the ba on raising the debt limit, a look at the impact of a potential default with josh bevins. scott mcfarlane, congressna correspondent for cbs news. washington journal, starts now. host: good morning it is friday

may 26, house members left for the long holiday weekend without a deal. house republican leaders in the white house saying they made progress but acknowledging difficult issues remain. we want to know your thoughts on the ongoing debt ceiling standoff. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002, text messages (202) 748-8003, facebook.com/cspan on facebook. a very good friday morning to you if you can start call in now. the road because latest on their

coverage of the debt ceiling negotiations. parties are moving closer on the debt ceiling deal. aidan quigley was a reporter on that story. good morning to you. it appears there is an emerging deal here. what are we hearing about the contours of that deal? guest: it preliminary, nothing is set yet. it is not final until it is final but it looks like a two year debt limit increase with two years of spending caps, the upcoming fiscal year would be close with 1% growth for the next year. that is the idea on the spending side which is at the heart of

this deal. host: beyond the 2024 election, we will be hearing about where the funding will come from on this. in the discussion on discretionary spending, the military budget versus the rest of the budget. guest: the idea is for the upcoming fiscal year, defense and veterans budgets would be funded as a president request which would be an increase over the previous year. money from irs funding would be moved into various accounts. that's irs funding from last year. that is where things stand at the moment. host: what about the issue we've

been talking about for months, work requirements for social welfare programs. are we hearing about how that could fall into this deal? guest: those are items that are still open. garrett graves from louisiana who is one of the lead republican negotiators spoke about that last night. he said progress is slow and work requirements are a central hang up these negotiations. the white house has been dug in against adding official work requirements. host: walk us through the calendar here and how this could play out if a deal does come together today or the next several days over the holiday weekend? guest: as always, we are here at

the last minute. the treasury secretary said it is june 1. that's a tight timeline. house republicans have committed to giving their members 72 hours to meet it -- read it. hopefully that will come over the weekend. as always, they could refuse to agree to a time agreement that would speed this up. it could drag out past the x state into early june. that's something we are keeping a close eye on and it will get dramatic next week. host: if it extends past that x state, is there a short-term plan to give the more time.

are they doing anything to prepare if they move past that x state, the date by which we can pay all of our bills? guest: the x state is the earliest possible x state. janet yellen has said, the hope is that they can get by until then but there are conversations about how to lessen any impact to the treasury. host: finally, it is a small group of negotiators, house republicans and the white house in the room. as the details come out, what reaction did you see on capitol hill yesterday? guest: the conservative republicans in the house is very concerned about what this deal is looking like. they were happy with the deal

that house republicans passed in the deal with the white house is going to be far away from that as that will be a bipartisan bill. that means democrats who are also unhappy. the big question is, are there enough votes to get this across the finish line? host: i want you to talk about these tweets, this is from mike lee from utah. this was from yesterday morning, i will use every procedural tool to impede a debt ceiling tool that does not have budget reforms. that proposal will not face smooth sailing in the senate. in this from the house freedom

caucus, noting that 35 house republicans have written to speaker mccarthy asking him to hold the line on the debt ceiling and preserve gop unity. what's the significance of those two tweets? guest: michael lees tweet is touching on timing. forcing the congress to take its full time, house freedom caucus is sounding the alarm to try to get mccarthy to get as good a deal as possible. the deal that looks like it is emerging will not have the support of the house freedom caucus which will cause a republican divide.

since the speaker selection it's been smooth sailing and this is the first big test for speaker mccarthy. the debt limit has gotten a lot of attention in washington and we will have to see how mccarthy handles the need to pass something here within the divisions of the conference. host: you can check out mike quigley's coverage. they were on top of the story until late last night and early this morning. we appreciate you getting up early for us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: we want to get your thoughts on the debt default standoff in washington. what would your message be for your members of congress. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. on the republican line we have thomas from rhode island. caller: yes, good morning, good morning america. i think a lot of time is being spent on one party over the other throwing bricks at each other but the bottom line is, i believe that we watch the amount of money we're spending. we don't spend it like a drunken sailor per se and we draw a line and if we get to a point where we have spent more of our budget than we should have, we tighten the belt and we stopped.

it's as simple as that. host: do you think speaker mccarthy is the guy to hold the line and stop the spending? caller: i think and believe that mr. mccarthy is in the position to make the administration become aware that the american people are weary. we are weary that it can't be a blank check. regardless of republicans or democrats in office. it can't be a blank check that any time they have exhausted their money supply, they simply turn on the printers and print out an indefinite amount of

dollars. in the marine corps you learn to draw a line in the sand. i think here, the republican line has drawn a line in the sand and i believe that president biden, and going for 97 days before he was even going to spend a moment to sit down with the republican and discuss the problem is a very arrogant, self-centered message to the american people. host: on the line for democrats, this is alton from illinois. caller: good morning c-span. i think biden should stop

negotiating with these hostage takers. i think you should go on prime time tv, to the nation and warned the nation what is fixing to happen and lay it at the republicans feet. under trump, they raised the debt ceiling no problem. under him, they raised a three times and then talk about the budget. i would lay it at their feet. i would warn the country what is coming and if they default, let the republicans own it and the dnc should get buses ready to march on washington. that's what needs to happen. host: this is queens, new york, alan, and independent. caller: the previous caller

stole a little bit of my thunder. this is just to say, the hypocrisy of the republican party is so evident. if they raise the debt ceiling three times when they were in power and they raise the dead, especially with the corporations going from 35% to 21%, but now democrats are in power, all of a sudden we can't raise the debt ceiling, when they cause the debt ceiling. and they raised it when they were in power. anyone with half a brain has got to know, if the democrats said two plus two is four, republicans will say it is five. host: this is jim in cape elizabeth, a republican.

jim, good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. host: your thoughts on the debt ceiling? caller: i am from ohio. the last two colors blaming the republicans. you can blame whoever you want to, it doesn't matter. the country is going down the drain quickly, financially, it is ridiculous that we are having a conversation about raising the dead. no matter whose fault anyone thinks it is, we can afford what they are hoping to get. they can't fault on this. we elect our officials to run this country in a correct manner and nobody is doing it. we are losing on all fronts. host: do you think speaker

mccarthy is the guy not to falter on this? caller: he definitely should not falter and if he does he should be checked out immediately. he knows exactly what he is doing. he has already faltered on a lot of things republicans want. is not even about the republicans anymore, it's about the country. forget the party lines, i am an american patriot. i love this country and i am saddened out where we are at financially but i'm saddened by the border, or military. we need to stop spending the money. host: speaking of speaker mccarthy he was on fox news and

talking about keeping the republican conference together. [video clip] >> we will get this done at the end of the day. we are going to get an agreement that's worthy of the american public. the one thing i will tell people, this deal won't solve all the problems. this will be the first step in what we don't achieve here we will come back the next day to get it. we need to start working towards balancing a budget. host: you have been underestimated over and over again. there have been some that wonder if you can hold the republicans together to get this deal done. what have you been able to prove since january? >> i never give up. i think it's a benefit to be underestimated. host: that was speaker mccarthy

yesterday this is one of the headlines from today in the washington times, gop revolt threatened over debt limit deal. mccarthy's team denies that a compromise is authentic. here in washington dc, negotiation is continuing and we are getting your thoughts. phone lines are split by party lines. this is mike from avon, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think this is a two-part process. one is the budget, what they are really trying to hammer out and having a tool to force with the election said. we are a divided nation with divided goals.

i think both parties are coming to this fight, it's uneven and they are not putting the american people for their best interest. both parties need to do their jobs. as far as the constitution, we will pay our debts. we have two parties and the democrats are leading, and they should be compromising in everything they do. host: you might be interested in the column in the wall street journal which is a win-win for the debt ceiling negotiation. they need to diminish the far left and far right. the speakers will be the far right and far left.

by coming to a centrist compromise the leaders would boost their support with swing voters who are fed up with partisan politics and want to see bipartisan solutions. if you don't know who mark penn is, a former advisor to bill and hillary clinton. that is his column and today's wall street journal. this is marissa in montana. a democrat. caller: good morning, i am so grateful for c-span. thank you so much for the excellent reporting. i love brian lamb, i hope he is well. but i would like to say is we

are talking about the issues since we have a president, we talk about the debt ceiling in the economy and i would like to remind people, there are people with their hand out when there's a tornado, hurricane and wildfire. who has their hands out? look at what happened to florida. another thing i would like to ask the american people, stop whining, stop telling you are weary. where is your spirit? another thing i would like to say, could you do more things on animal rights. there was a day where they had a wildlife segment. let's work together to accomplish our goals and stop whining. thank you, bye. host: this is david, a

republican in new york. caller: yeah, good morning. i've been trying to get my head around these numbers for years. i've watched this debt grow and grow. i watched it for 30, 40 years. just to get some perspective. i don't know what you should spend money on. if you work out the numbers, if you had to pay 32 trillion back. you would have to pay back 115 million an hour for 32 years. you could produce enough wealth fast enough to give substance to those dollars. if you let this thing grow, you will default on this sooner rather than later.

that's an enormous burden and you are asking fewer and fewer people that are working, 60% workforce participation rate to subsidize all the spending and the use of all the products. the government consumes more and more. everybody is strapped for money right now and they want to continue to stay in business and spend money. it is unsustainable. that's my best way to put it. host: i have another way you could break down the national debt according to u.s. debt clock. it's about 95,000 dollars per citizen of this country. the total and just interest paid on the debt approaching 3.75

trillion dollars on the u.s. debt. u.s. debt clock.org is where you can go. this is sharon in maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning, how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing well sharon. caller: they have been showing in the news about the debt ceiling in kevin mccarthy won't give in and joe biden is sticking to what he is sticking to. they have to think about the american people, what we are going through. the people went through covid and we still haven't got our selves through that. this is the united states of american. we have elderly, veterans, children, young people going to

college, why are they doing this? pass the debt ceiling and work something else out so we won't be embarrassed in front of all these other countries that look at us and do the right thing. these politicians, they get too big headed and once they get into office they think it's all about them. it's not about them. like i said before, do your job and if not, get out of office and do something else. it's not right for the american people and we have to stand together and stop being divided. like i said before, if you die in your spirit goes to heaven, god doesn't play favorites. he will judge you by your heart and the righteous actions of your heart. host: house members and senate members, their reactions to the

emerging deal, here is some of what they tweeted out yesterday. a republican from montana saying he will hold the line on spending, the american people deserve us to fight for every provision. that's the budget -- bill that house republicans passed last month. from byron donalds, a republican from florida, republican stand firm. there is no reason not to. you have a white house that is not serious. jim mcgovern are, they manufactured a debt crisis and now they are holding our economy hostage. they need to stop playing games. and ayanna pressley saying, republicans want to make an impossible choice, cuts to

lifesaving programs or default on our debt. stop playing with people's lives. that's a reaction from capitol hill. here's a little bit more, we showed you that headline earlier from the washington times. votes threatened over a debt limit deal. chip roy took the floor yesterday, the republican from congress and here is what he had to say about the reporting on the negotiations. [video clip] >> hold the damn line. stand up for the country that you go out and campaign for. the bill we passed in april, i will be honest with you. it is a down payment on what we have to do. it's not everything we have to do. it is just the beginning. if we walk away from that,

because people get weak need about oh they are crying, we will not make her debt payment. yes, we are. the president knows what you know, we can't walk away from our debt payments. we have to make those payments. secretary yellen and the president know it and they will make those payments, we will not default but we are defaulting on the american dream every day that goes by is where we continue to spend money that we don't have. if republicans walk away from this, they don't deserve to stay in the majority anymore than the democrats do. we should hold the line for the american people and hold the line for the future of this country. host: chip roy, republican from texas. . pramila jayapal said that it's time for the

republicans to raise the debt ceiling. >> republicans want to drive us over the cliff into default and cut off health care and social security payments and drive up interest rates so more people are homeless and hungry. five republicans could join the republicans and we could lift the debt ceiling but they went home. i have a constituent who was worried about missing her social security payment. she heard the republicans say, we don't want to negotiate with hostages. amy is a hostage. fire fighters, veterans, are demanding that republican stop playing games with their lives.

donald trump spent nearly $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest millionaires and now they want poor and working people to pay for it. pass this debt ceiling, right now. host: those were the scenes from the house floor yesterday. the house is not in session today. there will be a brief pro forma session, but they went home for the long holiday weekend but they were put on notice that they could be called back to washington if a deal comes together. we are talking about the ongoing negotiations. we are coming up on 7:30 a.m.. this is mark from oklahoma, good morning. caller: good morning, i have an idea. why don't the politicians, if they don't get this worked out in a timely manner, why don't they have to pay a penalty?

their paychecks are frozen and how they get it figured out, they can get their pay caught up later. then they can get back paid and caught up. host: you think that would motivate them? caller: i think it would motivate them because they're still getting their paycheck. they're still flying on their jets, they go overseas on business and everything. host: we are talking hundred $70,000 a year times 535 members. it may not be enough to cover the budget. caller: it would give them an incentive because they would feel not having that check. host: thank you for the call

from oklahoma. this is terry and akron, ohio. caller: hello, hello. all of a sudden, the national debt is a big problem. it's been a problem for a long time. i wonder if anyone saw that 60 minutes report on how much the military is wasting money. we could start there but they won't touch that. you notice also that republicans are talking about gas prices, but that was a real big deal. the republicans are overrepresented in our government because of gerrymandering. people do not agree with what the republicans are doing and i

wish we could get that straight in the country and we could have a proper vote in the congress and the senate. thank you c-span. host: on military spending, this is the lead editorial in the washington post noting that the 800 42 billion that president biden suggested spending on defense, that's up then a third from the 30 billion. that should not march into law on question because the congress has not asked the pentagon to spend smartly, they just asked for more hardheaded approach. that's in the washington post. this is rich, and ohio, a republican. caller: this is a great discussion. it seems like we have opportunities to get money into our government and boy, we need it.

for some reason we hate the united states. they could collect a lot of tax dollars from letting us be oil independent. we could collect dollars then send dollars to these countries that hate the united states. they are building all kinds of bombs with the money we are sending a set of us earning money. we have to be fools on that. we keep saying we are a rich country. the bottom line, we are short of dollars by several trillion. that is not rich, you are in debt. a company would be bankrupt. we have to handle it like we do have problems. host: what do you say to folks who look at the spending by agency to the tune of 140

billion for health and human services, for veterans affairs is 135 billion, homeland security 89 billion, education 80 billion just this year. housing and urban development, 69 billion, d.o.t., 66.5 billion. the energy department, 52 billion. for the people who look at those numbers and say, why can't we find cuts, what do you say? caller: exactly, every family has to do that. we have to make choices. it's definitely important, that is the real thing. it helps you be more efficient. with buying the right equipment and having the people do it.

it's important to feed the golden goose. some people want to eat the golden goose. but we have to feed the golden goose and make more golden eggs. as a weird way to think about it but it does happen and sometimes you have to eat the golden goose but don't complained about no golden eggs. there is savings in their. the people who are going to spend money will say we will spend this to make everyone happy. if you cut anything, how dare you? you horrible person. meanwhile, we go down the deep black hole of debt because as soon as they say that, one party gets elected repeatedly spends money. host: this is terry from

jackson, mississippi. an independent. caller: judging from what you are saying what they're coming up with for the deal. it seems like this is another election cycle's talking points. they are pushing it back two years. that's all they are concerned about is the next election because it's all about power. i am old enough to remember clinton cleaning up -- and barack obama had to clean up behind beau's. now, we are in a situation where

president biden has to clean up behind trump. i don't have a problem with the democrats. they are not being accountable because republicans spend. host: a reminder of what we are hearing about a potential deal. nothing has been announced. the compromise, if enacted would raise the borrowing limit that's past the election.

it would meet republican demands to cut federal spending with the help of accounting maneuvers that would give both sides cover. it would impose tax on discretionary spending -- caps on discretionary spending. spending on the military would grow next year as with spending on some veteran care that falls under nondefense discretionary spending. the deal would also rollback 10 billion of the 80 billion that congress approved for an irs crackdown on high income earners and corporations that evade taxes. all of these provisions are under discussion and the possible inclusion of permit reform in negotiations for work

requirements on welfare programs. that is the latest reporting we are hearing late yesterday. steve, from tennessee, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. we are talking about debating people's social security? is that it? childcare? we want to take money from that? rather than raise taxes on wealthy people. cutting back on the irs so they don't have to audit their taxes. host: one thing we haven't heard is because to social security. that would be nondiscretionary spending. it seems that is off the table or not part of their current negotiations. caller: but that is what they

started with. cut social security, look where we are going here. the republicans always want to give everything to the wealthy. we could raise revenue. they don't pay any taxes. donald trump paid $700 in taxes. working people keep on paying their taxes and they get nothing and take away our things. is not morally right to take away from the working person all the time. my question is, how much is biden willing to give away to the republicans and the wealthy. there should be nothing on the table so raise taxes on wealthy people. host: this is raul from miami,

florida. caller: congressional c-span is the only station in the united states -- i want to call out all the news people, this is a total joke because we can't pay the debt we have right now. there is no analysis of how we are going to pay the debt we have right now much less increase it. it hasn't been given much publicity. but the only honest government in the united states is puerto rico that has declared bankruptcy. they ran up a debt of over 100 billion and they said they could not pay it. at least they were honest and said they could not pay it. the united states can pay the debt they have now.

there is no analysis on how we will pay any of it at all. you can aaa, or leave it the same, we can't pay it and nobody is analyzing that. host: mary is next, from california. caller: hello. the national debt grew by 40% under donald trump. 45% of our total debt was accumulated during the four years of the trump administration. the republicans are not willing to cut any tax breaks on the rich people. instead, they want to reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors, veterans and those who need assistance. they are using the debt ceiling and threatening our economy in

order to impose a radical agenda. why do these maga republicans have such strong voices in the congress? what about the other republicans? why don't they stand up to them? host: this is neil, and philadelphia, a democrat. neil, are you with this? from south carolina, a republican. caller: hello, good morning. mccarthy, people have to understand we have got to cut back because that is why we are having all this inflation, the interest rate, the banks going broke and i get so tired of hearing them talk about donald

trump. donald trump did not even take a salary is the president. he gave it all to charity. that is what helped a lot of rich people. host: when you say we have to cut back, there is a lot of discussion does not include cutting back on the defense department? is out of place where we should be cutting back? caller: i have never heard anybody say, people now that 5%

of the defense budget goes to ukraine. i just looked that up before i called. 5% of how ever many billions. host: the last number i saw was 45 billion since before the russian invasion. it is 842 billion that president biden has asked for the department of defense next year. caller: i am all for other countries. they need to be paying more, russia is at their back door, they are not at our back door. i feel like people who talk about cutting spending, they are

not looking out for their own finances. host: from south carolina speaking of the defense department, lloyd austin with mark milley yesterday and he responded to a question about the debt ceiling could affect the u.s. military readiness. here's what he told reporters. [video clip] >> on the debt ceiling piece, i am not an economist. i think if we default it would have significant economic consequences which would translate to defense, pain contracts, weapons, troops. readiness would be impacted. the large-scale exercises would slow down or come to a halt. there is no doubt that there would be a significant negative

impact on readiness, morale and capability if we defaulted and did not reach a debt ceiling. as well as reputational damage internationally. i would not say catastrophic, i'm not in the economist. but it would be very significant and we would have clear, unambiguous obligations to national security. host: that was stuffed chair mark milley. speaking of the joint chiefs chair. president biden nominated air force chief of staff charles braud to serve as the next chairman, appointing him as the highest ranking officer at a precarious time. ida's ceremony announcing the appointment harold the appointment with the challenges

posed by russia and china. there is a picture of general brown there with president biden and the rose garden ceremony. this is bernard in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning sir, how are you? host: i am doing well. caller: i just woke up this morning and came across your program. when you are listing the amount of money that the united states spends on defense and social programs and giveaways and other programs, i am not a cpa but i have enough sense to know when you're trying to figure out the state of a country's finances, you list are liabilities you also list their assets. if you look at the amount of

money in, the amount of money that the u.s. has in terms of assets. 32 trillion is nothing compared to what we have. every year, these politicians talk about the debt ceiling. that is nothing new, it's been going on for years and years. you know as well as i do, the united states is not going to default on the debt ceiling. it will never do that. that's just fear mongering and trying to scare people. people need to wake up. i don't care if you're a democrat or republican. that is something politicians do. host: if this is not going to happen, when do you think it is going to happen? the possibility of it happening is less than a week away.

caller: i don't believe that deadline either. they will never default. whether it be june first, july 1 or december 1. they are never going to default. host: this is pending, brooklyn, a democrat. caller: what i assume is that this budget was approved by the congress. now you decide not to pay for it after you gave a huge tax cut to the wealthy? the ppp money, the wealthy were the first to take that money. i don't understand why this is happening now. every time a republican is in office they give a tax cut to the wealthy. we cut revenue and then you say we don't have enough money. you approve this budget. if you want to negotiate, negotiate at the next budget not when it's time to pay the bill. host: this is francis,

massachusetts, and independent. caller: good morning how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing well. caller: these people keep calling up and they want to blame, let's tax the rich. when truck to tax cuts, we took in more revenue than we ever took in, somewhere around 5 trillion. the problem is there, they say under trump the deficit went up. the democrats had congress. the first two years under trump, the two years later our hunter biden. we can't keep doing this. there are too many freebies, too many handouts. they dumped 1.7 trillion omnibus

bill that they passed. and then some republicans in the senate, they passed it. there is no way to pay it. and most of it, want subsidies for solar panels and wind power. thus destroying our wildlife but they won't admit that. they stop drilling. we could be selling oil right now for our revenue. but we can't keep saying, tax the rich, tax the rich. host: to the keystone state, is clarks summit, elaine, a republican. caller: good morning how are you . i'm just calling about, listening to how people are saying tax the rich.

they keep bringing trump into this constantly. trump is not the president at this time. he hasn't been for three years. if you want to tax the rich, that's fine. go after joe biden, go after pelosi, schumer or schiff. the democrats have become rich over scaring the country. social security is not an entitlement. people have worked years for it. that's a gimmick that they used to scare. i would think that americans would try to get their heads put on straight now, open your eyes to see what is happening to this country. the republicans are taking off on vacation this weekend. mr. biden is going to camp david.

he can't be too interested in what's going on if he is taking off. the one thing we can't do is cut military. other countries are watching us in our military is our strongest friend. host: this is dan, new york, a republican. caller: i love listening to your program. it's the only thing i listen to. i also like listening to what people have to say around the country. the only thing that has been increasingly bad to me is the fact that we blame one party or another party. this is not a republican or democratic debt, this is the united states of america debt. i also think the republican platform, i am a moderate. i believe what they are trying

to do, the bill that they passed is vilified. when they say it's going to cripple the country economically. we are talking about 1% less spending this year proposed. bring it back to 2022 spending. that sounds like that could be part of the negotiations and it would not apply to defense spending and there would be some reshuffling of some moneys including the money for the irs, since -- all of this is still emerging. host: if we have become so dependent on our own government spending, then we are in a sadder situation than we could ever believe.

if you can't cut 1% of spending. the amount of spending that we do as a country far exceeds the revenue that we take in. we take about all these taxes we take in. if you spend two dollars but you only bring in a dollar 80 cents, you are $.20 in the hole. we have to get this and check and it is not a republican problem or democratic problem. both sides are to blame. but now it's an american problem and we need to stand up and do what is right. if they don't make it, they should not spend it. these are simple principles and i can't believe we have vilified it this much. listening to the joint chiefs of staff talking about how this would be horrible for the country. can you trust the voices who is

directly reporting to the president who is turning this into a political issue? we have to solve this problem. as far as ukraine goes, it becomes a hot button issue. the people of this country don't want to end up in a war with russia or china. the people of this country don't have tolerance for a draft. if we end up in a war with russia or china, people's minds would really wake up. the cost of fighting a direct war would be far greater not only to the men and women who would die for our country but economically that whatever we are doing to support the people of ukraine. we have to get back to good old american values and stop this blaming democrats or republicans. those are my thoughts. host: that was dan from new

york, our last caller, we have plenty more to talk about. next we will be joined by russ vought continuing our discussion on the debt ceiling. and later we will speak with josh bivens. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ >> 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the vietnam war and sunday night, we will discuss war with daniel weiss. his book tells the story of poet

and musician michael mcdonald who went missing in action after his helicopter was shot down over cambodia. >> he made the decision that he would rescue these men. he went down to his landing zone area and he hovered over the ground for four minutes waiting for the reconnaissance team to arrive which is an eternity. a long time to be sitting vulnerable to the enemy. the team arrives, entered but safe. he began to pull the helicopter up above the tree line and radioed i'm coming out. daniel weiss, with his book sunday night 8:00 p.m.

[inaudible] >> they can tripping writer at national geographic is written many books including in depth, live sunday june 4 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work where citizens are truly

informed, a republic thrives, informed, straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, you can -- it is your opinion that matters the most. this is what democracy looks like, c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue our conversation on the debt limit and federal spending. we have the former white house budget director during the trump administration. what is your mission. guest: we try to keep the agenda focused on the america first issues we were working on the last administration. we try to keep it focused on improving us in keeping us together as a nation, security, big tech reform, voter

validation and that's what we do. we are having a lot of progress around the country. host: america renewing.com is where people can find it. we've been talking about the state of negotiations and hearing about possible emerging deal. what is your take on where we are? guest: i am absolutely amazed at how bad the parameters of the deal are that are emerging. last night and yesterday, it's basically almost worse than a clean debt limit. if you had said to the democrats , i have to have some deal and it has to have the word caps in it and i will give it to you to come back and give it what you want, this is what it was. two years of caps, the same games between sense and nondefense having caps so if you want to go up on defense, you

have to ratchet up nondefense. they don't even get rid of the irs expansion. they remove a portion of it and then they spread around to other agencies that is supposed to trying to -- supposed to be trying to cut the same time. $5 trillion in spending cuts, doing a third of what's necessary to get to a balanced budget using this opportunity and attornment is way, this does none of that. host: speaker mccarthy and his team are leading the negotiations and i take it you're not impressed with what they've done. guest: i'm amazed at how incompetent they have been. they have never been in a stronger place. they have passed a bill that this town in the country did not think was possible to cap their team together, they had 75/25 polling at their backs, they had the democrats in a situation where they had said you did not negotiate for months and yet up against a deadline that is not a real deadline. they just completely caved.

the parameters of where they are headed not only does not do what they said they would, this will not cut spending year-over-year. they will increase defense and veterans affairs and everything else will be a freeze. when you increase veterans by that amount of money and i think they should, you're not going to get to the cuts that are necessary to even be minimally less than last year. host: was this a function of getting too close to this debt ceiling x date deadline? guest: there has been an unwillingness on the negotiators on the house side part to understand that crisis is manufactured. if you buy into the notion of default, actual default which it is not, default is not paying the treasuries principal and

interest. that was never a consideration. they bought into that and as a result, they felt they needed a deal in the next week and as a result, they got deal happy. is it completely done as of this moment? probably not, but they are still deal happy and until they stop that, they will have to come up with a very bad bill. host: two credit rating agencies today that said they could downgrade the u.s. government aaa debt rating in case of default and morningstar placed the u.s. debt with u.s. implications of a negative even if there is a deal that comes together. fitch said wednesday that it's watching the u.s. debt for brinksmanship. are these folks being swayed by the manufactured crisis? guest: i think they are being swayed to the extent that you

have policy officials in the treasury department that are not being clear that joe biden and the treasury department can ensure that every moment that default is not an option. when we talk about timely payment of every government grant and contract, that is different than default. that is where the definition and the debate has been and as a result, i think they are being swayed and i think they are somewhat politicized. they know what's going on and to the extent they have an opportunity to lean on the scales from the financial community, they are doing it. host: currently at the center for renewing america, the budget director at the white house in the trump administration. what was your view of the debt ceiling when you were budget director at omb before that. guest: there was always an opportunity to talk about the fiscal health of the nation.

when you're in the executive branch, you're dealing with a minority into an opportunity for the other side to roll back your entire agenda. i have always believed debt limits are mission-critical to be able to hit the red button from a warning perspective on where we are fiscally. this is an opportunity to do that. we were putting budget together in the trump administration, more cuts than any president in history and they would send it to the hill and the hill would ignore it paul ryan would know -- would ignore it and we are in a position now because of that. host: the washington post is focusing on crafting the gop debt ceiling playbook. is that a fair description? how much roll have you had within the conference? guest: we are in the position not because of what i've done but because of what the members of congress, the house

conservatives have done. they are the ones in the arena. our center puts out good ideas. we try to inform and explain when we think there is a bad deal on the table but the members are making this happen and they've been showing tremendous statesmanship between january and now. they are in a position with his massive leverage. unfortunately, that leverage is being squandered by the leadership they have been in coalition government with until now. host: is it time to change that leadership? if a deal comes together in the white house and republicans make some sort of deal, is it time to change republican leadership? guest: that's the conversation for the house conservatives. kevin mccarthy and patrick mchenry are going against the coalition government they agreed to. this is in direct conflict to the power-sharing agreement that put them in office.

as a result of that, you so great unity in april and what they were able to pass. this is throwing that completely in the trash if they go forward. their plan is to rely on democrats in the house of representatives when they don't need anyone. that's not what the american people were getting when they put house republicans in office. host: callers are waiting for you already, this is going to the bottom of the hour. this is luanne out of arlington, texas, up first line for democrats, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i just wanted to say -- my question is, why do we even have a debt ceiling? other countries don't even have a ceiling. i noticed your organization has in god we trust and i kind of

feel that's a little scary being the fact we have a separation of church and state and we shouldn't have that. anyhow, i will end with a quote here -- you goodman once said -- history repeats itself, first as a tragedy and this is a farce. thank you for your time. guest: thank you and i am not -- i want to say we believe we need to regain a consensus in the country that we are a christian nation and that we have religious liberty for all faiths and we were founded as a nation on the basis of the judeo-christian worldview and if you don't have that, you have a whole society that completely disintegrates. i think you see that across the country. going back to your first question with regard to the debt limit, the debt limit is a balanced budget requirement.

we have balanced budget requirement across the states and they are something that is very normal. the people talk about we need a balanced budget requirement at the federal level. i would love one but we have one. it's called the debt limit and it's an opportunity to have a conversation about whether you are balancing your books. it's just so problematic at this point that our debt is so much and so much spending occurs on the front end that we get to this point where there is so much momentum to raise the debt limit on each and every one of these agents. that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. host: merced, california, rebecca, independent, you are next. caller: good morning, everyone. i'm just wondering if a decision can be made to they have the right to revisit this in december and we will try again?

just a question i'm not even sure if they have to make a decision on june 1. anyway i will take your answer offline. thank you. host: this is a crisis moment. guest: june 1 is not a real deadline. there will still be the same ability to pay interest and principal on the debt. what i mean by that is revenues are coming into the treasury. those revenues are more than enough to pay that. the issue they have is that the revenues are not enough to pay the federal government spending on the rate of the obligations made. you have the question of timely payments that the department of health and human services. this is a fake deadline they have bought into but one of the reasons i'm so concerned about the parameters of what's being discussed, is because it's almost forced and a clean debt limit. they are going to say these are

the spending levels we are going to put into place. once washington, d.c. has the consensus about where the appropriations is it's not going to be lower than the caps. it's such a way that in some respect worse than a clean debt limit because a clean debt limit would not have done that. host: where are these caps that are being discussed? this is what we are hearing the difference between the caps and what is in the republicans bill. how big a difference, can we quantify that in dollars to help people understand the difference? guest: not yet but just in terms of what the house put together. the house put together a five trillion dollar bill. going back to pre-covid levels, locking in the lower level and if you cap defense harmless you

would have a 20% cut. you're going to get substantial savings from that and then blowing that out by 1% every single year that's where they got the savings of what they did in the house. fast forward to now, you get two years that you are increasing defense at a higher rate than they did in the house and you are locking in freeze level for nondefense because the democrats are not agreeing to go lower certainly not to pre-covid levels. they're going to come nowhere near the types of savings they had in the house. host: big paul minnesota, alex, go ahead. caller: i think i wanted tamika quick comparison. i would say what we have right now with overspending and the growth of our federal government is like a cancer.

i think it will be $50 trillion of debt and it means we will be at like what is that? certified debt it's three times our defense budget which is just a lot. right now we take the medicine the country needs to solve this we have a lot of people talking about the debt limit and how difficult it is to let us cut the cancer. the spending we can't sustain and watching congressional hearings you can see large parts of the bureaucracy right now, just don't listen to congress. they don't listen to requests for information and it needs to be reigned in. congress needs to listen to the willingness of the people. thank you very much.

host: one of the things you said in your comments, i don't think it's actually that hard. guest: we are not asking to tackle social security, medicare. we are asking them to go back to pre-covid levels on discretionary spending which funds all the agencies. those agencies are increasingly weaponized against the american people themselves. 77-year-old navy veteran for building ponds on his ranch to fight wildfires. the environmental protection agency, the american people think they can send their tax dollars is putting navy veterans in jail because they didn't have quite the same interpretation as some federal bureaucrat here in d.c. that's a debate i want to have. i don't think that's a cut to

the epa and yet that's the type of thing that will do that. we will be able to get a handle on our finances. host: on taking our medicine, democrats will ask the questions and have, what is it only time to take our medicine when a democrat is in the white house? what would you say to them? guest: i would say that's not the case. we are willing to have these cuts when we were in office in well they just rejected them. they had power, they had agenda and they wanted to use the debt limit to rollback the tax cuts, they wanted to rollback our regulatory ambitions. so we were in a position where we had to recognize what's critical to keep the economy going. but they come to us and said he was the debt limit increase and we want 10 years of spending caps and $4 trillion in spending debt which we have in our budget

we would have said great, let's do it. host: about 10 minutes left with russ vought taking your calls as usual. for republicans, democrats and independents. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i have a question. it's regarding not just the united states debt but the global debt when you look at a lot of the countries in europe and around the world, it's like everybody has a huge amount of debt. maybe all these countries, including the united states, are planning on default and at the same time. and certainly baselining everyone's, just re-baselining the world economy.

it just seems like no one is really worried about the debt. guest: i would say i have a different hypothesis and that is that the political clout even the economic class don't think critically about the policy situation. no one in the last two years has really -- the last two years is when we went back to highs on inflation. if you would have talk to officials they would have said will never have high inflation again. the economic fundamentals came home and what did we experience? the issue you are raising is we have kind of a policy community that never thinks we are going to have consequences to the bad decisions they are making and as a result they never get off the gravy train. we are trying to deal with this now, to get them off the gravy train.

host: linda in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. first, i want to say i want to object what you said about the worldwide inflation. in case you didn't notice, sir, we have a worldwide deadly pandemic. the united states had more deaths and more cases and more spread than any country in the entire year world. the whole world has looked at it and they can't understand why the richest country in the world handled it in the worst way. the january 6 -- should be a red flag right there. host: let me jump in because you bring up a couple things. guest: with regard to the pandemic if your thesis is right, we would have had a big

economic stop which we did and then we would have had this massive growth which we were having. it's called a reshape recovery. joe biden comes into office and passes another who trillion dollars that is not necessary. and we have seen types of inflation that doesn't -- it wasn't just me warning. this covid relief that's not needed at that point of where we were in the recovery is going to cause inflation and that's what occurred. i understand the frustration with regard to the pandemic. i felt the same way. it's one of the reasons why i'm such a huge critic of the center for disease control. and also these agencies that have complete the -- were completely ineffective in a pandemic. i saw their ineffectiveness. they had to admit that they had to reorganize themselves.

you have an argument that the agencies that are largely independent, unfortunately, this country we have to get the more independent. we have to have more policy control of these individuals. those individuals like that are not there for 40 years as stars of agencies that you have no ability to reign them in. we want to use the pursestrings to be able to get control of these agencies that have been so ineffective. host: explain what your job was if you are budget director of the white house and they pandemic hits, how did your job change during the pandemic? review on fighting the pandemic from what your role was. guest: the budget, the regs and the government execution. so my job was to help the

different agencies if a decision was made to help execute the decision. i'd have to deal with the decision that was made by policy officials and then you have the bureaucracy of cdc come back to you and have it rewritten. so over and over you would have these types of issues. and i'd also tried to get the funding for what we were doing. we needed a lot of money at fema to be able to have flexible amounts to use if there was something in washington. we needed to have flexibility to meet the crisis. my role was execution and it wasn't by favorite role. in terms of on the covid portion i would rather cut spending but from a standpoint of the pandemic, i saw up close and personal the degree to which these agencies had minds and

likes of their own and it was difficult to get a handle on and particularly so in a crisis like we were applicants. host: operation warp speed? guest: that was an initive. in terms of it wasn't our brainchild. host: our guest is with us for about five more minutes, taking your calls as usual. this is patty, juneau, florida. republican, good morning. caller: i have a question. what if all of congress spent more of their salaries than they earned? what would happen? i believe they would have to file for bankruptcy. my question is why would our congress do that to the american

people? why are they going to let, why don't they make rules or spend the money dependent on how much money is coming in? guest: no one is arguing that we not pay our bills, the argument is timely payment of our bills. if you're going to allow a child that gets a credit card for the first time and creates an enormous number of charges on that credit card are you ever going to have a conversation where you take it away or put rules in place to make sure that if you are going to pay it off on their behalf they are not going to the next day go up and wreck up charges again? that is what this debate is about. the issue about default is let's not have the scare tactic. let's focus on what default is and what it's not.

it is about u.s. treasuries paying it off and paying the interest. then you have the timely payments of other government obligations. there are still revenues coming in that of value to pay social security, medicare, and the defense needs. this is common when you are dealing with countries about when you pay your bills. you triage your payments all over the place. you're really trying to tell me we can have a conversation about the timely payment of tony fauci's grant to the wuhan institute? i believe the american people would say that doesn't have to be paid on time so we can have a little more time to get a paradigm shifting $5 trillion debt package to allow us to turn the corner and save our country to be able to protect the american people and go forward into the future.

host: do you care to weigh in on what the 14th amendment says? guest: it's a made up argument. the 14th amendment says for any authorized debt authorized by law validity cannot be questions. a debt limit is not that authorization of law. if you have new debt you do not have debt that is authorized by law. i view this whole thing as a fig leaf that has been constructed to ignore the constitution and the law itself. i view this similarly as calls to print a platinum coin. you are increasing the money supply essentially saying let's print new money. the solutions are often the same. they just come in different packaging here in washington, d.c. host: just a couple more calls.

willey in the buckeye state. that morning. caller: mi on yet? host: yes, sir. caller: my suggestion is let it default. you guys keep playing around, putting people in hostage situations and you know the outcome. number one, you can't trust these guys because you have kushner who came away with $2 billion. also, were not questioning the validity of some of these congresspeople. george santos was arrested, somebody paid his bail. host: will he says let it default. guest: no one wants that. the argument that we are going to have that happen has implications. we are here to see what is default and what it's not. it is not the position that i support to suggest we are not

going to pay what has been a hallmark of our country and our economy to have treasuries that are always paid in full. what i'm suggesting is we failed in our country as the political class because we get scared off by crises. there's a lot of reasons for that. there is the advent of modern communication and media. we have to get out of this business of creating these faults crises by focusing on real problems, preventing actual default and using the time we have to come up with a solution and a package that will actually turn the corner for the country. host: just wanted to get your thoughts on it, just before 9:00 a.m. as we start here reporting about the potential deal coming together a senator from utah saying i will use every procedural tool to impede a debt

ceiling deal that doesn't contain the budgetary reforms. i fear things are moving in that direction, that proposal for not face the united states senate. guest: it's a warning shot to the negotiators that if you are, if you move away from coalition style government and open way from house conservatives and move towards house democrats the team is going to help you pass this bill? you should expect trans warfare next week and i think mike lee is putting them on notice of that. host: one or two more calls. caller: sir, so much of what you say and you talk about our abstract economic principles, a lot of it because of for my head let me ask you one simple

question am i going to get my social security check in june? just yes or no and i will take your answer off the air. guest: yes. it's entirely a decision for joe biden. there is more than enough revenue coming in even if house republicans took a hard over the next week the patient -- to pay for your social security check. host: mark, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to ask a quick question and hopefully get some clarity here. i've been working in tele-sector budgeting for like 10 years. i'm hearing a lot of in the weeds talk about how we are going to balance i just want to hear straight up from your guest where are the targeted cuts going to come from? we are talking about 1.5

trillion is the deficit figure. so, we are talking about epa, arresting subdued for ponds let's hear straight up. guest: the bureaucracies themselves are the ones that make the decisions on putting someone in jail for building ponds on their land. it is the bureaucracies themselves that is pushing critical race theory and culturally responsive learning at the department. it is the bureaucracy itself that the department of housing and urban health is pushing the uprooting of single-family neighborhoods across the country because they want to have big apartment buildings around metro stations. it is the bureaucracy itself pushing or in aid, massive foreign aid so we have the funding of not just statues but

lgbt activists and pride events. we have to have a lot of bureaucracy cut and eliminated at the department of education. the department of health and human services that has been weaponized as we've seen with the nih. not just putting money towards cancer but putting money towards what caused the pandemic. i have listed all of these cuts in the fall and we've been very clear about where these reforms should be. that gets you a third of the way to a balanced budget. the other two thirds is dealing with the social safety net and turning it back into an actual net instead of a hammett. host: the former white house budget director for renewing america, america renewing duck, if you want to find it on the web. we appreciate your time this

morning. up next a different perspective on this same conversation we will be joined by josh bivens after the break. and scott mcfarland discusses the latest sentencing for the january 6 attack on the capital -- capitol we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span-two. exploring the american story, at 7:00 p.m. looking back at the watergate hearings with associate historian kise got and at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency richard norton smith talks about his latest book. his decade-long look into the president of gerald ford.

exploring the american story watch american history tv saturdays on c-span t and find a full schedule on your program guide,r tch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> nonfiction book lovers c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to authors and influential interviewers and done q&a here wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors who are making things happen. book notes plus episodes have our phone conversations. fascinating authors on a wide variety of topics and the about books podcasts takes you behind the scenes of the publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and best sellers list. download the free c-span now

abhor wherever you get your podcasts. or visit our website c-span.org/website -- c-span.org/podcasts. >> americans can see democracy at work. a republic thriving get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capitol to where you are. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is josh bivens. before we get back into the debt limit and debt negotiations that are happening what's the role

you see the institute playing in these economic debate. guest: the epa is a nonprofit nonpartisan and we see it is our mission to make sure middle income families are given their proper due in economic debates. and ensuring a social safety net. host: social safety net and economic equality, how do you see that factoring into this debate right now over the debt ceiling? guest: a couple of obvious ways,one is the terrible scenario where we breach the debt limit and find it to federal spending. once it's cut subtly and you have people who provide on federal spending whether it's federal employees or people who received checks from social security or doctors who get reimbursed from medicare if they don't get the spending that is the direct damage. and then if it goes on for longer than a couple of days you

are talking about flirting with a recession for the entire economy. it's the obvious way that has direct economic damage. i would argue it's sort of an illegitimate way for house republicans to impose their policy preferences not through the normal democratic processes. so you run on the cuts you want to see on the budget, you run an election, you run a budget and you pass it. they haven't done that. they want to enforce those political preferences through this factor. host: just for fences with this this morning until the top of the hour, maybe a little past the top of the hour. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. we have been talking about the possible emerging deal. some sort of budget pushing the debt ceiling two years past the

2024 election. we haven't heard yet about whether that emerging deal would include new work requirements on social safety net programs. we haven't heard about whether it will include permitting for new energy projects. i think the former is something you are more interested in. guest: yeah, definitely. it's been debated over the past couple of weeks, introduction of work requirements for medicaid and the expansion of making more work requirements for the fitzsimmons program. all of those are very worrying to me. work requirements just make it more stingy and harder to access for people who really need it. i think any deal that did not include any of these work requirements wouldn't be a very good then. it would make programs harder to access for people who need them. they don't do much, if anything

at all to spur work. host: why do stingy? a lot of people call into this program who say there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse of these safety net programs. guest: i would say for two stingy because the most obvious comparison is with sort of every other bridge country in this world. look at what they do to alleviate property -- poverty for people who are unable to find work and they spent far more than we do without any particular damage to their economy. they just provide a smarter -- a more secure life. we can afford to do that. we can make it to where the coming disabled for baseball or being unable to work doesn't mean you are in poverty for the rest of your life. our social safety net programs are so stingy and hard to access.

i think we are rich enough to afford to be much more generous and let people have some economic security even if it happens to come their way. host: if you take social security out, medicare and medicaid out, how much do we spend in discretionary spending on social safety net programs? guest: it's still pretty substantial. it's sort of, a little bit depends on how you are going to define this. would you spend safety net spending? it's not checks going directly unto the pockets of those families but it provides things like free lunches or reduced cost breakfasts. it's still in the hundreds of billions of dollars that i would say is pretty direct income support that is in the part of the budget that remains in the crosshairs of these talks. guest: republicans have a

inaccurate picture of who receives federal assistance would he mean? i think there is this thought that lots of the people on these programs are sort of adults who are totally able to work and are just choosing not to out of laziness or something like that. when in fact if you look at who actually accesses the programs it's people who are not working but they are not working for some very good reason. watching over children we don't think children should be working at a full-time themselves they should be going to school. lots of them are retired people, people with disabilities that are profound enough that makes it impossible for them to work. lots of them are people who are searching for work but haven't been able to find a job yet even during a good economy there are spells of unemployment. there's a lot of people who find life on these programs comfortable and don't want to be father to work? i don't think that's true at all.

life on these programs is not comfortable. it's a tough life, generally except for tannish -- tanf which is a small program. it just all seems like a lot of strong manning people on these programs as lazy and choosing not to work when in fact there are generally very good reasons why they are not working and why they need this assistance. host: i just want to ask about this. [video clip] >> what about hopi people get back into the workforce? i don't think it's right. to take from a hard-working taxpayer and go pay an able-bodied person with no dependents to sit on a couch. host: that was on monday. guest: i just think he is trying

to invoke the idea that lots of the people on these income assistance programs like medicaid and food stamps are just choosing not to work because they find life so comfortable relying exclusively on these programs. i just don't think that's true. i think the vast majority of people who access the aid are not working for very good reasons. i think the people who are able to work are quite actively looking for work. the best incentive for people to find work is make sure income is higher in a piece for life better and people know this and they try it. was really odd at this point in time is raising all this, we have a 3.5% unemployment rate. the idea that there is some crisis of people not looking for work but i have seen is when the economy became healthy after the pandemic and jobs became plentiful people flocked to them in mass. i think what he's going to do,

if he actually managed to introduce work requirements is turn deserving people off of them. is just going to be sort of a very cruel thing to do. host: two bivens with us for about the next 15 or 20 minutes this morning. let's get you to the callers. caller: good morning, good morning. i think y'all for having me. i've been listening to this for the last past few days. i just want to comment on the federal debt ceiling. the program they are trying to cut. i really think it said because they're not giving us no resources. i'm 57 years old rate? can i remember i'm from philly and i remember when they do cuts like this and when it's affecting the economy, i remember we used to get on up us

and we used to sleep at harrisburg and washington until this is over. and why should we suffer when they can make the courtesy themselves. we shouldn't have to do a cut when we can make money. host: i will let you jump in. guest: i would say two things there, i can agree with number one, i would argue really unfair and illegitimate to use the debt limit in this way to enforce these kinds of cuts. it's fun to have a debate about u.s. fiscal policy and it's fine if you disagree with me and you think our safety net programs are too generous. make back case. run a campaign based on making those cuts. the house majority, you know,

the republicans are in charge of the house. all bills are supposed to originate in the house. do your job. suffer the political consequences. instead they are trying to pass these through the back door. i think it's true, we should be talking about given the consequences of going through the debt limit be so dire it really is up to the biden administration to find any legal work around it can to not let that happen. to continue making the spending happened that he has been legislatively obligated to do no matter what that means. he is not allowed to print money but there are workarounds he could invoke to make sure this does not become a crisis even if adele is not reached. host: republicans would argue that running and passing legislation, they did that with their active of 2023 a bill they passed at the end of last month.

but they would argue democrats are going to pick that up and the president won't sign it. this is the tool they can use to try to move at least some of that legislation. guest: i mean that to me is the point. the save and grow act is radical and would not pass the senate because they have not won the elections that they need to win to enable their incredibly radical agenda to code-3. i think that's why they wrote the bill so radical. there is no prospect of it becoming law. i don't think you should be of the to use the debt limit to enforce your policy preferences on the entire government when you have not done the work to win the elections and convince people it's the right path to take. it's weaponizing political institution that was never meant to say whoever is in charge when we happen to get near this debt limit has unlimited power to make fiscal policy.

host: mike, independent, good morning. caller: i just want to say i have been watching for half an hour today. i'm looking for someone to come out and i am an independent. i used to be republican i have voted both sites. i understand the whole process. let me say i do pretty well financially, but i also make sure that i volunteer at a food bank every week because there's so much needed. and i see that. i guess what i'm looking for is someone to come on one of these shows and give us some encouragement as people that there is some chance that we are ever going to come together on this. the previous, all he did was talk about all these programs that are spending all this money for the poor people or the

people who are not doing as well as people like me. and i understand that said from the republican side but what he doesn't bring up is during the trump administration they passed this thing three or four times and trump is responsible for 30% or more of the deficit itself. i understand his side too. it's just, i don't ever hear anybody come on give us any hope. where as citizens, any hope that we are going to be back to pulling this country together. host: josh bivens? guest: we have become a polarized country on pretty much every issue. i do agree. over the next couple of years, it's hard to see where the comments ground is on these issues. i think it's pretty healthy to

have debates about these issues. i have a sense that i would like to see more revenue raised especially from the very rich in this country. the income tax, as the caller mentioned. i would like to get that money back i would like to use some of it to make our safety net programs more generous. i think it's good to have a debate about it. what i don't think is fine is to use the totally arbor cherry political institution to try to leverage your policy preferences. what gives the house of representatives there were leverage, they just happen to be in power when we happen to be getting near the debt limit and not raising it causes economic catastrophe. most of the time, because of that it's been raised in a pro-form way it's irresponsible to try to weaponize it to try to get your way without doing the

work of winning elections and convincing people. this time, just like they did in 2011, just because we happen to be in power when we are near the debt limit we will hold it hostage. you're going to try to maximize the leverage to get our way and i don't think that is a healthy democratic debate we need. host: what about was repeatedly said that he believes the x-date is more of a scare tactic than a reality. your thoughts on that june 1 eight that we have been focused on. guest: i think that this super irresponsible. he has not idea. the people who have the idea are the ones who work in treasury and manage the accounts on a day-to-day basis. the idea that there is some huge

win, i don't get it. it's terrible if they find that we can't make our spending obligations on sunday. i think they are giving us a date on which the risk of that happening becomes april possibility. -- a real possibility. the idea that anyone from the outside can say with any certainty, there is no basis for that. i think it's trying to cover just how reckless this tactic has been. host: john in the keystone state, republican. caller: first of all i am retired. i do very well in retirement. i'm also a school bus driver. when i hear josh safety vast majority of people, come on my school bus and see sympathy parent. you will know what i'm talking

about. i also drive for headstart. headstart, it's not about the kids, it's about the funding. and when we talk about the divisiveness your comments have been nothing but divisive on how you are attacking the republicans. when senator burke was in charge of the democratic senate everyone hailed him as being a genius and parliamentary procedures and stalling and stonewalling things. maybe you also need to look at when the democrats control the senate and the republicans controlled the house, how many bills chuck schumer sat on and maybe you should go after chuck schumer on carryover interest. he allows these millionaires and billionaires to get all of these big fundraising, all of these big bonuses and they treated as capital gain. the democrats are just as bad and i'm telling you what i'm

seeing right now, when i say drive my school bus there are people that are capable of working. and charles money i don't know -- charles murray i don't know if you know who he is he said it best if someone didn't want to get up and go to work, even their family members called them bombs. we need to start getting towards them i don't have problem helping the truly needy but i'm telling you you need to take euros glasses off and one of the things we need to do in this country is getting rid of the politically-based nonprofits. it would be interesting to take a look at the tax returns of all of these social justice nonprofits to see what their salaries truly are. host: don in pennsylvania. guest: couple things there. very specific issue have the tax loophole he was talking about, i

think democrats in the senate and the house would be happy to pass something to close that. it has been proposed a number of times in democratic budgets and it was always republicans who rebuff it because they are more interested in keeping tax paints on -- tax rates on the rich blow. -- low. i do think the house republicans today are incredibly irresponsible by weaponizing the debt limit. when democrats may have done similar things if people want to talk about that, i might even agree with some of it. we have one threatening the economy and that's what i'm focused on. i think this is a real problem in our debates, you have people who go around and eyeballed people on the street and decide whether or not they can work and decide whether they are working or not me decisions.

i think they can work, i don't think they are working right now. changing the entire federal policy to get these programs i think we are run by data. we should look at who is on these programs to make a diagnosis. if we think it's a real problem that there are not enough people on the programs who can work i don't think that's what the data tells us. i'm not interested in people eyeballing people on the street. host: good morning, you are on with josh bivens. caller: good morning. i will start with a simple question. john, did you pay your bills last month? are you going to pay your bills next month? and argue going to make the decision about how much you are going to put on your credit cards next to christmas in order

to pay your bills? i mean, this is a stupid argument. it is asinine. to say that, ok, we spent all of this money while actually trump spent all of this money, he spent $8 trillion in four years. and i don't hear anybody trying to find out what he spent that money on. the majority of the $8 trillion was spent before covid struck. i don't understand how democrats let themselves get in this position again after republicans pulled this with obama.

i am incensed about it. host: loretta in ohio. josh bivens? guest: there's a lot i agree with there. we saw this playbook happened in 2011 where a house majority sort of use the leverage of the debt limit to enforce really large cuts. something like that is happening again. it's a disaster for both the economy, the people damaged and the precedent for if you are in power when the debt limit is coming at you should leverage it as much as you can. i think another thing she points out that's really true is a lot of the rhetoric about why we need towe need to weaponize thet limit is because we have a debt crisis in the united states and we have to use every weapon we have to address it. it is not true. the republicans do not believe that. they did tax cuts before the pandemic happened. early in the trump administration's tenure they

undid the budget caps they imposed on the budget -- on the obama administration. in 2011 it was important to keep budget caps in place, and then when their person was in charge of the presidency and they wanted the boost to the economy, they went ahead and did it. all of the rhetoric about it is ok to take this radical step because the debt is a crisis is shown to be false by their own actions. it is -- host: it is parachute, colorado, independent. caller: i would like to say thank you to both sides and of our listeners and to encourage more individuals to listen that are of younger age. i am embarking on 60 and have seen a huge growth in our deficit and the spending in the

budget is a problem. i would like to thank you for sharing this and making it a topic and people can hopefully wrap their heads around it. host: host: do you think people at this point in this debate and this close to a potential default have wrapped their heads around this? do you think america is focused on this or is this still one of the d.c. and cable news debates? guest: that is a good question. i am in that bubble myself and it has been all i have been thinking about for a couple of weeks and i assume it has broadened out. i will say if you are genuinely interested in a good-faith debate about u.s. fiscal bank policy, do we tax enough, but we tax rich people in a way that is fair, do we have a generous enough safety net or is it too generous? those debates are super

important and we should be having them but i think they are damaged a lot by this debt limit debate which a lot of people think is a fiscal policy debate, but it is not. it is about this weird political institution that is being leveraged to force fiscal policy concessions but does not have much to do with those substantial questions. i agree it is important to have the debates. i think the debt limit is a terrible locus around which to talk about these issues. host: john in virginia, republican, go ahead. caller: we went from spending $4 trillion a year in 2019 to $6 trillion one year later. we doubled the federal spending by 50%. you cannot tell me there is not port and there or other excess spending. thanks.

host: i will give you the final minute urso. guest: i think all of the post 2019 increase in spending we saw is related to the relief from recovery after the pandemic. some of it is the public health response, but in terms of sheer magnitude most of it was the economic response and i think it was appropriate. we had the employment rate hit 15% in 2020 and recovery even after businesses opened up was far from guaranteed. we were losing jobs again at the end of 2020, eight months after the first introduction of covid. we needed to do something to stabilize the economy and keep us from having that multiyear depressed economy we had after the crisis of 2008 so i think that spending was high-value. it drove unemployment low and drove wage growth to good levels. i think it was good for the economy. it is raining itself back in.

the pandemic relief programs are mostly unwound. i think there is a long-run debate to be had but the debt limit is the terrible central point of that debate. it does not bear any relationship to the fundamental drivers of taxing and spending. host: we will leave it there for now. josh bivens. appreciate your time. come back again. just under an hour left. in that time we will be joined by scott mcfarland of cbs use -- of cbs news to get an update on the legal cases related to the january 6 riot in the united states capital. we will be right back. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span

has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floor to congressional hearings, party briefing, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest books. design mom.com founder shares her book ejaculate responsibly where she argues the response -- the abortion debate should focus on the lack of accountability men to prevent unwted pregnancies. and another contents leftist

ideologies are passed along to today's young people through education and culture. watch book tv on c-span2 or watch online anytime at look tv.org. -- at booktv.org. >> 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the vietnam war. sunday night we discussed the war with daniel weiss. mr. weiss tells the story of poets and musician michael o'donnell who went missing in action during the war when the helicopter he was piloting was shot down over cambodia. >> he made the decision he would rescue these men. he went down into these landing zone areas and he hovered on the ground for four minutes waiting for the reconnaissance team to arrive, which is in battle

conditions and eternity. it is a long time to be sitting vulnerable. he awaited, the team arrives, injured but safe. they boarded the helicopter and o'donnell begin to pull the helicopter up above the tree line and radio i have everyone, i am coming out. >> daniel weiss with his book in that time. this memorial day weekend, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word.

from our nations capital to wherever you are. get the opinion that matters the most. this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cbs news congressional correspondent scott macfarlane back after a judge handed out the longest sentence to date in a january 6 case. stewart rhodes got 18 years in jail. guest: he is the top of the capital rights defendants. he is the originator of the oath keeps, the group that had a big role in the attack on the capital. he was charged with seditious conspiracy. this new modern-day group of defendants charged with sedition against america. he was accused of plotting and planning the attack of getting money and raised and getting weapons outside the d.c. city

limits, getting protective military gear for some of those on the front lines. he did not go into the capital but what the prosecutors argued successfully in securing a conviction was he was the brainchild. he was an ivy league grad, a military service member from a person who was able to get his own fighting force ready to deploy on january 6. convicted by a d.c. jury and sentenced yesterday to 18 years, the longest sentence so far in january 6, but the first in a wave of 10 seditious conspiracy defendants convicted of trial and to be sentenced. host: focusing on seditious conspiracy, how may people have been convicted and how many of those have been convicted of seditious conspiracy? guest: a real small subset. about 1000 subset. roughly half of them a been convicted or pleaded guilty.

10 have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. you're talking about 1% of the defendants. steward rhodes the first one to be sentenced. that sentence of 18 years lays down a marker for everybody else. this is something without comparison in modern times. conspiracy to try to block the peaceful transfer of power in america. 18 years is a real foundation. host: prosecutors wanted 25 years and he got 18. why? guest: the sentencing guideline range was 21 to 27 years. one of the things the federal judge was wrestling with was that there is no real comparison. there is nothing to line it up with to get a good measure as to what is too lenient and what is too strict. this was a unicorn of a case. he made comparisons to other cases of seditious conspiracy in america, which were not analogous.

they involve some type of violent behavior by the defendant himself. stewart rhodes was done accused of any violence himself. he did not going to the capital. it was a bit of an amorphous thing to figure out how to properly sentence the case. the judge decided 18 years was spot on. host: watch should the judge know about the cases? guest: they have subdivided the 1000 cases among all of the judges in washington, d.c. all of the cases are being tried right here in the nation's capital. write down the street from the capital itself. he had the first big one in his courtroom, this oath keepers seditious conspiracy trial. it was a lengthy trial with many witnesses, many victims, including police officers who explained how january 6 not only damage to democracy but damage them, the physical injuries, trauma, the terror, the loss of

police officers from the force who stepped away from duty because of january 6. the judge oversaw that trial and handle that first sentencing. the second sentencing. it is worth underscoring that the code defended was also sentenced yesterday for seditious conspiracy and he got 12 years. host: what did kelly meigs do versus stewart rhodes? guest: walked into the capital itself. he was also convicted of being an organizer and a planner of this fighting oath keepers force. kelly meigs stepped foot on the capitol grounds during january 6. his case was not just a federal charge, not just a federal crime , but one which the prosecutor said was different than the other riders or unlawful per raiders.

host: writers, seditious conspiracy, how are these juries breaking down these various charges or how's the federal government choosing to prosecute different folks? guest: different charges based on what you did at the capital. you cannot paint everyone in that mob with a broad brush. some people walked into the capital, walked around, and did not injure anyone and walked out. they will get a different sentence from someone who used pepper spray. the man who put his feet on nancy pelosi's desk was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison. he was convicted of different charges. part of a dangerous mob but did not hurt anyone or go into a sensitive space. host: richard barnett is the man

who put his feet on nancy pelosi's desk. the picture along with the story. in terms of how you reacted to the sentencing or how he reacted to the charges, reporting on some defiance in the face of these charges by the government and throughout the trial. how are the judges and juries treating folks who are more remorseful versus folks who are more defiant? guest: remorse is a critical issue in sentencing. juries have convicted 100% of the january 6 defendants to go to trial by jury, at least partially on some federal charges. they have not fully acquitted any january 6 defendant. the only one man to be acquitted for january 6 went to trial by judge. the judges make this emphatic in sentencing. if you show remorse for what you did that day and for the people

injured and to the damage to democracy, the judges will take note of that. it may be part of their decision whether to show leniency. richard barnett is a great example. richard barnett did have some words of remorse but the judge says he was remorseful for what happened to richard barnett and not to the police officers and not to democracy. stewart rhodes, sentenced yesterday, was simply unapologetic. no remorse, no words of concern for anyone. he is the platform of his sentencing hearing to reignite the political fires he has been lighting for years. the judge made note of that. remorse is critical. words matter when you face a judge. host: scott macfarlane with us. has been tracking the january 6 cases from the beginning and has been on this program several times to talk about them with us for the next 45 minutes.

if you want to join the conversation or you have questions about some or any of these cases, a great guy asked for information. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. the next seditious conspiracy sentencing that we are going to see, walk us through the road ahead and what you are watching. guest: this is the moment. this is the wave of the topline defendants facing justice and guarding their punishment. the other four oath keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy will be sentenced in the coming days, before the start of summer. the four proud boys convicted of seditious conspiracy will be sentenced at the end of august or early september. all of this comes with the big asterix. we had roughly 1030 defendants.

the department of justice has been unequivocal, there are hundreds more arrests still to come. we do not know what to make of jack smith, the special counsel, and his investigation into january 6. will some people be charged? host: remind folks about his role in his job? guest: u.s. attorney general merrick garland decided that january 6 investigation where the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election needed a special counsel independent from the attorney general himself to lead the investigation and decide on charges. jack smith was the person dedicated to be the special counsel. he has not spoken publicly about his investigation. we can only do our own reporting to figure out how it has been going and what is likely to happen next. we do not know jack smith will charge anybody for efforts to overturn the election. we know jack smith is also investigating the records from

mar-a-lago seized in 2022. they are two different investigations ongoing. we know the grand jury has been hearing from key witnesses inside the trump inner circle. we do not know with jack smith will charge someone with a nexus to january 6 or if you will charge many people. host: does the stewart rhodes case reveal any nexus to some of those people you're talking about? guest: we were waiting to hear if stewart rhodes mentioned anything about whether he has been questioned or participated in any organization, whether he wanted to say something about donald trump or the trump inner circle. instead we got a more inflammatory political diatribe that was unapologetic and may not have helped his cause in sentencing. we did not get any tea leaves into the broader investigation. host: do you think an 18 year sentence might change the mind

of other folks convicted of seditious conspiracy to cooperate? is this something prosecutors are trying to do even in the weeks to ocme? guest: i think defense attorneys will tell their clients about what happened with stewart rhodes and other january 6 defendants who might have gotten a tougher sentence because they were unapologetic. that is something many of these defendants are being counseled about. i have no doubt stewart rhodes attorneys had concerns about what he was door to say yesterday and what he did say yesterday. all of that being said, what the judge tried to make clear was that there needs to be some general deterrent to prevent the recurrence of political violence after the next election and the judge had his courtroom frozen and silent when he said this. he said the countries are holding their collective breaths concerned about violence after the next election. will there be another january

60, he asked. it remains to be seen. host: a big day in the courtroom for the january 6 cases. is this every day? you talk about 1030 cases and more to come. does this every day it is taking place. guest: with the exception of holidays and weekends multiple january 6 cases every single day. monday mornings and friday afternoons included. it is one of those things where you have to deal with cases. their updates before trial, after trial. arraignments and sentencings. host: how much of that is getting covered day-to-day by the media. you are somebody who has been on top of this more than most. on a day that stewart rhodes is being sentenced, obviously a circus there. what about the monday or tuesday when it is not a stewart rhodes case? guest: i find the lower level

cases equally illustrative and important. you have someone who comes in charged only with a misdemeanor. here she already lit art -- articulates how someone can be so galvanized or radicalized to attack the u.s. capital. how does a grandma from the midwest end up here? how to so many military members, including active duty military, end up here doing that, teachers , medical professionals, how are they here? if you track their court cases you may get some explanation and some indication of how vibrant the risk is for recurrence. host: give me two cases that stand out in your mind. not the stewart rhodes cases. cases that illustrate what you're talking about. guest: richard barnett is the poster child for january 6, the man from arkansas who put his feet on nancy pelosi's desk,

convicted at trial. his trial showed the defiance of semi january 6 defendants, the way they continue to articulate their concerns about the 2020 election, continue to articulate their support for their political beliefs. it was this moment in court that so many of us will remember for quite a while. barnett took the stand defiantly at his own trial. during cross-examination the prosecutor cornered him and asked him do you love the bill of rights. he said love it. do love the first amendment? do love the second amendment? he says love it. the prosecutor asked you love the third amendment? barnett says love it. he asks what is the third amendment? barnett says i don't know. the judges said you had a trick question thrown at you, but recognizes what happened on january 6 is protected by the

12th amendment. you cannot pick and choose which amendments you choose to follow. that crystallized what we see in so many smaller january 6 cases, where the defendants continue to show a strident political philosophy, even though it has been two years since january 6 and they are now facing the prospect of prison. one other point. the case of the qanon shaman, who has just been released from the federal prison in arizona and a halfway house in arizona. he was also one of the faces of january 6. he became a political focal point in recent months. he was in the senate chamber. he was standing where mike pence was supposed to sit at the senate president's desk. he served what some critics would say was a relatively short prison term.

an indication that there is such a range from a feud rights or a few days to the 18 year stewart rhodes got. host: the third amendment is no soldier should be quartered without the consent of the owner or in time of war in a manner prescribed by law. we do not miss a chance to talk about the constitution. guest: the judge said he had to look up, too. host: mississippi, brenda, good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is i have been unhappy with the short sentences and prior to this i've been mostly against the death penalty because donald trump would weaponize it against innocent people and we have killed so many innocent people. this lot, they need the max. i have been angry at merrick garland, driven to write angry political poetry. i love what i am seeing of you

covering these details so well. i want these people to all get the max. the fact that the shaman is out, i cannot express how angry i am about that. host: when you say the max, you are talking about the highest on the sentencing guidelines to the highest levels is what you are saying? caller: 100% the highest level. guest: i hear that on a daily basis. the concern you just articulated from people we follow in our reporting on january 6 and even people in the courthouse. here's what i can tell you in our reporting. it is rare for a federal judge to go above the recommended sentence from the justice department. we see it infrequently and when we do see it is a pretty marginal increase over what the department of justice seeks. that is just the pattern that is formed at the courthouse. there is a broader concern about

general deterrence. deterrence is a function of the federal sentencing guidelines. the judges have to ensure that they are ensuring deterrence. and if there is a concern some of these sentences are too short there is concern there is not enough deterrence to prevent a recurrence of january 6. host: new york city, this is paul, an independent. caller: i would like to address two things. here in new york we have a lot more violence on a monthly basis than what occurs during january 6. i can point to stabbings and shootings, most of which are nonfatal. i find it remarkable how lawmakers are reacting in shock to the idea they might've been subject to violence. i note that it seems like there is a bubble.

the second thing is when we talk about democracy and the risk to it, it seems like this idea that january 6 sprouted out of nowhere. there are two things i would point out. i don't think there is been any election fraud of huge proportion. i will note that it took a tremendously long time for the election results to get counted. that is amazing. it does not mean there is fraud but it does lead to the potential for people to think there might be fraught because it is so poorly done. the second things is i look at all of the problems with the current american democracy. both donald trump and biden are very unpopular according to the public opinion poll as potential candidates for 2024, yet they are leading candidates. 60% to 70% depending on the pole

do not want either of them to run. those are the leading candidates. my question to the guest is maybe we should be thinking more closely as to the root causes of these problems that lead to something that seems very dramatic on january 6. there is a bigger problem occurring in american democracy if you hear what i am saying. host: let me let scott macfarlane jump in. guest: a few different threads to pull on. let me start with the second one. it took a tremendously long time to determine the final outcome of the election, which may have caused trouble. i think whether you are democrat or republican or independent watching you agree that those types of time frames of uncertainty can be exploited. what happened on january 6 was any number of defendants have since articulated they were

mobilized about their suspicions about the election for the questions being raised about the election. they started the momentum after november 3, 2020, that window of time when there was uncertainty, during that time when they were galvanized by others. the violence in new york city referenced by paul and the bubble he thinks lawmakers might be under when they focus on what happened january 6, that has come up in court where some defense lawyers, some people involved with the case have compared january 6 to the unrest in america in 2020, to the civil unrest in 2020, to the violence in 2020, to other criminal cases , including the violence in the district of columbia. what has been key in those hearings is when the judges or prosecutors try to contrast what happened on january 6 with that

other crime. what happened on january 6 according to the department of justice's it was a threat to democracy itself. a mob chanting hang mike pence came within feet of mike pence. there was a potential if not close call for the unbinding of democracy in america. that makes it different. it may lead to a perception lawmakers are in a bubble but i think they would argue this is a one of a kind attack and should be treated that way. host: let me come back to january 6 and the defendants and the election 2020. throughout their cases, when these defendants get to speak, how many of them would you say say i was misled and i was wrong about my thoughts on what happened in november 2020 and how many of them say i still believe what i thought than about november 2020? guest: there is a large number,

i daresay majority, who say through their defense attorneys or court filings say they were misled, recognize they were misled. host: you think that is the majority. guest: we are in the territory where it is at least a majority where they say they now recognize they were following false information or were misled deliberately or were just led down the wrong path by someone they are close to or someone in authority. host: how many of those people point to donald trump? guest: find name? exceedingly rare. that includes by defense attorneys. we do see trump's name in vote as bearing some responsibility in court filings ahead of sentences by defense lawyers. they will say it in filings to the judge. donald trump fired up my client, donald trump directed my client and others to go to the capital, donald trump was selling a pack of lies.

he did not hear the defendants use the name. host: why you think that is? guest: first of all, these defendants this is the first time in the live they have had the opportunity to be a public speaker. they could be out of sorts, maybe nerves, it could be a unique experience. i would daresay anybody else in the situation of a criminal defendant facing a judge would not be at his or her most articulate or comprehensive. it is a challenging moment. there is also the prospect that some of these defendants, no matter what they say at leniency , have not changed their political beliefs. that is a thing the judges are wrestling with. they have in front of them a number of defendants who were motivated so strongly to go to the capital with a mob on january 6, you cannot just change overnight. host: less than a half-hour left

in our program. scott macfarlane is our guest. cbs news correspondent and longtime follower of the january 6 cases. time to get your questions in about them. this is richard in north carolina. line for republicans. good morning. caller: let's talk about this. how many people actually died on january 6? guest: let me answer that one quickly. five deaths at the capital itself that day or in the immediate aftermath and four law enforcement officers who took their own lives in the days and weeks that followed. caller: no, that day how many people died. guest: five died. caller: one. guest: are you talking -- are you talking to me? guest: there were five deaths. there was one police officer.

that was officer brian sicknick, capitol police officer, who according to the medical police officer died of multiple strokes in the aftermath of january 6. his longtime partner and girlfriend has filed a civil suit in his death against those who were charged criminally in the attack against him. host: my sense is the one he was referring to was ashli babbitt. can remind folks who she was? guest: she was another of the five and the highest profile of the four others who died that day. ashli babbitt was shot as she was entering a smashed window at the forefront of the mob as police were trying to evacuate stranded u.s. house members from the upper level of the house chamber. her mother has become an active advocate in washington, d.c. she attends many of the court hearings. she is also outside the d.c. jail nightly for a protest vigil

supportive of the january 6 defendants who are incarcerated, either awaiting trial or having just recently been convicted or pleaded guilty. host: august 23 of 2021 the u.s. capitol police completed their internal investigation into the january 26 officer-involved shooting, the ashli babbitt shooting. what did they find? guest: they found police were doing the best they could to execute their duties and prevent the mob from entering the u.s. house chamber at a particularly sensitive moment. we have spoken with house members who are on the upper level of the house chamber unable to escape as the mob was in gauging. one of them says it is her belief haven't looked at videos and spoken to people who were there that she was 10 to 20 seconds away from the forefront of the mob that was going to get inside. host: this is the second

paragraph of that release from august 2021 after the capitol police finished their investigation. the office of professional responsibility determined the officer's conduct was lawful, which does an officer may use deadly force when the officer believes actions in the defense of human life, including the officers own life, or the defense of any person in danger. the officer will not be facing internal discipline. the findings of the capitol police. this is aaron in alexandria, virginia. democrat. caller: i want to say i think for everyone on every line that we all agree we are a nation of laws. we all pledged allegiance to the flag. i have a couple of questions after i give some historical context. i believe one of the failures of abraham lincoln was allowing the confederacy to go back underground and during january 6 they were flying confederate

flags, which is the flag of the enemy inside of a federal building. my first question is if the generate six riders were successful with hanging mike pence or killing mike pence or changing the election, what you think united states would look like? also, for those that believe we are a nation of law, it says whoever owing allegiance to the united states levies war against them, which is that is what they were doing, and he our enemies giving them aid that says you are all you do for people, go home or i will bail you out of a come and comfort within the united states or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or imprisonment and be incapable of holding any u.s. office. since we are a nation of laws and death is the first punishment and penalty on that when we are talking about treason and sedition -- it only takes one person to die in a

seditious act for you to get the death penalty. you think the death penalty is appropriate for leadership of the proud boys. those two questions? guest: thank you. let me go with the confederate flag issue. there were multiple confederate flags. there was not just that one that was famously photographed being paraded through the capital. there were others included a flag that was the banner themselves. let me give you my mid new reporting on that. the defendant from delaware who was convicted of paraded in that confederate flags outside the u.s. senate will report to prison in the coming days. there is a new court filing that will indicate he is to report by may 31 which is sneaking up on us quickly. about the "hang might hence -- hang mike pence" there was a

gallows on the west front of the capital january 6 and a fluorescent rope that was part of that gallows. i spoke to the person who recovered the rope. there is no certainty that was a functional gallows. it may have been a prop. that is not in a relevant issue. it is not trivial. there is certainty from the january 6 select committee investigation that people chanting hang mike pence were heading towards mike pence. there was secret service radio traffic expressing grave concern about the danger for not just mike pence but the secret service officers themselves. this was a perilous moment in american history. this issue of treason you mentioned came up yesterday in court at steward rhodes's

seditious conspiracy sentencing hearing. the judge reflected on some of the history you referenced that seditious conspiracy was a statute or a code created in the civil war era to be a crime less than treason, but still a crime that involves conspiring against your nation. this is a deliberately less than treason is crime, the judge said, through the design of the criminal code. that is why these questions about treason may not be germane to january 6 in this conversation. host: let me hang on treason and seditious conspiracy. charlie savage writing in the new york times, longtime new york times reporter, htakes up these issues with history. you mentioned seditious conspiracy. a section in the u.s. code, the law makes it a climb for two or

more people actively plot to overthrow the government, to unlawfully seize federal property, to hinder the execution of any law of the united states. seditious conspiracy. we go to treason. he takes up this question is this different from treason? as a matter of american law the events of generate six were not treasonous because they did not involve actions that betrayed the united states -- it is the only law defined in the constitution and the founders wrote it narrowly. treason shall consist in levying war against the united states or adhering to their enemies and giving them aid and comfort. federal statute 2381. treason charges are rare but one example came in 2006 when prosecutors obtained a treason indictment against a california born al qaeda propagandist who called in videos for attacks on america.

he goes on for there. trying to make that distinction. guest: the judge felt it necessary when explaining his sentence for seditious conspiracy to make that same contrast. this is something created in the civil war era. host: to aaron in alabama. you're on with scott mcfarland. caller: i have a question. when it comes to treason and conspiracy. in 2012 and 2013 the government legalized propaganda where intelligence agencies were placed within news organization. why should any citizen trust any media journalist group? if you look at their record, they never claim to therapy with this vaccine. they have been wrong for three years straight. host: trust in the media coverage. what would you say to that? guest: there are questions about whether there are enough media covering january 6.

are there enough of us in the courtroom to ensure people with different backgrounds and different ways of life, people with different organizations are able to watch what happens and communicate what happens. i have had many conversations with the wife of one of the january 6 defendants who is in the court every day trying to disseminate information as she sees fit about whether there are enough people to ensure that everybody can communicate what happened inside the courtroom. if there is any cynicism about media in coverage of january 6 it may be because there is only a handful of people who are doing this on a daily basis. that is something that need not be the case and need not be the case forever. host: this comment on twitter. scott mcfarland does humans work in covering january 6. as defendants are being told to show remorse now trump and ron

desantis are promising pardons, it must be hard to walk that line. you perform for the judge or the gruesome to some. i want to take viewers to an audience member in that cnn town hall with president trump earlier this month talking about pardons. this is about a minute and a half long. [video clip] >> will you pardon the january 6 writers? >> i am inclined to pardon many of them. i cannot savor every single one. a couple of them probably got out of control. when you look at antifa, what they have done to portland and minneapolis and so many other places, look at what they did to seattle. blm, many people were killed. i am not trying to justify anything. you have two standards of justice in this country.

what they have done. i love that question. what they've done to so many people is nothing. what they have done to these people, they have persecuted these people. my answer is i am most likely, if i get in, i would say it will be a large portion of them. [applause] it will be very early on. they are living in hell right now. they are policemen and they are firemen and they are soldiers and their carpenters and electricians and they are great people. many of them are great people. >> one of the people who was convicted was a former policeman but he was convicted of attacking a police officer. when you say you are considering pardoning a portion of those crimes on january 6, does that include the proud boys members who were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy. >> i would have to look at their case.

in washington, d.c. you cannot get a fair trial. just like in new york city cannot get a fair trial. host: scott macfarlane, a lot there. guest: the last statement is one that is not relevant. he says you cannot get a fair trial in washington, d.c. or new york city, which does raise concerns about the politicization of juries and jury duty and jury service, making the argument that many january 6 defendants have tried to make that they believe the district of columbia juries are too biased, too democratic, too saturated with media coverage about january 6 to be fair. judges have dismissed every one of those challenges from january 6 defendants seeking to move their trial, saying the district of columbia juries are citizens who can and are fair, who can be judicious, listen to evidence, and render a verdict.

the statement from the former president at the town hall in flames cynicism or belief that juries are political beasts, they are political animals and they operate on political calculus. that is something that is going to be with us for a while. host: every member of every jury for all 1030 of these is a member of the district of columbia. guest: that is right. host: and will be for any case going forward. why the federal district in washington, d.c.? there is a southern district of virginia which is just across the river in alexandria, why not split the workload? why has the d.c. federal court taken all of these? guest: some of the defendants have sought to have their cases transferred right where you mentioned, to alexandria. saying there may be a jury that is less saturated with media coverage about january 6, less

democratic in their political complexion. judges have responded, forcefully, no. juries in alexandria, virginia watch the same media coverage people in washington, d.c. watched. january that the national story whether you live in topeka, to lita, or tulsa. there is also a craven political argument according to the judges, according to the prosecutor's who say the district of columbia jurors are all trump loathing opponents who are ready to convict the january 6 defendant before he or she sits down at the defense table. it is a craven political argument according to those who are trying to adjudicate these change in venue motions. host: all of these juries that sit go through the process where both sides can make an argument to dismiss a certain jury member before they sit and hear the trial, right? guest: and we see the process

you just described disqualifying jurors who say things that are disqualifying about january 6. some of them work for congress or the federal government and you will see them get excised from the jury. you see some of them make political statements during the election process that gets them knocked out of the jury pool. there is a process required under the law and the judges lean on that, saying if you have a concern about the bias of the jury, use the jury selection process to make sure you do not have that juror on the panel. host: 10 minutes left with scott macfarlane. the largest sentence to date at this point, 18 years yesterday. oath keepers steward rhodes receiving that sentence. in about 10 minutes we will take viewers on c-span over to annapolis, maryland. the u.s. naval academy graduation ceremony is taking place. you can see the cadets there taking their seats.

defense secretary lloyd austin will be the commencement speaker. you can watch it live here on c-span. stick around for about 10 minutes. back your phone calls. this is hermon in kentucky, republican, good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask the guy, if trump or disinterest or whoever gets in president next should exonerate most of those january 6 people? some of them should be levied a misdemeanor charge for breaking a window or something like that. my question is i do not know a lot about the constitution but i was taught a little bit in school. does the constitution say people have a right to rise up against a corrupt government? if you say we do not have a corrupt government, i believe the durham report proves we have a corrupt government.

you do not have a democracy if you have a corrupt government. you can answer that and if you say we do not have a corrupt government, let's go to the fbi, it goes all the way to obama, biden, hillary clinton, closing down the media. it goes to joe biden singh 51 intelligence agents of the united states stood up for russian collusion, which we now know through the durham report this was corruption in this government. you cannot have a democracy. host: got your point. where you want to start? guest: hermon is articulating something we have heard a number of january 6 defendants articulate, including yesterday. go back to the sentencing of stewart rhodes. the seditious conspiracy defendant convicted by a jury who during his request for leniency or statement to the judge in sentencing said there are forces in the radical left who target maga and trump supporters and there is an

antifa threat and they have given rise to january 6. we will never know if that statement made it less or more likely he got the 18 year prison sentence, but we know that what hermon just said is something we have heard other january 6 defendant say. you also have to use a somewhat practical legal lens to look at what is happening with these prosecutions. the batting average for the department of justice, trial by jury is 1000. they have secured partial or full convictions against every single defendant to go to trial, including those articulated some of what hermon just said. host: are those criminal charges? herman talk about some of them are misdemeanor. guest: they are in some cases just misdemeanor. they are another case is a combination of misdemeanors and felonies. there is such breath in january 6. i try to remain mindful of that

in reporting. they were charged as misdemeanors, they were closed as misdemeanors. hundreds of cases there has been no prison time handed out. it is a misdemeanor. supervision, restitution, there been prison sentences measured by days or weeks. then there are people charged with or who pleaded guilty to attacking police with makeshift weapons were with their bare hands. with carrying guns on capitol grounds january 6. with conspiring to attack. those are the more serious cases. those are measured by years or decades. can you come back to stewart rhodes. you mentioned an arsenal outside of washington, d.c. and this was a big part of the trial. remind folks what that was and why it was happening? guest: they call it the q rf,

the quick reaction force. stewart rhodes organize this conspiracy ditch stage and arsenal of guns across the river in virginia. i am being mindful that there are strict gun laws in washington, d.c. and guns may be better staged in nearby virginia. there is a plan or a theory those kinds would be ready in case donald trump invoked the insurrection act and mobilized groups like the oath keepers to take physical forceful action. that was not just a pie-in-the-sky philosophy for stewart rhodes. he wrote an open letter to donald trump encouraging the former president to invoke the insurrection act and mobilized groups like the oath keepers. host: what is the difference between the oath keepers and the proud boys? guest: there is quite a difference if you asked them. they're both far-right groups but there is quite a delta between the two. stewart rhodes abuse the proud boys of being more inclined to

engage in violence and they were the ones engaging in violence january 6, arguing the oath keepers, are quiet professionals there for security. the judge threw cold water on that argument saying this did not look like a security operation. your words not consistent with the security operation. the oath keepers defense attorney try to make this clear and try to make the argument there is a difference in the conduct and the culture of the proud boys and the oath keepers and the proud boys would have a symmetrical argument about how they are different than the oath keepers. host: members of both of these groups have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. guest: four proud boys, six oath keepers. that is the epicenter of the case at this point. host: about five minutes left before we take you to the naval academy graduation. saulsberry, north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: a year before this

happened, trump took everybody to oklahoma where there was a mob who overran black wall street. they killed 70 people and nobody was -- they killed so many people and nobody was convicted of that crime. fast-forward, they did the same thing to the capital. i call the trump party the pink party. that stands for proud boys, insurrectionists, neo-nazis, klansman, and oath keepers. these was a treasonous act. they took the flag of the united states and attacked officers with it. how can they be upholding the man in blue and they are trying to kill the men in blue? every last one of them should have been shot trying to break

into his house. host: the role of police, you can touch on a little bit, testifying at these trials. guest: police officers themselves, including some of those who testified before the house january 6 select committee in 2021 have been witnesses during trial or during sentencings trying to articulate an argument about the damage incurred on january 6 and lonnie makes a point. there were police beaten with flags, with flagpoles on january 6. the injuries were severe, not just the physical injuries. the trauma suffered by police. the deaths by suicide from police as a legacy of january 6 and one that has traumatized the officers and caused some of them to leave the force. one other note about the flag.

one of those accused of beating police with a flag or flagpole was a police officer himself from new york city. host: can we stay on please for one second more? can you touch on the police officers in touch with writers leading up to or day of or in the weeks and months after the attack as these investigations were starting. we have seen investigations of some of those officers and some of them being kicked off the force who are charged at this point? guest: you have two in particular. one officer was charged in federal court. according to the prosecutors he had talked to another january 6 defendant encouraged the defendant to delete or modify facebook posts about january 6 itself. there was some allegation of an obstruction act by that police officer. then most recently another police lieutenant charged with

having contact with the proud boys of an unlawful nature before january 6, between december 12th of 2020 and january 6 itself. some of the correspondence and communications between police and people who were there has got on the radar of the department of justice and has given itself its own self-sustaining criminal prosecution. host: chase city, virginia, this is liv. good morning. i want to shout out to a few of the people who do not get a fair trial. host: who are these folks? caller: these are all political prisoners who do not get fair trials who are going against the white supremacist system and fighting for their people and social justice. i want to shout out to those people, not white supremacists, not the t-birds was the.

-- not