on our c-span now app.

♪ >> the past weekend marked the one-year anniversary of the supreme court historic top decision, overturning the roe v.

wade precedent on abortion. this week the court should issue several positions heard in its current term. significant rulings await, but the biggest challenge may have been to its very integrity and the financial transparency of its justices, leading to multiple calls for reform from congress, including most recently from the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. it is monday, june 26, 2023. welcome to washington journal. should there be term limits for supreme court justices? republicans use (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000. independents and others (202) 748-8002. (202) 748-8003 if you want to send us a text. include your name and where your texting from.

we are on facebook and also twitter and instagram @cspanwj. we will bring you more news and reaction from weekend events on the dobbs and other comments on the ongoing situation in russia. the military uprising in russia. our focus this first hour is on the supreme court and whether there should be term limits. calls for tumor limits -- calls for term limits in the wake of financial disclosures from clarence thomas and samuel alito by the organization pro-public a. one of those calling for reform in the way the justices financial transparency is handled and how the court is regulated it sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. a report in his home state. supreme court ethics debate puts

rhode island senator whitehouse in the spotlight. senator sheldon whitehouse says he was not surprised by a bombshell report saying samuel alito failed to disclose luxury vacations paid for in part by a billionaire with cases in the high court. he says it seems terribly familiar and has all the basic ingredients, the right-wing activist billionaire, the extravagant travel gifts, jet travel, and the fixer of the court for the billionaires. he writes that the white house has been railing against the courts conservative majority for years, arguing the justices are doing the bidding of right-wing interest groups. his critique is getting more attention in washington amid a drumbeat of investigative reports election conflicts of interest among the justices.

"the behavior has gotten worse and worse," senator whitehouse said. rhode island's junior senator is seeking a fourth term in 2024 and has earned the ire of the conservative justices. they argue the white house has supported conspiracy theories. that is from w pri in rhode island. (202) 748-8001, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and for independents (202) 748-8002 as they get set to wind down this part of their term, should there be term limits for supreme court justices? one of those saying so his former speaker nancy pelosi. she was on yesterday with jen psaki on msnbc. >> we have a body chosen for

life with no accountability for their ethics behavior. >> you think there should be changes to the supreme court? term limits? >> is been over 100 years since we had an expansion of the court. the subject of whether that should happen is a discussion stop the president formed a commission, they did not recommend expansion of the court. there certainly should be term limits. if nothing else there should be ethical rules followed. host: that is our opening question. should there be term limits for supreme court justices?

leading the reporting has been the organization pro-publica. behind the scenes of justice alito's unprecedented wall street journal rebuttal. around midday on friday, june 16 reporters sent in email to the supreme court spokesperson with questions for justice samuel alito on the forthcoming story on his fishing trip to alaska with a hedge fund billionaire. we set a deadline of the following tuesday for a response. 15 minutes later -- an unusual moment in our dealings with the high court press off rents. the first time an avis public information officers has spoken directly to pro-publica in many months we have spent looking into the justices ethics. we sent detailed questions to the court for stories on clarence thomas the response was an email that said they been passed on to the justice. there was no further word from

her. the conversation about samuel alito was professional. she noticed a formatting issue with an email and the reporters agreed to resend the questions in a word document. kaplan and elliott told mccabe they understood this was a busy time at the court and were willing to extend the deadline if samuel alito needed time. monday was a federal holiday. on tuesday mccabe called to tell reporters alito would not respond to our request and we should not write that he declined to comment in the story. she asked when the story was likely to be published. perhaps as soon as wednesday. six hours later the wall street journal editorial page posted an essay by samuel alito in which he used our questions to guess at the points in our story and

are about them in advance. his peace headline justice samuel alito was hard to follow for anyone outside pro-publica because it shot down allegations , notably the consumption of expensive wine, not yet made. should there be term limits are for supreme court justices? we go to our independent line? kelly is in san francisco, california. good morning. caller: there totally should be term limits for supreme court justices. obama had a chance to get justices in he wanted but he did not do that. now we have a problem where ron desantis, if he wins, it could change all the supreme court justices. not all of them. get supreme court justices. millenials would not have much of a choice.

we should have a supreme court that can do with the american people want, not what billionaires can buy. host: should there not be an ultimate appeals court beyond the regional? the circuit courts we have? the nine appeals court. one of your ideas is to eliminate the supreme court? caller: we should not have a supreme court or a senate. appeals court would be fine. the whole system is messed up. the supreme court is bought and paid for by millionaires. it is working for the conservative people or the liberal people who have the money. we need term limits or better yet just get rid of the supreme court. host: on to herb on our

republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't agree with term limits for the supreme court. i think there should be a constitutional problem to do that. i certainly agree we need a code of conduct drafted by the members of the supreme court. let me add one more thing. old time listener to c-span. i still miss a guy by the name of brian lamb on the morning show. i know he has retired. i wonder if he would be available to periodically serve our guest role on c-span. i think a lot of us of been

listeners to c-span many years miss that guy very much. host: he is not retired. he is as busy as he has ever been. he is just not on the air. you can catch his podcast all over the network. tune into some of that. you can find that on our website at c-span.org. he is far from retired. thanks for asking about that. a couple of comments from viewers on our opening questions about term limits. marianne says yes, along with an enforced code of ethics and a method of recall. ethics investigations, yes, no one is all high and mighty. just it on facebook says yes to term limits. this says ginsberg was there too long.

get the constitutional amendment process started. one more from angela. term limits for all elected officials. had there been term limits not have a president -- on the current term, this is a piece from rick marcus. the term should be winding down this week. he writes as the justices conclude their work, it could have been worse. go for broke legal arguments overplayed their hand. victories measured by the liberal justices capacity for damage control. further in the washington post piece, he said it could have

been worse aspect was on display this past week when the justices rebuffed an effort by texas and louisiana to prevent the biden administration from setting priority deportation cases. the administration wanted to prioritize dangerous criminals and those who arrive recently. this time the ruling was 8-1 with tony lee samuel -- with only samuel alito dissenting. with rulings on abortions, guns, the last term was an unmitigated disaster for liberals. this term will look much worse in a week than it does right now , but in a super majority year we are dealing with degrees of disaster and could have been worse is about as good as it gets. what about term limits for supreme court justices? arizona.

you are on the air. independent line. caller: i am calling to say we are dealing with abortion and single mothers. with these people want individually, i'm trying to tell you we fight independently to pay the bills to each and everyone for taxes and how indigenous people -- supposed to be the reservation and come together with crops such as cotton and people are stealing from that to say we cannot do off the reservation to sell our

stuff. marijuana. host: focus on the question. the supreme court is our question this morning. riley is in massachusetts. caller: good morning. i honestly feel that -- i used to feel the supreme court was honorable stop i believed in them. what i found is they are corrupt just like the politicians. it blows my mind. i am a middle of the road guy. i just feel that what has come out in the past few months with

thomas and alito it could be sotomayor. i don't care. they are so corrupt. they are making rulings based on what donors tell them. it is disgusting. they are not elected. they have lifetime appointments. they are the most powerful people in our society and they are bought and paid for. it breaks my heart. host: does that take some of their decisions, when you see decisions from the court, do you feel that corruption or lack of financial transparency is evident in some of those decisions? caller: absolutely.

it literally breaks my heart. i used to think the supreme court, they were making decisions based on policy and what was right. i don't care if they were originalists or textual list. now i see they are puppets for billionaires. we have to get rid of this. this is so damaging. you can be friends with a billionaire. here is the thing. was that billionaire friends with you before you were on the supreme court? none of them were. if thomas or alito could say we were buddies in college or in highest, i would have no problem. the problem is these people entered their life after they were on the bench.

that shows all of us how corrupt it is. the fact they are just nasty about it. they are like what do you mean we can't be wrens, i can't have friends that are billionaires? you can have any friend you want , but not after you are on the highest court in the land. by the way, passing judgments, these billionaires tentacles reach everywhere. host: thanks for your opinion. a quinnipiac pulling on americans on a number of issues, including the supreme court poll conducted last week. quinnipiac poll says the americans give the supreme court a negative 29 to 58 job approval rating. registered voters give the supreme court a -30 to 59 job approval rating.

this is the lowest approval rating the supreme court has received since quinnipiac first ask the question in 2004. they say nearly seven in 10 americans think the supreme court is mainly motivated by politics, while 25% think the supreme court is motivated by law come into majority support limited the number of years a supreme court justice can serve on the supreme court. 29% oppose it. our morning question about term limits. (202) 748-8001. for republicans. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independence. (202) 748-8002. annie is on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not see how term limits

would correct the problem. if you're are inclined to be unethical, whether it is lifetime or a six-year term you will be unethical? . most of these judges were misleading in their confirmation so they have already indicated they have a tendency to be less than truthful. the federalist society is next and should be investigated. justices thomases and alito have been chasing millionaires and billionaires for decades. remember when they used to go to these coke brothers meetings? ethical policies in place and judges being told recuse themselves in certain cases would be a better solution. thank you. guest: -- host: this is from the washington times.

the headline, trump boasts to religious right about his personal role in overturning roe v. wade. president trump returned to the nation's capital saturday to take a victory lap on the anniversary of dobbs v. jackson, finding conservatives he named the justices that were pivotal in overturning roe v. wade. he says i got it done, no one else thought it was a possibility. "they had been fighting, good people, smart people had been fighting for 50 years and never came close to getting done. i don't believe they had ever taken a vote. they never came close. it was something that was not going to happen. i got it done." mr. trump is far and away the republican front runner for the presidential nomination. he says his record tops them all. a woman stood up and said trump ended roe v. wade, how can you

i said that to myself. mr. trump among other speakers at the faith and freedom conference. mike pence also speaking at the event about restricting abortion on fox news sunday. >> i am pro-life and i do not apologize for it. this weekend we are celebrating a historic victory. when one year ago the supreme court of the united states sent roe v. wade to the ash people of history and give the american people a new beginning for life. i cannot be more proud of the 20 states that advanced protections for the unborn and support for women who face crisis pregnancy. it is imperative as not only the primary campaign begins as men and women stepped forward, to

speak with clarity about a commitment to the sanctity of life, that we make it clear we stand on principle but we will stand with compassion. 62 million unborn lives lost. just about as many women who have endured -- i think we need to bring a message of grace. we need to bring a message of kindness. we need to come alongside women. that is how we will win hearts and minds. it is more important than politics to me. i also think it is a winning issue. host: as the supreme court enters what should be its final decision week, asking you, should there be term limits for supreme court justices. you can sit as a text at (202) 748-8003. from virginia, this one.

agent term limit for supreme court make sense. mandatory retirement age eight would rotate senior justices out to pasture. ryland says no there should be an ethics body to control their corruption. our question, if the court voted to uphold dobbs with this question be in place. let's hear from wisconsin. randy on the republican line. good morning. caller: a comment about the abortion. by the time we get to 10 weeks or 12 weeks term of a fetus that is when the mother should have to sit down and make a decision. either you're going to have the baby, give it up for adoption. that way you have three choices around 12 weeks. that is all i'm going to say about that. the guy from massachusetts,

maybe he is a nice guy, but he is little bit off. i do not see anything wrong with the justices except -- even kagan and what's her name, they are going by the law come interpreting the law so the people could understand it. if you can understand the terminology of the supreme court it helps. there is one on there that was put on there and could not define what a woman was. as to be that question. i will define exactly what a woman was and she cannot do it and she was a woman. the democrats don't like it. everyone calling in does not like it because they do not have

the majority. the majority is on the republican or the conservative side and i think they're making good judgments. there are some i do not agree with at all. but i accept it. life goes on. host: you mentioned the caller in massachusetts who was on the republican line. do you think he is wrong saying the appearance of the association of justices with billionaires is what he was complaining about -- his problem is how that looks. caller: how does he know? i think the way it looks everybody out there is pre-well-to-do. that is the way life is out there. you have the bigger boats and

cap it's up north they like to go to. let them live their own private life regardless of what. host: a florida caller. otis, go ahead. caller: i think there should be term limits for justices. we always talk about it. two different sides of america. republicans, democrats, independents in the middle. you are really a republican or a democrat. supreme court justices make a decision. you can be innocent but a technicality will keep you in jail. i talked to a few other people who said i did not have to disclose these gifts i was

receiving. my deal is if i found that or someone gave me that i technically have to report that as earned income. the justices put those trips on their taxes. therefore, we look at the supreme court as a great arbiter of decisions. what are your political leanings ? need to maybe have 20 years or 25 years. i will not discriminate against age. you can be a successful at 90 as you can and 25. we still need to have the

justice to be -- the technicality that keeps people in jail. now they say i spoke with someone. even in the department. in the ethics department they spoke about that. that is unfair to the american people. we need to take the supreme court and so it can be fair. host: that brings up another question. do you think supreme court justices are removed from the experience of everyday americans? caller: they are. if you was born into wealth you cannot understand how a poor person lives. if you are born in poverty you see everybody above your financial scale. host: there is no question

justice clarence thomas was certainly not born into wealth. caller: he was born into poverty. they always tell us influence. to me thomas was influenced by the shiny object. you and i come if they gave us 10 or $15 million, would you rather live poor or would you want to live the way you are living? i would take the lifestyle i acquired. justice thomas is doing the same thing. he is following the lead. his personal views have changed based on the money he got when he saw how that life was. host: we will go to the independent line. caller: good morning. listening to everyone's comments.

something goes through my mind. yes i do believe in term limits. i do believe there should be age limits. also ethics. not just our supreme court. look at all of our politicians. both republicans and democrats. how much money have they taken from other people that have been influenced? let's use president biden as an ample. he has accepted money from pharmaceutical companies, the teachers union. he spends his holidays with a billionaire and in luxury. and the money he has been accused of taking from other countries and all of the deals he makes. he should not be president. if they are the american people to retire at 70 they need to retire at 70, too. all of our politicians are too

old. i can say that because i am up there. they are doing the same thing they are accusing the supreme court of doing. that is taking bribes, taking money, being influenced by other people as far as their decisions are made. you tell me how someone like obama could start out as a community leader and end up a millionaire with three homes in hawaii, washington, nantucket? how does that happen? there is corruption everywhere. as far as abortion, the republicans need to moderate. they are wrong. you are politicians. you are not doctors.

you should not be making medical decisions. host: opening question, should there be term limits for supreme court justices? you can call in or text us as well on twitter [video clip] -- on twitter @cspanwj. we have a poll. 56% there should be supreme court term limits and 40% satan no -- and 40% say no which is parity with quinnipiac. quinnipiac has 63% saying yes and 29% opposing it. the hour is early. we will keep that up throughout the day and continue getting your calls and comments. also comments on twitter. the text is (202) 748-8003. hawk says judges appear to reflect and represent a much

smaller majority of the population. shouldn't the court remember all of us? this one says there should be term limits and stronger ethics for these justices. i favor adding four more justices to balance out the illegal three says our tweeter, gorsuch, cavanaugh, and barrett and cavanaugh and alito. rebecca says congress is under term limits. they are called election. in baltimore, stephen on the republican line. caller: there is a saying that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the supreme court is corrupt. just like justice alito said the flight i took, the chair would've been empty if i was on it.

try going to an airport -- this country, a lot of money and politics. everybody is worried about what the country is becoming. take the money out of all politics. just like the previous caller said. obama, biden, and a lot of republicans and democrats get rich by posting influence about the stock market and various things. how do you think they get rich? that is both sides. take the money out of politics. if you don't, this will end up

being some kind of third world desperate. -- some kind of third world despot. host: stephen mentioned justice alito's opinion piece in the washington -- in the wall street journal. "alito speaks for himself in public opinion -- samuel alito is speaking again. in november 2020 he is complaining to a virtual audience at the federalist society that it is considered bigotry to say marriage is between a man and a woman up july 2022 he is in rome at a gala dinner wearing a tuxedo and criticizing foreign leaders for criticizing the supreme court's decision to reverse roe v. wade. in april 2023 he is giving the wall street journal opinion section a rare interview, saying he and his fellow justices were

being attacked and left defenseless, and then those who are attacking us say look how unpopular they are, look how their approval rating has sunk. what you expect when day in and day out they say they are illegitimate, they are doing this, they are doing that." the post writes here he is with the byline of his own preemptively defending himself against an investigation into a fishing trip he took in alaska in 2008 paid for by a billionaire hedge fund manager who would later have business with the court. in a photo samuel alito poses with a salmon in the billionaire stands next to him cradling his own fish. they write that conventional wisdom goes the court retains its legitimacy by staying out of the fray of new cycles, election cycles, the court of public opinion.

when it comes to answering pro publica findings, samuel alito sought a change of venue, the journals conservative leaning opinion page. philadelphia. let's hear from milton. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple points. i agree with term limits. they should have strong ethical rules for a federal judge should not be allowed to accept gifts at all. they interpret the law and interpret the constitution. not to enrich themselves. imagine if you had justice kagan. she goes on these expensive trips with george soros and she does not disclose this. not only does her spouse work for conservative groups who pay

her spouse, and the justices do not recuse themselves. i don't understand. republican should be as outraged as democrats. judges should be beyond reproach. this is a subject of bribery. one thing i have about clarence thomas. as a black man, how could he associate with the man that gets artifacts from adolf hitler? i find that very offensive. thank you. host: the independent line in new jersey. go ahead. caller: a lifetime appointment -- [indiscernible] it is a monarchy, not a democracy.

like the guy from maryland says absolute power corrupts absolutely. i believe their political because they are reported by a president and can never be objective. it is not going to work as a democracy if you have a monarchy going on. host: this is an article in the hill this morning. supreme court set for furies rounds of decision in final days of june. "the supreme court is set to hand down decisions on student debt relief, affirmative action, and federal election laws as it enters last week of summer session, with 10 cases pending. the court has given no indication it will break its norma finishing decisions by the end of june, the next batch is

slated to be released tuesday morning. beyond the decisions the court is forming its docket for the next term. the justices on monday could announce whether they will take up several high-profile cases, including on guns, racial discrimination, and qualified immunity. they going to some of the cases set for decision this week. student debt relief, president biden's plan to forgive debt for more than 40 million borrowers will soon be green lit or blocked depending on how the justices rule." we talked earlier about the weekend in a bursary of the dobbs decision overturning the roe v. wade abortion president set by the supreme court in 1972. this is vice president kamala harris over the weekend at an event marking the anniversary this weekend. [video clip] >> many of you know i started my career as a prosecutor intent on protecting women and children

who are the subject and survivors of violence. it is immoral that so-called leaders would not understand and have some compassion for what those exception should be. some of the laws are banning at or before six weeks. what most of us know his many women do not even know they are pregnant at six weeks, which tells us most of these politicians do not understand how a body actually works. [applause] they don't get it. they don't get it. next week overruling the will of

the people, north carolina will be the latest state with an extreme band in spite of the best efforts of governor roy cooper. host: the vice president from over the weekend. back to the hill article on significant cases we should see decisions on. on affirmative action the hill rights when the sueme court upheld emergent -- affirmative action in 2003, justice sandra day o'connor made a temporal prediction. the court expects 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interests approved today. the landmark decision marked its 20th anniversary on friday. the hill rights it may not reach its 21st. question for you. should there be term limits for supreme court justices? the republican line is (202) 748-8001. democrats line is (202) 748-8000

. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. we go to pennsylvania. dennis on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: good morning. sorry, did not hear you. i am frankly disappointed in the term limit gig. i've tried to step in by taking a senator position to see if i could make a change that up it just seems like the spin never stops anymore. it is continuous and it is corrupt. that is how i feel. i am a republican and i'm trying to give the republican people the help by taking a senator

position and it has fallen flat on me. we the people have no say. i would take a senator's position that i would not take a salary for it. i would be there to try to make a difference. nobody wants to hear it. i am for term limits. absolutely. host: what is behind your view there should be term limits for supreme court justices? what is your reasoning? caller: i think there's too much money and nobody is following the constitution. it needs to stop. host: thanks for that. i will read a tweet i just thought that as long the lines of what dennis was talking about. this is the founder set up the government to avoid the sways of public opinion and remain true

to the constitution, not the latest trend or fat. willie in savannah, georgia. democrats line. good morning. caller: how are you? i guess i might have the most vested interest of any one of the callers who have already called. host: why is that? caller: i am in savannah, georgia where judge thomas went to high school. i went to high school crosstown. it went to high school on the other end of town. he has been a vast disappointment for the city of savannah. instead of leading -- i don't know. decisions he made have not been in lockstep with savannah. have not been in lockstep with united states. a standing law that has been in place for 57 years as a man, how do i make a decision for a woman?

i don't understand his writing. i don't understand anything he has done. he has changed the face of how people think about him in savannah, georgia. so many decisions i think about that he has written against. host: are you a contemporary of justice thomas, about the same age? caller: i am 75. i can understand anything judge thomas has done, i've been watching him over the years. in savannah you have an archrival. the beach has go against the johnson high school. that was me. host: thanks for sharing your experience. we will go to binghamton new york and hear from rob on the independent line. caller: good morning. they definitely should have term limits for all of the reasons dennis said a few minutes ago.

c-span, you share a lot of the blame for what is going on in this country. there is a much going on with the bidens and their criminality and you refused to talk about it except in the open forums. i am disgusted. he should be impeached in prison and you guys keep holding his water. why is that? host: we try to cover events and issues in every segment on this program. we certainly have covered the biden family, hunter biden, the congressional coverage, the impeachment resolutions being brought forth by members of the republican -- by republican members of the u.s. house. thanks for your call. on the weekend rebellion in russia, the big winners are the wagoner clash. they write that vladimir putin

is known for his tight control over the media. his one-time ally, the founder is the owner of a conservative media outlet in a flamboyant showman on social media. he is an unlikely figure who emerged with the public relations victory in the wake of his mutiny, the longtime dictator of belarus, the neighboring country firmly in moscow's orbit. the belarus leader is viewed as the kremlin's dos file satrap, but he took credit for brokering an agreement between vladimir putin, averting a scenario the russian leader had compared to the civil that followed the revolution of 1917. secretary of state antony blinken just back from his trip to china last week was on a number of the week and a new shows including meet the press and had this to say about the weekend uprising.

>> what we have seen as extraordinary. 16 months ago russian forces were on the doorstep of you have in ukraine believing they would take the capital in a matter of days and erase the country from the map as an independent country. now what we have seen is russia having to defend moscow against mercenaries of its own making. in and of itself that is extraordinary. in so doing we have also seen profound questions about the very premise for the russian aggression against rain -- against ukraine and a direct challenge to putin's authority. i think we have seen more cracks emerge in the russian facade. it is too soon to tell where they go and when they get there. certainly we have all sorts of new questions that vladimir putin will have to address in the weeks and months ahead. host: about 10 minutes left on

our opening question about term limits for supreme court justices. let's hear from kevin in ohio. republican line. caller: good morning. first time longtime. host: good stuff. caller: what i wanted to say was i think it is absently important what is going on with the supreme -- absolutely abhorrent with the supreme court. i am here with my coffee club. we all think it is terrible what is going on. one thing to the previous caller , i would love to see the biden crime family put away. comer and the child molester, the jim jordan guy, they cannot find any evidence. i hope they find it. why can't they? i think we need to make big changes. what you think?

host: let's hear from kyle in ellicott city, maryland. democrat line. caller: the reason the supreme court lost a lot of its credibility is in part because of the senate, how a lot of these folks got into the supreme court. the republican party broke all kinds of norms, withholding the ability for obama to appoint as a print court justice or have a hearing. the supreme court has the appearance of being a gerrymandered court. then they nominate these folks. nothing against religious folks. these folks, the through line is they are extremely religious, they are not catholic, they are opus dei catholics. they take a fifty-year settled law like roe v. wade and they turn around, and after 50 years of settled law, they have the

hearing and say we believe it is settled law, they turn around and vote against it and overturn those norms. people are like after 50 years all of these different supreme court heard things and stood by and said this is part of the constitution. the supreme court slowly eroded their confidence because you look at them and you say they are not interpreting the constitution, they are applying their religious beliefs so they can have those kind of things they do not personally believe in applied to the american people. i am personally pro-life but i will not dictate to somebody else in a reasonable way what they need to do with their bodies. that is the big difference. these states are debating the ability for someone who gets raped, incest, it is very extreme. i think state after state, these republican states will lose over and over that are taking these extreme views because i do not think the average american --

thanks if my wife or daughter was raped, they are forcing them to have children. i did not think a normal american stands by that kind of stuff. i have my own children and my own belief system. nobody believes the federal government should be forcing birth onto these situations. you will see it get fixed a little bit. the point is it is that the supreme court -- every other court has ethical guidelines and standards. everybody in their jobs has ethical guidelines. the supreme court almost approaches it like they are above it all they do not need to have anything and they can do whatever they want. it impacts their credibility because they act like they are so elite and above it all and they do not need to follow the same standards. they are shooting themselves in the foot over and over. all their problems are self-inflicted. host: on the issue of abortion,

over the weekend the anniversary of the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade. the headline in the washington times. hardliners debate total abortion ban versus 15 weeks. the photo of an event mike pence spoke at over the weekend. joe biden issued a statement on the anniversary of dobbs, saying one year e supreme court took away a constitutional right from the american people, denying women ght to oose, overturning roe v as artie had devastating consequences. states have imposed extreme abortion bands. women have to travel hundreds o hours for care and threaten to criminalize doctors for provide health care patients need and there trained provide. state bands are just the beginning. republicans wanto n abortion

nationwide but go beyond that b taking fda approved medicio for terminating pregnancy off the market, making it harder to approve contraceptives. the agenda is dangerous and out of step with the vast majority of americans. let's go to the independent line. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span. kudos to the previous caller. i have to step it up a little bit. i don't think term limits are appropriate. it seems to me in times past that the older a justice gets, the better they get. that has been historically true. i think we have had a problem with underhanded methods of getting people on the court, thank you mitch mcconnell, thank you leo leonard, thank you federalist society. we have a bunch of corporate lawyers on the court.

i think we should have trial lawyers on the court. they have a better understanding of human nature and are less invested in certain corporate situations. maybe i should say thanks, c-span. host: thanks for your call. comments on twitter before we wrap up this hour. this one says the supreme court is republican and has been controlled by republican appointees since 1969 with no end in sight. with permanent one-party rule the united states cannot be a representative government. gus says the supreme court should reflect the u.s. constitution. yes, justices should be limited to only one lifetime appointment . donald is on the republican line in missouri.

caller: and you hear me? host: yes we can. caller: the founders got it right. to keep them from the least demented pressure they give them a lifetime appointment. otherwise they will be had from every side every thursday. it is quite a process they go through to become supreme court justices. they just do not walk in off the street for a trial run. people who just got here to the country and want to change everything, forget it. the founders got it right. as a print court justices, it goes -- the supreme court justices, it goes for generations to keep the constitution intact. that is why they are in there for a lifetime. host: of quick check with where things stand on our poll this morning.

should there be term limits for supreme court justices? it is now 44% say yes, but the majority, 52.4% say no, no term limits. for present unsure. stephen in kentucky, democrats line. caller: i don't think the problem is the term limits. i think the problem is how it runs unethically. the problem is the interest of the people and they are aligning with who is in the supreme court. it is not the limit that is the problem. it is who is in a position. right now they're are trying to dictate people's health. things like abortion. it is a health care need. things they are not professionals on. they will use people's emotions. that is really the issue.

that is all i have to say. host: jaclyn in pennsylvania, independent caller. caller: good morning. i've have not seen you in a long time. you look good. host: thank you. caller: i am calling in regards to all of the issues. i am a former navy journalist married to a former special forces. i am also a woman of christ. all of these issues you are talking about, is something that starts from when america was founded. that is about god is not in these issues. you when you talk about abortion you talk about women and their rights. women do not get pregnant by themselves. what about these men that make these women pregnant? as far as the supreme court, if you do not have the credibility of knowing the word of god, it does not matter.

it is about who you are as a person in your integrity, in your accountability, in your leadership, and everything, whether it is the united states of america or whether you want to go to africa, europe, or any other continent or country. it is about not having god in your life. you want to talk about atheism, catholicism, muslims but no one talks about how christ is. if people got back to that way of life, we would never have all of the issues we are having now. host: i appreciate your call and all of your calls this our. we will get a snapshot of the economy coming up next with americans for prosperity.

we will be joined by the center for law and social policy talking about the u.s. economy next. later, john phoebe will talk about russia's war against ukraine and about the weekend rebellion in russia by the wagner group. that is all here on washington journal. ♪ >> diamond c bag montefiore is a historian. he has written 12 books, 9

nonfiction and 3 novels. his latest is called "the world: a family history of humanity." in his preface, he writes "i have always wanted to write intimate -- right an intimate human history like 'the wo rld' c ba montefiore on book notes plus. >> if you are enjoying book tv then sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive news about

authors, new releases, and more. book tv, television for seous readers. >> live sunday on in-depth, author and profeor francis fukuyama returns to take calls about politics, international affairs, liberalism and more. mr. frick llama is the author of "the end of history." he has published more books since his last appearance. you can chime in with your calls, tex, and tweets. frances fincke llama sunday at noon on c-span2. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed allows you to listen to all

of c-span's podcast in one place. we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes. from our signature programs about bugs, afterwords -- about books, afterwords, listen to c-span's podcasts today. listen anywhere you get your podcasts and on our website at c-span.org/podcast. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed, our democracy thrives. get informed, straight from the source. unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you

are, because the opinion that matters the most is your round. c-span, power by cable. host: washington journal continues. w our nearlye -- we our nearly six months into the year. we thought it would be a good idea to get a pulse on the u.s. economy. we are joined by akash chougule and duta-gupta. guest 1: american prosperity is the largest organization dedicated to free enterprise. we have physical state chapters in 38 states. we are different than a lot of

groups in d.c. in that we mostly do our work outside of the beltway connecting constituents to their lawmakers. my focus is on economic policy. host: what is your group's purpose? guest 2: we are a 50-year-old national anti-poverty organization. we tried to prioritize advancing equity by race and by gender, while reducing poverty in the united states. our view on the economy right now is we have made enormous progress. host: would you say better or worse than it was 6 months ago, the economy? guest 2: i'd take a broad view

of what is meant by "the economy." in this sense of folks' incomes, the labor markets, overall things are improving. at the same time we are facing some real challenges with folks losing some of the assistance that was provided in the american rescue plan and other legislation. host: better or worse than what was coming into 2023. guest 1: we are marginally improving, but you have to look at a broader scale of time. if you look at the day president biden took office, americans are doing worse. what do we have to show for it? the american people are poorer

than when president biden took office. the average american family is spending $10,000 more to afford the same quality of life today then when president biden took office. the president's policy made that worse. the republican house has stopped the bleeding on spending, but americans are not getting that money back that they have been paying because of the president's inflation. host: what do you think about what he had to say in terms of where we are with resident biden? guest 1: when we compare it to the period before the pandemic, we see that real, disposable income has increased. unemployment rates are at historic lows. labor force participation is at 20 year highs.

we did a lot not only to grow the economy, but also to prepare for the long run to make the country more resilient. oil shocks to wars -- this new u.s. economy is one of the fastest growing, large economies in the world. host: you briefly brought this up, the ending of the pandemic, and you look at instances, in washington's metro and other transportation facilities across the country, the metro here in washington is going to lose some $750 million on the whole. is the potential as we become untethered from that aid, is

that a concern of yours? guest 2: there are some real challenges in phasing out pandemic aid. we rate of the enhanced child tax credit. we primed the pump. this -- a lot will depend on the federal reserve. inflation is being driven more by people at the very top spending on leisure. we could certainly tax them higher, and we will have a big debate. host: do you agree that we have primed the pump for the economy? guest 1:guest 1: we are heading the wrong direction. in the month of may alone, the average american family spent 880 dollars more than the previous month to afford the

same quality of life as they had. while job numbers seem encouraging, and the number of jobs will increase as population increases, but if that employment to population ratio had stated the same, we would have more people working. government programs make poverty materially less miserable for many americans, but it is a question of what folks really need. the federal government spends more than $1 trillion on welfare. is what people need 1 or 2 or 3 or 10 more government programs? host: we are with akash chougule and indivar

dutta-gupta. we welcome your calls. (202) 748-8001 -- (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. what more do we need to see in terms of interest rates coming down? guest 2: the government has taken aggressive action, which i would say are responsible for the loans akash mentioned. we are trending down. we see a very consistent pattern of interest declining.

we no the federal reserve is around 2% -- federal reserve's goal is around 2%. in the economy, the u.s. government did not spend so much that we went above what was predicted to be in the economy as far as demand. but i would love to see his congress take action and certainly the administration is doing what they can to strengthen supply chains. host: is there a role for congress in the economy right now? guest 2: absolutely. on the supply side, the additional spending juiced demand. that came on the back of pandemic shutdowns. the administration made the worker shortage worse. welfare without work, keeping

people on the sidelines, and addition no 2 million people -- additional 2 million people are no longer in the workforce. the biggest example of that is the energy industry. president biden said he would -- he has succeeded in doing so. that impacts the lowest income americans the most. they spend the greatest share of their income on energy costs. host: let me ask you about the unemployment rate. the philadelphia inquirer hada editorial -- had an editorial the unemployment rate. " has drop -- "it has dropped

steadily. jobs since president biden took office. during president trump's calamitous one term, 13 million jobs were lost." by any stretch, is that a good sign for the country in terms of those numbers? guest 2: steadily improving is the right way to describe that. government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. 3 fourths of the jobs created under president biden are jobs recovered, not new jobs. that rate of job growth is not back to pre-pandemic levels. i think what is worth noting, is

the president is taking credit for this. 9 out of the top 10 states for job growth are run by republican governors.think it is worth noting where these jobsi. -- i are being created -- i think it is worth noting where these jobs are being created are being created. guest 1: what the biden administration has done has created a real tightness in the labor market, which is what the american people deserve and should expect. we worry a lot about people's low incomes. the -- we have jobs coming back.

what is happening this recovery, compared to the last one is in a few years we did what took 10 years before to return to the pre-recession trajectory for gdp, for jobs. we had a lost decade after the last recovery, because we failed to adequately stimulate the economy during the obama administration. host: where are we with wage growth? guest 1: it is decelerating. it is modest. despite 20 year on record highs for things like job satisfaction, americans are more satisfied, more content with their jobs than they have been on record. wage growth according to the federal reserve inc. of san francisco -- reserve bank of san francisco is contributing to

inflation hardly at all. guest 2: wages are steadily climbing. the unfortunate thing is that inflation is far outweighing inflation. while the rate of inflation is decreasing, inflation is still a fact. i think we need to remember what raises wages. as productivity rises, wages rise. under president biden, worker productivity is following. that is how you and up with $6 trillion in spending. you end up with record inflation and americans spending $10,000 extra today for the same quality of life. host: we will go to eli first in

baltimore. welcome to the program. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead. caller: akash, you spoke about the $1 trillion that were put towards welfare programs. in my right? guest 2: that is correct. caller: that is a real intimidating word to be telling the public. $1 trillion isn't a whole lot of money for a country this big. it seems like a big word you just said. a a lot of people heard that, in the trillion dollars means a lot to a lot of people. guest 2: we hear a number of promises continue to be made.

$1 trillion is a lot of money. if you are talking about expanding the welfare state, $97 trillion in new welfare handouts would double the size of the government. we talk a lot about taxing the rich. taking every penny from billionaires, completely eliminating the defense budget, would only pay for less than half of that. not only can we not pay for all the promises that people make, but what did the poor actually need? poor people are not victims. they have dignity. they have hopes and dreams. they need opportunity to climb the socioeconomic ladder. the poverty rate for people who work full-time year-round is less than 2% in this country.

what people need is not another handout. host: would you like -- guest 1: the $1 trillion is really misleading. it includes health coverage, health spending. that is driving a lot of it. ou tell me -- you tell me if you consider that "wellfare spending." pell grants are considered in that figure. people like to use the word welfare to paint things negatively, but think about what the word really means. the government, it is literally in our laws, in our constitution to protect the welfare of the american people. guest 2: one way we can improve

the welfare system in this country is empowering people to make their own decisions with the amount of money we are currently spending. it is not targeted to where people say they want that money to be going. host: raji is in houston, republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. libertarians are just crazy to me. most of the public, the vast majority, we want america -- medicare for all. we want programs. the poor people that i know it is not hope in their eyes that will make their life better. they really need a government

that cares about them and authors programs to make their life better. the -- i don't know what bootstraps are, but they don't get anyone anywhere. i think it is crazy. what do you think when 80%, 90% of the population wants something, what kind of democracy do we have if that is not able to be put into policy? guest 2: i think that these programs, they help people have a basic foundation to help people take advantage of opportunity. we one people to work more. people have mental health challenges. they have disabilities.

they have caregiving needs and responsibilities. we need programs that every other rich country has -- these programs do help people work. they especially do so for families with children. guest 1: the population with the fastest rate of job growth are women with children under six years old. it is clearly an additional paid leave mandate, and additional childcare paid mandate is not keeping people on the sidelines. as far as the caller's point, i would make 2 remarks. these things have to be paid for. they will not be paid for by taxing the rich and cutting the defense budget. if you took every penny from

every millionaire in this country, it would not pay for today's medicare for 3 years. the more important observation is a question of our morals. is our government one that wants to empower them to climb the socio-economic ladder? i think the american people have dignity. they want to achieve their own american dreams. not intentionally, but our welfare programs keep people down because they discourage work, and they discourage the ability to build that american dream. unfortunately, the president has made it worse. host: here is michael in cleveland, democrats' line good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions.

in the american rescue act, will you go after the employers who misused the unemployment to supplement some of the employees? what about the black economy? did any restaurant asked the cook and waitress or bartender -- host: a little hard to hear, michael. is if possible you pick up your handheld and not be on speaker. caller: why do you think they should go after the employers of the american rescue act? host: i think we got some of what you are asking. guest 2: i think there was a

question about unemployment assistance. that is something the administration has resources to and is going after those who took advantage of the program. we certainly have a lot of misclassification in this economy. corporate profits are at historic highs. there is a lot more we have to do to rebalance this economy. i want to note that the programs we are talking about here, the empirical evidence, the research, mountains of data show they do exactly what we want them to do. helping people through snap helps them and makes it more likely they will over time increase their work, increase their education, and with kids especially, they do much better in life. they help everyone have a basic

foundation. if we went to think about this from a moral perspective, if we make sure people have a foundation, they will do better in life. guest 1: the programs -- there is not a realistic world in which your cracks in the marble hall -- in which bureaucrats in the marble halls of washington will be able to keep an eye on every single dollar. the improper payment rates for those programs is more than 25%. one out of every four dollars is being spent improperly. the more we grow government, your tax dollars are not being spent efficiently, and we have to get back to what it takes to grow this economy and empower people.

it is opportunity in the private sector. this administration has actively dampened that. this administration is gung ho on giving handouts to labor union bosses. they have done that through the department of labor working to constrict independent contracting or freelance work, despite the fact that the vast majority of independent contractors preferred their independent contracting status. they want employees to be unionized because they do not have an interest in protecting independent contract work. guest 2: we know for a fact that employers have been missed classifying workers predict its. there are guidelines -- missed classifying workers for decades.

taxpayers lose in or miss sums of money -- enormous sun of monems -- enormous sums of money when we allow this misclassification. caller: it his devastating. 102% -- host: what is behind that increased assessment to your knowledge, paul, in kansas city? caller: they need more money to operate the school districts. they have to tax people on the equity on their homes. churches are filled to the rafters on this uphill process -- this appeal process. local governments have to generate revenue. they take it from people.

seniors are trying to figure out how they will come up with an extra $4000 in tax revenue. you look at franzen resident mccrone -- france and president macron raise to retirement age. taxes is taking private property. that is how i look at it. thank you. guest 1: this is just one of a number of impacts we are seeing. this is well after the federal government spent over $1 trillion. the federal government has spent $6 trillion, most of which has gone to state and local governments. borrowing money is not a

bottomless pit. you can question what the impact o of that i. what have you gotten for that additional 6 trillion dollars? what they have gotten is spending $10,000 more today for the same quality of lif tha n they did before president biden took office. guest 2: i hope there are other sources of revenues that are more equitable that states and localities can look into. real disposable incomes for americans are higher than they were before the pandemic. it is the folks at the very top have seen inflation eat away at their incomes on average.

we have concerns about specific ways that taxes are levied on folks. overall, the united states is a low tax country. among some of the lowest and highest income countries in the world, the u.s. ranks towards the bottom. if other rich countries, who are often not quite as rich as us can afford to pay for them -- host: the second question was about social security. more and more politicians' answer is "we will protect social security."" we are facing some real issues we have to address with social security by 2030.

guest 2: we have had some aging of the population. compared to a lot of other countries, we have not had much. overall, social security has a funding gap in the coming decades. there is a question of how congress may come together and address it, along with revenue increases, i hope. social security beneficiaries have no other source of income. it is the only guaranteed income. they mostly have defined contributions accounts. host: akash, what would your organization like to see happen with social security? guest 1: we are headed to a gap

today. if this gap is not addressed, people will say some more than 20% cut in their benefits. this is something republicans and democrats need to address. we mentioned we can pay for it, but the idea that we can pay for it by making the tax code more progressive is fantasyland. the united states has one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. if you tax every dollar above $1 million for a business, if you cut defense spending -- we need to but the american people back into control. host: "do akash and indivar

recognize that any attempt to reduce the national debt would include a tax increase on the neediest americans, but also includes means testing?" guest 1: we are robbing younger americans who have less money. yo willu pay for programs that by and large are. geared towards older people that has to be on the table. one of the other things that has to be in this country is how do we grow the economy? growing the economy is how we raise revenue. energy is it driver of everything we do in this economy. this president has waged war on the energy that drives our cars, heeds our homes, -- heats our

homes, cooks our food. guest 2: it makes no sense to say that this president has not taken steps to grow the economy. look, as far as what we can afford, and whether we need to cut spending, there are lots of inefficiencies, especially in our health care system. we have taken steps now to promote negotiations and medicare for prescription drugs. defense spending is astronomical compared to other countries, but at the same time we are a low tax country compared to our peers. in fact, when you look at proposals like build back better, these were deficit finance. the inflation reduction act reduced deficits. it was paid for.

so on and so forth. let's not get confused over taking a one-year amount of money and confuse it with spending over 10 years. the u.s. can sustain the same living standards that other rich countries already have. host: let's go to huntsville, alabama, aaron on the other end. caller: some basic pillars like what gave value to the dollar at one point was gold, and our ability to dominate gold market. what gives value to air dollar? -- o our dollar? what backs the dollar right now?

guest 1: there is the full faith and credit of the united states, confidence in the american dollar. you mentioned producing stuff. having a strong economy is an important part of. doing that this administration has permitted, lost several projects, there is a moratorium on energy production on federal lands. i would go back to the former point about deficit reduction. this is a key thing the administration does. the deficit declined compared to 2021 and 2022. you are taking this absurd level of spending and comparing it to that. of course, the spending -- this

administration has committed to 5 trillion dollars in additional spending in the coming decade. our national debt is something we have to address. our entitlement programs eat up almost three quarters of the entire federal budget. host: should our military budget be subject to the same scrutiny you would put under entitlement programs? guest 1: no question. the pentagon is like every other government program. it is full of waste and fraud. we need to keep it under the consideration of all the other countries that are under our nuclear umbrella. host: we have five more minutes with our guests. i wanted to ask you about recession. there was a piece we saw last week, "wh i am bettingy against

a u.s. recession -- "why i am betting against a u.s. recession>" what is your view? guest 2: i think it is possible. we have seen the trajectory of inflation declined and yet we have seen persistent job growth and generally strong labor market indicators. i worry a lot about how things are going for communities of color, especially black and other communities of color. they are constantly in a recession in a sense. they often experience levels of unemployment that are recessionary for white folks. everyone is benefiting from this economy. the federal reserve has taken actions that have slowed growth and put the economy in a precarious situation. we saw some of the banks failing and we will have to see if the

federal reserve has the patience i would like them to have. guest 1: the fed has a blunt tool. it uses a hammer not a scalpel. it is in a difficult situation because president biden spent an additional $6 trillion. 2021, income inequality grew for the first time since 2011 when president obama was in office. people on fixed income, seniors were getting crushed. the american people were on the republicans' side on the recent debt limit negotiations. host: let's hear from karen in littleton, new hampshire. caller: thank you and good morning. i had a couple comments and one

quick question at the end. i wanted to say from listening to people, i am 61 years old, and in my day you had to start working when you were 14 years old and you took what you could. since i was 18 and on my own, then i had a child when i was 30 and i had already been working heavy construction, which i loved and i took care of her by myself and made it, and i didn't have any programs and i don't understand why people don't realize that they need to live within their means. i bought a house. in 2002, i did not get a $300,000 house. it was under $100,000. my percentage rate was 6.9 percent. listening to you talk about

interest rates, if it is above that now or has it gone down from 6%? host: i think it is above 7% mortgage rates. guest 1: there is some -- guest 2: there is some recent decline. what is striking is how much the u.s. economy has changed over time. if you go back 150 years. -- one hundred 50 years people were working on a farm. now people need training. people do not generally start working at the age of 14. people pursue more education where possible. every job in the u.s. should be a decent job but you will always get better jobs, if people have some more education and training. guest 1: you raise an important

point, karen. as far as living within your means the government has a role to play in that. hospital services are up more than 200% over the last 20 years, college tuition is up 180%. government has made it harder for people to do that. last year we launched a campaign bill where we went around gas stations and helped paid on the price of what president biden took off. i met a 60-year-old woman who had been waiting in lying for 4

hours. she had 4 little girls in the backseat. she said they took one vacation a year, and they cancel that this year because they couldn't make ends meet. caller: good morning, everyone. i m 67 years old, and i remember growing up in the 80's. i had an associates degree that i never used. i ended up in an insurance company. the jobs available today do not render us able to buy a house in an inner-city, keeping it up, and then retiring at the age you need to retire. all i see around me in new jersey is restaurants.

i don't know where the jobs are for the kids in my area. my son works at bj's, the warehouse, working a forklift. he didn't want to go to college. the price you pay. i was an appeals coordinator for a decade. host: her question on the nature of work today. guest 1: i think it begs the question how do we raise productivity? productivity has fallen under this administration. we talk about taxes on corporations, the regulations on the private sector, all of that is so wet blanket on job growth. on housing costs this is a place where blue cities and states

are a nightmare. one need only look at the housing policies in san francisco and compare them to houston. a restrictive housing -- host: indivar, i will give you the last word on this. guest 2: unfortunately, 50 years ago it no longer became the case that productivity for workers led to income gains. this shows in census data for 50 years. workers are more productive but they are not benefiting. there has been have a century is sold on unions. the assault on unions, which has been successful in reducing the

penetration of unions through the u.s. economy, means that the jobs that could be family sustaining jobs are not. that is one of the things i know the biden administration is trying to build. they have the power to enjoy and benefit from the in norma's corporate profit -- the enormous corporate profit. guest 1: that is flawed. it measures the productivity of the self-employed, federal employees. when you -- host: we will have to have both of you back. indivar dutta-gupta and akash chougule, thank you for being

here. coming up we will talk about the latest in the russia-ukraine war including a look at the weekend rebellion by the wagner group. first it is open forum, and a chance for you to weigh in on stories you are following in the news. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. and for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. start calling now. we will get to your calls momentarily. ♪ >> live sunday on in-depth, census would the llama returns to talk and take calls about politics, international affairs, liberalism -- francis fukuyama returns to talk and take calls

about politics, international affairs and liberalism. join in the conversation with your calls, texts, and tweets. watch at noon on sunday on c-span2. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our, latest collection of apparel books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry c-span has provided complete coverage to the halls of congress from

the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee hearings, c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> watch a video on demand anytime online at c-span.org, and try our points of interest feature, a timeline told a uses markers to quickly guide you to newsworthy highlights of our coverage. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: it is open forum here on the program. items in the news, issues you are following, we will get to your phone calls in a moment. we started the program asking about term limits for justices.

the hill this morning "gop senators want roberts to take action on the supreme court." "re[ublican senators are leaning on justice john roberts to do some thing after accusations that samuel alito accept the donations from -- they think the reports that thomas and alito accepted expensive vacations funded by wealthy donors has created a real public relations problem for the board. they want to take the legislation out of congress's hands by updating a set of standards for the court. 'i don't want congress to start micromanaging the court,' said

lindsey graham the top ranking republican on the judiciary committee." we asked should there be term limits for supreme court justices? the poll is still open their. 57% say no. it is open forum. let's get to calls and go to jeanette in portland, oregon. caller: just a little comment on the supreme court. i think they should have term limits. i think it is really terrible that the highest court in her land can be bought and paid for by rich people who just want the justice they want. it is really disgusting. the other thing i wanted to say, this last guy you had on who just kept saying "if we raise the taxes on the rich and make

them pay their fair share, it wouldn't even begin to cover all of the money we spend on poor people will social security!" give me a break. repeal the trump tax cuts that gave all of the rich people all of the money in their pockets. also, everybody over $400,000 should pay at least 30% tax. they use to 80% those big corporations. it is ridiculous. they stopped paying their fair share, and that is why we may not have enough for social security. people paid into social security. this government has borrowed and stole from them for years. everybody should get what they are entitled to. they need more. people cannot even live on what they get from social security. host: to steve in indiana.

caller: i would like to address this inflation. they say it is 5%, 6%. i cannot figure it out, because it seems like everything has doubled. the price of everything has doubled. how can you say it is just 5% when i am paying twice as much for fuel, twice as much for food? my taxes are three times as much. my home tax, everything has gone up at least 50%, if not 75%. it does not make any sense to me how they keep cooking the numbers on everything. i appreciate you letting me call in.

host: kelly is on the independent line, kenton, ohio. it is open forum. go ahead. caller: i'm not really sure about the term limits on the court, but i think most americans, including myself, do feel that the court is somewhat corrupt. with the luxury vacations, and look travel with him you like, i understand that, but at the -- with whom you like, i understand that, but at the same time i think the situation with citizens united was passed in the court, whereas 2 of the courts -- i believe it was justice thomas and scalia, they actually took money from one of the groups.

it may have been the group that was on earlier. they took money. it would not have even passed had they recused themselves. there's a lot of hanky-panky going on with the courts that is outside the pale. i think that needs to be cleaned up. i don't think the court should police itself. it should be congressional. i don't know if anyone agrees with me, but our government, the legislative branch should help clean up the court, or do something about that. earlier i was watching when you had the 2 gentlemen on who were talking about income inequality. income inequality has continued to grow. americans for prosperity, he was talking about the randian philosophy, we all have to do it all ourselves, and that is great.

there are still places where if everything was really great, then why is this huge disparity happening? i don't understand. i think it would be great to have segment on economics, and we could teach americans about economics and voting for their own economic interest. host: thank you for the suggestion. onto lago, florida. caller: i'm against the election law of 1971. it was signed by richard nixon. it eliminates the vast majority of the population who struggle from payday to payday and makes it a bribe taking party.

the dentist can him and individuals are described there. the human individual law in 1971 does not exist. we are rated by the size of our money pile. can we afford to give millions of dollars to rupert murdoch and anti-labor organizations. citizens united is clearly a case of five corporation lawyers making it right for lawyers. host: james is next, republican line in san diego. caller: i'm here and i have two points that i would ask c-span2 consider adjusting. one, c-span uses a number of polls.

when you get percentages you do not say how many individuals were asked to respond to the polls, how many republicans, democrats or independents. you do not say where it was actually taken, in washington, d.c. which is majority democrats, or in new york, california, idaho, wyoming. i understand you get this information from polars -- pollers, so i would ask for the opportunity to see how they get the question. number two, you're going to hear about south dakota, rhode island compared to how many you get from washington dc -- washington, d.c., new york,

pennsylvania, california. give us numbers as to how those things are discriminated against as to area codes and which area code. host: i did not recite the number of folks surveyed, that is helpful information. our own poll on twitter, -- we do not disseminate by area code and hawaii. -- responded on twitter at

c-span2wj. david is on the democrat line -- caller: something we have not talked about it -- these places are offered that shuffle. -- awful. i have been left to sit in my own feces for several hours before i have been attended to you. we just put them in there, these

nursing homes are for-profit, however much money they can make off from medicaid and medicare, and it is abominable. host: are you currently in a nursing facility?? caller: yes. i have been in this facility almost five years. i had a stroke. host: what happens when you raise these issues, when you speak to supervisors and people who run the place when you are living? caller: they have a huge lobby in north carolina for the state government. there's nothing being done. our complaints are hardly heard

whenever the state agencies come around and do inspections. or to investigate complaints. nothing is done about the real complaints that are raised, they just focus on minor things. host: it is a good idea for a segment on this program. i'm glad you brought it up. about 10 more minutes in open form, we will talk about russia, the ukraine war, and weekend events for our next segment. reporting from the new york times, eight video showing the russian defense minister, they on monday released video of defense minister sergey for the first time since the uprising by the mercenary group over the weekend, saying he met with the command post for the fighting in ukraine.

they do not specify when or where it occurred. it is scott on the independent line. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: good morning american citizens and fellow veterans. i have been trying to get out for a month, and i am still smoking about the american flag with the a flag in and middle -- in the middle biden throughout. why -- they just had a big pride parade in our capital, springfield illinois, and why do the veterans only get one day a year? we defended this country with our lives. look at our walls in d.c.. i wish the president and congress would go there every day and pray to us dead guys.

anyway, i just came from the grocery markets and the prices are insane. i just can't swing this anymore. we are on social security. it is eating everything up. we are just suffering. i know we talk about jobs and more money, but more money is more inflation. host: new york, arthur. you your volume on the television and go ahead. caller: i like where you talk about -- they need to leave the

supreme court alone. what they should do is the time limit terms for congress. no way they should be in their 45th--40th or 50th years. that is why it is corruption. my dad fought world war ii and the u.s. pennsylvania battles. he says i love my country, but i don't like the government, what they're doing. so this was years ago. he passed away in 89. i just have to say, the way our country -- biden said he was going to divide as dust united's. but he has done nothing but separate us more. host: kathy on the democrat line. caller: high there.

-- hi there. one thing i want to say, when people were talking about the term limits for the sprinkler. you're to look at what the life expectancy was in the 1700s. most of this was written when women have no rights, anyone who did not have landon was not white did not have rights. now they are going for a lifetime. they should not have lifetime appointments. that is asking for abuse. host: glad you got in. david on the line in texas, independent. caller: good morning, how are you all doing? i love the show, thanks so much. what i wanted to say it was that when we talk about make america great again, i believe but until

reagan came in, the tax rate for the highest earners was north of 70%. that is what we need to do. all of these people calling in, they are old like me and they are hurting. we need to make a stronger social safety net. our politicians will not deliver on it. i am a lifelong conservative and i like to eviscerate the poor and the troubled. however, i think the most important thing is we need to make greater change, strengthen our social safety nets, make our society stronger, give something back. why is it that the military has nailed the last six audits? they can't account for trillions of dollars, yet anytime someone needs help, it's like where are we going to get the money?

my friend is a bureaucrat in chicago and he agrees. host: all right. a look at the day and week ahead in washington with "politico playbook", their headline, the white house goes macro on biden- nomics. his new buzzword, and hitting the donor circuit before they deadline. it seems to be quieter than the dust president biden and vice president harris kick off two of the investigate -- investing in america tour, announcing an investment in high-speed internet infrastructure. more broadly, it is a pivot into a campaign message, shorthand for the economic strategy of boosting -- rather than tax cuts

for the wealthy. he will travel to chicago to deliver a major economic address where you can expect him to tout some of the numbers tucked into this morning's memo. jackie is in newport, florida. republican line. welcome. caller: good morning. thanks for having my call. i'm 53 and i am from a lower middle-class income in georgia, a single mom. and i put myself through college by joining the military and did not finish my college degree until i was 36, had children. i just finished paying off my student loans, which was a loan i created and should have to pay. i am a republican, but i about

-- vote across party lines. i understand we all want to help people. i am a huge charity person. i do a lot for the community. i do it when i can. but when i can't, i donate my time. that is one of my biggest treasures. i think that the country is so focused on helping people out, but we are creating a dependency on the government and a lack of work ethic. i have 318-year-old boys that just graduated high school. i try hard to teach them that you get what you get in life because you work for it. if you don't work for it, you don't get it. i think our country is divided, and it is divided more so because we are trying to create this dependency on the government when it is not needed. we have to cut spending and some of that means we have to get

back to local helping of each other and less of dependency on the government. host: next is ken in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine thank you. caller: great, thank you for taking my call. i want to celebrate this month with like-minded individuals. it is a wonderful month that we celebrate this community. before i confuse anyone, the community i am talking about is black music appreciation month, that came prior to bill clinton in 1999 declaring it gay and lesbian and barack obama extended it for the community. but i declared june to be black appreciation. it is interesting how things become hijacked over time. a flag in and of itself is just

a flag. that does not change anything about america's overall declaration of how it treats its citizens. it is something that people focus on to be patriotic, but you are certainly not equal. so some have made a reference before, we must have term limits. it essentially means accountability. we have supreme court justices who have been accepting money and trips -- that is how you get influence. i would not be able to get that now unless i was allowed access, the authority should be there. people are buying into what they think the government is going to do. the government is not an entity of itself.

they are a bunch of people. if you go to the government, congress, whatever, and you make more money while you are there then you had before you got there, something is wrong. host: appreciate your comments. more of the program ahead. next we will talk about russia's war on ukraine and the weekend rebellion in russia. george beebe of the quincy institute for responsible statecraft joins us next. ♪ ♪ >> he is a british historian, 57, he lives in -- with his wife and children.

his latest effort is called the world, a family history of humanity. including the index, it is hurting hundred four pages. he writes, i have always wanted to write an intimate human history like the world. this is a lifetime of study and troubles. >> his latest book, the world: a it is availablen the mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, plaintiff c-span radio. important congressional hearings and other republican events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. eastern.

check washington today. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand keep up with the biggest events with live streams and hearings from u.s. congress. campaigns and more from the world of politics, all your figure types. help us stay current with the washington journal, and the c-span tv network and c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. now available at the apple store and google play, download it for free today. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues.

host: we have a guest who is a russia expert, special advisor to former vice president cheney on russia, analysis on russia, no director of grand strategy with the institute for responsible statecraft. to talk about the russia ukraine war in the events of the weekend, george beebe, welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you. host: a piece to publish earlier in the month, the headline said testing russia's red lines could become a fatal external. it is almost like they were tested this weekend with the rebellion i the wegner group. guest: that is right. putin is facing the most dangerous moment he has faced any time in his presidency. his rule is at state -- stake

and the fate of the war in ukraine is at stake. host: what you think russia might do in ukraine following this insurrection? guest: the biggest danger that putin faced was that elements of the russian military or intelligence services might throw their weight behind him. that is something he was counting on. i think that forced him to make a deal with putin to get out of the situation he has put himself in. the other danger was that the russian military would have to divert its attention and resources from the war in ukraine to try to deal with internal unrest in russia. that did not happen either because putin was able to orchestrate this settlement quickly. but i think this situation leaves him wounded politically. russians first and foremost look

to their leader in the kremlin to maintain order inside russia. a lot of russians have got to be asking themselves today, how could putin have let the situation get so out of control that this happened, this challenge to his power happened? he allowed the group of private mercenaries to accumulate a lot of military capability. hungry for military influence. and that blame falls at putin's feet. host: there were comments about how the russian people view putin now reflected in some of the headlines. the revolt puts him at a weaker position, he is in a weak light. there is a similar tone on the future of the russian president.

you said you viewed this as his serious domestic challenge of his presidency. why do you think he did not see this coming? guest: he should have. this was a failure on his part. he gambled that he could exploit the private army of mercenaries to allow him to do things in the war in ukraine that would not force putin to rely on large-scale construction of russians and offload the burden to some degree onto this mercenary force. i think in retrospect, it was an ill-advised gamble. it backfired considerably. host: you have been watching the russia ukraine war on a close basis but it is still hard to get your head around what the wegner group is, help us understand who they are and how they came into such a essential

position militarily for the russians in ukraine. guest: this group, a private military band, began in the ukrainian war. of course it got its start in 2014 after the change of government, the revolution, the uprising as they called it at the time, but put serious strains on the relationship between western ukraine, largely catholic, ukrainian speaking, and eastern ukraine. largely russian-speaking and orthodox. the russians essentially backed this in the don ross and the eastern regions of ukraine.

and the wagner group of private mercenaries had its origin in support to those rebels inside ukraine that grew in 2014, 2015. they parlayed that into activities in africa, syria, and these were mercenaries. these were people who had experience as fighters and they used it essentially to get control of mines and other national resources that would jennifer -- generate wealth for you guinea pig ocean -- promotion -- for him. when the group launched an assault on oil fields that the united states military and allies were defending in syria, at the time, the u.s. military

had a channel of deconfliction with the russian military which was also operating in syria, to try to avoid a direct confrontation there. in the u.s. commander on the ground said we've got a bunch of what looked to be russian fighters coming out us. has counterpart in the russian military said we don't know who they are and the u.s. said they were compliant. what happened as a result was a lot of fighters -- they fight -- they thought this office was on except a bowl. had been trained by the russian military. host: how does he deal with his regular military, his military chiefs and his army especially,

and the wagner group and the things they are doing in ukraine? guest: his ability to pull off this pouncing act has reached its end. that is what we saw over the last 48 hours. after he went public with a load of criticism of the russian military and of putin's overall strategy in ukraine, the response from the kremlin was to say you're fighters are going to have to sign contracts with the regular russian military. this is a profound threat to him and the cash cow the wagner group had become. he attempted to enforce that by moving his troops into russia, marching on moscow. that backfired. but he and putin were both

seriously wounded by this. host: what is your view of the belarusian president in being the mediator in this conflict and supposedly taking him within its borders? guest: it is convenient for putin to outsource this. host: so you think he initiated at? guest: i think so. they know each other for a long time. they speak the same language and they are both marginally hardliner thugs more than less -- more or less. and for putin to enable a negotiation in which he did not himself have to participate, he did not have to dignify the uprising in any way through direct communications.

lukashenko played a valuable role. also it would have been disastrous had proposed in -- how the man fled to ukraine and a prominent military commander and former ally had defected to the enemy. that would have been politically quite damaging to putin. finding a way to put him in exile in belarus, and allied country, one where the russian intelligence services had deeply penetrated the belarusian government, that allows putin to monitor him over time and keep him under close watch, make sure he can be under dutch up to anymore shenanigans. host: do you think we have heard the last from him and the wagner group when it comes to ukraine? guest: probably not. i don't think this is going to end entirely neatly.

but i doubt we're going to see a repeat from him of this kind of uprising. one thing he bet on was that he would get the support of the russian people and the russian military. he did not get that. nobody defected from the russian military to his side. a lot of russians had some sympathy with his criticisms of the war and the way putin has conducted it, but there were not mass demonstrations or significant public unrest that accompanied the uprising. i think he would have to think twice before he were -- host: he still has thousands of troops with some level of loyalty to him in ukraine and elsewhere, particularly ukraine. guest: that is a question. of the 25,000 fighters that he

claimed to have, some reports say that a few thousand actually went with him into russia. you can't be very confident that you're going to be able to take on the russian military successfully especially if you don't have an air force, and succeed in all of this. there are some mercenaries that will continue to be in opposition to putin and the war? yes. i think they will be. a lot of them are going to go to africa, perhaps remain in syria. the ones that remain did not join him in this uprising and have invited -- been invited to sign contracts with the russian military. and they are mercenaries.

they are with whoever pays them. it looks like the russian government is the only one in the position to provide them with money. host: our guest is george beebe, the director of ground strategy for the quincy institute. are talking about they weekends events and the russian ukraine war. we welcome your calls and comments at (202) 748-8001 for republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independent (202) 748-8002. do think this changes where the ukrainians are in russia? guest: host: -- guest: yes. have you been forced to divert

resources to russia itself, but one who provided the opportunity to take advantage of the russian defenses and probably win the war in ukraine. the window of opportunity has essentially closed. i think the russians are going to be able to concentrate their efforts in ukraine. the problem is that putin is wounded politically and is perceived inside russia as having what things get out of control, exhibiting weakness in all of this. he is going to be under pressure to demonstrate strength. he's going to have to respond to critics who say he has not been aggressive enough in ukraine. i expect he will have less patience for setbacks in the war. i think he is going to be probably quicker on the draw to

respond to efforts by the ukrainians or the west to accelerate this counteroffensive on ukraine's part. i think we are probably on a course to rainer x -- greater escalation in ukraine as a result of this incident over the weekend. host: you are the author of the book the russia trap, how are war with russia spiraled into a nuclear catastrophe. written in 2019 before the invasion of russia into ukraine. now headline in the washington journal, mutiny ignites nuclear concerns. if you could update your book, what are your concerns? how have they been increased following this weekend? guest: the threats of only grown. the u.s. intelligence community was very concerned in the aftermath of the breakup of the soviet union in the early 1990's, control over the soviet

nuclear arsenal and nuclear expertise. we were worried that somebody might get their hands on a nuclear weapon of some kind. some might sell their expertise to the highest bidder. we were unfortunately able -- we were fortunately able to navigate through those dangers successfully. but the degree to which russia's internal stability starts to crumble, those concerns are back in play. we need to be careful about what we wish for in russia. yes, if russia enters a crisis, their position in ukraine will be compromised. there are potential side effects for american security. we need to be concerned not just

about the escalation in ukraine, but the implications of lack of stability inside russia for america's own. host: let's go to bob in overland park, kansas. democrat line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of quick questions here. obviously you were advisor on russian matters and affairs and an analyst in the cia. have you been following putin's career for decades i imagine, is that correct? guest: that is correct. caller: then you also know that he is not exactly what i would call a forgiving or magnanimous

person, especially since he has been in the power -- the position of power he is now. you would agree with that probably. guest: absolutely. he's been asked what he is willing to forgive any the answer was everything but treasury -- treachery. clearly he is guilty of that in putin's eyes. caller: so going from that position and understanding the background of putin and demand, understanding he started out as a common thug and got sent to prison for 10 years or something, moving along, putin all of a sudden forgives him and says go into belarus. i submit this entire thing was a ruse. that they maneuvered troops to

take the wagner groups contact in southeastern ukraine and they needed to maneuver the other troops around to belarus so that you come in from that position. which the russians tried at the beginning of all of this and it did not work very well and they attacked from the north. but now, ukraine has all of its troops pressing east and south with minimal support in the west and belarus is right there. your opinions on that? guest: it is an interesting hypothesis. what would you wouldn't do -- what you would want to do to investigate whether that is true is look at troop movement. are the russians moving even secretly a large number of forces into belarus to enable an attack from the north?

as far as i know, we are not saying that. the president of belarus has a vested interest in keeping belarus out of this war to the extent that that is possible. he has his own concerns about domestic stability in arrears. there are large numbers of belarusians that are not happy with his long tenure in the presidency in belarus. and might well rise up if belarus gets dragged against its will into a war on ukraine. i doubt that lukashenko is in favor of that. right now i doubt that the russians are seriously planning some sort of assault from the north. but we will have to see. host: from spring, texas, clint on the independent line. caller: your thoughts on the

expansion of nato and surrounding russia, wouldn't you be nervous if you were them? secondly, if the russian citizens have the right to bear arms, would prudent still be in power? -- putin still be in power? and why did the cia take out jfk and rfk? guest: i will punch on that last question if you mind. on the question of whether putin will stay in power if russians had the right to their arms, i think for much of putin's rule, russians thought that he was bringing stability and some measure of prosperity to russians after what was an extraordinarily different coal

-- difficult and calamitous decade in the 90's when russia depopulated the industrialized this instead. when putin came to power, he said i will -- on the question of nato expansion and how the russians have viewed this. i think russians -- i worried that the united states and its allies are aiming at some sort of regime change inside russia. that doesn't mean that i think the united states and nato are to blame for his decision to go

to war in ukraine. putin himself made that decision. he did not have to. there were other ways available for him to deal with nato and mitigate the threat that he and many other russians perceived there. so he has response billet for the decision to go to war. i think it was the wrong decision and has been disastrous for russia in retrospect. that said, i think the united states over the course of many years helped contribute to an environment that made this kind of decision on his part more likely than it needed to be. we got ourselves involved in countries that were among the most sensitive and most important to russia's own sense of insecurity. that was dangerous and in retrospect, we should have been

more cautious about some of the things we did. host: back to your article on the defense, in testing russia's redlines, the testing has included more advanced military technology including training f-16 pilots, ukrainian pilots, what are your concerns in terms of testing those russian redlines militarily? guest: the united states has been concern from the start of the investigation that it might escalate into a war between the united states or nato and russia. president biden has warned that we don't want world war iii. we don't want to put boots in the ground or do something that might produce that kind of dangerous confrontation. the problem has been that over time we have grown more confident that his red lines are

not as firm as we feared early in this war. that we can do a lot more to push the envelope without provoking a direct russian attack on the united states or nato in some way. that i think is resulted in our ambition expanding. our first priority after this invasion was to make sure putin was not able to re-subjugate ukraine, not and its independence. we were successful in doing that. american support for ukraine helped ensure that it could defend itself. then i think our appetite grew bigger. we are all going to -- off of

all territory, including crimea, which russia has held since we 14. our ambition shifted from defense, so to speak, into offense. that is where we are starting to test how much can we get away from -- with here. that is a dangerous gamble on our part. because the more we push, the more we realize that perhaps putin's redlines are only going to be evident after we've gone too far and he has reacted. he is under pressure politically in russia to push back. that is one of the fruits of this most recent prices i think. he's going to have to show that he is tough. he can't continue to tolerate

growing american and european military support for ukraine without pushing back in some way. host: let's hear from christian in san antonio, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentleman seems to have his knowledge in this area. do you think the policy of the united states toward this war, are we doing the right thing? and if not, what would your strategy be on the foreign policy and area conflict? guest: my response would be we are doing part of the right thing. we need to be helping ukraine defend itself. it is not in our interest to see the russians overwhelm give --

kyiv, take control of that bulk of ukrainian territory and essentially turn ukraine into some sort of subordinate puppet state. we've got to be providing support to ukraine to make sure that doesn't happen. but i also think we need to pair that defensive support with diplomacy. with an effort to find a way out of this war before it does escalate into a confrontation that will be very difficult for us and for the russians to control. that is the part of american strategy toward this war that has been lacking. we have done a very good job of defending ukraine. we have not done a very good job of creating the political space for diplomacy to work. it is often most effective when it is paired with military power. that is the part of this i think

we need to be focusing on. host: on spending, looking at some of the accounts on foreign relations total spending, through february this year, on ukraine, there is a total of 768 -- $76.8 billion. 3.9 is humanitarian, almost over 26 financially. things like loans and such, now approaching $50 billion. $46.6 billion. your point on diplomacy, does it have to include some repair and rebuilding of ukraine, money put forward to try to do that? guest: yes. ultimately, ukraine will have to be constructed.

it will be ranging from half a million dollars to over a trillion and that will go up as the war goes on. the more damage and destruction that ukraine suffers. the problem with reconstruction is the russians have a veto over whether it is reconstructed. host: the united nations? guest: not so much but practically on the battlefield. no one is going to invest a trillion dollars into rebuilding ukraine if they are worried the russians could launch another barrage of missile attacks and wipe out everything that has been constructed. if we are going to reconstruct ukraine, that will necessarily require russia's agreement that the fighting should end. how do you get to the point where russians buy into some kind of war? host: here's ed with the

democrats line. caller: good morning. i recently heard rfk junior with a campaign speech saying that conflict is the cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy. so i'm glad to hear that our guest was talking about the u.s. and probably strengthened its diplomatic arm because we're just interested in arming ukraine and having this fight to the bitter end. he mentioned -- in two thousand 8, 2014, putin warned this would not allow nato to join the ukraine. i would like to talk about other alternatives putin has up until ukraine. putin is very measured in the attack going into ukraine.

the fatalities could be much greater had there been an all-out war. but putin realized the ukrainian and the russian people have much in common. any ukrainian he happens to kill is in a sense killing a relative. i would like him to tell the audience whatever best what other alternatives putin had. host: -- guest: i think it was to give diplomacy time to work. putin became convinced last summer that the united states was intent not on bringing ukraine into nato anytime soon, but on building a de facto bilateral mineral -- military alliance with ukraine that would involve providing so much weaponry, so much trading and know-how to the ukrainian desk

training and know-how to the ukrainian military and so much compatibility between the military and ukraine that a year or two down the road, putin would be unable to prevent ukraine from actually joining the alliance and becoming a de facto hostile ally of the united states. so he felt that he was under time pressure to do some and quickly. what we needed to do at the time was to follow through on diplomacy with putin to try to chip away at his perception that the window of opportunity for some sort of understanding was closing. he needed to give that more time. his alternative would have been to work harder on reaching some sort of understanding on all of that. we would've had to facilitated that to show that that course of action has some prospects of success.

host: this is sam in northern virginia. caller: good morning and thank you for your time. i want to talk about the gentleman from baltimore. you said he tried to do the diplomacy but it is laughable when you look at this. basically what we did with russia, to arm the ukrainian -- we had no intention of diplomacy. second is could you be kind enough since you are so knowledgeable about this subject, could you explain to me the comments of victoria nuland when they brought the nord stream to -- nord stream two at

the bottle of the ocean and what was our road? we know that russia would not cut the own hand that feeds them. it makes no sense that -- no sense. this war has been disseminated to us like an insult to the intelligence of every american. i disagree with you. there is nothing more than the stenographer of the rest of this, that they rob us and it is going -- but you leave russia no choice. guest: i don't disagree. i never thought that it made

sense. they have invested billions of dollars in constructing and from which they stood the chance to earn a lot of money that was vital to the russian economy. they always have the capability of turning off the tax in nord stream. they do not have to destroy them to exert leverage in europe. as to the question of who blew up the nord stream pipe mind, there are hypotheses. one set the united states did it secretly. the other is that right now, ukrainians of various connections to the government itself undertook this. i have to say i am skeptical

that a handful of ukrainians could have done this using a private yacht. so is the current expedition of all of this. this is a difficult operation to pull off. the ukrainians don't have a strong navy with a large cadre of demolition experts. i remain to be convinced that that is the most likely nation. as for the u.s. role in the uprising in 2014, i rather doubt that the united states itself orchestrated the uprising in directing it. but there is no question there was a setback. victoria who you mentioned was

certainly at the forefront of the advisors with the ukrainian at that time. this was sensitive for the russians. we were playing with fire half the time and i don't think we realized at the time how close we were to real competition -- confrontation. host: on the nord stream gas line explosion, the destruction of the pipeline, you are saying one of the potential possibilities is that the u.s. may have done that. guest: it is a potential. it is unproved. -- to make sure that the your appearance -- europeans who have been so -- the support don't not

-- don't compromise their devotion to the ukrainian because in the interest of protecting the access to russian energy over time. whether the united states did that or not i think is an open question. the old question of who benefits from something like this, no question. the ukrainians benefited. the united states did as well. we are now the supplier of the natural gas to europe, the higher prices, and there was considerable benefit to the american energy sector. host: mike in california, republican line. caller: good morning. i just tuned in so my apologies if i go over something you did

already. i wanted to touch base because just hearing from brief parts of your statements, you kind of delve into the history of the origins, who is connected to that and why they have to take back the land. host: we will at him give you the condensed version. guest: land is a big part of this. assembled over time as the been results of wars of various kinds. parts of ukraine in the west were once part of poland, the empire.

parts of use and ukraine were of one time part of russia. ukraine suddenly became an independent country. but there was not a lot of consensus inside ukraine or russia for that matter about how you take these various pieces with different histories, different cultures and bring them together into a coherent, united country in which everyone feels a part of this new venture. what i think has happened over time, ukraine has to to solve that problem. bring them together in a coherent, united language. where everyone feels part of his new venture. what i think has happened over time is that ukraine has not

solved that problem and the broader to jim between the united states and russia over this territory exacerbated these internal detentions -- tensions inside of russia. we have found ourselves in the crisis we are in today. host: at the strategy -- thank you for being here. that doesn't bring this morning's addition of washington journal. -- that does it for this morning's addition --edition washington journal. thanks for being with us today. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: here's a look at our live coverage today on c-span. at 11:45 eastern time president biden shares his high-speed internet plans. he is expected to have a $40 billion investment of expanding this. and that 2:00 p.m. conversation on the alliance between australia, the u.k. at bus. -- and in the u.s.. what this on c-span now our free video mobile app or online at c-span.org. announcer: former vice president mike pence, former new jery