just to talk about the transport of migrants of cross state lines by republican governors and the investigations into her president donald trump stop then family research council president tony perkins talks about evangelical voters in the upcoming midterm elections. "washington journal" starts now. host: good morning, everyone. it's friday, september 23. we'll begin this morning in the "washington journal" with your thoughts on police funding and public safety. the house yesterday passed a package of policing and public safety bills. 47 days before the midterm elections. "the washington post" says the legislation is the result of months of negotiations among democrats. to counter republicans' accusations that the party is soft on crime. a perception the democrats acknowledge cost them seats in 2020. this morning, your thoughts on police funding and public

safety. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents. 202-748-8002. law enforcement this morning, we want to hear from you, at 202-748-8003. text us with your first name, city, state, at that same number. or go to facebook.com/c-span. on twitter use the handle @cspanwj. we'll take all of your comments on this this morning. police funding and public safety. what are your thoughts on that this morning as the house passes legislation? take a look at the bills that were approved yesterday. the first one grants to local -- provides grants to local police departments with fewer than 200 officers. this piece of legislation passed 360-64. and garnered 153 republican votes. the second bill funds nonprofit community and facebook organization that is work to

reduce crime. it passed 220-207, only got one g.o.p. vote. the third piece of legislation grants -- provides grants for mental health professionals and other resources, passed 223-206. three republicans voted for t finally, funding for technology investments to help police close unsolved crimes. this bill passed 250-178. 30 republicans voted for this one. your reaction to the legislation passed by the house yesterday and also just your thoughts in general on police funding and public safety where you live. listen to jim jordan, republican of ohio, on the floor and his arguments against these democratic bills. >> radical left wing efforts to defund the police, it's no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in america. every major urban area has seen a aoupblg uptick in violent crime t should also be no

surprise democrats are now trying to run and hide from their radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric. for more than two years we have seen violent crimes surge across the country, while many of those same democrats not only advocated for defunding the police departments, but they did it. they cut them. now the democrats want to use federal tax dollars to pay for all the problems they created this their local democrat-run cities. these bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. they simply create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the federal government. under current law there are already grants available to law enforcement to hire personnel. in fact, last year the justice department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the office of community oriented policing services. that money provided funds to 183 law enforcement agencies, aloud them to hire more than 1,000 additional officers. we don't need more federal grants so democrat-run cities can then divert taxpayer money

to fund their woke atkpwrepbd tkpw*epbda. what we need is prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison. nothing in these teuls bills prevent jurisdictions that choose to defund their police from receiving these grant funds. in fact, when judiciary republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the democrats rejected it. and they rejected it unanimously. faced with an election just over a month away, house democrats now want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. the timing of this bill should till all you need to know about where democrat priorities are. democrats who are in full control of this body have had two years to show their support for law enforcement. only now, only now when faced with an impending election are democrats pretending to fayne support for our men and women in the blue. host: congressman jim jordan on the floor in the house. as the house passes this -- a

package of bills on police funding and public safety. we want to know your thoughts on this that morning. nbc with a poll that shows abortion and the former president boosting midterm prospects for democrats. however, republicans have a significant advantage on the economy, crime, immigration in the latest nbc news national poll. then you have bloomberg with this headline, republicans focus on rising crime to counter democratic abortion momentum. and this is what they found. about 30% of republican ads mentioned crime at the end of last week. a sharp increase from just two months ago. with a month and a half to go before the midterm elections, we want to know your thoughts on police funding and public safety. listen to democratic congresswoman abigail spanberger from virginia, a tough re-election battle, she and other centrist democrats pushing for this legislation ahead of

the midterm. here's what she had to say about the package of bills approved by the house. >> this legislation follows our prior increases to funding to the community oranted policing program through the appropriations process. the invest to protect act would help get the job done of ensuring that police departments, particularly those like i represent in smaller and rural communities, have the ability to recruit and retain officers. this legislation invests in officer safety. it invests in domestic violence response training. it invests in funding the police departments like those i represent. throughout virginia's seventh district, i hear directly from local police departments about the need for stronger investments in training, equipment, recruitment, and retention. and as a former law enforcement officer, i greatly admire and am thankful for the dedication of men and women who work every day to keep our community safe. host: from the house debate this

week on the floor abigail spanberger. the house approving a package of police funding and public safety bills. todd in california, you're up first this morning. independent. your thoughts on this? caller: good morning. all of these bills, it's just a waste of taxpayer dollars. what they need to do is just use existing funds and force existing laws. prosecute smash and grab robberies. don't let people keep getting out on bail. that are obviously guilty. they arrest them and let them out an hour later and they go right back into crimes again. and then if they would stop messing with the second amendment, passing national self-defense stand your ground law, and then -- we should be

able to have some automatic rifles like ar-15's because those are not actually assault weapons. assault weapons are fully auto. so if they would just enforce the constitution and stop messing with our rights, everything would be fine. host: todd's thoughts in california. independent. we welcome more of your thoughts this morning. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. law enforcement this morning, dial in at 202-748-8003. use that same number, all of you can, to text us with what you think at 202-748-8003, include your first name, city, state. there are your socials. hit us up there as well. your thoughts on police funding and public safety. back to the floor debate. here's republican pete stauber,

a former police officer, on the house floor, talking about these policing bills. >> make no mistakes, democrats are the reason recruitment, retention, and morale of law enforcement officers is at an all-time low and crime is at an all-time high. the timing of these bills is an insult to the law enforcement community and the american people. to my democrat colleagues, where were you when the protestors came to my state of minnesota and set up go fund me pages to raise money and bail out violent criminals who assaulted and beat innocent people? where were you when a member of the california delegation came to minnesota to stir up aggression and hatred towards my brothers and sisters in the blue and brown? where were you when officers were being vitally assaulted and killed each day across this country? where were you when the american

police office and their families were begging for support and needed elected officials to have their backs? where were you? i'll tell you where you were. they were here in this chamber pushing police departments to have to be defunded, they wanted to defund, dismantle, disarplt police regardless of how i vote today, i have to tell you that i am furious that days before an election and for political purposes only these bills are being brought up by my colleagues. the american people have suffered enough and at the end of the day, the american people and our law enforcement community do not appreciate being used as pawns for political gain. host: responding to congressman pete stauber was democratic congresswoman sheila jackson lee of texas. here's what she had to say. >> i am fed up, fed up and fed

up with the babbling that we are hearing from people on the other side. the question should be, where were you on january 6 when law enforcement were bleeding on the steps of the united states capitol? passing out and dying. where were you? this is not a political circumstance. these are people who are standing here because steve had a personal experience. because the judiciary committee has consistently supported intervention programs dealing with countering violence. this bill, break the cycle of violence, is needed in america. stand up with us, republicans. a bill that takes a vital step towards reducing community violence and emproving public safety by investing in people, their communities, and establish evidence-based programs proven to help reduce violence. our law enforcement are begging

for this. our nation -- >> yield an additional 30 seconds. >> our nation has a crisis of violence, particularly gun violence, and it's tearing at our communities. i have a husband and a baby shot dead, the mother calling where's my husband? and the baby, the baby is found dead because of gun violence. $280 billion. $488,000 for shootings dealing with medical and criminal expenses. my brothers and sisters where are we in standing for america and law enforcement and families and children, support h.r. 4118 so that we can divert children away from violence. move towards opportunities. i don't know what you're saying. i'm fed up. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> so we can fight for justice in this country. host: your turn to react to the house debate on public funding, public safety and police funding. they passed a package of

proposals yesterday. we want to get your thoughts on it this morning. there are the lines on your screen. dial in. "the washington post" notes that while house democrats across the party spectrum managed to unite in the legislation, a handful of the party's far left members nearly derailed the bills. on thursday, the procedural vote as they sought more police accountability. democrats have pushed for legislation following the 2020 killing of george floyd, a back minneapolis resident by a white police officer. four democrats, representatives alexandria ocasio-cortez, jamaal bowman, cori bush, rashida tlaib, joined republicans in voting no on a procedural sroefplt while a fifth democrat voted present. the vote on the rule which sets the terms of the debate on the legislation was 216-215. a in favor. a tie would have scuttled the measure. just eking past the procedural vote because of five democrats

protesting over the lack of accountable and not as cori bush complained, failing to address, quote, the crisis of police brutality. jim in tucker, georgia, democratic caller, good morning. it's your turn. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for taking my call. i think jim jordan would be example number one in how the republicans are out of balance. he's calling for all this funding for the police and -- to fight violent crime, he doesn't talk -- he hasn't said anything about white collar crime. the fact that i see c.e.o.'s making millions and millions of dollars when other executives and professionals don't make nearly as much. why isn't that a crime? i think there definitely needs to be a balance.

i think that we do live in a police state. that's supported by the fact that there is more people incarcerated in the united states than any place else per capita. i think that republicans, they want to live in a police state. all of their cries to me arous crocodile cries. to the example of the representative that you had on a moment ago. where were they on january 6? i think the republicans are out of balance. i think defunding the police -- it's not defunding the police. it's more like refunding, reallocating resources to things that are -- that will better serve our society and cities and communities. host: jim, what is the balance that you referenced? caller: now, that's a very good

question. i think that is the reason why we have a republic and have people in congress to debate that. i don't have the answer off the top of my head because that is a very -- that is a very tricky question. i think that the polarization that the republicans want to pursue is very counterproductive. and it doesn't serve any purpose other than to say, oh, look what we are doing. vote for me because i have more money than the other guy. host: you judiciary both sides would come together and -- you wish both sides would come together and find a balance. caller: absolutely. there needs to be a balance. republicans need to get rid of people like jimoredian who -- jim jordan, and the last president. these people are not -- they are not doing the republican party any favors. there is a place in the world for the republican party, but

people like jim jordan -- i can't believe people vote for that guy. host: carla in wayne city, illinois. republican. carla, good morning. what do you think about police funding and public safety? caller: well, the one, the gentleman before i have been watching all these on c-span. i watch them every day. and i watched one yesterday morning with sheila jackson lee screaming. and i think that she is wrong because she's claiming that january 6 was such a bad deal there was people dead, shot dead. there was one death. there was ashley babbitt. the only death on the capitol that day. host: carla, what about police funding and public safety? washington's debating this issue hours on the house floor. it's your turn to tell these lawmakers what you think.

caller: what i think is that they need to stop playing games in the capitol building. for one. if democrats want law now after defunding the police, then they should have come to the republican side and asked them to join them with them to make up these bills. they are not allowing it. and it's b.s. host: ok. kathy in d.c., democratic caller. good morning to you, kathy. caller: hi. i just want to say two things. one is i live in d.c. i was in d.c., i mean by just happenchance and stuff we have been downtown d.c. living here for a long time. i saw those black lives matter protestors. i was here -- i couldn't go with them. i have had an operation. i'm old. i couldn't do it. they were by and large peaceful people. every single one.

day after day after day after day. yes, yes, fox news is now going to show you the few instances of a few people that broke out. but by and large that was a peaceful movement. it is not comparable to what happened at the capitol which was organized, and organized for violence. how dare people compare them, including the press, which compares them all the time. and the press is my second point. the press acts like the republicans and the democrats have polarized. that's not true. actually dear old joe biden got it exactly right. some republicans have jumped off the cliff. they jumped off the cliff in the name of holding their own power and threaten their democracy. but you the press have given them the microphone. i hear people on this show again and again and again parroting the lines from the few

republicans that say absolute malarkey against what should be a rational point. but it's not. host: what are your thoughts on police funding and public safety? given what you just said about the black lives matter, protests, etc. caller: yes. absolutely from the police. absolutely. they came up with a really stupid line about defunding. of course we need the police. i'll tell you one thing, i see the police in d.c. they have been -- instances i have seen with one exception, they have been kind, good people. killed people in really bad shape and don't scream you got to be kind to me or be in jail. they have been good. no, we can't defund the police. that's a false issue. the issue, yes, there was racism in the police department. they were right about that. it's across the country. and we have to be able to

correct that without all this stuff -- stuff bubbling up. that's my strong, strong feeling. i feel like it is absolutely based in fact. and somebody wants to argue with me based on facts i would argue with anybody. host: ok. this is thoughtful processes sending in this tweet. for starters, there should be no further funding to provide settlements for rampant police misconduct across the nation rather than expenditures should come from police pension funds. tim in cleveland, ohio, republican. we'll get your thoughts, tim. caller: yes, ma'am. thanks for taking my call. i'll tell you, i sat here and listened to this ship -- host: ben in grenada, mississippi, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i just think that police already have enough funds.

didn't we have this conversation during the trump administration? and they was funded all this money and a lot of the police departments went and buy military equipment. police department do not need military equipment. that's my feeling. police departments have enough money. thank you. host: ok. another tweet from a viewer, public safety in certain cities are a complete joke and it's proof that police need to be funded properly. matt in bladensburg, maryland, democratic caller, matt, what's your take? caller: how are you doing today? as someone who is active downtown as a citizen, i mean, i demonstrate sometimes at the white house, sometimes the capitol. i was at both those incidents that the woman was discussing and she was absolutely on point.

i also -- being at the capitol that day after the police let these -- we were -- we watch them let this clown in a golf cart go over the border they had clocked with god only knows what reason. there was a the lot going on. i was down at the capitol. the republicans are scary people now. they need to be under control. i'll tell you -- host: matt, what's your point? caller: i think -- first of all i think that i don't understand the subject matter that you have assembled here. i think the issue we should be talking about is why so few republicans throw their hot air -- assisting with don't want the funding for the police.

they just seems ridiculous to me. it's hypocritical. that should be your question today. and that they want to destroy the eye as well. i think they are really hypocrites and all they are doing is trying to buy time. they are the one that is are i can maaing this a political issue. thank you very much. host: all right. matt, democratic caller in maryland. here's congresswoman susan wild, democrat of pennsylvania, in a tweet. i just voted to pass the invest to protect act to bring much needed resources to local police departments with fewer than 125 officers. this bill will help many p.d.'s in the greater lehigh valley get the training, equipment, and resources needed to protect and save our communities. then you have congressman jared golden, democrats, too many named small town police departments are short on officer and resources they need to protect our communities. i worked to pass the protect act

today to authorize $300 million in funding specifically for small town departments to recruit, train, and hire. representative mike thompson, the house just passed four historic public safety bills. i was proud to vote for these bills to increase grants tore police training and recruitment. fund mental health response and evident-based community violence intervention programs and help save lives. this is a big step forward said the democrats. and then you have steve womack, the deadly consequences of the radical defund the police atkpwepbtda have been seen across america. i voted for the invest to protect act to ensure local and rural police enforcement officers are well trained and resourced as they protect our communities. and jim jordan, democrats defunded the police. crime soared. just the facts, he wrote on twitter. andy barr, the republican from maryland, the american people blame them and the defund police movement for the crime wave sweeping the nation. they are trying to put messaging in the bills on the house floor and make it look like they support law enforcement.

that's what lawmakers are saying. as they debated this week. the package of bills for police funding and public safety. now it's your turn to tell them what you think on these topics. doc in baton rouge, louisiana, independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning. if they need to do something with these governors sending these migrants into like chicago, new york, washington, d.c. that is like cruel and unusual punishment to send these migrants into these democrat-controlled cities. it's horrible. host: tie that back to police funding and public safety. caller: well, we need more police everywhere. everywhere. these people are coming across the border expecting to come into the land of the free and the home of the brave, and they

are spending them to democrat cities? are they crazy? i mean that is a hellhole of a country. host: wendy in connecticut, democratic caller. caller: hi. host: morning. caller: i wanted to say that originally you had questioned the crisis on immigration and crime, but i think the crisis, politicians are trying to distract from the real issue which is we are losing our rights. we are losing our right to vote. and we are losing our right of free choice. that's all i have to say. host: paul, flint, michigan,

independent. caller: i want to reflect on why they haven't released any of these videos of the capitol. that would break through the fog right there. you democratic cities' governors and mayors are just releasing people unnecessarily when all you are doing is pushing more crime back on the streets every time they do t then they want to complain that they are sending these migrants into other places, but they are being overran so they have to send them. host: jeff, lake charles, louisiana, republican. hi, jeff. caller: gentlemen. good morning -- yes. good morning. i think it should be more local level funding in each individual police department be taken at

their local level. is what i believe. host: ok. if it was more on a local level, why would that help? caller: well, i think because it would help with each individual department instead of putting a boatload of money out there for anybody to grab. i think it should be done on a localized level to know what each department really needs. one department doesn't need what the other department needs. so they don't need a million dollars like another department might need. i think it would be a lot of wasted money done the other way. host: kimberly, albuquerque, new mexico. republican. hi. caller: hey, hi. how you doing? shame on the democrats. morning. shame on the democrats. they said nothing when the riots were going on in 2020 in the

summer, nothing. the democrats said not one word. and when they absolutely defunded the police and everything, now we have these cashless bail laws where they release the criminals back on the streets. it'sit is not the need to throwe money at the problem. the police have been demoralized. they are not happy about being police anymore. they cannot recruit because people have seen how police are treated in certain situations. shame on the democrats. that is all on them. the republicans have tried to help assist these cities with the national guard when necessary and they have refused our help. now they want to pretend they are all safety. it is not true and it is done for political posturing and that is a shame.

host: where does crime in this issue rang for you in determining how you will vote? caller: very high. i am in albuquerque. it is very high. i am a registered democrat but i will vote republican because i believe republicans have the ideas and the fortitude to go forward with changing the laws that are allowing these criminals to get back on the street and keeping the police in a safer place in america. host: republicans think they have the advantage on this as well into the midterm elections. bloomberg reporting republicans are focusing on rising crime to counter democratic abortion momentum. bloomberg notes a 30% increase in campaign ads focusing on

crime. take a look at this one. the top issue in a competitive wisconsin senate race. here is an ad by the senate leadership fund targeting democratic candidate modelo barnes. >> do you feel safe? modelo barnes would a limit catch bail, setting criminals free in the community. violent attacks on our police, more than 300 murders last year alone. barnes has even supported defunding the police. mandela barnes, she stands with them, not us. the senate leadership fund -- host: mandela barnes is the democratic senate candidate. here is his response. >> we knew the other side would make up lies to scare you. now they are claiming they want

to defund the police and apologized. that is a lie. i will make sure the police have the resources to keep our communities safe and our communities have the resources to stop crime before it happens. i will bring back manufacturing and past middle-class tax cuts. if this is scary for washington, so be it. i am mandela barnes and i approved this message. host: your thoughts on police funding and public safety. democrats effort to counter republicans messaging on this issue. bill in new york, independent, what do you think. caller: good morning. i think there are two areas that should move from the police and replaced with agents that do not have guns, the two areas are dealing with mental problems and also traffic control.

if you take those areas and give them to a special agency that have personnel without guns, i think you will reduce a lot of the police murders against unarmed black people. thank you. host: anna in new york, democratic color. caller: good morning. i disagree with defunding the police. i feel like it is insane to do so. if you feel endangered, if you support defunding the police, if you feel endangered you should not want to call 911, you know? it does not make any sense to do that. host: this morning about two hours you will hear more on this issue from the republican leader kevin mccarthy of california. he is holding an event in pittsburgh this morning ahead of the election talking about why

voters should vote for the republican party and the issues are going to be inflation, border security, crime, protecting women's sports, etc. those are part of his commitment to america's speech he will give and we will end the washington journal at that time and bring you live coverage on c-span. that is the room where you will hear from the minority leader, who could become the speaker of the house if republicans win the majority in november. rich in greensburg, pennsylvania, republican. good morning. go ahead. host: -- caller: good morning. people have to be smarter than this. this is the next move in the illusion that democrats are trying to convey prior to the election.

first it was paying off the student loans, and that it was the inflation reduction act, which john kerry said yesterday that even he read it and said this has nothing to do with inflation, and now it is the police funding, supposedly. i just read this morning where biden is giving $1.5 billion to opioids. all you do is address the hot buttons of the year. nothing was done last year because there was no election. you do it leading up. they should band legislative action during election year because that is all this is. they did not do squat all last year with the build back better. that failed. everything failed. it is crazy. host: charleston, south carolina, republican. hi, joe. caller: this is an illusion.

the democrats are trying to cover their you know what's. they contributed to this problem standing on podium saying to defund the police. we note its impact on the city. i got this from somebody on twitter. the police are the people who are handcuffed, they are not allowed to do their jobs. if they do their jobs major felons are back on the street the next day. the police are not doing their job because they know they will be punished for doing their job. if i saw a guy i rested a week ago committing the same crime, am i going to risk my life to arrest that guy? i don't think so. this hurts every big city in the country. i do not want to get any tax dollars to fix something that was not broken in the past. it is as simple as that.

this is posturing for the election. host: have you always voted republican because of this issue? caller: not because of this issue. this never -- this was not that big of an issue in decades past. i'm 75, i've been voting for a lot of years. i am not that kind of voter. this was not that kind of a problem until four years ago when there were calls for defunding the police all over the country and crime rose. it is as simple as that. you handcuff the police. it does not deserve our tax dollars to fix the problem. it is a local problem -- unless you want a national police force, i do not think you want to go there. host: we should note this past

in the house but it still would have to pass in the senate and get to the president's desk. now where does this issue of crime right for you when you go to vote? caller: number one for me is inflation and the economy. crime -- gas prices, food prices. crime would probably number two or three. host: kristin in michigan, democratic color. good morning. caller: good morning. the previous caller said the words the police risk their lives. fund, fund, fund the police. i live in a small town. the police do police work. they also do ems and they also do fire department work.

for god sakes, what we expect from the police? these people against the funding , don't call them when you need them because in a small town they do it all. firemen, ems, and police. they deserve a fair wage and deserve to be respected. thank you. host: before you go, what you think about some in your party calling for using the language of defunding the police? caller: that is stupid. i do not know how that came up. i have been a democrat my whole life. i don't know any democrats that believe in defunding the police. that came out around the time with different things going on in the different states with

riding and that. that is stupid full -- that is stupid. absolutely stupid. they need to be funded, especially in my little town. they work for peanuts and they do all three, ems, firemen, and cops. host: karl in tennessee, republican. caller: howdy. i would like to indulge myself on a metaphor i saw yesterday during the debate for the four bills. it seemed amazing to me how some came together and some did not. i see it as one would sift sand to get rid of the mealworms in your flowers or the rocks in the sand for your hourglass.

host: why do you see it that way? caller: we have to sift out the fluff and the garbage and the rhetoric. this is going on in the nation that god shed his grace on. we have to shift out the fluff and find the truth in these things. yes we need law enforcement. we need common sense from democrats and we need common sense republicans. common sense, not emotional or ideological democrats or republicans. we need people. host: this is upsetting to you. how come? caller: i am not upset. i had a stroke. host: i'm sorry. caller: i am not upset.

i am at a piece i do not think anyone could understand. host: carl, a republican. he referenced the debate on the house floor. here is legislation. grants to local police departments with fewer than 200 officers. this past with republican votes. it passed 360-64. another piece of legislation would fund nonprofit communities and faith-based organizations that work to reduce crime. this got one republican vote. it passed 220-207. another that would provide a grant for mental health professionals and other resources past 223-206. finally funding for technology investment to help police close unsolved cases past 250-178. 30 republicans voted for it. we are getting your thoughts on police wrote -- on police

funding and public safety. the house passed this package of bills. the senate will have to take it up. brian in washington, d.c., independent. good morning. caller: good morning. a while back a lady was on talking about shame on the democrats. i say shame on the hypocrites republicans and their idea that those protests during 20 came out of nowhere. that was part of a worldwide protest because of george floyd's murder by police and everyone saw it. he was one of thousands of black people who were unarmed and murdered by police. while you have republican prosecutors and judges who

refuse to prosecute and jail these police, the world saw it. americans saw it. they are not taking that type of abuse anymore from the police departments. you do not want to defund the police. i do not believe in defunding the police myself. i believe there are people who need to be locked up. if you're not going to prosecute police when they murder right in front of you on tv, the only reason they got that police officer is because it was on television. we can go all the way back to rodney king, we can go back to many -- freddie gray in baltimore. these police are out of control, and if you're not going to hold them accountable this is what you're going to get. they prosecuted the one because he was only on television. there were protests in japan,

great britain, all around the world. people saw what american republicans refused to see. they do not respect all human life. that is the point. if we cannot get that then you'll have the same problems we have right now. don't defund the police, but make sure you hire one's that are going to do the job -- they are there to protect and serve, not to kill us. that is my point. host: brian's thoughts in washington, d.c. jackie, missouri, independent. you are next. caller: they need to give the police back all of their funding because i can remember a time, i am 66 years old, where if a police officer a judge was

murdered, the person who did it got the death penalty. what happened to that law? why do we have to constantly see innocent people being murdered because these people in office do not want to do nothing about the crime? i don't know about you, but i'm tired of seeing innocent babies killed because these thugs get out on the street and want to shoot each other. they need to let the police do their job, they need to fund them, and they need to make the streets safer for our babies and the innocent people adding attacked on the streets. host: washington post has some exclusive reporting today with a january 6 twitter witness. "failure to curb trumps terrifying choice in an exclusive interview with the washington post of former

twitter official claims what motivated her startling january 6 committee testimony." she is coming forward to the washington post, they are naming her after her testimony was disclosed. you can read more at washingtonpost.com. the january 6 committee is holding their ninth and what could be their final hearing next week on wednesday, september 28 come at 1:00 eastern. we will have coverage of that. the committee chair says they will be showing never before seen footage of that day, as well as more witness testimony. robin in santa fe, new mexico. democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: what are your thoughts on this debate? caller: full disclosure, i am

the daughter of a police officer , a former police officer when i was a child. one of the things that is driving me absolutely crazy about all this funding issue is the taxpayers pay for this military equipment in the first place when they paid for the military to purchase this equipment. then the military turns around and sells it to the individual police departments, the taxpayer is paying a second time for the exact same equipment. how come nobody ever talks about that? why is that allowed to happen? this makes no sense to me. it seems like we are paying twice for the same thing, for the same equipment. why do we do that? why is that ok? host: john in fort dodge, iowa. republican.

caller: good morning. that bill they passed yesterday is a sham. the evidence of that being a sham is what they omitted. what they did not put in that bill was the protection for law enforcement officers and their immunity from civil lawsuits in the event they have a rough arrest or somebody they do arrest feels they have been roughed. that is the truth about that thing. that is the evidence that this is nothing but a sham. that is just to bolster the democrats for votes to counter the defund the police movement. i have not heard anybody mention about that was not in that bill and that should have been that bill. that is what they need to

protect law enforcement from being sued civilly for them doing their job. i thank you. host: barb, harrisburg, democratic caller. caller: i wanted to refer to a comment made in this conversation that the democrats are just passing bills now that would benefit the police. could you check? i believe there was $300 million in one of the bills the democrats passed, either the american rescue plan or one of those that contributed to police departments. could you check on that? host: we will try. we only have about eight minutes left. what is your point? caller: that the democrats have been attuned to passing bills to help the police for a long time, for the last couple of years they have been trying.

that is my point, not just yesterday. thank you. host: raymond in colorado, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to say one thing to america. go back 30 years ago when michael dukakis ran for president. crime, crime, crime. every time a republican gets in it is crime. we are on fear. let me tell you the true fear. there are too many guns on the street. i had a gun pulled in my face for no reason. there is too many guns on the street. people are getting angry over little things. what will happen if we look at history. america, every country has risen and fell from corruption from within. we are corrupt right now. the hypocrisy is off the scale.

i agree with the gentleman does go or three calls ago. our laws and the policing is racist. look at how they treat minorities. up until 1983, no white man had been electrocuted for killing a black person. this is our history. in this country if we do not come together, it is going to go the way of the roman empire. we will fall. thank you very much. have a blessed day. host: barbara in harrisburg wanted to know about previous legislation by democrats while they have had the white house and the majority in the house and the senate. this is from whitehouse.gov. the president saying in his first 18 months in office he funded the police and improve police accountability, $10

billion in american rescue plan funds have been committed to policing and other public safety at -- efforts, including state and local funds in more than 300 communities across the country along with ongoing efforts from the justice department. 2020 one among the largest single year commitments for state and local resources and public safety on record. this is from whitehouse.gov. washington, d.c.. democratic caller. caller: thank you for mentioning those facts about what president biden and his democrats have done for the police, and they support funding the police. you mentioned some democrats. there are very few, mostly activists, who are not in congress supporting defunding the police a couple years ago.

the vast majority, 90 9% of democrats in congress support funding the police come as you just mentioned. this latest legislation is a continuation. it is not a last-minute move by the democrats. they have been doing this since joe biden became president and since the democrats had congress. we have been consistent in funding the police. we believe in supporting community policing. we believe in giving police assistance through the new mental health workers that will be helping the police deal with those type of cases. this is what you do when you are a responsible party that believes in funding the police. when you mention the defunding part, that is just an activist and a few politicians that say that. 99% of the democrats support funding the police. thank you.

host: peggy in south carolina, republican. hi, peggy. caller: good morning, how are you? i am a daughter of a retired police officer and it upsets me when you hear all of this about defunding the police. i cannot imagine what our country would be like if we did not have law and order in this country. we do have good and bad and it seems like we are always hearing about the bad, but there are plenty of good of all races on the police department. the same with criminals. good and bad. we do not hear about when it is a white person that is being beaten up by a black police officer, and it is a shame, because there are the good and the bad.

the bad need to be punished, but to be talking about defunding the police -- i was born and raised in detroit and live through the detroit riots, which was one of the worst things we have happen. the whole city was in an uproar. if we did not have the police officers to keep it under control, it would have been much worse. i lived through -- my dad would come home with plenty of stories. it is a shame how a lot of them are treated when we as children and wives of police officers say goodbye to our fathers or our husbands, we do not know if we will see them when they come home because of the attitude and the attitude towards police is awful. it seems to be getting worse. i cannot imagine. if we do not have any law and order in this country it would be much worse than what it is.

we need to keep our officers and get some good officers into the police department and get rid of the bad apples. thank you. host: lisa is a democratic caller in california. hi, lisa. caller: first off, i would like to let that girl know democrats do not want to defund the police. like the gentleman said before, there are a few that talk about it but most of us want the police forces well-funded. we rely on them. i think most people have heard the clips of richard spencer, that cute randy did after charlottesville. i have heard the whole thing in the last thing he said -- that huge rant he did after charlottesville. i've heard the whole thing and what he said is he had sleepers and police departments. then things started to happen.

police across the country were killing unarmed black man. i think he was speaking the truth. we need to weed those guys out. they are giving the police a bad name. some police forces did to start fresh. we do not need racist. i do not think anybody wants racists in the police department. thank you. host: rick in indiana, republican. final thoughts. caller: what i think is democrats have been wanting to defund the police because that is a bunch of bull. when obama was in office, he wanted to fund the police, open borders and defund them. when biden took office, biden is not running the country, it is obama.

if you see all of your riots in these cities run by democrats. you do not see them in cities run by republicans. i am very sorry. democrats are bringing in all of these migrants and everything to kill us off. they want to run the country. host: why do you think that? what makes you think that? that? what makes you think that? caller: look at how many children are dying and the cartels and stuff and everything coming in here talking about covid-19 and he's every -- bringing every tom, did, and terry over here. democrats are atheists. they don't believe in christ they just want to rule the country like adolf hitler. thank you. host: we are taking a short break period when we compact we

will be joined by elie mystal. then later, family research president tony perkins discusses the role of evangelical voters in the mid-term elections. we will 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 are from, or where you stand on the issues c-span is america's network. , unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

>> book tv every sunday on c-span2 teachers leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern the freedom fast libertarian conference including author of power of capitalism, how the forest can save the world and george gilder with his book life after capitalism. in patrick leahy discusses his career in the senate. susan page, watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch any time on book tv.org.

>> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in the student camera documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election, feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress and we ask what is your top priorities and why. make a five to six minute video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. do not be afraid to take risks. be bold. among the 100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 23, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org for rules, kits resources and a step-by-step guide. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back elie mystal who is the correspondent for nations magazine covering the court and criminal justice system. elie mystal begins with the

post. i want to begin with a panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit court yesterday he writes rather unvarying and unanimously granting the justice department a reprieve from judge alan callan barring them for reviewing documents with markings from mar-a-lago. your take on this? guest: the last 36 hours have been the worst of the donald trump era, regime, presidency, indoctrination tour the 11th circuit i think strongly and unanimously as he pointed out explained to the country just how bad and corrupt the trump judge's decision was. the was very smart here they had

a very limited appeal attacking the part of the order sink the justice department couldn't even continue investigating the espionage crime based on the documents they recovered from his possession. the judge said that's ridiculous that's not how the law works, that's not how it's going to work. and struck down that part of judge cannon's order. good day for the justice department a good day to show the lawyers smart and omitted the scope of the appeal. and a big win for them going forward. in the espionage case, the special master that the judge did appoint he seems so far to

be a pretty straight shooter. i wasn't convinced he would be. two things about him the department of justice like tim and -- like tim and a donald trump like tim but the guy has been pretty down the middle, pretty straight with that so he has been kind of pressing the trump team on what their actual legal argument is. judge cannon kind of try to figure out what a legal argument could be to save the man who appointed her nine days after he lost an election. jerry is asking does he actually believe that the fbi is lying? that is his actual legal argument? they have not responded yet. the trump team actually has to articulate the legal grounds for opposing the warrant and the searches which we actually haven't heard yet.

that will be interesting as well. host: and the judge did ask the president's lawyers to prove their claims that the fbi planted documents. guest: yeah. they're asking what documents he declassified. he is on state tv that he could declassify just by thinking about them. apparently trump thinks he has some kind of telepathic powers to declassify documents. they're asking him which documents did you declassify? show me. he hasn't shown them yet. we will see what kind of expo fecteau argument they come up with. they are asking fairly basic questions, trump judge cannon did not ask, did not care to

inquire about. judge dearie is asking about them. host: he said they have until next week, there is a deadline of next week. guest: yup. and i, like many viewers, will be interested to see what they come up with. host: washington times notes lawmakers are responding to the president say he can declassify just by thinking about it and what they are saying about it is a president enjoys broad discretion. guest: sure. does that extend to telepathy? i mean, come on. i understand that you are a republican and part of your job is to make the ridiculous mouth voices that come out of donald trump's mouth and translate that

to some kind of political english. i understand that is what it requires but come on. i think every person with common sense knows that if you want to declassify a document you have to say to somebody this document is now declassified. because, and here is the reason why this argument has already's -- always been a red herring. you cannot declassify something just for yourself. we have levels of classifications and every time you knock a document or series of documents down a level you open it up to a larger group of people who now has the ability to see the document. if trump, as a private citizen, if trump as president declassify something so he can see it as a private citizen when he is no longer president, if he declassified something so that for essentially his golf club buddies can see it when they come over for dinner all right?

that declassification doesn't just affect trump and his cronies. it affects anybody. so if i want to see a document that has been declassify don't to the level of a private citizen, i should be able to see the document. if our enemies want to see a document that has been declassified don't to the level of private citizen, they too could see it. so the idea that trump is going around blanket we declassify state secrets and military information is either a lie and because it's trump i tend to believe it's a lie. or, it is one of the biggest security breaches in american history. i am interested to see next week which one of those that trump's lawyers pick. host: let's get into the law. what would be the charges the justice department would use against the former president if they were to do that?

guest: we are still looking at espionage charges. the detest -- declassification is a red herring are not going after him for classified documents, for mishandling classified documents. they are going after him for mishandling state secrets. though secrets are, there is a way they are supposed to be handled regardless of the classification levels we spoke with. one thing you can do with state secrets is still them. you can't keep them in your house. they are not yours. so this idea that trump can still documents from us, from the american government, keep them in his golf club when they have sensitive defense information that is espionage. that is right in the espionage act. that is the investigation that is ongoing and now next to the

11th circuit it can continue to go on in terms of what he saw from the national archives. host: according to usa today, a third of the public does not believe former president had sought -- classified documents. or 61% did not believe. the number is higher for independents that believe he did as well as for democrats but what are the ramifications when there are such a large number of republicans, say he did not? guest: i understand trump is in charge of a cult. and i understand that people think he can do no wrong and that cult leader has threatened violence. i understand all that. i understand the ramifications of what that means. it frightens me.

what these people are willing to do should their dear leader face the consequences of his actions. but i am forced to ask, what are the ramifications if we don't? what are the ramifications and consequences if we don't prosecute people who still think -- steel state secrets for espionage? what are the ramifications if we don't prosecute people who set a coup against the government? any president in the future of our for public or as long as we are still allowed to have one knows they can do anything they want as president and nothing will ever happen to them so long as they build up a base who are willing to do violence to protect them and at the ramifications of that are far more dangerous to the future of american democracy than the

ramifications of trump supporters getting there into where -- underwear in a twist and having another violent rally somewhere. host: loretta is a republican viewer, you are up first. caller: please let me talk and don't talk down to me. president, the senior bush he had his records in a strip mall. george junior had his in a warehouse. obama had his in a furniture store. clinton had his in a car dealership. guest: the difference between his records and the government's records, it is a difference between records that are your personal correspondence from your time in the white house which is what i think you are talking about. versus national defense information and state secrets that belong in the national archives or the host: desk.

can i have her finish her thought? caller: i support trump that he is not no sent. clinton ain't no saint. all his fans into dead. the fbi went after the pillow man and took his phone. the fbi has been corrupt and hillary clinton and the pfizer courts going after trump. you know, you cannot be a hypocrite and say one side and not the other. that is a hypocrite. guest: what is hypocritical about going after criminals? is your argument that trump didn't still state secrets or is your argument that everybody steals it's secrets? i can tell you factually that trump is being investigated for stealing sick -- state secrets if your argument is he didn't

still them then you have nothing to fear from the investigation. if your argument is that everybody still things, that is just wrong and i encourage you to find better leaders who don't steal stuff. host: 80 texas, -- katy, texas. willie. caller: i have seen him on c-span several times and let me give you somebody, baby you can get to counteract some of the stuff he says like loretta devine, mike davis who will tell you exactly why this is a total democrat hoax. they are the president's documents. the declassification process, can you lay that out for us? and you lay it out point by point what the process is for a president to declassify documents? guest: i said many times the

days declassification issue isn't the issue. the president can declassify the documents that he wants he has the right to do that. it's not a complicated process. which is why nobody is going after him for declassify documents. people are going after him for stealing state secrets. people want to know which documents he supposedly declassified. this is not whether or not the power -- the president has the power to do it he does. he has to tell somebody he can't do it telepathically but he has the authority to do that. but does he have the authority to steel state secrets? can i ask you, willie, do you understand what the differences between a state secret and national defense information and a personal remembrance from the white house do you understand the difference between those? host: if the trump lawyers prove

that he declassified these documents are they then no longer state secrets? guest: no. there are documents that are still national defense information that are declassified. there are things that are still pentagon secrets information that are not top-secret classified. that is just a thing. moreover, if he declassify's certain documents, arguably the lower declassification level can be avoided by anybody and we should be able to see what he declassified. so we will know very quickly if he actually declassified anything, whether or not what he declassified were national defense secrets. we will find out. again, i don't understand why there is so much kind of talk in media fixation on the did he or didn't he declassify documents

when it is clear the department of justice that think they are intrigued -- interested in is national defense information. it is just a red herring. host: let's move on to the new york attorney general what she announced this week in that civil lawsuit against the former president and his children. what is your take on it and also just following a civil lawsuit when it comes to real estate? guest: trump allegedly committed various financial crimes, these financial crimes he has known but they are like the broad strokes of them since michael cohen testified in front of congress what trumps scheme was. he would overvalue his assets when it came time to seek a loan from a bank. he would undervalue his assets when it came time to pay taxes. michael cohan has been telling us that since 2019. he told aoc specifically that

when she questioned him under oath in front of congress. so we have known the scheme for some time. this lawsuit is the result of a years long work of investigating. it was proof on the putting for what he has done. what she has alleged to have found is massive overvaluation of his assets when it came time to file for a loan and massive undervaluing when it came time to pay taxes. that is illegal. that is fraud. that is financial distress but -- misrepresentation. there are laws against that which he and his family will not face. other people who had authority on some of these documents include donald trump junior and eric trump and ivanka trump. so trump and his family and his cronies are now in significant trouble because of these fraudulent misrepresentations and i can already hear callers

on the republican line, everybody cheats on their taxes. every president of values their assets, no, that is not actually not everybody does this. it's criminal. criminals do this and trump and his family are criminals or at least are being investigated for criminal activity. that is the point of this lawsuit. for a lot of people on the democratic length they are going to say well civil lawsuit isn't an f. the charges, these are fines. there are more than fines. there is a prevention of him doing business in new york for five years, prevention for him and his family during real estate transactions in new york for five years. given what donald trump's business is that's real.

it's not jail. it's not the kind of things that send a person to jail. but if you want someone to go to jail and the person you have to ask is not the attorney general who is using the powers of her office appropriately and i would argue restraining lee she is not over exceeding her bounds. if you want criminal charges you have to look at the manhattan da who has already let trump off the hook for some of this. you have to look at the federal prosecutors which is headed by a man damien williams who reports to merrick garland. those are the prosecutors that can put trump in jail if you want that to happen. almost james can do is she can do the thing from trading places. she made a rich person a or person. host: new york post editorial reads what letitia james to not

have proven his tax fraud. she is referring her case to the irs which provides little proof of trump undervaluing assets. after years of screaming that trump was a kirk, all she could allege is real estate developer lied to thinkers. you think his voters will care? guest: two thinks about this. as i already stated before i cannot concern myself with how the cult members will view their cult reader. the cult people are in it to win it regardless of any facts or evidence that you bring to support them. worrying about what are some voters got nothing? i don't care.

i don't care what they think. i care with the law is. number two, if you committed tax fraud, he did it at the federal level and that is what james is saying. there are criminal tax fraud charges, their art criminal tax front charges on his federal taxes. so that's there. the things that she can prove are the overvaluation of assets and i found it interesting over the last 24 hours how many people i heard as well how many people are basically saying that lying to banks is not a real crime. that you can lie to a bank whenever you want on your loan application because that is just what everybody does. which would be news to me, you know? when i fill out my application for my mortgage i thought i had to tell the truth. i didn't know lying was the way to go. maybe i will try that, maybe i will try to refinance my house

and lie. i mean, if that is what we are doing here then sign me up. but i think in regular america the idea that you can lie to a bank so that they give you money , most people understand that is criminal activity and again most people don't do it. host: steve, democratic caller dover, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to tell you i listen whenever i get a chance and i think he is awesome. and it spot on on everything he has to say. trump, i agree with him who cares? host: we will go to steve in portland, oregon.

republican caller. caller: how are you doing tonight? host: morning, go ahead. caller: i was talking about the elie when i was on hold i don't understand the bias. democrats been trying to get trump for nine years now. that is one thing one after another after another. it don't make no sense. guest: do you think trump lied about how much his assets were? do you think trump lied about anything? caller: well what happened during the whole crash of the housing market the state of income? everybody lied about it. guest: so you think trump did like, you just think everybody lied so there is no crime? caller: i don't think he lied but i had a bunch of friends that did get loans and kept

getting lower interest rates and buying votes. guest: you don't think trump lied but you think your friends light and because of that the allegations that trump lied are not true? is that what you are saying? caller: no i'm saying i don't think i trump lighted at all and i think you're biased. guest: according to the complaint and i can only look at the numbers that people are providing meat trump said his apartment for instance in new york city was 30,000 square feet and actually it was 10,000 square feet. that is two thirds more than the apartment actually was. that is the allegation. if trump didn't say that, that would be interesting. but if he did say that, you understand how that is a lie, right? you understand how that is not true? great steve? host: i moved on to the next call. guest: i will finish the point. there is a universal thing that

trump could have said that is not true all you need to do is understand that if those things are proven that he actually said these things that are not true, to banks and official documents, those are crimes. host: springville, mississippi. tammy, democratic caller. caller: i'm so excited to talk to elie i would like to hear him explain to the lady from mississippi why it's not just random. these things that are happening. guest: the lindell case it's through the for collector cause. let's talk again about january 6. let's talk about what that was all about the investigation into that is still ongoing. there are various people who tried to defraud the country out

of the election, right? we know there was a plot to put forward a slate of for collector's, of people who were not the duly elected electors from their state who had -- but just vote for trump they think trump one. there were a couple of different plots going on by john easton, the trump lawyer and we know the pillow guy was involved. we know the pillow guy was involved in some of the stuff that the overstock guy has already come in and testify to what he knows and that also, i believe, i believe there was something from the overstock i that had something to do with the pillow guy. no, all that is happening is the investigation is moving forward. mike lindell was asked to come in, he didn't, they seized his phone. that's what you do to criminals. like, this happens all the time

to people who commit crimes or are suspected of committing crimes. and i feel like people who are surprised that it keeps happening to trump at some point need to ask themselves why trump and his cronies are constantly investigated for crimes. host: barber in oklahoma, independent. caller: thank you, elie, i love you. i wish i could wake up to you every morning. i am so glad you are on here to straighten out some of these lies. i cannot believe c-span that's these callers come in and light or hang up on them when they say that trump won the election but i think you are so valuable to america. i love what you say and i never disagree with anything you say. just keep calling them out. you are doing so good and it is

so refreshing to have you on instead of these people who believe the lies. guest: thank you for that. i will say this the reason i do this show and stay involved is because look, we have to have a society with people. i know people of both sides that don't really want to be in society with the other side. most days, i don't want to either that this is our country this is our society and there are people who believe these lies. i can't, as you are seeing today, i'm not going to change anybody's mind. you can't wake a sleepwalker. like you can't wake people up out of their dream. but i like to try to show people that you also don't have to be afraid. one of the things that i think, one of the things that slows our country down is the feeling that we have to be constantly afraid of what they are going to do

next. and what they are going to say next and what they are going to believe. i'm trained to show you can understand where they are, meet them where they are and you can argue with them and you're not going to change their mind but you don't have to be afraid. i hope people kind of take that from some of the stuff i am out here, just to be afraid of these people. do what's right. care about what's right. care about what is true. care about what is just and don't be afraid. host: let's move onto another legal issue at that is the republican governors of texas and florida transporting migrants to so-called liberal cities on the east coast and other areas. they want you to respond to governor ron desantis of florida on fox news when he is asked about the legalities of his actions. guest: by the way, just for the record this was voluntary. [video clip] >> all migrants were put on

buses they were showered, they were offered haircuts and any other services they were needing correct? >> they also all signed consent forms and the vendor that is doing this for florida provided them with the packet that had a map of martha's vineyard and numbers for different surfaces and it had numbers for the overall agencies in massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. so it was clearly voluntary and all the other nonsense you are hearing is not true. why wouldn't they want to go, given where they were? they were in really bad shape and they got to be cleaned up, everything treated well and put in a situation. there were jobs available in martha's vineyard. there is lodging available. had they lived up to their, what they -- they could have absorbed those people with no problem. host: you thoughts? guest: these trips were not

voluntary. and we know they were not voluntary because they were not told where they were going until they already were on the plane. such a try to get people to understand this, the analogy i make is if you offer to take a bunch of people to disney world which is an internationally known place. if you offer to drive them and they say yes i will go to disney world, i'm going to sign a consent form, i'm going to agree to go to disney world. and you take them to busch gardens, which is not disney world and would make your kids cry if you pulled that switcheroo on them, that is not consent. that is kidnapping. you told people you were going to do one thing, you took them to a different place. if you tell people you are taking them to boston and you take them to martha's vineyard, that is not the same thing. if you tell people you are going to take them to a place that has work visas that has expedited

services, food, housing, shelter and you take them to a place that doesn't have those things, that is not consent. that is kidnapping. and that is what ron desantis did. on the ground, just to be really clear, when ron desantis that they were given packets that showed where my thirst in your word -- martha's vineyard was let's talk about the red packet as it has been described. what happened is the immigrants were on the plane and as it started to dissent into the greater boston area that is when the packet was given to them. that is the first time they had heard of this place called martha's vineyard. they thought they were going to boston. in that packet it included these alleged maps and they were also had brochures that were fake. fake sure is about how these immigrants would be welcomed to

massachusetts that were not printed out by the state of massachusetts or a federal agency. they were printed out by as far as we can tell the vendor ron desantis hired to kidnap these people. those are the facts on the ground. whether you think -- whether you think we have an immigration problem are not, no matter what you think about how the immigration problem should be handled it pains me there are so many of you out there who think that weaponizing people in this way, that using people in this way and taking desperate people, their faults present -- pretenses getting them on a plane to participate in a political stunt by a maga leader, it pains me there are so many of you that think it is cool to own the libs.

what is wrong with you? host: andrew, virginia. caller: first i want to think you are the opinion on the dobbs decision a few months ago. as far as i know any president cannot just declassify any document. i asked that the because what if the document had really important information that if it was released it would be beneficial to at our adversaries? guest: it is a bit of a red herring. look, the president has broad powers. when they are president. it is possible for a president to declassify whatever he wants. the same way the past president can pardon whoever he wants. it is a broad power.

if you want to restrict the power you have to have a new law or amendment. the president can declassify whatever he wants, when they declassify whatever they want behind door number two is one of the biggest national security preaches. if he declassified sensitive top secret classified information that means anybody can see it. if he declassified it to the point where he can see it as a private citizen where jerry can see it as a private citizen, or ivanka could see it, were people going to his golf club see it, if he declassified it to that level anybody can see it. and if he declassified it, top-secret information to the point where anybody can see it that is one of the greatest national security breaches in american history. i don't think he did i just think he's lying. host: andrew, does that answer your question? caller: yes. that's what i wanted to know.

i just couldn't believe that any president could just, you know, declassified but now i see he possibly could is just it can cause great harm. host: we will go to rick in illinois. independent. caller: i am listening to you and the problem for me is this presidency, you know, a lot of what he did in his campaign was he lied and told people what they wanted to hear and it was, you know, it was challenged but people get to choose to believe whatever they want to believe. and the problem is just like what you are saying as far as the stuff that is like there's a process to declassify.

he should be held accountable. but the problem is the people get charged people charging him have a choice whether to hold him accountable or not. merrick garland, he does not have to charge him. he does not from what i'm hearing in the news. and this is where a lot of people say he can't do that because, not because he doesn't want to but he doesn't have the evidence or he can't do it legally so people, that's their perception to the truth of the reality. that's what they are living off of, the perception of what they think it should be and based off of the evidence they get that is what tells their perceptions with the truth is. my problem is i'm having a

problem with my bank, with my escrow. they are basic my escrow based on their projections from what they seen last year. will my problem is it's wrong. and they are telling me when i asked for them to look at this again they didn't look at it again they just sent me an itemization of the same stuff they sent me which was wrong. host: what is your point for elie mystal caller:? my point is this stuff is financial but there should be legal precedents that packs this stuff. that says hey, you can't, you can lie to people but when you are found out, the consequences are sort of like the banking industry that you don't get the loan. and there should be legal

repercussions to the weight businesses are operated that are against the law. guest: one of the things we dealt with which is represent that we had to learn the difference between laws. there is a set of actions that normal people and normal presidents haven't done because it would have broken a norm. trump through all of those out on his first day. he has never been beholden to norm and what we are seeing, breaking a norm isn't a crime. that is where we see with the misrepresentation and drawing with a sharpie on a hurricane to pretend it's going in a different direction. things that normal presidents don't do, that normal people don't to, the only narcissistic liars do but trump is a narcissistic liar and it is not a crime to lie.

it is not a crime to draw sharpie projections on a weather map. that is one category. then there is another category of stuff that he has done that are straight up crimes. what we are seeing is another example of one of those crimes. it is a crime, it is fine to lie to the media when you want them to print your ridiculous story. there is a law against lying to the banks. same with the espionage charges. when you are acting -- asking them to give you money for a campaign, it's a crime to steal documents from the american government. there are two different things. so i think one of the difficulties with trump is separating out the annoying norm

raking stuff which does trigger the libs. but then there is lawbreaking stuff which should get a rise out of the justice department and the attorney general's around the country. host: democratic caller from florida. caller: hi. three quick points. one is, they keep talking about the classifying documents why did trump have those documents? what did he intend to do with those documents? that scares me. second point, why would people not care about truth and justice in our country which is the foundation for all of us to provide security that we can, you know, live together.

the third, very quick point, people keep saying that people who demonstrate black lives matter and there are millions of us that when people were violent or committed crimes that there was no consequences. over thousands of people arrested, hundreds of people in jail now, people for punished for demonstrations on january 6 but not during black lives matter. host: ok, karen. guest: those are all good points. i think the stilling the documents is not the declassification but as karen pointed out, why he had them. and how he was handling them. who else was he showing them to? still have not gotten to that question yet.

it's not just that he had them, who else had them? who else was he showing these documents to? that is the real big issue. i think that is number one. truth and justice and the american way, this country has an ok at some points and really bad at other points with the whole truth and justice thing. being untruthful and unjust is more american than people think. i do think that, again, we look at normal presidents we are striving to do better than our past and you have a president like trump who seems to want to bathe and soak in the lies and misery of our past which is unfortunate. and then finally it gets to the point, again this is part of a cult aired once you are in the cult and the cult tells you that

other people are not true. you believe that. so much of it is confirmation bias. people are looking to have their bias confirmed. they already believe it thing and they are looking for facts that fit the narrative as opposed to coming to every situation with fresh eyes and a fresh outlook. i think the caller that was think the difference between the cap -- tax fraud and the over evaluation of assets is the perfect example of that. people who want to believe that trump can do no wrong or like see, no tax fraud charges. i'm like, ok. she doesn't have them for text right. but she's got them for this other thing. it's how you come to the story before it's written. host: you can follow elie mystal 's writings if you go to the nation.com and on twitter.

thank you very much for the conversation. guest: thinks so much for having me, greta. host: we will take a break and we will have a conversation with tony perkins about the role of evangelical voters in the midterm elections. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span campaign 2022 coverage is your front row seat to the midterm election. watch it as it happens on the campaign trail. meet in crete, debate, and other events during this year's senate, house, and gubernatorial races. you can take us with the on the go with c-span now our free mobile video app and visit c-span.org/campaign2012 to. your website for our coverage.

as well as maps and charts to track results. campaign 2022, your unfiltered view of politics. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this week house minority leader kevin mccartney released the agenda called listen to america. american history tv looks back at the 1994 republican campaign rally when georgia represented newt gingrich. more than 300 republican challengers and members of congress voted on a contract with america and why at 9 a.m. eastern a discussion on the global impact or scholars and authors explore how the american revolution transformed government and impacted

countries around the world. explore the american story watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or online anytime. >> be up-to-date with the tv's podcasts about books. current nonfiction book releases post guests. follows news and trends. you can find us on c-span now our free mobile app or where ever you get your podcasts. >> now available in the c-span shop the 2022 congressional , directory. go there today to order a copy. this compact spiral-bound book as 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 at c-span shop.org or scan the qr code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support nonprofit operations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back with us this morning's tourney -- tony perkins to talk about campaign 2022 the evangelical voters. let's talk about first of all the political arm of the family research capsule. what role you play in 2022? guest: good to see you. thank you for the invite to be back. you have a beautiful view of the capital. our political arm is probably a quarter of our operation. our focus is on the policy although we will be very involved in midterm elections

our focus is on voter registration and voter education. we do that through our churches. we have a network of about 15,000 churches across the nation. we are doing voter registration, we have seen great improvement in the last decade. people move around and change it we have to keep that. we will be spending a few million dollars on that front. we will not put a lot of money into the campaigns. there are some candidates that we are supporting that we kind of recruited, we trained. but our primary focus is voter registration and education. we will put out several million voter kari -- guides. host: how concerned are you when polls like this come from nbc news show that the issue of abortion, the supreme court decision on dobbs and trump is boosting the prospects for

democrats? guest: they continue to show that the in this em level is with republicans. so i'm not overly concerned and i have been in politics a long time. a day is like a lifetime it can change overnight. we don't know what's going to happen between now and the election although we are beginning to see early votes that were coming into the final stretch very confident republicans will take control of the house in the midterm election the question is what will the margins be? the senate is what is more in question as to what will be the outcome of the senate elections. host: what is the enthusiasm level of evangelical voters? guest: i think it is very strong. i think in the post dobbs world they think their efforts in terms of being consistent in voting for pro-life candidates, voting for those who were

committed to restoring and understanding the sanctity of human life have paid off. you don't sow and reap in the same season. they realize there is work to be done. what the court's decision did, it did not outlaw abortion is simple he put it back to the states and to the people. so now they know there is going to be more at the state level. there has to be worked and in continuing to expand the network of pregnancy centers across the nation helping women. a lot of work to be done but i think the enthusiasm level is there. host: talk about the votes in the coming days but also the future of that boat went according to the research center u.s. christian majority is projected to end by 2070. christians account for 90% of the population 50 years ago. christians projected to make up between 35% by 2070 if the trend

continues. guest: there is another trend taking place that is quite interesting. as those trends change we also see demographic changes where we see more hispanics becoming the majority minority in this country and it is very fascinating to see what is happening with the hispanic community in terms of their connection with evangelicals. a large portion of those coming to the country are evangelicals and disproportionately they share the value issues with the evangelicals. in fact, if you look at the most recent data in the polling the hispanics are stronger than whites when it comes to the issue of abortion and wanting to have restrictions on abortion. host: how do you choose which candidate to back? guest: it comes down to the issues and this is the thing that is interesting. i think it is often

misunderstood i go back to donald trump as a great example was a lot of criticism why did they support donald trump? when you look at the candidates and the position they took on the issues who was more aligned with them on the issues? it was donald trump. it really is just a party platform. there are things that are clear contrast that emerge before the parties and it is very evident. that's kind of inside baseball, when you look at the party platforms, 75 to 80% of the time the two parties follow the platforms. president joe biden, what he is doing right now in terms of what we described as liberal policy that pertain to family issues almost all of that is in the democratic party's platform. that is with the party stands for. host: does personal character matter to you? guest: number one, in a primary you have a choice to vote for

whoever you wanted the is and is clearly aligned with you down the line. that includes the character issue, that includes policy issues, but when you get to the general election it is usually a different lineup. you have two contrasting ideologies. so at that point, in 2016 evangelicals had a choice between hillary clinton and donald trump. donald trump his character, did they align with him? he chose mike pence as his running mate. he released a list of conservative names of potential conservative justices. it wasn't even a choice. host: let's hear from robin, cleveland, tennessee. caller: i am calling from the bible belt. i want to ask mr. perkins the invasion to local christian, all

you need to hear about the religion. i am wondering at this point what values do evangelical christians have that anybody would want to follow? they are big liars, racist, you go along with any dirty low-down thing donald trump does. the black church don't do that. the black church is true. they say if you a liar you burn in a lake of fire. so how do you justify following a racist, lying criminal and call yourself christian? guest: first off, it is the policies. when you look at the policies and what actually came out of the trump administration i make no apologies for supporting donald trump. when you look at the fact that he one of his first actions was to issue a reinstatement of the mexico city policy which would

expand it to make sure taxpayers in the united states did not export and fund a portion if you look at the fact that he issued an executive order in may of his first year that protected religious freedom across the board in federal government in each department and agency. when you look at the historic gains on the issue of the sanctity of life you look at the supreme court. the justices he appointed. look, again, we can separate the tweaks and the character of the individual with the policies and personality put in place. so i don't know and evangelical that cares about the issues that is apologetic for what happened during his four years and term of the policies that were enacted. host: pensacola florida, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: hello, good morning. mr. perkins, i have to say your

thoughts about the policy is a cowardly response to why you guys were supporting donald trump. policy, jesus satan came and promised him all kinds of things. all he had to do was bow down to satan. satan told him he would make him all these things, and you can say that jesus went with satan's policies because it was beneficial if jesus would have taken him up on his awful or -- offer. i want you to say in no uncertain terms how these immigration tactics that these governors are doing, how you compare that to the peril --

parable of the good samaritan. i want you to use the parable of how you can tell me ron desantis and greg abbott are doing what is biblical based on the good samaritan. guest: when we look at what is happening on the front of illegal immigration, it is illegal. as a result, they are enticing people to come to this country with open borders. we have people being trafficked, women being trafficked. we have drugs come across the border. in august, the border patrol confiscated 500 million doses worth a fentanyl. we now have the largest calls for death among 18 to 35. overdose were related to fentanyl. that is because of a policy of open immigration.

we bring attention to this issue by taking those that have come in illegally. they say they want to be sanctuary cities know them will take them up. it brings attention to this debate, and it will be a factor in the midterm elections. host: what if it is found that they did not give a commitment? guest: that has not been proven to be the case. host: frank, republican, wisconsin. caller: good morning. mr. perkins, thank you. thank you for being a shining light on the conservative side of issues. a couple points. the first comment is your first caller from tennessee should have been censored. i can't believe c-span would allow that. rhetoric on live air. ridiculous. i cannot believe it at all. secondly, thank you for sharing information that you just did to

the previous caller to have an idea about the border we have, the criminal activity, and it's one thing to be hospitable and welcoming to immigrants, but it's another thing to be allowing cartels to control the borders with human trafficking. it seems that many of the democratic or liberal people want to ignore the safety issue that goes along with that. thank you. guest: i was just having this conversation with an ambassador to this country on the issue, with evangelicals, but were not opposed to immigration. we welcome it. i mentioned a few moments ago, many of those coming to this country are fleeing socialist countries. they share our values and understand the importance of the family. they understand religious

conviction, those are the things under attack. we have a commonality with them. we align with conservatives and republicans and conservative parties. immigration has been brought up, and i want to address that from a biblical perspective. we are to be welcoming and caring, but there is an element of the rule of law. if you go to the old testament and look at this, those that would sojourn with israel, i want to get into theology because it was brought up. they had to abide by the laws and customs of israel. there is an assimilation into take place, but a respect for the law. we embrace most -- most evangelicals embrace immigration and welcome them into the country that want to be a part of america. but this is endangering america. we have open borders, and it's not just those from central and

south america coming in. we now have a lot of others being detected at the border that compared to do harm to america. this is a security issue. this is something that -- we had 2 million in stock. that doesn't include those who have gone through. this is a very serious issue. host: going back to abortion. lindsey graham came out with a pro-life group or a 15 week national ban on abortion. mitch mcconnell and others distanced themselves from the proposal saying they want to leave it up to the states. what's your message to those republicans? guest: this is always been my view. even after i was out of office, i was pro-life from the moment of conception, on. but i have supported legislation that moves us towards a national consensus. i was among the first offers of

an abortion clinic regulation will is in office. where we find consensus is the beginning of american supporting limits on abortion. this pulling shows that despite all of the onslaught since dobbs, 60% still support what lindsey graham introduced as common sense legislations. after 15 weeks, when a baby feels pain, that is where we should draw the line and allow states to do other regulation, and that becomes a threshold. a bottom floor. what is passed through the house and is pending in the senate, from the democrats, they eliminate all state actions and criminal notifications. ultrasounds, everything. it provides for abortion on

demand. up until birth, with a possibility of taxpayers being forced to fund it. only 40% of americans support that. i have to ask, who is really doing this? it is not lindsey graham. he is putting forth a starting point of having a conversation and moving us out of the league of seven nations like north korea and china. but they have no restrictions on abortion. host: democratic caller in pennsylvania. caller: when you introduce mr. perkins, you asked him what political activities the family research council was involved in. he said we only do about a quarter of our work as political. then he went on to describe a network of churches, and everything he described was political.

what he has been talking about has been political. also, i wanted to address the term evangelical christians. i believe in the teachings of jesus christ. i am a christian. but please don't call me an evangelical christian. the reason i say this is because this term has come to mean a political group who happened to be christian. they are not saying they are all racist or white supremacist, but they align with the ultra right, and their views are white supremacist, and a lot of them believing christian nationalism which says that christians should rule our government, our laws, and that is sharia law in iran, which people love to rail about.

please don't call me an evangelical christian. thank you. guest: thank you for the call. i agree with bill on one thing. i think the term evangelical has been overused and misused. i'm not sure it really describes evangelicals. they're the ones who by definition bible got. we don't just believe jesus existed. we also lived by that. we believe there is more moral absolute. that is the traditional term. we've moved away from that, and we are working to zero in on a more accurate description of the individuals we work with, we call them, kind of a technical term, but as a ring to it. these are spiritually active government engaged

conservatives. they are involved in culture and politics. politics has invaded everything. the church would argue the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage, the family, those are moral and spiritual issues. it is politicians who made them political, and what you're talking about our political issues. we disagree with that. we have spiritual governance engaged conservatives. these are individuals who are engaged in the process because of their faith, and they work in the community. they do homeless shelter work, and they work with pregnancy centers. they are motivated by faith. we have a questionnaire online that people can take that ask if they are a sage. they can text the number and take a surge a deaf survey to

see if they are sage. it is very elastic, and it doesn't define those who are engaged in the process. host: winding away from moral absolutes. guest: we are not. recent polling shows that some evangelical pastors, 30%, no longer believe in moral absolutes, and that is a part of our church history. with an app and flow, there has been more of an influence on the church influencing the culture, and we believe we have a mandate from jesus christ to solve this. salt preserves light, and here's a prediction. we are going to see hostility towards people who hold moral absolutes. they will use names like

christian nationalists. that is designed to marginalize and intimidate. but they are actually creating more resolve because we see what's happening with our country. we care about art family and kids in the teacher and other people. or going to engage in the process and advocate for laws for people who serve in office, but we believe that christians have a right to serve. we have a right to advocate for the same values from a biblical perspective, just as those who have no faith have a right to engage in the process, and argue from a humanitarian or humanist worldview. that's what makes america work. i am concerned that as we see this effort on the left to silence opposition, that is something that has risen in the last decade.

that has detrimental effects for a country like ours. host: rhode island, founders town, independent. caller: thank you. i'd like to ask mr. perkins if you voted for donald trump. guest: i did. caller: and the options were basically because he had mike pence behind him. guest: in 2016 2020? caller: both. guest: i voted for him in 2016 because he embraced the party platform and embrace those principles. he did select mike pence, and he put forth, for the first time ever, a list of potential justices. i voted for him in 2020 because of the track record he had established on policy during the four years in office. host: woodward, iowa, democrat.

caller: you talk about policies. what exactly was the republican platform in 2020? guest: pertaining to what? caller: the platform. they have one? they did not. guest: they used the party platform from 2016, and use it again as the platform because they do not have a convention because of the pandemic. host: what point do you take away from the platform? guest: i was on the platform committee and i've been there for the last four conventions, and i wrote a good portion of it. it is reflective of many of the values. it is a legislative process. over 100 people work through it. it was a process reflective of the republican voters.

it is clear on the issue of life , supporting the sanctity of life and judges. they should be constitutionalists. the family. it is central. military defense, strong military focus, not on wokeness but defending the nation. it is a very solid platform, and i look forward to seeing the platform in 2024. host: what about same-sex marriage? guest: it shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. that is the core of western civilization and advocates for that in the platform. host: marion louisiana, republican. caller: good morning. i hope you will allow me to finish my statement to mr. perkins. mr. perkins, how are you? guest: i am fine. caller: do not let those people calling and try to make you feel

bad because you believe in the word of god and jesus christ. they try to put the bible on you, but the bible also states judge not lest ye be judged. they are not your judge. only god judges. not only that, but i voted for donald trump twice as well. donald trump has done no more wrong than any other man that has been in the office. some of them did in the office. not only that, but i tell you, the prophecies are being filled. people hate christian people. not only that, but the people who don't know any better, the country is founded on slavery. this country was founded on

judeo-christian values. i'm going to say this and hang up because i know you have to get rid of it. host: finish your thought. caller: not only that, but this country has lost its soul, but this country has lost its mind. look at the things being brought forward. they teach kids and stuff like that. yes. ok. now i will say this. you know what? i was a democrat for years until i found the truth. i always knew that abraham lincoln was a republican. but in 2008, i found out that martin luther king jr. was not a democrat. he and his father was a republican. i reregistered and changed my party and i went all the way

back to 1619, and i found out the truth about the democrats and i will never vote for another one. have a blessed day. guest: thank you. you are an answer to a prayer. this is an example across the country. i like c-span, and i am grateful for the platform because this is one of the few places where it is more civil, but there is a conversation taking place. i am concerned that we are not having conversations, but also debates. 20 years ago, i came to washington and i was on chris matthews show, and baiting the issues. chris didn't agree with me, but we were having conversations. what happened as we move from liberals and conservatives to left and right. there is no longer a debate or

conversation taking place, and there is division. i have spoken out about this, and i think it is wrong. but it is a frustration coming into our society, just as we saw in 2020. we've got to learn to have differences. i'm not saying to drop our differences. i will never surrender the ideas i stand for, but that doesn't mean that i hate people are just like them. we are americans. we have to come together and work through our differences and reach consensus. i don't think this is helpful. host: we will continue to do that on the washington journal. on january 6, you said you spoke out against it. to president trump play a role in what happened? guest: i did not support the president calling for the rally. i didn't go to it. when it occurred, i was in the office of secretary of state

mike pompeo. i had a meeting with him when it occurred. the situation was volatile. i don't think it was a good idea to bring people to washington, d.c.. i don't know the facts, but i don't think the president was intentional in that. i don't think he ought through what could occur. host: jim in evans berg pennsylvania. democrat. caller: good morning. i assume, but i'm not sure you realize that those immigrants that desantis and company sent to massachusetts, those were not illegals. they were asylum-seekers. they were legal. besides that, debts. guest: we can work on those terms. host: let him finish his thought. caller: nowhere in the bible

does it say that you should treat strangers, not like your brother, fairly -- illegal. it is a statement. you should treat a stranger as your brother. simple as that. thank you. guest: as i said. if you go back to those passages in the old testament, there is a requirement that they abide by your laws and customs. when they come across and they are invited to come across, and you talk about a status, it is given to them to release the country. many of them do not show back up to the court date. we had order at the border prior to this administration. i was at the border a couple of times. after this remaining policy was put in place, it was a ghost town. people were not coming across.

children were not being trafficked. you didn't have women being raped at best. this is a security issue and a humanitarian issue. i believe these governors have, by taking these -- they say were not going to be a sacred city on the border. all the sudden, they get a few hundred people and they are screaming for help it --. this brings attention to it. host: lexington, kentucky. independent. caller: i want to address this problem. it seems like we are only doing one half of this. the other half is the man. it is a very simple matter. go to a doctor's office, and make two incisions. one on each side of the groin. six weeks later, you have no more problems. you can't go make anymore a beast. i did that when i was 25. i am 90 years old now, and i

have great grandchildren. i didn't have any little children running around other than what i wanted. it seems to me that you're picking on the ladies, but let the men bear the responsibilities of what they're doing to talk to these women into things and they don't want to bear the responsibility. host: mr. perkins? guest: there is a part of this where we have child support and make sure that men live up to their obligations so that it is part of the reform in the process, but it will get us back to an understanding of the sanctity of human life. there are strong arguments that can be made that as we value human life in its most vulnerable state, in the womb, there is a correlation between the violence we see in our city, and when you look at what is happening, and the last two

years, we set records. we set records for homicide. we see the violence that has been reached in the community, could there be a connection. could we not ask a question? do we value human life and its most vulnerable form? what we are seeing, is that a result? host: what are your thoughts on the house republicans led by eight that minority leader from california. with several other gop callings, they are going to unveil a commitment to america and try to convince voters to vote republican in november? what do you think of the platform, and i use that word, presented? guest: i met with the republican leadership, and really was in four broad areas for 12 points. they are addressing the issue of education. of family and protecting the unborn and their mothers.

it talks about protecting women and one of the things that is interesting is their focus on the financials institutions in terms of what we see happening with this wokeness in corporate america. what -- how financial institutions are being used to cut off customers because they don't share the environmental and social and governor views of many of the folks on the left. it is interesting, and i think it is good. bottom line, it provides a contrast between the two parties and voters will have a clear choice come november as to what type of ideology and policy initiatives they want in governing their country. >> you consulted on this? >> i am in constant conversation

with the republican leadershome , and i've known them for years. i think we have some good leadership in the ranks of republicans, and i am optimistic that we will see again a contrast but before the american people, and it is not just in promise, but i believe we will see many of these. host: if they win the house in november, should kevin mccarthy be the speaker of the house? guest: i think he will be. host: you support them? guest: i've known them for years. i think there a natural progression, and i don't think anyone will challenge them. i don't think there will be a serious challenge. i never will say there won't be,

but the publican caucus is first. it is more conservative now then it has been ever. after 2018, the midterm elections, we had no longer in the looking conference -- congress, those who anchor -- advocate for abortion. kevin was a part of making that happen. host: the president of the family research council, we thank you for your time. now, the leader of the republicans in the house, getting ready in pittsburgh to address a crowd and unveil a republican commitment to america. live coverage on c-span. ♪

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. the program is about to begin. ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ quick c-span live in pittsburgh this morning where the house minority leader kevin mccarthy is expected to speak about the republican agenda as the party goes to the house and the senate. jim jordan is also expected to

speak at this event. it should get underway in just a couple of moments. live coverage, on c-span. ♪

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome the next house republican majority. [applause] ♪