television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal" your cars and comments on the news of today. republican- at kaplan shares his recent artic on samuel i's unreported trip funded by a gop donor who later had business before the court. and virginia congressman bob good joins us to talk about donald trump's legal issues and hunter biden's plea agemt. we will look at spending priorities and gun safety measures. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning everyone. we will begin this morning with yesterday's testimony on capitol

hill from john durham. origins of the fbi's russia investigation. before lawmakers on the judiciary committees for hours. from democrats, against emma kratz, and republicans. we want to know your take on the hearing yesterday as well as his report. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. and independents (202) 748-8002. if can also join us in a text with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003. upon facebook.com/c-span or in a tweet be handled at c-span wj. we begin with the former special prosecutor john durham, his

opening statement. about the information the fbi used to launch their investigation into alleged collusion between the presidential campaign of donald trump russia. [video clip] >> we charged a former fbi agent who charged -- pled guilty to obtain an order which is a significant problem. several of the relevant applications issued in the investigation omitted references to what was clearly relevant and highly exculpatory information that should have been disclosed. multiple fbi personnel consigned or assisted or acknowledge that they did not believe that the target, mr.

page was a threat to national security much it appears from our investigation that the fbi leadership dismissed those concerns. another aspect of our findings the failure to scrutinize information received or to apply the same standard to allegations received about the clinton and trump campaigns. as our report details the fbi was too willing to accept and use politically funded and uncooperative research such as the steel dossier. knowing there was likely material originating from a political campaign and political opponent. it did so even after the president of the united states, the fbi, and cia directors received intelligence suggesting there was a clinton campaign

plan underway to stir up scandal tying trump to russia. the accuracy of the intelligence was uncertain at times but the fbi failed to analyze or even assess the implications of the intelligence in any meaningful way. host: from capitol hill yesterday, john durham testifying before the house judiciary. you can watch at c-span.org our video mobile app is free called c-span now. if you're on the website and don't have hours to sit through the testimony we have points of interest lined up once you hit play on the video player and you can see all the pivotal moments throughout the hours of testimony. the fbi has responded to the so-called durham report. this is what they said the conduct in 2016 and 2017 was the reason that curbi leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions would have been in place for

so te. had they been in place in 2016 missteps could have been prd. the report reinforces the importance of ensuring the fbi continues to do its work with the rigor and professionalism the american people deserve and rightly accept. -- expect, excuse me. bombshell or dead? a committee led by jim jordan examined the john durham report. what do you think? bombshell or dead? tyrone in new york, we will go to you. caller: good morning. it's definitely a dead to me. i was concerned. but the country is willing to give up its freedom to back up a dictator, a wannabe dictator. what surprises me about the report is in didn't even go into

investigate what was the connections between trump and the russians. why did they have that meeting in trump towers? what is the thing with the poll data? he didn't even say that that was , what he said it was concerning . it was not something he would do or whatever. host: ill-advised is the word he used. caller: yeah. so to say that, that it was just ill-advised is something that should be probed or in-depth. you're not saying he didn't have any connections with the russians that you're not saying the connections were something that warrant an investigation. they keep saying the dossier, the dossier. the fbi said it wasn't the dossier that opens up the investigation. when they posted to them for so

many reasons to look into what trump is doing with the russians, they said yeah. they had a reason to look into it and then you're saying -- no he shouldn't have opened a formal investigation. these people are certain that the constitution of this country to put in somebody that clearly has dictator means to run this country the way he wants to. if we don't stand up as a country against these people that are willing to poo poo the constitution and the laws were going to continue down this road. we started with nixon, we started with reagan, we started down that road with these people that said forget with the constitution said i'm going to do what i want. because we stand up were going

to have a serious problem. host: i want to show you and others in case they missed at the exchange on what you're talking about their because adam schiff, democrat from california who let impeachment proceedings against the former president thick the line of question that you're talking about with john durham. john from san antonio, texas, texted to say they kept rehashing the mueller report while improves there should never have been a molar investigation. that's john's opinion in san antonio. let's listen to the exchange yesterday. [video clip] >>. simply the campaign chairman for donald trump was given this russian intelligence officer internal campaign polling data, russian intelligence was hoping the trump campaign are they? >> i don't know that. >> you really don't know basic

facts of the investigation? >> i know the general facts, yes. do i know that particular fact myself? no. i read it in the media. >> also revealed that don jr. was informed that a russian official was offering very high level in sensitive information that would be incriminating are you aware of that? >> people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that. >> the son of the presidential candidate gets cause all the time offering dirt on their opponent is that what you're saying? >> i don't think it's so unique in your experience. >> you have other instances of russian government offering dirt on a presidential candidate to the presidential candidates son is that what you're saying? >> can you repeat the question? >> you said is not uncommon to

get help from a foreign government you really stand by that? >> people can make phone calls making claims all the time. >> are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that the president's fund set up to receive the incriminating information? >> i'm not trying to diminish it at all but the more complete story they didn't talk about this is clinton. >> you think it's insignificant he had a secret meeting for the purpose of getting dirt on hillary clinton and the only disappointment was that that the dirt they got wasn't better. >> i don't think that was a well advised thing to do. >> oh, not well advised? well that's the understatement of the year. host: john durham answering

questions from adam schiff. getting your reaction to the testimony yesterday. and what you think of the durham report. picking up on that quote there from john durham the daily mail i don't think this is unique in your experience said there headline. because adam schiff forgetting dark from foreign agents when he, adam schiff, got information from russian pranksters. in that moment this was talked about on social media. tom in connecticut, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i think it's shocking that mr. durham didn't indict anybody with the evidence he has at hand. i mean, there was these people on top in the fbi who were

spying, who were directing their agents to conduct this research on a citizen running for president and then afterwards while he was president, undermining his presidency. a secret coup if you will trying to dismantle the president. those are serious, treasonous things that went on. i'm very shocked that mr. durham didn't indict anybody, especially the leader of the fbi and those other managers in the fbi. you heard mr. durham explain how the people he worked with in the fbi were very sad, very angered because of the revelation that their superiors were doing these

underhanded, criminal activities. spying on the president and the citizen in such a way. that's all i have to say. host: jay, jacksonville, florida. what do you have to say? caller: you stole my thunder with that earlier clip. every once in a while durham seems like a sincere, honest person. other times it was revealed that he was a parties hack. the way he went into excruciating detail about christopher still in the dossier and what happened with carter page and all of that. and then he seemed completely clueless when it came to some of the other most basic details of the whole russian investigation to begin with. wiki leaks, he barely knew about

or he could play the clipper he seems to know nothing at all about the trump tower project were donald trump was before i mean during the campaign. he was trying to get a multi- million-dollar project to benefit himself. he'd said nothing that he knew. he also seemed to not now which is amazing the details about the whole paul manafort who is the chairman of the trump campaign who was given internal polling data to a russian intelligence operative. he just dismissed all of that by

saying that that wasn't what he looked at. he seemed totally disinterested in that. the most pertinent information that does prove that there was collusion, if you want to call it that between the russian government and the trump campaign. which of course is a central dogma of the whole trump praise and worship cult that you see constantly on the fox news channel and other places. that and dr. nate their viewers with the nonsense 24/7. one issue that i wish someone has brought up that i didn't see brought up if you remember just over a year ago there was this whole in your last caller -- the suppose it spying on the trump team that supposedly obama had done it.

fox news channel went with that story day and night for i don't know, a week or so. they were basing this supposedly on a filing by john durham. i didn't see anyone asking him anything about that. host: all right. jay clearly watched yesterday. mentioned the exchange between california democrat and the former special prosecutor, special counsel. this into this. [video clip] >> was there anyone you wanted to indict you are prohibited from indicting? >> no. >> so if you wanted to, you could have indicted hillary clinton but you never asked to write? >> if i had the evidence i could have, sure. >> if you wanted to indict president biden you could have asked, right? >> we weren't looking at that. >> if you could have indicted

director connie you could have asked rate? and you didn't. >> the attorney general garland had never asked me not to indict somebody. >> so i want to make it clear you had all the power in the world to indict anyone you had evidence to indict you never had been blocked from doing it right? >> rate. >> the last major counsel we had. you indicted three is that correct >> >> indicted two and a third pleaded guilty, correct. >> special counsel muller had dozens of convictions from a trial that no defendant without rights acquitted, is that right? outright acquitted, across the board. >> i'm not sure there were dozens of convictions. there were more than a dozen people who were indicted.

>> you are under oath, did anything in your report prove false that russian spent trump's family during the campaign at trump tower after an offer of dirt on hillary clinton didn't prove it didn't happen? >> i don't have any evidence that that did not happen. host: if you missed that exchanger want to watch the entire hearing can find it on c-span.org or on our free mobile video app. don in st. paul why would durham reinvestigate what muller already investigated? there was no investigation of hillary or the government's abuses was there? and from ap reporting, they pick up on that. trying to draw a line between the russian investigation and

the indictment of handling classified documents suggesting they were both fueled by desires to get trump. nothing has changed and they're not going to stop. william barr will review the origins of the investigation into ties between russia and trump's. he concluded that the fbi acted too hastily and without sufficient justification. a third of the bureau showed more caution on allegations that former secretary of state hillary clinton mishandled classified information on her private email server. sean in gloversville, new york. let's hear from you shawn. caller: anybody can inquire. he doesn't understand that anymore. host: ok. caller: my honest opinion, he

shouldn't even be in office. he stayed and because he was just like overpowering the rest of the government. host: jim in new jersey, republican. caller: he should have fired everybody from the fbi, but the fbi is to correct. host: i'm sorry who is a coward? caller: durham. he should've fired everybody from the fbi, they're all corrupt. host: why do you say that? caller: because he got away with that that's a bunch of garbage. the fbi is so corrupt. look at what biden gets away with. he had to be in prison. host:, in ohio, democratic

caller. caller: good morning to you. 88-year-old tennessean. jim jordan is a disgrace to the united states. he sits up there on these hearings, his arms crossed leaning back in his chair he thinks he's the arresting officer. he's nothing but a big dummy, just like all politicians. it's a three ring circus the only time they need anybody this for the vote. i wouldn't waste my time five voting for anyone of those scumbags. host: all right, tom. we heard you. ron in michigan. caller: after four years of lies after lies by donald trump and

adam schiff leading the charge killing everybody every day he had proof, all the evidence come just wait and see it all came down to all fake investigations, all fake words. if trump would've had the opportunity to do his job we would have had a great fifth year of donald trump but yeah democrats lied and stole the election. and we've got to correct the shift. and if you vote for a democrat you just vote with blinders on and watch cnn too much. that's all i got to say. host: mark in charlotte, north carolina what do you have to say, mark? caller: i think it's too much what about ism that goes on.

everyone wants to keep talking about the hillary clinton investigation. directed mr. durham when asked the people that could be indicted he said yes. if it was proven you had russians that were talking to getting dirt on the other campaign, that was proven also. the fact that you have ivanka trump and jared receiving $2 billion that should be investigated. i've seen this happen in the 80's when people voted for ronald reagan. i lived in a neighborhood where it was mixed black and white they had nothing but their grandchildren because they voted for crazy policies that do not help them. i mean, you don't see people

riding around with biden flags in their cars fighting people in front of the capitol. when are people going to call this thing a cult? nothing makes sense. when it comes to white people there's no two-tier justice system. it's ridiculous, you know. the old people in the country they want to act like their going to have french children are going to cause all these problems for their grandkids and they don't care because they're not going to be here. host: we will leave it there our conversation is about john durham testifying on cap all hill before the house judiciary committee former special counsel answering question for hours before the lawmakers moravec coming up but in case you missed it the washington times this

morning adam schiff was centered wednesday by -- centered wednesday by house republicans. the most impactful along party lines. six house members, three republicans and three democrats did not vote. democrats confirmed in the middle of the house chamber chanting shame and disgrace. mr. schiff told reporters he was flattered he could be considered so offensive that republicans both the need to censure him. then there's also this percolating up on capitol hill from the wall street journal speakers revoking lauren boebert's push to impeach the president. the lawmaker is seeking to impeach president biden over

immigration policy saying any measure would need to come after a thorough investigation. lauren boebert republican of colorado sought tuesday to initiate a vote on impeaching biden that vote would happen this week unless democrats and republicans joined table to measure where she reconsiders. all that happening on capitol hill this week as lawmakers in both the house and the senate continue with their work in preparation for two weeks for the july recess. galveston texas, independent would you make of john durham's testimony? caller: just sitting here looking at it and thinking about how we are all doing what we can here at home but he's out there saying, you know.

back in the 50's you had a government spying on us so the eia spies on everybody else. we spy on everybody and we seem to be ok with that but it they said spying on us now. it's time to wake up, we are a christian nation, that's a big thing. if they're going to do what they're going to do. host: new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. host: were listening to you. caller: the durham report turned out to be a total joke when they interview john durham during this hearing yesterday they seemed confused and he didn't have any answers to anything. and he seemed to know what he was talking about.

there were facts he did not know. we learned nothing from him. and as far as the mueller report goes trump is open to charges in the mueller report because it starts out saying you can't indict a sitting president. they go on to list 10 charges of obstruction of justice. have a good day. host: carol in illinois -- tom in illinois. with hear from you, tom. caller: good morning, c-span. i found the durham hearing to be interesting in that he laid out briefly the difficulties that he was having.

the lack of cooperation and his inability to get to the heart of it even though he laid out the fact that the powers were abused by the southern -- fbi. what i found interesting the democrats refusal to engage in any kind of constructive manner on any topic they rose against any narrative they want to have. they took the house yesterday there was nobody more abusive, there was nobody more abusive than adam schiff. he never had any substantive fact. we all knew this. when he read that letter on ukraine supposing it was president trump saying it that was an abuse of power we all know that he had to stop because

he got away with it as a member of congress. it doesn't justify president trump's actions at certain points either that's not the point. the point was proxied by nancy pelosi and others to be as abusive fizzy could be. now the house for vote yesterday of censure is only the 24 other members of the house have been censured ever and the speaker did a horrible job the speaker did a horrible job he should've cleared the well of the floor he should have had members take seats and should have had the processed improperly. it has just become an absolute joke to deal with the democrats on any substantive issue because they just ignore it and they have covered in the media and be is abusive is just a travesty.

it's become a travesty. host: let's show that from the well of the four yesterday speaker maccarthy giving a review as he said on the 24 members were for him -- before him have been censured. he became the 25th. >> by the house resolution 520 what the house has resolved [indiscernible] i have all night. by the house rose -- resolution 521 the house is resolved that the house of representatives censures adam schiff representative from california

for misleading the american public. and for conduct unbecoming of an elected member of the house of representatives adam schiff will present himself in the way of the house of representatives further pronounces -- pronouncement of censure. that the committee conduct an investigation into the falsehood misrepresentation and use of sensitive information. [chanting] host: the censure of adam schiff

on the house for yesterday passing along party lines. we are talking about john durham's testimony and here is angela in maryland saying i think the fbi did the right thing presidential candidates should be investigated. that should be a policy not the scandal. for 6.5 million durham report finds fbi didn't have solid dirt on trump and russia. it knows the fbi should never have launched its pro -- probe according to special counsel john durham the investigation was hastily opened and senior fbi the senior risk for the information they received especially information received from politically affiliated

persons and entities. the fbi failed to act with the probe we it objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the u.s. political campaign and a foreign power the 316 page report was released recently. clark in la crosse, wisconsin. what did you think of the report and is today's testimony? caller: i think this is the same result of previous investigations nobody will be indicted nobody will be charged and i would like to know the time the republican led house will be about the business of improving the improving conditions in general for americans. this is just crazy now. how many invasions are we going

to have were nobody is actually held accountable you know what i'm saying? we sit here and we watch this past every year. another party takes over, nothing getting done because they want to investigate and go after each other. it's tiresome and also i would like to ask why have there been no facebook posts from c-span on these articles like juneteenth and the durham report and other things i usually look every morning. but that's all i have to say. host: we did posted at the top of our website when it came out. steve, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i actually did watch some of the testimony

before mr. durham and i am glad to see that the report was finally issued is taken quite a long time. it's been something that appears in up best the findings and the conclusions of the fbi a lot of the recommendations have already been put in place based on the ig's report i was also kind of curious -- host: can i ask you to respond because they know this because 6.5 million in taxpayer money, four years of investigation he felt to uncover evidence of major wrongdoing so do you think it was worth it? caller: well mueller report

hasn't satisfied them i think it was worth it just to have said ok both investigate the investigators i don't think it was properly directed to do that i was kind of hoping that the critics of the mueller report would find it satisfying. host: more from recent magazines was also misguided according to trump and his allies durham was hot on the trail on the crime of the century and would reveal not just conspiracy from the campaign. offer is to investigate whether any federal officials, employees, or any other person or entity violated the law in

connection with the intelligence, counterintelligence or law enforcement activity directed at the 2016 presidential campaign. individuals associated with the campaigns and individuals associated with the administration of president donald j. trump. the ensuing investigation was broad and extensive it included more than 480 interviews. the serving of more than 190 subpoenas the execution of seven search warrants and the obtaining of five orders for communications reason magazine says they don't think it was worth the taxpayer money or the time because he failed to uncover any evidence of major wrongdoing. patrick in wayne, michigan. republican. let's turn to you. good morning.

caller: i'm calling on the mueller report and i think the most think that a lot of your listeners didn't hear is back on august 3 way before the season started brennan brought all the information that fusion paid for the dossier. president obama was in the meeting and this is on paper through the investigation vice president biden was in the meeting comey was in the meeting. defense secretary and also susan rice all these people in the august 3 meeting why didn't even start i don't understand that. host: doug in florida, democratic color. your turn. doug? good morning doug in florida. are you there?

alright i'm going to move on to pamela, bloomington, indiana. caller: yes, good morning thanks for taking my call. durham should feel in his reputation this trust yesterday adam schiff nailed him on factual data he's seen to not have known. he's to be searching for dirt on something for four years has an unlimited budget and not find any and not find any kickbacks. let's forget the committee was chaired by marco rubio and they validated a lot of the initial conclusions. i am stunned listening to calls this morning you know the reality is the republicans are all about the dead. let's turn our attention to the

work that needs to be done. the special counsel reminds me of whitewater bridge looked and looked desperately trying to find something. i'm the lawyer that's not the way it works. after somebody let me search their search that's what turns it i felt terrible for him his reputation is turnage. the magazine was spot on we have nothing for political theater so sorry to say it. host: wasn't just democrats criticizing the john durham and his investigation he did he fill criticisms for republican matt gaetz yesterday take a look at this exchange. >> it seems like more than disappointed. it seems like you are trying to expose the true core of the corruption.

you were trying to go at it another way. >> as i said in my opening remarks we pursue the faxes best we could. >> the entire molar team, does a hard reset on their apple fund in synchronization. do you investigate that? why didn't you investigate it? who gave the order to wipe the funds? >> that is not something we were asked to look at. that is not true because i'm holding a document that authorizes your activity and specifically says in mr. chairman yet the order with her the molar team. as her turquoise azra turks real name? host: can't disclose the names.

>> but the who gave the order to do that? works that's beyond the scope of what's in the report. >> literally the charge to put it in motion. the fbi did a bunch of wrong and corrupt things. totally understand protracted to what that but when you are part of, mr. trump, then it makes our job harder. host: matt gaetz there in exchange with john durham who called his line of questioning offensive were getting your reaction to what the former counsel had to say yesterday on capitol hill michael hall in arkansas good morning. caller: good morning. i'm raised independent, by the way. i'm the only one that recalls when trump was boarding the

plane reporters asked him with the meeting was about with trump junior and the russians. he said it was about adoption. would you happen to have the replay of that or have it save you can show? host: not at my fingertips. caller: will, thank you for taking my call. host: you can search ouvideo library at c-span.org you will see the search engine at the top you can put in the keywords and perhaps you can find it yourself and you can also become a journalist as well. this is from may 17 the truth about russia and the 20. he notes there have been four major investigations interruption, interference and the fbi's handling of that

subject. a 2019 report released by robert moeller a 2019 justice department inspector general report a bipartisan report and now special counsel. host: the report adds up to 5002 hundred pages and sometimes contradictory conclusions. broad themes can be deduced from a close reading of the evidence. russia tried to swing the 2016 election. it's one of the broad themes according to glenn kessler and other broad theme the fbi had reason to investigate a tip addressing trump's campaign. and he writes trump campaign welcomes help from russia. many of you have talked about those interactions today.

and you heard from members yesterday as well on the house judiciary committee. the dossier proves to be a red herring. do you agree? from what came out of these four different investigations. where were in houston, texas. caller: good morning. i believe the failure of the report is no recommendation that the organization of the fbi -- that there was no recommendation. that their failure to investigate those people should have been dismissed from their provision -- profession. if a surgeon went in and perform surgery he be dismissed. around our country millions of people are being held to zero-tolerance in any kind of

disciplinary matter as they are children. and yet grown adults not doing their jobs, it's being reported. that's all i have to say. host: tommy austin, texas. democratic color. caller: hello? host: good morning. >> with all this investigation going on many people are not aware donald trump to go to russia to judge a beauty contest out there. he knows the weakness of people. so that's all i have to say host: joe in pennsylvania. caller: my focus here this morning is what the fbi wrote in response to the drummer part and i just think you have it up this

morning and i can't find it to repeat it but off the top of my head they said that they examined -- that the reason that the current fbi leadership already and -- implanted corrective action. did they know they shouldn't like to the bag? or to the court -- pfizer court. host: why did they have to put both sets of reforms in there. shouldn't they already know not to do that? >> exactly. i didn't get to reread it which i will but they set up carter page. they didn't know they shouldn't do that? mike flynn, what he said afterwards about setting up mike flynn and even should even

though i'm not clear about the warning they gave to clinton in the collision by donald trump. my point is are you kidding me that you shouldn't have done this? that you didn't know you shouldn't have done those. host: you didn't text the statement that you read from the fbi. caller: i'll have to reread it. host: the condu when it comes from the fbi this is what they put. theyutp the statement conduct in 2016 and 2017 the special conduct examined was the reason the fbi implemented dozens of corrective action protect and in place for some time. this identified in the report6 could have been prevente

ensuring the fbi continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the american people deserve and rightfully expect. susan, good morning to you. caller: good morning. what i think is the germ report it was a red herring. the republicans are now run by the dirty money. little by little the democracy of america, the supreme court recently proven that they are taking the money. and voting. those brothers that very smart, new how to organize our whole country to take over. now more democracy, the

working-class people when the house of representatives can be taken over by a small group of maga crazy people that are taking over our democracy. host: susan referring to the piece that was released earlier this week about samuel alito and a trip that he took. were going to talk coming up in the next hour with joshua kaplan about the pc worked on with his colleagues in the response, the rebuttal a rear rebuttal by supreme court justice samuel alito. that is coming up in our next half-hour. also starting in washington today he will arrive at the white house this morning, have a meeting in the oval office and the two of them will address a joint statement and then the

coverage begins 7 p.m. eastern time but the white house state dinner on our video app c-span now and our website c-span.org. happening on capitol hill federal reserve jerome powell testify about monetary policy and here's what he had to tell lawmakers about what's next. [video clip] >> measures the prices of everything from groceries to cars to rent, has in fact declined from its peak. but this personal consumption expenditure, the pce index which measures we were talking about it because you were spending remains historically high powell you account when it comes to a rate hike close? mr. defazio: we never eat

>> we never use the word pause we agree to maintain the rate at that meeting almost every single of the 16 of the 18 participants wrote down that they didn't believe it will be a preparatory and a big majority believes raising rates twice this year. i think it's a pretty good guess at what will happen if the economy performs at or than expected. >> i think it's right. more rate hikes likely to bring inflation back down to 2%. you know, we are concerned about a hard landing. host: that was chairman jerome powell testify on the house side today. he is back in capitol hill today at 10 a.m. eastern time we will learn c-span3 at c-span.org and

and review mobile app. mark in new york. republican. mark your take on yesterday's testimony of former special counsel john durham. caller: hi, good morning. my input on it was that his report was somewhat good but a lot of the thing about it is it took all these years to come up with something and get nothing that. the news, people had already known. the thing is that one person has that that you know the whole top floor of the fbi firm recently done and start from scratch is like we have a court date about

the papers, the recent papers and stuff. it's a quick they can do and get donald trump. this not being fair across the board when you got joe biden and his family doing corrupt stuff and they can get but it's not being adequately -- equally justified. it sounds like a big cover for the fbi i think it needs to be cleaned out no kind of democrat or republican should be straightforward answer investigations on either or and swift justice but justice to be served and correct. host: james, government, ohio. caller: i'm just calling in

regard to the germ report i mean the republicans will get in and try to get intro to the house and cherry picking the things they want to investigate. i'm 72 years old and i've seen a lot of the politics of this country. we send them up there to be problem solvers they're not getting anything done. i think it's a waste of time. host: ok. caller: the whole thing. sitting around sniffing at each other. host: there are bipartisanship

on cap there was one yesterday with the speaker along with the minority leader and other members of congress participated in the unveiling of a postage stamp honoring the late congressman john lewis, democrat of georgia. if you missed that and want to see more of it go to our website . hi roy. caller: i was really surprised you opened up adam schiff and with the meeting at trump tower. the investigation had nothing to do with that. it was about the origin of things of report. that's what he was concentrating on.

so they tried to shift away from what he was supposed to do. host: he was investigating the origins of the f ei program into a possible private -- caller: what did the fbi do to create that investigation? we found out it was deception. there was lies and deception used by the fbi and use the things have changed. things have not changed. they started from the top and when they went to mar-a-lago they did the same thing. they got to say wait a minute field office should go to well -- mar-a-lago. things haven't changed. people are just as cricket as they were before and a lot of still the same.

we can try to divert away from the chip of the fact is the fbi, the cia, hillary created the whole mess but why are we trying to deflect away from the truth the fbi is corrupt. the cia is correct. the things they it's of it is we have of these people on tatian that leaves every year and see it on cnn your whole host of and the dark host: they didn't show the germ testimony yesterday? people can go to our website and they can go to our video mobile app and thick what you do for themselves ronald in anaheim, kerala.

i think the guys on the top need to drop out, biden and trump. they have no reconsideration for each other. host: ronald and anna time, an independent and we will leave it there for now. when we come back, republic is joshua kaplan discusses his report that same old alito took an unreported luxury trip from a gop donor who had business before the court. later this morning come republican congressman bob good of virginia and a member of the budget committee discusses donald trump's legal issues. stay with us, we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays

on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 6 p.m. eastern, historians discuss conspiracy theories of modern history such as the deep state, new world order and qanon. it can reveal cultural insights and fears of the time period. in the presidency, how president franklin roosevelt formed a group in the lead up to world war ii to unified the countries war effort. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find full schedule on your program guide watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.

at 9 p.m. eastern, heritage foundation senior fellow robert moffat shares their views and can for so recipients received that are more of portable care in the future. at 10 p.m. on afterwords rebecca grant reports of maternal health care in the u.s. and discusses how social and political dynamics impact pregnancy and motherhood. she is interviewed by the new york times reporter alicia gupta. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule and your program guide. >> "washington journal:" continues. host: joining us is joshua kaplan, a reporter for pro public a and he along with his colleagues wrote this piece for the publication.

thanks for joining us. tell us what was this trip that the associate justice talk? guest: we found justice samuel alito went on a luxury alaska fishing vacation with the hedge fund billionaire and political mega donor who regularly had cases before the supreme court. they didn't just go on vacation together. alito also flew across the country to alaska on this billionaires private jet. we are told that if he had charted the plane itself, it could've exceeded $100,000 one-way. alito did not disclose this. it's been secret until now and experts told us he appears to have violated a federal law passed after watergate the wires justices to disclose most gifts.

more noteworthy here, after the trip, the same millionaire had case after case in the supreme court and alito never recused himself. it's quite remarkable. experts told us that they were not aware of any other example of this ever happening, of a supreme court justice sitting on a case after having received an expensive gift paper by one of the parties. host: your investigative work also includes the stories that broke recently about justice clarence thomas. justice clarence thomas has not responded. the washington post this morning says justice alito came out swinging at the publication. he refuted your story in a wall street journal piece that was posted online tuesday. he takes issue with you calling it a luxury trip.

he said the seat on the plane would have been empty anyway and this was already -- this trip was already going to happen with or without him and if he had paid for it himself on a commercial flight, that would have been another issue with taxpayers paying for u.s. marshals to accompany him. he also talks about not drinking $1000 wine and the accommodations were modest where he stayed. how do you respond? guest: i wouldn't say refuted, he agreed with the premise of the story which is that he went -- he took a private jet flight from this billionaire. he did not disclose it and when the billionaire had a case before the court, he didn't recuse himself. that's not in dispute. this op-ed that alito relsed -- for those who haven't read

bere we publish with theirito questions. they were detailed questions abat whad been learnin and trying to understand his perspectiveet aitional context from him. we were told by the court spokesperson that he would not respond in a few hours later, he published this essential response to our question in the wall street journal. in terms of the disputes about the luxury of this issue, luxury is in the eye of the beholder. this was a hotel that cost more than $1000 per day. it employed private jet pilots flying around alaska and fishing guides and a private chef that made meals for them every evening, multicourse meals like alaskan king crab legs and kobe

fillets, we so the menu. celebrities like people like dan rather or ingram and many others took part. kevin costner back in the day and maybe bruce willis, i can't remember all my celebrities off and. -- offhand. his more substantive response is that he didn't need to recuse himself -- what he is saying is that when this billionaires company had a case before the court, alito was not aware that the billionaire paul singer was connected to the company. he also said he had only met paul singer and full of times and that they had never talked about his businesses were issues before the court.

that's important context. it speaks to a larger issue here. there is a high standard when justices and judges should recuse themselves. there is a federal law that addresses this but it's very subjective. it's when a reasonable person might question the justices impure -- impartiality. it's not a standard that says the justice has done anything wrong. it's a standard that says if it looks like the justice might've done something wrong, basically. a lot of experts we talked to put this that it's kind of simple in their view. in a way, many people can understand this if you were in a courtroom and you found out the person on the other seida view had taken the judge on a luxury

vacation, you might not feel that's a situation that puts you in a very fair place. whether or not the judge actually is capable of being unbiased and impartial. at the supreme court, we have that subjective standard which is very high and a potential conflict of interest arises and it's time to determine if adjusters should be used themselves were not, the only person that makes that decision, the sole arbeiter of weather adjusters should step away from base is the justice himself. it's a decision that cannot be appealed and alito's opinion as to whether he should be recused is the final word. that's not how it works and other court rooms but that's how it works in the supreme court. host: from his peace in the wall repair porting and he saids the i joined the court unt the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly

intereted this discussion of hospitality to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. the flight to alaska was the only occasioni ha accepted transportation for purely a social event and i follow what i understood to be the standard practice. for these reasons, iot include a my financial disclosure either the accommodationsded by the owne of the king salmon lodge who to my knowledge is never been involved in any matter before the work or the seat on the flight to alaska. guest: i think it's a fascinating response. this is the standard practice he's saying and he says justices regularly did not disclose private jet flights and someone gave him a private jet flight to a social gathering, a vacation or accommodation and he says he understood it was common

practice not to tell the public which is a start contrast to every other branch of government does in terms of the standard where there are ethics officers that review things like disclosure. every expert we talked to said that's not the right interpretation of the law. the law is really clear when it comes to gifts of private jet flights and things of that nature. we talked to former government ethics lawyers who interpreted these laws for a living in both democratic and republican administrations. weaved talked to a lot of them and there's been complete unanimity on that point. host: let's get to our calls, republican, europe first. caller: good morning, c-span and thank you for the openness of this discussion. let's talk about c-span in this particular guest you have on, who sponsors the sandler

foundation and the george soros group and are we investigating pete buttigieg and john kerry? let's get really open and honest about what's going on here. this is a left-wing organization who is specifically going after conservatives. i am on the website and i'm reading this stuff as we speak. let's not be so one-sided. c-span, you should be embarrassed and ashamed for promoting this kind of left-wing liberal ideology without an open discussion going around it. host: you get to ask the very question you just asked of our guest this morning. can you answer, what is the focus of pro public and who funds it? guest: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. i believe we have over 40,000 donors and lots of small donors

in summer foundations that fund media work and we publish and disclose these donors online. i don't really know much about our donors because there is a firewall between that side of the shop and the editorial side of the shop. what you are getting at is bias and i think that's coming from the fact that our reporting of supreme court this far -- thus far -- we have focused on justice alito and justice clarence thomas. i can assure you that the reason we are doing that has nothing to do with their opinions of their political beliefs. me and my colleagues working on this with me have no interest in the partisanship of the justices. we are actively reporting on the supreme court as a whole. we are reporting on all nine

justices. we are just doing everything we can to follow the facts where they leave. host: windham, connecticut, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i read the article and it's really good and read samuel alito's response. it was interesting. i want to go over the panoply of what went on. clarence thomas taking luxury vacations undisclosed, his wife ginny taking consulting fees from leonard leo of the federal society, undisclosed. neil gorsuch selling property in colorado to a law firm that argues in front of the cart, undisclosed. you think chief justice robert would tackle these issues but his wife takes millions of dollars from law firms in fees

that argue in front of the court, undisclosed. what was samuel alito's response in the wall street journal? you can accept gifts and i'm paraphrasing, as long as it otherwise wouldn't go to use. can you imagine using that in a bribery case? my question to you is there's got to be away that we can lock this down. the supreme court is at an all-time low and there's got to be a way we can push back. host: joshua kaplan. guest: yeah, it's worth making the distinction between some of these things that have come out. john roberts'wife for instance,

it's healthy that's being examined, scrutiny of public officials, spouses work has a long history in other branches of government and historically it has not happened at the supreme court. we don't get that type of sustained coverage. there is not really evidence of impropriety here. she has her own we are and she makes a lot of money for a normal person but there is not really any evidence of having something improper happening in terms of ethical standards, as i understand it, or disclosure rules. one reason it's hard to distinguish between these things if you go to any other public

official and you say, this is something that looks off and it looks potentially unethical, what do you say in response? the best possible response for them to say his i went to an ethics official ahead of time they told me i should do it in this way and they told me it was ok to do, everything here was ok. i had someone objectively look at it and tell me this is within the bounds of my responsibility as a public servant to the american people. that doesn't exist in the supreme court. there isn't anyone to call balls and strikes. what you are getting at here is a significant point. there is a lack of transparency and oversight in the supreme word that is in stark contrast to our government.

the justices are largely allowed to police themselves. there are very few restrictions and when potential conflicts arise, they are the ones that decide how to handle it the justice who has an essential conflict, there is no outside arbeiter. host: time magazine did a piece in 2022 about how much justices make, some of them have written books and they've made money from that. that's in addition to their base salary which is over $250,000. the chief justice makes more. justices are legally limited to not earn more than roughly $30,000 for outside teaching and several justices earned close to that in 2021. clarence thomas reported 20 9000, 5 hundred $95 from george washington university law school and the university of notre dame. gorsuch earned over $26,000 from

a university. brett kavanaugh earned $25,000 and amy coney barrett. what has been your reporting on their salary what they can make themselves in this position? guest: yeah, they make a good salary by most american standards. a lot of them make a lot of money off book deals. they certainly can afford to go on vacations or in clarence thomas's case, they could have reported the child they were raising. it's really interesting that supreme court justices are making a pittance in comparison

to what they could make in the private sector if they were to retire and become partners in a major law firm in your raking in millions of dollars per year. i don't want to speculate on whether there is any connection there but some justices have complained publicly about how much they make. the fact that they are living on a public servant salary and flying private jets around the world is not something that the vast of merit -- vast amount of americans can afford is a fascinating set of circumstances. host: springfield, illinois, democratic caller. caller: good morning. just to update this salary, $285,000 for the eighth justices and $15,000 more for the chief justice.

josh, you are doing a wonderful job. this is what we need is the scrutiny of the government and it seems like the supreme work is not had that in the past. we know scalia took these hunting and fishing trips all the time. i wonder who paid for that. i am thankful you would do that. even if we acknowledge this issue, can we actually put some meat on it in the sentence that federal judges if they did something, is there a federal crime for that? can we go the justice file a case to test whether or not they can be charged with a crime?

this is a crime if they were in congress. just recently, there were these shenanigans going on but now it's illegal for a congressman to have any lunch being paid for. host: let's take your point, joshua kaplan. guest: yeah, some people i've talked to, potentially the issue is the only mechanism is through the department of justice right now which is quite the hammer to bring down on a supreme court justice. the disclosure statute which is one of the few binding rules affecting the supreme court, they have to disclose gifts to the public. if they were found to have willfully and intentionally

failed to meet those disclosure obligations, there could be civil or criminal penalties from the doj. i think that's exceedingly unlikely for a number of reasons. in other parts of the government, there is a lot of things in between this, between criminal prosecution and literally nothing. there have been some bills introduced to congress recently that would do things like tightknit standards for recusal that are more clear and gives more teeth to them that would create a binding code of ethics for the supreme court. importantly, enforcement, create

an ethics office to examine issues that arise and could investigate complaints and enforce them in some capacity. they could refer to criminal law enforcement if they thought it was warranted. there is currently no apparatus sure of the utterly unprecedented attorney general launching a criminal investigation into a supreme court justice. host: burlington, north carolina, republican. caller: yeah, this guy is nothing but a liberal activist because he's trying to pick the friends the justices can have and trying to control the court by having the justices get

through a trial just to find out if they are going to be on it. it's like mr. thomas, his mother is allowed to have a reverse mortgage. have you heard of a reverse mortgage? that's all i have to say. host: we will take your first point about the justices friends, in this case, who was on that trip to alaska with justice alito? guest: it's really interesting. in this case, alito and the billionaire gave them private jet ride at the cost of $100,000 one-way did not know each other before this trip. this was the first time they met we found out. the billionaire paul singer was invited on the trip by leonard

leo, the longtime leader of the fest s plad an instrumental rolepicking judges in this country and leonar leo as paul singer if samuel alito could fly on this for all oproment guests on the trip, this is the clear connection between them. leonard leo, were talking a supreme court justice, leo had played a key role in a federal judge who leo had clerked for an two major donors to leo's network. host: want to jump in a point we e showing a picture of thatere on the trip with leonard leo center in 2008 with the guide and the gas but please continue. guest: i can't recall the entire

question. host: maybe it will come to you. let's go to fill in long island, new york, independent. caller: good morning. i thought c-span did a great job uncovering the hearings and they had the three panelists there with the young lady in the middle and the professor from hofstra at the time. i think they should be held to the same as district court judges about recusing themselves and reporting what they are earning and who's giving them gifts. you go back up little further in history and the only thing that was important on that hearing was have private interests get involved in the lobby to push the support dish supreme court justices on the supreme court. if we go back to the obama

administration, right after site sotomayor was appointed,, how much influence did he have about sotomayor being appointed and if we go further about recusing themselves, the supreme court justice kagan was a solicitor general for obama and she did not recuse yourself on obamacare which affected this country in a lot of ways. there needs to be more scrutiny d definitely the supreme court should be held to the same standard as the lower courts. i would like to know what you have to say about kagan. host: let's get a response and i think he was talking with the senate judiciary committee holding ethical standard hearings for the supreme court. guest: it's really interesting.

the recusal standard at the court for kagan and for every justice on the court, we are playing a guessing game when it comes to, historically, whether they recuse themselves from a case, why they are refusing. there has been a lot of writing in legal scholarship. they should be disclosing things proactively. when there is a potential conflict, they should be saying with that potential conflict is why they don't have to recuse themselves. right now, these refusals more or less a mystery. they don't say why they are or not recusing themselves. it's not a decision that can be challenged really.

there also no reason to think there is any consistency among the justices when it comes to recusal. some justices were no longer on the court not to distant history, they publicly said i don't say why i recuse myself was i'm not sure my colleagues would recuse themselves in the exact same circumstances and basically, i don't want to put them in a bad spot because i ship -- chose recusal and that's now the standard. if recusal is an important thing, it's an incredibly opaque system right now. host: tyler, texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning, people who call in just to attack pro publica or c-span don't realize

the media is an important part of democracy and they are basically attacking their own opportunity to voice their opinion and have a voice in our country. secondly, i worked for a number of years in the local federal system for judges and it was just hammered into us about the very basic appearance of impropriety. that was for the staff and the judge and it was real basic. there is nothing questionable. they usually said if you have to ask about a coming or probably not supposed to be doing. probably it's out of control at the supreme court. it probably has been for years and then i -- and or might not be an answer to it. once you let people police themselves they become kings and a kingdom, you can have that with presidents or at any level. once there is no accountability to the people, i think we have

lost it. i guess the appearance of impropriety is down the drain. it's a little basic bottom level thing that i think is the answer to all of it but it may be too late. guest: yeah, i think that gets to a solid point which is judges in a unique position of public trust have immense power to unilaterally decide on issues that affect every american. they have lifetime tenure and they're are supposed to conduct themselves with the highest levels of probity even compared to what we expect from other public servants, to go to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. we have talked with federal

judges over the course of this reporting. they have been shocked by what's happening at the supreme court. one federal judge told us after our first story about justice thomas that it's incomprehensible someone would do that. we've had a number of judges saying when my lawyer friends want to buy me lunch, i won't let them because maybe they will come before the court someday in the fact that they bought me lunch would look like a problem. i think that is the way a lot of judges live in there is a reason this extraordinary lofty version of ethics has become so internalized for many on the judiciary. host: have you done scrutiny of the other justices and their financial disclosures and how do they compare with what you found

with justice thomas and justice alito? guest: we absolutely are still reporting. there were two answers to that. in terms of these undisclosed trips, there is nothing out there, there's nothing public that suggests anything on the scale of what justice thomas has done or suggest that other than justice alito has ruled on the case after having received a private jet ride from one of the litigants. the second answer is these things were secret. these were not disclosed. that's what we found in our reporting. it took a lot of work to find them. are there other justices doing this? is this a problem that extends

to many on the court, to all nine? that is something we are actively working to figure out. if anyone is listening and has information about any justice, liberal or conservative, that they think we should know, we would be eager to hear from them. host:oshua kaplan, reporter from pro publica and you can follow them on twitter or follow them online. thank you for the conversation. we will take a short break and still had this morning, we will talk to to members of congress, representative bobby good, republican of virginia and representative jared moscowitz, democrat from florida but first, we will open up the phones, any public policy issue that's on your mind for the next 25 minutes or so. there are the lines on your screen so start dialing in. we will be right back.

>> live today, president joe biden and first lady jill biden welcome india's prime minister for an official state visit to washington. during the visit, the promised or will address a joint meeting of congress beginning at 4 p.m. eastern followed by a white house state dinner hosted by the president at 7 p.m. eastern. watcher live coverage on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try our points of terest feature come a timeline tool that uses markers to guide you to newsworthy and interting highlights of our key coverage. use it anytime online at c-span.org. >> c spent now is a free mobile

app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus compelling podcast. c-span i was available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work, citizens are truly informed and the republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered,

unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is where -- this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back an open forum until the top of the hour. we want to hear about any public policy issue that's on your mind or that we discussed already this morning. as we told you earlier, the prime minister of india is in washington. he went to the white house last night to meet with the president for a more casual dinner before tonight's state dinner. the official visit by the prime minister but before that pomp and circumstance, the prime minister will speak before a joint meeting of congress. that happens today at 4 p.m. eastern time on c-span in the house chamber.

that also go to her website, c-span.org, or error-free mobile video app, c-span now. then the state dinner is expected to get underway this evening. there will be arrivals early on in the evening followed by the prime minister arriving at the north portico side of the white house. our coverage is 7 p.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span.org as well as our video mobile app, c-span now. you get to see all the guests invited for two nights festivities which will take place at the white house. from seattle, democratic caller in open form this morning, go ahead. caller: good morning, i just got the tail end of your last segment about alito. i don't understand how the supreme court thinks they can just slide their way through and nobody will notice or anything.

i think it's absolutely repulsive. we should perhaps stack the court and make this a little more fair. in 2010, the morning the citizens united path, i cried. i knew what was going to happen and for them to keep me out of this is disgusting, revolting that's not justice. i am so disgusted with them all. host: illinois, republican, your turn. caller: good morning, i love c-span. in regards to obama and scandal, when they were sitting in that room plotting against trump and i enjoyed the hearing and i hoped they would get some more

indictments. the mainstream media in four years, they stretched out trump with nothing. we got so much evidence of the biden crime family, nobody wants to talk about that. none of the mainstream media, its right under our noses and we see this going on, the corruption of millions of dollars and how china is walking all over us and more on the verge of nuclear war. the mainstream media has to start reporting on the biden crime family. thank you. host: referring to yesterday's testimony on capitol hill before the house judiciary committee. john duren, the former special counsel talking about his investigation and reporting into the origins of the fbi's probe into an alleged tie between the 2016 trump presidential campaign and russia.

if you missed it, go to her website, c-span.org. he was out there taking questions for hours. if you cannot sit through hours of coverage, if you hit the video player on our website, you will have points of interest that will appear and you can scroll through and get the gist of the questioning by men -- both sides of members of congress. arizona, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what's the public policy issue on your mind this morning? caller: i've got questions. he's like all politicians. he doesn't answer to anything. it's like he's afraid he will give an answer to something. host: you're getting confused

because you have to mute your television. listen and talk through your phone. yesterday, the house did censure california democrat adam schiff along party-line vote. republicans tried to do this recently and it was tabled with the help of republicans. language was modified and put again on the house floor for a vote. the motion passed, 213-209. six other house members, three republicans and three democrats did not vote. take a look at the moment on the house floor in the well when the speaker, kevin mccarthy goes to censure after the vote. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [video clip] from house resolution 521, the house is result. -- is resolved.

i have all night. by its adoption, house resolution 521, the house is resolved that the house of representatives censures adam schiff, representative of the 30th congressional district of california for misleading the american public and for conduct unbecoming of an elected member of the house of representatives. representative adam schiff will be forth with presenting himself in the well for the pronouncement of censure. that representative adam schiff will be censured with a public reading of this resolution by the speaker and that the committee on ethics shall

conduct an investigation in his falsehoods, misrepresentations and abusive sensitive information. [gavel] host: democrats in the well of the chamber surrounding adam schiff and chanting his first name after the speaker read the vote on censuring him for what he said about former president donald trump and alleged russia collusion. in the wall street journal's morning, a headline about the speaker rebutting lauren boebert's efforts to impeach the president, the current president over immigration and border policy, saying not the right time. time in ohio, republican --

caller: yes, i think durham should have done adam schiff deal like he did it a few years ago, just kept saying i don't recall. thank you. host: shirley in new york, democratic caller. caller: yes, i'm wondering what republicans can't see with going on. all of donald trump's men have been indicted or charged. every lawyer gives up the case and he can't even keep a lawyer. why can't republicans see this? and mccarthy needs to see this. it's tit for tat. what about the country?

we will vote again. thank you. host: denise in macon, georgia, independent. caller: how are you? good morning. am i on? host: we are listening to you. caller: great, i wanted to make a comment about the segway of adam schiff who i think is one of the political leaders that has voiced the truth after a long era in season of codes of silence. i sent mr. schiff and emailed based on observations of me and my family in america. i sent him an email talking about process of communication, soiling the human body and

simulating sex technology. host: frank in minnesota, republican. caller: yes, they agreed to put the country $4 trillion more in debt after two years. i think we need a new independent party and i look at all the independent parties running now and none of them have any chance of making it. they are talking about putting a democrat and republican on the same ticket. we need someone that will represent the people. we need to get this comp -- country back on track but we don't have the money or time or knowledge to do it. i would like to tell them how to go about getting this country back on track. host: other news for you this morning in the washington times

-- then there is this from the new york times this morning -- matthew in dearborn, michigan, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the

other date you had a segment on climate change. one of your callers said the ipcc report is not scientific. thence the international panel on climate change. i went to their site and i looked it up. the authors are physicists and chemists and economists and environmental scientists and all that so i would say the report is very scientific and i encourage everybody to go to the report and look it up because it's more scientific than that guy said. host: robert, aurora, illinois, independent, we are in open forum. caller: i want to go back to this thing with mr. kaplan. i ran for political office back in the 1980's as a democrat. i am known independent and i found the democratic party is not very democratic. what they did to bernie sanders in 2016, they did to me in the

1980's. mr. kaplan is going after mr. alito. they were also talking about scalia and the trip he made. but people seem to forget is that ruth bader ginsburg also had a lot of gifts given to her and nobody ever criticize them. the other one is kagan, when skill you took these trips, she was right there with him. -- when scalia took these trips, she was right there with him. why isn't he bringing up those? there is more to it than just the conservative side to it. host: alito and kagan were in trips together? caller: kagan and alito were on fishing trips together, they were. host: joan and raleigh, north carolina, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i just wanted to bring up, after looking at this adam schiff censure and the impeachment comings and goings with boebert and grain. -- and grain. taxpayers need to realize these are fundraising attention for the republicans and it happens on the democratic side with adam schiff will probably get rewarded for his censure with people being naïve enough to get so upset they will send in money to these people. taxpayers need to be aware of this. it's red meat being thrown at us taxpayers to donate to these people and they feed us more of this red meat. i wanted to bring that up. host: our previous call referred to reports back in 2013, this the atlantic --

justice scalia and justice kagan are hunting buddies, really? it was reported by the atlantic. justice kagan bag yourself a dear anna trip to wyoming with justice scalia. you heard that right. you can read more if you would like on the atlantic. craig from pleasant grove, alabama, independent. caller: good morning at thank you for taking my call. on: because i'm bothered about the censure of adam schiff. he pretty much proved his case that trump colluded with russia by sharing polling data and campaign data with russia. for mccarthy to censure adam

schiff for being dishonest with the american people when the conservatives have consistently been dishonest with the american people, that bothers me to no end and that's all i have to say. host: on capitol hill yesterday, the federal reserve chair jerome powell testified before house lawmakers about monetary policy. he will be back there again today in this time with senators on the banking committee and we will have live coverage of that on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time and error video mobile app and online at c-span.org. jamie from garden city missouri, republican. caller: good morning to you. to your previous caller, i love your show, by the way, if the previous caller watched the during trial, the durham report is linked to the steel dossier. it's going to the clinton

foundation and the money was funded to the ftx and trump didn't do anything. i am a mess over this. trump is my president. i have been through hell. -called a maggot whatever --maga whatever and it was the clintons who paid for the steel dossier under the durham report to do a fake russia, russia and it never took place to cover up the clinton emails that were lost in to cover up for her. you cannot make this up. it's the biggest soap opera but it's real but it's the government in our life. host: in missouri a republican in richmond, virginia, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning.

i was calling because i wasn't able to get her yesterday but i wanted to speak to something that the speaker was talking about with china. the united states spent time painting china as people. it's easy to be intimidated by a country where the citizens to at least two languages. blanca needs to be over in china asking for help. host: the washington post with this headline -- tina in huntington, pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning.

how are you? host: good morning. caller: first, i would like to say i hope everybody takes a moment in silence for those lost at the capital. we know they are probably out of air by now. i would like to comment. i sat and watched the hearing yesterday. it was very embarrassing to hear of one political party for years can drag somebody that they don't like through the mud to try to get him out of office. adam schiff should not have been century. he should have been expelled. it was proven and i was one that was on the fence. i didn't vote for trump. i believe the lies because i was watching the media. i can tell you from what i heard

yesterday, there is no way i will support the democratic party after what i heard. adam schiff should be expelled and everything he has done, it's going to come to light. i've been called a maga republican but i'm an independent and i will wear that metal and i think donald trump will get my vote. host: columbus, nebraska, republican, good morning. caller: i 100% agree with the censure of adam schiff. we elect these people to uphold the constitution. there is a lot of corruption going on in the government. i wish that everything was reported truthfully and as it should be.

i am a republican and i will be voting for donald trump. i think it's just sad that we are impeaching or indicting the president and i think the people that are elected need to uphold our constitution. thank you. host: we will take a short break and when we come back, we will be joined by two members of congress. republican congressman bob good of virginia and later, jared moscowitz, democrat of florida. we will be right back. >> live sunday, ju 2 on in-depth -- the author and professor returns to talk and take calls about politics, international aai, liberalism and more.

he is the author of the end of hiory in the last man. he has published several books since his 2006 appearance including the origins of political order and identity. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comnts, texts and tweets. in depth live sunday, july 2 eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> the c-span makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place theo can discover new authors and idea. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to of audible episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, and culture. listen to c-span's book show podcast feed today.

you can find the c-span book show podcast feed on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts, c-span.org/podcast. >> book tv come every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. heritage foundation senior fellow robert moffat shares views on how to reform medicare so recipients receive better care in the future. that on afterwards journalist rebecca grant works -- reports on maternal health care she is interviewed by a new york times reporter. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch

online any time at book tv.org. >> president joe biden and first lady jill biden welcome indians prime -- welcome india's prime minister. prime minister modi will address a joint meeting of congress beginning at 4:00 eastern followed by a white house state dinner hosted by the president at 7:00 eastern. watch our live coverage on c-span, or online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: going us is congressman bob good. let's begin with the proposal by your colleague lauren probert -- lauren boebert to impeach president biden. guest: i believe president biden

deserves to be impeached for a number of reasons. his depletion of the petroleum reserve right before the election and then him taking actions he did not have the constitutional authority to do such of the student loan transfer scheme. the primary reason he needs to be impeached is the border invasion that he has purposefully facilitated over the last two and a half years. 7 million illegals have invaded our country. about 5.5 million having been apprehended and released in the country at taxpayer expense than about a million and a half criminals who want free health care, free social services, who do not want to be taken in with open arms by the biden administration the unser trafficking drugs, sex trafficking, how can we as a

republican majority allow that to continue for another year and a half. for that reason i have signed impeachment articles for president biden last term and i support congressman boebert bringing that forth this term. host: you differ from kevin mccarthy, saint we have to make the case to make the indictment, you do not just put something on the floor, the california republican told reporters, this is one of the most serious things you can do as a member of congress. you have to go through the process. your response to him. guest: there are valid points. last congress democratic majority in congress impeached trump based on a phone call where he talked about doing what president biden has bragged about doing. now there allegations of him expecting $5 billion in bribes.

very few members of the media seem to take seriously the responsibility to hold government accountable for what might be the biggest political scandal in the history of the country. those kinds of things are being investigated by the judiciary committee or the oversight committee for the committee on the weaponization of the government. i agree in the sense we ought to be doing our due diligence in taking the time to investigate and build the case and see where the evidence leads us which is what the media ought to be doing with the biden crime family. with the border, the speaker said last summer before the election that if he became speaker we would impeach mayorkas. we are six months into this congressional term and we have done nothing to impeach mayorkas. if we had that happen we might have more patience with president biden. what kind of evidence do we need on the border? that is different than the criminal allegations, the bribery allegations, the

influence peddling allegations. that is different than some of the policy things i mentioned on strategic petroleum reserve or the student loan transfer scheme . the border, the evidence is glaring, the country is suffering. how will we allow this to go on? we do not need to wait on evidence to that effect. host: what did you make of the durham report and the former special counsel testimony before the house judiciary committee. guest: i only had a tertiary review of that. i was not able to dive into a deeply so i only saw summer reports but i would point to the durham report in connection to what we did yesterday with adam schiff. it probably ties over to something else you might ask about president trump. it is troubling, perhaps of the many things american should be concerned about with the country, whether it is the border, whether it is inflation,

the weakening of the military, it is the loss of faith and trust in once sacred institutions, federal law enforcement, the fbi, the department of justice, merrick garland. when you look at the pollution with the federal government colluding with entities polluting with big tech to influence the outcome of the election you see these phony russian collusion narratives perpetrated. adam schiff at the top of that. you have the special counsel assigned durham and say there was no evidence to that of fact. we have most of the media continue to parent. how many networks did we hear russia, russia, russia. i watch all of the networks i can. i am a conservative but i watch the other major networks.

every day, russia, russia. the evidence was in the phony steel dossier. we try to tarnish this administration with that. i think durham has done humans work to try to expose that. i think some people thought the evidence would lead in a different direction. it also incriminated the fbi to see if they set aside their own standards of how they were supposed to handle things objectively. that did not seem to happen with the trump pollution instigation. guest: how do you respond -- host: how do you respond to reason magazine to safer libertarians there is something satisfying about seeing anyone in power criticize the fbi, and certainly the hype surrounding russia parisian -- russian pollution -- however durham's investigation was also

misguided. durham was hot on the trail of the crime of the century and would reveal a massive conspiracy between the fbi and hillary campaign. after four years of investigation and more than 6.5 billion dollars in taxpayer money spent durham failed to uncover any evidence of major wrongdoing. guest: what was obvious is you had individuals with connections to the clinton campaign and individuals operating in the federal government that were betraying the trust of the american people. federal law enforcement. you had pollution with the clinton campaign. you had all of these individuals that had intelligence backgrounds signing on to a letter they knew was phony involving a russian disinformation campaign as it applies to the hunter biden laptop scandal. you had president biden use that in a debate to say these 50 intelligence experts says this looks like a russian disinformation campaign.

there was nothing to suggest that. there was no evidence to legitimize the allocations that were made, including the 2016 election. it is also interesting to take the fbi. you talked about loss of trust. this is the fbi that is targeted catholics in richmond, virginia based on their faith. in fbi that is targeted parents at school board meetings. it is the fbi that rested a pro-life protester in pennsylvania, sending armed agents to arrest them, hauled off in handcuffs. there is definitely a two tear justice system. you can see that with the hunter biden plea agreement. usually if there is a gun crime there are 10 years in prison. we are plea bargaining that to nothing. you have tax evasion as well. you see the difference in how he is treated versus how president trump is treated and there is a

reason why the country has lost trust in our justice system and law was meant this to him. host: andy in sterling, virginia. democratic color. good morning. caller: for the life of me i don't understand why c-span continues to put this buffoon, this congressman from virginia where i reside, who is a total disgrace to the state of virginia. he continues to come on your show, spread misinformation. host: instead of name-calling, tell us what you disagree with. caller: when is congressman good start investigations into the jared kushner deal that he made with the sally's -- with the saudi's while a member of the trump administration. $2 billion. he continues to harp on hunter

biden, the biden crime family, which is a total joke. host: i will have the congressman respond to what you said about the former president son-in-law jared kushner investigated and his ties to saudi arabia. should that be investigated? guest: thank you for the question. i would point out that with the trump family, everybody knows with the trump family business is on the trump family empire. they are in real estate and development. president trump stepped away from those businesses when he became president and turned them over to his children. it is interesting the double standard. what is the biden family business? what is the reason the biden family would make millions of dollars off relationships with china, with ukraine, with russia? why did hunter fly with vice president biden to china and all of a sudden he has millions of dollars in business deals.

why are there hundred 70 suspicious activity reports. why is there not a thorough federal investigation? i had two or three suspicious activity reports. why did president biden meet with hunter's business associates some 80 times in his office? why have we not released the memo with a credible source the fbi has identified. that is not even a classified document. you think that if this was a document that implicated a republican, president trump himself, this would not have to be subpoenaed. director ray would've gotten it. everyone would know that. the media should be demanding to see the memo to hold accountable the highest level of government if the biden bribery scandal, setting aside all of other business dealings. if the $5 billion bribe that

according to members of the oversight committee have read the memo, that would be the largest scandal in the history of the country and the media should be shouting from the rooftops, demanding the investigation, demanding to know what is in the contents of the memo, demanding to have president biden held accountable for what he is alleged to have done and let's follow where the evidence goes. i've had some media members say we will start to record this when charges are filed. that standard has not been applied to republicans and president trump. we waited until there were charges filed report on what allegations. i will give the russian pollution fraud as an example of that. host: jim is in california. republican. good morning. caller: i wanted to say something about adam schiff. everybody is going on with adam schiff and saying he has done nothing wrong and he should not

be censured. he did it to himself. everybody was watching the durham report yesterday. he said it to himself. what adam schiff did was he said to durham that trump son met with russian people trying to get dirt on hillary clinton. he met with the guy on national radio stating he new stuff about trump and all of that and adam was trying to get dirt on trump saying he would meet with him and that ends up being a hoax. adam schiff even said he committed a crime himself. he told durham he went out and talked about what was going on in the hearings and adam schiff did it 15 or 20 times. he basically broke the law himself. host: congressman, how did you vote yesterday?

guest: i voted to censure mr. schiff. i've shared a lot of opinion and a lot of information. i think based on the evidence and what i have seen. i am giving opinion on that. if i were to say to you i have seen the evidence of the acts, i've seen the evidence of why, i noted sis because i've examined it, adam schiff repeated that over and over again over a. of years, abusing the trust of the american people, abusing the position he has on the committee , abusing the megaphone he has come and he lied repeatedly, not saying what he believed to be true, not saying his opinion, he said i have seen the evidence, it will come out and be presented. absolutely false. no one defense that now. that is a lied to the american people. it is a betrayal of the standards of behavior of the congress member that is why

voted to censure him. host: we will go to florida. sean. independent. host: -- caller: how are you doing. there is so much i want to say. why are there does those supreme court justices? there aren't because nothing would ever get done because it is two people. why are there only two political parties? this is the problem with america. you're talking about immigration he to blame biden. immigration has been screwed up in this country since for reagan was in office. they have laws on the books. we do not need new laws. you just need to enforce the laws. people are coming over here for jobs. you can propagate they are coming here for votes. it feeds your base. what i am saying is if you and

after the people, the employers, like if you employ someone who is illegal you get find and if you get it a second time you lose your business license, can you tell me one time anybody in the united states has lost their business license? can you tell me one time you find somebody? you are trying to stop immigration you're just trying to play off of each other. two parties. both of you are the same. you have republicans culling all day talking about how the biden crime family. host: i will jump in and have the congressman respond to your points. guest: he makes a lot of good points and i appreciate your question or your comments. we have a lot of problems. there is greater division than ever before. i would submit this is not your kennedy democrats or clinton democrats. the biden democrats are very

different there is a very different view of the future of the country in the direction we ought to take. you are right about immigration, that has not been fixed by multiple integrations -- by multiple administration's. the bush administration was awful. president trump was the dressing that. we have the most secure border under president trump. we were largely illuminating illegal immigration. this country is the most generous in the world when it comes to legal immigration. we ought to do that. we are agenda -- no country has provided more welcome to more people all over the world the united states. you're right that said we do not need more laws, we need to enforce our laws. i take responsibility as a member of congress, we along

with the administration -- the administration has to enforce them. it is not just that they were lax on immigration. this administration is literally allowing as many illegals in as they can. most of them are coming for economic reasons. how much of the world 7 billion population that does not live in the united states would come here if they could. we can guess on that. how many of them would, because america is the most wonderful country in the world. we should not reward them for breaking the law or help them break the law which is what this administration is doing. that is the 5.5 million they willingly let into the country at taxpayer expense. i've been to the border five times, i've seen the immigrants coming. they have been on the seat beside me saying they can go wherever they want to. because of the open border policies there are a million and

a half criminals. what percentage of the 1.5 million who do not want the free health care, social services, we are paying for them to have a place to stay. we are paying thousands of dollars a month at your expense to pay for them to have a place to stay. 1.5 million criminal got a ways, if even only 1% of them were bad actors, 1% out of 1.5 billion, i do not think anyone would take those odds. let's pretend only 1% or bad actors, that would be 15,000 really dangerous people allowed in the country. what this president has done with the border is the greatest harm ever done intentionally by a president to the united states in the history of the country that is why he deserves to be impeached. host: you said democrats are not kennedy democrats or clinton democrats. would you describe yourself as a trump republican? guest: i always identify as a

constitutional conservative. i think president trump was an excellent president. right differed with him, he was not as strong as spending. republicans were not during the time when we had full control. we should have done a better job on spending but he was excellent on energy, on the economy, excellent on the border, excellent on foreign policy. he is the first president in 40 years to not get us engaged in the new conflict. some people say would russia have invaded ukraine when he was president? they did not. it was strong on so many things and i agree with his policy. he changed the republican party for the better at the republican under his watch has become the party of working americans who've been left behind by biden democrats or obama democrats. the clinton democrats and the kennedy democrats were working-class democrats. that is not the democratic party

today. host: you're a member of the freedom caucus. how would you describe the relationship between the caucus and speaker kevin mccarthy? guest: that is a tough question. i would say hopeful. we want our speaker to be successful. after the speaker battle in january i sat down in his office to tell him i was behind him and wanted to do everything i could to help him succeed. we were pragmatically moving forward together. we voted for him as speaker. obviously there has been strange that relationship. many of us disagreed with what i call the veil responsibility act that was passed with an unlimited increase to the debt ceiling that did not address our fiscal situation. we strongly disagreed with that. we absolutely need to cut our spending. there is a straight in a relationship when we diverge based on policy.

it is not personal. we just want him to help us as a conference to do the things the american people want to do. host: angela, democratic caller, your next. caller: i think impeaching biden on the border is ridiculous. all biden did was go back and undid trump's executive order and went back to the asylum policy. it is up to an immigration judge to decide who stays or goes. it is not up to mayorkas or biden. the asylum losses if you say you're seeking asylum we could let you go. under paul ryan you had two immigration bills that would have ended that. republicans who had the majority split on those bills, so neither one got past. that is when trump did his executive order. congress needs to do comprehensive immigration.

until then i do not see how you can impeach biden. firing the prosecutor. that was the policy of our state department at the time. if you listen to the first impeachment hearing on the trump the gentleman from the state department says that was the state department policy, not something biden did on his own and also what the europeans wanted because that guy was part of russia. the president of ukraine was also a russian plant and that is why the ukrainians overthrew him. host: we don't have much time left. guest: i appreciate her bringing up the border because i think that is the most pressing issue of the day because of the danger presented to the contrary. this president in october of 2020 said he wanted to give amnesty to those here illegally. the democratic party stance against voter id.

we do not allow a requirement of proof of citizenship to vote. if you have lax border policies, you do not require voter id, you are promising amnesty if you are elected, isn't that incentive to vote? this president said he would end the border wall. he ended the remade in mexico policy, which was working. when folks will realize they have to wait in mexico for usually their fraudulent asylum claims, they had remained in mexico waiting for their claims, they stopped coming because they did not want to wait in mexico. he elevated the safe country that if you are fleeing you cannot pass through safe countries to get to the one you want to get to to get to america. mexico is one of them. you are not oppressed in mexico because of whatever the situation might have been in

honduras or nicaragua. or wherever you're coming from. he ended policies to facilitate this border invasion. every resource is committed to get as many illegals in as quickly as possible. there is no enforcement at the border. this president is purposely doing this in a he deserves to be impeached. host: mike in north carolina, republican. caller: good morning. so good to have a good breath of fresh air with representative iq in one of my representatives in north carolina, bishop. what irks me is you have democrats like mcgovern and cori bush. they always call the republicans maga extremists. you need to start calling them extremist castro democrats. the border is one of the main

issues. i live in north carolina. it is getting were everywhere you go, they are displacing for white americans and poor black americans. the government is putting them in section eight housing and trailer parks. moving americans out of these areas. it is getting ridiculous. host: understood your point. congressman. guest: you talk about maga republicans. i called them biden democrats. the policies the president has put in place are not like previous democrats. he is weak in the military. he has told the military the greatest threat to the country is the diamond. he is trying to convince the military to move to electric vehicles. everything about our military ought to be devoted to having the strongest, toughest fighting

machine so we can deter threats around the world when that is necessary. he is focused on racism in the military. diversity in the military. forcing radical leftist policies on the military. we cannot meet our recruitment standards. moralities down. that is one example of how he has weakened the country. what he has done with energy trying to force us off of reliable energy. the extreme climate agenda. unprecedented spending. coming out of the pandemic he proposed a $7 trillion budget that would be a two chili dollars deficit after the pandemic -- a $2 trillion deficit after the pandemic is over. this is what abided democrat looks like i that the american people are rejecting that and i think we will see that shown in the days ahead. host: one more minute with you. david in michigan independent.

caller: on december 5, 2017 someone testified in front of the intelligence committee that neither russia nor any other country hacked the dnc. someone hated hillary clinton so much sent what he found -- host: since we are short on time, can you get your question. caller: essentially wikileaks and julian aside. adam schiff cannot let that information out of the public so he had to hide it. donald trump went to him and told him you print this or i will print this and shifted not print it. it was buried so far in the new york times no one could find it. guest: i am not sure i followed

all of that. i will say the inflation that is pressuring the american people because of this president's policies from the interest rates crushed the american people, further depleting their ability to have a house. what is happening with grocery prices, housing prices is a direct reflection of the abided democrat policies. that is what is killing the american people. host: thanks for talking to our viewers this morning. we appreciate your time. when we come back, congressman jared moskowitz, democrat of florida, a member of the oversight committee and foreign affairs. we will talk about several domestic and foreign policy issues. we will be right back. ♪

>> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, 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. >> listening to programs on c-span3 c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern. congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern catch washington today for a fast-paced report of stories of the day. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span. powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and interviewers on the afterwards podcast and on q&a here wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others

making things happen. book dopesick up so it's -- book notes episodes feature authors of nonfiction books on a variety of topics. and go behind the scenes of the nonfiction books publishing industry. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcast. c-span.org/podcast. "washington journal" continues. host: at our table is congressman jared moskowitz of florida. he is also member of the foreign affairs committee. he is a freshman he just launched a bipartisan congressional speaker caucus. take a look of the shoes he is wearing this morning. why a sneaker august? guest: i am a big sneaker head.

in corporate america people are doing this. capital america is basically run by college students. they are all wearing sneakers. it is a part of me. i remember my dad who passed away about a month before i launched my congressional campaign, it was something we did when i was a kid, going to the mall before the mall opened and he would run in and go to the footlocker, the gates would be down and you would try to get the one pair of jordans that came out that year. i've have been up here for six months. the sides are so fractured. it is so built into the system. finding ways to learn something new about each other, getting a room where it is not just the partisan politics but the cameras are off and find out about the sneakers as a way to do that. to learn about democrats, republicans, capitol police, visitors. host: you are wearing the

sneakers but there places you cannot go because of that choice. guest: cannot go into the speakers lobby. host: how does that curtail your priorities and what you want to accomplish. guest: i will put on more formal shoes if i need to go there. i can get to the floor in multiple ways. you don't have to go through the speakers lobby. i've asked speaker mccarthy to loosen those regulations. capitol hill is all marble floors, especially the women lawmakers. a lot of them already wearing sneakers because wearing high heels around this place is racy. on marble floors. on marble stairs. a lot of people have got injured. there are people in boots because they have fallen and slipped. i've asked them to do that. obviously there is tradition involved. we are not wearing powdered wigs anymore either. sometimes it is good to change

with the times. host: how many pairs of speakers you out -- how many pairs of sneakers do you out? guest: about 150 pairs. host: this is the washington post. china slams president biden's characterization of president xi, calling him a dictator. guest: i think there is enough evidence that president xi is borderline heading in that direction. that being said we are trying to tamp things down. we had secretary blinken go over to china to reestablish some of the ties that have been cut off. we need to deflate the situation going on with china. we also have to understand china as a major threat economically, militarily. i just got back from a trip with speaker mccarthy. we went to delete -- we went to italy, israel, jordan, and egypt and china was a concern.

everywhere the united states pulls out, china comes in. everywhere the united states is holding money china comes in with loans. anywhere we cannot deliver military goods china comes in and says they will do it. we are now competing with someone. they are doing our playbook. it is all about military aid and foreign aid. they are doing the u.s. playbook. they have made tremendous problem in africa -- they bake tremendous progress in africa. in cuba. we have to figure out how to de-escalate the situation with china. president biden is not necessarily incorrect but probably a misstep to say it out loud. host: given the trip you made, bipartisan trip, where do you think the sides could come together on addressing the threat of china? guest: when we are here in d.c. and the cameras are on, it is like an off-broadway play.

as soon as we board that plane and we leave this country, it is amazing how the partisan lines disappear. foreign policy is still a place in which democrats and republicans can work together. maybe not in d.c., but when we leave d.c. we see at. there is bipartisan support to work together on foreign policy. that is why the china select committee was a bipartisan vote. there are multiple areas we can work together. supply chain. i was the director of emerging management in florida during covid. the country that brought covid here, we had to turn to them for supplies. the most powerful country in the world, the most powerful country in the history of the world having to turn to a foreign nation for gowns and gloves and boots and masks and oxygen, we

should never be in that position having to depend on another country. that is shameful. we have not. we have not fixed any of the problems that happened during covid. we spent seven trillion dollars between the end of the trump administration and the biden administration. if we had another pandemic we would still be depending on other nations to buy those things. we need to do that with medicines and medical goods so we can depend on ourselves. i'm not against doing business with other countries. that is good for world stability. host: are you in agreement for -- with republicans that the unspent money that was pushed during covid should be brought back? guest: i am for that. i voted for the dead deal that did that. covid is over. it is now an endemic situation.

there'll be regular money in the budget like there is with the flu. hhs will have that money. to have emergency funds, we can take those back and spend those elsewhere. host: you've been here for six months and introduced legislation on gun safety. talk about what it is you would like to see done. do you have republican support? guest: this is personal to me. i graduated from marjory stoneman douglas. my own gun was put into a closet during the shooting five years ago. at a preschool around the -- while she was protecting my got in a closet her daughter was killed. three weeks after that shooting i went to the house floor. i invited my republican colleagues to the school so they can see what it looks like when a school shooting happens in your neighborhood. parkland was the safest city in florida. i wanted them to see what it looks like what is shooting comes your neighborhood.

i brought a plus rated members of the nra. senate president, majority leaders. the florida legislature. these folks who had not done anything on gun violence for decades in the florida house. this became the marjory stoneman douglas bull safety act which was the largest bill ever passed in the state of florida. we raise the age to 21 to buy any got in florida. we instituted a red flag law. three day waiting periods. a commission to investigate what happened. we are working on that. republicans passed that bill. not a single republican lost their reelection. the speaker of the house wound up in the desantis administration. five years later the bill is working. i take that as a lesson. if that can happen in a red state with full republican control we can bring that up.

d.c. works differently. i did not think we will have a big bill. i filed a bill on ghost guns. the idea that you can have terrorist printing guns out of their home is something all americans can agree on. over 80% of americans support background checks. red flag laws. over 80% of americans support that. i am for an assault weapon ban. but if the votes do not exist for that, let's build consensus on the things we can find. it is not just guns. host: let's get the callers. troy in new jersey. republican. caller: good morning. you seem like the perfect person to talk about bipartisan. i'm a republican from new jersey. i voted for mitt romney and gary johnson and joe biden. why can't there be more bipartisanship?

why is it always have to be your leader is more corrupt, know your leader is more corrupt? why can't you legalize marijuana and use the taxes for the border or tax millionaires and use that money for republicans? i voted for joe biden. i am a teamster. we have a contract and i would rather have joe biden in the white house the donald trump if we do not strike. if i can be bipartisan, why can't washington do the same and do something for one side and use the funds for the other side. everybody wins. guest: thanks for the question. this is the question most americans are asking. most americans are in the middle. they want to know why we cannot work together. people work together in business. they negotiate with their kids. why can't we do that?

it is not set up to reward people to work together. this is not set up that when you were together the system rewards you. late-night tv whether msnbc or cnn or fox, division is what sells. donald trump exposed that to the news media and a social media. if you look the most popular accounts on social media, it is one size. it is not bipartisanship. is there a single tv show you can watch at nighttime that brings democrats and republicans? they used to exist. i remember crossfire. democrats and republicans would debate and try to find common ground. host: we try to do it here. guest: viewers do not want to watch that. they want to watch what their side is pitching and the advertisers spend money. the whole system is incentivized to get people angry. trust me.

there are democrats and republicans that want to work together. republicans are afraid of being primary, democrats are afraid of being primary. then we have the districting issue. redistricting has been a lot of these people no longer moderate. you're not getting people incentivized to work together. they are incentivized to do what 20% of the voters want because that is her only way to stay in office. social media, i cannot underestimate the power of social media and what that has done to the mood. twitter is not life, but twitter helps run the media cycle. you see things germinating on twitter and then i see them in a hearing. there are a lot of things going on for why washington is broken. some is built in systematically.

there are lots of people who want to work together. we have to reward them. voters have to reward that. moderate republicans have to vote in the primaries and moderate democrats have to vote in the primaries. if they only vote in general elections that no one will work together because it is not incentivized to do so. host: anthony in chicago. independent. your next. host: -- caller: good morning. how are you? i want to jump back to china. i think at this point none of us can be surprised at all when we see developing countries preferring to do trade deals or development with china because they invest in infrastructure in those countries, building ports, building roads, building trades and infrastructure.

traditionally the united states would come in, it would be loading up countries with imf loans and forcing austerity onto those countries, making it difficult for those countries to develop on their own, develop regional infrastructure, and then we stick with them austerity to pay down the debt. if there government wanted to not pay that debt were not aligned with the u.s. policy, we would coup them or begin a new government or invade the country, unfortunately. lastly, you are from florida. i would urge you to join the rest of the world and united nations and end the embargo on cuba. thank you. guest: great questioning. let me tell you what is going on

with china. they are doing the exact same thing. they are coming into countries and giving out loans like we used to do. there loans have ridiculous unfavorable terms china knows the country will not be able to pay and then they will have massive financial leverage. on infrastructure china is coming in and building roads and dams and reservoirs. unlike the united states china brings their own workers into those countries and these projects are all done with chinese labor. they are not helping those countries by creating any wealth. the countries get the infrastructure but they do not get any of the economic benefits from those projects being done. that is what united states did differently. the real problem is as united states becomes more isolationist or as we have only turned to one area of the world, let's say ukraine, we can only have our eye fixed on sony places.

already paying close attention to the middle east or africa? why we are not, china is coming in. they are everywhere. they are investing money is much as possible. there is a great debate going on. whether or not we should spend all of this around the world or whether we should spend it here or whether we should spend none of it. all i am saying is americans need to recognize that if we retract from the world, if we do not spend that money and other countries, china will spend it. that seesaw of our world power and influence is going to go like this. that is caution if we become isolationist. host: margaret in kansas. democratic caller. caller: i am calling to thank you. it is a very logical and one of the best discussions i have heard.

we need to work together. we get traumatized by watching -- i have had breast cancer and trying to survive post, sure you survive but you are not the same. now i had food stamps and they cut that in just the little crumbs we get when there used to be a big supporting person in our economy and all of a sudden everything crumbles. you tend to want to be isolationist because we have to feed our people at home. things are not going so well. thank you very much. guest: is a great question. i'm sorry to hear about the breast cancer. i lost my daddy cancer so i understand how serious it is and i'm in the process of sending a letter to the fda based on the

shortages of chemotherapy drugs. those chemotherapy drugs are made in china and india. the idea we have to depend on other countries for life-saving medicine is something i've been concerned about. watching late-night tv will give you anxiety. there is no doubt about it. that is what we see on social media with late-night tv feeding social media and social media feeding late-night tv and getting both sides as angry as possible, making them the enemy. republicans the enemy, democrats the enemy. you cannot work with the enemy or compromise with the enemy. that is part of what is going on. we have to figure out how we can work together. we did so on the debt ceiling deal to make sure we cannot default. i think that was a good deal. we had a bipartisan agreement.

we made sure we did not collapse our economy but the world economy. immediately the speaker of the house gets flack for doing that from the right side of his party. that is the dynamics. we are in strange and weird times and it is not going to get any better before the next election. host: john in las vegas. republican call. caller: i've been listening to this whole thing in your preaching bipartisanship. i am in the middle myself stop for me about two and a half years ago i was bored working and i started looking up the biden family fundings and i started looking into the association between corporate holdings how money is being transferred through the

government website to show money being passed through burisma, going back to the cayman islands. whether i am a republican or not, that is your there. i believe in making america great again. how can war democrats -- how can more democrats be a blind eye to the corruption right in front of them? guest: you're talking to a democrat who worked in the desantis administration. i do not talk bipartisanship. i did it. i was his emergency director and ran the first 18 months of covid in the state of florida. here's what i can tell you. no one is above the law. democrats have been clear about that and it applies to hunter biden.

he did not pay his taxes, he had a gun, he did not -- he is not above the law. it was prosecuted like those prosecutions. 90% end in a plea deal. there's been a five year investigation into hunter biden with a u.s. attorney appointed by trump. not that that means anything but no one can say it is some chummy u.s. attorney general that is doing hunter biden any favors. here's what i can say. right now there is no evidence presented in the oversight committee or judiciary committee that has anything to do with joe biden. lots of innuendos, lots of insinuation. there was a form filled out four years ago based on a conversation that happened seven years ago. double hearsay. we do not have the person who had the conversation. the conversation was in russians

-- they said there big tapes, there are 17 big tapes. show them to the american people? they say we have hunter biden's laptop. wonderful. show them to the american people. he did not see democrats saying the doj is weaponized because hunter biden took a plea deal. if he broke the law he should be prosecuted. you cannot impeach people on innuendo. you have to have evidence and right now there is no evidence. if evidence comes forward the president did something illegal you'll see democrats stand up and say he should be held accountable. we will not hold somebody accountable because they are trying to muddy the waters with what trump did. that is the point right now. host: when you say we are not supposed to disclose or talk about a document, what are you referring to?

guest: the oversight committee had access to the 1020 feet -- to the 1023 forms. there is a case that says do not discuss this pump is a classified document. every republican went right to the microphone and started discussing details we are not supposed to discuss. they are having big problems on the republican side with classified documents. trump is showering with them and holding them in his house. i take that stuff seriously. they are out there talking about it because they want to muddy the waters because trump is a real trouble. you have bill barr saying he is toast. chris christie saying they are in trouble. he was an attorney general. they are trying to -- they are trying to turn joe biden, guy they say is sleazy and not with it and will not make it if he gets reelected. now he is tony soprano.

hunter biden is keyser soze. if you have the goods, show it to the american people. they don't have it. there is no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, which is the threshold for impeachment. what they're doing is trying to get people angry. joe biden has done something wrong, and they are doing this because trump was impeached. this places like high school. we impeach trump. now they have to impeach biden. we were moved a couple members from committee, they removed a couple measures from committee. that is how this works. joe biden has not done anything that would qualify for impeachment. if he did, present the evidence. host: on the gun charge against

hunter biden, is there a two-tiered justice system when it comes to that charge? what others have gone to prison for lying on that form? guest: we don't know. everyone is saying he got a sweetheart deal or did not. we don't know what they had or did not have. we do not have the evidence a u.s. attorney was looking at. maybe the evidence was really weak and he did not get a sweetheart deal. maybe they had overwhelming evidence and he got a sweetheart deal. there are many that does not say if it was hunter biden he would not have been prosecuted under this case. at the end of the day he pled guilty, he has taken a plea deal to this gun charge and not paying your taxes. he finally got hunter biden after five years. you nailed him on taxes and the gun charge. with all of the conspiracy theories that exist on the internet that we here in the

halls of congress, five years have not yielded real evidence. why the u.s. attorney charged him on any of that stuff. host: congressman jared moskowitz of florida. thank you. we will take all of you over to the white house where the prime minister has arrived for the official state visit to our country. the president and first lady welcoming him on the south lawn. live coverage on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> and live pictures on this thursday morning from the south lawn of the white house as we stand by for the arrival of indian prime minister narendra modi. president biden joined by vice president harris and their spouses to officially welcome the prime minister this morning. we'll have coverage of prime minister modi throughout the day. at 4:00 p.m. eastern he's expected to address a joint meeting of congress and then tonight at 6:30 eastern, president biden is hosting a state dinner for the indian leader. and that's all here on c-span.

>> honor guard. attention. ♪ ♪

>> attention. honor guard. attention. >> and once again we're live here on the white house south lawn where just a couple moments, president biden, joined by vice president kamala harris and their spouses will officially welcome indian prime minister narendra modi. he's here in this country for his state visit. live coverage of prime minister modi throughout the day here on c-span. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, he'll be addressing a joint meeting of congress, and then tonight at 6:30 eastern, president biden will be hosting a state dinner for the indian leader. and it's all here on c-span. ♪

>> attention.