, i would have kicked thereabouts out. i do not know what they were doing. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community center to create wi-fi enabled listings. comcast supports c-span and a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up this morning on "washington journal" garrett watson joins us for discussion on tax provisions contained in the inflation reduction act

legislation. later, pbs correspondent talks about her latest documentary, called afghanistan undercover, which examines the taliban's treatment of a woman in afghanistan. as always, you can join the conversation with your calls, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone, it is august 9, 2022. the fbi raided the home of former president trump yesterday. your reactions. republicans dial in at (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. -- (202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002. you can also text us including

your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003. you can go to facebook or you can tweet. we will get to your reaction in just a minute. let's begin with the former president in a statement announcing this raid to the public. he said "nothing like this has ever happened to a president of the united states before. after working and cooperating with relevant government agencies this unannounced raid on my house was not appropriate. it is prosecutorial misconduct. and an attack by radical left democrats who desperately don't want me to run for president in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who likewise will do everything to stop republicans and conservatives in the upcoming election. such an assault only takes place in broken, third world countries

he went on, "they even broke into my safe. what is different from watergate? it is the reverse. they broke into the home of the former president of the united states are co-eric tromp was on fox news last night. >> my father always kept clippings, newspaper articles, notes from us. when my mom passed away, he still had all the notes over the years that had been saved that she had ever written him. it is a beautiful thing. and yet has boxes, when he moved out of the white house, if you want to search for anything, come right ahead. it was an open-door policy and all of a sudden 30 agents descend upon mar-a-lago. this didn't come from the local

fbi field office. this came from one place and one building and that is the white house in washington, d.c. they want to attack a guy who they view as biden's greatest threat. that is exactly what donald j. trump is. he had an extremely strong country. taiwan is getting circled by military planes literally as we sit here and speak. russia-ukraine is a total disaster, iran is a disaster, inflation, gas prices, all of the things you talked about. we are not respected by anybody around the world. our economy is garbage and they worry donald trump will come back in and win this very easily. host: eric trump, the son of the former president talking about what was in the boxes that the fbi took. according to news reports, the fbi descended upon mar-a-lago

club because this was part of an investigation related to the national archives records. you will recall, president trump did not hand over all of those records when he left the white house. but he did -- the national archives did retrieve several boxes. they are saying now they are still missing items. from "the washington post" it was not immediately clear why fbi agents would conduct a search related to the documents many months after the 15 boxes of materials were retrieved. a sitting president is the top classification authority in the government, giving that person far more leeway than most government employees in deciding what is and isn't classified. advisors speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss trump's actions say he has mishandled documents for years, largely by ripping them up. they describe an ad hoc packing

process at the end of his term in which the president and his family took boxes and material that should've gone to the national archives. the archives only learn some of the material was listening after trying to locate items for cataloging. according to "the wall street journal," to conduct such a search the fbi would need to conduct -- convince a judge there was reason to believe there may be evidence of a crime to be found at that location. such a move would likely require signoff from the highest echelons of the justice department. they would not say what role the attorney general played. susan in milford, pennsylvania, democratic caller, your reaction. caller: i was very happy, very thankful that the attorney general made this move. it was not a raid. it was, what are they call it, a

search because donald trump has never turned over -- in the past he has been not good at turning over what he should turn over. the secrets of the government that he was in charge of, he walked off with them in boxes, leaving them at his house. who knows what he was planning. sell them maybe one day, i hate to think that. thank you very much, for doing this. who knows, maybe one day trump might be sorry that he didn't have a merrick garland -- have merrick garland go to the supreme court because thank you very much for following the rule of law. we have to get to the bottom of what is going on with trump. please, republican people, listen with an open mind. our government is a good government. we need to follow it. we want a democracy here.

it is so important to me. host: andrea is in washington, d.c., a republican. caller: being a special educator kind of helps me synthesize it all. i love president trump as a person, as a character. that's not as a president. too untrustworthy. it was odd because it sounds so awesome, his rhetoric, and every time he presents it. i know it is not true. i deal with this with children and eventually they come around but if they get too much praise for being the bad boy they are here to stay. host: bel air, maryland, greg, independent. caller: good morning. as i was watching last night i tuned into some of the sources to hear what they were saying. i was watching cnn but i turned

to fox news and newsmax. i was hearing a lot of projection of what aboutism talking about hunter biden and hillary clinton. when trump was in power, he had all the mechanisms to look into these things but he didn't. frankly, if there was a crime, there's a high standard to go and send the fbi in. at least for these other items mentioned on other networks, it just wasn't there. that's my take. host: joining us now this morning is kim whaley, and abc news legal contributor and law professor at american university . let's begin with whether or not you can define this as a raid as our first caller said. what does that mean? guest: raid is not a legal term so that's not a term i would use and i think it is a bit incendiary and misleading.

this was the execution of a warrant under the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. george the third, the king of england at the time of the revolution had the power to issue general warrants where his officers could go into homes and randomly raid them. the framers were upset about that, did not want that authority for the american government so it is actually many steps of the process that have to go through within the federal government, including through fbi director christopher wray who was appointed by donald trump, through the justice department and to a federal judge. and there's a standard. we call it probable cause but there has to be an affidavit articulating evidence under oath that demonstrates to the judge that there is probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime on the premises. a warrant has to be very particularized. the people that can sucked -- conduct the search cannot just

grab things they want. if there is evidence of a crime in plain sight they can take that. after what happen yesterday, there's a careful process to protect materials not covered by the warrant. that is kind of rhetoric. it is sort of politics to call it a raid. this is really the justice system under the constitution functioning as it should. the fact that it happens to be donald trump really is because he didn't comply at looks like with the presidential records act. we have to have accountability and consequences for our actions including former president's. if he didn't want to see this happen he should have complied with the law. host: he said this was unnecessary and he had been cooperating with all government agencies. guest: again, that is his point of view. he did take 15 boxes, we know that, alone.

we also know reportedly they contained communications, for example, with north korean dictator kim jong-un. we know from cassidy hutchinson who testified before the january 6 committee, top aide to mark meadows, donald trump's chief of staff, that she witnessed mark meadows burning documents. unfortunately, donald trump's word is no longer, if it ever was, something people can rely on. maybe people love him for that but that's not how the system of justice works. things have to be authenticated and verified. a long time ago, with thousands and thousands of lies out of the white house, he has been unable to keep his word. he is no able lincoln in that regard. i have no access to the warrant and don't know why the justice department decided to do this, presumably to preserve records for fear they would be destroyed

or something could happen to them. donald trump's statement is unfortunately not something that i would put a ton of weight in when it comes to the various levels of independent oversight that had to happen for yesterday's historic event to occur. host: you mentioned the presidential records act. what questions do you think that judge was asking when the fbi went to him or her to get this warrant granted? guest: this is a very high level. the fact that it is a formal president means the judge wanted to see an extremely high level of proof that there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime. the fact that records were taken out of the white house, that has been public for a long time and that would not be enough to trigger this kind of action. speculation isn't really helpful

in this moment, but rest assured that this judge went kicking and screaming, so to speak. that put the justice department and fbi through the paces and we don't know what additional evidence there is. for example, alex jones turned over inadvertently in this sandy hook texas case messages related to january 6. we don't know what those contain . mark meadows is in hot water potentially criminally, as are other people within trump's orbit. we don't know who is talking to the justice department. it is impossible for the public to know what was in the affidavit that justified in a federal judge's mind and in the mind of christopher wray and merrick garland and other people involved, this historic and politically very trot -- fraught and troubling event that occurred yesterday.

host: what happens next? guest: the material will be sorted. that is, the warrant only justifies taking materials articulated in the warrant. there is also the plain view doctrine. they were there for hours reportedly. if they saw evidence that appeared to bear on a crime even if it was not on the same topic that's in the warrant, they could take that material. but there will be a sorting process and presumably fresh eyes on this to make sure that nothing was taken illegally outside of the scope of the warrant. the justice department will continue its investigation that reportedly has been going on since the spring, about the taking of those records. there is of course the january 6 investigation. the justice department is looking in, investigating this late of fraudulent and fake

electors submitted on behalf of donald trump. there is a grand jury in georgia, state grand jury investigating what we've heard in the recording, donald trump asking the former secretary of state to "find 11,870 votes" that did not exist. not that this search yesterday related to those other investigations and it is unclear whether what they found yesterday relating to the presidential records act could be shared. but there is many years turning now -- gears turning now centering around donald trump and his inner circle, and the fault lies with donald trump, not the public servants effectuating their duties. we all have to stop at red lights and we all have to be careful when we cross streets and we have to pay our taxes.

and just because you are in the white house, even more so because you are in the white house, those are rules we should follow. if you don't there's going to be pushback. host: thank you very much for your time. guest: thank you. host: linda, new haven, missouri, democratic caller, your reaction to this news. caller: good morning. the previous lady just really articulated what the circumstances are. unfortunately, mr. trump used his tenure as a president of the united states to conduct himself in a terrible manner. we would have never expected nor should we have ever tolerated and president took in -- a

president to conduct himself in this manner. it seems to me, it is very apparent that mr. trump has brought all this on himself by conducting himself in this manner. we all would pay the same circumstances, the price for it. it is just so unnecessary for our country to be as divided and react with talks of civil war and things. this is crazy. it's not worth it. the man causes -- caused this himself. he fomented this thing that took place on january 6 to keep himself in office. that's not the way normal people

do things. we've never seen this before. i just hope the whole country does not -- i hope and pray this country does not break out into a civil war over this. host: ray, a republican in new york, go ahead. caller: good morning. do i understand correctly the guest is an attorney? host: she was just with us briefly but yes, she practices. she is a legal advisor to abc and also a law professor. caller: ok. i'm curious as to why -- i'm not surprised that this hasn't come up from the people calling in necessarily, but definitely from her, why hasn't she brought up the possibility that what they are seeking in this searching of mar-a-lago could be evidence of

crimes by democrats? they are just assuming this must be trump but obviously trump has been rated already. he has been tried in the public. he has been tried in front of pretty much everyone you can be tried in front of. this probably doesn't have anything to do with him. this is probably democratic crimes that he may have evidence of. host: you and others may be interested in this letter sent on february 18 from the chairwoman of the house oversight and reform committee, democrat from new york carolyn maloney. she is sending this letter to the national archives and records administration about the boxes they requested and received from mar-a-lago back in january. it is a series of questions about the nara seeking these

records, did they ask the representatives of former president trump about missing records prior to the 15 boxes being identified? if so, what information was provided? the agency had an ongoing communication with the representatives of former president trump which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes in january 22. had the agency conducted an inventory? it is in the process of inventorying those contents. please provide a detailed description of the contents of the recovered boxes including inventory prepared by the agency. they respond because the records are subject to the presidential records act, any request for information regarding the contents will need to be made in accordance with section 22052 c of that act. are the contents of the boxes

recovered undergoing a review to determine if they contain classify information? who is conducting that. agency responds they've identified items marked as classified within the boxes. what efforts has the agency taken and is the agency taking to ensure additional records that have not been turned over are not lost or destroyed? they say they have asked the representatives of the former to search for any additional presidential records that have not been transferred. the agency has identified classified information in the boxes and has been in communication with the department of justice. you can find this letter if you search for yourself on archives.gov. the agency posting the letter from the chairwoman and their response. charlie in pauling, new york, independent. caller: needless to say that

donald trump probably has provided information either wanting to or just because he is basically sloppy. and probably given a lot of information to various governments, especially his good buddy vladimir putin. i really believe that donald trump would rather be not allowed to run for president and would invite this because i think he's more afraid of losing another election tghan actually -- than actually running. he can look like somebody who has been abused. bottom line is the fact that i change the channels and i see

that c-span provides no bias and you allow people to call in from the right, all the way to the right, and people all the way to the left. the bottom line is this, our country is in really bad shape when somebody like this has come along who is basically disregarded various populations of people whether it be women, hispanics, blacks, people in the military, things he has said, if you are going to run for office again and again, even joe biden whose popularity is very poor, i think not that we want somebody at his age to run, could win. last thing to say, nobody over the age of 70 should be allowed to run for president.

somebody at 35, that's when you can run. i'm over 70 and nobody that age should run. host: jerry is a democrat in martin, north -- martha coda. -- martin, north dakota. caller: i am worried about our country, constitution ripped apart by these people. i don't know what they could possibly think about trump. i am for trading him for prisoners, get rid of him. he is right now our bin laden in america. he is disrupting. he lies about everything. whoever had a president who brings dictators into campaigns from other countries? can't these people see what they are doing to america? he is spitting on graves,

calling them cowards and losers. he has to take care of the law just like anybody else does. if he gets away with this, nobody has to obey the laws. i don't see where he can run from president. somewhere in the constitution it says if you have been involved in any kind of insurrection you cannot run for office again. i don't remember where i read it. i think i read something about it. he's dragging down and ruining the reputations of a lot of good people as well as his own. host: let me throw this out there for you and others from "the wall street journal." officials can face up to five years in prison for removing classified materials to an unauthorized location. the penalties for breaking other laws relating to the removal of

records include disqualification from holding federal office, including the presidency. jim in hudson, florida, republican. are you there? caller: what tickles me is that one day the jury says trump is guilty. ok, one day he is guilty. if i was trump i would go to mar-a-lago and find out everything they took. with that many people, they probably took some personal stuff too. i would file a report with the local police and have it on hand and that could be to his advantage. he could say anything he wants that they took or whatever and documents or personal stuff, because they will not be able to say it because it's an ongoing investigation. trump can use this to his advantage if he wanted to. they talk about the stuff that was taken. look what hillary did.

the fbi let her off. she had her phones and stuff like that and holder did the same thing. a request to come before congress. they want to talk about trump, i'm not saying he didn't do something wrong but the jury is in. they've already convicted him and he is guilty and that's wrong. the other networks have already got him -- got him in an orange jumpsuit. host: the former president was in new york when the search was conducted, according to news reports. he was not down there in florida when this took place yesterday. christopher in englewood, new jersey, democratic caller. let's hear from you. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

this is a very significant day in the history of this nation. we are finally seeing justice being realized because of all of the abuse of power that this man did four years. he is not above the law. you should have followed the rules as any president to turn over the paperwork after he conceded to the next president. it is important the people of america realize of all the abuse of power that he did, and he needs to be held accountable, every person should be held accountable in the name of justice, to matter what crimes they've committed. this is a very serious matter. this is very serious and people need to wake up and realize the truth about what's going on. this is justice being done the right way, not the wrong way. this is a very important moment and we need to realize how we as americans need to see it. host: cody, springfield,

missouri, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm a first time caller. donald trump is the best thing that's ever happened to this country. he's not a politician. people got to understand that, he's not a politician. ok? what he says you got to let go in one ear and out the next because he cares about the american people, about our pocketbooks, our factories and stuff like that. that president we got in there now never did anything for this country. in all the years he's been up there, he never did anything for the minorities are nothing. i'm a black man talking and he's never did anything for this country and he is just running it down. host: what does the president not being a politician have to do with an fbi warrant? caller: they shouldn't have did

that what they did. host: because he's not a politician? caller: what they did is they shouldn't have invaded his privacy like that. i disagree with what they did. i don't agree with it. they could've handled that another way. they don't want him to run. they don't want that man to win. if donald trump runs, he's not going to win. them people up there are going to do everything they can to stop that man from winning and that's the sad part. that's the sad part of it. host: let's take a look at -- democrats were asked for a response to the fbi search of the former president's home yesterday. there was not a response from the leadership in the house, the top leadership, the speaker of the house and the majority leader, but hakeem jeffries sent

this tweet -- "no one is above the law." take a look at the republican response to the fbi's actions. mike turner, who is the top republican, the lead republican on the house permanent select committee on intelligence says, "i'm demanding an immediate briefing regarding the national security risk that allegedly rose to the level of ordering a raid on the home of a former president." kevin mccarthy, the republican leader in the house, putting out a statement saying "to the attorney general, preserve your calendar." he said "if republicans when the majority they will be investigating this search and demanding records from the attorney general about how all of this came about." this video posted by senator

marco rubio, republican of florida on his twitter account. [video clip] >> we've had divisive politics and anger and politics as long as the country has existed. there has never been a country where people who take power now use that power to persecute their past or future political opponents. we've never seen that until tonight when the justice department and joe biden decided to raid, using 30 fbi agents, the mar-a-lago home of the former president who might be running against him in a couple years. this is what happens in places like nicaragua where last year every single person that ran against daniel ortega, every person who put their name on the ballot was arrested and thrown in jail. we've never before seen that in america. you can try to diminish it but that is exactly what happened.

30 fbi agent rating mar-a-lago, not looking for fugitives or looking to save someone's life, not looking to track down some serial killer or drug kingpin. 30 fbi agent in a high-profile raid over a documents dispute, a documents dispute that is not even this administration. multiple administrations have had disputes of what is a presidential record and what isn't. it doesn't matter how you feel about the archives. inc. about sending 30 fbi agent on a raid like this for what purpose? that is to try to politically harm and intimidate their political opponents. that's what this is all about. we've never seen it in america before and they are playing with fire. on msnbc all these idiot commentators, but you are playing with fire. someone else will be in power and you've created the precedent for them to do this back to you

and then we become the third world and lose our system of government. this needs to stop and the people responsible for this decision, merrick garland, the director of the fbi need to be held for account for going along with something so undemocratic, unconstitutional, and flat-out dangerous and destructive. host: florida republican marco rubio. games in cincinnati, democratic caller, your reaction to the search by the fbi of former president trump's home in florida. caller: what i think they went in there looking for -- i'm sorry -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: did you cut me off? host: you need to mute yourself. caller: i was listening to my tv. i was talking and my phone went dead.

i think what they are looking for, part of the documents they are looking for is notes that the interpreters took after all the meetings with foreign governments because he did confiscate them. that's what i heard on news reports, he would take the notes after he got done with the meetings and he probably didn't turn it over. he probably thought those were personal things, personal conversations. guess what, they're not. they belong to us. in my opinion that's what they were looking for, part of what they were looking for. that's my opinion really. host: we heard it. mike in north carolina, republican caller. caller: this is a spitting image of why the media are the enemy of this country along with the democratic party. look at the way these fascists are calling in and saying this crap, he's guilty.

has anyone been arrested or charged? no, they have not, yet here you are spewing your russia, i hate trump, i hate white people, i hate america, let's burn everything down. it's just amazing. you literally, c-span, praised blm and called them peaceful protesters. you defended hillary clinton when she committed felony after felony. we have a crack head and a sellout and the white house now and you don't care. you want to come after us, come after trump? what we need to do, america, is -- host: california, independent. caller: good morning. i'm so glad to speak to you. like i see it, they said the fbi went into his home and didn't let anybody -- i don't know if it is guards or somebody or

maybe i misunderstood -- that was with trump, go in with the fbi to get all the boxes that they were looking for or researching. now why wouldn't they let someone that supports trump go in with them? if it is the guards or whatever. also, ever since he ran they've been after him. the democrats have not let up at all. also, maxine waters is a top official and she spewed so many, go after them, go after them, and you know, she instigated a lot of hatred. she instigated the first time and people just went wild. then she was quiet for a while and there she goes again, go after the republicans. and then they go off.

it is so pathetic the way our country is now. and i hope this gets to solve -- solved pretty soon because we are in such a poor position now. host: from politico's reporting, "the fbi and u.s. attorney's office in washington didn't immediately respond to requests for comments. the justice department also declining to comment. the u.s. attorneys office and palm beach police department deferred comment to the fbi. two sources say top biden white house officials were not given advance notice of the raid which could potentially alter the course of the midterms and a potential trump-biden rematch. it has been percolating for months and has largely remained in the background. while the january 6 select committee built a case on the

president's crimes to disrupt the transfer of power after his defeat. -- confirmed in february it had sought to recover 15 boxes of records from mar-a-lago it deemed an improperly moved including some marked as national security information. they had been in touch with the justice department the recovered documents. the archives said it had ongoing communications with trump steam about recovering missing presidential records. archives also indicated it was working to recover and archived social media messages that had messages the president tore up and destroyed some papers, not all of which were recovered lisa, democratic caller. caller: hello? host: we are listening. caller: it's a lot going on this morning.

a lot of people are in denial. host: ok, why do you say that? caller: they are in denial because they do not want to accept the truth. so many times we have seen evidence after evidence after evidence that are facts, not propaganda, not political. this was unappointed donald trump -- this was an appointed donald trump judge. he committed a crime and left the white house with 15 boxes of highly classified documents. that's a crime. host: i want to throw this out from "the new york times." the search itself they note does not mean prosecutors have determined mr. trump committed a crime. caller: well, i would like to

say this, many people work for companies and corporations. i want those that disagree with what's going on now, try taking documents and files from your job and see where that gets you. if you want donald trump to be innocent in this situation and you think that he is innocent, the company that you work for, go to your office and take files and documents without permission and see where that gets you. donald trump, people, wake up. donald trump is a criminal. host: we heard your point. mark in hampstead, maryland, republican. caller: good morning.

a couple of calls back you had that guy mike who is really on fire. took a little bit of my thunder but i was gonna say the same thing a little bit. i need to remind these people that are calling in talking about donald trump committed a crime and this assertion is being made by the same people who came up with the russia hoax. i noticed a few minutes into your show you had a so-called expert call in and was talking about the very high bar that must've been set that a judge must have somehow approved this. i would like to remind everybody that the steel belt ea was also approved by a judge which caused the democratic party and the fbi to spy on a sitting u.s.

president. eiko sussman who worked for hillary clinton basically invented the steel dossier. he admitted this in court. you have never covered this. this court case with sussman, with hillary's team, it happened almost a year ago. you guys didn't even bring it up. host: yes, we have. we did it in a segment with a reporter that was following that case. we spent 30 to 45 minutes i believe talking about it, the outcome, sussman's testimony, testimony by former clinton campaign officials. so we did. caller: sure you did. host: sabrina, were some, texas, independent. go ahead. caller: you need to study the --

because that's what's happened to america. the over -- to overwhelm the system until the system breaks. you see that going with the borders and with the incredible amount of spending democrats are doing. you see the prosecution that with the lack of law enforcement. all of this has to occur in the context of the fact that we are fighting to restore this great country that we all drew up believing in and loving. and we were all told from the beginning of our lives that all

people are created equal and that all people have a right to defend themselves in matters of law. we don't know what's going on. i have a suspicion that the boxes are the boxes of these unclassified documents that trump, nunez, all of this was supposed to be classified but trump didn't classify and it was supposed to go out of the doj to the american public and that never happened. host: rachel, boynton beach, florida, republican. he -- caller: yes, hi. it is a sad day in history.

i'm an old lady and i'm thinking back to the 1960's and 1970's. i am really an independent voter but after this, i think i'm going to go for trump. and if he runs again, that's what i'm going to do because i think he's been bamboozled. that's the whole gist of the matter. thank you. host: kentucky, democratic caller, james. caller: i've been a democrat for all my life. my whole family has, but most of them now have switched to republican because they do not like the new democratic party. the goals that they have going on. so i would vote for trump if he runs for office. they just don't want him to run for office. they are doing everything they can. they were after him for four years when he was president.

that's all they cared about, trying to get him out of office. they didn't want him to win and he won and they didn't like it. host: supporters of the former president gathered outside of mar-a-lago in florida yesterday. this is from local news. ♪ >> --[video clip] >> i can't wait. ♪ host: you might have heard one of the supporters say i can't wait for this to happen to joe and hunter, outside of mar-a-lago. barbara, west virginia, independent, good morning. caller: yes, i'd like to say there is so many bad things happening in our government right now and just because we have allowed, americans

ourselves wasn't paying attention and allowed the communists to come into our government and on the show. most of this show puts out democratic views and just like that man said, i've been watching this and i know every time a republican gets on your show, a democrat gets on, you leave him talk, talk. our government needs to change. i voted for manchin, a democrat, but i never will again because he cost us all that money when he voted. host: kathleen in texas, republican. caller: yes, i just wanted to ask a couple questions, really important questions and i really appreciate if you don't turn me off. the first one is, why? everybody jumping on trump.

now they are doing this. you know the democratics are in there doing that. nancy pelosi, go search her house, or joe biden. he had covid the whole time so they could get together. why are they doing this? it is literally tearing this country apart and put all the blame on trump. that's not right. it's just not right. y'all need to straighten it out. host: charles in jackson, mississippi, democratic caller. caller: yes, i'm calling simply to say that we need to understand that this whole situation could have been avoided if he just turned over the documents. there were requests after requests made for the documents to be returned and they were either delayed or denied.

so if joe blow on main street america had done the same thing he would have gotten the same treatment. trump is no different than anybody else. this whole situation could have been avoided to just turn over the damn documents. host: "the new york times" about the text messages from alex jones that were turned over. this is a headline -- but trove of the texts from jones but none are from january 6. a lawyer for plaintiffs who are suing the conspiracy theorist alex jones turned over more than two years worth of text messages from mr. jones' phone to the house committee investigating the january 6 attack including messages showing mr. jones was in touch with the former president. the files do not appear to include text messages from the time of most interest to the committee, january 6, 2021 and the week's building up to the attack, according to people familiar.

that is the latest on that. robert, lawrence, kentucky, independent. caller: good morning. i just would like to point out i think all the discussion and statement by rubio this morning is assuming that this is about the wrongful seizure of documents. but we really don't know what is going on. it may be that the contents of one of those documents is what they were looking for and that could be related to other investigations other than the archive investigation. it could be related to january 6 or the slate of electors investigations. we are not sure what they were looking for so i think a lot of the talk is premature until we know more. host: gary in brooksville, florida, democratic caller. what is your opinion? caller: i'm a democrat since the 1980's and i'm getting fed up

with the democrats. now you got a president that was a president and now they are in his house. when the clintons left, they took the furniture and everything else. you know where the problem started? with liz cheney when trump called her daddy a coward. this is a vendetta. this is all a vendetta and we are paying for it. america is getting sick of it. i've been a democrat since the 1980's and i'm changing. there's no way i can put up with this no more. it is ridiculous. i mean, common sense would tell you that this is wrong. we have a son with a mansion on the beach being watched by the

fbi. what is everybody going to do when they start dragging presidents out? we are going to nicaragua, going to a third world country. host: usa today, in case you missed it, the dad and the son in the ahmaud arbery case were sentenced to life yesterday for the killing of ahmaud arbery. that in "usa today." also this piece, david mccullough, the spellbinding author, died at the age of 89. he was very generous to the c-span audience and their 77 videos of his work from 1989 in our archives. if you are interested you can go

to c-span.org. "the washington times," steve bannon is requesting a retrial in the criminal contempt of congress case that he was just convicted of, criminal contempt. he is requesting a retrial. back to your thoughts on the news that broke yesterday, the former president announcing it himself that the fbi descended upon mar-a-lago, his home in florida, and searched for records, according to news reports, related to a national archives request to receive official records and documents from his presidency. kathy, saint martinville, louisiana, republican. morning. caller: good morning. things are getting fiery today. the thing that concerns me about what happened yesterday is not just yesterday.

you are i guess a moderator but also a journalist. i've looked at journalists homes being rated, -- raided, dragged out -- i don't even know if they are republican or democrat -- and there are constantly people that say things about them have to take it back officially but it doesn't get promoted on the mainstream media. there were five people killed on january 6. flashbangs caused heart attacks. i saw it myself, a video that they won't relief -- release. so many hours of that but they were saying there were insurrections. i saw that woman getting beat

savagely and she was killed. it was called a drug overdose. they won't even tell us how sick nick -- sicknick died but they promoted this as a glorious death put protect -- protecting the capitol. i don't know who is running washington, d.c. i'm very concerned because many things are happening. look what happened to -- i don't like roger stone all that much -- look what happened to him. his wife and him raided and right there conveniently. host: a couple of democratic congressmen reacting on twitter, don buyer tweeting this -- republicans are losing their minds over this opposing weaponization of the fbi and its director christopher wray because a federal judge issued a search warrant after finding probable cause that a federal

crime had been committed. donald trump appointed wray to head the fbi. news reports noting the former president while he hired wray, also tried to fire him. bill passed borough the congressman tweeting out -- the rubble -- republican hysteria, here is what republicans have learned from january 6 -- nothing. diane in connecticut, independent, what do you say? caller: i wish people would stop worshiping donald trump as though he's god and as though he's the only one who can settle the problems in america. he mostly gets christians to vote for him and christians are being deceived because they are putting their trust in him.

i saw a sign today. the antichrist who claims to be god, showing himself that he is god. trump went to israel, the u.s. embassy in israel. americans are being deceived especially christians. i am not a republican, i am not a democrat. i am independent because i put my trust in god, not in man. i believe that trump is guilty of what they say he did. i believe he started the insurrection when he told them to march down to the capital and he stopped when he told them to go home. if you notice, when he finally told them to go home, they turned around and they left because he was controlling them.

then he says that people should be held accountable for what they do. well what about him? he should be held accountable for what he has done. this has never happened in the united states of america, ever. host: let me hear from kevin in san antonio, democratic caller. kevin? caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. nobody is above the law. the idea that the fbi would try to make up something against somebody is just shameful. trump is a correct and the fbi would not make up stuff. if they come after you, you've done a crime. host: kevin in san antonio. we will return to this conversation in a little bit here on the "washington journal". up next, we will dig in to the tax provisions and the democrats inflation reduction act with garrett watson for the tax foundation and then

later pbs frontline correspondent ramita navai discusses the new documentary. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearing investigating the attack on the capitol. go online to watch the latest of the hearings, weavings and the coverage on the attacks and subsequent investigations since january 26, 2021. we will have reactions from members of congress. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it life. --live. ♪ >> at least six presidents

recorded conversations while in office. hear this during season two of the podcast presidential recordings. >> they are part private conversations, and 100% unfiltered. >> the main thing is my heart goes out to those people. [indiscernible] spent a little more time in a little us in being president. i didn't know what they were doing. >> find a season two on the c-span now mobile apps or wherever you get your podcasts. >> if you are enjoying big tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen.

but tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at book tv.org. television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is garrett watson senior policy analyst for the tax foundation here to talk about the democratic proposal the inflation reduction act. the tax provision specifically in this legislation. garrett watson, you did an analysis of this bill before there were changes made to appease senator sinema any talk about the changes and your analysis? guest: there were several changes made over the last couple of days before the act passed the senate. one was to raise taxes on interests, of conversation by

certain folks in the financial industry was removed from that legislation on request of the senator. focus on smaller changes to a proposed book tax that would be applied to large corporations as well as some other large changes root -- related to the financial side. this legislation would raise revenue and reduce the deficit by about 300 begin dollars over the next 10 years but it would come at the expense of lower growth because of the tax hike. every day, people to know about the after-tax income due to the prior health care subsidies and energy credits in the bill over the next 10 years but we do find in the long run because a lot of that expires you have a lower income tax income because of those higher taxes as well. host: how does this work but it would impact american taxpayers?

overall the higher taxes are the corporations and high income individuals. we have to remember who actually pays the tax directly is not necessarily the person who bears the burden of the tax. what we find is that workers and people who own corporate stocks in their retirement accounts are going to bear part of the burden of this corporate tax change through lower wages and lower values in their retirement and investment accounts. most of this will be borne by higher income individuals. it is still a trade-off that needs to be highlighted. host: who are those people the that have retirement funds that this would impact them substantially enough? guest: about 40% of americans are more that shown retirement accounts.

they are going to see some that will be affected. after-tax income in the long run, it's a bit higher for households at the top because they do have more stock overall. i think the central part of it, what ends up happening it's been health care subsidies, the drug provisions but some of the stuff does expire and that does make a difference. there needs to be a new conversation especially in 2025 and 2032 when a lot of this is expiring about how to expand that. or if that becomes permanent. we will have to go back to the tax guide and think about the trade-offs there. host: what are the provisions you are talking about? increase but as 1% tax on buybacks. does this impact, is there a way for people who do stuff to pass

this along? or is is going to truly put those who do, those executives who do stock buybacks? guest: the 1% tax on the value of stock buyback every year and that is going to be remitted from the firms themselves. it's going to have a similar effect by paying additional tax on a buyback it makes a decision not to engage in big -- buybacks also to invest or remit returns to shareholders. most of that, many of which are higher income overall. i think the big question there is novel. it has not been tried before it there are already questions about how domestic firms might be hit versus foreign firms they may not be affected by this. there are questions that need to

be ironed out. host: how much revenue does this bring in? guest: so it rings back about $80 billion, that about washes out with the other changes in the legislation. overall the reduction in the deficit will be about the same coming out of the senate then it was when it was originally pitched. host: which is what? guest: about $300 billion. a big part of that includes higher enforcement. that includes $200 billion in additional revenue. the official scorekeeper expects to bring it because enforcement. 100 billion dollars from the text changes. host: let's talk about other things you have mentioned. the expanded health insurance premium tax credit. explain a little more, how does this work? guest: as part of the rescue

plan act that was past the beginning of 2021, there was an extension through an expansion of health care subsidies that were initially set up. the challenge was at about 400% of the poverty line which is still very much working class americans. earning more money means a short drop off in subsidies. so part of that legislation, there was expansion of the benefits both in that income range proclaimed subsidies on health-care exchanges to more health insurance. what's happening now is it has been scheduled to expire or has expired and they are looking to continue to provide those benefits and this legislation is through the end of 2025. without that change it would expire the end of this year, and most people would see an increase in their premium because that benefit would no

longer be available. that raises the question of what are we going to do in 2025? are we going to continue to provide it? it talks about the ballpark of $25 million a year. they might have to reconsider at that point with -- which lines up with other tax tinges. host: let's ask our view is here to join and in the conversation. republican, democrats, independents the phone lines are on your screen begin dialing in. garrett watson is here to take your questions on this inflation reduction act. again on the energy, tax credits for buying electric and hydrogen vehicles and making energy efficient home improvements. tell us the impact of it. guest: the inflation reduction act provides a little over $50

billion in tax credits for renewable and green energy of production of the energy and investing in more energy invested -- energy efficient homes and cars. as well as everyday consumers. they want to follow well-known -- 7500 dollars for cars that are electric or pop plug-in hybrid that is going to be a big one. the other thing i did was a lot of these credits expire every year. there is a lot of uncertainty for consumers and firms trying to invest. most of them extend through 2031 or 2032. the -- there is stability there. after 20 to five a lot of this is mark technology neutral design which means incentivizing any given particular technology like solar or wind. you want to incentivize

production. so, that's going to be a shift there. the trade-off is there are not a lot of permanent -- there are concerns. we will have to watch and see how that is picked up and what the impact is. host: tax credits for companies that build new sources of emission free electricity. we are talking about wind turbines, solar panels, expand tax credits for coal and tech -- plants that use carbon capture. all of that expires after a while? guest: a lot of it does there are two credits and investment critics that are longer-term that are targets for reducing emissions. those will continue until we see reductions in emissions. all the other credits individuals might be relying on expire in 20 32, 2033.

in the next 10 years the responsibility that didn't expect -- exist prior. sometimes they apply retroactively. host: to our viewers at this is your chance to call in with your questions and comments about the tax provisions. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. and independents (202) 748-8002. you can also text with the question, include your first name, city and state. (202) 748-8003. chris in san antonio, republican. hi chris. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask mr. watson on the text, the revenue that's going to come in from the increased irs agents they get to squeeze people, is that going -- i watch the c-span over the weekend. is that going to be auditing people over 400,000?

or does that include auditing people under 400,000? guest: that's a good question. the bill does try to see that the intention here is not the target the 400,000. this will not be aimed at those earnings less than 400,000 but that is pretty hard to track over time. i think there is a reason why they can't guarantee that it may not affect anyone part of that income threshold. a lot of tension will be at the top 1% who have profitable force of income, partnerships. there are a lot of text questions there. the last couple of years, there are still opportunities to improve customer service and taxpayer services as well as just more transparency about what is going on in the irs. most of them have, the artists not a lot of ages -- it can't

focus on the enforcement side. or it won't work. host: i want our viewers to listen to the top democrats senator braun white. he was on the floor defending more resources for the irs. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> our colleagues on the other sides say somehow this is going to target the working people. another member of the committee, that's just not going to happen. the reason it's not, as my colleagues on the finance committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. they pay taxes with every single paycheck. it's right there on their paycheck. everybody knows what taxes they pay and should they be engaged in any questionable activity

showing up on these forms. they are not the problem. but as we have been told again and again by independent experts , democrats, republicans and independents. we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. they don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. after republican budget cuts we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the american people for billions of dollars every year. the current commissioner who joins many democratic commissioners the current one is a republican appointee. estimated the text owed not collected could be as much as $1 trillion per year. we believe that the agency ought

to have the resources to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking check -- tax cheats at the top. host: your reaction to what he had to say on the senate floor? guest: there was a good point. when we look at the tax cap, which is the term for basically the difference between taxes imposed and owed. the amount they actually pay. most is not from the average wage earner. a lot of them do their taxes and figure out what is going on there for the most part. based on the differences between taxes paid and taxes owed comes from the top when you are looking at partnerships, investment income, because reported to the irs and taxpayers subtract. it gets trickier to deal with

but i think there is a point there. i want to add there are very real tax concerns particularly for those who end up planning the earned income tax credit there are complications that in most of these folks are not trying to evade taxes or do anything incorrectly. it is just very complicated. that can make it challenging for them to plan the credits correctly and what we need their support from the irs as well as the implication of the credits so the don't end up in an audit or investigation that is unwarranted. but that is an important part of the story as well. it is paired well with enforcement. as i mentioned earlier someone said it doesn't make sense. it's a real effort to modernize the irs, customer service of irs, everybody is focused on the

time on hold to get a hold of someone. it's the same questions taxpayers may have before they ran into tax problems. i think that is very complement three. it could be bipartisan depending on how moving forward after this bill. host: james in florida, democratic color. good morning to you, go ahead. caller: good morning. do you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: my question is, there was a center -- senator who mentioned the irs hired 87,000. let me finish what i'm going to say, 87,000 agents who go after the cheaters. and i'm thinking, wait a minute. there is only 83,000 agents that work for the irs right now.

is it going to be 87,000 additional employees? or is it going to be 4000 new agents? can you clarify that, please? guest: that's a good question. the projection is the irs would hire up to 87,000 full-time employees though not all of them will be auditors. a lot of them would go to customer service as i mentioned. a portion of them, some of them would be going to auditing. various other parts of the agency that work with taxpayers and so that is sort of the all in number. but it is important to plan a very real increase to the irs it will increase overall funding given the next 10 years. the other thing to watch for is you're going to see this uptick in resources and faculty irs but the funding is a one-time thing.

10, 15 years from now what is that going to mean for all those additional agents hired, for taxpayers who have additional resourcing is there going to be for the conversation about what should be the stable long-term funding? advocates of this change say this is just getting it back to a baseline we had a decade or two prior. host: james now we got back to you. after you heard the answer, what is your reaction? caller: is it still, 50% increase in use at a different. my understanding that right? guest: the funding will be higher, 50% higher for the next 50 years not all of them will be

auditors. weatherford maine, independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i just got to ask you the republicans tax credit that was a middle-class text credit during the trump administration, what happens to that? we were supposed to have tax returns period i have been sitting my tax return. i'm in a lot of trouble for the last three years. what happened to that? what happened to that? you come up with all these facts. let me ask [indiscernible] what are you smiling out? host: we will get an answer. garrett watson, go ahead.

guest: we work on nonpartisan policies to encourage americans. i think that is really the focus of our work. thinking about the impact of the 2017 text on every american what we found was most americans would see a text that because of a combination of the lower tax rate, the higher standard duction while other changes that happened in the tax law. two things to point out here one is text law doesn't expire in 2025 so folks will be in -- seeing differences in their taxes. we will have to see what to do about that when we get there. things are still very complicated. people are not at a point where they can fill out a postcard despite that being a goal there is not a lot of art -- there is

still a lot of work that needs to be done. particularly in the economy or working it makes their tech situation pretty complicated. there is a lot of work to be done there. a lot of ideas floating around. that leads to pressure leading up to 2025. host: here is a text from a viewer. do you believe removing the carried interest money made by people who invest other people's money was the right thing to do? guest: that's a good question i think it is a subject for debate not just politically but also amongst text all. the big discussion here is to boil it down, what kind of income is this? is this more like investment income or return from investment? as opposed to a lot of people know. you get along -- lower tax rate.

or it is more similar to working your everyday job. it is a form of laboring some. the argument on both sides about that, i can see both arguments. it seems like policymakers strived to force middle path. they say you have to hold onto that carried interest for a longer. of time. right now, it's a few years spending it up to five years and potentially the inflation -- i think that's going to be topic. it should be a change in the holding. or maybe the provisions have it right. the last i mentioned is is going to be debate on how it might affect the private equity and financial industry. i can look not as a it's a big incentive to invest and in

american start up. that's important when we are trying to teach china and other figure powers. people are very responsive to all types of it. overall, part of this legislation replaces the text hike elsewhere and offsets that. overall it didn't make a big dent out of the revenue. host: in other text from joe in d.c. what tax proposals did not make it into the final bill? mike, go ahead. guest: there were many proposals on both sides. most of them didn't make it. everything from higher corporate tax rate which is a strong part

of the proposal. it's pretty complicated and white reaching to propose capital gains are treated in this country. i heard the big thing that will remain the corporate rate there is still a pretty large debate about where the rate should be. first we argue that we should keep that rate where it is or lower but others argue may be issued go up to 25 or 20%. that was part of this debate for a long time. there are also discussions about where it should stand. the top rate is 37%. democrats opposed to is that up. continues to be a conversation particularly the reese's change at the end and the last thing i want to mention is the session as well, the status of the $10,000 cap on the deduction for home and state local taxes. democrats have been passionate

and argued there needs to be a more generous tax there because it is hiring some folks. that is something we will have to watch and see if that comes back up. i think all of those are going to be an opportunity for discussion depending on where the hall hits over the next few years. host: minnesota, republican. guest:, anybody that thinks fit being taxed. if there is a loophole, they are following the law they are not cheating. if it's not possible, it's not possible. if anyone is foolish to think that if you do, if it increases their taxes is going to not be tied to their consumers. secondly the idea that this

87,000 new agents plus the still bait irs just ordered 450,000 guns in -- and a 5 million rounds of me addition that doesn't select they are about to get into the service industry and why does the irs need these weapons? then the fbi and justice department rating and ex-president's home and have no criminal charges under the guise of some kind of documents. host: we are going to return to that subject later on. garrett watson for focus on the text questions that you raised. guest: on the corporate tech site, i think the caller has a point. there needs to be a difference. take advantage of what already exists and within the tax code many of which are tax incentives and text credits.

incentivize certain behavior, that's really important to plan out. a lot of this stuff is dr. girl -- about an agreed on. both were individuals and corporations. we need to know the difference between that and the evasion which is where and actually a lot harder to deal with because you are dealing with those who have not been a part of the situation. it's trying to circumvent a lot of the preferences in the code. i think that would be continued to talk about that. the irs agent site, i have to say it needs to be emphasized that in addition to auditors and to the penalty approach or folks

trying to evade taxes it's not an important part of it and during hey, if i have beaten -- if i speed in this intersection i'm going to get pulled over. if they are evading their taxes and not fulfilling responsibilities under the law, they are going to be scrutinized. that encourages voluntary compliance. we need to have an agency that states they are not going to be subject to disproportionate investigation or subject to penalties and that they are helped with that agency. the enforcement with customer service and with education think -- those are important parts of the conversation we can just be focused on the corporate side. host: let's hear from dan in massachusetts. caller: hello, thank you for

having me on. i have a question so your guest supports west complicated tax systems, is that correct? guest: correct. caller: and i guess he also supports on, let's see. more simple tax code and do you support this bill? guest: as it is true, there are trade-offs, right. higher incomes for certain people in the long run but it comes at the expense of economic growth is the bottom line. host: danny, are you so there do you have a follow-up? caller: that was a really good answer so you are for this legislation or not?

we cannot propose legislation as nonprofit paired this disorder were we are at. we try to focus on the education side of things to prevent this so they can make their own determination. folks may think about it differently and i respect people who -- we just don't do it as a nonprofit. host: new jersey, democrat color. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning, i have a question for mr. watson. host: we are listening. caller: whenever i get a request from one of the democratic candidates that i support i asked them how much you don't have a charity that i contribute to instead of having my contributions the cash of all.

if you see any republican, they also have security the used fund their campaigns with is anything in the new law going to clamp down that abuse? it bugs me that the money is leading to the downfall of these people. >> there is nothing in the act the changes the status of up loadable. i will mention that there has been, there were changes more broadly as far as some of the pandemic which is above the line. that might come back up in the future and if not over the next couple of years may be we will have use on that. particularly provisions and i think that's going to be in an area per people want to look at to change our contributions and

how they are treated. nothing in this legislation would change other thing. host: more information you can go to tax foundation. org garrett watson senior panelists thank you very much. host: we will take a break. when we come back, on the 915 a.m. eastern time pbs frontline correspondent ramita navai discusses a documentary. but first, coming up we want to return to your reaction to the news yesterday. the fbi searched the florida home of former president donald trump. there is the lines on your screen. sort in. ♪ now available in the c-span shop

c-span's 2022 congressional directory. order a copy this compact book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today or scan the code with their smart phone. every c-span shop purchase help supports the nonprofit organization. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happen in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime.

at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of the conversations are season to of c-span's spot get -- podcast presidential recordings. there are private conversations, part deliberations and 100 sent unfiltered. buttocks the main thing is it will pass. breaks my heart, my heart goes out to those people but the best of intentions are over. i'm sure you know food little less time being president i would've kicked their bets out but i didn't know what they were doing. >> find this on season two wherever you get your podcasts. host: "washington journal" continues. welcome back your reaction to

the fbi getting a warrant to search the home of former president donald trump. ice nothing like this is ever happen to a president of the united states before. after working in cooperating with the relevant government agency this unannounced rate on my house was not necessary or appropriate. it is prosecutorial, misconduct, weaponization of the justice system and text by the radical left democrats who don't want me to run for president in 2024. that is based on recent polls and who would likewise do anything to stop republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. he goes on to write the even broken to my safe. what is the difference between this and watergate? democrats broke into the home of the 40 for president of the united states. the former president's son eric

was on sean hannity program last night. here is what he had to say about what was in the boxes taken by the fbi. [video clip] >> my father always kept clippings, press clippings. he would in newspaper articles, pictures, two from us. when my mom passed away a couple weeks ago he still had all the notes over the years that she had ever written him. it's a beautiful thing. he had boxes, right? he is very clever, if you want to search anything come right ahead. it was an open door policy elf all of a sudden 30 agents distant upon it. this didn't come from the field office in palm beach florida this can from one place and one building and that is the white house in washington, d.c. they want to attack a view that they feel is bidens greatest threat.

you know what, he had a strong country. people realized he was an effective president you see biden ray now i want is getting circled by military planes as we stay here and speak now. you have russia ukraine which is a disaster. you have everything happening in iran which is a disaster. all the things you talk about, we are not respected by anybody around the world. our economy is garbage. and you're worried that donald trump will come back and and when this very easily. host: according to the washington post reporting, the search by the fbi according to many news reports is related to the national archives recasting under the presidents record act documents from white house, official records of the presidents tenure in the white house. that is with the search is related to.

the washington post as he was not -- it was not immediately clear on monday white fbi agents related to the documents many months after the national archives received 15 boxes of material. a sitting president has the top classification authority in the government you are giving the person more leeway than most employees deciding on what is and isn't justified. advisors speaking on the condition of anonymity say he mishandled documents for years archly by ripping them up. describe an ad hoc process at the end of his term in which the family took boxes that should have been to the national archives. the archives only learned some of the material was missing after it tried to locate items. for cataloging, so after the national archives receive these boxes from the former president's people. they realize more were missing

and in an answer to the house oversight and reform committee said they started working with the stresses department. from the wall street journal to conduct such a search the fbi would need to convince a judge that there was reasonable -- reason to believe there may be evidence of a crime to be found at that location. such a move would require sign-ups from the highest echelons of the justice department they would not say what role the attorney general merrick garland played the new york times notes this morning the search itself does not mean, does not conclude that the former president committed a crime. mary grace, springs florida democratic color you are up first caller:. good morning. thank you for explaining all of that because i have been watching you since this morning and it seems like i'm calling

the independent and republic on and some claim to be democrats but they are still in the insurrection mode. it's very said to me that no one is the buffalo fall. i don't understand for the party that says they believe in law and order, they should really be happy that we are getting to the bottom of things. if because of the fact that trump has put us through so much , we are still suffering and have repercussions from him. that percentage that just won't give up and i really, really am -- i want to hold accountable mitch mcconnell, kevin mccarthy, the list goes on of these senators and house of representatives who have fueled

the fire and they make it harder for people like us. i have to obey the law, why shouldn't they obey the law? i don't care if you are republican or democrat. we don't have to obey the law. -- they have to obey the law. i would hope that some kind of of tiffany will happen with this republican party because it's not going to help us. host: any to get other calls in. james, south carolina. caller: think you, greta for your call. americans are fed up and furious now, more than ever. there are 37 thousand emails were not located. we want to see that still. hillary stealing another million dollars furniture, things from the white house she was forced to return. that wasn't publicized too much

in the medium was it? also of course that whole russia thing dossier we need to find out just how much clinton had to do with that. also, we need to know more well happened -- what all happened with the afghanistan debacle? your next guest is going took about how women and girls are suffering there now after bidens orders there. the iranian issues we are forcing now -- facing out and the whole economy. gas prices in decline. our president said we need to do something. call americans will deal with that.

host: james, you are breaking up. caller: top of the morning to you. you are doing a wonderful job. you let somebody talk longer than the others because some people be talking but you have a lot of people where they really are not democrats but they are talking on the democrat line. we already know that's a joke. we already know you were the 3% and we over in to that. they try to act like they are democrat to hold up our line. if you commit a crime you should be ready to do the time. trump was told repeatedly but if the republican party tensioner over going to have is hearings on jill biden. that's all they're going to do. they are still stuck back in trump started talking about that a long time ago.

so people, get over it. trump is going to jail one way or another. thank you, greta. you have a blessed day. host: market, spokane washington, but dependent. caller: i think people are totally missing the point on this. no ex-president should have the ever -- should ever have the fbi come to their house and do this. this is just a really bet they for america because that should never happen. ever. it doesn't matter if it's president obama, president bush, no ex-president should have this happen to them in their home. if they can do this to them, they can do is to anybody. this is not a partisan issue. this is an issue that should never have happened like this. the fbi does not have the right to do this. host: we spoke with kim wehle he

the legal contributor and also a law professor at a university. here is what she had to say about the search yesterday. guest: it's not a legal term so it's not a term i would use. i think it's a bit incendiary and misleading. this was the execution of a warrant under the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. george the third, the king of england at the time of the revolution had the power to issue what are called general warrants were his officers could go into homes and just read them. it was a point by donald trump through the justice department and to a federal judge and mr. sanders we call it probable cause but there has to be an

affidavit of articulating evidence under oath that demonstrates to the judge that there is probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime on the premises. the warrant has to be very particularized. the fbi or the people who conduct the search are not allowed to grab things they want. if there is evidence of a crime in plain sight they can take that but after, even after what happened yesterday there is a very careful process to protect materials that aren't covered by the warrant. so, you know, that sets a rhetoric. it is a politics to call it a rate but this is really the justice system under the constitution functioning as it should. the fact that it happens to be donald trump really is because he didn't comply. it looks like the president dental record, we all have to have responsibility for our -- for our actions.

if he didn't want to see anything like this happen he should have complied with the law. host: he said this was unnecessary. that he had been cooperating with all government agencies. cop -- guest: that is his point of view. he did take 15 boxes. we know that upon. and we also know reportedly they contains communications for examples with korean dictator we also know from cassidy hutchinson top aide to mark meadows who is donald trump's chief of staff that she witnessed mark meadows burning documents in the white house so donald trump's word is no longer something that people can rely on many people love him for that but that is not how the system of justice works. things have to go predicated and verified.

with thousands of lives -- wise out of the white house donald trump was the ability to stand behind his word. he is no abe lincoln. i have no access to the warrant. i don't know why the justice department and fbi decided they had to do this in order to preserve any records for fear that may be they be destroyed or something could happen to them. but donald trump's statement is unfortunately not something that i put a tent of weight on when it comes to the various levels of independent oversight that has to happen for yesterday's historic event to occur. host: you mentioned the records what do you think the questions was asking when the fbi went to him or her to get this warrant granted? guest: this is a very high level. the fact that it is of former president means this judge wanted to see extremely high

level of proof that there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime there. the fact that records were taken out of the white house, that has been public for a long time. that would not be enough to trigger this kind of action. so speculation isn't really helpful in this moment but i can rest assured that this judge, when kicking and screaming so to speak that really put the justice department and the fbi through the paces and we don't know what additional evidence there is. for example alex to turned over his text messages which included messages related to january 6. we don't know what those contain. mark meadows is in hot water potentially criminally after other people within trump's orbit, we don't know who is talking to the justice department. it is impossible in this moment

for the public to know what was in the affidavit that justified a federal judge's mind and in the mind of merrick garland into many other people that were involved in this process. it's historic and politically very troubling event that occurred yesterday. host: what happens next? guest: what happens next is the materials be sorted. that is, the warrant only justifies taking materials that is articulated in the warrant. there is also something called the plain view doctrine. those of you who were there for hours of if they saw evidence that appeared to show a crime even if it was not on the same topic that is in the warrant they can take that. they can take that material but there will be a sorting process and presumably fresh eyes on this to make sure that nothing was taken illegally or outside the scope of the warrant.

the justice department will continue with the investigation reportedly it has been going on since the spring about the taking of those records. we know there are other investigations. there is the january 6 investigation, we know they are investigating the fraudulent state of lectures appointed by donald trump at there is a grand jury in georgia investigating what we heard. we heard donald trump asking brad raffensperger to find 11,870 votes that did not exist. the search yesterday related to the other investigations, it is unclear whether they found anything yesterday relating to the president's documents and if they could be shared. they are centering around donald trump and his inner circle.

frequently the fault lies with donald trump not with the public servants that are doing their duty according to the constitution. we all have to stop at red lights and we have to be careful to cross the street. and we have to pay our taxes and it just because you are in the white house i think it is even more so during the white house those roles that we should follow and if you don't they're going to push back. host: kimberly from earlier this morning. the reaction from republican vice turner, type report -- top republican tweeting out that he is demanding an immediate briefing by the fbi director regarding the national security risk that allegedly rose to the level of ordering a rate on the residence of former president. and the leader of the republican party any the house, kevin mccarthy pleading to the

attorney general preserve your documents and clear your counters saying republicans will get the majority in november. they will be investigating this. frank in idaho, thanks for hitting on the line. caller: she is the same one who is telling us there was collusion with russia. her whole opinion means nothing. another thing is i'm so disgusted and ashamed of my country that the fbi is now -- it's a continuation of the witchhunt. that's all it is. host: what is your take on this? caller: i enjoyed -- agree with that first color. the only thing i would add is 20 months later and donald trump

has not retired yet. every day in this country people are locked up and are victims. donald trump should have been locked up on january 7, that is what i would add. thank you very much. host: john, minnesota, independent. your reaction to the news that the fbi searched the florida home of the former president. go ahead. caller: i agree with mark from either oregon or washington earlier. this is very scary. at this point we don't know if any actual presidents but it is all one-sided. you have people any chauffeur a year and a half and you have someone spending crazy --

spending money like crazy in killing people and they just left them out. it's a very scary day for me and the united states. the department of justice needs cleaned out. there needs to be about 10,000 people fired. because this is just not legally fair to the american public. that's it. host: robin, pennsylvania, republican. caller: hi, how are you. i just want to say this period the fbi is dirty. they were dirty from the beginning of donald trump's presidency. they set him up. they tried to do everything they could against him. they have all the truth in the world about joe biden, the people hunter biden was with.

they got the video professor laptop with everything on it. this is ridiculous the fbi needs to be cleaned out. they are 30 and the cia too. they are all in this together and it's a shame all these democrats you're going to be sorry because one of these days is going to be you. the irs, they're going to come for you too. what are you going to do then? it's a sad day for this country. host: bernard is a democrat in arizona. you are next. caller: yes ma'am i like to listen to all the ones that is the ex-president thing. my favorite has went to jail or even owned -- don't put it off. keep talking.

thank you. host: this is maverick i'm pretty sure that the fbi comes knocking with the search warrant you have done something wrong. i'm pretty sure if you ask for a pardon, you have done something wrong. i'm pretty sure if you continue -- continuously plead the fifth you have done something wrong. from the "washington journal" officials can say -- face up to five years in prison from removing classified materials to an unauthorized location. the penalty for breaking other laws also includes this qualification from holding federal office including the presidency. second in new jersey your take? good morning. caller: everyone is talking crime, crime bit as the gentleman said before the crime in the city is out of control and adding the irs, i hope they

are able to monitor our 2 million comers who have come across the border and also not seal because the government hate's competition. host: paul, host: paul, democratic caller. hi. caller: good morning. sitting up here in the mountains and listening this morning to c-span and also doing some internet searches, it is so easy to distinguish between talks, viewers, who are dedicated to trump, one person, one person who took illegally boxing of documents. he shouldn't have taken them and everybody knows that. they excoriated hillary clinton for supposedly having some

secret documents on her emails. but yet this guy takes 24 boxes down and the trump world goes nuts. but they all watch fox. they are not getting the truth. they are only getting what fox wants them to. it's so easy to hear because they are all repeating fox talking points. is it illegal to steal from the government or not? it either is or it isn't. and if it's not, then we can all just go down to any armory and start stealing stuff and taking it home. he is no better than me. i'm the same age. born the same year. he is no better than me. i'm an american. he's an american. if i break the law, i get arrested. he breaks the law, he gets arrested. simple, thank you. host: brian, louisiana, independent. caller: yes, ma'am. of course i'm -- i'm sitting here looking at these republicans and talking about law enforcement and subpoenas

and search warrants. and attorney general for the united states. who is going to go after the a.g. for tennessee when they lie on the search warrant and they actually killed breonna taylor. no one is bringing up law enforcement then. exactly when it comes back the blue except when it's inconvenient to them. when they riding on the -- rioting on the d.c. capitol. i don't know what to call it. host: quickly. the attorney general announced last week an investigation into the law enforcement in that very warrant you are talking about for breonna taylor's apartment. caller: i understand that. but that's democrats. that's the justice department. i don't see none of your viewers on here from the republican party talking about that injustice. about the cop who lied on that search warrant. and someone actually got killed. and the outside protesting in

front of his mara lag mar-a-lago and flags. where is this anger coming from? host: understand your point. james, albuquerque, new mexico. republican. caller: i'm not a republican. i'm a conservative. and the democrats are not democrats. they are communists. it's one-sided, january 6 is no new process of january 6. all one-sided. this government in place right now is one-sided. the communists. we are living in a banana republic. this kimberly wehle, she's just a hack. she's from abc news. she's one-sided. she's behind this also when she says we know, we know this. we know that. she's a communist. and that's the problem with our government right now. desantis needs to activate the national guard in florida and secure mara lag kwhroe --

mar-a-lago against the communist government with the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. people don't understand that. this is what happened during the civil war. these people are taking over. this is why the second amendment is in place because of tyranny. people need to have half a brain. i know that people on the other side who are the communists, who are the democrats, joe biden, hillary clinton. you could go down the list. they are not democrats. host: what evidence do you have that this is a conspiracy? caller: what evidence do they have against donald trump with russia, russia, russia. nothing. where's the due process in the january 6 committee? cheney is not a republican. she's a communist. two republicans on this committee. it's unbelievable that people in washington, d.c. that don't understand what the people of the united states -- you got a guy that got on there, a black guy, could tell with his voice,

he said red next. where's the racism from the black people that call other people names? host: john, in roswell, new mexico. democratic caller. caller: yes. i don't know what's going up there in albuquerque. your last caller. there are consequences from not enough water. listen up, america. trump is simply history. he's no more. the xxx, most toxic we ever had. do not ever forget, my fellow americans. he was ushered into office by the russians. proven by our f.b.i., our intelligence agencies. all of them. all of them. including mossad out of israel. including another place called mi-6 out of britain.

another place called scotland yard. they call said president trump, xxx trump was ushered into office by the russians. make no doubt about it. this man is history in the united states. this is his last standing. goodbye, trump. goodbye. host: john, falls church, virginia. independent. john. your opinion. caller: good morning. i just see what's happening and they talk about january 6 as an insurrection. as a protest. this is what an insurrection really looks like. this is actual action being taken against a leader of the political opposition of the current administration. i just beg people to put down your tribal colors and identifies for 10 minutes and use your brain. and see what's happening.

this is what happens in foreign countries. this is how is governments come in and take -- a party will come in and take over power and maintain power and these are the things that they do to hold on to that. so, please, just put down your tribal identity for 10 minutes and just realize how dangerous this is. host: do you have a tribal identify, john? caller: i'm independent. i try to just put all of that -- two parties is ridiculous. who agrees on all the issues with one party? that's so absurd. the entire premise. we are all individual thinking people. you would hope. no, i don't have an identify. i just am -- identity. i'm just an american and really scary.

host: stop there. listen to recent interview with nbc's lefter holt that the stoeupblg did. he was asked about in general terms the investigation that the justice department is doing and how they conduct it in relation to what happened on january 6. >> they said we have been moving urgently since the very beginning. we have a huge number of prosecutors and agents working on these cases. it is inevitable in this kind of vision that there will be speculation about what we are doing, who we are investigating, what our theories are. the reason there is this speculation and uncertainty is that some of the tenet what we do as prosecutors and investigators is do it outside of the public eye. we do that for two important reasons. one is to protect the civil liberties of people and events we are investigating.

and second is assure the success and integrity of our investigation. host: from a recent interview with the attorney general nbc. news reports, the search by the f.b.i. yesterday at the mar-a-lago club not related to the january 6 investigation that the justice department is doing. according to news reports, this is related to the request by the national archives under the present records act to get official records and documents of the former president's tenure during his four years. that they were given 15 boxes. when they cataloged that they realized more was missing. then they started working with the justice department. there is more answers, more questions, more answers to come. this is a developing story. sharon in iowa, republican. caller: hi. i just wanted to -- first of all

i like caller john from virginia. talking about the tribal identity. i am a registered republican right now, but i was a democrat for many, many years. the reason i switched my party affiliation because i got involved in the platform at the caucus level. i want to talk about what happened yesterday. the security, if it would have been at the capitol for january 6, that donald trump requested, january 6 would never have happened. and i guess they said it wasn't good optics. what do you think the optics are about what happened yesterday? this is ridiculous. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: annie, south carolina. democratic caller. caller: i would just like to say that i honestly think what's happening in america is really scary right now. it's scary because you have people on both sides thinking that they are speaking from

intelligence, thinking that they are speaking from honesty, from what is facts. but in fact a lot of these people are getting their news from one source only. if people would just, like the guy from i believe it was albuquerque, if they just use their brain they would start looking for news in many levels. not just one source. we need to follow the laws. the f.b.i. doesn't go in and raid a place unless they have cause. trump has given this country a lot of cause for investigating him. the republicans have a lot to hide. and that's why they are not

being up front with what they know. they are hiding a lot of stuff. host: annie -- annie from "politico," you and others may be interested. the florida raid, which one of the people said took, quote, hours, resulted in the seizure of paper records, according to one person familiar with the development, who also noted that trump attorney was present during the search. it was a historic step by the justice department and f.b.i. to investigate the residence of a former president who is battling an increasingly complex thicket of legal threats. no former president, particularly one who is openly considering another bid for the oval office, has faced such a public law enforcement action. which immediately led to calls among his alley the for recriminations, and even the elimination of federal law enforcement agencies. it was also noted in the press

this morning that the former president was not in florida when this search took place. he was in new york. collin in wisconsin, independent. hear from you. caller: ok. first of all thank you for having me on your show. and second, previous caller says, trump does need some incriminating evidence against him for what happened on january 6 where he was just sitting in the oval office dining room and watching it happen. host: all right. john, in pennsylvania, republican. hi. caller: hi. good morning. most of your viewers, mostly democrats, really suffer from t.d.s., trump derangement syndrome. if you compare records, trump was outstanding. everything he did -- economy was

working. he tried to do something about illegal immigration or illegals entering the country. everything biden is doing is the complete opposite. and we have inflation now. it's obvious -- it's like a picture on the wall. it's staring you right in the face. i see how you can get around that. the record speaks for itself. as far as this raid, ok, it's totally unconstitutional. joe biden is weaponized the f.b.i. i believe like other callers the f.b.i. should be dismantled. i just have a question for c-span, how can some of your callers, they sound mostly minority type, get away with saying racist red neck? how can a group of people call another group racist on your show? i don't understand that. you have a good day. host: all right. we are going to take a break. when we come back we are going to turn our attention to a new

pbs frontline documentary called "afghanistan undercover." ramita navai will join us. the correspondentant went undercover in afghanistan to talk about the taliban's crackdown on women and girls in that country. we'll be right back. >> 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're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, as it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> c pan is unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's

invasion of ukraine bringing you the latest from the president and other white house official, the pentagon, and state department, as well as congress. we also have international perfect spebgt kwreufts from the united nations -- perspectives from united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks. c-span now free only app and c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. and week days at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio.

c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined this morning by ramita navai, she's a british iranian investigative journalists, documentary filmmaker and author. she is the pbs frontline correspondent for their new documentary, "afghanistan undercover." ramita navai, let's begin with what you found out when you did this investigation. guest: well, yeah. we found out that there's a lot going on that the taliban does not want out and that is not being reported. i think one of the biggest stories we uncovered was that in the province in the west of the country many young girls and women were going missing or being taken from the streets by

taliban intelligence agents. and they were being impliesonned for so-called moral crimes. so leaving a husband, run away from home, being in a car with someone you are not related to. and the most important part of that story was that none of these imprisonments were being recorded, officially recorded, registered by the taliban. the taliban were keeping these stories quiet. we also found out again this is in the province in the west of the country that suicide rates have rocketed. this is another story they don't want out. so we spoke to doctors who told me that they are -- told that they are not allowed to register certain suicide cases. most of these suicide cases are women killing themselves. in the north of the country, we realized there is very little news coming out from the

provinces. i can pass as an afghan and my director, she wore local clothes, it went ph*epbt we could access loot of the country pretty hard to get. to we could easily get through checkpoints and i speak one of the languages. we found in northern provinces there is forced marriage. this is where parents force their children to get married. this is taliban fighters abducting girls and young women and taking them for marriage. and they usually turn up at the family's home, the parents don't grant permission, they take the girls and beat the family up. host: what did the taliban promise when they took over? guest: well, they promised to protect women's rights. they promised education. they promised that women would be allowed to continue to work.

and it was in the very first press conference that they said all of this. and they knew the world was watching. and of course they know that the world uses their treatment of women as a litmus test on their governance and human rights. host: are there women and men in afghanistan that are fighting back? what is that like? guest: yes, there are. i have been doing this job 20 years now and i met some of the bravest people i have ever met. they were women. so we met one underground network of women who run secret safe houses. and these safe houses are for women and families who are fleeing the taliban. often from the provinces. the provinces there's nothing. there's very little network there. very little safety. this is like an underground railroad says tell -- system. they end up in kabul and are in touch with this secret

underground network. these women running it were young. earley to mid 20's. every single one of these women had fled the taliban themselves either forced marriage, or retribution as a blood feud. and these women were in danger constantly yet were running this network helping to save others. host: talk about the tactics that they would use to keep themselves and the people that they were helping safe. guest: when they are around the city, they have to visit all their base houses, especially when they were taking families to them and they were housing them, they would distribute food. people who flee danger are left destitute often. they leave with nothing. they would take taxies, change cars many times to make sure they weren't being monitored.

they are in constant touch with each other. on a messaging app. someone always knew where they were. they had location devices. checkpoints now throughout the city and throughout the country. this is an interesting thing because on one hand afghanistan is -- i reported from afghanistan a couple of times in the last 20 years. and you can drive -- for the first time in 20 years you can drive everywhere because there are no i.e.d.'s, there are no bombs going off, there are no battle lines. but there are taliban checkpoints. these taliban checkpoints do stop cars and they do take telephones, check telephones. not so in the city. but in the city they still have to get through them. while we were there, one of the young women working with a male colleague, sometimes they'll

take male colleagues for security and safety, they were stopped at a checkpoint and arrested for simply being in a taxi with each other because they were unrelated. taken to a police station and the young man was badly beaten. host: what happens to the families that these women leave behind? guest: well, if a young woman has been accused of immorality and moral crime, the tragedy is that she often carve out of her community and sometimes from her family. so it depends what has happened and why these women have fled. other times their families are supportive. but usually for safety reasons and security reasons, they can't have contact with their families for a long time. host: do these women ultimately leave afghanistan? is that the goal? if so, are other countries, like

the united states helping them? guest: well, when we were there, within november, march, we were there 30 days in november, december. second trip was in march. the first trip people were still hopeful that they would be evacuated. and these people who have worked with the american military, have worked with the brits, have worked with the west. all the previous government. and they are being hunted. we know that the taliban is executing many of these afghans. they were hopeful and manage to get out of the country. by the time we returned in march, of course russia invaded ukraine. the world eyes were on ukraine and a lot of afghans had absolutely lost hope of being able to leave the country and getting any help and assistance from the west. what we saw certainly is the

evacuation list there were thousands and thousands of names on this list. i know that being six months, some people are still waiting to be evacuated. it's pretty hopeless situation. host: ramita navai is our guest here this morning. she will take your questions and your comments about what you have heard so far. we have divided the lines regionally. begin calling in this morning so we can get to your thoughts on what you are hearing. i want to show our viewers a little bit from this documentary. "afghanistan undercover." >> wealthy businessmen met with a secretly. he said a few weeks earlier his 19-year-old cousin had been forced to marry a powerful taliban commander, 40 years older than her. >> [speaking a foreign language]

>> the taliban commander, he said, had arrived at the girl's home with some of his men and demanded her father's consent. [speaking a foreign language] >> those who witnessed such forced marriages and abductions say they follow a pattern. [speaking a foreign language]

>> they agreed to talk to us if we concealed his identity. he, himself, had a confrontation with a group of taliban who were take ago girl ed marriage. taking a girl ed marriage. [speaking a foreign language] host: the documentary is called "afghanistan undercover." it airs tonight, tuesday, this evening. august 9 at 10, 9 central time on pbs and will be available to stream on frontline's website, youtube, and the pbs video app.

pbs's frontline correspondent ramita navai here with us this morning to talk about her work in the country. ramita navai, the radio listeners, i want them -- there is no translation there. i want them who are listening to this understand a little bit, if you can talk about what these men told you about the forced marriages. guns to head. beatings. and that there is a pattern. they didn't hear that part about the pattern. explain. guest: the pattern is taliban fighters will spot pretty girls in markets. at the bazaar. and also hear about them, where they live, which neighborhood. and that's where they go down the official route. so they will officially ask the parent for hand in marriage. when the parents say no, that's when they abduct the girls and

the women. they tear up the family's houses and they put a gun to family's heads and they take these young women. and the families protest. they end up beating the families. the men you were hearing in that clip were saying this is happening a lot. and if you speak out, you'll get into trouble. the clip you were showing what we were seeing was a man who witnessed such an abduction, tied to a tree, and beaten by a mob of taliban fighters with rifle butts. he was pretty seriously injured. and there are lots of stories like this. host: roger is our first phone call. in virginia. go ahead. caller: yes. pardon me i'm a little nervous. a lot going on in my country.

i never voted in a presidential election. host: all right. i apologize. i'm going to move on. he's talking about the last subject we were talking about. let me hear from bob in sterling, virginia. bob, are you there? do you have a question about this documentary? caller: yeah. i have a brief comment and question. my comment is the u.s. government's policy on afghanistan supports a shoutdown of the banking system in afghanistan. also the withholding of $9 billion of afghan assets. this policy having a devastating impact on the afghan population, including the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents through malnutrition just in the first three months of this year. that was reported in the associated press. it is illogical and murderous to maintain a policy that results in the starvation of infant girls, infant girls in order to attempt to get them access to the school system that they

won't live long enough to enter. my question is how can anyone support the u.s. policy of economic strangulation in light of its horrific impact on innocent children and the afghan people? thank you. guest: that's a really good question. and you're right as we are seeing in so many countries around the world over time sanctions rarely work. i think what america needs to do is use the taliban need, the billions of dollars, and aid money, as leverage to negotiate with the taliban. but they need to be negotiating. and they need to negotiate for the women of afghanistan and for basic fundamental human rights. but you are absolutely right. the country is coming to a stand still.

and the people who suffer are ordinary afghans ultimately. it's rarely the ruling classes. host: here is a text from a viewer. i'd like to know how far back does this afghan culture go? hundreds of years? thousands of years? what can the world do to change their culture if anything? guest: that's also an interesting question because there are parts of afghanistan where the taliban changeover hasn't changed much for women. that's a reality in really conservative rural areas of the country where not much has changed. one thing has dramatically changed and that is hope. there is now a loss of hope. even in these areas where you have this entrenched pay tree arcual culture, that stretches back a very long time. women were hopeful. even in these areas because they could see the changes, as small

as they were, slowly as they were happening, they could see them happening. and now that all stops. and there is absolutely desperation and loss of hope. how long has this culture been going on? it doesn't matter. what matters is things were starting to change. women were being educated. women were going back to the workplace. when you have that, even if it's in major cities, there is always a trickle-down effect. host: you visited and showed viewers in this documentary that the government before the taliban took over had an agency for women, for promoting women. talk about what this agency did and what it looks like now. guest: ministry for women affairs. it protected the rights of women because of course, in pay tree arcual societies undergoing change women are always at the bottom. bottom of the pyramid.

and especially in societies like afghanistan women need protecting. now that ministry, the first thing the taliban did, was to turn that ministry, rename it make it ministry of vice and virtue. now that ministry is responsible for policing the moral behavior of afghan citizens. mostly women, of course. you'll see all across the city there are posters telling women how to dress. telling women how to behave. although of course ministry of vice should be giving advice not just to women but both men and women. it's very telling that they are concentrating on women. host: bill in florida. hi. caller: hi. how are you this morning? wondering is there any resistance to the taliban in the organized resistance to the

taliban? i think of the northern alliance, what happened to them? are they still a viable unit? guest: gosh. not a viable unit in my opinion. there are pockets of resistance in the north, the area you were talking about, but the taliban has been really good at cracking down on them. so at the moment i don't think there is really a viable resistance movement going on. at the moment it's very grassroots and it's the accident on the ground rather than armed resistance. host: you spoke about that earlier. this secret lengths that an underground grassroots moment is going to, the lengths they go to to try to challenge the taliban. i want to show another clip from the documentary where you meet,

in secret, with afghan women. >> in the past few months this group had organized many protests. demanding that the taliban keep its promise to allow girls to attend schools. they were the first women we met willing to show their faces on camera. before the taliban took over, lena was a lawyer. [speaking a foreign language] >> rahida was a librarian. [speaking a foreign language] >> this one had been about to open a restaurant. [speaking a foreign language]

>> the group was meeting to decide whether to continue with the street protests. just that week the taliban had been warning women to stop protesting or face arrest. host: again, the documentary is called "afghanistan undercover." it premieres tonight at 10 eastern, 9 central time on pbs. it will be available on frontline's website, youtube, and the pbs video app. pbs frontline correspondent ramita navai here with us to talk about her work in the

country. those women there, they disclosed their faces. guest: i know. and i really was astounded by their bravery. and said to them several times are you sure? are you sure it's going to be safe showing your faces? they looked me straight in the eye and say to me, we don't care what happens to us. we have younger sisters. we are doing this for them. now, we spent time with them in november, december when we were there on our first trip last year. and they were very active. they were taking to the streets. and they were protesting. they knew they were being monitored by the taliban. they were getting desperate -- death threats. regular death threats. by the time we went back to aflg in march this year, several had been arrested and imprisoned. they had been released but they were absolutely terrified.

one young woman who had still not been arrested, she just got lucky, she was in the right place at the right time when the taliban was making the arrests. she was being very closely monitored. she insisted on showing us what she was doing. showing us how she was still protesting. how she was still arranging protests. and thankfully she has managed to flee the country. so she's now in europe. she got help from a european country. host: we are going to dayton, ohio. lewis, question or comment here. caller: long time viewer. this is only my second time getting through. i am just so excited. my thoughts are similar to bill a few minutes ago. i'm curious, i was surprised and

disappointed-tkeurpbl' going to refer to it as the fall of afghanistan, i'm surprised that there wasn't more resistance from fathers, brothers, uncles knowing the threat that faced their daughters, sisters, nieces, so forth. i was just surprised by that. could you speak to the attitude of men who have daughters, sisters, whatever. host: we understand the question. guest: thanks for the question. it's really interesting the taliban when they were taking territory, when they were sweeping across the country, were good p.r. campaign. so they were trying hard to win

people over. and this is before kabul fell. before the takeover. and what was happening is people were so ground down and fed up with the corruption that preceded them, the corruption of the previous government that actually there wasn't the resistance we imagined there would be because the taliban showed that they had strong measures for justice, for example, where people felt the judicial system was weak. and that's why the main reason why there wasn't as much support as we imagined. as for the women issue, well, this isn't very -- this is a very patrichal society. when you are worrying about bread on the table and you think that a corrupt government ruling you and you think that this lot, the taliban, even though you

don't believe in them or their ideology, but at least you think they are going to help you put bread on the table, that's what is your priority. that's what happened in afghanistan. it's a really simple explanation. host: ramita navai, explain the planning that went into you doing the work that you did under cover, how it is you -- that you were able to pass as an afghanistan woman, and what did do you to keep yourself and your crew safe? guest: i'm originally iranian. so i can pass as an afghan. i look like an afghan. i cover up. hair a he jab. i speak -- wear a hijab. i speak it with an iranian accent. the version we speak and -- the same language but the difference between french and quebec.

so many afghans, returnees from afghans who fled iran or migrated there for work who returned to afghanistan, it's really not unusual to speak to somebody with my accent. which meant i could pass unnoticed as a local. like i said, my brilliant director, is half pakistani, half english, but he also can pass as an afghan and wore local clothes. so he posed -- we posed as a couple. he was my mute husband. i would do the talking if we needed to. of course when it wasn't appropriate for a woman to do the talking, we had an afghan team. afghan team were absolutely as you can imagine brave and brilliant. they kept us safe. there was a member of the team who was also our security advisor who i have known for nearly 20 years. so i trusted this person with my

life. and i followed his intruckses to the letter -- instructions to the letter. i knew he was going to keep me safe and all the afghans around us safe which is the most important thing because if i get caught, probably the worst thing that can happen is i'll be imprisoned. if an afghan gets caught, it's a different ballgame. that was really the priority is the safety of everyone working for us and contributed. so that made -- we have to use middle men. we have to use safe houses. we have to make sure we weren't being monitored. we were there by the way officially, we had afghan visas. we got through afghanistan, we announced our presence to the ministry of foreign affairs. we were not under cover. on one hand we stayed in a nice big hotel in kabul. however, to cover the stories we needed to cover and keep people safe we had to move under the

radar. that's when we had to make sure we were not being detected. that's when we flipped through checkpoints to far northern corners of the country. and in the west. host: were you able to -- do you believe that you were -- that taliban were instructed to keep an eye on you, and were you able to get away from that oversight? guest: i think in kabul i didn't get a feeling that we were being monitored. you have to be careful, of course, because you never know if you are or you're not. but we were extremely cautious. i know that germans have been arrested and monitored. certainly when we left kabul and we were in the province, that's when you have to be careful because you are an outsider.

and really small towns and villages. and the taliban has eyes everywhere. that's when it helped looking like a local. of course as soon as they see foreigners, or people who are white, obviously not from afghanistan, they start making phone calls. when we were in the province in the north we had to announce our presence. at the taliban office. so how we operated we made sure that before we announced our presence, when we did announce our presence we were given a reminder. which was useful. we used that to film our general shops in the streets because if you are filming in the streets in most places in afghanistan you'll get stopped. and you'll get questioned, and you have to show your papers and accreditation. it takes a long time. it's hard to get work done. what we did before we got our

taliban minder, we had to make sure we slipped under the radar before the taliban knew of our presence anywhere because we were local. we could operate this way. that's when we did our interviews. making sure there was no link between our contributors, who would be killed for some of the information they were giving us, us, and the taliban. that's how we did it. host: do you think you could return to afghanistan? guest: i would love to return to afghanistan but i don't think these revelations and what we have exposed have gone down very well with the taliban government. host: have you heard from the government? guest: not personally. but i have heard that they are very unhappy. host: did you confront them with what you found? guest: i did. and again we were careful our afghan team adviced us to leave

all our intersraoups with taliban officials. giving them a right to it put our allegations to them until the last minute. so we had a big interview with the deputy government spokesperson. we did it on the way to the airport. to stay really safe. make sure -- our footage was safe because that was my chance of saying i have evidence of this. this is what we have been doing all this time we have been here. and this is what we have been investigating. of course blanket denial usually. if it wasn't denial, we were told you are being fed fake news. they picked up the linko -- lingo, you are being fed fake news. all these people you have spoken to this is part after big conspiracy against us and they are being paid by the west. and you are just being misled. host: mike in reston, virginia. good morning to you.

caller: good morning. it from the beginning it doesn't matter. sham marriage is not just in afghanistan. it's in all the muslim countries. unless it's not reformed, nothing will change. i feel like they are going to blame biden for leaving afghanistan, but this has been going on for quite a number of years. unless islam is reformed nothing will change. child marriage is yemen. in saudi arabia. in iran. in egypt. in many muslim countries. host: we'll take your point. ramita navai. guest: well, first of all i would say that the countries where it is not allowed as a

practice, just as in the old testament there are lots of crazy rules about what is allowed not allowed, same with islam. and it's how governments interpret it. i would say that's not the case in all countries. i would also say that the child marriage we are talking about is not the traditional child marriage where parents allow, usually because they are actually property, their children to be married off. in this case it is forced marriage which is abduction. so taliban fighters abducting women and children which is different. host: frank, bayside, new york. caller: hi, good morning. my comment is that change has to

come from within. and here in the united states we have our own problems. women weren't allowed to vote. they were down on the peg. they fought. and look forward to now. we have a president, vice president that's a woman. women on the supreme court. even black women. you can't force them to change. really you are doing some good work there, but if i was you i would really be careful because you are playing around with a lit match. host: ramita. guest: you can't force change but education brings about change. society in afghanistan had

changed. women were -- after first rule of the taliban had been banished, had not been allowed an education, had not been allowed to work. in 20 years the advance was remarkable. it was amazing. you would see young women living on their own, living with their friends, going to -- as i said there is a trickle-down effect. education is everything. that changes. women's mindset and most importantly men's mindset. so if we just give up and say you can't change people, we are giving up on half the population of afghanistan. and we are giving up on basic human rights and access to human rights. i can't do that. host: ramita navai, who is maryanne ?

guest: she's a young woman from the west of the country who went missing. we heard that many young girls and women were going missing in this western city. we wanted to investigate. we found out about her case. and we spoke to her family. now it took a while for the family to figure out what had happened to her. and she had been imprisoned. she had been taken by taliban intelligence agents and put into prison for so-called immorality, moral crimes. for being in a taxi with a man she was unrelated to. and most worryingly, there was absolutely no official record of her in prison. host: she was in a taxi with a man not related to her, but it was her friend's father. what were they doing?

guest: they had found out that all of her friends had also gone missing and had been taken by taliban intelligence officers. they said if they turned up at the police station they would be able to help them. and they turned up to try to help them and were taken. charged with the same crime. immorality. host: her family went to that prison. what were they told? guest: it took -- it took a long time for her family to find out what had happened to her, where she was. they found out that she was in the prison. there was absolute denial. they went allowed to see her. that's when we realized to get evidence of what was happening -- this is happening on a big scale. it wasn't just her and her friends. we needed to get evidence from

inside the prison. we need to visit this prison. host: you did so. what did you find? guest: yes. we were told we would allowed to have access to the main wing. of course we needed to get into the women's wing. we got lucky. the prison chief decided he would let us visit the women's wing while we were there. but we were told under no circumstances were we allowed to talk to any of the women. i was secretly filming. we weren't allowed to film the women and we weren't allowed to talk to them. but i had secret filming equipment on me and i managed to slip away. we had an entourage of about 15 armed taliban official the -- officials with us everywhere we went in the prison. of course being a woman, which

meant they didn't pay any attention to me and didn't address me and instead they addressed kareem, male director. i managed to slip away and because i could speak the language i was careful not to speak the language in front of them. the taliban officials up to that point didn't know i could speak the language. i slipped away and started talking to the women. there were about 40 women in the prison courtyard and they all told me they had been imprisoned since the taliban had taken over all for moral crime. i would like to say that under the previous government a lot of these so-called crimes were crimes. you could get arrested for being in a car with someone you were unrelated to. kind of antiquated rules that were still part of the system. however, the difference was that it was overlooked. it rarely happened. if it did happen, if you happened to be unlucky and end

up in prison, there was a judicial system that would help you. but the women that i saw in this prison there was no record of them. the taliban wanted to keep quiet from the world what it was doing and hadn't registered any of their cases. host: you spotted maryian at that prison. guest: i really didn't think i was going to see hefrplt not all of the female prisoners were allowed out into the courtyard. there were many more in the prison in the cells themselves. in the prison itself. now i had spent time with her family telling me what happened to her about her case, about these girls going missing. they showed me a photograph of her. and i spoke to some women and the prison chief spotted me and told me to stop speaking to the women and get back to them. in no uncertain terms so i went back to the group to draw

minders to these taliban entourage and knew hi one shot of finding her. and one shot slipping away. our director distracted all the taliban officials and i managed to slip away one last time and that's when i saw her. host: you spoke to her in english, why? guest: she was standing next to a prison guard and she immediately started talking english. she wanted to get her message out. her message was tell the world nobody knows what's happening here. tell the world what is really going on. and we are getting beaten. that was it. the prison guard demanded she stopped speaking english and start speaking in the language. she then of course praised the taliban. host: i want to show a part from the documentary when she's reunited, i believe, with her family. take a look.

[video clip] >> 2350eu7b8ly marian and her mother were reunited. her friend had also been released and were with her. she told us when she was detained the taliban officer took her phone. [speaking a foreign language]

>> the other girls said they were tasered and beaten, too. >>miriam route was released and said she traded one prison for another or is she now? guest: because she has been accused of immorality, she has brought shame on her community and her family. it doesn't matter if she has committed a crime.

simply because of being accused of being immoral you bring shame on the family. it was an impossible situation. they told her they had no hopes of ever getting married. women in her early 20's and the family was embarrassed and ashamed. it was a dangerous situation. every single one of those young women who, not long ago, had bright futures and were all educated, no going to university, none had hope in the community. host: it premieres tonight on pbs at 10:00 eastern 9:00 central time. it is also available on streaming frontlines website, youtube, and the pbs bbf --

video app. ramita navai thank you for being here. we will bring you to the white house live coverage. the president is about to sign the manufacturing bill aiming to boost computer chip manufacturing here in the united states. ♪

>> live at the white house president biden is expected to sign a bill granting billions of dollars in grants to computer chip manufacturers. this is live on c-span. ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats and silence cell phones. the program will begin shortly. ♪

>> live this morning at the white house president biden is expected to sign a grant bill granting funding to chip manufacturers. this is live coverage on c-span. ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, vice president of the united states and second gentleman. [light applause] ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, the presidt