host: good morning and welcome washington journal."

the waldman group ended its run. vladimir putin have exiled the mercenary leader without prosecution of his men for himself. they marched 120 miles before stopping the rush of a civil war in russia. what does this mean for the ongoing war? what this this mean for the united states and its relationship with russia and ukraine? that is the question for you. what do you think about the rebellion against the russian government. republicans call in at (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents you can

call (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook and facebook.com/c-span, at twitter on @cspanwj, and on instagram. there has been an agreement in russia where the mercenary group used by russia in ukraine has come to an agreement with the russian government, exiling their chief to belarus. the question is what does this mean for the ongoing russia-ukraine war. the story this morning, the greatest challenge to vladimir putin is two decades in power of a rebellious mercenary commander who ordered his troops to march

on moscow and they reached a deal to go in exile. western forces under -- they were able to unimpeded and advanced hundreds of miles toward moscow. the russians scramble to defend the cap cap. -- the capital. he will go to belarus. charges against him for mounting an armed rebellion will be dropped. the government said it would not prosecute those who took part while those who did not take place would be offered jobs.

that is the story from the associated press. mercenary groups against russia fizzle. we want to know what you think about what is going on in russia and how it affects the russia-rain war. let's start with willie calling from annapolis, maryland on the democrat line. caller: i am very disturbed at this war because what you have going on now that this could upset the whole world and exposing how weak the russian army is and mercenaries get their munitions from foreign countries. host: do you think this will

affect out russia is doing in ukraine and is there any way or should the united states take advantage of the moment? caller: what it will affect the war in ukraine, i don't know. he is going to act like a cornered rat if he is exposed. i hope for the best but you are talking about a country that has a lot of nuclear weapons. i hope they can solve the ukraine work. -- war. host: let's go to andrew calling from alexandria, virginia on the independent line. caller: form -- good morning.

this could be a set of. what i hope to find that will out is was this really an attempted coup from the army or could this be me kind of set up between the kremlin. host: a s uto do what? l's say there is a conspiracy between them, what would be their goal? caller: to try to fool ukraine and to trip them that there is infighting between them but really maybe there is not and maybe there is some other type

going on. it is a very interesting development. host: is there anyway you think the united states should try to take advantage of and let this layout -- play out? caller: i think we should let ukraine -- we should continue as the american government has been playing it right. i think that is with the american government should continue to do. host: let's go to charles calling from maryland on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have two questions.

one is on topic. as far as ukraine and waldman, the kremlin has discussed placing technical new in belarus now he is quote unquote banished . he has banished his group. now he has the means, motive, someone who gives him a double dose of deniability.

he could say there is a lunatic in belarus now has the doubled liability that he could use nukes. host: don't those already belong to russia? caller: he needs it for america. he needs to drop a bomb. host: what is your second issue? caller: black america. i was wondering what you think we need to do to get our slice of prosperity. host: will have to leave that for another time. xo to run a conference michigan on the democrat line. caller: we don't know what is going on with this current situation in russia.

they are drawing of the americans because we are trying to attempt to destroy the soviet union and this is payback for russia's support of vietnam. we were soundly defeated in vietnam where we never should have then and it is also payback for russia and cuba, helping liberate mozambique, south africa from the rule of white supremacy. russia is being punished for that now. it is amazing, even the so-called left in this country who supported vietnam in the war on aggression supports the cia nato against soviet russia and russia invaded ukraine, despite they invaded afghanistan. we have no business in that

situation. i remember johnson saying he would not send american boys. thank god joe biden has kept our ways art of their so far. but we are getting closer and closer. this is atomic bombs. when they go off it will be the end of the world. the russians are going to destroy ukraine all they can. all we are doing is keeping this for going. the pentagon papers guy, daniel ellsberg, he has been relegated to the ash pile where he said u.s. policy caused this war in crane and u.s. policy continues to escalate this ukraine.

we could stop it right now if the united states wanted. host: the washington post has a great explainer. if you want to talk about what you think is going on in russia, here is what the washington post says about it, the 62-year-old has been a supporter of the russia war in ukraine and is in charge with the private military group known as wegner. first, deploying mercenaries on the front lines and later by recruiting heavily. he led the first significant territorial gains since last

summer. americans may remember prigozhin as the financier of an agency that the justice department named in a 2018 indictment over interference in the 2016 u.s. presidential election and weaponized social media. that is who the russian president putin has negotiated with and ended up moving them into belarus which is an ally of russia. we want to know what you think about the rebellion in russia and its impact on the war. republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, your line is (202) 748-8000, independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. let's start with steve cohen from gordonsville, virginia on the independent line.

caller: good morning. i agree with one of the callers who said i think this is a made up thing and prigozhin gets to go to belarus and bring troops from the north. they are just reconditioning people to make it easier to put pressure on ukraine. host: events happening around the world where people are reacting and countries are reacting to what is going on in russia and the potential military uprising. here is what is said is going on in china. the russians deputy foreign minister meant -- met with the

chinese foreign minister and prune faced challenge by the wegner group. they exchanged views on international issues of concern. a brief readout from beijing did not provide specifics. china has tried to present itself as a potential peacemaker in ukraine and despite deepening trade ties with russia. they have to be careful not to that this trade lead to conclusions in europe. an american researcher said to the phone lines and talk to

kathleen from maryland on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i believe the united states should stay out of the turmoil. we have to me problems here on our own. i think we should stay out of it. host: even with this going on in russia, do you think it has any effect on what is going on in the u.s.? should we ignore what is going on with our allies? caller: of course it has an effect on us, but some presidents do not want to comply with us, so what should we do? we have to be neutral.

some other countries won't step up to the plate and make peace talks and do the right thing. host: before the agreement was reached president russian -- vladimir putin announced before he reached an agreement with the wegner group. here are some of his words on saturday before the agreement. >> this is criminal. it is equivalent to armed unique. russia will defend itself.

we are fighting for the life and security of our citizens and territorial integrity. host: let's see what social media followers are saying about the rebellion in russia and the impact it has on the russia-ukraine war. a quote from facebook says obvious evidence putin has been weakened by the invasion of ukraine. another facebook post said nothing good will come of this. the u.s. will play at policeman of the world or a step back and say not my problem. another facebook post said this is a startling unfolding event. i am wondering if putin might focus his attention now on

staying in power rather than being -- bringing ukraine to its knees. that's hold our breath and see what happens. one more post from facebook that said it has weakened putin's image, having to rely and the leader of belarus to convince the other guy to end is advanced on moscow on behalf of putin makes him look weak and incapable. we want to know what you think about the rebellion in russia in the impact on war. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter at @cspanwj and

instagram. let's go to joe from texas on the republican line. caller: i don't pretend to have this situation figured out. i do know it is a convoluted mess and we had better stay out of it. russia is armed with nuclear weapons and i don't think we appreciate people interjecting themselves on us in a similar situation. we should back off on this one. i do have a question, is mimi still in the employ? host: i actually don't know but i am sure she will be back soon. let's go to don con from petaluma, california on the democrat line.

caller: -- don from petaluma, california on the democrat line. caller: usually i am a little later coming onto watch washington journal but i was excited to see it coming on and this is early for me. i had no idea this was going on with the wegner group going up against russia. what is going on over there? i have a theory -- i think the reason the wagner group is going on because your beard. you are rocking it. host: let's go to ryan on the independent line.

caller: pretty exciting and crazy situation unfolding over there. has he been influenced i the cia? it was missing billions of dollars. host: prigozhin areoualking about -- are you ta about prigozhin getting mrom the cia? caller: absolutely. that is rumored on the table. it gives them enough power. this guy was gaining influence and becoming a bigshot of his own. rumors he may have been in line to take over for putin.

very interesting and very dangerous times. with the nuclear weapons, it could be revealed nightmare -- it could be a real nightmare. it could be a ruse. i think the police and russian military were fighting and i think the wagner group shot down some helicopters. it could be expensive. very interesting times. host: we will have a russia expert on in a few minutes. one question i have for him is what does a belarus get out of all of this.

we will have that question coming up. let's go to earl from washington state on the democrat line. caller: somebody has to say it, joe biden is starting to look like a genius right now. host: what do you mean? caller: the policy of help in the ukrainians. he brought all of this to where it is now. he's going to topple putin without really trying. host: do you think toppling putin would be a good thing or a bad thing? some would say russia is a superpower with nuclear weapons. caller: joseph fear in his eyes. it was delicious. host: kim from california on the

republican line. -- ken from california on the republican line. caller: i think we need to drop the price of oil. get the alaskan field open. host: how does dropping the price of oil help things in russia or give us an advantage? caller: russia can't afford to feed its people. when oil is below $80 a barrel. by not having the capital to restock the military inventories and keep its military efforts going, it just stops. they wouldn't have gone into

crane if oil had stated low. host: this is a question we have been hearing all morning, should the united states be taking advantage of this moment in trying to destabilize russia or should we stay out of it? caller: i think it wouldn't be destabilizing them by putting them in a position to where they can barely afford to sustain economically and couldn't restock their military and couldn't afford to pay the military. by having oil height, a lot of countries of their art stocking their military up and building their nuclear arsenals up. unfortunately, a's car emissions -- today's car emissions are

very low so the first about electric vehicles needs two -- needs to go bye. host: let's go to brest from new york city on the democratic line -- let's go to russ from new york city on the democratic line. caller: where are all the pictures of this? i don't believe this. it is the same about the titanic story. they knew about the implosion but said we could find them. i think we should stay out of it and should not be involved. host: one of the things we have seen so far is russia is not welcoming to journalists, especially to the -- from the

west inside their borders. there are not a lot of american and non-russian media. we will go to virginia calling from texas on the republican line. go ahead caller: -- go ahead. caller: if people would look at the mineral resources of ukraine can see why everybody is fighting to get it. just a thought. thank you. host: coming up we will continue our conversation about the defense in russia with mark c

ancian. and we will have cheryl chumley, a retired journalist here to talk about russia and other political news of the day. stick with us. we will be rightac >> tonight cassandra good talks about the lives and complicated legacies of george washington heirs. george and martha washington raised martha's children and grandchildren of their own. >> people would say who are you writing about? and at first i wasn't sure and it became clear that while they were nieces and nephews to inherit mount vernon, those people walked around selling

themselves as george washington heirs. these children made careers out of being george washington's family. >> cassandra good with her book first family, tonight on c-span's q&a. two things into our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> a british historian who lives in london with his wife and two children. he has written 12 books, nine nonfiction into novels. his latest is a family history of humanity. it is 1300 and four pages. he has written, i've always wanted to write an intimate human history.

in some ways a new approach and in some ways a traditional one which is a fruit of the lifetime of study and travels. >>'s latest book, the world, a book notes plus which isty on available on the free mobile app forever you get podcasts. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and joined by retired colonel mark cancian who is the advisor for the strategic studies and is here to talk about the attempted armed rebellion against the russian government and its potential impact on the russia-ukraine war. what is the latest we know about what is going on in russia? guest: it looks like the

incident was diffused. prigozhin, the leader of the wa gner group has agreed to go into belarus. putin and russia have pardoned all of the participants in this rebellion and things seem to be going backo normal. we are watching this to make sure all of this plays out. so far they have pulled back on the march on moscow and it looks like it might be over. host: what does this tell us about the remaining power of vladimir putin. is this back to business as normal? guest: there is good news and bad news in this incident. the bad news is part of his

security, he was not able to suppress it. they were able to get some popular support. the upside for him is wagner ins to be under control and some of the people have been invited to the russian army. they seem now to have been overcome and russia exerting control over this group. host: tell us about the relationship between prigozhin and putin. how do they know each other and what did prigozhin do in the russian government and where does he stand now?

guest: prigozhin is the head of this group which is a professional military contracting group at began many years ago. prigozhin was in the catering business and was a caterer to the kremlin. that is how he got to know putin and gained his confidence. in 2014 they moved into donbass and became wagner and they have contingents around the world, particularly in africa but also in ukraine. they rose to prominence because the russian military was having a difficult time recruiting and

suppression -- suppressing the ukrainians. prigozhin became a highly visible element of the war to the russian people and conducted a lot of attacks. to the russian people like something somewhat of a hero. host: is all of this affect prigozhin's standing in the wag groupner? -- wagner group? guest: that is a good question. he has been very visible as a leader in the group.

it is unclear whether he will be continuing to be in charge of the organization from belarus or whether he will step down and someone else will step up. prigozhin is very popular with his troops. he has been very vocal and aggressive in getting troops the support he believes they need. he has been supporting them and getting them food and ammunition. among the troops he is very popular. host: i want to remind viewers they can take part in this conversation. we are opening (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8001 lines, republicans, democrats (202)

748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002, even text us and we are on twitter and facebook. let's take the viewers back to the beginning. how does this confrontation between prigozhin and russian government. prigozhin i believed accused him of attacking his men. is that propaganda or true? guest: you have to go back several months when prigozhin started criticizing the russian war effort. he accused the ministry of defense of being ineffective, of not supporting the troops. he used -- accused the political

establishment of lying about the war. the criticisms became more and more intense over time. the minister of defense either cut back on the support he was being given it became increasingly vocal in his criticism. for some time it was thought he might become the minister of defense. that didn't happen. in recent weeks there have been reports of incidents between wagner and regular groups. the tensions were rising.

there is this rebellion where he moves on and takes over cities and bases and begins the march on moscow. host: would you call this a coup attempt? guest: that is an interesting question of what was prigozhin do? personally, i don't think so but i think this was his protest against the establishment, trying to get more support for his organization but he may have been hoping the armed forces would support him, that the population would support him, he may have even been hoping for a coup attempt, that someone in the kremlin would displace putin. there doesn't seem to be any

indication that any of that happened. it is hard to say what he was basing this rebellion on, he clearly was hoping to force some action. host: talk about what you know about how the deal between putin and prigozhin that ended with his exile to belarus happened. i understand alexander lukashenko was key in that. how did they broker this compromise? guest: it does look like belarus brokered this deal. both sides were working hard it avoid a civil war. for a long time there were no casualties.

both sides were stepping back and not shooting at each other. prigozhin was being very careful that he was not shooting at russian officials and was allowing the war effort to continue but these were his complaints with the russian government. and putin was not attacking wagner. over the sides were looking for a way out and then belarus stepped in. belarus is a province of russia, although it is independent but closely aligned with russia. there are russian troops stationed in belarus. russian troops in belarus participated in the invasion of ukraine. forces were very attuned to the needs of russia.

host: what does belarus get out of the compromise? guest: it is not clear they got anything. it is possible they cap some consideration. they are benefited by fusing the situation and they may have been just trying to get some goodwill with the kremlin. host: did any of the united states intelligence forces have anything to do and what we have seen in russia over the past few days? guest: no, the united states does not have that kind of reach. wagner is what you may call a hyper patriotic organization. they emphasized that it is part of their motto and pledge so i don't think they would be in any

way aligned with the united states. host: let's let viewers take part in the conversation. we will start with jeff from virginia on the republican line. caller: i was just wondering, what i heard on cnn i believe putin had threatened prigozhin's family and that was probably a big motivator. what do you think the chances of his living through belarus and looking for a first-floor building the capital? guest: is certainly believable that putin threatened prigozhin 's family and was threatening to take action against prigozhin and wagner. that may have made it prigozhin

look for a deal. i think he will be ok in belarus. if it looks like they are trying to undermine moscow or undermine putin, then he could be in trouble. the kremlin has not been shy about kicking out its political enemies. prigozhin should be very careful at this point. host: that is one of the questions i was going to ask, what is putin's normal way of dealing with political rivals and does prigozhin have to worry about this? guest: student will take them out of positions of responsibility -- putin will take them out of positions of responsibility. if they continue, you will put them in prison. some have moved overseas.

some have been attacked and even killed. prigozhin is very high visibility and i don't think putin will want to take action against him unless he becomes an actual threat to the regime. being in belarus and away from his troops will take away a lot of his power. it is possible that prigozhin just becomes quiet for a while until things settle down. host: a social media follower has a question here they want to know, did belarus step in on their own or were they told to step in by the russian government? guest: not clear, but they certainly would have been willing to do that if asked by the russian government. i think both sides were looking for a deal. i would be surprised if the russians had reached out to

belarus to broker a deal. host: let's go to jackie who is calling from oklahoma city, oklahoma on the independent line. caller: don't know what to believe on the news anymore. they say that putin looks good but prigozhin did a -- looks weak, but prigozhin did a 180 so how does that make putin look weak? is this the same intelligence agency that said the work mass -- weapons of mass destruction in iraq? guest: one, how do we know about wagner and what comes from the

intelligence agencies. there is a lot available in the public domain. they are not a secret. there are elements of this internal mechanics that are unclear. but it has been quite well-known. you will have to repeat your first question. host: the first question was about the intelligence agencies and how much influence did they have? guest: the u.s. intelligence agency had no influence. as i was saying earlier, wagner was hyper patriotic, part of their motto and initiation. they see themselves as defending mother russia and is the foundation of much of their popularity. the idea that u.s. intelligence agencies have anything to do

with this is not credible. host: this is a good time are you to tell us more about the wagner group. how many troops did prigozhin have and they have chance of actually defeating the russian army that was trying to defend russia? did they have any chance of actually overthrowing putin and the defense history? guest: starting at the beginning, wagner at the beginning had 5000 to 10,000 troops when they were involved in ukraine. in africa, they have been supporting the russian government. the russian government has found them useful for their deniability. the war in ukraine has greatly

increased their size. the pentagon said they went up to 50,000. they don't appear to be at that level now. of those 15,000 to 20,000 in ukraine, that is not enough to have overthrown the russian regime. not clear how many were marching on moscow. clearly they were bringing heavy munitions. you see pictures of tanks. you have to remember the russian security forces are very large. many of them are in ukraine but many are not. they also have security forces. it is not like our national guard but includes riot police

and similar forces. there are tens of thousands of those plus an engaged military. the intelligence services have their own paramilitary organization. wagner never had a chance of fighting its weight to moscow if -- it's way to moscow if russia wanted to stop them. they were hoping they would pick up support and russia make fracture or maybe making a protest for more support which complained they were not getting enough from the ministry of defense. host: we talked about the russian government and the wagner group. doing a what the russian people felt about this arch and russia

trying to defend its capital? guest: i have seen two things from the russian people. the one hand, prigozhin is an outspoken personality but seems to the russian people to be trying to do the right thing and fight a war effectively. his troops are suffering but fighting he has always portrayed himself as being effective in the russian military and the army particularly. he was something of a folk hero. you saw when the wagner troops were going through some cities getting a friendly reception. on the other hand, you don't it massive groups taking up arms to support wagner to overthrow

the russian government he may have been a populist leader but he was not going to be meeting an insurrection against the government. host: let's go back to phone lines with joshua cohen from connors ville, georgia on the democratic line. caller: i would like to ask a question that is an update on how the ukraine work is going and how this incident might affect the ukraine war. the ukrainian counteroffensive is going on. how much ammunition and manpower does each side of the war still have and how much has been spent in the last months? at the ukrainians come close to the first line of defense for the russians?

and the wagner situation, how is that going to affect the russian effort? will it damage russian morale or will the front line break down because of it. thank you so much. guest: starting with the first and last questions, how will this affect the war in ukraine, at this point it doesn't look like it has affected the war. wagner -- the wagner group have been pulled from the front lines. the russians did not have to pull any troops out of ukraine to deal with this. if he -- if the rebellion had continued, that may have changed. it is possible you could have some morale issues period

although the way it has been diffused i think minimizes that risk of if prigozhin behaves himself, that will ease as well. in terms of how the counteroffensive is going and munitions and equipment, the united states and other countries who supplied tremendous eight to ukraine, ukraine is using that now in the counteroffensive, with ammunition and equipment and making some progress. the russians have had several months to dig in. the counteroffensive will go on for another month or two and we will see how the ukrainians do with it to see if they can recapture a significant of territory. host: the wagner group troops

who sign on with the russian government, will he still be a private military group? guest: the answer is probably. these would be volunteers. they now have a considerable amount of combat experience. i think any of the wagner troops that sign onto the military would be high-quality. not many -- not sure how many would be willing to sign on or how many will just go home. the deal was if they fought in ukraine they would get their freedom and that is being honored. it is not clear how many people actually transition to the russian military. host: that stay with wagner, do they go to belarus with their leader or do they continue to stay in ukraine? guest: that is an interesting

question. the deal did not include them going to belarus. they have gone back to training camps in ukraine. what happens next will be interesting whether they rebuild and go back into the line or whether they step back and go back to the kind of functions they had before the war in ukraine and that is overseas activities for russian interest groups and some around the periphery of russia as well. but it is unclear. host: according to the washington post in an audio message, prigozhin said this about the end of the fighting. in this time, we did not spill a single drop of blood. now the moment has come where blood could be spilled.

understanding the responsibility russian blood would be spilled on one side, we are turning around and going back to field camps as planned. did prigozhin get the funding and weapons for his group? he said it was all about getting more munitions. guest: they were able to get an amnesty and in a rebellion that is very important. there may have been some side deal they support wagner. the russians would be ill-advised to provide more support to wagner in terms of benefits and food and those types of support that are important to troops. we will see how that plays out. host:'s social media followers

has a question for you -- a social media followers has a question for you what about joe biden not making a public announcement and what do you think about that decision? guest: i think the white house is being careful. there is the idea that this was all a cia plot against the russians and the white house wants to be very careful that they don't feed that narrative. if they came up and said -- supported wagner and its efforts to confront the russian regime, it would look like they were involved and would also put the united states as a supporter of wagner with all of the problems that go along with it, the

atrocities and misbehavior. if they opposed, then it would look like they were supporting putin. better all around just to say nothing. host: let's get back to questions from viewers. let's talk to steve from germantown, wisconsin on the republican line. caller: good morning c-span. very good conversation. the c-span host is very informed and asks good questions. yourtheir guest, very, very infd on russia. i would like to expand on the influences here. colonel, you have made it clear that the cia is not involved and the u.s. is trying to play it safe by not getting involved,

but with the george soros's, elon musks, russian oligarchs, there are behind the scenes geopolitical influences. i would like for you to comment on that and what the goals of the same people might be. guest: i think we have to be careful about the influence that many of these oligarchs both russian and u.s. have. musk has been very supportive of ukraine. he made his constellations available to ukraine. that has been vital to ukrainian communications. to the extent we can see must involve to you has been a helpful influence. these players have political views. to my knowledge none of them

have come out strongly to say whether we should stop the fighting and negotiate or whether we should fight to the bitter end as president biden has implied. muscat one point made comments along that line. host: let's go to our next color, richard -- next caller richard calling from cincinnati, ohio. caller: i like c-span. i like that you have a lot of diversity. on this issue of the war, you have almost all hawks on. you rarely have someone like

professor hirsch timer from the university of the chicago who tried to point out that this war started in 2015. some of you may know about the cuban missile crisis. kennedy was just trying to have space between nuclear powers. space gives you time to think and missiles are getting faster and faster. russia has been begging us to live up to our promise made 30 -some years ago not to push nato towards them. we have broken that promise about 10 times. when will c-span have the guts to show some diverse opinion?

get people from global research.ca on your show. we back to the illegal 2014 coup. we have a phone call from the american ambassador to a new tory is hot talking -- a notorious hock talking about who to put in power. we have way too many hawks in both parties. look at the mess in syria and libya that we did, my god. i would hope that the colonel and other people will want peace. show some diversity of thought of about this whole situation.

we love to think about in the united states we have all these opinions, when 99% of it is in one direction that doesn't g ive the other side much at all. host: on washington journal we bring as many different points of view from our guests and we ask our viewers to call in and tell us what they have to say. guest: it is true that washington tends to be hock it -- be hawkish. there is dissent on both the left and the right. the progressive right ha -- the

populist right wants to keep the u.s. out of conflicts. there is a bipartisan consensus to support ukraine. i consider myself a moderate h awk. i'm happy to talk about that. i think it is in the interest of the united states to support ukraine. we don't want to end up in a conflict directly with the russians. host: one group we have not talked about this morning is ukraine. what should ukraine be doing now that you have these signs of internal dissent within russia and in the midst of this counteroffensive they are doing against the russian troops. what are the troops in ukraine and the government of ukraine doing now?

guest: the ukrainians are very good at information operations. they are doing their best to create divisions in the russian military. that is difficult to do because putin controls the narrative in russia. ukrainians are pressing this counteroffensive. it has been anticipated for many months. i think it that is taking most of zelenskyy's time and effort. zelenskyy also spends a lot of time maintaining support from the outside. he just have a delegation from africa. months ago he made a tour through europe to secure more support there. . he has been to the united

states. host: earlier we said the white house has not said anything publicly about what is going on in russia, but president biden is talking to u.s. allies, according to a story from reuters. i want to read a couple paragraphs from that story. "joe biden spoke with leaders from france and the united kingdom saturday as the wegner group barrels towards moscow. the leaders affirmed their unwavering support for ukraine. biden was briefed about the situation in russia by his national security team on saturday morning, adding that the president will continue to be briefed throughout the day. a spokesman for olaf scholz said during the conversation, the

leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to support ukraine. rishi sunak's office made a similar commitment to ukraine. u.s. secretary of state antony blinken has also spoken to counterparts from g-7 nations. " what should the u.s. be talking about with its allies? will european countries be trying to take advantage of the situation? guest: what do you think is going on? many of these european countries have excellent intelligence services and may have some information and perspectives that the united states does not. i suspect the other part of it

is to maintain communications in case something happened in russia, these countries want to be ready for that unlikely but possible outcome. host: let's go back to our phone lines. let's start with alice calling from connecticut. caller: thank you very much for your program. i have a slot divergent from what we have said. looking at the characters and the locations of various armies, lukashenko has agreed to take in the head of the wegner group. he takes his army into belarus.

he is vulnerable to retribution given the character of putin. maybe it still make some available in case he may be a future use, his wegner group joining him in belarus. you have the ukrainians focusing on the thrust against the southern part of the russian occupation. watch out for belarus. if they were to attack from the north while the ukrainians were in the south and east, it might be all over. that is my thought. i would like to hear what your opinion is. guest: there has been a lot of speculation about that kind of movement. i think it is extremely likely. the reason is twofold.

first, belarus has been careful about keeping some distance from the russians. they have not send any of their forces to participate in the war. they did not do that during a time when that may have been decisive in the early days when the russians were closing in on kiev. the belarusian military is very weak. the total size is maybe 40,000. the army is not well trained. it is not well prepared. it is mostly conscripts. they would be betting the future of the regime on an invasion, and they are not willing to do that. they have been willing to let the russians use their territory for military purposes and for training, and here in this situation they're willing to

help the russians out in a crisis situation and bring pig goshen -- bring prigozhin in and give him sanctuary. host: let's talk to carl calling from beltsville, illinois on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. colonel i had, a question about the use of other military forces -- of paramilitary forces. the u.s. military relies on contracts with blackwater. there difficult to control, and they can get out ahead of what you are trying to do. what is the future for the u.s. military after this wegner episode?

guest: in afghanistan the u.s. military used a lot of contractors, most were in logistics and administration. the number of contractors who were armed and went outside the wire were very small. that included what were called personal security detachments by companies like blackwater. that is where you had almost all of the incidents that occurred, the abuses. the u.s. clamped down on contractors. there were many scandals in the 2000s. there were a whole series of reforms to bring them under control. they have greater oversight over these contractors. since then we have not heard any stories about abuses with contractorsm, and i think that as a result of exerting much tighter control over them,

something they would have been well advised to do. there is a major difference between the u.s. use of contractors and what russia has been doing with wegner. it is an army. u.acrs were mostly logistics. few had weapons, and even those that had weapons had light weapons designed to protect certain high-value officials. host: let's talk to charles who is calling from edison, georgia on the democratic line. caller: hi. i'm a john locke array fan. lukashenko is not brilliant. putin and prigozhin go way back.

most talk is about how putin will illuminate prigozhin, but is there a chance that putin wants to install prigozhin in belarus? is it an idea that pu came up -- that putin came up with after 24 hours? guest: the answer to that has to be no for 2 reasons. lukashenko is a very close ally of putin. he has done everything putin has asked of them.

this clearly was not staged. it unfolded in real time. there were tremendous tensions. the russians were clearly worried. they were putting up the fences around moscow. the fact that prigozhin ended up in belarus was not unforeseen at the beginning of this incident. host: let's talk to robert calling from cleveland, ohio. caller: hi. i was wondering why there is no mention pretty much in the western media of the luensk and donetsk people's republic. they call it russian aggression but there are just went into support these areas' separation

from ukraine. guest: they were russian speakers and had close ties to russia. many ukrainians have close ties to russia, or family ties, cultural ties. in 2014 the russians occupied crimea, which is almost entirely russian, but also moved into the eastern part of ukraine and created these 2 entities. conflict was severe for a year, and then it died down. it will be difficult to resolve because this part, these two provinces are part of ukraine. they always have been.

people have some affinity to russia, and when we get to a final piece of negotiation, these provinces will stay in ukraine, but will get some autonomy to recognize their special interests. host: one of our social media followers continues to think that this was a manufactured crisis, but comes at it from a different angle. "this manufactured crisis in russia was made for putin. he desperately needs a win at home. him putting down this so-called rebellion is that." what do you think? guest: i find that hard to believe on 2 levels. most of the commentary says that this begins putin because it

shows he -- this weakens who didn't because it shows -- this weakens putin because it shows he could not control wagner. it is pretty much what it looks like. what was prigozhin hoping to accomplish? was he hoping to have a popular uprising, may be a coup d'etat? or was he looking at something more limited to try to squeeze ncessions for his organization out of the russian government? host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to stan calling from scottsboro, alabama. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, stan. caller: good morning.

the discussion you are having about that being a staged or set up thing, i think it is all staged. i think it happened -- i have another question. what is donald trump's reaction to all of this? host: do we know, mark? guest: i was having a hard time with that first question, but i have not heard that trump has made a statement about this. he may make statements about everything. could you repeat the first question? host: the first part was about whether this was really a staged insurrection in russia or not or was this just something that happened organically? guest: as i have mentioned this

happened organically. it has been building for a long time, the tensions between wagner and prigozhin and the department of defense have in growing sharp. this is the outcome of a process that has been going on for several months. in that regard it is not surprising. it was not manufactured. host: was the united states surprised by this march towards moscow? was this something u.s. intelligence agencies knew about in advance, or was this something they found out by watching television like the rest of us? guest: it is unclear. certainly, the u.s. government has not put out any statements about this ahead of time. i think that the intelligence reports were saying something like " tensions are increasing.

there is the possibility of tensions between wagner and russian intelligence forces. low-level incidents of violence." they probably said there was a chance of a rebellion, but that is probably as far as they went. host: let's talk to keith calling from madison, wisconsin. caller: good morning. excellent guest. i would take issue with something he said earlier. he said it is not going to impact the ukrainian war. i don't see how he could reach that conclusion. i don't know if he said it would have in the immediate future or maybe later, but he said that because the bag group was not on the front lines -- the wagner

group was not on the front lines, it would not be effective immediately. it will demoralize the regular army of the russians. if i am a russian enlisted in the russian army, and i know 45,000 troops just decided they were not going to fight anymore, i don't think i would be the last soldier fighting against ukraine. i one to ask him if he knows anything about anybody could replace putin on the progressive end? or are they all fascist -- all

right-wing fascists? guest: this is part of the tension between wagner and prigozhin. fechner had taken tremendous casualties -- wagner had taken tremendous casualties. they were exhausted. prigozhin announced he was taking his troops out. that is why i say there is not an effect on the war itself because wagner was already back in its training camps. i don't think the russian troops will be affected here. first, i'm not sure how much affection they had for wagner.

putin controls information in russia. it will have been filtered and spun by the russian propaganda ministry. you have to remind me about your last question there. host: you hit most of his points there. before we run out of time, i want to ask you is this over? what should americans be looking at over the next few days, few weeks in russia and ukraine? guest: in terms of this incident, there are a couple of things to watch. does prigozhin go to belarus and go quiet? does he sees his agitation against the putin regime and the ministry of defense? does wagner go back to their training camps? do they go back to their training camps and continue

their activities there? then what? does wagner retrain, revitalize, and go back to the front lines? does it revert to its earlier activities, which were much lower level auxiliary to russian activities overseas. the final thing is who wants wagner? prigozhin has been the face of wagner and started the company, but below him there are a number of subordinate commanders, people with a lot of military experience. that is why wagner has the military reputation that it does. it is possible one of these will step up as the head.

we will see whether the agreement plays out, and then what wagner's future role is. host: let's talk to pat who is calling from milwaukee, wisconsin on the independent line. caller: i really don't think that this was so much of a rebellion, and more to send a message to the russian ministry of defense that this guy can get 200 miles outside of moscow. to me it does not make sense that if this was truly a rebellion orrmed insurrection, why would you start an armed insurrection against your main arms supplier? do you think and will make a change in nist of defense as who is leading the

war? i don't see this conflict ending anytime soon. i think they will keep going on. guest: will put and make changes in the ministry of defense? -- will putin make changes in the ministry of defense? he might. you'll wait. he doesn't -- he will wait. he doesn't want to make it look like he changed as a result of the wagner group. on your second part about why they do this, initially i believed this was a protest, a demonstration to get the support he had been demanding for many months. as he got close to the moscow, i

thought maybe he was hoping to instigate a popular insurrection, gets apart from military, from the population, split the leadership. .i think the answer to that will come out eventually. may be prigozhin will write his memoir! both are possible. fortunately for the russians and putin, this has no de-escalated. host: we would like to thank colonel mark cancian who is the senior advisor at the center for strategic and national studies. thank you for walking us through what is going on in russia, ukraine, and with the wagner group. coming up next, a ground up and analysis of the week's top

political stories from the hunter biden investigation to campaign 2024. first up is cheryl chumley and later paul waldman will be here. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> live sunday on in-depth, francis fukuyama returns to take calls about politics, international affairs, liberalism, and other affairs. he has published several books since his 2006 appearance, including "identity." join us with your calls, facebook comments, inc. wheat --

comments, and tweets. >> if you are enjoying than sign up for our newsletter using the qr -- enjoying book tv, than sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on your screen. book tv every sunday on c-span2. television for serious readers. ♪ >> c-span campaign 2024 coverage year front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with meet and greet, speeches and events. watch on c-span now or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not

just look like this. it looks like this where americans can see democracy out work, where citizens are truly informed, our 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, because the opinion that matters the most is your round. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. we are back host: -- host: we are back and we are joined by cheryl chumley who is here to talk about campaign 2024. thank you for being here. guest: it is great to be with you. host: let's jump into the political news.

the faith and freedom coalition is meeting here in washington dc this previous weekend. did any of the presidential candidates of their impress you with anything they said? guest: i attended, not the whole conference but i was a speaker there. i was part of a panel discussion on faith and the media, where i was asked -- one of the questions i was asked is what does the media not get about donald trump? as far as the republican candidates and those who are seeking the nomination for president in 2024 for the republican party, there is a great slate of candidatess out there, but it is going to come down to trump versus desantis, i think. host: if it comes down to former president trump versus former governor ron desantis, what do you think will make up republicans' minds on what

person to go with? guest: i don't think you can dismiss the support that donald trump still has. regardless of the indictment, regardless of the messaging that comes from most of them media , democrat party, and those within his own party criticizing him and saying he should not run because he will destroy republicans' chances for taking the white house in 2024, republicans who have supported trump for years now do not buy into that line. if it came down to trump versus desantis, trump still takes the lead on that. host: we look at recent polling, we see that former president trump is by far and away ahead of everyone else with former president trump at 52% for the gop presidential nomination, ron

desantis at 21%, and everyone else in the single digits. right now it is a two man race. what does ron desantis need to do to make this actually competitive? guest: i'm not so sure that ron desantis is doing anything wrong. most conservatives agree he is a great candidate. there are some issues with him, as with any candidate there are issues. the draw trump still is he continues to fight for the american principles that drove him into the white house in the first place. he is proven as a candidate. then it comes down to the logical choice. four more years of trump, desantis is a young man, 8 more years of ron desantis. host: what have we learned new

about the gop presidential campaigners this weekend? did anyone break new ground this weekend in d.c.? guest: i don't think so. i think there is a good slate of candidatess. nikki haley is good. mike pence is great, of course. vivek is great. he is coming on strong. there is a role for him if not in the cabinet -- chris christie, i don't know why he is in the race other than to draw attention to himself and elevate himself, because he does not seem to offer that much. if you want have atag -- want to have a take away, wide chris christie? your time has passed.

the republican party does not want you right now as far as running for president. host: i want to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. that means republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. democrats, you can call (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. cheryl president trumpp's former running mate, mike pence used his time at the convention this weekend to call on republican candidates to support

a 15 week federal abortion ban. i want to read a couple of paragraphs from the associated press news story. here is the ap story. " former vice president mike pence used a meeting of conservatives to urge his rival for the gop presidential nomination to support a 15 week federal abortion ban at minimum. coming a day before the anniversary of the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade, pence issued the challenge to trump. 'we must not relent until we restore the sanctity of life to the center of american law in every state in this country,'hence said. -- country,' pence said."

do you think other gop presidential candidates will take tents up on his challenge and what does this mean -- take pence up on his challenge and what does this mean for the presidential race? guest: i'm not privy to their behind the scenes discussions. it goes through congress, it passes the legislative road and it is passed into law by the president. that represents a proper federal ban on abortion after a certain period of time. that is different from what took place in the 1970's with roe v. wade where the court took abortion out of the hands of the people in determined on its own that it should be lawful. i'm in favor of abortion being a

state's right in in favor of congress taking up the matter. if it passes, i'm for it. ass will do -- as for what presidential candidates will do, i hope abortion is not the only issue candidates take up. there are other issues facing urination. i don't want it to become a one issue campaign. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with skip who is calling from washington dc on the independent line. caller: hello. as an independent from washington dc, i was totally dismayed with january 6, and would never want donald trump to

be president again. there are other good candidates. donald trump's record as far as 202 supporting2 candidates that mostly lost in the general election and also in 2018 losing the house and of course in 2028 believe it or not he lost that election too against joe biden. any other republican candidate would have an excellent chance of beating joe biden, so why stick with trump? guest: first off, if you are an independent in d.c., chances are you are pretty left. it is something like 92% in d.c. vote for democratic candidates all the time. people have a lot of reasons for voting for trump.

they see how he has been wrongly charged with allegations that in the end have been proven false. they see what he has done for israel. they see what he has done as far as fighting the globalist takeover of american principles. they see what he has done for supporting parental rights over government and they see what he has done for the economy, so there are very many successes he has to point to. as jesse pointed out, the polls favor him. i cannot speak for all trump supporters, but he brings a lot to the table. host: let's talk to cj, who is calling from california on the democratic line. cj, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say the orange

pustule pussy grabber racist russian mob -- host: let's go to benny calling from louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is about president trump. he incited an insurrection. i don't understand how anyone can trust if he is in office again he will be allowed to be our president and not expect the same thing to happen again once he is out of office are once he is done with his term. can anyone explain that to me? thank you. guest: i don't agree with you that donald trump started the insurrection. i draw your attention to the

comments he made about assembling peacefully, and peacefully going to the capital and so forth. i would also bring forth the hypocrisy of those who criticize donald trump and accuse him of starting an insurrection on january 6 while turning a blind eye to the insurrections that have gone on in this country under the eye of democrats who do nothing. in portland citizens armed themselves and blockaded sections of the city off from lawful citizens accessing their own homes and businesses. look at all the black lives matter uprisings. the crazy violence that was seen under democrat watch, even as democrats called for such

uprisings. maxine waters talked about taking it to the streets and so forth. chuck schumer talking about unleashing the winds, the whirlwinds against supreme court justices. there are many instances of the actual violence taking place in the street under the democrats' watchful eye all in the name of advancing leftist ideals. meanwhile, you have donald trump calling for peaceful protest at the capitol and then that being twisted into a call for an insurrection. the skills of balance seemed tipped in favor of bias for democrats against donald trump. host: let's talk to bob who is calling on the republican line. caller: good morning. i can tell you what, republicans

are not for murdering babies. we are not for mutilating little boys. the democrats are the party of people, and i mean people -- party of evil, and i mean evil. guest: i have called out the democrats in my many columns for the washington times for advancing people agendas as well -- advancing evil agendas as well. in my state of virginia there was a legislative push under the previous democrat administration here in richmond, there was a push to allow for the killing of babies after birth. that is an abortion that is after birth. i don't know how you can call

that anything but people. i have to say in principle i agree with the caller. host: last night, vice president kamala harris delivered remarks from charlotte, north carolina on the anniversary of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade. i want to play you some of her comments and get you to respond, cheryl. [video clip] >> i started my career as a prosecutor intent on protecting women and children who were the survivors of violence. it is a moral that so-called leaders would not understand and have some compassion for what those exceptions should be. some of the laws are banning at or before six weeks the right to have and access an abortion.

what most of us here know is that many women do not even know they are pregnant at weeks 0 -- at 6 weeks which tells us that most of these politicians don't even know how a woman's body works. they don't get it! they don't get it. [applause] >> next week, overruling the will of the people, north carolina will be the latest state with an extreme ban, in spite of the best efforts of governor roy cooper. host: react there to what the vice president said. guest: states rights -- that is how it works. when abortion was put in the hands of the states, states, which are closer to the people than the fed, have the right to decide.

i what to bring up a topic that is no longer discussed when it comes to abortion. i don't like how vice president harris, trying to draw the abortion debate, is going down the path that abortions are all about women who have been physically assaulted, and what about those women who have been raped and so forth? schmid that the focus of discussion. that is a small percentage of abortions that go forth. set that aside for a minute. how about the idea that if women do not want to lose their right to have abortion, then they don't get pregnant in the first place? by and large you have an option to not engage in sex. that has disappeared from the conversation. we should start focusing on that more. host: let's go to our phone lines.

let's start with eva who is calling from columbus, georgia. good morning. are you there, eva? eva, one more time, are you there? caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: has anyone seen an article that has donald trump and his mother standing together, and she says that he has no social skills, he is an idiot, and if he ever got into politics it would be a disaster. his own mother has said that. has anybody seen that article? guest: i haven't. i can't really comment on it. host: let's go to catherine who is calling from florida on the

independent line. good morning. caller: i was going to call and comment on how third parties are never brought up. it is always an either or discussion. i am watching our'guests mouth moot -- our guest's mouth move. my television is completely down. ok, anyhow i always hear about how it is democrat or republican for or against trump, and i never hear anybody talking about other options. people talk about how it is a wasted vote if you do not vote democrat or republican. if people would quit taking that mindset, if you are republican, and you don't like the

republican, you do not have to vote for the democrat, and vice versa. if more people would research and find a candidate overall that meets their needs and vote for them, they would be surprised. host: cheryl, your idea about third parties? guest: the reality -- it is the reality of the system in america. it has come down between the well-funded democrats versus the well-funded republicans. there are third-party candidates who do not get the media attention, and they do not get the funding of course. it feeds into the cycle that they do not get the media attention. you can make the case that voting for third party as vote for principal, or you can make the case that voting for third-party is a wasted vote. we have become a two-party nation. host: let's jump into other

political news. earlier this week the house voted to send articles of impeachment against president to committee, a way to avoid an embarrassing split if voting had happened. do republicans need to build a more concrete impeachment case against the president? guest: i don't know how much more information information -- more information you need to advance that argument. if you look at his border control, you could make your case that he is derelict in his duty as a president by opening up his nation to security threats. encounters at the border have skyrocketed under this president. they have gone from 66,000 in

2020 to upwards of 200000. and that is what is known. it is a national security risk. we should look at it as a nation, interested in securing our borders and our national security and look at the sheer numbers of people who have crossed the border under president biden and disappeared into parts unknown. we don't know where they are. meanwhile, there is the tax dollar burden that is being placed on americans across the nation to provide for some of these illegals we know about who come in and use our medical system and other programs and so forth. i don't know if calling for impeachment right now against president biden is pragmatic or based on principle. there are arguments on both

sides. if you look solely at the border issue, there is cause to bring those impeachment resolutions forward. host: do you think it would be helpful for republicans politically or would it be harmful to republicans politically? guest: that is a good question. we just went through impeachment, impeachment, impeachment under donald trump, and the nation is weary of impeachment, but then there is the hypocrisy factor. you impeach donald trump over charges that are largely bogus, and now there there is a president that has done impeachable offenses in the eyes of many that are worthy of bringing forward. what do you do politically speaking? that is up to the members of congress to decide.

when i weigh in, i could go either way to be honest. host: let's talk to joanne calling from nevada on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the way the opinions come out -- the opinion pieces come out. i hear about how unelectable some of the candidates trump backed. h fact our governore, and we voted him in. there was something wrong with the elections because no republic in under him got put into office, but this republican governor and the bills he is vetoing has been wonderful.

it is my priorities. i wonder down to the county level how much i will be charged for all of the programs that are now being put in place by the biden administration. i am a senior. i pay my taxes. i paid for 2023 to. why should -- 2023 to the irs already. why should my taxes go to build new schools and give money to people coming here and breaking the laws. if i broke the law,. i would go to jail how electable was john mccain?

i still have my c-span bag. theu -- they took moy vote and lost it. i still have my c-span bag. i keep providing for my vote. now wait -- i keep fighting for my vote. now we have this administration. all people want is to live happily. guest: there is a lot there to respond to. what popped into my head was when she talked about paying her local taxes. just ask for the hunter biden deal! there is a two-tiered system of justice in america right now. there is chaos in this administration. it is not just the white house. if you look past years at how

investigators went after donald trump for flimsy accusations and indicted him in the court of public opinion and in the media, and you look at what is going forth under hunter biden right now, and how it has all defaulted to he is innocent and charges that would put the average american behind bars for 10 years at such as illegal possession of a gun and tax evasion 12 months for each charge, certain people like hunter biden get a special treatment in the court of law. her frustration is being felt not just in elderly communities that have seen a great shift in our nation, but across independents all across america.

host:host: you jumped ahead of me to my questions about hunter biden. what did you think about the justice department's handling of the hunter biden case, and one of their questions did their deal with the bidens' son bring up with you about the justice department? guest: there is a lot going on there. the real take away is the difference in how people are treated by the justice if you look at what the u.s. attorney ultimately brought forward for charges against hunter biden, it is two misdemeanors for tax evasion and false statements on taxes as well as the booting of the felony charge for gun possession, for illegal gun possession. those charges for the average american would bring 12 months for each of the tax issues along with 10 years for the gun

charge, and there are many americans in jail right now for that same gun felony charge, and so it's very unfair, a very unfair system. if you just look at how hunter biden is going about his life and i know he faces a court date in july, but it's almost as if nothing to see here, go home, folks, meanwhile you look at donald trump with the 37 indictments and we already have people saying he should be in jail. he should not run for president because no matter how these indictments come out, he is unfit for office. so i think americans should take a clear look at what is taking place with hunter biden and understand that there are definitely special privileges depending on who your family name is and which party you vote. host: is there an equivalence between comparing a former president and a son of the

president? guest: i suppose you could make the case that it's completely different, but i don't buy that. justice is supposed to be blind in america, right? you are supposed -- no matter who it is, it's supposed to be equally applied. we know that that's wishful thinking for the most part. we know that gets violated every day across the land in america's justice system but that doesn't mean that that's not the standard that we should seek, that we should even try and demand. and if you look at what has taken place with hunter, the i.r.s. back in 2018 started the investigation of him. we are not talking just a few dollars on his tax forms that he forgot. he forgot a couple dollars here or there. we are talking about between 201 and 2018, there was the amount of $100,000 each year that he didn't declare, that he didn't declare -- didn't pay taxes.

that was the amount of taxes that he skipped out on paying. and we have the i.r.s. in 2018 asking to charge hunter biden with felony tax evasion and felony tax -- making false statements. they were shut down. they were told no. so now here we have hunter biden skating, in essence getting a wrist slap for the same charges. i think the democrats -- joe biden supporters in the media will make the case it's apples and oranges, very different. but look, the issue here is justice and blind justice. that's what all americans regardless of your political party need to focus on. host: let's go back to our phone lines. let's start with carolyn calling from baltimore, maryland, on the democratic line. carolyn, good morning. caller: hi, good morning.

thank you to c-span. i am calling first of all, there has always been a two tiered system for african-americans always, and always will be in the future. i am calling for your comment that you made on the black lives matter. 61-year-old black woman, i walked in the protest in some of them. there were thousands of protests that were peaceful. we were protesting for a message. you have a megaphone and you are calling out black lives matter like it's a negative thing and you are focusing on the ones that were violent. we don't agree with the ones that were violent either. why are you using your megaphone to do more -- demoralize the black lives matter movement, to negate the message that we were trying to say and to just make it negative when it really wasn't? we were trying to get attention and that's the point. you have a megaphone. why don't you use it for something positive in that level? that's my response.

thank you. caller: i don't agree with the black lives matter message so as an opinion writer at the washington times i opine on that and i advance my reasons why i don't agree with the black lives matter message. i do not believe that there is systemic foundational inherent racism in this country. i don't believe that across the board in the justice system that blacks are always wrongly accused, wrongly prosecuted no matter what, whenever a black person goes to jail then it's because of a wrongful prosecution. i do believe that there are instances of racism and bias that need to be addressed and i think we have in place the systems in the court to address those individual instances. but by and large, i think the black lives matter message of advancing some sort of narrative that america, because there was

slavery in america and because founding fathers were white men, some of whom had slaves, then that means our entire constitution, our entire democratic republic, our entire governing structure needs to be completely torn down and built up with something new, something more marxist in nature and i disagree with black lives matter narrative on that. host: let's go to aknee calling from -- anita calling from st. louis, on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes, i would like to know if ms. chumley has ever looked into the texas eminent domain laws as it relates to the wall in texas. and if she is familiar with the

rio bravo town where property was given back that was gotten under eminent domain and then my second question is, does she think that trump should have ever given us knowledge of his taxes or should have placed his business in a true blind trust as opposed to getting $50 million -- over $150 million in money from our government funds because of how he left people from the government agencies stay at his hotels, including having tents stay at a hotel in scotland when he was supposed to be at a meeting in england and i really do not understand how she can in any way whatsoever come up with any rationalization for

why trump should be president again. host: go ahead and respond, cheryl. guest: for the texas eminent domain, no. for the rabbit hole matter she just described, that's way too -- specific. i would have to research that myself before weighing in with an opinion. just so you know the unstated question about why i would support trump, there are many reasons to continue to support trump, mostly my view right now of trump is that he is the excellent candidate to fight the globalist takeover of america, the stripping of american sovereignty and handing of individual rights and constitutional liberties in the hands of the global bureaucrats. he is correct on religious liberties and when it comes to leadership i think he has proven, he has a record of fighting interests that go

against and counter american principles. host: cheryl, are you declaring your support for former president trump in the g.o.p. primary now? guest: yeah, i did months ago. host: perfect. i just wanted to be clear. let's go to jeffery calling from temple hills, maryland, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i was listening to your guest's comments and while i agree with some of what she said about the prison system dealing with black americans, i do agree some of that, but i think black lives matter started when they recognized that a disproportionate amount of black people were being killed by police unnecessarily. i know movements take on different layers and they begin to morph into things that

perhaps they weren't supposed to be at the beginning, but i think the origin had a very legitimate case. now, i am not -- i don't believe that black motorists or black defendants are always mistreated, but there was a trend happening and nobody understood why. that's one issue. but secondly, donald trump did bring some economic prosperity to the country. a lot of people benefited. but i don't think there has been another candidate in american history that has done some of the things that he has done and still garnered support, which raises a lot of questions, and i am not sure why there is still so much support -- actually i understand why but i don't have time to talk about it, but why so much support for somebody who

has really taken our system and twisted it upside down. i don't know if that's worth some of the other things that he has done but i will take your response and you have a great day. guest: he has disrupted the system. he was the great disrupter in chief. i would caution, though, against looking over the years of coverage of donald trump and the allegations that are furthered through the press by the democrat party and his haters in the republican party and turning those allegations that then make the media cycle and one media cycle after another they're picked up and repeated and advanced with different pundits weighing in on them and they create a new media cycle. i would caution people against taking those discussions, allegations, accusations and even investigations and drawing the conclusion that that means donald trump did something is because so many times he has

been accused, accused, for instance russia collusion that went on for years, and turns out in the end whoops, he didn't actually do anything. so there is a difference between accusation and guilt. host: we going to run out of time but i wanted to get your opinion on former special counsel john durham testifying in front of congress this week. what did you make of his appearance on capitol hill? guest: he made some serious remarks about how the investigation into trump has been flawed from the beginning. he called it seriously flawed. he accused the investigators, the f.b.i. or found actually, didn't just make an accusation but found confirmation bias and he found that the steel report that was used in the very beginning, the report that was used to go to the court and get approval to spy on a trump aide,

a trump campaign aide, had zero evidence to show that trump was actually or trump people were actually colluding with russia at the time. it was built on a web of lies and i think john durham did a good job laying out his findings. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to robert calling from north carolina on the independent line. robert, good morning. robert, are you there? caller: yes. hello? ok. i would like to ask this young lady about donald trump having to pay $25 million for his fraud, his university of trump, before he even could run. he also had to do a lot of other things. we were aware of donald trump before he was elected. we didn't find out about him

being a grifter, a chi, a criminal, a liar, everything that's wrong with this country, donald trump represents it. it's shameful that there are so many american citizens that are taking this man's side. what about the -- he was going to play golf because he didn't have time -- he spent $155 million playing golf while he was president. he has lied. his kids grifted. it's just -- it's too much. you've got to -- you are too intelligent to play -- he is kidding you. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time. guest: i guess he won't vote for trump. that's all i can say. host: we would like to thank washington times opinion editor cheryl chumley for withing with us -- being with us this morning and talking about the political news of the day. thank you for being here. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, we are going to continue talking about

political news of the day and campaign 2024. we will hear from the other side of the political spectrum with "washington post" opinion writer paul waldman, who will be with us in just a few minutes. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors on the afterwards podcast. and hear wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors who are making things happen. a weekly hour long conversation that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and bestsellers lists.

fine all -- find all of our podcasts by downloading the free app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website. >> watch video onle any time at c-span.org. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. >> c-span's online store, browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.

>> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. catch washington today for a fast paced report for stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and now we are joined by "washington post" opinion writer paul waldman, who is here just like our previous guest to talk about campaign 2024, the house republican majority and the political news of the day. paul, thank you for being here. guest: my pleasure, thanks. host: like i asked cheryl early yes -- earlier, a bus of republican candidates were here

earlier. what did you hear this weekend that was news to you? guest: i don't know how much there is that's really new, but it does demonstrate i think the quandary that all presidential candidates really have, but in many ways it's more acute for the presidential candidates that are running on the republican side this year. there is an old cliche how the candidate has to run to the edge during the primary and run back to the center during the general election. that was a lot easier when everybody wasn't watching everything that happened in the primaries and you could send subtle messages that most people wouldn't pick up. in today' world that is not really possible. one of the things that's happening right now in the republican party is that this is really in many ways their most important constituency, and they have a set of demands that are in many ways alienating to the independent voters and broader electorate that republicans need. so there is this competition among republican candidates for who can be the most

anti-abortion? who can make the pledges that will be the most sweeping to limit it in the most ways as is now happening at the state level. as a moment when every poll shows that the majority of the public oppose the overturning of roe v. wade and this is something that really energized democratic voters in the 2022 election and was more responsible than anything else for democrats forestalling what could have been a very bad midterm and so you have these kinds of events where all the republicans have to come out and prove to this constituency that they're the ones who are going to be the most reliable and everything that they say in a context like that is probably going to show up in a democratic ad come the fall of 2024. there is also -- the other interesting thing going on, we used to think that it was important for a republican to be someone like mike pence who could show them that he is

personally pious, that he has been part of this world for his whole career, that he knows them, speaks their language, understands them, feels their issues deep in his bones. donald trump showed that that wasn't really necessary. he would make these expressions of piety but nobody believed them. nobody thinks the bible is his favorite book. but it turned out that the evangelicals who make up the heart of the republican party, that wasn't as important to them. they wanted somebody who shared their enemies and would be a warrior for them against the people that they hate and the forces in american life that are so distressing to them, and they decided that he was that person. in many ways it worked out quite well for them. they got the wroafer turning -- overturning of roe v. wade and what it also turned out was that precisely because he didn't really care all that much personally about these issues, he would kind of outsource

everything that had to do with those things to people like leonard leo who is the operative who has really made his life's work to turn the courts to the right. it turned out that trump didn't really care in a day to day way about the court. as far as the evangelicals it worked out great. so in an ironic way it was trump's almost indifference to those kinds of issues that turned out to work really well for them. so now they come back to 2024, and you again have candidates like pence who want to say -- to tell their own personal faith story and appeal to those people in the same kind of way that candidates used to but it may not be that they really care all that much. they may be looking at the model of trump and saying that's the kind of thing we want again. so you can tell me about your

faith journey and that's great, but they want something else. host: right now if we look at the polls for the 2024 g.o.p. presidential nomination, forminger president trump is at 52%. the only person who is anywhere close is florida governor ron desantis at 21%. everyone else is in the single digits. is president trump already the 202414g.o.p. nominee? guest: maybe not. there are always a lot of ups and downs in any campaign. previously contested republican primaries, there were five or six people who were in the lead at any one point. but obviously he is a unique figure and i think we have seen with his recent indictments just what a quandary his opponents are in. ordinarily if somebody you are running against in an election gets indicted, that's a pretty good day for you. but it was a bad day for all of those republican candidates because they didn't know what to

say. they found themselves defending him because they're so afraid of his supporters and they want those supporters to become their supporters at some point down the road. so there is a lot of evidence that he may be guilty and they couldn't criticize him for it, or if they did, except for chris christie, they're being full throated in their criticism. other candidates are dancing around it, making their own pledges to use the justice department to go after their enemies which ising he -- which is something he says he wants to do. so it put them in an awkward position. none of them kate out looking particularly good. i think that was evidence of what an extraordinary mountain they have to climb. if we think back to 2016, over the course of that campaign again and again people said this is the thing that is going to really do him in, and finally

cause the majority of republican primary voters to turn against him but it never happened. and it certainly looks at this point like it's playing out in the same way. you have a group of candidates who in some ways it's a weak field but in other ways there are people who are perfectly legitimate candidates in there who have records that governors and senators and things like that and they just can't seem to make any headway because the loyalty to him is so strong within the party. host: in a recent column, you talked about electability and said pretty much anybody else in the g.o.p. race can claim electability, more electability than president trump, but that doesn't seem to matter. does it matter? guest: sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn't. if we think back to 2020 and the democratic primary, nobody in the democratic primary was all that excited about joe biden. there were other candidates who were more interesting, newer,

fresher, maybe had people who really were passionate about them, bernie sanders or elizabeth warren but the party collectively came together once the voting started and said you know what, biden is the guy who we think will be the least offensive to the broader general electorate and turns out they were right. there have been cases in the past where a primary electorate -- democrats thought john kerry would be elected. that didn't turn out to be true. it's a strange kind of thing for a voter to consider because you are saying not who do i like but who do i think somebody else is going to like? so 2020 was an unusual case in that the democrats picked the guy who they thought other people would like and it turned out that it worked out well for them. but now there's copious evidence that donald trump is in fact the worst candidate for them. his approval ratings are low. you can argue that despite winning the presidency in 2016 without a majority of the

popular vote, he then had a disastrous election for republicans in 2018, disastrous election in 2020 and another disaster in 2022 all of the three elections he was in many ways the main attraction, the biggest issue. and so it would be reasonable for a republican to say this guy is the one who will cause us the most problems. he will motivate the other side to get out. he will turn off people in the middle and you have a collection of other republicans who to varying degrees might have their own challenges but almost all of them look like your ordinary republican politician who could capitalize on joe biden's weaknesses and it just doesn't seem that there is a big taste in the republican party for a majority of those voters to say we will try to find someone who is palatable for the electorate and not the guy who makes our hearts go aflutter. host: let me take a break to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation.

we will open up our regular lines. that means that republicans, you can call in at 202-748-8001. democrats, your line is 202-748-8000. independents, you can call 202-748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at 202-748-8003. and we are always reading on social media on twitter and on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. paul, you have written before that -- in one of your columns that the republican majority in the house is wasting their majority. why would you say that? guest: when you get control of one house of congress and the other party has the white house and the other house, you can't pass legislation, you can't change the laws to your liking so you basically have to use that majority in any way you can to make a case for you and your party so maybe in the next

election the electorate will say those are the guys we want in charge. and the problem that the republican party in the house has now is that they're not being driven by any apparent strategy to make a case for the g.o.p. their efforts to have oversight of the administration, which is an important part of congress' job, they're not all that serious. if you look at the oversight committee, which is run by congressman james comber, who is on that committee? it's not their brightest. it's taylor greenee and paul gosar. they're obsessed with hunter biden and his rather sad past. they -- if you look at all the impeachment resolutions, people may not realize there are four different impeachment resolutions that have been filed to impeach president biden. there are four separate impeachment resolutions to impeach the secretary of homeland security.

there is an impeachment resolution against vice president harris. there is one against the f.b.i. director and the attorney general. they're thinking more about who they want to impeach and what kind of a case they want to make about what republicans really stand for. so when a party is in that position, they can pass messaging bills but what exactly is the message that they want to send right now or that they are sending? it's not we are a responsible governing party that has an agenda that might improve your life if you vote for us next year. it's really all about kind of feeding not just their base but the whole system on the right, most of the most prominent people in the house on the republican side are seengsly fox news personalities who have a side dwig as members of -- gig as members of congress. they seem like they're more interested in providing fodder for the daily outrage cycle than they are in actually putting

together any kind of a case to the public for what they want to be. there are things going on that nobody notices. for every high profile hearing where somebody shouts at an administration official, there is a hearing of the subcommittee on dairy and livestock that nobody dairy and livestock no one pays attention to. the stuff that they really seem to be focusing their attention on his feeding that outrage and it does not do much to make a case for republican governing. host: house speaker kevin mccarthy pushed representative lauren boebert's impeachment push on president biden to committee. was that a good move by kevin mccarthy? would the impeachment vote help push their public agenda in the house? guest: i think that was the compromise he tried to arrive at to essentially shove it under the rug as much as he could.

he said he's in favor of some of these impeachment, but that's not going to be anything particularly worthwhile for them. but he felt like he had no choice. it shows the awkward position he is in. when nancy pelosi was in charge as speaker there was nothing that would come within a mile of the floor that she didn't improve -- approve of. she ruled with an iron hand and the entire caucus stuck together. kevin mccarthy is not able to do that. he has a very fractious caucus. the far right, represent by the freedom caucus has a lot of people, a lot of representatives and they are not interested at all in following some kind of a strategy to keep the party together. they have their own agenda, they are willing to force a government shutdown. they were angry he did not default on the debt.

republicans -- they are not going to change. that's the thing we've seen this evolution in the last three times republicans took over in the house 1994 when bill clinton was president, in 2010 and now after 2022. each time that side of the caucuses got more and more radical and less and less interested in governing. they are there not because they want to pass laws. they are there to cause trouble. mccarthy, the one thing he's done a good job at making everyone like him and feel like they've been heard by him. but it doesn't mean he can keep them together. they have this very radical caucus within their caucus that he still has not figured out how to keep the rains on. host: let's go to some viewers

calls and let's start with dorothy from dayton, ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the speaker who seems to be by all of his proclamations and expert -- an expert on trump voters. i would love to ask you did you do any research into the group called the walkaway group which has thousands of members that are democrats that walked away. have you done research on black conservatives and why they are trump voters? you make it sound like the only thing we voted on was abortion which is so not true. so i am very curious where you are getting all of this expertise from. before you answer i would also appreciate if you would just answer my question and not go

into a filibuster explanation. i have one more thing i would like to say to c-span and the rest of the media in general. all the time we are hearing about the 2024 election and whose personality, what happens if -- you know the freedom caucus is the devil lend look at desantis against trump. i hope to god we will not have to endure two years of that until the 2024 election. we would like to hear about what their policies are, what they are spending money on. we would like to hear about the issues, not talking head eggheads coming on explaining to us why we vote for trump. host: go ahead and respond.

guest: there are always going to be some number of people who cross party lines. there will be some people who are democrats or vote -- vote for the bubbly nominee and some of vote for the republican nominee. they are a very small group. they still matter a lot. you could have a tiny number of independence and in an election that's as close as all of our elections are in the last few years that's still good and matter. the caller is not wrong. abortion is not the only issue voters care about. but right now i would think we are all hard-pressed to see any sort of meaningful distinction on the issues between republican candidates. it's often a problem. they basically agree on things. if you wanted to find out what is the difference between donald

trump and ron desantis in nikki haley -- and nikki haley on any issue on the economy or abortion or health care, the distinctions will be tiny if you can find them at all. the candidates themselves, you can maybe go to their website and find a position paper or two. you might not. it's not as though they are going out on the campaign trail and giving long dispositions on their positions on health care. that's not what they are doing. their appeal is about personality saying i'm the one who can bring the party together or i'm the one who you should be excited about because i'm part of a new generation or i'm the one who hates the liberals more than anyone else. those are all personality things. they are trying to make you feel a certain way about them. if this caller wants to go through their positions and find

those distinctions and decide which one aligns more closely with what she believes that is terrific. there not many voters who do that. even the most informed people who care the most about this are still driven by emotion. to her point about talking about issues i absolutely agree and i write about issues on most every day and unfortunately she is right that most of the media discussion and especially once we get to the general election there'll be a lot more clear distinctions joe biden skinner want to secure abortion rights and the republican nominee is going to want to pass some kind of abortion ban. the republican nominee is can a want to move more -- going to want to move more. there'll will be a distinction in -- in people's lives and i

would hope there would be more coverage of those than we've seen in the past to give a guide to where their vote will make that difference. i'm not that optimistic that will do my best to contribute. host: if you're looking for more substance there's a lot of great newspapers and websites that will give you links to these candidates positions if you're interested in finding those. it's much harder where you only have a limited amount of time to get in-depth into these issues. except for c-span. check out our website for a lot of the information about the candidates coming up later on this year. i wanted to ask you quickly about john durham's report in front of congress this week. you called it a dud. guest: i thought that his testimony was kind of surprising in many ways.

republicans were invested in it. this is going to blow the lid off the whole thing. he was appointed by donald trump's attorney general. he had all the resources he wanted. a couple of years to do it. and what is he really come up with. he indicts three people. two of them were acquitted once accused of altering eat -- altering emailing parole. he did not show the whole thing was a big hoax and in his testimony he displayed a remarkable level of ignorance under questioning about some of the basic facts of the whole russia investigation. what's important to keep in mind that virtually the entire republican has taken is when the fbi was informed that a hostile foreign power was trying to influence the united states election with her publican party is saying is the fbi should've

said there's no need to investigate. which is incredible. you had the kremlin and we know now from what was documented in the mueller report all the different things they did to try and cause chaos and help donald trump get elected. that whole social media campaign they broke into democratic electronic systems and then release the information they had to embarrass hillary clinton. they did all kinds of things to try and influence the election. and yes there were extensive context at one point he was asked about the contacts, of the relationship between trumps campaign chairman and a russian intelligence operative. paul manafort was passing and confidential holding data which you presumably passed onto the kremlin. this is one of the most shocking

things that we learned about the russian effort and relationship between trump officials and the kremlin and durham acted as though he did not know anything about it. it was really quite extraordinary. a lot of republicans when the report came out, they tried to say the whole thing was a hoax and he just proved it but there was really a lot of disappointment. they wanted something more and is motivated as he was and as much time as he had in the millions he spent he could not come up with anything beyond -- one of his conclusions was when the fbi found out what the russians were doing should've opened up a preliminary investigation and not a full investigation. you can argue that in the one prosecutor i spoke to said this is something fbi agent disagree about all the time.

very common. but it's not exactly the same as saying the whole thing was a hoax and that's what they were hoping for and republicans did not get that. host: let's go back to the phone lines. jay from south carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: how are you doing. i've got a comment first. i've been watching for a little bit. i've got to say -- what i like about these conversations i don't necessarily have to agree with certain things but i love that you have thought provoking ideas or things that you brought to tables. i want to hitch my wagon off of what you were saying about voters doing things based on what they feel.

i like to be a more pragmatic and less temperamental or take a rational approach and be less emotional. i think you have more of a quantitative instead of a qualitative analysis you are more likely to come up with like i said the best decision to move forward. now let's talk about the republican, democratic part. what they are doing to basically galvanize the base, but it may not necessarily translate even though they will be nominated, to actually get into the white house. the republicans i believe are doing what they have to do to get the nomination, but it may

not necessarily mean they are going to get into the white house. mr. biden is a career politician. there's a lot of baggage that comes with that and also his age will be a determining factor. parents are in the twilight years of their life. at times, and i'm just talking about their specific situation because everyone's situation is different. over certain things they can use against mr. biden. they are around the same age and when you see certain things like that it may not be to the advantage. so as a voter who is trying to figure this out, i really want to ask the question what can we do to stop all of this polarization, all of this political posturing to basically line the pockets of whomever the

lobbyist they have behind them and how can we really get down to saying and doing things that can help poor impoverished and uneducated people in this nation to actually have this. guest: it's an important set of questions. to the question about emotion and rationality we all want to be as rational as possible when we make decisions. i think it's unavoidable that emotions come into it. it makes a big difference in people's lives. it gets to fundamental values of how we look at the world. you can't really separate the emotion out completely. some of the issues you brought up about things that biden's age. a lot of what we are dealing with is trying to predict the future. is it going to make a difference that this candidate has this particular set of personality

traits. personality does matter. if not the same as saying i've read his health care plan and there these things about it i like and then past that that will be really good for me in my community and other people. that's what i'm going to go with. when you look about biden's age which is a legitimate issue, what difference will it make between now and 2028, you just don't know. that's really hard to do. that prediction will be affected by how you feel about things. but i do think that every election there are millions and millions of people who make their assessments mostly based on their emotions about how the candidate makes them feel. sometimes it works for democrats and sometimes it works for republicans. when barack obama was elected for a lot of liberals, he made

them feel a certain way. he was for a lot of people especially younger democrats he was either a person like them or a person they wanted to be like. he was urbain and sophisticated and came from a big city and was very smart but also could move you and all these things that may democrats feel a certain way. you look at donald trump's support in rural areas and parts of the country left behind economically, the people who responded to him there thinking he really is can a bring us back. he is going to revive the coal industry. it's hard to know. but he made them feel a certain way, he tapped into some of that anger and resentment and it was

very powerful to people. so emotion is always going to matter. even the most rational among us will still be affected about how candidates make us feel. = -- host: other news that came out this week with the deal. what was your deal on the proposed plea deal between hunter biden and the justice department? guest: if you look at the things he's pleading guilty to i know republicans are saying it's a sweetheart deal. this is pretty much what happens when somebody pleads guilty. he underpaid his taxes and on a form to get a gun permit he said he was not a drug user. we know about his struggles with addiction. those are the things when you plead guilty to that you get some kind of fine and you pay

your back taxes and maybe you go on probation bring the deal he got was pretty standard. i think for so long republicans have been so invested in the idea that hunter biden is like the key to the conspiracy and what they can break open everything he did they'll be able to take down the biden presidency and it will all come crumbling down. he's -- his story is a very sad one and even though he's clearly done some things wrong and in this case is going to pay a legal price for it. it really looks like that will be the key that will allow them -- also they are not going to go away. i used to joke the only question when republicans took over

congress is whether they would have five separate hunter biden investigations over different committees and they practically did. they will keep investigating him. that's not an end. -- going to end. host: let's go to josephine from livingston, new jersey on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a very important issue for any of us. talking about the 24 election. what saddens me is we put everybody in one category but the one issue for me as a woman, and i'm 79 years old. i'm not a young woman. you wouldn't think it would apply to me but i don't like second-class citizenship. in 26 states women are

second-class citizens. they cannot function, they can go to the doctor, they can take care of themselves. part of it may be terminating their pregnancy for health reasons. it's none of my business. it between that woman and god. since when does the white evangelical church become the leader of the world. it's called fascism when you dictate, that's fascism. if you think the part dealing with abortion terminating the pregnancy for whatever reason will go away, you are wrong. i've spent two years calling and saying when the courts decided to take the case, when the courts heard the case, when they made the decision i said it's

going to come back to destroy the republican party because the majority of women who had to work, we don't like being second-class citizens and that's what it is. guest: you can hear the passion in these comments and i think that's reflective of the way millions of women especially but also men feel about what's happening. you have essentially half of american women now who don't have access to abortion who are feeling like the state government is dictating what they can do with their bodies. it's causing an extraordinary amount of anger. i think we will see that in the polls in the polls and 2024 again. we can forget this had a profound effect on people's lives all throughout the country.

their finding their life choices limited, it really is extraordinary tragedy and from a political side i think republicans may be thought this would sort of blow over. and it wouldn't be something that will continue but i think it will continue with us. people are angry and continued to be angry. i think this will be probably as big of an issue in 2024 as it was in 2022. you'll see republicans running in this race to the bottom saying what if we have a national ban at 12 weeks. something would've we have a national ban at six weeks. they will get in that competition amongst themselves taking positions that would be anathema to the vast majority of voters who don't think it was a good thing roe v. wade was overturned.

that's can it be an extraordinary thing for them. they got what they wanted in substantive terms and the damage to them politically has already been profoundly continued. host: a social media follower has a question, could you elaborate on your column on debates in a democracy. if they have a role i want to quickly read a quick sentence you wrote mccollum here. democratic debate deliberations were supposed to be how we kept ideas, reveal the truth yet today debate is far more likely to make a star then help us plot a course for the future. when was the last time you you heard or read to people debate an issue from up opposing sides and felt enlightened when it's over? guest: it was depressing to write that but this came about over this controversy from rfk

junior and the demand and renowned for rolla just on joe rogan's podcast about vaccines. rfk junior is maybe the most prominent anti-vaccine figure in american life right now. that particular cases prove pointless. no serious person thinks if you get a committed conspiracy theorist on a podcast to debate an actual scientist that the result is going to be something that convinces people of the truth and it got me thinking about what debates are. if you go back to the ancient greeks. what they thought the function of a debate, it was supposed to be how you test ideas and in the end the truth is revealed and were able to make a decision, but the things whether it's a formal debate among candidates or two people on opposing sides of an issue or just shouting at

each other on social media. none of it has as much of a chance of enlightening us and it's a sad thing. one of the things if you talked up political scientist who think about this they tried to create artificial situations. there are things called deliberative polls where you get a bunch people together. and then you can get ordinary citizens but that so far removed from what actually happens at american life. unfortunately that's not what happens when the actually debate issues. host: is it because the debaters are not giving the audience what they need or is it because the audience is already made up their mind. guest: it's the media systems we swim in. i think were all implicated in

that. this demand was on the more high-minded than supply might follow. people who were involved when you have two candidates debate they look at this as a strategic opportunity they can waste. what's good and matter is who gets the best zinger that gets replayed on the news and on social media. that's how they plan out what they will do. everything from all kinds -- sides of the system pushes toward the least informed. host: let's see if we can get in one more call. bob. go ahead. caller: my question comes in two parts.

i believe wasn't there legal precedent set when bill clinton was caught with the tape that made the news in order to keep him from being censured or impeached that the democrats circle the wagon and basically created precedent for i believe exactly what president trump is being accused of now. yes he was caught red-handed doing something but i don't think it was nefarious. it was probably toying with the archives just because that's the kind of guy he is. but is there any correlation between those two? the second part is the way all the media decided wanted to cover president trump after the indictment when he went to his -- is this can it be when we do take back the white house and he does win the presidency of the news media going to decide they're not just a cover the president because they don't like what he has to say?

guest: i think in the first case he's referring to is the case of bill clinton did a series of interviews with a historian and there were questions when he left office and tapes of those interviews were presidential records under the presidential records act. he said that they weren't. but that's not really anything like what happened with donald trump. the things that he took were government documents. we were made by the government and had to do with national security. the situations there are not really analogous. as for covering trump. host: we take a drink of water and sometimes he goes the wrong way.

i'll give you a second. guest: the media will have to make its own decisions about how to cover him going forward and it's not an easy thing to figure out. he often will go and give a speech that is just filled with falsehood and misinformation and it's difficult in real time to figure out for a news organization how they will handle that. in some cases they decided they would wait, record it and then do with it afterwards. if he becomes president again i don't think ill be able to do that because the president is on tv every day. there can have to be carrying a lot more if he's elected president again host: washington post contributor, thank you so much this morning. we would like to thank all of our guests and social media followers and all of our viewers for another great washington journal.

we will be back again tomorrow morning. everyone stays safe, wash her hands and have a great sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023]