♪ host: it's the washington journal for july 6. in the aftermath of a series of deadly shootings around the july 4 holiday. senate democrats will make another push for gun legislation this year.

president biden calling on congress. a recent pew poll looks at the issue of gun ownership asking of owning guns increases or decreases the amount of gun-related violence in the united states. we will show you the results of that poll. what you think about gun ownership whether it increases or decreases gun violence. if you say it increases gun violence, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 if you think it's decreases gun violence. for gun owners in the audience, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. post on facebook and on twitter and you can follow the show on instagram. the front pages of local papers across the united states reflected some concentrated areas of gun violence that took place during the july 4 holiday. the morning call out of allentown, pennsylvania.

her headline from yesterday violence traumatizes philadelphia. it goes on to talk about the report the city is seeing there. going to the fort worth star-telegram. another concentration of violence. uniting after the shooting there with three dead and eight wounded. the holiday violence again. turning to the pages of the baltimore sun, a photo of the governor comforting the families of victims. we've got each other the headline there from the sun. talking about those instances of violence. gun violence traumatizing the philadelphia neighborhood. that took place place over july 4 holiday. a recent pew poll asked people about their thoughts on gun ownership and if that increases or decreases the effect of gun violence in the united states. you can find the pole at the pew research center. one of the findings from that

ad as such. send gun policy continues to be one of the most polarizing issues in an politics. republ and democrats are sharply divided over the impact of gun ownership on public . republicans and independents lean -- say the gun nership increases safety while a identical share of democrats and democratic leaners said it crete -- decreases safety. those live in rural areas about live in urban areas saying gun ownership increases safety. that 65% versus 34%. those who personally owned guns are nearly twice as likely as non-owners to say this. 71% versus 37%. that's the viewing there at the pew research center. with that in mind here's how we pose the question for today. if you think gun ownership increases or decreases gun

violence in the united states. if you say it increases it is 202-748-8000. if you say it's decreases gun violence, 202-748-8001. perhaps you are a gun owner yourself and want to give your perspective, 202-748-8002. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. stemming from those events particularly out of philadelphia it was the district attorney of philadelphia yesterday talking about the lack of laws his state has when it comes to guns and he says those laws or changes could change mass shootings itself. here is a portion from july the fourth. >> it is disgusting, the lack of proper gun legislation that we have in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. i cannot agree more heartily with the mayor. it is disgusting that you can go

to new jersey and find a whole list of reasonable gun regulation that we do not have. that you can go to delaware and there's a must as long a list of reasonable gun legislation we do not have. some of that might've made a difference here. and it is time for everybody in our legislature including the ones who would like to walk around with an ar-15 lapel pin. it's time for every one of them to face the voters and if they are not going to do something, then the voters will have to vote them out because that is what that lapel pin means. i am against you and i'm against your safety. a lot of us has had enough, i've certainly had enough. host: that's the district attorney out of philadelphia talking about gun related violence. thoughts on gun ownership of it increases or decreases violence.

if you say increase, 202-748-8000. if you say decrease 202-748-8001 . gun owners can call at 202-748-8002. john from new york says ownership increases gun violence. caller: i think gun ownership increases violence in certain neighborhoods. in the neighborhood where i live , we don't have good schools and good training and good discipline so when you give guns freely with just a registration, drivers license, a raffle registration card it increases gun violence. you have to know how to unravel this thing. all the guns that come to black neighborhoods, from red states. they do that to make the democrats look bad so they can

win elections. in white neighborhoods they have better schools, they have better discipline. they are aware of things more than we do. we don't have good schools like they do. so when you put guns in a black neighborhood that doesn't have sufficient schools. we have to go to a white neighborhood to find good schools. all of this adds up. host: john in new york. caller: good morning. that's unfortunate because i'm not never number one. but back to the topic. i've been a gun owner for more than 60 years. that puts me around the age of 80. i never shot anyone, i carry all the time i gun.

i have two sons. they have more guns than you can imagine. they've never shot anyone. but they carry guns also. concealed weapon permit. and i will tell you what's wrong with the country now. the laws are two lakhs. if you shoot someone, not in self-defense but shoot someone like all this shooting going on, they need to be jailed for 20 years or more. if you kill someone not in self-defense, you need to be half -- hung the next day from a telephone pole. host: before you go, as far as the ownership itself is it the actual ownership that you think decreases gun violence or do you think the laws like concealed carry do that? or is it a combination of both? caller: you can kill anybody

without a gun for you can use a machete, a knife, a gasoline bomb. host: ok. rob is next in michigan. a gun owner. good morning. you are next up. caller: your subject matter begs the question because it refers to a desk gun violence which is a misnomer, a created term to be polarizing. the first caller identified social problems, education, jobs. i thought he to do very good job in alluding to that. i would disagree it's a question of black and white. if i'd made the statement i would've been called a racist. he is right that the true problem lies in ignorance which begets poverty which begets desperation which causes people to become violence but it's

people violence. some people are violent with automobiles. we had a number of cases in the past nobody's calling it car violence. it's the human choice to which weapon they will use to express their frustration and desperation. so the number of guns does not create crime, the people choose to do that and gun violence is the wrong term. used to divide the country. host: you can continue with your thoughts on the lines. they asked the people who were responding about gun related issues when it comes to that. for those looking at policy particularly that are more restrictive preventing people with metal -- mental illness from purchasing guns. 72% in favor of that. 59% in favor of increasing the aged 21 years old.

50% banning the high-capacity imitation magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. 51% saying banning of assault style weapons as part of the pew poll. more equally divided when it comes to opposing things such as 32% of those responding allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns. 36% allowing people -- i'll find this later. again the idea about this idea of if gun ownership itself increases or decreases gun violence. you can call in on that specifically such as dog in san jose, a gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. the previous caller did make one of my points which is done violence is a red herring term. the truth is it's human violence. the assassins on 9/11 didn't use

guns. people will figure out a way to kill people, criminals will figure out a way to get guns, that's why they are criminals. i live in a state where there's a lot of laws restricting the ownership of firearms and limiting the ownership of firearms. they do not stop people from killing each other and from violent behavior towards each other. if you have a firearm and you are a lawfully able to process and carry that firearm then you have the possibility of defending yourself against violence in whatever form it comes at you. no reasonable human being wants to shoot anybody else, it's a last resort. but it's a resort that as americans we have had available to us since the founding of the country and it should not be restricted in any way, shape or

form. host: the pew poll asks about the percentages saying gun ownership does more to reduce by giving to me people access to firearms and increasing misuse. 49% total saying that. another 49% saying it increases safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. it differs when you come to the various regions of the united states you live in the areas. amongst gun owners only 28% saying it reduces safety by giving to me people access to firearms. 71 saying it increases safety. nonowners the reverse with 61% to 37%. you can find that. johnny in tampa, florida on the line that says it increases gun violence. go ahead.

caller: yes it does. here over the weekend we had a seven-year-old girl shot because two guys were fighting. if you don't have a gun you won't have to worry about killing nobody with the gun. i feel all gun owners should have the right to have a gun, that the second amendment. if you have a rural area i think so but i see no reason for a person having a gun in the city. they say we carry it because we want safety. i'm 85 years old and i'm safe, i've never had anyone break into my house or shoot at me and i don't own a gun. i feel people you hear these people calling in about they need a gun and all of that, they are a bunch of cowards. why do you have to put a gun on to walk around? all of a sudden you say i have to have a gun to protect myself.

you don't need a gun to protect yourself. you have other ways to protect yourself. i've things in my house to protect myself but it's not a gun. i feel more guns you have the more violence you are going to have. and the young man, the person who called from new york saying it's the blacks that have no control and they have no good schools. i'm a black guy and i live in tampa, florida and we have wonderful schools. i reject the idea that a gun has to be the way a person live is the person themselves. host: let's hear from greg in pennsylvania. gun ownership decreases gun violence prayed hello. caller: good morning. a suggestion by the way, there's lots of people the work with the

line. earlier this week you cut someone off who made a comment. every once in a while i think it would be helpful for c-span to tell people what is and what is not because the race card gets played a lot and i don't recall, i've been listening for 40 years almost. never heard anyone of those got cut off. host: gun violence is the topic today. what do you think. caller: the problem is one party refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books right now. for example mr. krasner, the da in philly. he has been reelected at least one time. he's also been impeached because he's failed to do his job. the problem with the democratic party prayed i'm a registered independent by the way since 1976. until 2012i voted for the winning candidate so do the

races and you'll see who i voted for. they don't want to enforce the existing laws in democratic jurisdictions because they are afraid it's going to be disproportionately applied against a community that tolerates this violence. the answer is not more laws. the answer is people like krasner should go into the communities and say you people know who the criminals are. help us find them and put them in jail. host: as far as the gun ownership itself and why you think it decreases violence, what case would you make? caller: well, the case i would make is you go to the jurisdictions where there are a whole lot of people that own a whole lot of guns legally and how much crime is there? host: that's greg in pennsylvania giving us his thoughts this morning.

if you go to the hill.com, a story saying chuck schumer says the senate will make another attempt to pass gun control legislation in response to the new round of mass shootings we been talking about and it highlights some of those events there. reminding folks it was a year ago lawmakers passed gun control measures in response to a wave of shooting. now they are considering new steps as more americans die from gun shootings. leader schumer passing cigna get gun safety bill last summer more must be done, schumer continues to work with the caucus to find a path forward. scourge of gun violence, save lives and bring meaningful change set a spokesperson there. potential efforts, but if you want to read more you can do that at the hill with the president himself responded to gun violence over the weekend putting out a statement saying

it was over the last few da wave of tragic and senselessd a shooting in communities across amer jill and i geve for those who lost their lives and as the celebrates independence day we pray for a day we will be from gun violence. it once again to provide safe storage fo gun and to enact universal background checks prayed and encourage other states to follow and continue to call lawmakers in congress to come to meaningful common sense reform. that's the statement from the white house. again this idea of gun ownership itself increases or decreases gun violence. the line that best represents your train of thought. gun owners, align for you specifically. 202-748-8002. that is where pete is coming

from in south dakota. go ahead. caller: yes sir, thank you for taking my call. i find it ironic the people who scream most about banning guns and restricting people's rights under the second moment of the constitution, why is it that they are guarded by elite personnel and private personnel well trained who carry full automatic weapons, but they don't want me to own a semiautomatic rifle because it's an evil weapon. you talk about hypocrisy. why is the president guarded by people with machine guns? no president has ever been attacked by somebody armed with a machine gun. host: so by extension are you

making the case that ownership itself decreases events of gun violence in itself? clarify that. caller: yes. every american has a right to defend themselves against armed intruders, to protect their family against criminals. this state has gun rights, real gun rights. and we don't have rampant mass shootings in this state. if you look at the western states that are red states, it is seldom that you have mass shootings. look at new york state, new york city, l.a., san francisco. they are controlled by democrats with strict gun control and when

these people are caught alive, they commit these acts, they make excuses for them. crime runs rampant. they do not arrest and imprison these criminals. host: let's hear from david in flint, michigan who says it's gun ownership that increases gun violence. david, hello. caller: good morning c-span. yes it's a no-brainer. the united states, my country has more guns per person than anybody on earth. we have mass shootings, we have people killed. the republicans refuse to help in stopping all of these murders and killings in schools and everywhere. they always want to cry about

chicago or new york. the red states, they have a lot of gun violence. i just don't -- i do not understand how grown men act like a bunch of big crybabies over a gun. i've never owned a gun. i've never had anybody break into my house. i've never had nobody have to defend myself with a gun. it's just crazy. people wanted excuse to have automatic rifles and all of this crazy kid stuff. host: this is deb saying look at the statistics worldwide, she makes the case out of that. an increase of the second amendments as well regulated certainly is not. i believe the question the

premise is wrong, the easy access to guns from gun shows to private sales increases more guns. need to eat more civics and history to understand the second amendment instead of abusing it. steve from twitter as well. i can run faster than a guy with a knife but not a bullet. i don't member the last time we discussed a mass stabbing. you can reach out on twitter or text us at 202-748-8003. twitter, if you want to participate in a poll that we are conducting their based on the question we are doing here. not scientific by any means but just the input, but asking the same question. currently as it stands, 66 point 2% of those participating say that the gun ownership increase of gun violence versus 33 point 8% saying it decreases it. that is not scientific at all,

just a response poll. scott in fredericksburg, virginia. a gun owner, you are next up. caller: my first time calling. i am a gun owner. i believe guns -- legal gun ownership does deter violence. i'm also black and a republican and i was raised in baltimore city and i can remember in the 80's the trains and stuff coming through baltimore city with guns on them. we used to jump the trains and pull the guns off the train. we are talking about ruger's, i was a kid back then. i don't know why the train came through the city like that but the doors would be unsecured and

we would literally use to take cases of guns off the train. a lot of the things that are going on in cities right now i believe is related to how our culture is defined. in the cities. with the only people in the world whose culture is defined by other people. we are completely not in control of what is put out is a view of black people. the hip-hop industry is not controlled by black people. host: back to the topic of gun ownership if you wouldn't mind, as far as the argument you're making. would you say the increase of gun ownership decreases the potential violence? caller: i believe that the increase of the legal gun

ownership, the question you're asking to me it's not really narrow enough because legal gun ownership determines -- deters violence. illegal gun ownership increases violence. host: how so? caller: think about it, if the police came to a situation and they weren't armed, it would be harder for them to stop a situation. host: milton is next, baltimore, maryland says gun ownership increases gun violence. hello, you are next up. caller: good morning i'm from baltimore and earlier last week with the shooting -- i think the real issue is this. it's a political question.

there is an acronym out there, not in my back yard. which says every time there's a shooting in the city the property value around that area goes up because then the people can say you can live with us in peace and harmony where there's nonviolence or you can live in the cities with them. it's conducive for politicians to keep violence in the city, to keep violence around where their constituents can say we need to raise our prices. it's the same thing with infrastructure. every time there's an infrastructure to build if it's not in their communities they don't want it. i would say guns increase the propensity for violence because the people want and need that

violence. host: milton in baltimore. that same poll asking people who were looking, the question of stricter gun laws. the percentages of those saying gun laws should be more strict. 58% of those saying that. 26% saying gun laws currently are about right. 15% -- 51% of mensing gun laws should be more strict. 64% of women saying gun laws should be more strict. a lot of information there in that pew poll on gun issues and related issues. in north carolina this is joseph on her increase line. hello, go ahead. caller: i believe that gun ownership increases violence because people steal guns, people do boneheaded things with

guns. i've seen guys take their guns and shoot their handoff because the gun wasn't secure. we have an apathy problem in the united states. people care more about putting up a more real to dead people than they do about taking care of the living. that's why ownership creates more violence. host: joseph there in north carolina giving his thoughts. will heard, used to be a member of congress representing uvalde, texas. in an interview talking about various policy decisions he would take as he is making a run for the white house in 2024, he was asked about the issue of gun violence and how to deal with it. here's part of his response.

>> i got an a rating from the nra when i was in congress. i'm a gun owner and law-abiding gun owners recognize that people, some people should not have weapons and making sure that mental health is a priority but also you should be -- a semi automatic, high caliber rifle, you should be the same age as you need to be in order to buy a handgun. that's 21. we also need to make sure that we have universal background checks, that's a basic one. you look at a number of shootings over the years. there was failures in that process and we need to be serious about mental health, we always talk about it but do we know what to do if someone we knew said i'm been a go do something dangerous. there's that that's really wild

to me is 50% of our teenagers are worried about getting shot in school. that's about 13 million kids. factor their parents on top of that, now you are adding, 90 million americans that are concerned about the safety of their school. this is something we need to be serious about and both parties shouldn't be running to their corners and talking about the same thing they've been talking about for 25 years, it's time to get serious. universal background checks, 21 being the age and seriously dealing with mental health. 80% of americans agree on. host: gun ownership increase or decrease gun violence? of us your thoughts on the line. 202-748-8000 if you say it increases it. 202-748-8001 if you say it decreases at. for gun owners, 202-748-8002.

you are welcome to text us at 202-748-8003. bob is in utah and says it decreases it. good morning, go ahead. caller: i'm happy to get on after this fella talking about mental illness. people go out and drink and get drunk and carry guns and that is self-induced mental illness. people carrying guns and drinking, that would cut down a whole lot on a lot of crimes because alcohol is involved in one third of the shootings in the united states. i believe in owning guns but i don't believe in these attack

military weapons on the streets. thank you very much. host: bob in utah there. it's here from josie in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i'm here in western pennsylvania where hunting is a very common sport. we have the monday after thanksgiving, students are off to go deer hunting. that's to the importance where i live. i do believe there is an increase. we have made the second amendment, we have made the second amendment sacrosanct. it is -- it goes over our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. people are talking about, the gentleman said we need to have our schools that are protected. what about our shopping malls, what about our churches?

what about places where we have our everyday lives to go about being interrupted by. and i will just address assault weapons. there should be no reason why anyone other than military personnel should be carrying an ar-15 or any other type of high-powered multi-killing rifle. it is ridiculous and when we took out the 2004 ban on assault rifles it seems as though the violence just shot straight up. it seems to be a weapon of preference. this random killing of americans. we have to have the courage to say enough is enough. we have to say i'm not against people having guns, i'm against people who have access to guns that do mass destruction. we talk about mental health. we don't commit to programs that would help, the money that's

necessary to promote better mental health among people. we talk out of both sides of our mouth. the gentleman who said about we run and put up altars to those who are dead and gone, it does not solve the problem. thoughts and prayers don't solve the problem. what solves the problem is common sense. host: josie in pennsylvania. let's hear from a gun owner in atlanta, robert. robert from atlanta, good morning? caller: yes. i do own a gun. it's a very complicated topic. historically in the united states i do feel that gun ownership has increased, it does increase violence. the history of the united states. however as a gun owner i feel

that you know fear, i feel that fear plays a major role. you have to make responsible decisions if you own a gun. guns should not be the first choice that a person results to. to handle a situation. host: ok. robert in atlanta. gun owners out there if you want to contribute to the conversation, 202-748-8002. if you want to make your thoughts known there. you can make your thoughts known on facebook as well. brian from facebook saying when it comes to the answer yes for him gun ownership increases gun violence. bobby from twitter saying the problems unregulated gun trafficking everyone should be

registered to illegal owner who's responsible. another person off of twitter saying in the car company's make car safer a number of steps that apply this requirement to gun producers. sean from facebook saying guns in the right hand. they can obviously do the opposite prayed a gun by itself is no more dangerous than a car or pencil. audie from facebook saying will we ever talk about the violent person pulling the trigger of these inanimate objects. our facebook page is facebook.com/c-span. from north carolina, this is gerald on our line for those think it definitely good morning. caller: we have a lot of disinformation being put out by

gun-control control advocates starting with the so-called assault weapons. they've made it look like those firearms have only been in existence for a few years. that's completely false. we've had those in civilian use since the beginning of the 20th century. ar-15's have been in common use and available for civilian ownership since the early 1960's. we didn't have a bunch of school shootings then. it is not about the firearms. it's about the culture, we valued life. it's about the fact that we've created soft targets for people who want to make a name for themselves and those soft targets in the name of gun free zones where the shooter knows for absolute fact that they will be the only person with a gun there. when i grew up as a kid in high school we would have people who had guns in the back of their cars to go hunting. nobody had mass school shootings

then. it's a matter of the culture, not the firearm. we need to understand this. host: roosevelt in brooklyn, new york says increased guns lead to increase gun violence. caller: good morning. of course guns increase violence. the more guns manufactured in this country makes violence available to the average joe. it's a simple question, control the manufacture of guns and you will control the violence in this country. thank you. host: about 20 more minutes for you to contribute to the conversation if you wish. you can call the phone lines that best represented you. you can choose that and call in. if you want to post on facebook or twitter, you can do that as

well. on that twitter feed our polls changes numbers again. 70% of you in the audience, increasing gun violence in the 29.5% saying it decreases gun violence. that's the pole if you want to participate there. let's hear from josh in texas, a gun owner. caller: i'm a gun owner. i do believe the ease of gun ownership in the lower regulations increase gun violence, it's not just a belief it's based on the few statistics we have. it's difficult to do a scientific study on gun ownership and violence because it's hard to design them. but you can compare states throughout history that have different directions on gun

regulation and the one very firm correlation, not a causation, decreased regulation and increased gun ownership and that's domestic violence against women. 64% of women are for gun regulation because they are one of the primary targets of gun violence and statistics are very firm on that fact. i'm very interested in regulations such as absolute licensure on gun ownership matches license carry and conceal. and then the registration of all guns similar to the way it might be done in australia which is another country that had very high rates of gun ownership but they took drastic steps to reduce gun violence.

the statistics we do have firmly show that there is a correlation between increased gun ownership, decreased regulation and gun violence. guest: josh -- host: josh in texas giving us a call. you heard the statement from the president in reaction to the gun violence throughout the july 4 weekend. it was on july 4 itself the president appeared in a video speech to the national educators association. their convention talked about many things related to education but also talked about gun violence in school. here is a portion of that. [video clip] >> educators find themselves on the front lines of gun violence. some members talked about this, with your help we passed -- but it's not nearly enough. i was one of those guys early on when i was a senator who helped

pass the assault weapons ban and we could only get it for 10 years. congress needs to step up, pass common sense gun safety laws. by the way, arming teachers is not the answer. ban the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. they are part of the answer, they make a big difference. host: that's the president on july 4 prayed laura in new york on her decreased line. caller: i have a different take on it. i believe there is a program going on, it might be from the fbi. i think people are being jacked up. i personally have spent a whole night to the point where i could've had a heart attack. because there's so many

interferences in our home, my husband broke his hip twice. we have a loose and unchecked surveillance operation going on. we have people coming into the country that have already created a situation with fentanyl. we have people who have been accused of conspiring with other countries and even from the top to the people who are actually allowed to use. we have the military, being taught racially -- host: cecil in alexandria, virginia honor line for increase. caller: i think our country is nonchalant about the use and hamming of guns. more citizens die from guns than any other country on the planet.

manufacturing burdens -- merchants sell more. america starting as a result of gun use as well. in china, a four times as many deaths by guns in the united states and by china itself. i think it's the depravity of the european culture. finally all say our government is not been committing to managing to corporate entrance -- interest. the red flow of blood out of schools goes unheeded by our politicians. host: cecil in alexandria. one more bit from that pole under the headline or subhead, rural residents are less likely to favor restrictive gun laws. 56% saying gun laws should be more strict. 26% on the right -- when it

comes to urban areas, 72% say the laws should be more strict. 60% in suburban areas, that goes to 41 percent for those in rural areas. amongst gun owners, 35% thing laws should be more strict. nonowners, 71%. a lot of information there if you want to check it out there. regular snapshot polls on these types of profits. todd is in california on our line for decrease. good morning. caller: good morning. legal gun -- ownership deters violence because criminals know that they don't have an easy target. as far as people keep saying that ar-15's are assault rifles,

they are not assault rifles. assault rifle means it has fully auto capabilities. we don't need anymore gun laws, the united states is like 66 than the world in mass shootings. we are not even number one. heart disease is the main killer of people in this country. secondment says we has the right to legal guns and that's the way it needs to set -- stay. >> let's hear from andrew. andrew is in maine, a gun owner there. >> some quick background. my father was an educator started his teaching career in northern new hampshire. he was the first nra sponsored gun safety instructor. in 1957. when my brother and i grew up when we wanted to handle the gun all we had to do was reach underneath mom and dad's chair,

we could handle a gun anytime we wanted to as teenagers. it was the ammunition that was locked away. here's one simple fact for people to understand. there's never been any kind of firearm made that has had its own working brain. it's always taken the human hand to pick it up and make it work. if you ban one type of gun what kind of precedent does that set, you have to remember the precedent, what comes next. if you ban an ar platform. ar stands for armalite which is a manufacturer that makes weapons for the united states military. a real assault weapon has a selective switch which enables it to go full automatic.

this is semiautomatic weapons, this is technology that we've had for well more than 100 years in this country. host: ok. that's dale there. let's -- that was a viewer in maine. it's here from dale in annapolis. caller: good morning c-span. it's interesting. whether you're in the rural area, i'm sure they have more use of guns. but a look at the gentleman in philadelphia the just killed five people. they said he had a ghost gun. a ghost gun basically is a gun that cannot be traced. you can make at home. also i'm looking at the gentleman down getting ready to be -- he killed 23 people.

drove one hundred 11 miles with an ar 15 to kill people. i am a gun owner and have a license to carry, but i don't carry it every day. it got to the point where i think common sense and may be having a background check, some common sense go a long way. host: he mentioned the sentencing hearing out of el paso, texas. the new york times reporting on it saying the hearing began yesterday. killing 23 people and injuring dozens more in el paso, labeled as one of the deadliest attacks targeting latinos in modern u.s. history. let's go to william in casselberry, florida. caller: good morning.

it's very simple. guns do not kill people, people kill people. it's very simple. if you look at strict gun laws, look at chicago. they have several shootings every weekend so it really doesn't matter how strict your gun laws are. if there's people that want to kill, they will. if you want to outlaw something, outlaw suvs. they killed a lot of people. it's very simple. it's not the guns. host: let's hear from congressman dusty johnson, a south dakota republican. a member of the problem solvers caucus. didn't interview a few months ago talking about a variety of things, also the topic of legislation coming up.

here's part of that conversation. [video clip] >> is there anything that can be done legislatively about this that hasn't already been done? >> i don't know. i am quite skeptical that the legislative solutions people are talking about. are really in a move the needle like we want them to. i'm a father of three sons who get dropped off or drive themselves to school. when you see this kind of carnage, this pure evil, it sucks everything you have out of your soul. this type of people should not exist in the world. as far as what can be done. last year when folks largely on one side of the aisle past some legislation with gun safety, we were told that this would be a big advance and the anybody who

wasn't for this was for continuing the carnage and this is how we stop the carnage. nobody really believes that legislation has stopped these sort of acts of people. i think that's part of the problem with the legislative solutions that people throw around out there. we do them because we feel like we have to do something. the carnage is unfortunately a lot bigger than what we saw nash -- the carnage is 100,000 people who dive drug overdose deaths every year and 100,000 people who dive from suicides. we are not a healthy nation. we are under -- >> what do you think that's about? >> i think a lot of the key institutions that used to bind us together and help us be resilient have weekend. i'm not trying to criticize the

way anyone's living their lives but economists last week talk about people who are part of the faith community, other mental health is substantially, significantly materially stronger than people who weren't. the economist didn't say that because jesus is in their life. they did not talk about spiritual, they talked about human capital. i think the bonds that have kept us together and healthy and had us look out for one another and be guardians of one another are an absolute low watermark. i think our social capital is fallen off the cliff. i think 100,000 people killing themselves every year we will also talk about killing others. host: let's hear from paul in houston, texas. caller: i own guns, been owning guns ever since i was old enough to own one. i don't think it's the guns.

i do in a degree, those ar-15's, that's an army rifle. saying whether it's automatic, to me it don't matter. that's a dangerous gun that's only made for killing people. take those off the streets, take those high capacity magazines off the streets and there will not be as many people killed. it will not. but it will definitely slow it down. host: that is paul in texas. let's hear from paul in bloomington -- tom in bloomington. caller: let me express my opinion and then make a quick comment question. i don't know if you have a gun and there something going on and you can get it out fast enough that you can defend yourself. that's what i mean.

i don't know how somebody can do that. if a criminal already has a gun pointed at you it takes time to pull it off and turn the safety off. so i don't know if having guns a handgun really helps anyone. let me just talk for a half minute before you cut me off about minneapolis. this is about some stuff that happened over the fourth of july, just bear with me. there were all kinds of many riots going on -- mini riots in minneapolis. this has to do with george floyd and spinoffs but there's a lot of social unrest up here. people shooting off fireworks at policeman. three or four mini riots in the city and no one reported on it at all. host: tennessee, our decreased line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. ar-15 is a sports rifle.

a military rifle would be the m-16. when they took away respect in school, the teacher was no longer able to paddle a kid for acting up, they took away -- when i went to school if i knew i'd screwed up, my teacher would come up and swap me one good time. parents say you don't touch my kid, the sros, the cops in school, they go to discipline a child. most of the time you hear about a mass shooting, a young kid you don't know what kind of drugs they were on as far as emotional drugs go. host: douglas in minnesota on our line for increase.

caller: how do you do. thanks for taking my call. i think the answer is obvious. that's why called on the increase line. i also have been thinking a lot lately about camp, faith-based camp where i do work in minnesota and one of the activities of course is gun handling. another activity is paintball. i just him trying to come to a conclusion as to why the faith-based camp would even have gun activities and paintball. i just have a disconnect there and have also heard about the

adulation of john wayne from one of the leaders there and to me,e solved problems, very often with a gun. host: the last: the topic. to those of you that participated in this hour, thank you for doing so. two guests joining us throughout the course of the proam. the first up we will hear from rebecca marine of the messenger whserves in the white house reporter -- as a white house reporter talking about present biden's reelection campaign and we will have that conversation next. later on in the program, a russia expert on the status of russia and ukraine conflict, russian vladimir putin, those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal." ♪

announcer: american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, a look at new york city and woodway in the 1960's with a college professor and elizabeth walden. the relationship between broadway and off-broadway productions. and how some theaters are more experiment and respond to cultural issues. 9:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, editors and contributors to the book morning the president along with a presidential historian how americans are not only remember departed presidents but what the

morning ritual say about politics and culture. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on span two. program guide or watch onliner anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, judge jeanine hero shares her book where she contends the president biden and democrats are destroying the country. at 10:00 p.m., on afterwards, is this journalist jason delray looks at the rise of amazon and walmart, their impact on the u.s. and world economies with his book winner sells all. he is interviewed by an inner cider --insider. watch the full schedule on your programuide or watch online anytime at book tv.org --

booktv.org. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work where citizens are truly informed and republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. it is the opinion that matters the most, your own. this is what democracy looks like. powered by cable. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome rebecca marine of the messenger serving as the white house reporter to talk about the current administration's plan for a run at the white house in 2024. thank guest: you for joining us. guest:thank you for having me. host: the messenger is relatively new, tell us what it is about. guest: we launched in may, an

online news organization that covers news, politics, entertainment news, sports news, we are trying to do it from an unbiased lens. there's a lot of news organizations out there but we are trying to give it to the people fast, clear, unbiased. host: why does the messenger take that approach particularly? guest: i think our view is to reach out to the people, talk them and give it to have them -- to them in a way -- to give it to them straight. we're just trying to give it to them where they can understand what are the key points, here is why this is important, here is why matters to you. host: as far as the content, how available is it to the average consumer? guest: we are an online news organization and you can find us at themessenger.com. we are also on twitter and have most social media networks and

are trying to grow out our audience. host: is it one of the things where you have to pay to get to the content or is it free? guest: free. just go to the website and you can see a lot of our stories available free. host: you report on the white house and particularly want to talk to you about the biden administration role as far as 2024. he recently worked on a piece along with others taking a look at the president's role in that. tell us what you think that was important to put out. guest: the vice president will play a very key role in the 2024 reelection. right now she is taking a bit of a central role in fundraising. so that is something that will be very important. you need money to run a campaign so she has been a key fundraiser. she has been an essential part. there's been concerned about are we seeing enough of the vice president? there are some democrats who want to see a more forward facing role for the vice president. they think she is going to be

really key for reelection efforts to reach out to voters. host: as far as lack of visibility, is there a reason why the white house talks about connected to that? guest: the white house that she has been there, she was part of the three-minute campaign reelection and -- announcement and gave some of the first reelection event coverage, so she did the first major abortion rights messaging event right after the biden administration announced their campaign. she has been a key messenger for the abortion-rights message from the white house. she has been the one leading it, talks about it recently when she was in essence fast in new portland. that is something she has taken the lead on in the white house said she is here, she is ready to go. there are some democrats who

talked a little about where is her visibility and other key issues. she was at the first debt ceiling meeting with tala -- top lawmakers. she had a little bit of a busy schedule and may the month after they announced the reelection campaign. people want to see more of the vice president. host: as far has her favorability, you know the polls are looking at favorability, taking a look at the vice president and she has over 50% of any unfavorable rating, favorable rate of 37% according to an aggregated average. does the administration consider that or do they address that, and what are they doing about it? guest: administration officials said she is key. there's a lot of -- i think a big push for her to still be visible. we have seen her ever since the campaign and now be more visible

with the president. i know some have said one thing she can do by be more visible is kind of contrast to concerns about the president's age, since the vice president is younger than the president and trying to weigh out those concerns to see those two together. guest: i imagine because of concerns about the president, that is more a vice president factor as she is considering another term. guest: correct. having her out there is important. host: the piece you wrote looks at the vice president's desire to do more out there besides raise funds. talk about what is going on as far as her desire to make more of an impression on that. guest: for sure. she has been asking and pushing to be like how can i be more visible? i mentioned essence fast in new orleans and she did fundraising there but she also talked about

abortion rights, about reproductive rights. she also met with civil rights leaders. she did an npr interview so she is trying to do more than just fundraiser. she wants to be pushing the message of the white house and biden administration accomplishments. and where they want to work and make movement on. like abortion-rights. guest: we will show the folks at home a little bit of what the vice president had to say during remarks on the anniversary of the dobbs decision. here's the vice president. [video clip] >> so while americans make their voices heard across our nation, president biden and i will continue to do our part. our administration has taken action to protect access to emergency medical care, to support women's supported travel out of state for care and protect women's privacy. but we know this fight will not truly be won until we secure

this right for every american, which means ultimately the united states congress must put back in place what the supreme court took away. [applause] and have the courage to stand for freedom in every way. united states congress must pass legislation to restore the protections of roe v. wade. and when they do, president joe biden will sign it. host: that's the vice president. rebecca morin, i imagine the dobbs decision and everything on that playing out will be a large part of the reelection strategy. guest: that's correct. the white house is trying to draw a contrast between where the white house and democrats end and where republican stand.

we've seen in the past years these kind of different decisions from the supreme court , also coming from local legislatures from congress, members of congress, talking about abortion access, reproductive rights, so this will be a key message for the white house to kind of contrast themselves between where they stand, wanting to find a way to codify roe or find a way to protect reproductive rights versus where they think republican stand. host: the messenger's for rebecca morin joining us. republicans call -- democrats call (202) 748-8000, republicans call (202) 748-8001 and independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. plus your comments on facebook and twitter as well. do you get a sense vice president -- the vice president

has the president's ear when it comes to major issues. guest: that's one of the things some democrats are concerned with. we have seen the president have very key allies, key advisors he looks to, mike donnellan, and some are concerned whether or not -- what role is the vice president plane there? but she has been with him in many key events and that is where the white house is administration -- white house administration and key allies are looking to, she has become this prominent figure and being there with the president, speaking on this issue, taking these issues on reproductive rights. host: when it comes to the hiring of staff, i believe the person in charge of the reelection campaign used to work for the vice president? guest: julie chavez rodriguez would give the vice president kind of the daily brief. kind of being the one to connect

that. host: and other key high rates coming from the vice president circle. guest: that is correct. the campaign is trying to make sure the vice president have a key role -- has a key role. they want to make sure she is amplified, want to make sure she is helping make these decisions and that is something they're doing with these campaign hires. caller: i suspect aside from abortion-rights, the vice president will have a role in what is commonly known as bidenomics. what is her role? guest: even this week, they have done a big push in the vice president's in arizona to talk about how their different legislative wins like the ira or infrastructure law helped with the economy so she is in

arizona, talking about clean energy, how the ira helped give different initiatives and programs for that. she is deafly going to be a key role, on the trail in america, talking about these legislative wins. host: and the president himself going to south carolina, what is the purpose? guest: this is part of a larger push on the bidenomics messaging and the president will go there today where he is going to announce 600 new jobs with this partnership of two different energy manufacturing companies and he is trying to draw contrast between where the white house stands on the economy and trying to draw a line of their legislative wins. like the inflation reduction act, like bipartisan infrastructure bills. to showcase what is happening with the economy and one is jobs.

people want jobs, people want to be working, so that is something he is trying to highlight. he is also going to call out a couple republicans by name. during these visits. guest: for what purpose -- host: for what purpose? guest: to showcase where democrats stand. for example he is going out one congressman from south carolina specifically who -- where these energy companies are located who has talked badly about the inflation reduction act and the white house says this is what it is doing for your region. host: part of the cases the white house will say particularly republican legislators voted against these packages and they are still accepting the money and are seeking credit for it. guest: yes. that is correct. the white house has done this. they have been calling out republicans who initially have

said i don't like the inflation reduction act, i voted against the bill, but i'm also accepting the money to expand high-speed internet in my state. they have been calling them out like these are the laws you said are harming your stay, your constituents, but here you are accepting the money, so trying to draw the contrast. host: the messenger's rebecca morin joining us. the first colors in the independent line -- on the independent -- the first of our callers on the independent line. caller: why don't you tell the viewers that the democrats have no intention of passing an abortion law. obama could have done and fighting could have done it. if they ever passed the law, they have nothing else to run on. have a good day. guest: thank you for your comment. right now, it has been -- any

sort of legislation to codify roe v. wade has been stalled in congress a little bit so it is unclear what the future is for that, it is unclear whether that can pass in congress. right now the white house has been looking to state legislatures, kind of going back to the states to see what they can do to protect reproductive rights and that has been the strategy moving forward after legislation has stalled in congress. so looking toward the states, seeing what they can do to protect reproductive rights. host: what would be the message to congress as far as abortion-rights are concerned? guest: president biden said he wants to see it codified, he wants to see some movement. now it is kind of up to congress to do that. the white house is tied with any sort of things they can do executive that -- executive lee

that would be legal. kind of pushing it to congress to see what they can do. host: let's hear from michael, joining us from seattle, washington, democrats line, you are next up. hello. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. my first comment i wish to make is about kamala harris. as a latino gentleman, she was working on the border, her comment today about mexicans, don't come, i find that to be a misappropriation of the whole quagmire that the border has grown to become. nobody has done anything about it. especially now with democrats, it is difficult to look at the party i've supported my entire life and see that this has become a political issue, that democrats cannot win on, and neither party frankly can really win on. but with kamala harris, for me, i just got over a democratic

president with obama who sent more people home and supported more that came to the country and wanted to work hard. i see a democratic party that is frankly not enough, that does not care about latino issues. the porter is not the only latino issue. latinos are the largest participants in receiving college education. we are the largest economic participants in the country and the statistics don't lie. i just really find this whole thing quite alarming and it is kind of going to make me sit home from really voting this year. host: thank you. guest: immigration has been a big policy area for the biden. it is something and begin to -- something immigrant rights advocates have been critical, senator bob menendez has been

critical on the admin's ration policies toward immigration. feeling like they are still anti-immigrant rhetoric going there. the administration has said they have expanded the different pathways for migrants who are coming to the u.s. to kind of sees the backlog there. -- seize the backlog. as a lot of backlog there. there is still a long process i can take months, weeks, so the administration is trying to still work on that. they have done different pathways that will offer parole options for certain countries such as venezuelans, nicaraguans , but there are still some efforts democrats want to see the admin's ration do. host: immigration was one of the big portfolios the vice president was handed. can you clarify what her role was in that? guest: her role was not on the

border itself, it was doing more diplomatic efforts with guatemala, mexico, with central america. she traveled guatemala and went to mexico. right now the administration is a bit on what they call phase two of these root causes, what they are calling them, efforts to give investments to the region to create jobs and try to keep people there. that is where the white house is on this phase two, talking about investments in the region. host: this is from catherine, in vermont, democrats line, hello. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment about the previous caller who mentioned democrats do not have a plan for legislation for abortion-rights. i am a staunch liberal and as

much as i hate to agree with him , i have to because we do not have members in the house, a slim majority in the senate, and we do not have the support for legislation to support abortion-rights. i just heard you say that the states, the strategy is to work with states to see what can be done, but, honestly, i do not see states relinquishing their power or right to do whatever they want to guarding abortion-rights. that has been evident to mitigate access. so i just think that strategy needs to pivot to something else. i do not have the answer. however, i think we need to be transparent and honest about we do not have that opportunity in

congress, we do not have that support. and i just hope that we are thinking outside of the box and thinking about alternate ways to gain support. in my mind, i just do not see states relinquishing that right. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. it is interesting you mention that because i talked to a couple state legislatures -- legislators that met with the white house last month, some who are from states where it is going to get restrictive where democrats who want to protect reproductive rights are in the minority. they are talking about what are other ways we can do. a lot of it is trying to protect may be data from people who, for the reproductive health. others are maybe going to try to turn to the voters. we saw in kansas voters wanting

to protect reproductive rights, so some are saying maybe there is going to have to be that effort as well. that is why the white house is talking about this, they want to get voters energized, they want people to remember, hey, if you want abortion access, you have to vote democrat and that is with the white house is kind of hoping and pushing and energizing voters four. host: we saw the supreme court rollback of affirmative action protections when it comes to college admissions area how much of that will become the 20 24 campaign? guest: it is unclear what role that will play, but the white house and president biden himself has warned this would happen. after roe v. wade was overturned, he warned the supreme court is going to try to overturn other parts, laws that people rely on. i feel like it will play a big role in the election kind of going off of what the president

said. host: do you get a sense the vice president will become heavily involved in that role as far as the administration's point on this topic? guest: it's unclear right now. they are really focusing and hammering in on abortion access, reproductive rights, roe v. wade, because that is something that has energized voters we saw that in the midterm election, we saw that played a big role. i imagine if the supreme court's kinds of rolling -- keep trolling back actions the ministration supports, it will play a big role. host: let's hear from donald in michigan, republican line. hi. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. there's a couple things, i probably should have called on the open form but this lady is nonpartisan -- if she is nonpartisan, i can fly without an airplane. host: do you have a question or comment for her? caller: yes.

can she learn how to speak without every other word being you know? host: i will leave you there. let's hear from dave, washington state, democrats line, good morning. dave in washington state, hello? one more time for dave. caller: hello? host: sorry, dave. claudio in connecticut, are you there? caller: yes i am. host: go ahead. my concern and i hope he gets addresses the fact that -- i'm a liberal ever crack -- that the fact that raising of expectations, something i've been trained through major business schools that you never do, you don't raise expectations because of damaging things that can happen from that. so two points, one was john larson about eight years ago came to my senior center and i

wasn't of retirement age but i wanted to hear him talking about the social security 2100 and he was setting the expectation you'd be getting the vote, listing the cap and everything else and here we are eight years later and, even during the meeting, i said you are raising expectations because even your own party does not support this and you are saying things that do not make any sense. you are going to cause people to make decisions on these things that are going to leave them to better results like telling someone that looks good for their job and then they don't get the job and they are crushed because they made decisions. similar to the student loan situation. democrats have a history of doing this. i have told john larson, social security 2100 should be renamed because 2100 is the year we will probably end up seeing it and i

will be long gone and add. i have a problem with democrats doing this and they don't change their ways and continue on. is there anything they will say about raising expectations, because that is the worst thing you can do. host: thank you. go ahead. guest: i think right now the white house administration has focused on what they have done. that is why the president is in south carolina today to talk about actual legislative wins. they want -- there are things they want to do. the president once to help student loan borrowers, they want to have roe v. wade codified, protect reproductive rights, but they have also been talking about this is exactly what we have done. they talked about the infrastructure law, they talked about inflation reduction act, and pointing to these actual bills that passed through congress to showcase this is

what we are doing, this is where the programs are going to, this is where money is going to come expanding internet. a lot of these legislative wins, sometimes you won't feel them until later on, but i think the administration, that is where they are trying to point. that is where there reelection campaign is, this is what we have done. yes they will talk a little about what they want to do but it goes hand-in-hand with the white house and congress and what congress can do. host: the president according to clear politics on the aggregate paul only has a warty 3% approval rating versus 4% disapproval rating, how concerned is the white house over these numbers? guest: the white house push back on polling. even looking into the elections, there was unclear whether or not the president would win so they are taking polling with a grain of salt at this point. just focusing on the wins.

obviously it is something that i'm sure they are monitoring but it is not going to be the thing that they are really looking towards. host: the caller brought up the student loan situation, the decision made on the supreme court, are they concerned that will back or be blowback in reelection campaign? guest: right now the white house has presented their plan b to that and they are hoping they can get something through. this is something the president promised. it is unclear whether -- with the next moves will be on that. i know that is an issue young voters especially were concerned with and wanted to see action on. there is also different policies that the administration has kind of talked about like climate change that young voters also care about. that has been a little bit of a touchy subject too. we will see where that lands. host: this is rebecca morin from

the messenger. you can find it on themessenger.com. this is russell, democrats line, you are next up. >> good morning. i wanted to opine on the hypocrisy because i did see tim scott and nikki haley celebrating the deepening of the harbor in charleston, so larger container ships can be billed in , the capability of container ships and they both fought tooth and nail against it. this was after the infrastructure bill was signed. they both were at the signing of it. if we do not do anything about the gerrymandered districts in the south, we are never getting any states majorities that can actually do anything about what the republicans are doing in our

state. we also have a high speed expansion in south carolina, which is totally bidenomics. it is high-speed internet that has taken off in south carolina and we have it being expanded all over the state, so when you look at what is happening with the hypocrisy of the republicans fighting against it when it is being signed is really happening and you can see it clearly in south carolina and that is what i wanted to interject into the conversation today. guest: thank you. that is something the president himself is trying to interject into the public space and showcase this is where we stand, this is where republican stood on these laws that ended up passing congress and now they are celebrating it. that is something you will see from the president today, that is something you have seen from the president and the white

house, in their own facts -- fact sheet that they put out, they called out senator tim scott by name and lindsey graham as well for where they stand in the past comments they made on these bills. caller: norma joins us from new mexico, independent line. caller: hello? host: hello, you are on. caller: good morning. i want to talk just a few seconds about the abortion issue. i'm calling on the independent line and i just want to make this distinction. people talk about abortion rights not being upheld and roe v. wade being turned over or overturned by the supreme court. however, that issue was sent back to the states. this is a states rights issue

now. the only thing overturning roe v. wade was that it was not going to be a federally funded issue. this is an issue for states rights, that abortion is not enumerated in the constitution. as a right. i live in new mexico, about 25 miles in las cruces, our governor is building a clinic for individuals, women, who do not have access to abortion like in texas. you can come here once the clinic, they are already taking calls, you don't have to pay for it, the certain states will also pay for women to come to other states and also employers have also started paying for plane travel to other states for women to get an abortion. host: thank you. guest: like i said, the white

house has been meeting with state legislators the kind of figure out what are the plans. they have talked to states who have had a little bit more restrictive laws to abortion access, to reproductive rights, and states seeing wins. that is something they are deafly paying attention to. they are looking at what states are doing, where they can help states who need a little bit of to stand try to create that dialogue between states on how to make moves on reproductive rights. host: this is nelson in florida, republican line, your next. hi. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yep, you are on. caller: i'm 74 years old and i remember when roe v. wade was made law of the land by the supreme court and i supported it. however, i became a firefighter paramedic and started delivering

babies and i also had to deal with cases of women having miscarriages, etc.. i had a deal with every kind of babies who were deceased, having to pick up embryos and fetuses off of the floor, and i discovered that all of these particular babies were actually human beings, so, with time, i changed my time about roe v. wade and i believe the overturn of it is great for our country. it is the right thing to do. something like 65,000 babies have not been aborted as a result of that up until now.

all of the states have instances where if a mother's life is in danger they can still get an abortion. there is a lot of talk about women's rights, but unborn girls have rights also. host: thanks. guest: thank you for your comments. i think one of the things the white house and democrats have been pointing to on this issue is polling that shows the majority of americans want to see roe v. wade codified or want to see abortion rights protected. there are limits that different lawmakers support. there are still protections for some women in certain states where you are like if -- where if their life is in danger but that is up for debate in some states, with some lawmakers.

there is a lot of stuff still being figured out on where do lawmakers stand on -- in terms of abortion rights and where they want to see the limit of it. host: rebecca morin, there was cooking discovered at the white house. what we know as far as that goes? guest: there is not much we know. we know it was discovered sunday in an area that was highly traveled by visitors to the west wing. white house press secretary cream john pierre talked about this yesterday. they believe the secret service investigation will come to the bottom of where this came from and why it was there. right now though, it is still under investigation, so few details have been released. host: can you clarify where that area is in the white house? how many people pass there? can you give perspective of

those that cannot attend the white house? guest: we were asking exactly where this was in the white house briefing and they did not give us details really about what entrance this is but usually people who do west wing tors or people are guests and people who either work at the white house and have that access . it is not the typical white house tour you can request from your lawmaker on capitol hill. it is a bit of a more intimate tour. host: nothing with the president or his family would go personally or anything else as far as where was discovered? guest: no no, the president and his family were away the weekend it was discovered. they were in camp david and were not at the white house. host: let's hear from the white house press secretary asking -- asked questions about that cocaine. here's abortion from yesterday. [video clip] >> we will give any more details

on where the secret service found cocaine in the west wing and how cut there. >> this is a preview of the seekers are is, currently investigating what happened over the weekend so i would have to refer to you to the secret service on all of this. the one thing i can share, and i will share more information as you know, the president and first lady and their family were not here this weekend as you all reported on this and you also know that they left on friday. and returned just yesterday. where this was discovered is a heavily traveled area where many white house west wing i should be more specific, west wing visitors come through this particular area. i just do not have anything more to share. it is under investigation by the secret service in their purview and we are going to allow the investigation to continue and we have confidence the secret service will get to the bottom of this. >> the president said to get to the bottom of what happened

here? >> i said we have convinced the secret service will get to the bottom of this. the president follows reporting and he was briefed by his staff on everything that we know so far but the secret service is investigating this, investigating what happened over the weekend and we have confidence they will get to the bottom of this. host: with that in mind, rebecca morin, what are the questions that had to be answered to help this? guest: one of the big one is how did it get there? who brought it in? there has been discussion about what are the security guidelines to get into the west wing, to do the west wing tour. we are trying to figure that out. what is that look like for visitors doing these types of tours? other questions, how long will this take and are they going to find the person who brought it in? there have been reports they might not. you heard from the white house press secretary, they believe the white house believes that the secret service can come down

and this investigation will have findings for them but we are unclear how long that will take and the white house is letting the secret service sort of run their investigation. host: do you have a sense that area where it was found is heavily with cameras and everything else that could give them information or answer questions you have? guest: yeah, most security access points going into the white house and that seida complex, you go through security , for example when the members of the press go to the press briefing room we have to go through security, and it is like going to an airport where you have to put your stuff in machine, they look their way, you go through a metal detector, there is security there. we just need to see -- we are trying to determine what that looks like at that entrance. host: in the same general types of level of security for anyone else, the visitor tour or

anything else to the white house, do you know? guest: visitors who do not have that hard pass or special access already, they have to fill out a form, at least this is how it is for members of the press who may not have like a hard pass for example where they have to fill at a form where it does do a backroom check and you send it to the secret service and there are those levels of security there in terms of that but we're still trying to figure out what was the security like for these types of west wing tors. host: let's hear from mark in washington, d.c., independent line. you are next up. guest: thank you so much, pedro and rebecca, for taking my call. coincidental that i am coming up after that clip. without giving too much proprietary information way, rebecca's points are accurate. i wanted to talk about immigration but i think the intel so far is showing and most

likely was a visitor to the white house and not a member of the president's family are possible. what i wanted to talk about was narrative and that is an example of a narrative. i thing we struggle with a lot of social issues with talking about narratives. c-span had the house judiciary committee on and they were talking about the h2h visa process for foreign workers and, in that, lindsey graham stated that the majority of our agriculture, the majority of our food and grocery stores are provided by immigrants, so h2h visas. if you follow what some republican legislators are doing , in particular in florida, they are creating policies and laws

following the narrative that immigrations bad, that it is harming our country, and demonizing immigrants. a result of that is immigrants are leaving florida because they are nervous and scared, so that does not really align with the data. if the food in our grocery stores are being provided by immigrants, which should be champion for doing that, but instead we demonize them. host: i apologize, i will let you there only because we are a little short on time and you can answer that. guest: thank you for your question. that is something lawmakers both democrats and republicans on capitol hill are trying to figure out in terms of immigration. there has been bills that have passed the house actually i believe in the last congress about finding a pathway for dreamers or agriculture workers, for essential workers, that didn't make any movement in the senate but deftly something top

of my for lawmakers on both democrats and republicans. host: the work of our guests can be found at themessenger.com. rebecca morin serves as the white house reporter and you can find her work there. thanks for your time. it might be immigration or foreign affairs or economy. there are a sloth of public policy issues you are interested in. for the next 45 minutes, what is your top policy issued? democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. your top public policy issue. call and let us know and we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ announcer: since 1979, in

partnership with the cable industry, c-span provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events featuring markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. the point of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you have play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend minutes

on c-span's points of interest. announcer: the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast that feature non-future -- nonfiction books in one place to discover new authors and ideas. each week we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors, discussing history, biography, current events, and culture. from our signature program about books, afterwards, book notes plus, and q&a. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today and find a feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile vid app or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.o/podcast announcer: if you are enjoying book tv, sign-up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen. to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author

discussions, book festivals, and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at booktv.com. television for serious readers. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: you can choose the line that is best representing you when you tell us your top public policy issue. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to share that via taxed, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. the washington post takes a look at canceled meetings between the state department and facebook coming from the legal decision over the weekend concerning the biden administration's approach to some social media sites saying one day after the louisiana federal justice set limits on the biden administration's communications with tax, the state of parma canceled its wednesday with --

meeting wednesday with facebook officials on hacking threats according to a person with a company. the move came hours after mr. bynes justice department filed a ruling that it will appeal the reading. monthly meetings have been canceled to preserve working relationships. waiting to see if this cancels tomorrow. the person added referring to the department of homeland security site for security in of infrastructure security agency. this also adds the story that facebook, instagram, youtube, or tiktok, the stops them from moderating online content. if you want to read more, that is in the washington post. the wall street journal takes a look at immigration related matters, the story by michelle haggerty today saying as far as the use of troops to stem the drug trade, the story saying former president trump,

previously calling for billing a wall, along the southern border and giving drug dealers the death penalty also proposed creating a naval blockade of mexico to prevent fentanyl from entering the united states. governor desantis said last week to use deadly force of anyone was caught smuggling drugs across the border. military intervention keeps cropping up and is popular, not just for republicans. an nbc poll in late june sending troops to the border to sub drugs was one of the single best gop proposals tested with republican primary voters who were the only one to gain support for a majority of already -- all registered voters. immigration might be a thing, social media use or what have you as part of public policy concern, tell us that top issue for you. wisconsin, democrats line, your top public policy issue, go ahead. caller: good morning, good

morning. i think that my public policy issue or lack of it is why more attention is being paid in congress to straighten out the supreme court and what they are doing. i have read senator schuler's book the scheme and it lays out so much of this. it is very enlightening and i would suggest the listeners to look at it and possibly bring in the senator and have them go over it. the other policy is the huge amounts of dark money that is buying favor in the politics

today. i think that that has to be resolved. host: ok. that is land in wisconsin. let's hear from our next caller in indiana, republican line. caller: yes. you know what? this stuff going on, they are about to start a war over it and the democrats can't see that they are starting a war over there. them other countries, you can't go in there telling them what to do with their country. these laws are against god's laws. these are man's laws, these laws were set when the foundation was laid down, you know? we have no sense and they are

about to start a war over there. host: pennsylvania is next to her martin is, republican line. hi. caller: good morning. i am calling about the cocaine found in the white house. i am a retired federal worker and with our yearly physical we had to take a drug test. the upper echelon, the supervisors and that did not. i think they could not deny put a quick if they make people in the white house take a drug test and see who is on drugs. you do have the option to test positive to go to a rehab center and get treatment. i had several coworkers refused to give up the drugs and they had to retire. that the supervisors -- but the supervisors for some odd reason did not have to take a drug test, which never made sense to

me. host: ok. your top public policy issue, the phone lines available to you . you can text us, post on our social media site as well if you wish. one of the things out of the new york times this morning is how classified information is being handled by the pentagon. this is eric schmitt writing under the headline, pentagon review false oversight of the information saying defense secretary lloyd austen ordered a 45 day review of pentagon policy and procedures in april after a 21-year-old guardsman was accused of posting a trove of secret documents online. the story goes on to say the review found the growth in military facilities, people authorized to handle classified information, particularly since the terrorist attack in 2001 have far outpaced military's ability to keep the information secure according to a senior defense department official on the condition of anonymity. the review recommended the pentagon departments and

agencies tighten control on access to classified information , ensuring only those with "a need to know," are granted security clearances. there is more if you want to read that for yourself. jim in newark, your top public policy issue calling in on our republican line, hello. caller: hi. i would say immigration. i watched twice, once alive and went to the library and use the computer and watched the house hearing on immigration and border security. i recommend people are against illegal immigration watch this. something stands out here. a human rights refugee protection, she admitted she is taking fronts from george soros. and sheila jackson lee from texas asked her what would jesus do. i would like to say that when

jesus was walking this planet, there was an estimated 300 million people. on the whole planet. now there is 8 billion, so what are we going to do, sheila jackson lee? pave over eden? i say, on abortion, have all of the abortions you want. make more room for other living things. you are paving over eden. goodbye. host: isaac is next in oregon, democrats line. caller: hi. can anybody hear me? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: is this pedro? host: mhmm. go ahead. caller: i was in college and i called -- i will make this brief, a time ago i was in the archives, i just think, i don't know what the topic is.

the previous lady, i don't recall her name, but the biggest issue i see america is facing right now, we have homelessness, drugs, blah blah blah, we all know that. i wish we -- i wish i had a direct question or so i could answer. host: that's isaac calling in. if you go to the pages of usa today, there is a picture in the headlines taking look at the eviction crisis as they are describing it, saying a looming rent increase in new york city is poised to force the most vulnerable renters to a street when a time where eviction rates have been steadily rising in the were sytycd eviction filings increased by more than 60% area in new york, one of the country's most extensive housing markets, the panel said rent rates were rent-stabilized apartments last month approved increases of 3% for one-year contracts last year's all rights

by a similar around the story sing the cause of shelter is increasing apart because record inflation and the rise of infections the last 18 months coincides with the expiration of eviction moratoriums, covid-19 related rental assistance. you can read more there, a front-page story from usa today. maybe that is a top issue for you if you want to share that over the neck several minutes. we will go to don in washington stay, republican line. host: good morning. -- caller: good morning. two quick things i wanted to mention about the cocaine in the white house and i used to live in seattle and i have family that still lives there and i don't know if anyone noticed all of the transgender, mostly naked, men running up and down the streets in the fountains of seattle but i can even believe

that stuff happens. we use to call those people child molesters. as for the cocaine in the white house, it is kind of ironic that twitter is kind of released. i was never a twitter fan until the twitter file stuff came out but if people going twitter and there's all kinds of videos of hunter biden on the fourth of july and from having a brother who's 20 years clean and sober from smoking rock cocaine, cocaine in the videos they have of hunter fourth of july this year, that is cocaine. host: robert independent line. caller: my big policy issue is probably one that's been hanging around for about 20 years i think it is made a huge impact on this country is the citizens united. i think when we get the money

out of politics, a lot of the corruption and problems and divisions, we get the politicians back working for the people. that's instead of the lobbyists. that would probably solve half the problems in this country. host: robert there in texas come independent line. we've got about 15 more minutes to hear from you when it comes to public policy issues that you might find most important or at the top of your list. president biden is heading to south carolina today as part of an effort to take a look at bidenomics. here to talk about it give us more perspective is caitlin byrd of the post and courier out of charleston, good morning and thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: why the visit to south

carolina? guest: why not? if you are president biden why wouldn't you want to come back to the state that saved his presidential nomination back in 2020. on paper, this is an official visit. biden will be coming to the lexington county area which is in the midlands to hide like bidenomics witches trying to make happen for him and talk about house economic vision is helping even red states like south carolina and outs helping workers directly and spurring new investment in green energy and solar. that will be top of mind today. he will land in the columbia of airport later today and will head to a place called flex ltd manufacturing where he scheduled to give remarks. he will speak directly and part

of this announcement is going to be announcing a new partnership between flex ltd in south carolina and a company called enface energy which converts solar energy into energy you can use in the power grid. this will be kind of a double, triple win for biden. that's how they are pitching it. he also gets the pleasure of announcing that this partnership could support 600 new jobs. if you are a democrat coming to a red stating what to talk about economics, you want to talk about how it's delivering to people's pocketbooks. host: do you imagine he will call a republican to push back against his policies in that area? guest: we never know what the president will do but i would not be surprised if he does do that. that's deafly the messaging we've been saying from the white house lately and the messaging we were hearing yesterday when we spoke with the south carolina democratic chair called out joe

wilson who is a congressman who represents the district where joe biden will be touring this company. she called him out by name since all of the republicans in south carolina did vote against many of these biden supported packages. the only ones who didn't was senator lindsey graham but he only bowed in support of the bipartisan infrastructure act but in terms of the inflation reduction act, not a single south carolina republican jumped on board with that legislation. host: is it just the president making south carolina focus or are there surrogates on the reelection team doing that as well? guest: there have been as of late. last week we saw transportation secretary pete buttigieg in orangeburg, south carolina with probe biden ally u.s. congressman jim clyburn and we seen the energy secretary who made a visit to south carolina there other white house surrogates who are spending time in south carolina and it is important to note that this is president biden's first trip to south carolina since the dnc

voted to restructure his presidential primary calendar so that south carolina goes first. while this is technically an official visit, there is nothing like the power of the presidential bully pulpit to remind voters about what you are doing in the white house. host: we talked about the president visiting in the area so what about their republican counterparts? guest: we are certainly seeing them as well. asa hutchinson is supposed to be in the upstate in the greenville area. the two homegrown republican presidential aspirants are spending a lot of time in new hampshire this week. i'm sure we will see them back home again soon but i absolutely am keeping my calendar quite full with presidential visits from the right and the left. host: speaking of governor haley and senator scott, both made the announcement and are interested in running so how was that playing out in the home state?

guest: it's interesting to see that because this presidential visit of joe biden comes five days after former president donald trump made a return to south carolina where he held a rally in pickens, south carolina which is the reddest corner of this state in 2020. it is the most pro-trump friendly territory he could've picked on the map. tens of thousands of people swarmed into the small city of about 3100, potentially swelling into upwards of 50,000 people. there is no denying that president donald trump is still the man who has a real stranglehold on the republican party and is continuing to almost hold the entire republican presidential field in a state of suspension. even in places like south carolina where there are two republicans from the state who serve the state in different capacities, when as governor and one is governor and what is the current u.s. senator.

florida is dealing with that as well. it's been interesting because for so long, senator scott and nikki haley have been friends and allies. haley appointed scott to the senate and he won reelection outright ever since. it's a little bit difficult for south carolinians who never wanted to have to choose between haley and scott and here they are potentially choosing between them. they also still have to contend with whether or not they want them at the top of the ticket even though both campaigns are running for president, they reject any assumption that they may be seeking another position on the ticket or even a cabinet job. they are running but even's for south carolinians who love them, they wonder where they most want nikki haley or senator tim scott. host: you said you have a lot of events, talk about the dynamics you are watching for in the days

and months ahead. most people watching this thing 2024 is far but it's probably more of an impact for you. guest: it's a little compact to say the least. republicans have set their date for early february next year so it will be here sooner than people think. while a lot of the energy is understandably in iowa which is the leadoff caucus taper the republicans, the republican presidential candidates are making sure to spend time in south carolina. south carolina is a small state like new hampshire so regional politics is crucial. seeing how people do and if they shake hands and at the youth of food, those of the kind of things that create this unquantifiable feeling that voters to vote with. we can talk about issues all day long but sometimes to get on that ballot, you wonder who is it you trust and like and it's harder to quantify those thing so i am looking to hear from

voters about who is catching there i and why and whether that will be based on policy issues or it it's about retribution for donald trump which is the case he is making too many republican primary voters these days. it could be something else of maybe they look to turn the page and go for haley or tim scott or go for a wildcard like governor asa hutchinson or somebody else or ron desantis if they are looking for trump without the drama. that's what i hear from voters here. my focus on the presidential candidates but how the messages landing in south carolina which voted for trump and does have a strong track record on the republican side up picking the eventual gop nominee. host: because the president is traveling there and talk about manufacturing, he will talk about the army. -- he will talk about the economy. how is the economy in south carolina and has a determine who

people will vote for? guest: the governors pray proud of the economy in south carolina but a lot of people are coming to the beach and seeing the price of gas. that's one of the most frequent things people point to is the cost of gas and groceries. they are going up across south carolina despite job creation we have seen. half a million people moved to south carolina according to the last census but not enough to grade a new congressional district that it's significant which could change or make the political geography here better or slightly less. we will have to wait and see but my hunch is it will be a little redder. the economy factors in top of mind and people do vote on pocketbook issues and who delivers for them financially. how much of that issue will be able to cut through some of the more dramatic things like culture wars that we hear from

republican presidential candidates, i will be curious to see that and i will be curious to see whether any of these indictments that former president trump is facing, whether that is having any real impact on voters or whether it's only strengthening their resolve to get behind him. i'm sure it to see how these things play out. to your point, yes, the economy is doing pretty well in south carolina the weather that will be the overall issue remains to be seen especially with other hot topics like abortion. there is a special session in south carolina and the latest decision is now back in the courts here we saw yesterday that iowa is looking to do something similar. these early presidential primary states, abortion is not going to just go away. i have a hunch that will be a passion issue for many people here. host: our guest is the senior politics report out of charleston in you can find her work opposed in courier.com. thank you for the time and thank you for setting up the presence

visit today. guest: thanks are having me, take good care. host: if you're interested in seeing the visit and the president about 1:15 p.m., it will be live and can watch it on our c-span network and follow along on our app at c-span now and also at c-span.org. coming up next, we will be joined by the wilson center russian expert on the status of the russian-ukraine conflict in russian president's political future. you can ask him about these things when he joins us on "washington journal" after this. ♪ ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is our online store. look her latest collection of

c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase up support our nonprofit operation. shop now or any time at c-span shop.org. >> c-span's campaign 2020 per coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, or any time online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> portier copy of the 118th congressional direct dashboard

or your copy of the 118th congressional directory with bio and contact information and congressional committees. scanned the code at the right to order your copy today or go to c-span shop.org. it's $29.95 plus shipping and handling help support our nonprofit operation. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts.

c-span that was available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. this is william pomerantz, the director of the kennedy institute as far as the conflict in russia. good morning at thanks for joining us. a little about the institute and the perspective it brings when it talks about these issues. guest: the perspective is a deep understanding of russia, ukraine and the post-soviet space. the objective of the institute within the wilson center is to promote understanding of what is now a very difficult and complicated region. it is always changing. host: what is the most misunderstood thing about the conflict going on? guest: the most misunderstood thing about the conflict is

russia's imperial ambition, that russia has reasserted its imperial goals to the extent that this is a mission by vladimir putin to attach territories to the russian federation whether it has been in crimea or other parts of t former soviet union or in ukraine. what is misunderstood is that this is an imperial goal for the russian federation they think not only has the united states understood that but the europeans of understood that and they know well about the dangers of empire. host: is it just them gaining real estate? guest: not just that but also gaining control over the ukrainians and the narrative of ukrainian history that somehow ukraine is not a nation and it's a part of the russian empire.

it has been a part of russia for centuries. i think vladimir putin has gone after the notion of an independent ukraine. on several occasions, he has looked at maps of the 18th and 19th century and exclaimed that there is no ukraine and therefore, ukraine really doesn't exist. i think the focus of putin and his goals in ukraine and this war is to dismember ukraine as a man -- as a nation. host: because the war has been going on as long as it has, did -- it is prudent strengthened or weakened in the continued effort? guest: it is up in the air. i think putin has decided he is in this for the long-term. as is ukraine and this has become a war of patrician. there -- no one has the upper hand including the ukrainians who have obviously engaged in a

counteroffensive since june. i think putin is really focused on victory as is ukraine and i don't think there is any sort of middle ground as of right now. to resolve this crisis. host: how would you assess the counteroffensive? guest: it's going slower than people expected i think. i think that was because of expectations that the previous attack on ukraine against russia were successful. they were successful quickly. the russians have been able to read worse its troops in ukraine. it has been able to lay out mines which makes it difficult for ukraine to attack. the expectation of a quick victory for ukraine is not been realized.

i think that was because of the expectations the ukrainian army placed in the aftermath of the war. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 a.m. and if you want to ask him questions, you can call into these lines. you can text us as well at (202) 748-8003. what's been the strength of the ukrainians keeping up? guest: the ukrainian army is over performed and they thought when putin invaded ukraine that he would be able to essentially wipe at ukraine in a couple of weeks. that was his expectation. it clearly has not happened. the ukrainian army has been very valued in terms of fighting the russians and there was no real quick victory for the russians.

therefore, the fact that the conflict is on going has been an important stage of ukraine and the founding of the ukrainian state. there is no better movement to create a national campaign. i think ukraine has responded by really creating much more of a multicultural nation that is able to withstand this conflict. host: aside from the manpower, what about the supplies needed to conduct such a campaign and talk about nato and the united states. guest: united states and nato have been supplying ukraine and increasingly giving weapons, tanks, artillery, etc. i think the ukrainians army has been well-equipped going into

this counteroffensive. united states and europe have basically decided to support ukraine from a military standpoint. whether that ultimately leads to nato membership for ukraine is an open question. there have been signs that nato is open to a potential ukrainian membership but there are a host of bureaucratic use that have to be resolved before that should happen. host: do you think that should happen? guest: in light of the atrocities that have been committed by russia against ukraine, in light of the vulnerability of you rain and in light of the need to defend ukrainian statehood, i think ukraine is on the path not only do need membership it also to membership of the.

host: there is a story in the wall street journal about the possibility of long-range missiles being sent by the united states to you rain. if that comes out, what do you think of that as a strategy? guest: anything that strengthens ukraine at this point is a positive. i'm sure united states and the u.s. allies are concerned as to how the ukrainians use these weapons. i think in light of all the human rights abuses and aggression than ukraine, i think defending ukraine is a -- an excellent strategy. you say this is something you can agree with? why so? guest: i think ukraine is under attack in terms of being able to defend itself as a sovereignty, i think ukraine has to be given the military equipment on the capability to defend ukraine. host: william pomerantz here for

this conversation. david, independent line. thanks for calling, go ahead. caller: good morning. there's a few points i want to touch on. there is the imperialism question. i would like to know how many military bases the u.s. has in combination with nato around the world. we are adding them around china now. the excursions we been on over the past 20 years in the middle east, afghanistan, iraq, libya, yemen, our involvement is pretty wide across the world. i don't really know how we are two different as it relates to materialism from russia. what do you see as the endgame here?

ukraine will not win this war and they will not get their territory back. it's an attritional war and russia has endless resources. china would never allow the geopolitical forces to turn in favor of nato and the eu. third, i just need to know and it might be more academic but what is a nation at the end of the day? it's a body of people that really can't support themselves financially and economically and fight their own wars or is a nation one we have to prop up on a continual basis? when does it stop? host: you put a lot out for our guest but thank you. guest: that's a lot of questions. i don't think the u.s. is an imperial power. it has engaged in various sorts of actions around the world but they haven't really engaged in what was -- and what russia was doing and that's annexing

territory and making it a part of their country. that's one of the important differences between what is going on in russia and ukraine and what has been a strategy of 20 plus years of foreign engagement. whether russia has the resources to finish this war is really a question. i think the sanctions have had an impact on the russian economy. i think there is a question of whether russia has enough troops to actually win this war. i think the proghozian situation has shown that the russian people are not actively in gauged and supportive of this military operation. country, much larger country but in light of what the dish what ukraine

has done the victories they have had during this war, i don't think it is a given that russia simply will overwhelm ukraine. what is the final solution and outcome is still anyone's game. the last question was what is a nation? i think a nation is an entity that basically unites a geographic region. it does so through democracy, civil society, through a common language, religion, etc. in all of the categories of whether ukraine is a nation, whether it has a geographic location is clearly a dispute of 300 plus years. the notion of ukrainian nation

is not in question. host: let's hear from joe in new jersey, republican line. caller: how are you? i think all the geniuses in that city where you guys are, the think tanks, you think it's 1948 and is the marshall plan all over again. this country is not the same country in the 1940's and 50's after world war ii that we can just continue to give countries money. we have no money. we are printing money to fight a war -- host: i apologize but go ahead with your comment. caller: hello, yes. can you hear me now? host: yes, you are on. caller: the people in that city where you are in washington with all these think tanks, they think it's 1948 and it's the

marshall plan all over again with president truman. we are not the same country. we are printing money we don't have, we don't make anything, we are not the strongest country in the world anymore and we are printing money to defend a country which i want to help but we have no money to help ourselves. one thing i didn't hear this man say was peace. i'm born and raised in new york city and if we can get trump back in there, he's the only guy talking about peace. host: that's joe in new jersey. guest: whether it's 1948, i think it's important to understand that the russian invasion has upset everything that came after the end of the cold war. and the attempt to have a global rules-based order and to integrate russia into that is based order, what is the

objective after the end of the cold war? i think there is an understanding that this is really a turning point, that the european unions, the question of sovereignty and internal borders are all up for grabs an upper question in light of this war. i think that's why this war has been so important as to why the united states has responded so aggressively to defend ukraine. host: you mentioned mr. prigo zhian and there is a report that the belarusian president says he's back in russia and if that's the case, what's the significance? guest: for mr. lukashenko, he doesn't have to deal with the mercenary at his borders and he has handed that back up to mr. putin. mr. putin will have to deal with the question of whether mr. pri

ghozian's troops can be incorporated into the russian army and what is the penalty for a mutiny against the russian federation. the fact that mr. lukashenko has said mr. proghozian is not in belarus means putin will have to deal with the whole aftermath of the proghozian affair. host: what did that reveal? guest: the most important thing it revealed is mr. prighozian was able to say things about the russian military, the attack on crane, about the russian commanders that no one else in russia was able to say. indeed, if anyone else had said this, there are no laws in russia that would enable the russian federation to prosecute these people for up to 10-15-20

years. the importance of the per goshen incident -- of the prighozian incident is it allowed a russian and gave him a platform to basically criticize putin's invasion of ukraine. i think putin has responded by dismissing prighozian, whether he decides to change his mind and prosecute prighozian is an open question i think. i think the important part of the prighozian affair was that prighozian actually connected with this segment of the russian population that is concerned about how the war is going in the origins of the war. host: does it foster other people to do the same or is there nobody in that position? guest: there is nobody in that position today. prighozian was unique in the sense he had access to vladimir

putin and the media. he was perceived at least as part of the system. his support was for mr. putin. no one else has that opportunity. again, the russian federation has made sure that any sort of dissident or opposition to the russian federation is washed. many people who were in the opposition have basically decided to flee russia and are in a duress for that -- in a deep diaspora in europe. there is not an opportunity to confront putin unless the military situation where the economic situation ghost significantly south. host: democrats line, william is next. caller: yes, good morning.

i've got one question. i don't understand why the country in europe are not helping ukraine. why are they not putting boots on the ground and helping them bite? you mentioned the horrible things that has been done and they are hiding behind article five. i just don't understand that. can you answer that question? guest: both the europeans and the united states have not wanted to put boots on the ground and make this a fight between russia and nato/united states. i think there has been a specific reaso as to why the united sand europe have not wto be engagedis fight mainly because it was --

it would escalate the entire rhetoric of the russian federation. i think the europeans have been engaged in this fight. they haven't put boots on the ground that they had been the primary organization and groups of nations that are trying to help -- hold russia accountable. in the last couple of days, the europeans at the hague had. a special commission to deal with war crimes and with the crime of aggression. that is quite frankly the most important charge that could be brought against the russians. it has not been able to happen for a variety of procedural reasons but the europeans have said russia will be held accountable from a military and

legal standpoint. i think the europeans have taken the lead on that. i should also add the europeans of suffer the greatest economic consequences of this war. they were so reliant on russian energy and gas and now i they do you faiths -- the europeans will continue to step up in terms of engaging in this action. host: this is dee from florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question and i have a slight comment if you don't mind. this gentleman cannot deny this but the media and all the reports out there since the war started, they never got out as to why russia got into ukraine the first place because nato and russia, including the united states made this deal that they would not encroach anywhere near russian territory.

we have been getting closer and closer around russia to block them in. the russians really had no choice. all they have left is ukraine because the united states and the eu got in there with the rest of the countries to block that and push them further against russian borders. he cannot deny that. i know all the hosts and this is my comment -- you can shut me down the minute i mention biden. don't talk about biden. this is bidens war and i think he got into this war because there is this corruption going on and this keeps everybody silent in this big worship biden can hide all the conflicts he had with ukraine. guest: i think the issue the caller is raising in the

gathering that were given to gorbachev at the end of the cold war. the united states and nato would not actually incorporate some of what was the warsaw pact there is no evidence that historians have raised and spent an important issue of historical research that says there was a guarantee that there would be no expansion of nato. therefore, the idea that somehow russia was to seize for that russia somehow had some sort of guarantees that there would be no expansion of nato and the eu were simply not the case. his document that suggests that russia had to guarantee. the question of bidens war,

outthink vindman is war. in the roll up to this work on my think biden basically tried to tell putin when he was escalating and putting these tanks on ukrainian border that this would have serious consequences. i don't think biden is using this war to enrich himself and so forth. there is no evidence of that and i think that biden is basically been a statesman in terms of holding together a -- a very fractured nato and europe that is no basically united in trying to stop the aggression of the russian federation. host: leading up to the july 4 holiday, president zelenskyy sent a message to the united states talking about our july 4 but relating it to their

circumstances. [video clip] >> on your independent day, only the brave gain independence and only the best of the brave are able to pass the freedom from generation to generation. crane loves freedom with support has ignited a powerful flame of liberty in our part of europe which will not go out and will ensure that tyranny will never again pass through europe. therefore, europe will not need your soldiers in blood and battle for freedom. the ukrainian dream of leaving freely is the victory with the brutal and unprovoked war started by russia will give fresh energy to the american leadership. host: that's the message, what you think of those?

guest: i think there important -- are important parallels from this message. it emphasized is not asking for troops on the ground, that he is basically saying ukraine wants to be a part of the west and a part of europe and that this is a significant development in the history of europe. it's because ukraine has been subjugated by russia essentially for centuries. i think mr. zelenskyy is very open in terms of what he thinks the importance of liberty and freedom means for ukraine and that they have now taken the battle to russia in order to make sure that they gain their sovereignty. host: how much do you think ukrainian success is directly attributed to the president himself? guest: i think he has been

remarkable figure. he was offered various opportunities to leave ukraine but he has state, he has rallied his people, he has essentially made ukraine a much more cost pollen country. that's in terms of the national minorities. he has unified ukraine to extent that it don't think anyone but was possible in the events leading up to this war? host: jim is in wisconsin, independent line, go ahead. caller: i was wondering if the gentleman could talk more about what the previous gentleman said. vladimir putin is a thug. he was with the kgb in the 70's and 80's and tortured and murdered a lot of people. he is no saint to be sure. i am not really sure what's going on in russia.

i'm not sure he's telling the truth. there are two different sides telling two different stories. there was 39 or 40 billion people in that country before the war started now there's only 18 or 19. his -- there is a scene hundred casualties on both sides combined. something has to be done about this to get a peace treaty signed instead of having this drag on. there are over 100,000 vets here who are homeless. i happen to be a that but i'm not homeless. he has to do some back channel diplomacy and something's gotta be done here but i don't know what. they have to get peace talks to get along because this is ridiculous, all these people being killed and for what?

because nato wanted to expand and steal all the resources from ukraine and russia? i don't think so. host: thank you. guest: i think the caller has raised an important in terms of the ukrainian population and what actually is the ukrainian population going forward. it was a country of 40 million people but it has lost millions of people through emigration, through a new diaspora in europe and whether the ukrainian nation can convince their compatriots to come back to ukraine will be an important part in asia russo and rebirth of ukraine. in terms of trying to have a

negotiated settlement, both sides have kind of waded in and are dug in. i think neither side is capable of admitting defeat. at that point, that means the war will continue. whether biden has a back channel , it's very difficult. i don't think china has really been able to have a back channel. i think there was an attempt to have india have a back channel. none of these countries have been able to stop this war. it has gone on now for so long that i think no side is in the position to concede defeat going forward. host: i believe at the beginning of this conflict, there is concerns about the use of short-term nuclear weapons from russia. is that still a concern or consideration? guest: everything is still a

consideration because i think they have created an environmental disaster by blowing up that dam in ukraine. they have basically been attacking the parisdia nuclear power plant and is a question as to who was running it and whether it can continue. the russians basically have tried going it's both ukraine and russia that are engaged in sabotaging this nuclear power plant. i'm very concerned. forget about tactical weapons, there is an imminent danger of a nuclear strike which could make chernobyl look like a cakewalk.

host: there was reporting that the cia director met with president zelenskyy on a trip to ukraine. guest: i think he basically committed the united states to support or ukraine. i think that was really the just of why he would go to ukraine. i think that was really a sign of support. host: what resources could the cia provided in this matter? guest: they can provide intelligence as to what the russian armies doing in the initial part of the war, ukrainian intelligence in terms of what the russians were doing and their strength was clearly superior to russian intelligence who thought they would be in kyiv in 24 hours. as the reliance of u.s. intelligence plays an important

role in the initial ukrainian victory, as well as the fact that the russians really weren't capable of controlling their own troops and their communications. they were calling the russian so mothers and telling them where they were. i think from intelligence standpoint, and mr. burns basically would have reasserted the fact that u.s. intelligence will help ukraine. host: audrey is in south carolina, democrats line. go ahead. caller: hello. you touched on some of the issues i wanted to ask about. if he was to do something to the nuclear plant, with the company

clean it up after that? guest: in light of all the evidence that has come forward, it would be a huge disaster for ukraine and the ukrainian nation. there are millions of people close to the nuclear power plant. a long outbreak of radiation so forth would have catastrophic consequences. it's for the people but also the country in the agriculture, everything would be affected if indeed his new new lupa plan would blow up. host: from illinois, independent line, dan, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm sorry but i'm calling you out on your response to the lady from florida. you have to reach back to

gorbachev to talk about that there were no written agreements. we have a monroe doctrine with their own country where we will not accept anybody in our hemisphere. you can imagine russia now forming alliances with mexico and putting nuclear weapons in mexico. we wouldn't stand for that in the second. we can barely tolerate what's going on in cuba and we couldn't bear it in the 60's as well for. for you to go back to gorbachev, i don't know how you can defend that stance because we've been several presidents since then. please respond to me. you seriously think this would have happened, had we not entered -- entertained ringing ukraine to nato? this country deserves to have a buffer zone from nato. had we not gotten our hands in there, this war would have never

happened and how you cannot say joe biden is global considering his investments and basically threats he used to green. i just don't see how you separate the two. i think joe biden and the democrats and republicans have blood on their hands with this. to me, it's shocking that you can seriously sit there and thank this has no affect on why putin made this week. bidenomics thank you. guest: again, the question is whether ukraine was -- is going to be a part of nato in the eu. i think biden was pretty clear on the fact that there was no imminent entry of ukraine into nato. and that there would be a long potential discussion, negotiations with ukraine as to

whether ukraine could be a part of nato. whether russia felt threatened. russia was consulting engenders joe's who owns new negotiation them going. they is black letter putin who decided to invade ukraine and crimea but also to and ask other guards country. -- in terms of other countries. whether the united states had to guarantee the borders of the post soviet spaces, of the alliances, that was for the european nations to decide whether they wanted to be a part of nato. that has always been our argument.

host: what role is china playing in this conflict? guest: china has basically been on the sidelines and i don't think it's very happy with the conflict. they have supposedly said they are against any nuclear strikes in ukraine. china was trying to develop ukrainian-chinese economic relations. i don't think china has been overly supportive. there have been statements about no limits in terms of the russia china relationship? i think from the part, is -- china would like to play a role to end the conflict. as i said in other cases, no one has an ability to bring these two sides together. host: from shelley in

springfield virginia, democrats line. caller: hi, can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i just wanted to ask you a question about the domestic students -- situation russia. i'm a former american studies student. i did not pursue that as my career. back in the early 1980's, i went to the soviet union and my overall impression was that this just can't go on like this. the work. in a few years of course, the berlin wall fell, etc.. with this war, i keep thinking what is this doing domestically to the situation in russia? is something going to happen at this point? what is this due to the vladimir putin's leadership?

i imagine people are not going to take this after a while. i would like to hear your response to that because i am not followed as closely as a should have with the domestic russian situation. guest: i think that the domestic policy putin has basically retreated and going backward. he has relied essentially on patriotism, on notions of russian statehood, of a special path of russia, of a different state of civilization in russia. i think he has tried to backtrack and basically say that russia is its own civilization. it has its own path. that would essentially mean russia will not be integrated in the global institutions going forward. indeed, it's remarkable in terms of all the global institutions that russia has retreated from

in the have this war was if the counselor of europe or the europeans decision rights. there simply said they can go it alone and they can produce the necessary technology that they have inadequate workforce, all of this is very suspect. i think russia at some point will face a severe economic consequence for what is policy has been. it will basically find itself that it is no longer a part of global trade and global institutions. host: as far as individual relationships of our country in russia because of this conflict, how would you gauge that currently? guest: it's very hard to have a relationship with russian academics, russian civil society, for a host of reasons.

the context we are apart of and the 1990's have essentially disappeared. russians have gone after and had foreign agents and had very different sets of organizations. i think there has been essentially a collapse to u.s.-russia relations. i don't know when they will change for the better as a result of this war. as a result of the policies of vladimir putin as well. host: in new hampshire, this is the republican line. caller: this is thomas. i had two questions. how is this conflict in ukraine different from world war i? and how alliances guide blowing

discussions if this war ends up exploding into a world conflict, will we have the military might to continue to defend taiwan and will we have the capabilities of defending taiwan if we are needed in europe to set of the u.s. bizarre from going back to its former glory. those are my two questions, thank you. guest: the war between russia and ukraine has a lot of parallels to world war i, primarily because it's a war of attrition. no one has the upper hand. how that can change is uncertain. we talked about the new offensive that ukraine has engaged in but hasn't really produced the immediate results that leads to a breakthrough.

it breakthrough will be very hard because russians have been able to deploy troops and prepare for this invasion for this counteroffensive for a year now. i think there are parallels what happened in world war i. i don't know when the tide will turn that will force one of the two sides into the negotiating table. obviously, when the germans negotiated, there was call somehow that the german army had been said in the back. andy indeed cover that has been a phrase that's been used again as well. i think the alliances have become very formalized in terms of nato, and the united states.

i should add there are several countries that do not necessarily fall into the u.s. eu orbit. host: they guest is the director at the wilson center. william pomerantz joining us for this conversation, thank you for your time today. a couple of other russia-related events on the network today. at 10:30 a.m., the atlantic council discussion on thewagner group with an event hosted by them at 10:30 a.m. and you can watch on c-span or c-span now and our website at c-span.org. at 3:00 this afternoon, the former u.s. ambassador to russian john sullivan will talk about the events in russian putting president putin's power following the rebellion last week. the conversation will be shown on the network at 3 p.m.

that's it for our program today. another issue of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] ♪ >> coming up today, look at russia's political future. and president biden will give a progress report on manufacturing and jobs from south carolina. the u.s. ambassador to russia will talk about recent events and how they may impact president putin's power and influence.