"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 f is not to fl 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. 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 literal war zones.

every day there are stabbings, rapes, murders, violent assaults of every kind imaginable. bloody turf wars raise without mercy. parents are worried sick their kids will get shot on the way to school or on the way back home. saidists who prey on children are released on bail but there is no bail and no bond. unique. never happened before. drugged out lunatics attack innocent victims at random. roving mobs of thieves walk into the stores and walk out with whatever merchandise they can carry. they're left alone. nobody tells them, don't do this. put it back now. homeless encampments are taking over every public park and every patch of green space in previously beautiful urban

centers. and the dangerously deranged roam our streets with impunity. we're living in such a different country for one primary reason. there is no longer respect for the law and there certainly there is no order. our country is now a cesspool of crime. we have blood, death, and suffering on a scale once unthinkable because of the democrat party's effort to destroy and dismantle law enforcement all throughout america. it has to stop and it has to stop now. [applause] host: former president trump yesterday in that address from the american first policy institute. we'll be showing more of that in the first hour of the "washington journal" as we ask you -- do you think president trump, former president trump should be the g.o.p. nominee in 2024? that address yesterday, of course, coming on the same day as a d.c. address by the former

vice president, mike pence. the story in "the new york times" today, trump-pence split in an uneasy party. here's how michael bender of the new york times put it yesterday. in addresses less than a mile apart, president trump and mike pence, whom he left at the mercy of the mob, put on a clear display, one of the most uncomfortable splits inside their party. competing steechs on the same day would have been inconceivable, he writes, for a former president and his own vice president not long ago but the demise of precedent has long been a hallmark of the trump era. 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. reporter: president trump and yourself are speaking this week in d.c. and there seems to be a divide between the two of you on what the outlook of the conservative movement might be.

do you think it extends to the general public? what do you think we can do to alleviate it? vice president pence: i tell you i couldn't be more proud of the record of the trump-pence administration. i mean, for four years we advanced the policies that i just described without apology. to promote a growing economy, to secure our border. we appointed more than 300 conservatives to our federal courts at every level, including three supreme court justices. we rebuilt our military, all of what i described. and i'll always be grateful for the opportunity to serve as vice president. so i don't know that our 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.

it's absolutely essential at a time when so many americans are hurting, so many families are struggling that we don't give way to the temptation to look back. but i think the time has come for us to offer a bold, positive agenda to bring america back. and i'll continue to carry that message all across this nation. [applause] host: the former vice president there yesterday, also in d.c. and just to add more fuel to this mix, this speculation about 2024, historians today wall street journal focusing on are on desantis and former president trump jockeying ahead of 2024. that's the headline there focusing on the relationship between those two men and the push and pull among their supporters. now more than two years out from the 2024 election. in the wake of all of this and these double appearances

yesterday in d.c., we want to talk to republicans only just for this first hour of the pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved asking you -- "washington journal" asking you do you think the former president should be the nominee in 2024. on the line for those who say yes, good morning. go ahead. you got to stick by your phone, diane. we'll go to susan in massachusetts who is on that line for those who say yes. good morning, susan. caller: good morning. i'm sorry, i'm not republican, i'm democrat. do you want me to tell you my thoughts? host: i guarantee we'll have time to get your thoughts. we'll have open forum later in the program. but just in this first hour, as we have done before in democrat-only questions, we're talking to republicans only. so 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're unsure. judy, go ahead. caller: i am very sure. i am definitely wanting president trump to run in 2024. host: and why, judy? caller: because he loves america. america loves america. the american people love america. and he stands for what the american people want. we want our country back. we want our pride back. we need to make sure that our country is safe for the generations to come just like the generations before us did for us. and he's the only one who's shown any streck and any -- strength and any power and any dignity that this country should still have going forward. host: judy, since the former president appeared the same day

as his vice president did in washington, 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 the american people. host: that's judy out of north carolina. to sylvia in virginia. good morning, you're next. talking to republicans only. caller: yes, thank you. i think, no, he shouldn't right now until they get the january 6 debacle figured out. host: and sylvia, explain what you mean. until they get it figured out, do you think charges are coming against the former president? 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: so sylvia, who would you rather see run if not him? caller: desantis. host: and why do you like ron desantis? caller: he's younger. i'm 66 but i think the young people need 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're going to be talking to one of the members of the select committee, the congressional select committee later in this program, jamie raskin of maryland. but action on the justice department's side as well finding out today -- here's the lead story in today's "washington post." the criminal probe by the justice department now looking specifically into the former president's actions investigating that as part of

its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. that's according to several people familiar with the case. "the washington post" reporting that the degree -- until now, the degree of prosecutors' interests in the former president's actions specifically had not been reported. the revelations, they write, raise the stakes of an already politically fraught probe involving the former president. we will talk to the house select committee member jamie raskin a little bit more and also give you the opportunity to ask him questions as well. that's coming up in our 9:00 a.m. hour, 9:00 a.m. eastern here on the "washington journal." john is next if you think think the former president trump should be the nominee in 2024, what do you think? caller: absolutely. i'm backing him 100%. this january 6 thing, i don't

understand what they're trying to prove or anything. i back trump. i'll think he'll straighten us back out. look what he did in the four years he was there. it was just amazing. i just -- i hope he gets desantis as vice president. i think they'll do some great things. thanks. host: you mentioned january 6 -- we lost john. a story in today's "usa today" about some of the polling on january 6. those select committee hearings. saying they're swaying a few minds among republicans. 7% say the presentation by the special house committee has made them view the attack as more serious than they thought. only 6% say they believe that then president donald trump was more involved than they had originally thought. more from that polling on the jump page noting 72% of democrats saying they're paying attention or a fair amount of

attention to those hearings. that's in stark contrast to the 78% of republicans who say they're not paying much attention or none at all to the select committee hearings. new polling from "usa today" suffolk university poll. you can read about it in "usa today." martin out of florida. you're next. good morning. republican. caller: right. i think he should be and only because anytime you give an inch to a leftist, they end up taking seven miles. it's like dealing with ill-tempered teenagers. if you think rationally, ok, we could have another republican president and be more diplomatic about it, it means nothing to the leftist. you have to go what's true and right and screw them. and trump says it like it is and trump's going to do it and he won it last time.

he can win it again even though you think oh, it's going to be difficult. it doesn't matter. we're up against a bunch of crazed marxists. host: did you watch those two speeches from here in washington? caller: i watched part of trump sometimes but he bores the hell out of me. he does speak like a simpleton. i agree he doesn't have any sway. you have a group of us that are so pissed off that we're done being, quote-unquote, tolerant. it's now forced acceptance. we know what's going on. trump's the only man with the balls to make something happen. host: when you hear former vice president mike pence say that some people may choose to focus on the past but elections are about the future, saying that he's focused on the future, implying, perhaps, that former president trump is more focused on the past.

what do you make of that? caller: you want to talk about the past, we're all in this because of hillary clinton. when they put this man in our country through how many years now, there's collusion. it's a farce. i don't listen to pence. he's taken the approach of what you do when you're dealing with two sides that are trying to get to the truth and speaking in truth. it doesn't work. pence would get killed in a landslide. you got to be dirty. you have to be mean. trump learned it in new york. he learned it from the democrats. they don't like that -- we're pulling on them exactly what they pulled on us. we have to win. these are not right times because of the left. you have the a.o.c.'s. you have the jerkoffs who straight up say they're marxists and people are full -- host: we got your point, martin. this is robert out of atlanta, georgia, that line for those who say they're unsure. why are you unsure, robert?

caller: well, i tell you, my biggest thing is being here in georgia. we just had david perdue run against brian kemp and, you know, it cost a lot of campaign funds and money and advertising and this and that and i just -- ron desantis, i 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, two 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 like ron desantis and donald trump have to battle out, waste all that time and energy

to -- host: robert, so you mentioned the primary. so are you talking about the former president's endorsements and whether he still has the juice in terms of carrying endorsed candidates across the finish line? what do you think about that senate rate down there and herschel walker? caller: you ask me about the senate race. you know, i'm not putting anything faith in any endorsements. i think at this day and time of the republican candidate, whether for the senate, governorship, they'll run on their own name. i don't think anybody needs an endorsement at this point. i don't put a whole lot of backing just because donald trump endorsed somebody. believe me, being in georgia, i don't say, oh, well, donald trump backed them. it has nothing to do with it.

you know, i vote for people on what they stand for and their party and their politics. but the senate race, yeah, that's going to be touchy. i'm wondering why herschel isn't fighting back a little bit more. campaign trail, what have you, he's not really -- i don't know -- i hate to say this on tv, but not really backing himself up too much right now. host: that's robert out of atlanta. another republican in the peach state, alpharetta, this is lee. good morning. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: good morning. what are your thoughts of a trump run in 2024? caller: so i wish he would just step out. i was a trump supporter. basically you just have the alternatives. you have to vote for one or the other. i went with him.

and basically, however, he just carries so much heat and he has such a problem with maintaining his emotional levels that he just does not win the -- what i would call the independent, rational, convincible voters who are going to turn this one way or the other. so all of those people who are on the republican side who just love trump and just want to, you know, go to the mat for him, they have to remember that what we're really looking at here are the people sort of in the middle. i am not talking about compromising your principles. i'm just saying that there is a whole bunch of other people that trump turns off big time. and he just won't change. and you know, if he would, then he's got some great policies. but when you got people like desantis and pompeo and haley.

he got pence, even, that are trying to convince the middle of the independent voters to go ahead and take our policies, then i think we got to move on. i hate to say it, but he's been unable to change all these years. that's all i got to say about that, really. host: who would be your pick among those other folks you mentioned, those other republicans? caller: i'd probably do desantis at this point in time if i had to pick one. i'd love to see pence come back in as vice president. i think he did a super job as a vice president. host: lee, what do you make of this polling, quinnipiac poll this month. perhaps you heard about it. 69% of republicans say they want the former president to run in 2024 but that's a decline of 11 points from the 78% who said the same back in october.

caller: well, i think that's a positive. and i think that people realize they're not going to -- win independents or there are a bunch of different demographics involved in the swing in the middle. you know, these elections are going 51% to 49%. people can call them a mandate if they want to. you know, even the biden win. it wasn't dramatically, you know, like 60% to 40% or something. i think that the republicans are probably trying to -- are finally realizing they're not going to win if they pick somebody who just carries so much baggage that trump, you know, unfortunately to a large degree, just will not shed himself of. he's his own worst enemy. so i think he did a great job

for the country in a lot of ways except for the attitude part that he carried with him that was divisive. you know, 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, man, i tell you what. you come in as a leader in a group and you go ahead and just defeat yourself, really, in a way you can't control the rhetoric. that's where i'm coming from. host: thanks for calling from alpharetta. washington, go ahead, you're next. caller: hello. i'm 74 years old and i voted for trump both times and i do want him again very badly. i know his attitude is bad and his rhetoric is bad. his policies are great. and that's all i really wanted

to say. thank you. host: while you're waiting, did you hear that previous caller, his concerns about him being too divisive or not being able to appeal to the folks in the middle that the caller believes that the next election is going to turn on? caller: yes. i do agree with him. i was hoping that trump could tone it down a lot and mean it. and i did notice the speech yesterday, he did -- he seemed a little bit humble for once. it could be fake. i don't know. i know i will vote for him again. i do not want pence. and if -- i would take desantis over pence. because pence, nice guy, but he's so weak. yeah, i want trump really bad. host: more from that speech yesterday in washington. here's the former president getting a lot of attention for some of his comments on how to

deal with the issue of drugs and drug dealers in america. [video clip] president trump: we know where these gangs operates and know their names. the police officers know their names. the problem is they're not allowed to do anything about it and they want to. we need to get in there immediately, go into every drug den, every stash house, every hidtaway and round up -- hideaway and round up the killers and gang members and charge them with any and every crime that we find. and there are a lot of them. drug crimes, sex crimes, all sorts of crimes. vicious, vicious, horrible crimes like we've really never seen before. certainly not on a scale like this. we're a war zone. to lead this effort, joint violent crime task force composed of the department of justice and the department of homeland security should be tasked with destroying these organizations and the penalties should be very, very severe.

if you 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? but you know what, that's the ones that don't have any problem. it doesn't take 15 years in court. it goes quickly. and you absolutely -- you execute a drug dealer and you'll save 500 lives because they kill on average 500 people. it's terrible to say but you take a look at every country in this world that doesn't have a problem with drugs. they have a very strong death penalty for the people that sell drugs. if we're going to stop this scourge -- [applause] host: former president yesterday

at that speech in d.c. by the way, if you want to watch in its entirety, you can do it on our website, c-span.org. it's coming up on 7:30 here on the east coast. in this first hour of the "washington journal" asking you -- asking republicans only, do you think the former president should be the g.o.p. nominee in 2024? if not, let us know who you think should be the nominee. 202-748-8001 if you think the -- 202-748-8000 if you think the president should be the nominee. 202-748-8001 if you say, no, and if you're unsure, that's ok, too. 202-748-8002 for you to call. also looking for your questions or your comments on social media on twitter and at facebook and also our text messaging service. as you continue to call in just a couple other stories that we've been watching and we'll talk more about today, the senate yesterday taking a step to advance that multibillion dollar tech bill dealing with

the shortage of chips in this country. the focus of that bill meant to boost the competitiveness in production of semi conductor chips. we'll be talking more about that vote and the final vote on that bill expected later this week. gavin of "politico" in about an hour on this program, 8:30 eastern time. what to watch later this afternoon, the headline from "the wall street journal," markets glued to chairman powell's next guidance. the federal reserve chairman set to announce today the lifting of interest rates. again, an expected interest rate raise of .75%. it could be as much as 1%. also expecting guidance about what the next interest rate hike could look like. the appearance by jerome powell 2:30 eastern time.

you can watch that here on the c-span networks. c-span3 is where it's going to be airing. also, of course, c-span.org on the web and the free c-span now video app. back to your phone calls on this question -- should donald trump be the republican nominee in 2024? gary is a republican out of the garden state. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead, sir. caller: yes. i'm not sure that he should run because he carries baggage. he doesn't love americans, especially -- look who he married. [indiscernible] that's all i got to say. host: gary, did you support him in 2020 and 2016? caller: no, i did not. host: who did you support in the republican primary? in 2016? caller: 2016, i didn't support

none of those guys. i didn't see none i was interested in. and then you -- host: all right. angela out of ohio. good morning, you're next. anna, ohio. caller: hi. yeah. no, i would not vote for donald trump again. i think he has destroyed the republican moral fiber. if i was to see anybody get in the election i'd love to see liz cheney. i think she's a strong, courageous woman. i'd love to see her run for president. host: what do you think happens to her in her primary coming up, angela? caller: i don't know. i don't know if she'll -- because i'm from ohio, i don't know what they do out in wyoming. as people are watching this january 6 hearings, they would

be smart in re electing her. i've never seen a more courageous, strong woman. yeah, like i said, i would love to see her run for president. host: it was liz cheney tweeting yesterday before the president's appearance at that event here in washington focusing on her work for the select committee on january 6, tweeting that the facts are induce putable. as the -- indisputable. he would not tell them to go home for -- >> we have a full house. it's good to see. this week, president putin's war on ukraine entered its sixth month. costs continue to climb. thousands of civilians killed or wounded. 13 million ukrainians forced to flee their