wi-fi enabled lists so families can be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, givingou a front row seat democracy. >> coming up this morning, "washington times" reporter jeff mordock talks about the latest developments in the hunter biden investigation. then an update on the january 6 investigation with cbs news coreional correspondent scott macfarlane. later, chris currie from t government accountability office on the challenges facing the federal government's effort to provide hurricane disaster relief. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: russian missile attacks on ukraine have greatly intensified this week following the weekend

explosion on a major bridge connecting russia and crimea. the ukrainian president has stepped up his pleas for more military assistance from the nato and u.s., missile defense systems and other advanced weaponry. this comes on the cusp of the u.s. midterm elections. the strength of the u.s. commitment to arming ukraine is somewhat of a campaign issue. wednesday, october 12, 2022, welcome to "washington journal." we will ask your views on u.s. support of military aid to ukraine. is more aid needed, less aid, or are we providing about the right amount? if you say more aid is needed to ukraine, (202) 748-8000 is your line. (202) 748-8001 if you say less is needed, the u.s. should provide less aid. if it is about the right amount, that line (202) 748-8002.

you can also send a text at (202) 748-8003, tell us your name and where your texting from. we're on facebook. we're also on twitter and instagram. you can send us your comments at @cspanwj. one of the things that the pew research group has been doing throughout the ukraine conflict is gauging american support for continued aid to ukraine. this is the latest poll that they did, and i will point out that it was done prior to this week's retaliation missile attacks from russia. the headline of this graphic, republicans now more likely to say u.s. is providing too much support to ukraine than too little. to be fair, if you look at the graph, that number from march to may to september when they have taken these pulses risen among all categories, almost three times what it was in the march

survey, 20% now, too much aid being provided. on the republican side and much, 9% of those surveyed said it was too much. today, september survey, 32%. (202) 748-8000 if you say more aid to ukraine as needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say less. for those who think it is about the right amount, (202) 748-8002 . from the "washington post" looking at this as a potential political issue that it really has become in the midterm, this is the headline -- in kyiv, u.s. midterm and need for a cast shadow on battlefieains. they write this, a senior ukrainianfficial who spoke on e ndition of anonymity to speak candidly, said ukraine's near total dependency on foreign military and economic aid meant

s military must quickly recapture as much ssn-controlled territory as possible or any penal softening of western support. u.s. midterms are one of the factors that have us concerned about the winter, the official said. russia will gain an advantage with the new congress and with europeans if they blackmail them on energy policy. that is why the current oafish sieve -- current offensive is so important. here are comments from president biden who was interviewed last night by jake tapper on cnn, asked about vladimir putin and this latest offensive against ukraine. [video clip] >> do you think putin is a rational actor? pres. biden: i think he is a rational actor who is miscalculating significantly. you might recall, i pointed out that they were going to have those 100,000 or more troops there and no one believed he was going to invade ukraine. you listen to what he says, you

listen to the speech he made when that decision was being made, he talked about the whole idea of he needed to be the leader of russia at that united all -- russian speak. i just think it is irrational. >> so if he is not rational and -- pres. biden: i did not say he is not rational. i think his objectives were not rational. i think he thought he was going to be welcomed with open arms, that this is the home of mother russia in kyiv and he would be welcomed. i think he totally miscalculated. >> you talked about this a a few days ago, the search for an offramp for him, because his back is against the wall and there are questions about how rational he is. he already was a brutal dictator. what is the offramp? is there any acceptable way that he can leave, in his mind,

without seizing territory in a way that would not be acceptable to ukraine? pres. biden: i do not know what is in his mind. but clearly, he could leave, could just let leave, and still probably hold his position together in russia. the idea that he has been able to convince a significant amount of the russian people that this is something that he thought made sense but now he has accomplished what he wanted to do and it is time to bring russians home. >> would you be willing to meet with him at the g20? pres. biden: look, i have no intention them meeting with him. but if he came to me at the g20 and said he wanted to talk about the release of griner, i would. host: this morning this was written, president zelenskyy urges g7 to provide air shields and sanctions on russia's missile strikes against it is

across ukraine this week, indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilian populations that constitute a war crime. leaders of the g7 said in a joint statement tuesday, the leaders in an emergency virtual meeting tuesday with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy have pledged to provide his battered nation more financial support, weaponry, and missile defense systems. cinnamon ski urge there was to supply -- zelenskyy urged the west to provide a shield over ukraine and pressed for tougher sanctions on russia's energy sector to stop the flow of money from its oil and gas exports. your thoughts on ukraine military aid, u.s. aid to ukraine. (202) 748-8000 if you say more aid to ukraine as needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say less. for those who think it is about the right amount, (202) 748-8002. the view of democratic punishment frank pallone here in a tweet last night, if it were

up to many republicans in congress, he says, they would let putin take over ukraine without any resistance, they are suggesting that a republican geordie would stand idly by dictators who take military action against our democratic party. let's go to glenn in lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: i believe we should have less aid, because let's take a look at how history is. didn't we miscalculate iraq, the bush administration? vice president dick cheney said we were going to go into iraq and be out within a matter of weeks, probably six to eight weeks, but we were there for 16 years. the vladimir putin is not going to stop. he is not going to stop. nobody is going to do that to what we're doing is just wasting money. we have eight month limit, and that will turn into a year, then

another two years. he is not going to stop until he gets what he wants, and we're going to be wasting billions of dollars providing resources, ammunition, and equipment to ukraine, and they do not have the capacity to produce their own weapons and resources they need. every country involved is providing resources, but that is what is going to have to happen because they cannot produce their own. and russia still has the rep -- their weapons and equipment and resources. they got people working there, and that is what they do for a living. host: do you think that the u.s. goals in ukraine have been clearly stated by the president, by the administration? caller: i do not think it has. why are we supporting them in the first place? they are not part of nato. it was not something that had to be done. basically, we are actually fighting against russia by supporting ukraine. that is what we are doing.

anytime there is something that goes on, like the situation that happens this week when russia bombed some of their cities, we keep providing more support, more supportive. i do not know what the other nato countries are doing to help, whether it is equal across the border whether we're doing more. but the point is, we are trying to fight against russia. that is what we are actually doing. we are not fighting for ukraine. host: here is the headline about nato's response, chief urges allies to expand ukraine arsenal. you can read that in a moment. but we have calls. mark is in staten island, new york. caller: yeah, good morning. how you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i think this is a waste. i think this money should be going to american families that are hurting. there's plenty of people in this country right now that could use this money, and we are dumping

it into other countries. although, you know, a fear of nuclear war is at hand, but come on, really. this country is hurting. a lot of people in this country need assistance, and we should be thinking about american people before we think about anybody else. thank you. host: zach up next, who says it is about the right amount of aid. burlington, wisconsin, this morning. caller: yes, i believe it is the right amount because the fighters need the money, and i believe it is the right amount. host: do you think that ukraine can survive? that they can beat back the attacks from russia? oh, we lost the caller.

let's go to all in falls church, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, listen, great question this morning for chat. i think that joe biden, thank god for joe biden. if joe biden was not in that white house, this would have been a disaster. donald trump would have done nothing to help ukraine. he is a russian client in this country, i don't care what anybody says, and one day the truth will come out. donald trump would have done nothing to stand up to vladimir putin. putin made a mistake by not invading while trump was in the white house. he would have had no resistance from nato. that is why trump tried to destroy nato. host: here is that article from the "new york times" on nato and

the call for more weaponry. calls on alice to step up arms supplies to ukrainians, especially sophisticated air defense systems, day after russia range rocket fire 19th it is across ukraine in a marked escalation of the assault on civilians. as missiles and rockets continue to strike ukraine, though in smaller numbers than on monday, the nato secretary-general said that moscow's attacks on civilian targets who were -- were "a sign of weakness and ukraine would be better able to deter them if it's insisting weaponry was expanded. " lee in charleston, south carolina, feels more aid is needed. caller: good morning. yes, of course, they need more and we could provide that to them. we are talking about good versus evil. what we are actually doing with the jumped down citizenry in the

united states, -- the dumbed down citizenry in the united states, people act like right is wrong and wrong is right and support people with criminal backgrounds, they should be leaders. stupid stuff. give these people but they need to protect themselves and country. thank you. host: this is a fox news opinion piece by congressman chris stewart of utah, former air force officer. congress cannot keep funding ukraine forever without biden telling us his strategy to end the war. that fox news opinion piece, the representative says this, with congress passing an additional $12 million in the ukraine aid, i believe time has come to ask a series of critical questions. what is america's strat ukraine? what is our goal? can we achieve thago not pushing putin to use, in his own all available means at his al?

commander-in-chief has to answer these questions. by leave -- i believe it is irresponsible to spend $12 billion, and a cumulative total of at least $54 billion of an effort that has no defined end. that is from congressman chris stewart on an opinion piece on foxnews.com. (202) 748-8000 is the line to call if you feel that more aid is needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say less aid is needed. if you think the amount of aid right now is about right, (202) 748-8002. mike in norwalk, ohio. good morning. caller: so all these people are saying we need more aid, obviously they have never's -- never been veterans and have never seen combat. with fillon ski, -- with president zelenskyy, biden in

control, they were going to put these guys in jail, and then suddenly we're fun during -- funding ukraine. when is it enough? we have to start taking care of ourselves. we have money they are printing left and right. that building behind you right there is full of people spending our tax money, our social security money, for what? to take dictators? i mean, putin is putin. he is going to do what he is going to do. do we really need another war? we just left another disaster with this administration. it is evident they don't know what they're doing. look at this critical race theory. you got individuals that do not know what they are doing but they are put into the position because of their color, race, or whatever. host: some comments on social media you can also sent a text to (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from period in hometown, illinois, says i believe less is needed, at least

until some can account for the amount already given. aliens go a long way, but show us where the money has gone. -- billions go along way, but show us where the money has gone. anthony, democrat, if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot and the oligarchs refunding mexican military to destabilize american control of our historical territories, the results will be similarly provocative. nothing good will come from this disaster, other than the profits of military industrial congressional defense lobby contractors. ray in aurora, colorado, saying aid in the form of weapons needs to come to a halt. the latest in and princeton university professor steven cohen warned about the consequences of the u.s. government's meddling in ukraine . the only aid that should be offered is letting war refugees into our country. this is the "washington post" this morning, the headline, biden scrambles to prevent

cracks in support for kyiv. they talk largely in this article about the international coalition of providing aid to ukraine, particularly nato, obviously, and efforts today at the u.n. to condemn russia, but writing specifically about domestic support. here is what they say, so far, the white house has been able to maintain bipartisan support for several multibillion-dollar aid and weapons packages to ukraine, but some republicans align with former president donald trump have begun raising questions about why the u.s. is spending so much money on a distant war overseas. in a decision last week, saudi and russian led coalitions cut oil production is likely to send gas prices climbing again, which could sour the public even further. "maintaining support here and in congress and with the broader american public is something we do think about and recognize over time will increasingly become a challenge." a senior administration said.

but there probably people who would have thought, even at this point, seven months into the conflict, that we would have a hard time with what remains pretty bipartisan, with what remains pretty bipartisan unity. let's hear from tom in baltimore, maryland, says more aid is needed. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that more aid is needed. china is watching this right now. they have their eyes on taiwan, and nice -- they want to see what the hell the united states is going to do to react to this thing. and they should be careful about this, and i think we should withdraw aid to saudi arabia and redeployed those things to ukraine, missile defense systems. thank you. host: next call is from boise, idaho, saying less aid is needed. caller: good morning. i do understand the u.s. needs to take the leadership position

here and bring both parties into the dialogue. they need to understand about putting money for weapons will not help. russia has enough to destroy whatever is there. so there's no point putting money in the weapons. but helping the people of ukraine, yes, that can be done. but come to the dialogue, simple. host: do you think the world will have to live with where it is now? ukraine now virtually divided with russia, in effect, annexing those provinces, those territories of ukraine? caller: right, yeah, so that definitely has to be done for the population of ukraine. it has to be the people of ukraine to decide what they want

to do. host: what about russians controlling those territories and the ukrainians have no voice? caller: they should be given the complete freedom to work for it and say, ok, we want to be ukraine, independent, we want to be another separate state, whatever. let the people decide. host: to grandville, pennsylvania, dale is of the view that more aid is needed. go ahead. mute your volume on your television, then go ahead with your comments. caller: all right, thank you. hello, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span, and although i do not agree with all the callers, i thank you that you allow everyone to come on with something to say.

i think we should give more to ukraine. all we have to do is look back into the 1940's and adolf hitler and what he did. when he conquered one country, he was emboldened to try and look country, until he could go all the way to england where he was finally, thankfully, stopped. so, yes, i think we should be able to give more to ukraine, even if it costs each citizens in the united states more to help them fight this war. thank you for taking my call. host: rob is in port crane, new york, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, bill. thank you for taking my call. i am more concerned about our border here. there's 4.5 million illegals running around this country. we do not even know who the hell these people are, and we are sending $60 billion to ukraine? that money could be better spent

right here and not on a bunch of nazis, because that is exactly what they are. host: "wall street journal" reporting on the recent airstrikes of russians, strikes to hold in kyiv's air defenses. the pentagon has said the u.s. is sending two mobile air defense systems to ukraine within the next two months. another six of those systems, which are deemed to be effective against cruise missiles, have been earmarked for ukraine. the pentagon and industry officials have said it could take about 18 months or more to finish and deliver them. on those attacks, ukrainian ambassador to the united nations at the u.n. denouncing the russian attack. here is what he said. [video clip] >> at least 84 missiles and two dozen uae's.

energy facilities, residential buildings, schools, and universities, museums, city centers were targeted. the russian defense ministry declared later legitimate. the entire world has once again seeing the true face of the terrorist state that kills our people. suffering defeat on the battlefield, russia takes it out on the piece of -- the peaceful residents of ukrainian cities. today's strikes wounded at least 19 a killed 47. it is a war crime. by launching missiles on civilians sleeping in their homes or walking to work, children going to schools, russia has proven once again

that it is a terrorist state that must be deterred in the strongest possible ways. host: some comments in reaction on social media from the twitter account of the house republican foreign affairs committee, representative maccoll said after the attacks, i am sickened by russia's deliberate strikes across ukraine, against children's playgrounds, public parks, during rush out, and energy and water infrastructure, none of which holds military purpose. this one says i believe we should be willing to support ukraine as they fight against putin, but every dollar spent should be accounted for. blindly passing legislation to send billions to ukraine is irresponsible. mary and california says i would like to know what the other countries are contributing to the ukrainian war. it is interesting we can have a yearly trillion dollar budget for the great industrial complex but throw a fit to improve america's infrastructure. nicholas in pennsylvania next,

good morning. caller: good morning, bill. thank you for taking my call. i am in support for ukraine. the american people have a short memory of wanting to live as isolationists. that is what brought on world war ii. we are part of the world and all these other countries, like iran, you have the youth rising up to fight their dictator. you have these people leaving russia because they are scared of their dictator. and putin is trying to again secure his history, or whatever, by taking over other land, like hitler's did. i believe that biden is doing the right thing. i do not think biden should tell the amount of money he is sending in military arms. i think he should give ukraine everything they need, tanks, all the drones they need with missiles. putin is a dictator. he needs to be removed, just like lil kim from north korea

and just like the dictator from china. as far as saudi arabia, we have lived 50, 60 years sucking on oil, and we have been doing this back in the 1980's with jimmy carter, when he said we needed to get off of oil and put up solar panels. change part of life. i don't like change that much, but i don't fight it. i accept it. we have got to get off oil. we have to stop depending on the middle east for oil. it is a cost to our planet into our people. thank you. host: rhoda in california says the amount of aid is about right -- rhonda, sorry, go ahead. caller: thank you. i am in the middle here on this crisis. i believe now it is time for diplomacy. the callers i have been hearing, i think now the american people are getting tired of all the

billions of dollars going to ukraine, which is fine, but i agree with another caller who stated, what are the other countries doing, as well? also, i live in california. our gas prices are continuing to rise, and here again, i hear biden stating, well, it is all the fault of what is going on in ukraine. i question his mental stability at this time, i do. and i feel it is time for diplomacy. and now i am going to tell you something that you may not hear often, but since trump and putin got along so well, send trump over the to talk to this guy. get together a team of congressmen, senators, whatever, put a team together, ambassadors from all over the world, send them over there to talk to putin. i feel it is time now for diplomacy. back in the day, they would have sent kissinger over there.

so i think it is time. i think the american people are getting tired, and we need that money to stay here. look at our borders. and we need that money here to help us. thank you, bill, and thank you, c-span. i am a huge, huge fan and watch you every day or thank you so much, bill. host: appreciate that. rhonda asked what other countries are doing. on that note, the "new york times" has a front page piece about finding arms around the world, in fact, russian arms around the world. headline, u.s. working to supply kyiv russian arms. the russian strikes have hit civilian targets across ukraine this week, immediately brought new pledges by kyiv's allies for more weapons and ammunition. the u.s. promised more air defense missile systems in germany said it would send similar defenses in the next few days. the nato chief declares support to ukraine's fight against russia would continue for as

long as it takes. but for all the assurances, there is a problem, kyiv also needs more of the russian-style weapons of the ukrainian military is trained to use, and the available global supply is running low. the united states and other allies have been scouring the globe looking for willing suppliers of those weapons, in a hunt that has revealed the pitfalls of unlocking stockpiles of russian standard and soviet-style weapons for use by ukraine. there have been some successes. finland, which has long balance the sensitivities of its russian neighbor, is sending ukraine some soviet-style weapons, including ammunition and guns embeddable to the ak-47 assault rifle. south korea is applying ballistic vest, helmets, and other defense assistance. others, like cambodia, democratic republic of congo, rhonda -- rwanda, mexico, and peru are in a painstaking behind

the scenes diplomatic campaign demonstrating support for ukraine but are still reluctant to supply aid. dan is next in georgetown, massachusetts, says less aid is needed. good morning, dan. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. well, listening this morning, people gung ho about we need to do everything we can and send money and don't look back -- you know, i don't think we are even getting an accurate story of just what is happening there. look at the trust that the american people has with the media. we don't trust what they are telling us. so who is reporting to us what is happening in ukraine? now, we look at this current

administration, and this president's relationship with ukraine in the past, and you look at what is happening now. are we really here? we left afghanistan and dove into ukraine with our money. our money is being depleted at such a fast rate that i believe the ones under attack here are the freedom-loving american citizens. we are under attack, and we are witnessing it right now. we are not even sure where this money is going to completely. it is disappearing into thin air. that is exactly what we were doing in afghanistan. suitcases filled with money, with people dispersing it all over the place. everybody knows this is wrong. peace to everybody.

host: to donald calling from denton, texas, says more aid is needed. caller: i have been listening to some of the other callers, and the once saying we need to get out and everything, they don't understand about article five of nato. if russia fully invaded ukraine and then they started poking at nato, we would, by obligation, have to intervene, not only with money but with manpower, boots on the ground. as for where the money is going, look at the amount of area ukraine has recovered since we have been funding them. and also, in the areas that they have recovered, we are seeing signs of torture, brutality that has not been seen since auschwitz and in world war ii. they have recovered boxes of gold teeth from these recovered

towns. so don't tell me that the russians are being nice. and also, ukraine has every right to expel russia from all of its territory, including crimea, which they invaded in 2014. if we don't put forth the effort, russia will win. honestly, i don't think russia will win, as we are seeing the results of their weaponry, how it is failing left and right. they are bringing up tanks from world war ii, t60's, and it is just did you list. the constrict -- the conscription mobilization, they are abandoning them, giving no assets, no equipment. if you need a bullet wound healed, ask your wife or girlfriend for tam pons, is what they are telling their soldiers. i mean, i do not think russia

will survive this winter, because it will not have the gear for it. ukraine will and advance further. host: more calls, coming up on the news this money, campaign 2022, a couple key races in georgia and new pulling up from the atlanta journal-constitution, just published this morning. university of georgia poll, warnock-walker close. greg bluestein writing that u.s. senator raphael warnock and republican herschel walker remain in a neck and neck race for the state's wildly competitive senate seat. gop governor brian kemp has a double-digit lead over democrat stacey abrams. senator rick scott of florida, tom cotton of arkansas, at a campaign rally yesterday with herschel walker in georgia. senator scott was asked by reporters covering the event about the allegations of rape against herschel walker.

here is senator scott. [video clip] >> have you had any conversations with herschel walker about these allegations, and what has he told you about them? >> he has denied the allegations. by the way, has anybody asked about the allegations against warnick? his wife said on camera, calling him an actor, because that is exactly what he is. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to win. look at this state, they will not vote for raphael warnock again. he failed. he is voting for joe biden and chuck schumer basically 100% of the time. that is not what he said he would do, and that is not how he is running. he is a liar. host: our opening topic this morning, is usaid to ukraine -- u.s. aid to ukraine, is more needed? (202) 748-8000 is the line to call if you feel that more aid is needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say less

aid is needed. if you think the amount of aid right now is about right, (202) 748-8002. a couple comments on social media, the armed services republicans say this about monday and tuesday pots russian attacks, the destruction today in kyiv is horrific, allies and partners must give ukraine the missile defenses and long-range weapons and has asked for. arbitrary redlines by the biden administration that hinder shipments will only prolong this conflict. a new jersey democrat says we cannot allow russia march into and take over sovereign nations and allies of the u.s., a huge threat to international peace. this probably involves ukraine giving land to russia in exchange for immediate membership in nato. senater richard blumenthal of connecticut saying putin's massive bombing of civilians requires a robust response beginning with major shipments of more air defense systems,

designating russia a state-sponsored terrorism, and additional ammunition, arms, and humanitarian aid. walter is in meridian, mississippi, his view is less aid is needed. caller: listen, i am a combat veteran. i don't think we should have been in the war i was in, don't think we should have been in iraq, iran, afghanistan, any of the wars, especially this one right here. let the ukraine take care of their self. i just don't understand all this money we spend on these wars for no reason. just think about all these wars we have been in. what did we get out of it? not one thing. that is my comments. host: ok. then dalia, michigan, bob is in support of more aid. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i listen to all these

people talk about not helping ukraine. i am for helping, everything we can do for them. they bring up our borders, bring up afghanistan -- i don't know what the hell that has to do with this. that is a complete different story. the people on the far right are getting so out of whack, they got people in this country brainwashed the attitude in this country has changed so much in the last 50 years. somebody says that the ukrainians are nazis, something is wrong with them making statements like that. being ignorant can be forgiven, but being stupid is a sin. thank you. host: albuquerque, new mexico, is next. hello. caller: good morning, sir. so my feeling about this -- i am hearing people talking about that we are sending way too much money on other countries and we are not spending money in our country equally.

i am hearing some people say that we should really support this because i do support democracy all over our world. so what my idea is is that in order to create some reasonableness with our military spending, i think what we need to do is not fund. so any tax dollars that the government is spending to other countries, we need to match those funds with money spent in the u.s. and looking at this election coming up, they need to hold these politicians accountable and only vote for politicians who will say and only do, which is if they are going to spend money overseas, our tax on it, they need to spend an equal amount of tax money in our country. that is my proposal. host: do you think that the amount we have spent so far, that that aid has been

accurately or at least openly accounted for, that americans know where that aid is going to? caller: no, i honestly really don't care. i don't judge our military too much on how they spend their money. but i think that we should start matching funds, if we spend our tax money that i do my work for and everyone else is doing their hard work for, we need to spend our money in our country matching. that is what i got to say. host: to winston-salem, north carolina, david is on the line. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am calling for less support to ukraine. we got more problems in this country that we need to spend on. we cannot afford forgiveness for students, cannot even provide drinking water for people in mississippi, got inflation, got infrastructure problems.

we continue to get ourselves in foreign wars, did that in iraq, in afghanistan, and now here in ukraine. our border is open, cannot even protect our border. i think we should start intervening in foreign wars that benefit america. it is always america. i think it is about time we start spending most of our money on domestic issues in this country. host: this is from radio free europe, radio liberty, headline, general armageddon, who is the brutal russian commander charged with winning the ukraine work? they write that just after minette on august 21, 1991, -- just after midnight, soldiers from a unit of russia's second guard, a storied force, rumbled into central moscow tunnel and was met by protesters angered

over and attempted to against -- attempted coup against mikael gorbachev. in the chaos that ensued, three soldiers were killed, and they retreated. the clash was a turning point in a coup which collapsed the next day. the man who commanded the unit was briefly arrested for his orders but later cleared. he went on to a long career and the russian military, where he was repeatedly promoted and gained a reputation for utility in chechnya and more recently in syria. on october 8, president clinton appointed the much decorated man, now 56, zero commander of russia's war on ukraine. they used the word armageddon in that headline. president biden raised eyebrows with his use of the term in relation to threats by the russians of their nuclear arsenal. here is senator marsha blackburn

of tennessee and her concerns on what the president had to say in those comments. [video clip] >> what implication could ukrainians be facing him a and the united states, for that matter, for president biden's rhetoric, especially his morning that we could be facing a nuclear armageddon? >> sandra, what our enemies and advertiser -- adversaries are doing is looking at a very weak joe biden, and they are saying, this is how we punch that weak button on him, is to keep pushing forward with threats. and you are seeing them really listen to everything that he says and does. and to go to a fundraiser to say that he thinks we are facing a nuclear armageddon, it is inappropriate. it is impulsive, irresponsible. and if he is going to make that type of assessment, then you deliver the news of that type of

assessment from the oval office, in a formal address to the people of the country, not in an offhanded remark at a fundraiser. host: here is defense news in their reporting with the headline, however republican ripped on ukraine could complicate future aid packages. they write that republican leaders who hope to take control of congress after the november elections would face a growing gap between members of the caucus calling for more robust aid to ukraine and a contingent skeptical of continuing to sell out billions of dollars to kyiv as the war with russia continues. this isn't between the party process establishment republicans in trump style populace, raising questions about whether president biden can rely on lawmakers to continue funding the influx of u.s. military equipment to ukraine if democrats lose control of congress. read that at defensenews.com. about 15 more minutes of your calls on our opening topic about

military aid to ukraine. is it the right amount? -- more aid is needed, (202) 748-8000. if you think we should provide less military aid to ukraine, (202) 748-8001. if you think it is about the right amount of aid, what we have spent so far, (202) 748-8002. greg is on that line in greenville, south carolina. caller: hi, thanks. in comments to what was just said about -- that lady talking about the president overstepping herself or overstepping himself in those comments about armageddon, because it was not in a national address and because he did not grandstand it by bringing it as a national address, he was kind of putting it in light with, well, there is

still hope and possibility, but this is real, folks, and it has not been this bad since the missile crisis, no doubt. i am 63 years old, so i have heard a lot of rhetoric in between those two points. but my comment is, and this is my heartfelt opinion, zielinski -- president zelenskyy recently asked for nato alliance approval and membership. i think it is absolutely ridiculous that we have taken this long, and still, our immediate response is it is not appropriate at this time to bring them in. if we brought nato into ukraine peacefully from the west and from the northwest and did so under the flag of we are simply changing the guard and we are

here, i guarantee you the war would stop tomorrow. host: you do not think the russians would see that as a provocation by nato? caller: at this point, the provocation level on both sides is so imminent when you get into the rhetoric like what they're are talking about, and the amount of effort going in to try and just keep this basically stalemate situation on the conventional level, at some point it could get out of hand, probably will. i don't think -- if we are in ukraine's soil, they are going to have the guts to say, ok, we're just going to end it all here. i really honestly think, like many times before, think back to kosovo, think back during the baltic war or the romanian, you

know, with the serbs and the bosnians, we were face-to-face with them, but when it came to -- down to it, it was like, ok, we are here. you know? and it stopped, that was it. the next day, there was some sort of a peace initiative, and it stopped pretty quickly after that. host: the reality of that situation you point to, in a situation you are potentially calling for nato troops, the reality is most of those nato troops would probably be american troops, right? caller: it could be. i am sure we will have the majority of it, obviously, considering our percentage of our membership. but, nevertheless, there would be multinational representation and forces. and the point is, that is what nato is there for, to

prevent exactly what we are seeing. and every time they do step up and go to that point -- i mean, this could go on for years. the only thing that is going to stop it is can't save face, we are over invested, can't turn around, got too much into both countries, and russia as point, i think if the people push hard enough on him, could create exactly what joe said. why let it get to that while it is still controllable? get nato in there. this country back back in 2013, voted to be brought into nato. and it still didn't happen. for whatever reason. host: appreciate your input. we are going to go to florida next, chris. hello. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: you are probably going to cut me off, and this is going

to sound a little bit crazy. but if you look at the situation where biden took money from ukraine through burisma, biden took money through russia with hunter's little outgoing thing, and the russians, when they invaded ukraine, lined up tanks and did not do a damn thing with them but we are led to believe the ukrainians are just reaching these russians back. if russia wanted to steamroll ukraine, they could, like we can steamroll mexico if we wanted to. but to sit back and do nothing, it is 100% to extort the u.s. and not even extort, because now they have their guy in power. it is just going to throw money into ukraine.

that is all that is happening. if there is a threat about hitler, in this situation, if hitler cannot take ukraine, then hitler is not going to be able to take europe. but somehow it is, no, we need to give more money, give more money. who is giving more money? oh, the same guy that he took money from them. so this is a lot about nothing. it is just -- hey, what, 12, 17 ukrainians died? oh, my god, it is a tragedy. host: we have been asking about the amount of military aid to ukraine. we touched on earlier, a poll on ukraine, a regular poll by the pew research group. a question asked in their september poll, and this was done before the recent onslaught missile attack by russia this week, was about whether americans were concerned over

the possibility of ukrainian defeat, and that number has gone down in the two times they surveyed, back in may and now in september. russia invading other countries in the region come and not just ukraine, not too concerned, 26% pure ukraine being defeated and taken over by russia, 26% are concerned about that. although the number of people who were extremely concerned about that is still pretty high, at 38%. hiram georgia is next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. online want to say -- all i want to say is if america is tired, please give it up. give up your superpower and let the enemy take over. thank you. host: tampa, florida, next.

sean says more aid is needed. caller: hello, yeah, more is needed, but everything is backwards. when republicans are in power, they act like -- they say they are trying to take over america, like what happened with trump. now like, no, no, nothing happened. as soon as he is back in power, he would be helping russia right now. this would be very different if trump was in power. russia would be winning, for sure, taking over the country, maybe even invading america. host: ok. this is from -- we have not touched on this much, a related story from the "washington times," biden wants u.s. relationship with saudi arabia reassessed. it says that president bynum has ordered a reevaluation of the long-standing u.s. relationship with saudi arabia -- president biden has ordered a reevaluation

of the long-standing u.s. relationship with saudi arabia. the white house and analysts say the saudi-let cut has vladimir putin desperately seeking revenues to finance his war in ukraine. the effect of the production cut two the so-called opec plus group will mean better prices for russian gas experts a new upward pressure on the politically sensitive price americans pay per gallon of gas. opec's decision flew in the face of mr. biden public pleas and private lobbying to saudi arabia to at least maintain oil production quotas as gas prices peaked over the summer. a call from winter park, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. that gentleman from tampa has the situation all wrong. if trump was still the president, putin would not even attempt to go into crane -- into

ukraine. that is a different story. a while back, you did this and i hope you can do it again, we need to help ukraine, i totally agree with that. but we are not the bank will for nato. -- we are not the bank roll for nato. in the past, you put up a grid that showed the united states of america is spending like 60% of the money being spent in ukraine for this war. if we are part of nato, nato should be stepping up and doing their part of it. it should not be that we just keep sending billions upon billions of dollars to ukraine. because we have a piggy bank. the whole nato should be investing in this war. so i would appreciate it if you could go back -- i know you can -- and you can bring up a grid, a screen that shows the amount of investment that each country

in nato is doing right now based on the amount of money that we are putting up versus everybody else in nato. and i believe you will see that we are being hoodwinked by biden . host: appreciate your suggestion not sure we will have a chance and the remaining minutes of this segment. maybe later we can find that graphic. i know which one you're talking about. thanks for that reminder and a good data point to have as we have this discussion. a call from canton, georgia, says more aid is needed. caller: good morning. john earl from georgia, 73 years old, drafted into the army. you put it marsha blackburn, she seems to forget her daddy and world war ii, and everybody says we are being invaded on the

border -- ok, i can hear you on my phone? i don't know if i am even talking or not. host: we hear you loud and clear. caller: they keep talking about this invasion from the southern border, look at what we are driving, what we are wearing, what we buy for our household goods. we built china to what they are today. come on. and the guy from south carolina was on the money. the guy from florida, he is lost. we have to send them everything, send them nuclear weapons. we took them from them, let's give them back to ukraine and see what russia does with their nukes. host: to patricia in patagonia, arizona. caller: yes, hi, i tuned in this morning hoping to hear about the crisis, the chaos overtaking this country with this

administration. the last caller, he don't live on the border. i do. 60 miles from the border. and now we're being invaded. our schools are shut down. yeah, we are being invaded, so he needs to read his information on that. host: we are staying focused on ukrainian aid, one more call on that topic. caller: we have to give them more aid, we have to do it a lot stronger, we have to put pressure on china. we buy a lot of stuff from china and if we are going to not do it we will end up like we were in vietnam. i am an 81-year-old vietnam vet. every time we go into a country if we do not do it strong enough, we will be there for

years. that is my point. host: appreciate your insight. there is more ahead here on washington journal. up next we will be joined by jeff mordock to talk about the latest developments of the hunter biden investigation. later in the program, scott macfarlane is with us to talk about the latest on the january 6 investigation, the prosecution of suspects including the oath keepers trial now underway. ♪ >> c-span's campaign in 2022 coverage of the midterm election continues this month with live

debates on c-span including wisconsin senator ron meetsrn, mandela baor a second debate. georgia congresswoman marjorie taylor greene and marcus flowers debate on sunday, october 16. from indiana, todd young debates challenger thomas mcdermitt. on monday october 17, republican governor brian kemp takes on political activist stacey abrams. n't miss a single election moment on c-span and take us with you on the go was c-span now, our free mobile video cap. visit c-span.org/campaign 2022, our website for our midterm election coverage on demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you are enjoying book tv,

sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, other discussions, book festivals and more. but tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at book tv.org. television for serious readers. but tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their books. former texas senator and matt athematic professor discuss their book. on afterwards, mark bergen of bloomberg news talks about his book about the growth of you two. he is interviewed by a policy reporter rebecca kern. watch but tv every sunday on

c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at book tv.org. "washington journal," continues. host: we are joined by washington times reporter jeff mordock to talk about the investigation into hunter biden. let's ask you first of all, this investigation goes back to the trump era in 2018. remind us why that investigation was started back then and how has it evolved over the years? guest: it started in 2018 by david weiss he was the u.s. attorney for the state of delaware. he was appointed by president trump who appoints all u.s. attorneys and it is tradition when a new president comes into fire the old u.s. attorneys. it is notable that when joe biden came in, he did not fire

david weiss. he was left in place as u.s. attorney. the investigation started out looking into whether or not hunter biden had paid taxes or withheld taxes on some of his foreign business dealings which are possibly unethical or illegal. what is in the laptop that has been reported widely has raised some suspicions about these business deals. it has fallen into tax charges but the possibility of a federal gun charge. in 2018, he purchased a firearm and on firearm applications you need to check off whether or not you have a substance abuse problem. at that time, he allegedly checked off no but he read in his book when he purchased the gun that he was dealing with a crack cocaine problem. this investigation his move

slowly, we areot sure why it is move slowly. you would think a tax investigation and a gun charge would not take four years. host: let me ask you to david weiss, he was appointed by president trump in 2018. the biden administration leaving him on in the attorney general said he would not appoint a special counsel. he will let judge david weiss continue this investigation without any interference from the doj. guest: there's a couple things of that, republicans have been screaming for a special counsel to investigate hunter biden. i don't know what that gets anybody because the special counsel will have the same power as david weiss. they will report to marek garland like david weiss does. one advantage you will have with the special counsel that you are not getting with david weiss is that if marek garland decides

not to approve a subpoena, not to approve a wiretap, denies an investigative step in marek garland has to report that in writing to congress. that is the only difference, there is more accountability. merrick garland can fire the special counsel just as much as david weiss. i think republicans are screaming about that because it is a talking point but it doesn't get them what they want. host: this is a headline from one of your pieces last week, doj's hunter biden inquiry back in the spotlight. if it is behind-the-scenes, why is it in the spotlight? is there information being leaked out now? guest: there is information being leaked out. some investigators reached out to media outlets and said they amassed enough evidence to where they could charge hunter biden with tax crimes or in a gun charge. it is interesting that they have leaked this because you have to

look at the reasons why they leaked this. it is possible that it was leaked because there is going to be a republican outrage that these are minor crimes if he does get charged. republicans have been saying that there is a lot more than tax and gun crimes. you could look at it as the fbi that leaked this because they are investigating this case. hunter biden is not going to be charged and they want to get out ahead of that and say we did our jobs. we amassed the evidence. if he does not get charged, that is on the justice department. we have the evidence. host: based on what we know now through these leaks and other reporting of you and others there is a range of potential charges that could be filed here? guest: that's right. we could look at a possible new gun charge lying on a federal gun's application. the possibility of any kind of tax crime from not paying tax to

tax fraud. there is a possibility, republicans have raised the issue of looking at his business deals as possible influence peddling. things of that nature. host: this is a statement from chris clark, hunter biden's attorney who said, after the leaks, it is a federal felony to leak information about a grand jury investigation such as this one. any agent you cite as a source has committed a felony. we expect the department of justice will diligently investigate and prosecute bad actors. does doj have a history of doing that? guest: the justice department talks about going after leakers, it was a priority under jeff sessions justice department. their track record going after leakers is spotty at best. look at the roe v. wade opinion, the dobbs decision leak of the supreme court.

that investigation really isn't going anywhere. there is a lot of calls to get that weaker, to arrest that leaker. this case is much less cut and dry than the dobbs case when that was leaked because the dobbs case, which is the supreme court decision that overturned roe v. wade, that was a leak of government material. here, you could look at this two ways. the prosecutor could look at it and save the agents leaking this information are leaking grand jury information because they are pointing out what is in -- the evidence that has been amassed in the grand jury and it is a crime to leak grand jury information. on the other hand, these investigators are not leaking specific grand jury information. they can always argue that i'm am giving my opinion. i believe that there is enough evidence, i am just saying from what i have seen. that is not leaking information. that makes it a much tougher case for prosecutors to pursue. prosecutors will not pursue a

case if they don't think they can get a charge out of it. host: jeff mordock has been writing a lot of articles on the investigation into hunter biden. we welcome your calls and comments (202) 748-8001, for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for all others. how does this work? how does the judge david weiss present to the grand jury? guest: he gathers evidence through subpoenas, subpoenas for evidence, people's emails, people schedules, probably tax forms if they are pursuing a gun charge, that would be the federal firearms application. in panel's witnesses to testify before the grand jury.

how long the jury is impaneled, it could be weeks, months. the grand jury will make a decision and david weiss could reject with the grand jury says and do the opposite, or he could except what the grand jury said. in this case we don't know what the grand jury said but accepting what they do would give him an merrick garland a lot of cover regardless of what happens. whatever decision he makes, there will be a tremendous amount of fire and heat. if they pursue criminal charges, democrats will be in an uproar that this is a political prosecution. if they decline prosecution, republicans will be in an uproar that biden has put its thumb on the scale of justice. they are in a no-win situation and the best thing for them to do is throw their hands up and say this is what the grand jury said, it is out of our hands. host: it is at the same grand jury which would've been got

together and 2018? guest: it depends on whether or not it has expired or not. sometimes they can rotate people in and out. a grand jury is not like the u.s. jury where they meet every day and this is going to take weeks of time. it could be a day here, a day there. host: jeff mordock as our guest, we will get to your call shortly (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8002 four independents and others. the president was asked about hunter biden and here is the headline from your paper this morning, biden denies knowing about hunter biden and his gun statement but he has confidence in his son. here is president biden last night. [video clip] >> how do you react to that? >> first of all, i am proud of

my son. this is a kid, not a kid but a grown man. he got hooked on drugs, he has overcome that. he has established a new life. i am confident of what he says and does are consistent with what happened. for example, he wrote a book about his problems and was straightforward about it. i am proud of him. he came along and said, this thing about a gun, i did not know anything about it. it turns out when he made an application to purchase a gun, you get asked the questions are you on drugs or use drugs? he said no, and he wrote about it saying no in his book. i have confidence in my son. i love him and he is on the straight and narrow and has been for a couple of years now and i am so proud of him.

host: jeff mordock, the president reflecting what hunter biden's attorney's upset about this gun charge. guest: i thought that was a tepid defense of his son. he does say that he is proud of his son, he believes his son is on the straight and narrow but he does not offer a full throttle defense of his son ich is surprising. he takes the tact of he is someone who has struggled with drug abuse and made a mistake rather than offer any kind of defense. i was surprised at that. host: we have plenty of calls waiting, susan in worcester, massachusetts. on the republican line. caller: the drug and gun charges, that is not the story of the laptop. it's him asking for money, being involved with china, ukraine and russia. biden is compromised.

everybody keeps forgetting this. he is compromised and involved in these countries and it is amazing. and the laptop, he has with underage girls that is something? he is with prostitutes. with a crack pipe. this guy is a sleaze bag. another thing the diary, ashley biden accuses of assaulting her in the shower as a young kid. don't say it is not true because they tried to prosecute to people because of the diary. we have a child molester in the white house. host: we will ask you about hunter biden's laptop. what do we know that was in that laptop? guest: we know there was evidence of a lot of shady business deals, potentially illegal, possibly unethical. these things are basically

capitalizing on his dad's name for jobs that he was not qualified for. jobs that most people who have drug problems would not have access to that pay very well. to the caller's point, this is raise a lot of questions. a lot of reason why republicans are asking for a special concert. -- special counsel. they are looking into a tax charge of the gun charge. we hear very little about this is which is why the republicans are pushing a special counsel. they argue that in his laptop, there is a whole range of criminal activity that has yet to be examined. host: let's hear from david in concord, north carolina on the democrat line. david, and north carolina. caller: i am calling about to mr. murdoch about the special

counsel. there is a special counsel going on with january 6 because of the insurrection. the insurrection was in early 2020 when our judicial system did not prosecute these people for writing. they said it was a demonstration. that was a joke. all we need is someone that has the hair to call mr. biden out for what he is. he is a joke. he is incompetent. he is using his position for his own gain. that is what the man is doing. he is not capable, him or the vice president of capable of doing their job. you have a great day. guest: i do wonder if the american appetite for a special counsel is exhausted at this point. we had special counsel robert

mueller. we are still fighting about some of his findings even though he brought that up three years ago. we have john door doing his investigation down in alexandria, virginia. our american starting to get tired of special counsel looking into things. republicans should take that into their calculus when they demand a special counsel. host: you wrote about the durham investigation and your paper this morning. they paid the fbi's victims. what is the investigation all about and what is this trial all about? guest: john durham was appointed by bill barr to look into evidence that the fbi and other intelligence agencies may have committed some wrongdoing when investigating president trump or his alleged ties to russia. he has looked into this for three years and he is only brought three cases. one of those cases is against a

russian analyst who was on trial right now. he lied about how he compiled evidence for this deal report which was used in part by the fbi to obtain a surveillance warrant on carter page who was one of his campaign needs and 2016. they suspected he had ties to russia that compromise the trump campaign. no public evidence of mers that was the case. he has never been charged with a crime. despite that, the fbi surveilled him and they had three renewal applications to keep surveilling him. what john durham is alleging because the analyst lied to the fbi, the fbi is responsible for his words. the fbi had troubling behavior

during the russian pro. what i find interesting, in this investigation he decided to look into what the fbi is doing. he is giving the fbi a task there. but for this analyst, nobody heard of him until 2020. the fbi would not have taken some of the actions that they had. i think that is a tough argument. i am surprised that he is taking that argument and it is a disappointment to republicans who hoped he would uncover widespread corruption in the fbi. he is taking a much more sympathetic approach to the fbi than trump and allies. -- his grand jury has wrapped up. he has not indicted anybody.

his prosecutor is left to take a job in the private sector. there are signs that this is wrapping up. even the fact the door was in -- doron wasn't court himself, it is a sign that this is wrapping up because he doesn't have anything else that he is working on right now. he wants to make sure that this one goes off without a hitch he brought charges in may against hillary campaign lawyer. he brought a trial against the hillary campaign lawyer, that ended and an embarrassing acquittal for him he is under a lot of heat from a lot of people. he prosecuted a low-level fbi lawyer, all of the evidence,

that was handed over to him on a silver platter and a lot of people are wondering this investigation has cost 6 million dollars and gone on for three years and there is not a lot of evidence that he has accomplished a lot. i think republicans, especially president trump and his allies thought this would end up like the molar investigation where we saw 27 companies and individuals indicted including five trump associates and we are not seeing that here. people are starting to wonder did durham not to what he was supposed to do or maybe this was overhyped and there was nothing to go after in the first place. host: let's hear from ed in hampton, new hampshire. caller: it seems to me that the grand jury has taken four years to investigate tax and gun charges.

it stinks of a cover-up. it is common knowledge that he was on the board of burisma, 2014, vice president joe was on air force too, flew to china. and when they came back, hunter was on the board of two chinese company. how long does it take to investigate that? guest: that goes back to my earlier point, there is a lot of stuff that is suspicious around hunter biden that we have not seen investigated yet but we have not seen people take a deep dive into it. which is why republicans pose for a special counsel. if this results in charges, that will sweep a lot of this under the rug because there will not be a trial. there will not be a discovery. there will not be evidence coming out.

i don't think i will sit well with the republicans and i think some voters. that is something we have to talk about that is important is how voters are looking at this. we come from the trump administration where he put his kids in high positions at the white house that their qualifications were very questionable. now, we have hunter biden where there is a lot of smoke surrounding what he has done and at best, if he does get charged it will be minor tax and gun charges. the american people are tired of one set of rules for them, one set of rules for presidential children. i think it is something the biden administration should be worried about. host: let's hear from bert on the republican line and columbus, georgia. caller: i think you have the wrong person on their to talk about hunter biden because you need to get somebody from the

washington post, i think it is called the new york post. you need to get somebody like ron johnson, the senator from wisconsin. host: jeff mordock has followed this investigation as closely as any of those other people. caller: you have a two-tiered justice system. that trial was tainted, and the judge was tainted. you are coming at it from the wrong angle. you have 54 people who used to be an intelligence -- an intelligence and they come out and say it was russian collusion. i don't think all of that -- that's all smoke and mirrors. i am saying that you have the liberal side here now.

this is a very liberal newspaper, you should get the conservative newspaper on to get the real story. maranda, from the new york post. host: jeff mordock, your response. guest: we are not a liberal paper. if there is some minor charges and a guilty plea or no charges at all, i don't think that will sit well with the american people. i think that will hurt the president with the voters because people are seeing the rich and powerful get away with things all the time. she was third point which was about the russian misinformation. it's interesting how quickly it was labeled russian disinformation and you had

intelligence agencies label this is such right ahead of the election. here we are two years out of the election and you have papers that dismiss it like the new york times, the washington post, nbc news. they say we have verified it and the stuff on the laptop is now accurate. we have seen that play into the investigation. we had fbi whistleblowers come out and save the fbi used that as cover. they had verifiable evidence of wrongdoing by hunter biden and they labeled it misinformation us away to stymie the investigation. those claims have helped stifle what the fbi was doing on this pro. host: special counsel or no, if the republicans take over congress there will be a house investigation into hunter biden. what will they target? what do you know of their plans

to hold this investigation? guest: if republicans take over the house or senate hunter biden is their first priority. they will go after his business deals, they will look after him on the chinese energy board. they will go on a much deeper dive and that's one of the reasons we see this after this investigation come to a head now. the justice department wants to get this wrapped up because they are afraid that republicans are going to come in, take over and make their life miserable in this investigation. host: we don't know for sure that david weiss will not address burisma and other business ventures? guest: what we have seen another

paper is a talking to people, that doesn't seem to be a factor here. when we talk to people familiar with this case of what is going on they will cite the tax issues, they will cite the gun issues. we don't see a lot of the burisma stuff. the overseas business deals and capitalizing on his kids name -- dad's name. it will be interesting because if you have this wrapped up, it cuts off a venue to the republicans because you don't have a trial. it will be going on simultaneously with the republican investigation and it will limit what the republicans can go with this. host: let's get a few more calls here. lawrence massachusetts, on the democrats line. caller: i have a couple of

questions if i may. steve scully was denying the legitimacy of the laptop information for over a year. there was no mention of any gun, no mention of any taxes. nothing was done at the time. this investigation was about influence peddling and all these things that hunter biden was about to obtain by being blessed , benefiting the family. this is totally disingenuous. it is a hunter biden investigation, not a trump investigation. we all know the washington post lied about and printed retractions about but they lied about it. c-span has been unbelievably shielding joe biden from all the

things including this that he has done wrong. it is flabbergasting to me. i am a democrat and i want the truth. i don't want to since i went to jail because i did not get the whole story and c-span is not giving out the whole story. they are lying about it. everything has been pretty much verified. steve scully was lying about it a year before it happened and every moderator supported him. it takes me off. i love the show but it takes me off when you live about it. host: i hear your criticism, let's go to fill in minnesota on the independent line. --phil in brooklyn park, are you there? to savannah georgia, on the republican line. caller: i would like to say that

the business partner of beau biden family. he was on tucker carl said in all the media x-ed him out. a couple of weeks ago he went back on tucker carl said and he has proof that the biden family is compromised through ukraine and china and that 10% goes to the big guy. he was a business partner. host: jeff mordock is there any indication that the broader biden family is being implicated in this investigation? guest: in this investigation no, tony will be brought before the

investigation. to james in missouri on the republican line. caller: actually i'm on the independent line. i just want to thank c-span for bringing this to the forefront. it seems as though no media really wants to report on this at all. i do appreciate you bringing it to the forefront. a couple of things i've seen and heard. biden never discussed anything about his dealings and stuff, it seems like nobody wants to talk about their -- that. they never did they never asked

how he made so much money on the board of burisma. it seems like the media is the problem because they are trying to control everything that we hear and they refused to report on things the american people deserve to hear. i do want to address one thing the caller said. it is interesting that now we are starting to see the media pay more attention than they did. the new york post was the first to break the hunter biden laptop story. here we are two years later, the

new york times is looking at this and saying that the laptop is verified. i want to go back to something the caller said about the media has shielded whether or not president biden new. there are things that have come out that show president biden, even though he keeps saying was not aware of his sons business dealings. at least had some inkling of what is going on. president biden wrote a college recommendation letter of the son of one of hunter biden's business partner. is he in the habit of writing college recommendation letters? host: did he write that as president? guest: he wrote that out of office. host: you said that the president's defense in the jake tapper interview was a weak

defense of hunter biden. has that changed over the years? his defense of his son. guest: it has not changed. even if you go back to the debate when trump tried to score points by attacking hunter biden. he acknowledged his sons drug problems and that he loved his son. that scored really well with voters and made trump look like he was bullying president biden and that scored really well. that is what they have been using because it worked in the debate. host: what is hunter biden doing today? how is he supporting himself? guest: right now he is trying to sell paintings. he has had two archers. we have not gotten into this, the art deals that hunter biden, they raise ethical questions. the white house keeps saying that he has had these are chose

for his art in new york, l.a. and the white house keeps saying, it is not an ethical violation because we are going to have anonymous bids and no one will know who bought the paintings. there is nothing in there from whoever bought the painting to say, i bought the painting. it seems like a very weak attempt at portraying the ethics behind this. host: let's go to georgia, marian on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is definitely election time when the hunter biden story keeps popping up. i just want to say, most kids of politicians and supreme court justices use their parents influence to make money. it is common, we see roger stone, michael flynn, everybody do it. my question to you is, hunter

biden made $3 million? what about jared kushner with the $2 billion deal that he got because of his father that he got a loan from saudi arabia. go after hunter biden but let's keep things in perspective. we also have jared kushner he was in the administration, which probably he should not of been. he got $2 billion. i am just trying to be fair here. let's keep thing in perspective. guest: the caller made that point that i made earlier. whether we talk about hunter biden, or. old and eric trump. they are sick of seeing these kids of politicians capitalize on their parents names in success. if you look at chelsea clinton, she is doing a show with her mom. these kids cannot escape the

shadow. the american people are looking at that and saying, my parents were not president and they are frustrated with that. host: let's hear from mary in north carolina on the independent line. caller: hi, i am from rose, north carolina. i am not worried about what the kids do or does not do. what i am worried about, i think about it often, is biden selling our country out for his own use her family's use? like ukraine, i feel sorry for the people of ukraine but i don't think we should send the money. is this the quid pro quo for biden? is he paying a debt back by

destroying their country moneywise? why is he not concerned about the border. we are being overrun. he is not concerned about the border but he's worried about ukraine. i hate that i feel that, but this is payback for ukraine. guest: the caller is raising the point when there was a prosecutor in ukraine investigating hunter and he went over there and bragged that he got that prosecutor fired. whether or not that is influencing ukraine policy is hard to say at this point. whether or not anything that hunter biden did in ukraine is influencing u.s. policy. we are sending a lot of money over there. host: let me ask you about the status of the hunter biden investigation, this is from the wall street journal, prosecutors

hold off a final case decision among talks with defense attorneys. could they be looking for a plea bargain from hunter biden? guest: i think that is exactly what they are looking for and a plea bargain would make things very neat and tidy for everyone involved. it gives david weiss and merrick garland the cover to say, we charged him with something, he is facing consequences for his alleged actions and it gives them cover. also, it protects him from wider investigations of influence peddling's. it keeps that under wraps and avoid a trial which could have discovery that could be embarrassing, evidence could be embarrassing and playing out here in the courtroom with all the press there and having the

biden administration constantly on the defensive. a plea deal, if they pursue charges is the most likely outcome. i asked hunter biden's attorney a few months ago and he said that there will not be a plea deal because he is confident that hunter biden did not do anything wrong. but i think there are signs that they are trying to hammer out a deal. host: any please, that would not forestall the congressional investigation. they could come up with their own set of charges, could they not? guest: congress can't charge him, they would have to refer everything to the justice department and they would have to investigate. the question is, who was running the justice department at the time they are ready. if they decide to make a

referral, we would be passed 2024. if president biden is still president, i am not sure that the justice department has the appetite. if it's a republican administration they will have the appetite. host: here is david on the republican line in texas. caller: every time you get a new caller it changes what i want to talk about. this is election time which is why the biden thing is coming back up. it never went away for the handful of the news media that has been covering it for people like sweitzer. he has a lot to say about that. mitch mcconnell and his wife's ties to the chinese shipbuilding industry. you have been discussing with the motives and what does that look like the justice department is doing now and the reporter just said they are trying to get

a plea deal and make it go away. i agree with that. the idea that tony bobulinski has never been called back again . i watched both of his interviews with tucker, one was almost week. he said he would call him the next weekend. the fbi never called back at all. he has gone through all the evidence, and as far as the news media showing whether or not it's biased or trying to cover something up. the one question that has not been asked to joe biden, when he is walking away from the podium, you might get a chance for him to turn around and ask him one question. there has never been a president answering less questions and less responsive to the american

people to get real answers answered. not even fox news steve ducey has asked if he is sat down and met with tony bobulinski. guest: this administration does not answer a lot of question. s. you see it in the briefing every day and you see president biden answers fewer questions than his two predecessors. he does not do as many media interviews. it is hard to get questions into this administration. host: jeff mordock covers the white house for the washington times. we will have you back if there's an update on that. thank you for spending time with us this morning. guest: thank you i appreciate it. host: up next, scott macfarlane will be with us to talk about

the latest on the january 6 federal investigation and the oath keepers trial that is now underway and other prosecutions as well. later in the show, government accountability office chris currie will talk about the federal government's effort to provide hurricane relief. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. i 12:30 on the presidency, the first lady martha washington from her surviving personal letters. and catherine garrett, research editor at the papers george washington project at the university of virginia. at 8:00 eastern, professor richard gamble talks about

american churches and religion during world war i. he shares out american -- he talks about american pastors discussing the conflict. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your prograde or watch online any at c-span.org/history. >> the january 6 committee returns thursday for its ninth hearing ahead of their written report expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearing live beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, anytime on demand at c-span.org. this election day, november 8, the control of congress is at state.

can democrats regain control of the senate? from now until election night, follow c-span's coverage of house, and senate races. with rallies, and candidate events. events as they happen on tv and c-span now on demand at her website. at c-span.org/campaign 2022. middle and high school students it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in this year's studentcam documentary competition. in light of the midterm competition, feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask competitors, what is your top priority and why? make a 5-6 minute video that shows the importance of your issue from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks, be bold. amongst the 100,000 is a 5000

cash prize. visit our website at studentcam.org for competition rules, ks, resources and a step-by-step guide. "washington journal," continues. host: scott macfarlane is with us. he was with channel four in washington specifically focused on the january 6 committee. we will talk about this this morning with scott macfarlane and go into the trial that is underway with the group the oath keepers. what is the group, the oath keepers? guest: it is a far right group with military ties and militia group leaders that has been around for a while but they have this unique role in january 6.

they were accused of being the foremost planners and plotters of an attack. they were accused of trying to attack the u.s. congress. there are a variety of defendants, there could be hundreds more to come. there is quite a range. in various stages of their cases, a real variety. there are some misdemeanor defendants inside the capital for a few minutes and got right back out of their. did not hurt anybody, did not damage anything. there is the mid level offender that was accused of taking something or breaking something or being outside sensitive areas like a private conference room of the senate chamber. then there are the far-right groups like the oath keepers defendants who are accused of planning to attack. coming to washington with tactical gear.

the game plan with firearms with an effort or intent on disrupting the congressional count and attacking congress. they are the ones on trial right now. host: tell us about the lead defendant and the founder of oath keepers, the steward rhodes. as the trial gets underway. guest: the founder of the oath keepers, stuart road. a yellow grad, he is accused of being one of the ringleaders. a former army paratrooper. according to the early days of this trial, stewart rhodes was communicating as early as the week of election 2020. this anticipation of violence, of blood, civil war. he knew january 6 was a pivotal

day. it was a weight-bearing day and if disrupted, could open a pathway for former president trump to stay in power. host: you tweeted at oath keepers trial yesterday, and fbi agent testified about messages sent before january 6. this exchange of messages to and from recruits by jessica watkins that was part of an ohio militia. what is the tone of these text messages that we are seeing? guest: they are going through these text messages by the named defendant, the five oath keepers defendants. the symmetry between them, the connective tissue between them is that they are anticipating violence. the fbi agent testified that jessica watkins aligned with the

oath keepers were thinking of training for january 6 in advance of coming to washington. training, recruiting, coordinating violence. that separates them from so many other january 6 defendants who may have come here organically and came inside the capital because they saw the crowd coming in. this group was ready for violence. host: in the weeks after the election in 2020, there were rallies, to saturday rallies and the nation's capital that were very tense. some ancillary violence happen. where the oath keepers involved in are part of the planning of those rallies? guest: the far right participation in those rallies will be important to show that they were not only here january 6 but they knew preceding events could and did lead to violence. a different far-right groups,

who was very much a part of the december 2020 rally that did turn violent. one of the proud boys conspirators stabbed at the d.c. rally and that is why he was not here on january 6. he just pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and has agreed to cooperate and flip on the proud boys. host: our lines are open for your comments and questions for scott mcfarlane. (202) 748-8001 four republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents and others (202) 748-8002. the term seditious conspiracy, we don't hear that much in american jurisprudence. what does it mean? guest: it means a conspiracy to overthrow the government. the justice department does not charge that crime very often, we are in uncharted waters.

people who live in the united states accused of seditious conspiracy of attacking the u.s. capitol. all of this is new and novel. it is are rarely charged crime. the justice department, though it has no real practical set of experiences trying this type of case, it has a track record in january 6 cases were talking about. they have gone to trial against two dozen defendants from january 6. so far, the justice department is 1000, every single case they have taken to trial, on every single charge. usually, they get a guilty verdict within three or four hours. where's the trial being held? guest: just down the street at

the d.c. federal courthouse. these are federal crimes committed in the district of columbia so it is being held at the federal court in the district of columbia. several have argued to have their trial moved because the residence could not be trusted to be unbiased because they live so close, their lives were impacted by it. those prospective jurors are subject to a lot of inflammatory media coverage of january 6. the judges of said no, we have a jury selection process to weed out biased jurors. there are nearly one million people living in the district. there is media coverage of january 6 everywhere. host: what is the range of

punishment if the oath keepers are convicted? guest: seditious conspiracy has the prospect of decades in prison. that is a high level charge. in some of the lower level cases, those who pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, even those convicted in trial of misdemeanors and felonies. you can measure the sentences by weeks and months. the accused far-right groups, has a prison sentence of buckets of years. host: we saw your tweet saying sentencing today for five members of a texas family that recommended 30 days for mom and dad, 15 days for the kids. guest: a family of five being sentenced all at once. mom and dad and their three adult children all pleaded guilty of being inside the capital for nearly an hour on january 6. inside sensitive area, a private

conference room. they all pleaded guilty. they are recommending 30 days for mom and dad, 21 days for the kids. they all have different defense lawyers. it does show the range of people here. a family with kids, not the only people accused of bringing kids or bringing young kids as well. then you have militia group members, qanon supporters that had grandmothers, hairdressers, a range of people all in the same place at the same time. host: let's get the calls for scott mcfarlane, james is on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. just a comment for the guest and i would like to get his perspective on it. the current perspective on

america is that we are polarized in each extreme side of the aisle claims america in their own vision. what's mine is mine and everyone else is wrong because i am right. i would like to get his perspective on how the potential outcome of whatever these legal trials whether they are a misdemeanor or felony, how they will impact our vision going forward and whether or not there is any bridging between the gaps between i am right, you are wrong and there is no in between. guest: i don't see these criminal cases as a bridge, i think they are further enhancing the divide. there is a subset of americans who do not want to hear about the criminal prosecutions from january 6. they will tune it out. is not that they don't recognize it as important or newsworthy, but it does not align with their

political worldview because the january 6 prosecutions reinforce the danger that occurred that day. the fact that the people involved believed this baseless claim that the election was fraudulent and they don't see any political benefit to paying attention to it. i think the house select committee is experiencing the same dynamic. there is a subset of americans who will not listen to what they have to say. you are right, there is a lack of nuance in our political discourse. these criminal prosecutions of people attacking the u.s. capital is going to change that. host: here is matt in maryland on the independent line. caller: caller: there were tons of protests across the nation and

there were murders. no one was prosecuted and we saw nothing from that and you guys are still talking about the january 6 quote unquote insurrection which didn't happen. you saying that fbi calling people terrorists. they were calling terrorists -- guest: the defendants in the january 6 prosecution have drawn their line between other lot -- rights in america. --riots in america. there were writers chanting hang --rioters chanting hang mike pence. this is a singular unicorn

moment in american history and it is clear and evident. host: here is a text -- does mr. mcfarland know any communication between people in the white house and oath keepers prior and during january 6? guest: what connection is there between the far right groups who are the highest level topline defendants in the u.s. capitol rights and anybody in power and political power? there are connections between groups like the oath keepers and people in donald trump's orbit. bare allegations that some of the oath keepers were providing security to roger stone. there was allegations in one of the court filings that one of the founder of the oath keepers

tried to call donald trump during the right from the capital. if the justice department has more on his hands, it has not shown the cars but i think that question is one a lot of people are asking especially the january 6 committee is asking. host: they are finishing their work in other public hearings coming up. what did you expect to learn? what do they want to put on display? guest: it is possible that this is their final public investigative hearing. the stakes are higher because if they have a lot of stuff they want to get in, this is the last chance. the committee has not announced witnesses for this hearing and with previous herons, they gave warning to witnesses which gave you a sense of the trajectory of the hearing. let's look at the witness list. there isn't one.

they will either call witnesses and show the rest of their hand or they are debating about themselves what to do with this final hearing. we don't what to expect by watching their previous hearings, clips of the interviews they have conducted an clips of the dust positions. one asterisk with this. we note there was a high profile view with ginni thomas. according to the committee members speaking with cbs news, they did not record video of the ginni thomas video and you may see quotes of his video -- the video but you won't hear her voice. host: set negotiated --was that negotiated? guest: i imagine her legal team would try to negotiated that --

negotiate that but i don't know. host: democrats line. caller: in deference to that previous caller, these are very important things going on with these trials and seditious oath keepers. my question refers to does the justice department and merrick garland have a timeline and they will make the connection to the previous administration and possibly bring indictment? if that does not happen, this is moot because it will happen again. they will be emboldened to continue these actions, these violent actions to try to influence and get there with. --their way. guest: he makes a point where i have seen some of the prosecutors try to make a sensing and if we don't ensure -- we run the risk of a

recurrence of january 6. with -- without deterrence, the prospect of this happening again is significant. if they draw a connection between the rioters and the administration, it is likely not happening until after the midterm elections and the justice department have a -- has a set of standards to avoid of --" figures before an election but that is just looking at their baseline guidelines and standards. the justice department, if it is going to make a case against political figures for january 6, hasn't even hinted at that in the tens of thousands of pages of court filings they have made.

haven't even winked or not it -- nodded. host: the midterm elections, the administration continues for the next few years, so too could investigations into donald trump's potential alleged role into january 6. guest: donald trump is not a federal candidate so maybe -- that will may not apply into that particular cycle but i can only go off what i read and we read every one of these court filings and i haven't even seen a cryptic reference in any elected official in any criminal grace. i mean every federal elected officials because local elected officials were prosecuted. some have treated --pleaded guilty. host: roberts in east hampton. caller: we have the best

intelligence in the world and they knew a million one happy -- unhappy voters were coming to washington but they did not get the national guys and another thing that this means that his all the that is you shall, you never show the cops letting the people in and waving them through and giving them a tour and you had aoc asking why did the police doing that -- why was the police doing that and there was cops doing a rodney king on the guy. you never see this and i want some of those questions answered. host: i can speak for news media -- guest: i can speak for news media as someone who disseminates a lot of videos. we are limited to the video that was provided by the people who

recorded and those who gave it to us and the video released by the u.s. justice department. the u.s. justice department has released scores of videos and body cams from police officers and surveillance cameras. i don't think anything was without put we are limited to what we -- video of cops letting people in, i don't see videos of that but a number of defendants have testified as much that they went into the capital because police were waving them in or went through a door and at least one defended successfully argued that at trial. there has only been one acquittal -- a defendant in new mexico who went to trial with the judge where the judge assures -- shirts -- serves as a juror and he was acquitted and

the judge said that based on the evidence, that defended. the police were allowing them to say. the police were not waving them off. that is not inconsequential, some of the defendant say police was waiting them in but i don't see video footage of active waving in. it doesn't mean the video won't come out. host: are you surprised at how much video there has been released? as you said to the doj, it started largely with social media postings from some medium organizations but a lot of individuals posting. guest: this prosecution is extraordinarily complicated and simple? seemingly everyone at the january 6 -- was recording?

taking selfies and footage and announcing it to the world. the problem is all of that is of the finger ships -- fingertips of federal prosecutors and they have served bytes of video and thousands of hours of video that they have to provide to defense attorneys and they have to review and i asked this question rhetorically. how do you watch thousands of hours of video if he sat down today -- you sat down today -- would you be done in months or years? it is too much evidence almost to navigate. host: what made you want to be a reporter? guest: thank you for noticing the time --tie. i have been a journalist since i was 16 years old and i was discovered in haskell that i had

an affinity of discovery news and the local -- discovery news -- discovering news. my father watched monday night football on abc and he watched howard cosell because he always says something my father wanted to hear. i will found it fascinating -- i found it fascinating no matter what you say, people want to. -- here it. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is what i don't understand. the proud boys and the oath keepers have advocated to overthrow the government and they attacked our capital and our democracy and i think the reason why is because the military and our police

department is full of them. haven't -- why haven't we classified them as a terrorist group. i am afraid our democracy is over. this is a fight for our democracy and not just sensing people that broke into the capital. why are they not a terrorist group? guest: a space of the fundamental point of one of the reasons we cover january 6 do it zealously. it is a fundamental risk for our democracy. far right probably sent oath keepers who were allegedly part of january 6 -- points to prosecutors that they were trying to disrupt democracy and block the peaceful transfer of democracy -- power.

-- to interfere with our democracy and that is what ways on these prosecutions and it is also why this current trial involving the accused oath keepers seditious conspiracy with take six-sex -- seven weeks. the prosecutors might recognize the weights of this charge with this group and the importance of the case. host: grant, democrats life. --line/ --line. caller: i don't believe a peaceful transfer of power is realistic but i think the insurrection on january 6 and unite the right rally in charlottesville, do you see a resemblance between -- guest: i may take the first part

of the question. it is interesting he combines the unite the right rally in charles vallow and the insurrection in jerry six -- charlottesville and the insurrection on january 6. on january 5, 2021 congressman rigell mint tweeted that he had concerns -- forecasting that there was going to be some type of violence charged by racial animosity by far-right groups. the echoes of charlottesville and january 6, 2020 one are not insignificant way to have these views they used to be in dark rooms or in the basement are there under the sunlight on main street. host: scott macfarlane covers congress and more for cbs use and you can see him nightly and one of the best ways to follow

him is following him on twitter. there's more on the program ahead. it is open form and your chance to weigh in any topic this morning or other news items you are following. "washington journal" continues. --(202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] --(202) 748-8003 for independence. ♪ >> you can watch the hearing live beginning at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or anytime on demand at c-span.org. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store.

there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime as c-spanshop.org -- at c-spanshop.org. >> 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 issue, c-span is america's network. unfiltered. unbiased. word for word. it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span powered by cable. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio app listening --

listen to washington journal, important correctional areas -- hearings and other events. cap washington today on a fast-paced report on stories. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker listen to c-span area --radio. >> washington journal continues. host: if there is an new -- news item that you want to talk about, it is fair game. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. [indiscernible] --(202) 748-8000 four democrats. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. -- succeeded in shifting its orbit and they announced their

results of the save the world test. the space agency attempted the first time -- work of its time to test if a killer rock could be notched out of earth's way -- nudged out of earth's way. independent line. caller: good morning. i wanted to touch on that last segment you have and it has been two years since the insurrection. this is just a little untapped -- literal attempt to make sure that biden administration gets the free ride. it is very disingenuous, the body language of the host on the show is obvious when there is a

liberal caller versus a conservative. host: to sam in georgia on the democrats line. caller: if for taking my call -- thank you for taking my call. i caught the last part of a conversation. the guy seems like he was trying to make an excuse for the treasonous insurrection that happened. you could be liberal or conservative. i am black american. this was a hostile takeover of the government and whether you are democratic or republican or independent. you should stand against anyone trying to throw out the democratic process. it is not about liberal and giving anybody a break. it is about standing up and those who participated should lose their right to vote and --

they are convicted when they are there, period that should include the right to vote. host: david is on the republican line. make sure you use your volume and go ahead with their comment. caller: good morning. regarding the so-called journalist you had on, how convenient of him to say, oops, we did not get to see that footage. i find that to be intellectually the solids -- this anish emberley corrupts and he didn't say, if you have that footage, why don't you share it with us? where was that question? host: barry is on the line from williamsburg, virginia. democrats line. caller: i will try to make this

as follow-up -- palatable to all people. you can look at the rights with their -- tropical or you can look at left who president biden is the aggressive pacifist and i am looking at it from the point of view that i am sure what they did on january 6 causes issues but i will not give up any rights on anything to have this remedied because it seems like all they are trying to do is take away rights and sensor and you are left with a dumb public that is robust. --robots. host: we started the program talking about the military in ukraine. russia announces the attention of eight people over crimea bridge blanche -- blast.

in a statement, russia's fsb security service accuse ukraine's military intelligence service of coordinating what he described as a terrorist right -- terrorist act and blamed it on explosives detonated on the bridge. when asked about the allegations, a spokesperson for ukraine's boasted -- ministry of internal affairs told the broadcaster that the investigation was nonsense. david is here in san francisco. caller: i was more interested in the florida fema payouts but regarding january 6, when you start studying ginni thomas,

there is video from the council for national policy that showed that they were planning the january 6 insurrection as early as february, a year earlier and i am trying to think of the name of the organization that she was tied to but it was the cancel of national policy that has videos -- council of national policy that has videos but as a taxpayer, i want to make sure that fema money is spent wisely. in florida, it is notorious in having governors that don't believe in global warming and since florida is going to be one of the worst states to be hit by florida -- global warming, it is one of the lowest elevation states, there will have problems . they are already having problems but if they do not plan ahead

with global warming in mind, i am not interested in spending money down to them to play politics with. when you start looking at the investigation of talks overvaluation of mar-a-lago where marlowe -- mar-a-lago was estimated as were $75 million but he was trying to get collateral on its for nearly $750 million, how many other properties in florida are overvalued by 10 times and the fema money would be going toward this fraudulent evaluation -- valuation so i went serious investigations -- what series investigations of florida spending on tax dollars and i am not opposed to helping each of the 50 states any times of crisis, but when it comes to the

politics of florida where they deny global warming and they want to rebuild without planning for it is, to me, that the act of a fiscal conservative. host: we will talk about an inspector general's report on u.s. and federal spending in the wake of hurricanes. wesley chapel, florida. normal -- norman on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was calling in reference to the gesture. and the insurrection. my biggest thing is we the people pay for the government and i am curious, is there any thing the government can do that

we can protest them over -- cannot protest them over? i am lost. i know i am 75, but i am lost. if we can't question or be upset at anything. host: a look at some of the mpaign 2022 coverage continued onhe-span networks. at 11:30 a.m. -- the democrati representative in that district meeting her republican challenge -- challenger. the debate hosted at the hampton roads chamber. you can watch it live at c-span.org or follow it on our free mobile app c-span now. you will have for live coverage with the national security adviser jake sullivan at we will

be talking about u.s. security strategy and challenges. it is hope it -- hosted at georgetown university live at 2:10 eastern. we will go to kenneth in mariana, arkansas. democrats line. caller: i have several issues i would like to discuss. the decision in dobbs that came down. in order for dobbs to be codified, people need to understand, would you vote for the house members, if you don't vote to keep the house, roe v. wade would not be codified. it looks like we will take the senate but the house think has been redistricted so bad it looks like the republicans will take the house but if you want to have rights to your body, you need to make sure the republican people will vote for you.

don't put the republicans in the house, because if you do, you cannot get roe v. wade codified and they are talking about crime in america. they will run on crime and inflation but look at who is being investigated for crime. the democrats need to take that mantra and run it themselves. the people being investigated by the department of justice, those are from trump on down. they deed to take -- the republican state -- impress me to run on crime. -- the democrats need to run on crime. host: thank you for the call. there is one of the program ahead. next, we will be joined by government accountabity office, chris currie talking about the challenges facing the

government's effort to provide hurricane disaster relief. ♪ >> c-span now is a free model -- mobile app drinker unfiltered view on washington. keep up with events life screenings of u.s. coverage and white house events and the courts and campaigns and board. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio and podcasts. downloaded for free today. download it for free today. your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> if you are enjoying both cv, sam for the newsletter to receive scheduled upcoming

programs. both cv every sunday on c-span two or online at booktvtv.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span two. our 12:30 p.m. on the presidency, revealing the light of first lady author washington from part surviving personal letters. and catherine garrett, research editors at the papers of george washington project. at 8 p.m. eastern, richard gamble talks about american churches and religion during world war i and he shares how american pastors spoke about the great war before and after the u.s. entered the conflict.

exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturd c-span2 and what your full schedule under programs time and watch online at any time on c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is chris currie here with us to talk about the u.s. response in terms of the this as the recovery in the various agencies -- disaster recovery and the various agencies that provide for recovery. what are the agencies that gao looks at an terms of providing a when it comes to recovery after a hurricane.

guest: there is over 17 different departments across the federal government to provide some sort of disaster assistance but immediately after, the ones most people recognize our fema, the small business administration, the department of housing and urban direct -- developments and other agencies like the coast guard. host: what is the role of the gao in reviewing the response and spending? >> -- guest: we review all programs in spending and the federal government provides a lot of money after these types of disasters and we track the money to make sure it is being spent appropriately and we make sure programs are working effectively. we look at response functions and coordination between the federal and state governments to make sure they are working effectively and assistance is being provided.

host: data from noaa on the top five deadliest accidents, there are all hurricanes. hurricanmaria in 2017 and one of $7 billion. -- $107 billion? when the dust all settles or the water dries up, where will be cost level deeper hurricane ian -- the cost level be for hurricane ian? guest: it also hit south carolina and north carolina and did damage. i would not be surprised to see damage or board of 100 billion dollars but it takes a long time to assess not only damage to homes but public infrastructure

and businesses. it will be large. host: one of the issues that have come up in regards to this arcane is the role of flood insurance and the lack of flood insurance by betty residence -- many residents. guest: the lack of insurance for floods is a master -- massive issue. both in terms of the fact that not many people have flood insurance but we are seeing flood in areas where it is not flood frequently and they don't have flood insurance and the other problem with flood insurance is that the federal government. we all pay for flood insurance but don't know it because the federal government subsidizes -- it because the actual insurance industries will not assume the risk for floods. host: that doesn't seem like a

very sustainable program. guest: it has a big sustainable for many years. -- has not been sustainable for many years. it does not take in enough revenue and premium to cover the actual costs and that is why the taxpayers have to subsidize it and that is one of the problems we have what happened at gao. trying to reform the program to get to a point where it is solving. it is a huge challenge and there is not much solution to the -- it's other than premiums skyrocketing to the point where they are unaffordable and that is a reason why people do not happen unless they have to get it because it as on a considerable amount of money to the mortgage stuff -- mortgage. host: in terms of the national flood insurance program, there

are 5 million policies after december of last year -- a trillion dollars in coverage in the program collects over $4 billion from revenue from policy owners and fees. the flood insurance program owes $20 billion the u.s. tragedy and what -- $10 billion of borrowing authority remains -- that the program was set to expire at december 16 and it was extended because of the short term spending matter -- measure. it is a necessary program but it seems like it is on a lifeline. guest: absolutely. over the last 10 years, congress has forgiven a large portion of the debt so it would be many billions of dollars more underwater than it actually is. a couple things happened.

it doesn't take in enough money in premiums to payouts the year-to-year deductible claims and the other thing is, in a catastrophic disasters like harvey and maria and ian, that as on a huge price tag, to go further in debt so there is no way out of this unless there are major reforms. host: chris currie is with us and he is with the government accountability office and we are talking about the federal results to recent hurricanes. for the mountain and pacific region and if you have been impacted by recent storms, you can use (202) 748-8002. we hear a lot about the aftermath of hurricanes.

what is fema's principal wall -- role? guest: fema provides some assistance through grants to individual citizens that are affected by disasters and mainly to subsequent -- supplement insurance so it is not made to completely rebuild a house that is destroyed or provide all necessary expenses. that is what insurance is for but it is there to supplement people that are not insured or underinsured. that is one thing to citizens and another thing and i think this is why maybe people don't realize is that most of the disaster funding fema provides, which has been hundreds of billions, is provide the state and local counties to rebuild public infrastructure and that is where the most of the public disaster costs are.

those are expensive and that is what fema provides because state and local governments don't have the money. fema is the disaster ensure for state and local governments. host: this that aid to states -- does that aid to states, in a form of a branch or a loan to states? -- come in a form of a grant or a loan to states? guest: there is often a cost share depending on the disaster where a state or locality has to provide 25% or 10%. it depends on the disaster. most of that is in the form of grant funding. host: other agencies that provide eight after this including housing and urban development, give us of an

example of what the agencies do. guest: it does what the name says because it provides loans to businesses that are affected by disaster but the small business administration also provides low-interest loans to homeowners who have not been destroyed and those benefits are coordinated with fema and woody register for fema programs, you and some cases have to go through the small business administration process to see if you qualify for a loan. the housing and urban development department provides a block grant called community development block grants disaster relief. that has to be appropriated by congress for each disaster. after hurricane maria, congress appropriated $20 billion to hud for puerto rico so that would be potentially part of a

supplemental appropriation but not been passed for ian. host: u.s. the director -- you asked the director -- looking at only at hurricanes but emergency response nationwide, has the u.s. government taken into the account the cost effect of climate change now only in hurricanes but wildfires out west? guest: there are a number of efforts to take into account future risk from climate change. we issued a report last year on fema's flood maps and we wanted to see the extent in which they incorporated future climate risk when they backed the entire country for floods and many flood maps are outdated and do not account for current risks, which is why you see a number of cases in the country flood and are no -- not near the special

flood zone. a lot more work is needed in that area and the effect of this is that the federal government is essentially -- it becomes the main disaster ensure for state and local governments because they don't have the funding to cover the full cost of what these disasters are running on. since 2017, the federal government provided over $150 billion in disaster assistance to state and local governors -- governments. it is for 300 federal he declared disasters -- federally just cleared -- declared disasters. host: this is orson. caller: thank you for c-span. i happen in the trash disposal business during these disasters since hurricane katrina.

everyone talking about the government but the problem is with the individual contractors who are fleecy the government doing so at a rate that has gotten to the billions. salt trucks coming into the dump and within 20 and 30 minutes of each other, the same truck bringing the same trash having the u.s. corps of engineers band brought to call full load -- assad with hurricane michael and palm beach. i saw it during the tornado outbreak in alabama and works with people who were criminally defrauding the government. what are you going to do other than tracking the data, which --

waste management, which we have a independent group to monitor. what is being picked up and have some sort of digital accountability? the people who operate those companies and contracts are malfeasance --malfeasant. florida is in trouble -- and we are -- every dollar we's -- get we sent seven back so we can pay for it but you have to get after the contractors? host: thanks for your call? guest: he is talking about trash removal but after a disaster, there is a huge amount of debris created to be removed -- that it

has to be removed and that is the most expensive part. he is correct that after a massive disaster like this across the whole state, the demand for debris removal contractors is huge and costs and sure --can soar. there was so much need for debris removal that debris removal contractors were charging a lot of money and it was hard to oversee. it will be interesting to see what happens in this case because after armor, there were a number of steps to get better on the advanced contracting side so the idea is that you set a firm advanced contract and you have contractors ready to talk about what the debris removal will cost so you are now looking

around trying to find debris contractors after the disaster but it is hard to minor roof? --hard to monitor. host: there is -- is that the local staff who will do that? guest: the state can facilitate that as well as fema but it is one of the hardest things to oversee. he is correct. host: here is dennis in fort myers. caller: thank you for c-span being there to report. i would have called earlier in regards to ian. we didn't have cable until sunday afternoon. here, one of the important things that might be looked at

here in regards to the second hurricane that went out to charlotte harbor, which was north of me. people were getting all kinds of inputs and i looked myself and i watched the weather channel and i am online checking the track and before i lost power, i saw where the track was going up into charlotte harbor. i had buttoned up my house and i had my food and water. i had context with neighbors -- contacts with neighbors and we knew where we were staying but when the storm is over and the only real contact we have because self-service was obliterated, for the most part,

is the radio. the people that were on the different channels which were local news providers, are very good at what they did and they provided phone numbers. but your cell phone doesn't work, your landline doesn't work so you can call. then they will provide websites to go to. wait, you have no contact with the internet so you cannot contact people. a week later, wait a minute, they started putting pop-ups for the insurance people and things like that. i will state one important fact. governor, -- our governor, yes, he has stood up for getting things done but some of the

wording i have read through elected officials. trying to give him a god persona but that is what he hired himself out for. host: i hope you recover further from the storm. any comments? guest: it makes a good point about how difficult it is, especially after a major disaster. you minute -- to medications is out and power is a lot of traditional -- power is out and a lot of traditional ways to communicate is out. i know fema tries to get their teams to go door-to-door as quickly as possible but there is no doubt they have to wait until it is safe and that can make -- take their -- days and some places are not accessible for many days.

host: how much of your job involves reporting to federal agencies for the disaster? guest: we try to talk to state and local officials to see how the response is going and understand how coordination is going and try to get a sense of challenges. we tried to get to his -- we try to stay out of the way where we don't want to divert any resources that should go to response organizations but we have been talking to fema about going down there next week to talk to state and local officials so it will be there soon. host: blacksburg, virginia. good morning. caller: i get more intelligence from you than anyone else besides al jazeera. i have been -- they are most of

my life. there ain't no way you will read will fort myers. it will take going some dollars to see this rising. to dump concrete on the bulkheads does not make sense to me. florida is a sinking plant and that is a very justifiable statement. guest: his comments -- florida is a extremely vulnerable place nps right. it will continue to be impacted by disasters and large hurricanes and susceptible to storm surge. this is one of the most difficult questions, especially for a disasters business and deadly after a disaster business, do you read things

were things were in the same locations. do you rebuild more resiliently? they rely on these committees for economic ability. what we have advocated for for several years is focusing on rebuilding in the most resilient way possible with the idea that we are going to face these types of disasters over and over again and if we make the decision to build on the coast and build in these areas, we have to rebuild in a way that is more resilient to the most extreme disasters. florida is one of the most resilient states you will find. a good example is the power situation. look at how many people were out of power after ian. now most of the power is restored and that is because the elector says -- electric system

is resilient to disasters. you cannot compare that to puerto rico that does not have a grid and they still have problems for hurricane maria. we have to have stronger building codes and we have to use this rebuilding money to rebuild resiliently. host: there is a headline, en will financially ruin homeowners and consumers. -- of extreme weather and a comment from -- question for you from tony on twitter who says would not flood insurance be more affordable if all mortgages were required to be protected by flood insurances? they should spread the risk and lower the cost for individual homeowners.

guest: that is hard to implement because of the added cost. people would be very resistant to adding any additional cost to mortgages than there already are especially with market -- with mortgage rates being up to 7%. another option i would like to mention] to the resilient building. you can pay more to ensure the assets or you can operate the assets using disaster funds through written word -- so you can make them more resilient. you don't have to race the house. raising the air conditioning unit and moving the electrical system. they can save significant resources. host: georgia, good morning.

. caller: i have two things. i don't think anyone should be allowed to build two barrier i and -- on barrier island. years ago, on katrina. when -- there was a big article about debris removal and someone was bidding on it and i believe it goes by guard and he --yard and he bade almost $100 a guard and who is subcontracted and it was done by 1250 our yard. host: if you want to respond to any comment.

guest: there was an advanced contracting back then in the key is something i -- and the key is something we have reported. you have to have advanced contracts in place. you don't want to look for contracts after the disaster because you are going to get gouged. in the last week years, there is a lot of progress in that regard, particularly after hurricane irma. debris removal contractors are ready to come in and there is an agreement on the price and we will have to see. we will look at that in terms of how it has been done. to her point, the train has left the station. any case on fort myers and -- guest: i have heard the

arguments that barrier irons -- islands are barrier islands for a reason. these communities -- people live there and businesses are there and they are important to the tax base and tourism. it sounds easy to say, we don't build on barrier islands but those are difficult. those are -- you can return parts of the barrier island to nature for through -- and through things that can absorb feet storm surge. you can build in resilience. you can build buildings that are more resilience -- resilient to storm surge. what technologies, you can -- with technologies, you can

rebuild in a more resilient way. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment about the teamwork in amazon with the -- we got up bunch of teamwork in the lee county sheriff's office. we got significant -- damage was significant and we had agencies respond and we are having these technology and of these other sources -- and all of these other sources. host: what is your question or comment? guest: how are we going to have the federal -- caller: how are we going to have the federal government with fema and where would the funds be coming from? guest: the fema funding comes from the treasury from taxpayer

dollars. that concefere fema programs that are paid forward with taxpayer because -- dollars. host: chris currie with the government accountability office hair -- heads management. thanks for being here. that will do it for this morning's program but we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern and we hope you are as well. >> ♪ >> tod on c-span. democratic representative a lori

of rope -- in a debate for virginias send congressional district at 11:30 a.m. eastern. at 1:45 p.m., ukrainian president zelenskyy speaks to leaders of the international monetary fund and the world bank about ukraine's financial needs and its ongoing war with russia. after 2:00, we join a conversation with white house national security advisor jake sullivan about biden administration's national security strategy. you can watch at our free mobile video app, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> the january 6 two returns thursday for its ninth hearing ahead of release of its report expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearing live beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, or anywhere on demand at c-span.org.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. >> ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to partisan fate in this year's c-span student documentary competition. picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this year's competitors, what is your top priority and why? make a five minute video that

shows the importance of your video from supporting and opposing perspectives. be bold. amongst the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit our website at studentcam. org for rules and a step-by-step guide. >> ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at a clock.m. eastern, former texas senator graham and mathematical economist don early take a critical look at economic disparity in the united states with their book. at 10:00 p.m. on afterwards, mark of bloomberg news shes his