr. raskin speak and he is saying the secretary of defense says donald trump did not ask for any help on january 6. i just saw james miller, the secretary of defense outright said that is not true. he was right at the meeting with a few other people in donald trump did ask for 20,000 troops that day. heard it right from the guys mouth. host: did you hear it in an interview? caller: yes. i'm not sure which station i saw it on.

he said -- james miller said that is not true. trump did ask for those people, 20,000. host: either he made a misstatement there or made a misstatement in his sworn testimony to the committee, regardless, which of those statements do you believe is the truth? caller: that is just the problem anymore. who is telling the truth? all i can say is the state of our country with the democrats having full power, how can anybody be happy with what is going on around us? i see a lot of it on tv and it is amazing. the country is in such disarray and i do not trust any of them whatsoever. the border, 3 million will have come in by the end of the year.

it is terrible. they are all corrupt. i think jamie raskin, i can trust him about as far as i could throw him. and the shenanigans with pull oc and all of the money they have made, they are all corrupt. for them to try to say trump -- i'm sure he is to a certain point, but which one of them are not. host: is there any politician you do trust or you do believe it not corrupt? caller: yes. i believe jim jordan, josh hawley. they seem like they care what is going on in the country. if i had to pick a couple, they would be who i would pick. no democrats whatsoever. they are all as corrupt as they come. host: this is dale in riverdale,

maryland. good morning. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. caller: good. i'm totally addicted to your show. i listen to you every day on the radio. host: appreciate you listening. caller: i appreciate you being there. the reason i'm calling today is a public service announcement regarding your chip guy that was talking about ships. someone called in asking what chips are made of and the fact that he stammered and did not seem to know, i am thinking has he ever heard of silicon valley? they are made of silicon. that is my public service announcement. ships are made of silicon, which is derived from sand. i could talk for hours about the politics of trump, etc.

that is insanity to me. thank you for your time. host: thanks for calling it. can i ask you a question before you go. do find it useful, we found a segment about republicans only talking about donald trump and whether they want him to be the party nominee. we do segments with democrats only on topics relating specifically to the democratic party. do you find those segments useful when we try to focus them that way as someone who watches and listens every day? caller: i am glad you brought that up. i did turn on the radio briefly during that time. i have to say it gives me shivers to hear what people are saying about the former president and their support of him, being that it seems so obvious to me he is one of the scariest people i have ever seen on television.

yes. i guess it is useful in steering me, i guess. yes -- in scaring me. i guess. i cannot listen to too much of it because the folks were going on and on about their allegiance to him. i have to say, during the pandemic i have not been getting out hardly at all. i've not had a chance to engage republicans but i would ask any republican ice should run into regarding their support to him if they could tell me -- often times republicans will say it is the things he has done regarding regulations that i approve of, and i say can you give me a regulation that you support that he got rid of, because during

that time there was a website showing all of the regulations that the trump group was going after. i went through them one by one and there were hundreds of them. i cannot find one that actually benefited the average guy. they were all slanted towards helping the huge businesses. that -- when you talk about details to republicans, which i wish i had an opportunity to, and they really point out any details of what they are talking about? host: thanks for the call from maryland. let's go to the line from republicans. bob in tennessee. good morning. caller: i see you have your laptop. why don't you look up pennsylvania voting laws. you need to correct your guests sometimes -- he said trump

called kemp in georgia to rig an election. in other words, trump, if you listen to his words, he said "find me", so now if you ask somebody to find something for you, you've committed a crime? he did not say let's get them underneath the table like the democrats ran out the republican poll watchers and started dragging suitcases underneath tables. we know that is true. you can look up the pennsylvania law. why don't you read it? host: that is bob. this is jim. independent. good morning. caller: i'm going to ask one

question. does jesse still work there? host: jesse hosts this program will stop i'm not sure when he hosted again but it will be soon. caller: just asking. what i want to say, and i hope you do not cut me off because i'm going to give c-span a little criticism. it is constructive. you should be able to take it. host: open to constructive criticism. caller: constructive criticism. i noticed when they had the afghanistan thing, you guys showed that for two weeks. that does not even concern american democracy. host: you are talking about the pullout from afghanistan caller: yes. you had that on every day all

day. now when it comes to the insurrection, just like fox news , you guys were not showing it. you do not have any programs on it. you did have raskin on there this morning, which was ok, but you do the bare minimum. this is the point i am making. host: c-span are the ones running the cameras for those hearings and we have been airing them in their entirety. caller: i am saying you are not having people call in, you're not having shows about it. you are talking about all this other stuff. our democracy is on the tier of -- host: go ahead. caller: right now our democracy is in peril and this is the subject you should be talking about and this is the subject americans need to know that they need to know the truth. this is what i think.

i understand you are owned by time warner cable who is owned by rupert murdoch who owns fox news. host: in terms of editorial, there is no editorial say that the cable companies have on what we put on air. that is something we decide at c-span. caller: when brian lamb was there it was not like this. why did you put brian lamb on so we can ask him some questions? c-span has changed a lot since the days of brian lamb. i think c-span should have brian lamb come in there and sit and get a paycheck. host: is right down the hall. i would welcome him to come in caller: caller:. why don't you have him on? why don't you have him to host like you would do so he can ask them questions. this show is not like it was when brian lamb was running it. people can see it.

a lot of people:, he not let them call in. anytime they call in and say something they do not like, and it seems like it is getting like fox news and you are not concerned about america, about what is going on in america. you do not understand, sir. if democracy goes you will go, too. you should be telling people the truth. you let people call in and spread lies. you have the heritage foundation. host: if you want a little more brian lamb he does have his own podcast he still does. caller: it does not carry as much weight as this. it seems like they just pushed him to the side. people are smart. they can see through that. host: no one pushes brian lamb to the side. a lot of other callers. i have your point. this is gordon in wisconsin.

republican. good morning. caller: good morning. you had raskin on there. just like some of your previous callers, trust raskin, pelosi, schumer, any of them. i think they are all a bunch of self-centered looking out for their own paycheck, and they are a bunch of liars. i do not understand how you have somebody like raskin on talking about donald trump when he is the most crooked democrat, along with pelosi, schumer. i don't get it. i don't understand why you put

somebody like raskin on. then you had a caller say he hopes he runs for president? , on. give me a break. that is why we are in the state we are in right now. people that think like that, that is why we got joe biden and kamala harris in the white house right now. people that think like that. host: gordon out of michigan. this is ron in california. good morning. caller: thank you very much. this is probably the best television i have ever seen. i will say thank you very much for having raskin on. his book is very compelling. i did want to say the fact that

you have republicans on, democrats on, independents on, you seem to give equal time to everybody, i think that is why people watch because they see that cable news leaves something to be desired. host: appreciate that. caller: great job, appreciate it. as far as a constructive criticism goes, i have to get out of that as problem lee a lot of you did -- i got a kick out of that. keep up the good work. host: what topics most interest you in terms of future segments on this program? you heard from a couple of folks already who want more of one thing or less of one thing. what would you like to learn more about? caller: i like the policy segments, just like the computer chip, i would've never known anything about that.

as far as the hearings are concerned, it is riveting. it is absolutely riveting. i feel like this is where we see where the public servant comes into politics. raskin, i am from california, he is not my representative. i feel like he is truly a man of the people and he is pushing our agenda as americans forward. host: just about five minutes before the house comes in, maybe sooner. if they come in early we will go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage. jeff in kentucky, democrat, go ahead. caller: i would like to know why they don't do nothing about hunter biden and all of the things he is into. all of the corruption his daddy is into. host: did you watch the segment

this morning on the hunter biden investigation? we did about half an hour this morning. caller: i sure did. the democrats do not do nothing about it. i am originally a democrat but i would not vote for one right now if i had to. i am 58 years old. i've been in the union for 35 years. host: went as last time you voted democrat? caller: probably bill clinton. host: what did you like about bill clinton? caller: i was young back then and the economy was going pretty good. what he done on his own time, that was fine. with everything going on right now, why don't anybody bring up hunter biden and all the corruption of the biden family? is just wanting everything on donald trump, because joe biden is getting all kinds of money from china. host: this is walter in naples, florida.

good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate that show a lot. i was dying to ask mr. raskin, i was reading an article in no when the transition team from trump around december 12 at the pentagon, the acting secretary of defense at the pentagon canceled the transition meetings with the bidens. was that december 12 cancellation by the secretary of defense a possibility that was foreshadowing the fact they were not planning on transitioning? i tried to write members of the january 6 committee but every time -- none of them are in my district. there is no way to contact the

congressman not in your district even though it may be a national institute that you can find. maybe someone from the next january 6 hearing would ask the biden transition director or the acting secretary of defense chris miller what happened and why they did want to push those meetings past january 1. host: it looks like we'll have to wait until september to find out. that is when we are expecting the next of those select committee hearings on the generate six attack on the capital. the house about to come in. let me try to get walter in naples, florida. independent. caller: you just talked to me. host: is diana will try to get to. go ahead. make it quick. caller: i am a former democrat, i'm a social worker.

i have one word for the sham show in the upside down world of the last year, following the rigged election, liars. it is an old three dog night hit from the late 60's. totally upside down world. a sham show. january 6 an inside job. they knew january 6 was supposed to be conducted from those four contested states where the fraud was rife and evident. the democrats cannot allow that to take place. those machines, there was going to be a 10 day pause. host: are you watching any of these hearings? caller: absolutely not. dog and pony show. host: that is diana in california. will be back tomorrow morning. it is 7:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific time. in the meantime have a great wednesday. we take you live for gavel-to-gavel coverage to the

floor of the house of representatives. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 27, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable tony cardenas to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives.