we follow the same process. we look at the facts, the law, and we bring charges. >> will you try this case yourself? >> [indiscernible]

host: good morning.

donald trump and 18 co-defendants and --over his loss in the state. latest indictment includes 13 of which were lodged against the former president. this morning, we are getting your reaction on the phone lines, as usual. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. independent colors can -- callers at (202) 748-8002. good morning to you. the first page, the headline a's trump and 18 allies indicted in georgia. and charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

the district attorney announcing that indictment late last night. >> today, based on information developed by that investigation, the fulton county grand jury is charging 19 individuals with violations of georgia law arising from a sole conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. the indictment includes 41 felony counts and is 90 seven pages long. everyone charged is presumed innocent. this brings charges against

donald j. trump, rudolph william lewis giuliani, john charles eastman, mark randall meadows, john --, jeffrey clark, jenna lynn ellis, ray stallings smith the third, robert cheeley, michael roman, david j shaper, sean michael steele, stephen clif bar lee, harris and prescott floyd, tracy on -- sydney catherine powell, kathleen austin latham, scott graham hall and misty hampton,

also known as emily misty hayes. every individual charged in the indictment is charged with one count of violating georgia's racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act. participation in a criminal enterprise in fulton county, georgia and elsewhere to accomplish the legal goal of allowing donald j. trump to seize the presidential term of office, beginning on january 20, 2021. host: more of that press conference later, but we also want to hear from you this morning, getting your reaction.

this is the reaction from the former president and his campaign yesterday, putting out a statent saying, radical -- a medical partisan is campaigning on a platform. ripping a page from crooked joe biden's playbook, trying to interfere with the 2024 presidential race and damage the dominant trump campaign. all attempts will fail. that is the statement yesterday. first from the huffington post, the headline today, and attempt to overturn and steal joe

biden's victory in that state culminated in the capital attack. the daily caller with simply more charges. we want to hear from you. starting on that line for republicans in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i watched this all night. the clerk posted in indictment much earlier in the day. they were asked about it. they said that was a mistake.

this is much earlier. then, in indictment. it was the same thing that had been posted earlier. i feel that this whole thing needs to be null and void, and all that rhetoric needs to be shuttered. it is too bad what is going on in our country today. we have a beautiful country. the u.s. is a beautiful place. it is a good place and a fair place and we need to keep it that way. host: he said he have been up all night. have you read any of that? caller: yes. i take a little nap and there, but they are talking about it on the channel.

it keeps coming out, how this was posted and then they say, don't pay attention to that. it was the same thing. host: here is the introduction to that indictment. the defendant donald j. trump lost the election held on november 2020. trump and the other defendants refused to accept a loss. that conspiracy contained a purpose to make to to be more acts or more. elsewhere in the state of georgia and in other state

through this latest indictment. just over four months. he faces 91 criminal charges across those four indictments. this is roy in greensboro, north carolina. caller: i have a couple things to say here. i think the media is falling down. this was the fairest election ever. it was the most paper ballots. trump won in 2016 and there was only 70 5% paper ballots. the turnout was 67%. that was the highest since 1900. we do not even know what it was

then. people turned out to get made of donald trump. people are voting for their dead mothers, people sending a invalid and then going to the polls to try to the. in arizona, trump lost something like 360 votes when they did a recount. host: bring need yesterday's indictment. caller: this is a long time coming. it is really true here because not only have they been pushing this totally false and intimidating election workers and people, the intimidation has been off the chart. they have left their businesses and i do not --we have caller id

these days. mother, grandmother and they got 20 threatening calls, and the police did nothing about it. i do not know why. when they are pushing violence, they get away with it. this is a chance. host: the state charges in this light --in this latest indictment. a law designed to nab mafia bosses. that story and charging.

a provision that at the federal level would create targeted crime. where is --they used part of the rico law. rico statutes for racketeer influenced and corrupt organization them seek higher sentences. a minimum five year prison sentencing and up to 20 years. it shows a pattern of criminal activity. they lay out this broad case of trump and his inner circle. 19 people charged the former president as a codefendant in this case. good morning. caller: good morning.

people like the last caller are the reason why this country is in such that shape. the last election was not fair. the democratic fraud --they have way over charged in and all of these indictments. because you cannot question the result without it being charged as a crime. host: did you read this indictment or the previous? caller: i listened when they had

the news conference. host: he specifically said every american has the right to a first amendment of speech. it was four counts in that specific indictment. >> i didn't -- caller: i do not see how that is fair. if you asked the question, find out what happened here in there, that is not the same thing as saying --when trump said, i need to find so many thousands of votes to win the election, i think he is being metaphorical.

i do not think he was trying to fabricate votes. host: laying out the conversation, he was still president at the time. the part that you were focusing on, the former president -- what are we going to do? we need 11,000 votes. tell me, what are we going to do? we won the election. it is going to be very costly in many ways. he said to the president, you have people who submitted

information. we had to stand by our numbers. our numbers are right. this is angela from dumfries, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. that democrat caller, it just shows that people do not want to be fair and honest. how can it be the fairest election history, when it was during the pandemic? i did not even need a ballot because i showed up in person. it was ridiculous. anybody with common sense would know that it couldn't be possible simply because of where we were with the pandemic. i remember distinctly when

president trump won in 2016 and i remember that the democrats made a video telling the people who were to cast the balance on the house floor to change. they actually contacted one of the people -- several people who were supposed to cast ballots and told them to get --give their votes to hillary clinton. why don't you find that video where they had all those people trying to give their votes to hillary clinton? anybody with fair mindedness knows that this is a lie. host: this is darrell from columbus, georgia. caller: how are you doing this morning?

we had a great night last night. we had a beyonce concert and then we had this thing with trump. you listen up. the rico is what is starting to get him. five year minimum? i cannot believe these people are willing to sacrifice their lives and their careers for this guy. with those types of charges coming against you, somebody is going to go to her office -- some of them are going to go there and say, we want to do something different now because i do not see them wanting to sit down for that amount of time. host: you think one of the codefendants will come out and testify against the former president? caller: that is right.

you do not want that. a lot of them --it is going to start this morning. host: did you know much about fulton county district attorney sandy willis -- fanni willis before this? caller: we all knew that she is a female pit bull. that is what we call her. she is the master of rico. those laws, she knows them very well, and she knows how to use them. they do not stand a chance with these types of charges. they better go to her office and try to do something different. host: do you feel the and that indictment out of new york as well? do you feel just as strongly that they do not stand a chance against those either?

caller: they have great things going on. the new york thing, a little bit iffy on that one. but both cases are very strong. i just want to tell maga one thing really quick. do not come down to georgia with all that craziness and rhetoric. we do not want to be a part of that stuff. we do not want violence. i encourage everybody to sit back and let this thing play out. trump is going to jail. it is what it is. host: next, independent. caller: that last guy is an example of why we are in

trouble. please. as far as weak, they put the indictment out online before the grand jury even got together and said he was guilty of these charges, supposedly. people, come on. as far as joe biden, this is another example of why washington needs to be fleshed out. it is a sewer, not a swamp. a swamp is an ecosystem that thrives. people, we are in trouble. if we rely on these individuals to do justice, there is no justice. we are trying to make sure that this guy -- they are trying to make sure that this guy cannot run. they are worried about their jobs, so people, just it back

and watch. host: a quick rundown stand. these are indictments over four months. one related to hush money payments. at that one was filed back in the beginning of april this year. when it comes to this case, the election inquiry in georgia, we saw charges filed yesterday. the january 6 case, four charges filed against the former president. the documents case will be taking place in florida, also a federal case coming from the special prosecutor's office. that could still change some 40 criminal charges in that case. all told, if you add them up,

that is 91 criminal charges the former president. they were added yesterday in the state of georgia. this is,. go ahead. caller: i wanted to express my opinion. i am a lifelong republican and i listened to this on the tv. there is a reason donald got indicted. republicans told on him. it was not the green party. there were no democrats in that white house. his own people told on him. the republicans did not lose. host: did you vote for donald trump as a republican in 2020?

caller: no. until they take those socks off their eyes, they will cannot get my the. host: who is the republican your supporting this time around? caller: they are scared of donald trump and his supporters. they say anything bad about donald trump, they cannot get supporters, but the bottom line is -- host: this is rick out of boston. good morning. caller: i want to tell all the republicans out there -- donald trump is going to jail. there is not going to be any transition. host: let's work on not name-calling. we are trying to have a

conversation. if you going call and without name-calling, that would make it so that we can have a conversation. republican in oregon. good morning. caller: this would be funny if it were not so scary. is there anything else that they king not get trump on? i am a republican, but i am scared to stand up in public and say anything because they are getting dangerous. host: getting your reaction on the phone line as usual. showing you some of the reaction in the past eight or nine hours. this was speaker mccarthy just before midnight. mccarthy saying justice should

be blind but there has been an interference. not from the speaker of the house yesterday evening. this joint statement from chuck schumer, the democratic leader and thomason jeffries on what they put out saying just like the three that came before, there is a pattern of activity. a month-long plot trying taken e shared belief that in america, one is above the law. we urge mr. trump, his supporters without outside

interference. the next step in that legal process is answering the indictment. they have given him until friday to answer that indictment. gina is out of minnesota. good morning. caller: thank you for i have a request. we are trying to get both sides of this particular story, actually, all of the stories. event then across articles and fox news where they wrote a book and said he did the same thing. he went down to find votes. i wish get him onto the program

because he is a democrat. he does not have any love towards trump. he is a constitutional lawyer and he could do indictment down and get an honest opinion from somebody who sits in the middle on all of these indictments. i am not getting it on tv. i have to buy a new remote because the buttons do not work. thank you. host: that book came out back in the spring, get trump. alan has been a guest on this program in the past and probably will be again in the future. the line for democrats. good morning. caller: what people fail to realize is that it was ok when

comey came out right before hillary. that happened. but trump has been guilty of so many things. you cannot go and do and say the things that he said. everybody going against him are people that he hired. he said, i only hired the people -- best people. i'm going to drain the swamp. he did this. these are his people. this man is corrupt and a narcissist. he does not care what he says. the judge is telling him not to speak about certain things. these people are deranged. it is like a cult. it is like the sales guy who says if you repeat something three times to somebody, they will remember it and go with it.

he has not talked about anything he is going to do for the economy. all he does is talk about sleepy joe and hunter biden. he was never in office and never did anything for the white house. that is unlike donald junior making money. then you have jared kushner you that billions of dollars from the saudi's, after office. there is so much more that goes into this. it is like a horse on the racetrack with the blinders on. they are going for the finish line. host: it is 7:30 on the east coast come about a half hour into washington journal.

comments from fanni willis happening last night. here is a little bit more, announcing the indictment. >> all elections are put out by the state. we want to ensure a fair process and an accurate accounting of the votes. that includes elections for presidential elections, congress, state officials and local offices. the state's role is essential to the functioning of our democracy. georgia, like everything has long been allowed those who believe that the election results are wrong, whether because of intentional wrongdoing or unintentional error to challenge those results

in our state court. the indictment alleges that rather than abide by georgia's legal process for the old challenges, the defendants engaged in a criminal racketeering enterprise to overturn george's presidential election reports. the grand jury issued arrest warrants for those who were charged. i am giving defendants the opportunity to voluntarily surrender no later than noon on friday. the 20 fifth day of august 2020 three. host: we are getting your reaction this morning on the phone line. the numbers are on your screen.

republican, good morning. caller: good morning. the last time i checked, you are innocent until proven guilty. some are checking and and all they are saying is what the media has shown. number two, the lady talking about hunter biden, that same prosecutor had an assistant commissioner with the police department charged to as much as 10 months in prison for the exact same charge hunter biden had. two tiers of justice. i do not know how you can defend that. how can you defend the same prosecutor charging another person with the exact same crime? hunter biden get slap on the wrist.

can anybody justify that for me? host: have you had a chance to read any of the indictments that have come out? caller: no, sir. i am not going to prejudge the trial, but i will read them, but people are already convicting him. all you are hearing is one side of it. we have not heard the other side. and you are innocent. did i vote for him? yes. what i vote for him again? yes. i do get talking about 20/20 and how the election was stolen. it is time to move on and tell people what he wants to do, if he gets the nomination. host: san bernardino,

california, independent. caller: it is nice to talk to you. if you recall, i am really on the sideline on this one. it was -- he said what are you proud of and i said, america is a good as empires go, but none of them are good. i am looking at this as a situation where difficult times like this, there are mobsters on all sides of things and politicians in general tend to have it as a narcissistic, sociopathic society. the question is, is he a good monster who does not --or is he

one that goes down for everything? when i watched her up there with the defendants and 19 people, these state charges -- he can get --he can pardon himself. host: this is mike in the buckeye state. caller: i china to think about things logically in my mind, these prosecutors investigated everything, the facts. in my mind, they are not going to do all this work to get probation. what is perplexing to me is that

republican colors are so enamored by, they do not look at the facts. hunter biden, clinton, anything other than what is the topic at hand. in my mind, what is frustrating and angering the is that the u.s. may drop to be opal workers and he got death threats from it as a result of him just running his mouth. i cannot wrap my head around how the republicans do not rebuke him. they still want him to be president of the u.s., and i cannot wrap my head around this. it is very frustrating. thank you for letting me speak my mind. host: fanni willis'investigation here.

it was back in january 2022 that willis requested a special jet -- grand jury be convened, citing the reluctance without a subpoena. it was given full subpoena power and the ability --this was over roughly eight months including key trump advisors. there was aggressive lobbying. in january, it included a final report.

the fulton county district attorney making her charges yesterday. 13 charges against the former president. 19 people a child aged and this is the fourth indictment to hit president trump. west virginia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was wondering if anybody else stayed up to watch the election being counted, the night of the election. it seems to me that maybe the callers can straighten him out on this or say that i was wrong, but i thought it was in georgia that the election area where the votes were being counted -- they

were not allowing a republican to sit beside the democrat counter to verify the vote. i thought they locked them out. i just wanted someone that stayed up and watched it, if i am right about that. another thing that bothers me about all of this is, hillary clinton, when she was issued a subpoena for her emails, hard drive and phone, she destroyed them. it seems like, if you are just a regular citizen and you do that, you are to go to jail for violating a subpoena. one more item. this special counsel that was appointed, i heard on tv that

hunter biden's plea deal --those items, i wonder what is good. host: do you think --to all of your questions, are you concerned about the former president getting a fair trial? caller: yes, sir. democrat or republican. i have worked in several elections. host: do you trust the justice system generally? caller: if it is true about the special counsel that was appointed in the hunter biden keys, he was hunter's lawyer but he was hunted as the special counsel looking into this? that does not seem right to me.

why was hillary clinton --why was she not charged, after she was issued that subpoena and destroyed those items, the phones, the hard drives and the computers? host: out of philadelphia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that donald trump is getting everything he deserves. they should take down his truth lies or truths social, whatever you want to call it. but what i would like to say is to all the republicans out there who like to bring up hillary and everything else, he had four years. go after her. donald trump did not know how to

let sleeping dogs lie. his mouth got him in trouble. when you are a kid, you are taught not to talk back. these people were very hard to get where they are at professionally. it is just disgusting. people wonder why there is violence in this country. take a look at it. he broke the biggest vowed that you could ever have in life. forget about lying to the public about everything. he lied to his wife and cheated on her with a poor and star, not some respectful woman in the white house --and then he paid her one hundred thousand dollars. the woman who had his child, he lied to. for all you holy rollers, let that sink in a little bit.

host: he mentioned the social accounts. he posted his latest truth, as they call them on the social platform. this is what he wrote. the witch hunt continues. and very corrupt system. what about those documents put out today? why didn't they indict two point five years ago, they wanted to do it right in the middle of my political campaign. witch hunt! is what he had to say last night. this is dorothy hampton in virginia. caller: good morning, america. i would like to talk about donald trump.

de people remember in 1989? donald trump the next day put out a full-page ad, wanting to bring back the death penalty for those young men. now you find out years later that they were innocent. this is karma coming back to donald trump. hope you enjoy your prison time. goodbye. host: republican, you are next. caller: good morning. to the gentleman he was asking listeners if his observations were correct --he is correct. i also view those observations --that is normal.

and also, not only the political, the courts, etc., that is normal. it is our right to do that, so be careful when we judge. karma comes to everybody who prejudges everybody else. host: the last frontier in alaska. good morning and thank you for being up very early in alaska. caller: i have a question. last night, i was listening to a recording of the conversation between president trump and the georgia officials. in it, it is very clearly said over and over again.

just asking you to find whatever that number was. and he also talked about the fact that she said, i kept asking you to look at fulton county. my question is this. he keeps referring to some sort of dissent decree that test the georgia officials from being able to examine signatures. what was that? was there a consent to cree that he signed -- that the governor signed by the secretary of state signed that kept the georgia officials from examining certain signatures?

there was some sort of consent decree and i wonder if c-span knows anything about that. host: i do not know about consent decrees, but examining voters and voter rolls, here is one exchange from that conversation that you referred to that printed part of the transcript of that conversation. this was back in 2021. saying there is nothing wrong with this. the people of georgia are angry. when the people of georgia are angry, there is nothing wrong with saying that. you know he has recalculated.

well, the challenge you have come of the data that you have is wrong. we talked to the congressman and we were surprised. he said they were up to five thousand dead people voting. the actual numbers were two. that was wrong. that is just one part of that exchange. about 10 minutes left. taking your phone call out of massachusetts. good morning. caller: let me just say that there is a lot of political ping-pong going on and a lot of kool-aid on both sides. benny willis believes it is a racketeering enterprise. why isn't merrick garland going

through on joe biden and his son, hunter biden? in front of the congressional hearing --the irs whistleblowers, all of this of, 17.3 million through china, romania and ukraine. why isn't merrick garland's -- slapping him with a statute? host: back in the peach state, the line for the democrats. good morning. caller: my name is kenneth. thank you for taking my call.

donald trump is just running for president because of the fact that he does not want to go to jail. all of the charges could not be prosecuted because he was the president. the only way you could get a get out of jail free card is to run for president. that is my belief. host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: there is something that is not known by many people. dissemination of the media, the modernization act allows the media to lied to the public. if you want to check it out, look it up.

if they repeal that and have single issue legislation, maybe our country can get something done, and the media would stop lying to everybody like they are doing now. it is all hogwash. the media lies like crazy. it was done under obama. it was two thousand 12 under obama and it was done by republicans and democrats. it was bipartisan. do not quote me on this, but it says we can disseminate information to the american public as though they are foreign adversaries. i think that is so messed up, it is unbelievable. host: this is gail out of massachusetts. caller: this is actually my first time and i am a little

disheartened by the public not wanting to educate themselves on the truth. a few years ago, i was confused about what was the truth. i looked at legal experts, professors, etc., who i would research and confirm. i started following those particular people. they are often the ones who post the actual documents. i have not heard anyone say that they have read the documents. i have not read this one today, but i read several testimonies from the january 6, almost all republicans. i pretty much read everything except the third filing.

this one was posted just last night, but the second one, it is often republicans with text messages. it is in the research. talking about biden storing things in chinatown. host: are you still with us? i think we lost you. this is simple, new jersey. caller: there are so many things i have to say and i do not have enough time, but let me paraphrase. for the first time in my adult life, i am disgusted with this country and the way it is being run. the only thing --the most important thing i have to say

is, all you have to do -- the attack on general flynn and what they did to him, you can see exactly. they ran him into bankruptcy and what he was accused of doing. it cost him everything he had. that is exactly what they are trying to do with these co-conspirators may put out arrest warrants and say, you have until the 23rd to turn yourselves in were they are going to come after them.

anything you can come up with, you and your family, just like they did, a multitude of people in his office and his administration. they bankrupted a bunch of decent, honest people. host: more reaction from twitter , for this. a couple have posted about the latest indictment, saying, here we go again. another disastrous trump indictment. they posted it on their website even before they had finished convening. hutchinson saying, i am ready to

take the case to him. this is april out of california.

just want to educate people on the hunter biden story. all the lies, things that they are really good at doing. but what happens is it turns out they were tax charges. let's say you go back in and they say, you do not -- you do not pay those taxes. usually, it is case closed and not even charged, but because i believe his lawyers wanted to be left alone, they are pretty much

showing that. it is really degrading. it is discussing what they are doing. the lies that they are telling about them with no evidence or proof. it is horrible. host: we believe he is being treated unfairly. you think trump is being treated unfairly against these indictments. caller: he has been treated with kid gloves. if anyone else had done what he did, they would be in jail. he has been committing so many crimes for so long. teenagers, innocent teenagers. he wanted the death penalty for them.

years later, and he never apologized for that. he wanted to put innocent teenagers to death because they were black. he is an absolute racist and a disgusting person who should never have been elected president in 2016. host: this is dorothy from euclid, ohio. caller: yes. all these people are going around, thinking that trump is getting treated unfairly, all the lies and corruption -- his own wife does not want to be seen with him.

they go on and on making up stuff about hunter biden and corruption. as far as hunter biden goes, that is not have anything to do with what is going on with a man who was the president of the u.s. and that independent caller later in the show, they would this is how bad it has gotten in this country. host: our last caller in this first segment. we are going to return to this conversation about this latest indicted -- in dayton at the end of the program to take more of your calls and get more of your reactions. for now, up next, we are going to continue our weeklong series on the climate provision in the

inflation reduction act. it has been almost exactly one year since that act was signed into law. after the break, we will be joined by -- and the heritage foundation to talk about the creation of green jobs since the bill signing. but first, president biden's book about the inflation reduction act, the one it is having on clean energy investments in the united states during a recent visit to albuquerque, new mexico. here are some of his remarks from last week. >> by the way, we are ending it cheaper than fossil fuel. solar energy is cheaper. we were forced to lay off 200 employees all across america. now thanks to the new law i signed making historic investments, business is booming again. by the way, the inflation reduction act is the act related to climate. and it is $368 billion.

and when i passed that, not one single guy on the other team voted for it. nobody voted for it on the other team. since i signed that bill into law, $1.1 billion of orders. today we are here breaking ground on a new plant that is going to create 250 new, good-paying jobs. meanwhile, wind energy produced by these powers in people's homes, what is happening now is it is hard to get -- a lot of these towers are old, and not everybody wants a big new tower going up. so we are strengthening towers and we are going to go underground. we are learning how to do that more cheaply so it doesn't cause forest fires and all the things that happen when major

windstorms knock these lines down. my administration recently completed review of a proposed line, transportation energy from a wind farm here in new mexico, arizona, and california to generate wind energy here and be able to transmit all the way across and into california as well. these projects are expected to make 2000 construction jobs, providing clean energy for up to 3 million americans. 3 million. [applause] in reducing the pressures of climate change. it is about bringing supply change back home. excuse me, i mispronounced it. in florida and new york.

packard energy will use these turbines to build the largest wind farm in the western hemisphere spanning lincoln and san miguel, counties in new mexico. and they will use that energy to power homes all across the southwest. it is cheaper. that is why we are talking about investing in america. you know, these companies, the most significant investment in combating the existential threat of climate change to anyone in the world. like i said, $368 billion. announcer: washington journal continues. host: this week marks one year since the inflation reduction act was signed into law and on this anniversary, we are taking a deep dive into some of the climate provisions in the ira to

talk about the clean energy job creation. we are joined in studio this morning by jack spencer, senior research fellow on energy policy, and lori lotus. the first question for you, your group has tried to put a number on green job creation since the ira was signed into law. what do you think that number is? >> since the inflation reduction act passed a year ago, companies have announced over 170,000 jobs all across the country. these are not just jobs going to one place or another. they are in zip codes all over the place. oklahoma, georgia. manufacturing is taking a lot of people by surprise, but it is really welcome news. it is strengthening our economy and it is really helping us get

out of the inflation economic blows that we have been facing for the last couple of years. so it is really exciting what is happening because of the inflation reduction act. host: how do we define a green job? caller: if job stash guest: if jobs are wind and solar, these are everything from construction jobs to manufacturing jobs to support staff. and everything in between. so you are seeing a lot of job creation in the battery sector from georgia all the way up through michigan. there is also offshore wind. they are manufacturing the wind turbines that will be for offshore wind production. and so the ramp up in clean energy is really something that we should all be proud of, because it really is made in america, clean energy.

we are now able to produce more energy here at home, which is a great thing. host: jack spencer, you've been tracking this as well. you say the great manufacturing boom is going to move to a dangerous bust. explain why. >> it's not surprising because you have a government who is funneling all sorts of subsidies sword kurt -- toward certain types of energy, at the same time limiting the options that consumers have on the energy side, and on top of that, you have a president who literally has a presidential platform that wants to put up an entire sector out of business. so yes, it is true, whenever you put those things together, you are going to have this sort of economic activity. the problem is that it is not being driven by consumer demand. i would argue it is largely a

house of cards, dependent on policy. what we need is to build a strong manufacturing economy, a business environment that allows consumer demand, consumer preference to drive economic activity. host: you talk about all sorts of subsidies. can you put a dollar amount in what we know has gone to the creation of green jobs? guest: what we know with some of the ira is almost $400 billion plus analyses show that is going to be almost three times more than that from the tax subsidy standpoint, so literally hundreds of billions of dollars going to these industries. that is in addition to, remember, regulation limiting the choice that consumers have. it's both sides striving this. host: once the subsidies, the provisions of the ira run out, how do we know that these jobs

are still going to be there, that there will be demand? guest: what is incredible about president biden's clean energy plan is that it gives corporations, the private sector the confidence they need, the certainty they need to invest. and that is what is happening right now. companies announced over 200 projects all across investing from $270 billion. we cannot continue to be reliant only on the oil market setting prices and allowing oil and gas companies to rice couch. without using the wind and the sun, we have a way here at home. the thing that is important to reflect on is that this is not just a matter of business.

this is about people's lives. right now, we have a situation in hawaii where 99 people have been killed because of the worsening climate crisis. we have a grade in texas that cannot, that would have collapsed if it were not for the wind and solar that has come online, and that kept the prices down for people. we have water off the coast of florida over 100 degrees. we cannot ignore the climate crisis because we have to act. so what i think i hear jack saying is that we shouldn't be doing these things, which means that is a nonstarter. it is a huge opportunity and we are hoping to bring costs down and a lower pollution which means cleaner air and cleaner water. guest: there is at least one

million things in what lori just said, i wasn't writing them down. first, i'm not saying we don't do anything. i'm saying that public policy should set an environment where our energy companies can develop affordable, clean energy for consumers and that those decisions should be made by individual americans, not by special interests and bureaucrats. i'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, i'm saying we should drive this forward. secondly, let's just take for granted, which i don't, but for the sake of this conversation, let's take for granted that what lori described as a climate crisis is in fact a crisis. absolutely nothing in the ira would have any impact on that. using the models that the climate experts used to determine such things show that the united states could have zero carbon emissions, 0.2

degrees celsius impact over 100 years, using their models. so it is about people, and it is not fair to say that prices are coming down. electricity prices are going up, gas and oil is going up. inflation continues to be part of this economy. host: let me pause and invite viewers to join this conversation. if you want to do so, phone lines are as usual. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. miss lotus, what is climate power for viewers who may not know your organization? guest: we are an organization focused on building public support for even more climate action. as i said, this is a crisis that we are facing every day and we

think there is a huge opportunity to create jobs and to build this clean energy economy that is going to grow the middle class, that is going to strengthen our economy and really create that long-term path to energy security here at home. host: that is climatepower. u.s.. there foundation, heritage.org. you talked at the beginning about companies propping up these green jobs and putting out the oil and gas sector. do we still provide subsidies for the oil and gas sector, are they propping up at sector? guest: no. there are a number of tax provisions sometimes characterized as subsidies, but they are not subsidies as understood in terms of a public policy that biases oil and gas against other things. but we have a system that

essentially allows firms to deduct the cost of doing business, and there's different applications about. there are things like the program, the industry is not supported. let me say this, i'm forgetting all about energy subsidies. let them all compete. it is the private sector that lori has said is so interested in wind and solar. by all means, let's let them have it. what we seen in the past, when it goes away, investment goes down. there's no amount of money, it seems. there's no amount of taxpayer money that the government can take away from the middle class and give to rich people to make everyone want to buy ev's. here is the perverse part of the whole thing. i'm not anti-green energy at all. i love energy technology. whenever government subsidizes,

it essentially is subsidizing mediocrity rather than allowing the market to push ideas forward and forcing firms to innovate and become more inventive. it eliminates the whole pressure, so we never get to the windfarm that could be competitive or the new thing that we haven't thought of yet because it is what they see in front of them right now. guest: lori, let me give you the first call from john in columbus, ohio. john, you are on this morning. caller: i've got to say that i love c-span, you all do great work over here. except for the fact that it just seems like a consistent stream of propaganda that have charles koch working like a puppet. this guy jack is saying think that are completely nonsensical and driving our world into the

inability to survive. the climate crisis is real, is their use of fossil fuels. he's not talking about the five point $9 trillion in subsidies that the oil and gas companies have gotten over just my lifetime. we ought to talk about that. he talks about individual choices in the market. no one individually chose to have their trade system completely privatized so now we are destroying the planet just by being able to travel. no one shows for henry ford to completely destroy the rail industry, so now three or four companies own this thing and you've got norfork southern destroying places like east palestine ohio. some of the israelis are destroying the real palestine. host: i think that comment was more for jack spencer, so let me give him a chance to respond. guest: that comes from a report

done by some employees of the imf that is often pretrade as an imf study. it is not. it looks lovely at what it considers subsidies, but it is important to break that down. a big chunk of that, i think 35% is the social cost of carbon. that is a very tenuous measure. it is very easy to manipulate. the models are not sound. another chunk of it is localized air pollution. air pollution can be a problem, it was here in the past. where it is is in somewhat developed countries. they take those costs and apply them globally. when it comes down to the direct subsidies, even according to them, there are some direct subsidies in local communities.

we are talking about 8% of that amount. guest: i think jack is talking all over the place. the fact that oil and gas companies are getting tax handouts for years. on the backs of the american people, oil prices last year surged to record highs, and what happened? the oil and gas companies raked in over $400 billion in profits over the american people. our gas prices went up, and what did they do? they enrich their shareholders and they kept prices artificially high so they could keep their profits artificially high. and look, people are tired of it. people do not want corporations controlling everything. and getting rich off of them. so look, i agree with our caller from ohio, but i do think that

jack is trying to nuance things in a way to sort of cloud the fact that yes, oil and gas companies have been getting rich. and getting handouts for years. what this is about is creating an energy security for our country. that is not just oil and gas, but that is including making us less dependent on oil and gas and getting us onto energy sources made here at home that host: will not run out. quick response from jack because we have a lot of callers who want to join the conversation. guest: first of all, if oil and gas companies could just raise prices willy-nilly, price and always be high. prices are set by global supply -- supply and demand. they were so high because president biden has artificially sent supply down. guest: that's false, that is absolutely false. more oil and gas has been produced in the last year than at any other time. guest: as much as could have

been produced has been produced. guest: good lord. guest: you're telling me the american people want politicians telling them what kind of dishwasher they can use, what kind of car they can drive? none of us want to be controlled. then we should talk about host: that. let me bring in some viewers who want to talk about that as well. georgia, independent, you are on this morning. caller: thank you c-span and thank you. what is wrong is not all energies are feasible. look what happened in texas. look what has happened with these electrical bus industries. created all these jobs and a couple years later, no jobs, because it is not feasible. it is simply not feasible. in our last administration, that

is where the money comes from. that is where you lessen the burden on taxpayers, because that is where the money comes from. host: are they renewable, are they feasible? guest: absolutely. unfortunately or not unfortunately, the reality is that shoring is off the grid in places like texas. the ads that texas had a couple of years ago were so extreme, but it wasn't wind and solar that were the problem. it was a problem that it was so cold that the gas supply wasn't there, and that is what caused the grid to not be there. it is also why prices were jacked up so high on consumers. the great thing that we have seen in the extreme heat from the past couple of months in texas is that the grid has become more stable because of

solar and wind coming online. because the texas energy system is more reliant on solar and wind now when the gas has not been there, that solar and wind have picked up the shortage. and because they are not jacking up the prices, because wind and solar are pretty continuous, prices have not been jacked up for consumers. honestly, i think what we are seeing is a lot of disinformation from jack's friends who are oil and gas ceos who want people to believe that it is not reliable or that is extensive when in fact, it is more reliable than fossil fuels and it is cheaper than fossil fuels. host: reliability of renewables, jack? guest: i want to reiterate, i am not against wind and solar renewables per se.

wind against his government mandating these things. government subsidizing these things. if they are so cheap and reliable, the cash flow should flow to them. but we still have all these subsidies and mandates in place. it makes me skeptical of them being so great to begin with. as i said, i want energy technology to move forward. i don't have a dog in the oil and gas fight. i don't hang out with these guys. what i want is americans to have access to abundant, affordable energy. i think that free enterprise is the best way to get there. host: where do you think the arrow is pointing, the arrow a free enterprise? guest: it is pointing to the gas and oil on cars. he continues to point to internal combustion engines. it doesn't point exclusively to those things.

there is a lot of interest in renewables, so-called green energy. i think if you look at investment in those things, it would allow the best ideas to emergent capital to flow to them, and perhaps provide a grounded competitor to establish hydrocarbon. host: coming up about halfway to the conversation this morning with jack spencer, climate power. you can join the conversation as well. did want to get your reaction to the story that is on the front page of the new york times, several major papers today. a decision by a montana judge yesterday, a group of young people in montana with a landmark lawsuit when a judge ruled that the judge's failure to consider climate change with fossil fuel projects was unconstitutional and part of a wave of litigation related to

climate change with governments around the globe, and cities are suing companies like exxon, chevron and shell, claiming that the companies have known for decades that their products were responsible for global warming. your reaction to that ruling yesterday? guest: look, young people have been rising up all over the world and in the u.s. to call all of these corporations for what they've been doing, which is polluting at will and really making the climate crisis worse. making extreme weather worse. and we've got to move past it. we've got to lessen our dependence. but the problem is as you said, exxon and shell, they have known for decades, the crisis that it is going to bring to our doors, and they did nothing.

they instead hid the evidence and they tried to discounted as much as possible. so i think it is crazy to see people calling truth to power and bringing these lawsuits to try to make sure that the corporations that are held responsible for being corrupt, for hiding the fact they are causing such detrimental damage to our country and to our economy. host: jack, any comments of the figure? guest: there are two things we need to keep in mind. first, i don't know how we can calculate in this specific way what the alleged climate problems are with what might be happening in montana. like i said earlier, the models just don't show that. that is the fact of the matter. secondly, you can look at the cost of hydrocarbon use. you also have to look at the benefits. look at where humanity was prior to the industrial revolution. we were impoverished and stagnant for centuries.

then the introduction and two things happen. we got the enlightened thinking about free enterprise, and the introduction of hydrocarbons. since then, we went from a per capita income of under $1000 to over six he $5,000. the amount of people that rose up out of poverty, all this is because of the use of hydrocarbon. there is no denying that. host: looks good to massachusetts. you're on with lori and jackie. caller: yes, i'm calling from massachusetts. down in south america when they tried this, it is pretty obvious that you and your culture of climate control people stole our country, literally and

figuratively and every way possible. guest: look, i think that what we are seeing in the last year is that we are having private investment all across the country in local communities that are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, over 170,000 in the last year. it really is why i believe this is one of the most successful pieces of legislation in a country's history, and that includes offshore wind. these are new industries that are standing up because there is a demand for energy in our country, and there is a demand that we take action on climate. and the fact that we can do this in a way that is sustainable, that is making our communities more resilient, that is helping our schools flourish and keeping

our roads pothole-free is outstanding news. and the bonuses we are taking action on climate, which means that we are really going to, if we keep taking action on climate, make the impact less than they are otherwise going to be. host: what is the single most from important provision in the ira to create these jobs? the math that this kind of power has come up with to show where these jobs are, the different colors on these map. what, specifically, in the ira, would you point to for a large number of these jobs? guest: honestly, i would not even say it is one thing. it is the certainty it is giving to businesses that we are moving toward a clean energy economy. the tax credits that are available to the private sector

for over a decade. that is what certainty means, that it is not a short-term investment. that companies do not have to worry about going backwards, right? it is why everything that happens in the next year is so unbelievably important, because what republicans in congress want to do is they want to take away these tax credits. and i believe this is what jack would like to do as well. they want to take away these tax credits, which basically would put a stop to the manufacturing boom that has happened across our country. guest: i don't understand why that is the case if renewable energy is so inexpensive and helps so much on the grid issues you describe. why doesn't private into that investment just slow naturally? guest: i would ask you the same thing about the oil and gas

industry who have been fighting so hard. jack: let them have a subsidy for free energies. let's have the best technologies go forward and compete. in 10 years, are you going to be forwarding all of the subsidies? it >> is the window in which budget calculations are made. that is why you end up with these cliffs. it is often the case that advocates for whatever, when that 10 year window comes, they say we need it for another 10 years. whatever they originally put in place, to kickstart the industry, to get it going. they are pervasive and forever. host: do we do this with gas and oil? jack: yeah. i'm not defending that. host: explain how it works for

them. jack: we have a standard that requires ethanol blending into our gas. the ethanol subsidy suite has decreased over the years, and what we are left with is the ethanol standard. host: and is that a good thing? lori: what i think is a great thing is because the investment in president biden's clean energy plan, we are having a ramp-up in clean energy production from solar and wind and geothermal, and we are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs that billions of dollars are going to local economies, the we are revitalizing the middle class and strengthening our economy. i will always be for that. i will always be on the side of investing in the american people and investing in energy production that is actually

going to stabilize, bring your energy costs down, lower pollution, and put us on the track we need to be so that my son and future generations have a planet that is livable and that they can, you know, survive and thrive. host: jack, let me give you andrew out of brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for having me. i actually want to, you guys, this is a great discussion from two different perspectives. i just want to say real quick, the conversation, mr. jack, and this is a comment about you guys, republicans. you are on the oil and gas i. i'm a conservative guy. great, great.

so you want to pick and choose when you want government to make decisions. so you now don't want the government to be involved because you have the private sector to hold that. but when it comes to women's bodies, you want the government to take charge of everything. and i'm just saying that to say when you come out and give, you don't give facts. you give opinions and emotions, and that is not helping us. we need facts and numbers to back it up. host: go ahead. jack: time here to talk about energy and energy economics. i feel like i've been talking in facts and if there is something specific, that you think i'm opinionated on that should be backed up by facts, i would certainly do that. host: do you agree that over 170,000 jobs have been created in the past year? that's the number they climb the tower put out. jack: it's what has been

reported, i'm not debating that. but what we are describing is the open window policy. if you go to washington, d.c. and break all the windows you would create all sorts of jobs building windows, making new windows. by breaking all the windows, i just created all these jobs. that's what we are talking about here. i'm not saying that energy is bad. i'm saying the government is not the arbiter to determine economic decision-making. lori: you broke the windows, jack. your oil and gas companies. jack: what windows are broken? the air is cleaner than it has ever been. we are more prosperous than we've ever been. the water is clean. that is what a hydrocarbon-based economy has given us. this idea that we are in this environmental -- lori: -- have been created to

make sure that companies do not pollute more than they are supposed to do into our lakes and streams. lori: saying that the air is cleaner in the water is cleaner. yes, it is, because there are protections in place. jack: i am for a regulatory structure that makes sure that polluters pay for any pollution they do, and that the first ever to be to prevent it and if not to prevent it, they should pay for it. host: let me bring in susie, republican. thanks for joining the conversation. caller: thanks very much for taking my call. i sure would like to make a couple of comments, but i'm not going to. i'm just going to ask a single question. i am not happy that the green

energy people will not tell us how much the temperature of the planet is going to increase or decrease if we make the changes that they want. but that is not my question. my question has to do with the term green energy. to me, green energy is nature. the earth. the trees, the animals. why is it that the administration doesn't care about the hundreds of thousands of birds that are being killed by wind energy, and the whales that are being killed? host: we've got your point. lori? lori: the last eight years have been the hottest years ever recorded. in july of just last month, it

was the highest, hottest month ever recorded. what we have to do is everything that we can to lower emissions, to decrease pollution, to make sure that we are taking the responsible actions we can to make the climate crisis better so that does not happen. we are already seeing the worst of the impacts. we do not want them to get any worse. what we are seeing in hawaii, 99 people killed. 1000 still unaccounted for. because of a worsening climate crisis. i do want to say something. susie mentioned whales, and there is this rampant misinformation that whales, because of offshore wind, and the reality is the facts are that it is because of climate

change, because of the fishing industry and large ships that are killing whales. and so i am all for doing everything we can to protect our environment, to protect and to conserve our climate and to protect animals and whales. but we need to really focus on the facts of what that actually looks like, and right now, i'm really proud of the progress we are making. host: quick response from jack spencer here and then we've got more calls. jack: i was curious, you did mention the millions of birds killed. how do they fit into your calculations? lori: jack, again, we are talking about ramping up production of wind energy, right? i know donald trump who is a big supporter of the heritage

foundation really likes to talk about birds, and he likes to talk about cancer, and it is just ridiculous, right? what we are talking about is taking action to address climate change and to ramp up production of clean energy. i really don't think you want to talk about oil spills and how many fish have been killed or wildlife have been hurt by the pollution caused by oil and gas companies. host: let me bring in cole here in washington, d.c., independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. as far as the government not being a part of things when it comes to energy across the united states, there are already laws as far as the consumers.

and when i say a lot, that lot has already been allotted from companies with rapid solar on my house or not, to take the profit and put it back in the grid. so if the government were to decide that they no longer want to this grid to be allocated, that is something that could change. also, as far as energy is concerned, we shouldn't be looking to solar energy. fossil fuels are fleeting. we keep talking about things that have happened, but when are we going to talk about our future, our kids' future and how to stop this dependence on fossil fuels? whether we want to believe it or not, we won't be around forever. jack: first on the property rights, one of the reasons the united states is so

energy-abundant is because of our respect for property rights in the private ownership of the gas and mineral rights underneath which is what allows them to develop it. as properties change hands, there are different ways of who retains title of those property rights, but on private land, private folks have ownership, especially in the fracking world. in terms of our future, i care about that as much as anyone. my view is that americans and american companies engaging with one another in a system of free enterprise and voluntary transactions is how we get the best outcome. it is true what the caller said. our energy markets are far from free markets, i'm not suggesting otherwise. but in this discussion, i think

that level of government intervention trying to artificially transition air economy to energy production that is not ready to go is very detrimental. host: what would you compare this level that you are saying, trying to push this transition, is there a comparable piece of legislation? jack: maybe obamacare in the health care space, but i would say this is different because we can have a modern society without energy. we talk about the ira, we talk a little bit about some of the regulations, this regulatory onslaught, this efficiency coming down or that has been coming down. the sorts of dishwashers we use, the way we heat our homes, all of our appliances basically fall under these efficiency

regulations. the department of energy, rather than allowing me the consumer to decide what works best for my family, they come in and are making that decision for us, and i think that is wildly inappropriate. host: efficiency standards and appliances? lori: that is what characterized, no one is trying to take away what appliances you can buy. this is all about giving you a choice. do you want to buy a so-called heat pump, right? and there is going to be tax credits early next year that will be rebates at the point-of-sale that means some people can have that choice, and they confused by a gas appliance that, again, oil and gas companies have known for decades is actually causing a pollutant and causing increased, or you can choose a clean induction

stove and get a rebate with that at the point-of-sale. and i think it is an important distinction to make. this is not about taking away choices, it is giving them the resources to make an informed decision on what they want. if they want to have a gas stove, they absolutely can purchase a gas stove. they can also buy an induction stove and receive a tax credit that brings that price point down. host: georgia, this is holly, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. jack has brought this up and rfk touches on this quite a bit, the idea of removing subsidies from the energy sector altogether, and also holding them accountable, the entities accountable. there were to be a purse, with lori before that war against

that, and if so, why? lori: i would be really for oil and gas companies no longer receiving subsidies when they are making $400 million in profit. they do not need it. they do not need another handout after decades and decades and billions and billions of dollars of handouts. i think one of the things that jack said that i wanted to come back to is that this is not just about free-market enterprise. there is a big problem. the problem of our lifetime, as we say, and that requires big solutions. and that is what the inflation reduction act is. it is landmark legislation, the biggest investment we've ever made as a country to take the crisis as seriously as science says we need to. will it be enough? no, we have to do more, because the problem is that big. one of the things that we haven't really talked about at all is the heritage where jack

works put out a new paper or hundreds of papers focused on what will be due in 2025 if republicans take back the presidency, and we want to 11 and everything. not just the tax credits that we are talking about. they also want to take away all of the production and all of the standards that make sure that there are not pollutants being put into your water or being put into the air, and one of the writers even calls the extreme weather and the climate crisis mild and manageable. there is nothing mild and manageable about this crisis. it is why we need to act with boldness and as quickly as possible. host: this is the 2020 five presidential transition project you are referring to, correct? lori: correct. jack: i can speak to the energy and environment people because that is what i work on.

we are not advocating for pouring chemicals and pollutants into the water and air. we are for getting rid of energy subsidies, and we think that decisions on what sort of appliances americans buy should be up to americans, not the bureaucrats in washington, d.c.. we think it is a far more resilient energy economy, better prices, more pricked ability over time. now, it is true that i would argue speaking for myself here, i think it is reflected in that document that a lot of the foundational, environmental regulation that we continue to rely on today is outdated. certainly, the best example i was are -- i would argue the 1970 five energy policy and conservation act that lists out its justifications. none of those justifications remain true today. what we are talking about is

rethinking the old statutes and coming up with something that works for today. repealing the ira part of that plan. certainly, we would argue that getting rid of most of the energy and environment subsidies -- host: is there anything in the ira that you would advocate in that plan, is anything working from your perspective in the ira? jack: the ira is a massive piece of legislation. i don't know there's anything that i'm a big fan of. some of the things that i think are interesting, i don't like the way it subsidizes. like nuclear energy, i am not for nuclear subsidies, for example. some of the pro-nuclear stuff and reason pieces of legislation, it has been two subsidy-oriented rather than trying to overcome technological institutions which would be more my approach. lori: what i didn't hear you say

is what you would do about climate change. jack: i wouldn't do anything. i would continue to look at it. lori: so you agree that climate change is mild and manageable. and you don't see people's lives, hundreds of thousands of lives being impacted, half of the country being impacted. jack: here's what i think. i think that we need to learn more about climate change. climate is always changing. i'm not denying. lori: of course you are, this is climate denial. jack: that's offensive. that is directly from holocaust denier. it is offensive that you call people that. moving on to the issue at hand, what i'm saying is that we should learn more about the climate, we should understand human impact and we should understand the policy

implications thereof before we transform our economy to the things that some are advocating for. host: a response quickly, and i do have more because i need to get to. lori: i'm really, honestly speechless. i look at what is happening across our country, what is happening in my own community when i can't take my five-year-old son to camp because of smoke from wildfires in canada. smoke that is affecting people in atlanta, and the idea that we should do nothing is to me, completely outlandish. climate change is a kitchen table issue. and how out of touch jack is with the american people, the overwhelming majority of people in our country think that client change has become a kitchen table issue. that includes the majority of republicans. and i think what you are hearing is more denial of the facts and

the reality that every american is dealing with in and aggressively changing world where climate change is getting worse. and we need to do more and not less, and that is what jack is really pushing for us to do, is to do nothing about it. host: las vegas, line for democrats, good morning. caller: hey, good morning. how are you doing today? i was actually calling in with a couple questions and a statement primarily for jack. he is a talking head, that is what they do. but it has come to this talk of the usb energy-dependent. i'm just wondering if he actually knows what the number

one export of the united states is. i find it a little odd that somehow, every time we talk about energy independence, the fact that we export refined william, petroleum gas, we've got it, we've got the permits for it, and yet somehow we never seem to touch base on that during these conversations. he does seem to have a lot of hesitations for subsidizing national programs. i guess there is a part of me that is curious, does he know how much these energy companies have paid for in research and development of "alternative fuel sources?" they've been doing research for years. they pay about -- make it at $400 billion in profit. i'm just curious at what point

do they actually come out with anything showing that they put this money toward anything other than nice suits and maybe a brand-new island? host: oil exports and r&d by oil and gas companies. jack: oil exports creates more demand, drives innovation. we have enough gas and oil that we can export our own demand primarily. in addition to that, the r&d thing, that is a good example of gas and oil development going back into improve the product. and let me just say, i apologize. i shouldn't have said the whole denier thing. it is rooted in what i suggested but that is not what you were saying. that is different than -- i apologize for that. lori: i appreciate that jack, thank you. host: another jack in florida,

independent. caller: good morning, c-span. the earth is a closed loop system and it is showing in sao paulo, brazil, you fly through smoke. your eyes will water, you start coughing. if you fly into china, you can look at the smog in peking china. because we don't have any of the united states, i believe l.a. back in the 50's or 60's, that is when we started getting unleaded fuels. host: we are short on time, what is your question for the panel? caller: the products, they are washing up in the pacific.

solar energy is not making smoke, it is an improvement. petroleum industry is still going to get the money, they are just not selling gas as much. we are still seeing petroleum, we just need to take care of the planet. host: i think i got your point. lori, i want to start with you. lori: i think the caller, and i want to go back to the previous caller. the thing about solar and wind and making energy here at home, making a clean energy here at home is it is safe here. we are not exporting it. the other thing, going back to jobs, these are american jobs. there's a company in south carolina, a u.s. company in south carolina that was manufacturing in romania and

mexico and china, and they are moving manufacturing back to the united states. that is the greatness of the inflation reduction act, and i do think it is one of the most successful pieces of legislation one year into it because we are having jobs moving back here. not only do we get to keep the jobs here, we get to keep the energy here as well. jack: a lot of the energy that is being produced or that will be produced by virtue of that does not make us independent. we are relying on foreign countries, especially china for a lot of the minerals and materials that come into those things. massive reform on the domestic side will allow more mining, which is going to increase dependence on the sorts of things. a lot of the subsidies are actually going to foreign companies who are coming to the united states, taking advantage of them.

i am all for foreign investment coming to the united states, but i think when it is driven by taxpayer subsidies, especially when it is going to places that may be adversarial like china, i think those are all part of the complexity that we need to consider when looking at the long-term impacts. host: perhaps someday we can come back to talk to another day. jack spencer with the heritage foundation. lori lodes with climate power, executive director. i appreciate you both coming by for the conversation. up next this morning, after the break will be joined by university of houston floated assigned perfecter -- investor to discuss his latest research on the diminishing impact of political scandals in this day and age. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back.

>> >>this week, c-span brings you campaign 2024 coverage from the iowa state fair. watch fair side chat with kim reynolds tonight former vice president mike pence. on wednesday night, the grandma swami. thursday night, -- for tha -- vivek ramaswamy. fair side chat with republican presidential candidates from the iowa state fair this week at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and online at c-span.org. c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail , speeches, and events to make up your own mind.

on the c-span network or anytime online. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, videos of key hearings, debates, and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work.

get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nation's capital to wherever you are. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. host: university of houston political science professor brandon rottinghaus joins us. his research over the years has been a political scandal and the question he keeps referring to over time, do scandal still matter when it comes to a politician's career and the minds of voters? do scandal still matter? >> it is a good question, and i think pertinent because we often use scandals as a way to treat accountability and frame able to

call system that sometimes voters do not get a chance to say directly and definitively how the process should go, so having a scandal in some ways is good because it exposes these kinds of problems and makes leadership in government change things to make it so these things cannot happen again. on a question of whether scandal still matter, it is an evolving story. that is what makes it so fascinating. i came of age politically during the clinton administration. you get a sense of how it is that the system works mahout polarization was creeping in and politicians were just beginning to understand how to deal with scandals. i came to the question organically with curiosity about the way accountability functions and polarization was a part of that. host: you talk about accountability. is the way to determine whether a scandal matters determined by whether politician is driven from office by said scandal?

guest: partly that is true. if it is egregious enough wrongdoing, it is something that needs to be handled by the system. sometimes voters do not have a say. it is not always the case that voters can decide. you have to have systems in place that prevents that. scandals give you an idea of how it is that the system is functioning and as a result you have laws that can effectively encourage accountability and require the system to adjust to these kinds of events. host: what kind of political scandals are more survivable than others? guest: good question. the best way to survive a scandals to be an elected official. what i do is look at politicians from the top to more or less the middle, basically looking at governors and presidents and members of congress, staff and

cabinet members for executive offices like governors and presidents. if you are the governor or president, you're are unlikely to lose your position as a result of scandal. often you see underlings falling on the sword. that will take care of it. being the elected official often is good. being a senator as opposed to a house member is one way you can survive. having the scandal be a political scandal or financial scandal often is better than a personal scandal. personal scandals over time tend to be the more damaging. they also tend to be the ones that violate some unwritten norm , so they tend to be more dramatic. the best way to survive scandals is to have more friends. if you have a friend, you have a boat. that really works for scandals. governors and presidents, when they have more support they are able to survive more. host: what about when a scandal

breaks in this world of rapid news stories is a matter of surviving the first few days or even hours of a scandal? guest: how you react initially gives us a signal as to what the scandals going to be like. we see a lot of stonewalling now . we see politicians pivoting to calling these things a witch hunt on a day where our former president was indicted for the fourth time. we are seeing a lot of swirl around the news. that is something that does tend to indicate there is actual wrongdoing. the scholarship on this is clear. we d.c. -- do see more stonewalling with the scandal is more politically damaging or there is more divided government. there are moments with such political friction that politicians involved see the only way out is effectively to lie or office get. -- off you skate -- obfuscate.

host: what is your read of hunter biden and scandals republicans have pointed to when it comes to hunter biden? guest: we have seen this before. the president's family has been part of a scandal apparatus going all the way back to jimmy carter and in some cases before billy carter traded on his brother's famous name. you had roger clinton doing the same. it is not uncommon to see this kind of political relationship evolve into something that on the business end of things can be problematic for the incumbent. in terms of specifics, it is troublesome for the democrats, who wanted to put this behind them. now they will fight out the scandal during an election, which is always something dicey. although scandals do not hit like they used to or have the same debilitating impact, it is

still the case that if you have negative concert -- it can have negative consequences because it kicks you off message. when you are running for president and trying to win the day's news, it makes it harder to do. host: if you want to talk political scandals, now would be a good time to do so. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. professor, you have been researching this over the years and you write about it in your most recent report, the trump effect, how the trump administration has changed your outlook on this. what did you find? >> in principle, there is a theory that suggests donald trump changed the way political scandals affected american politics, largely by letting people get away with things. we saw this in george santos.

there are pieces of evidence that suggest that is true. if we look at this collectively, there is a slight effect for modern scandals where they do not have negative impacts on politicians that they used to, so there is a minor effect, but it depends on which level of government you look at. by virtue of being able to look at scandals from the 1970's to the present at every level of government, we can get a clearer sense of this. one thing we find is scandals used to be more problematic before than they are now. for instance, during the 1970's following watergate, members of congress were very likely to lose their seats if they were involved in scandals. we see members of the executive branch are more likely to be hit negatively by scandals during the 1990's and the trump era, so there is a sort of change in effect, but it depends on who you are, so those things are

meaningful in terms of how we assess what effect president trump had on the world. i do not think that trump is to blame for these things. this is a gradual process, beginning in the mid-1990's. the political world changed. it was not the rules changed. norms around rules changed. now we have a world where people live in media eco-systems. we have partisanship rising. all those things are contributing to this moment where scandals do not hit as much as they used to. the effect is not terribly strong, but if we extend the period we will see it become more effective. host: george santos, dive into your thoughts on his term as a congressman and how the multiple issues have unfolded since he became a congressman. guest: we have seen a rather

stunning sort of change in terms of how politicians are able to get away with certain kinds of lies. in this case, there were a bunch of things that cascaded toward a particularly troublesome political term for the representative, but it is unusual to see it happen that much. i guess the question is whether this is the signal or the noise. largely, this is an outlier in terms of how the process goes. these scandals tend to be dominant in the new cycle and tend to suck up all the oxygen politically from the administration, suggesting they are unique in that. i do not think we are used to seeing quite this much, but that is not to suggest that they do not tell us something about the system because they do. surviving these things is getting harder. the more these things happen, the volume of the degree of

challenge is something politicians are going to be watching. host: this is deborah waiting in mobile, alabama. >> you mentioned -- caller: you mentioned the scandals and i do not hear anything about trump's children and they were all involved in his -- while he was president. i am looking forward to them being investigated and all these senators, like santos, i think they should be investigated. jordan. i do not think there is enough. it is the only -- it is only the democrats having to be investigated. this stuff just gets old and we need as democrats to pick up the

mantle and start the investigations going forward. right now, trump has taken the air out of everything and i want him investigated thoroughly, so looking forward to democrats taking over the senate and the house and presidency. host: do the scandal investigations go both ways? guest: i think the democrats are taking a light hand. i will say on the larger point about how these investigations proceed and the politics of it, i think you are finding that congress does not do as they used to in terms of policing ethics. the senate ethics committee does not do the same work. there are internal mechanisms at work potentially for the system to be able to write this --

right this. look at how long it took merrick garland to find a special prosecutor. everyone wants to tread lightly because there are serious allegations here. that is something the system can correct. after all the scandals, one thing we have seen is there is a change after. you do see the system respond in ways that help prevent these kind of things from happening in the future, so legislation can exist. congress can do more investigations, so the hope is these things are happening because a scandals a signal something is wrong. host: for congressional scandals, went to ethics committees have more teeth? guest: beginning in the mid-1980's, there was a huge scandal involving members of congress who were passing hot checks from the house bank. this caught the ire of the public and hurt democrats in

elections so congress reformed itself. they put rules in place to enhance the ability for them to investigate themselves. that is something we have seen fall off in recent years. i think we are seeing it happen at the agency level, having more investigatory powers is critical to making sure these kinds of things do not happen again. host: what about the role of inspector general? inspectors general? guest: one of the things we know is that, as a reaction to scandals, inspectors general ticket into high gear, so i looked at agencies to see the audits they did and investigations they did following a scandal. when there are more scandals at the federal level, you see those inspectors general kick things into high gear and do more investigations. in a way, scandals are good like that.

they give a signal that something is going wrong. host: political scandals is our topic this morning. taking your phone calls, this is mary in washington, independent. caller: oh. i was not ready. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: i had a message for the last people. this is also for professor rottinghaus. i just wondered if the -- down in hawaii may have had anything to do with the fire they had because they never cleaned it up. host: we will get back to that topic and the large environmental conversation, but

i only have professor rottinghaus for the next 15 minutes. we are focused on his work. he has covered the idea of political scandal for decades. why did you start focusing on this as a research area as a palooka scientist? guest: i got curious because i lived in spokane, not far from where the caller is in washington. the mayor of the city was embroiled in a significant scandal and ended up losing his political career. it struck me there is a lot of these patterns we see happening across the country at all levels of government, where scandals hurt incumbents sometimes but not all the time. how it mattered was curious to me. the type of scandal, the type of role they played, the kind of politics they engaged in. those things struck me as something we could measure. that led to projects where we looked at the ways this happens

at the presidential level but it also happens for governors and members of congress. thinking about this in an institutional capacity was important. everybody can apply the scandals matter or don't matter, but looking at exactly how is the science of it and why i was curious to see what the effects were at various levels over time. host: what is the most interesting political scandal to you? host: good question. mine are the favorite -- my favor the ones that have been the most impactful, so scandals during watergate and i think scandals involving the way that democracy is working and how incumbents tend to try to subvert that or not. those are most interesting to me because they happen to the core question about how government is supposed to function and the way politicians survive in that

system, so to me those are the most telling. we have had strange scandals over the years involving senators in bathrooms who theoretically are soliciting people. there have been interesting scandals that this country has before lynn. it is -- befallen. it is interesting because they are people. they all have this power that lets them get away with things occasionally and how they choose to use that is a compelling story for our political system. host: this is chris, a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i had questions for the professor. the first is about what have you seen in the history of these types of scandals? you talked about family members being involved. with the -- with respect to the

supreme court, we have wives of justice is implicated in scandals. what has history said about wives being involved, especially because today the wives are better educated? the second question is about what -- the types of scandals and the frequency say about the overall political health of the country? host: thanks for the question. spouses, the supreme court, and what does it say about the country. guest: the question about spouses is interesting. there is not a lot of work on that, although i do include the first family as part of the potential universe of scandals. they tend to survive those scandals. typically they are smaller in scale, for instance pat nixon

was involved in a couple small scandals and those things are often viewed as kind of noncombatants but eventually they start to really engage in certain activities that were potentially illegal and problematic, so those things do over time tend to percolate. on judicial scandals, the kind of things that judicial individuals and elected judges were appointed judges can have an effect on people's perceptions of the judicial system, so that is something. the second question is about the way this predicts overall health of the palooka system. i think more scandals is not great because it does distract us from core messages about how we make the country better or public policy stories that need to be able to be crafted. those things are troublesome, but i think scandals are a signal. those signals can be meaningful.

you cannot ignore them. obviously, we will have politicians do bad things. if we have systems in place that help prevent those things from happening in the future, scandals can be informative about ways we move around that. host: this is in brooklyn, line for democrats. caller: my question is what impact does -- have on scandals? we as a country all saw the video of donald trump speaking about grabbing women inappropriately. we also heard him say he could stand on for the avenue and shoot somebody and still win. i just wanted to get your comment on what impact culture can have on scandals.

guest: if you mean the way that popular culture affects scandals, i think you are right that the way the scandal hits people is connected to their impressions about the world, so some people are more committed to a kind of moralistic view than others, so they are willing to punish politicians more. others have a more open view of things and as a result you do not see those folks as unhappy about certain kinds of scandals. a lot of people point to french politics, where having a mistress or being involved in adultery is not as big of a deal. but i do think there is a kind of puritanical politics here that you do not see that as much. republicans are not as strongly affected by the scandals as you

might expect, given the kind of moral base that a lot of the republican politicians have, you would expect that would be more prominent, but there are not many significant party differences. scandals do affect both parties in similar ways. host: a question from lee on social media. have you connected citizens united or more corporate money in politics to scandals become less important? guest: great point. you see that is a factor. it is hard to quantify that as a linear affect. you have a lot of money now. explaining her position -- scandals do not matter as much because you have the ability to persuade people that these things do not matter. having a bigger microphone helps a politician wiggle out of scandal at least a little bit or survive for longer.

it may not be that lets you survive it completely, but it lets you push the problem down the road a bit. if you can do that often you can survive long enough. we know the news cycle is fast. things move quickly. the fact that we have this constant flow of information means that if a politician can change the subject or push people in a different direction briefly and have enough money to do that, potentially they can survive the scandal for longer. host: what about the rise of the crisis communication consultant? guest: that was born in this time period of polarized politics beginning about the mid-1990's, giving rise to people who have specialty in this. you still see him pop up when there is a discussion about scandals and how politicians can survive this, so this is more the norm now.

it also suggests we have evidence that politicians can find ways out of the scandals, so you have to pick a particular course of action that is useful for you, not like it is off the shelf, but it follows certain playbooks. if you can do it correctly, you can survive the scandals for longer. >> time for a couple more calls. it is kim in chicago next. caller: how would you compare pre-watergate scandals to modern scandals? really any earlier scandals you want to name. guest: i think the scandals are important because they are formative and how we think about how scandals matter, so teapot dome is a good example of a

scandal that did set the stage for how politics and business and the greed of individuals all play together to really shock the system. that by itself is a good indicator of how early scandals functioned. these things did not happen much. because they did not happen much, they did leave a lasting mark. now, whether we have a number of scandals similar to that and then scandals involving an individual who has a particular ethical challenge or may has committed adultery, these things do begin to become more cemented. i think your hunches right that having a sort of sense of how this has come and how far scandals have moved the needle is important. think about the transition between gary hart running for president in 1998, getting caught with a woman who is not his wife, allegations were

strong. proof was thin, but four years later you had bill clinton, who was objectively much more involved and definitely got caught red-handed in a more fervent way and that to not hurt him as much. the scandals do tend to reduce the shock factor, so the more these things that happen, the more likely you see politicians able to see a way through it. host: next in massachusetts, a republican. caller: i am curious about ted kennedy and chappaquiddick. i was a young person when that happened. i remember it was described as a lot of information was covered up. recently, a red -- i read a book that the woman who died in the car might have been asleep after heavy drinking or something like that. she might have been asleep in the car and ted kennedy did not even know she was in the car.

i was wondering if you could talk about that. guest: another stunning scandal. that is one of those that really leaves a mark on a political system and political family. those things tend to be seen by the public as those moments where politicians are getting away with things. although everybody knew about it, there became something more prominent in the kennedy family lore and probably limited ted kennedy's ability to run for president in a more realistic way. it is a good example of how sometimes scandals affect politicians and the political scope of prominent families. that is something we have seen in other cases as well. i do not know every detail about the chappaquiddick issue, but you see the lingering legacy of the scandals.

although people forget over time, there are some things people will not forget. host: ohio, line for democrats. caller: appreciate you letting me in. the conversation has on the one hand promoted excluding government intrusion into decisions that the consumer ought to make, but when i was younger we put a 400 cubic inch engine in a car and got nine or 10 miles per gallon. host: i think that is on our previous conversation about climate change. we will get back to that topic. you have a question about political scandal? we are running short on time. caller: i did not realized -- realize it had changed. host: in the time we have left, what is the most interesting

political scandal you're watching now and what are you watching for? guest: we are seeing it unfold daily, the trump scandals have definitely created a swirl politically and legally about what is proper and how ex-president's are seen. we have seen ex-presidents who have done things that are troublesome, but obviously the former president in this case has done things that the legal system will have to call him to account for, so that is impactful. we have never been in a situation where we have had such a scandal filled election. you will have joe biden and hunter biden scandals. you have all of the trump issues. it will be a stunning political event where you have every issue devoted for these political scandals. it will be a unique time in american political history. host: professor rottinghaus at the university of houston. his article "do scandals

matter?" was published. appreciate your time on the washington journal. about 30 minutes left in our program. in that time, we will return to the topic that began our program , the announcement of the former president indicted in that georgia 2020 election case. it is the fourth indictment to come down against the president. 13 charges against the president in this latest indictment. getting your thoughts, calls, questions on it. it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take your calls after the break. ♪ >> during the 2022-2023 u.s. supreme court term the justices

announced decisions on some of the most consequential oral argument cases. c-span will look at cases involving affirmative action and religious liberty, executive power, and election law on monday, august 21. we will look at the case involving alabama's congressional map and voting rights. the court ruled in favor of black voters, saying the map violates the voting rights act. watch key supreme court oral arguments starting monday, august 21 on c-span and online. >> watched c-span's new series, books that shaped america. we embark on a journey in partnership with the library of

congress to explore key works of literature from american history that provoke thought, won awards, led to significant changes, and are still talked about today. hear from renowned experts who will shine light on the impact of these works and journeys to locations tied to these authors and their books. among our featured books, " common sense" by thomas paine, "their eyes were watching god." watch our series starting monday, september 19 on c-span or online at c-span.org. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this.

americans can see democracy at work. the public thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> this week, c-span brings you campaign 2020 for coverage from the iowa state fair. watch fair side chat. tonight, former vice president mike pence. wednesday night, entrepreneur vivek ramaswamy. friday night, florida governor ron desantis. fair side chat with republican

presidential candidates from the iowa state fair this week on c-span and online. >> washington journal continues. >> 25 minutes left in the washington journal, taking your calls on the announcement out of georgia, the indictment of former president trump and 18 of his allies in that election probe, indicted on efforts to overturn the 2020 election loss by former president trump in the state of georgia. this is the front page of the atlanta journal-constitution, all 18 of the named co-conspirators and the former president pictured there, charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. it is the president's fourth criminal indictment this year, the fourth in just over four months. this contains 41 felony counts, 13 of which are lodged against

the former president. he now faces some 91 criminal counts across his four indictments. there is the one in new york, the two federal indictments, and now this one in georgia. taking our phone calls, (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. (202) 748-8002 for independents. having this conversation through the end of our program this morning. this is darian out of st. joseph, michigan, line for democrats. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span. i have been a big fan and you guys are a crown jewel of the american media. i would like to make a comment about c-span and about the indictment. host: go ahead.

caller: yesterday, somebody called for our current president to be shot and bill let the call go on, a very angry call. he said the president should be shot and at the end of the call he said he's ready to lock him up. host: advocating violence is something that will get people cut off on this program and certainly not anything we condone. caller: bill should have cut him off. you have a two second delay. when he said that about shooting, he should have been cut off immediately. will should have said we do not allow that. when you let steve scully go, that was your folks' administrative decision. i was a huge fan of steve scully

and i wish he were still there. i just do not understand his comment. about the indictments, there are 91 separate counts, and i think he just needs to defend an answer to all of them. that is an awful lot. about other investigations, go ahead and investigate. if something is fixed, take it down. john, that was not good yesterday. that was bad. if any other callers heard that and there were -- and were offended, outraged, or upset by it, i hope they call up and let you guys have it. host: appreciate the feedback. it is a process here, but we do not allow people to advocate for

violence and do not advocate for violence. it will get you cut off on this program. appreciate the feedback. this is kyle in buffalo, new york, a republican. caller: good morning, c-span. earlier phone calls i was listening to -- i am kind of in the middle because it is really politicized, what they have done to any of the presidents over the last 10 years. i do not know if 20 years ago a president would have been facing charges like this. a lady brought up trump's records about his earlier dealings with black americans, especially the central park five. he was not the only one. blacks were out for those kids' heads too. of course now we know they were innocent. we have a president in office --

it is not fair for him. he should be home retiring, relaxing, and dealing with his health issues. now we have another candidate running who has charges. whether you agree or disagree, he is being charged. it is sad because it shows we have somebody to vote for. that is really my purpose of the call. it is a sad day in america where these are the two people up for election. the charges are politicized, i believe, on both sides. host: there is a republican primary going on. we will see the first debate in that primary. is there somebody else on the primary you think you might vote for if donald trump is not your candidate as a republican? caller: i cannot think of his name. i believe he is from indian descent.

i like his stance. host: vivek ramaswamy? caller: yes, i like what he has said. he seems to be kind of center-right, so maybe a year or two ago i would have been more of a dissent's, but his -- desantis fan, but his stance -- the republican party used to be the party of limited government and today's republicans do not seem to be for that. i guess i am an old-school republican. i love his stance growing up in upstate new york. he was kind of bipartisan and a good fiscal conservative type person. that is gone. it is almost like the republicans of today are the old democrats. it seems like they keep

flip-flopping and their ideas do not support what the old stance was. caller: -- host: this is jim in missouri, go ahead. >> caller: i was calling to make a comment. trump is getting indicted for things that alan dershowitz made a comment, the gore-bush -- anyway, he did the same thing looking for votes, just like donald trump a call. the other thing was january 6, this peaceful transfer of power that everybody keeps screaming about, donald trump did not do. there sure was not a peaceful transfer of power when he became president. you had everybody behind the scenes trying to stop every

move. the thing was -- the thing went on for years. nobody is held accountable for it, for all the lies. everybody knows, if they are paying any attention, that 98% of what went on was not the truth, so when all this is going on with trump -- if he is going to be charged for these things, basically half the democrats should be charged for what they did to him. host: in the georgia case, the former is being charged under a law designed to nab mafia bosses , as usa today puts it. they write, and charging the former president with election fraud, fanni willis relied in part on state rico laws, created to target organized crime and that could shape how the case

against donald trump unfolds. willis has had success in the past using georgia's version of the law to target crimes most americans would not associate with the mafia. rico statutes let prosecutors seek higher sentences. in georgia, those carry a five year prison sentence and require prosecutors to show a pattern of criminal activity involving several people rather than just isolated crime. that could allow her to lay out a broad case against donald trump's inner circle. again, 19 people charged yesterday, 41 felony counts 13 lodged against the former president. it is the fourth indictment to hit the former president since early april of this year. in california, democrat, good morning.

caller: good morning, john. i am glad i caught you. earlier, i was waiting for the segment to come on and i was disappointed. luckily, when i woke up i still had you on. i said, let me see if i can get on. i'm going to weigh in on this indictment thing. going back to a conversation i had with you about the january 6 hearing, i made a comment that i thought they waited until the last two sessions to focus on going up the chain and getting to the people who orchestrated all of this stuff and that was my strong opinion. the question u.s. me was commended i think it would change anybody's opinion? i answer the question by telling you know, but i think they would

have put a package together and send it to the department of justice so there will not be more to do except to look at it and review everything and all the witnesses. host: do you think any of these four indictments are going to change americans' opinions about donald trump? do you think within the -- what is in these indictments is going to change opinions? caller: i do not. i think everybody is locked in on opinions. i have the same opinion of fani willis. must look at the law and make a decision based on the law itself to determine whether crimes were committed or not. this is what my opinion was on it and still is, but the point i am trying to make is this. if the department of justice had

a head start on this instead of waiting on the january 6 hearing to get all the information, they could have combined all of this information together and we would have had an earlier indictment, as early as last year because these things need to be addressed. there is no doubt about it. there is criminality all over the place. my opinion was and still is that they had the actual act of the criminality, especially on january 6, and you also had the premeditation, which was the conspiracy part of it. i was glad to see that jack smith made it simple by putting those four things together and not complicated to confuse the jury, who most of us are not sophisticated enough and it is easy to get confused and you put too much out there. host: this is how the fulton

county district attorney introduces the indictment on specific charges. defendant donald john trump lost the united states presidential election held on november 3, 2020. one of the states he lost was georgia. trump and other defendants refused to accept that he lost and knowingly and willingly joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of trump. that conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose, commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in fulton county, elsewhere in georgia, and in other states. that is the introduction to the latest criminal indictment. you can find that online. it is on most major news websites right now. this is vanessa, independent. caller: just so you know, because you operate in an echo chamber, there are tens of millions of us who do not

believe that january 6 was an insurrection. it was a political and judicial coup with every sleazy tactic that you guys pull out, such as these indictments. it just proves that democrats cannot handle a free and fair, legitimate election by american voters. i live in washington state where two years ago during covid they pastor diced -- bastardized the election laws. they do not check your signature. with a certificate of live birth can't you are automatically registered to vote. this is just rife with fraud. host: is there mail-in voting in washington? do you trust mail-in voting? caller: absolutely not. host: you prefer to go in person?

caller: yes, with a paper ballot so i have proof that can be legitimate and show my identification because you're also automatically registered to vote here in the state of washington when you sign up for food stamps or get social security or get a drivers license. also, unfortunately, if you are not a legal citizen in the state of washington, you also get qualified for food stamps. i do not think it is like this everywhere in the united states, but with that comes automatic voter registration. we need to clean this up. judicial watch has been on the lookout for illegitimate voters. we do not clear out our voter registration log. we have dead people voting illegally and judicial watch alone in february 2022, in north

carolina, they sued and had over 430,000 in eligible voters purged from the polls, just in two counties. so all of this has every appearance of being illegitimate . host: the president of judicial watch has been on this program 33 times over the years, most recently july 26, just a couple weeks ago if you want to watch his segment. he took calls on this program. just a few minutes left in this program. this is albert in the garden state. caller: i was going to say biden said he would unite the country and that is not happening. i was thinking the same thing with pennsylvania and the

election and all the dead people they said voted 2, 3 times before they passed away. i wanted to ask c-span about the prosecutor in delaware. he is going up against trump as a special counsel. i do not understand. it is supposed to be somebody who is outside everything and this guy does nothing against biden and all that stuff. i hope c-span takes -- digs into biden's son over the charges, even though they let the statute of them at go past the point where he can be charged. i hope c-span puts it on so everybody can see what is really going on. they do not put that on regular news or regular stations.

we never hear nothing about that. trump indictment's here, so awful they person. host: a column in usa today, televise the trump trial to let sunshine burn away the distrust is the headline of his peace. history will remember the case against the former president as a critical test of american democracy and denying the public the ability to see how the saga unfolds with possible testimony from mike pence and the former attorney general and even from himself would be a miscarriage of justice. calling for the trial of the former president to be put on tv. just a few minutes left here. one programming note for c-span viewers. at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span, you will see an event on

china's navy being hosted by the heritage foundation, discussing china's global naval footprint. you can watch that here on c-span and the free c-span now app. act your calls until the program ends. this is crystal out of philadelphia, democrat. good morning. caller: i will tell you something about republicans. excuses, crooked actions, moneygrubbing. they are like dry sponges, drinking the kool-aid. trump is being held accountable for some of the illegal and illegal behaviors. he lies all the time. everybody is lying on him.

what is wrong with folks on the republican side? biden is working hard to help regular americans. laptop, that is all they talk about. host: this is scott in florida. caller: i do not see how trump can lose in georgia. you hear that he accuses him of two hundred thousand votes when underneath the table in the middle the night. they pulled them out and ran them through the machines. everybody saw that. in the tapes, he claims the 400,000 votes were stolen, which we all saw. hold on. raffensperger says, i am sorry, we do not see what you see. he is perpetrating a fraud by not investigating. i do not see how he loses. host: it sounds like we will

hear more of what the former president saw. from an hour ago on his truth social account, this is what donald trump wrote. a large, complex, detailed but irrefutable report on presidential election fraud which took place in georgia is almost complete, he said, and will be presented by me at a major news conference monday of next week in new jersey based on the results of this conclusive report all charges should be dropped against me and others. there will be exoneration, he promised. they never went after those that rigged the election, only after those that fought to find the riggers of the election. the former president with his truth social post. caller: i appreciate the lady from philadelphia putting us republicans down.

do not put donald trump away 600 years. that will not change the situation with our mounting debt, our kids being stirred crazy by idiots in our public schools. we have americans suffering here and i see more concerned about people who live in south america. i think every american needs to wake up. that is about all i have to say. host: time for a couple more calls. we end this program at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we have an event we are going to at 11:00 a.m. on c-span. one more front page to show you, the washington post getting in on their front page. this news coming just before midnight last night, so some major papers if you get the early edition do not have this

news on the front page, the washington post making it a 5 -- six column headline. trump indicted in georgia. grand jury focused on efforts to overturn the 2020 loss, the fulton county superior court judge handing the indictment papers to the county clerk at the courthouse in atlanta. jennifer, california line for democrats. might be the last call today. caller: i want to say how pleased i am that finally donald trump is being held accountable for the numerous things he has done to our country and i hope we can all survive it. i am sorry for the people that are disappointed. host: that is jennifer, our last caller in today's washington journal. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great

tuesday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] americans can see democracy at work. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word in the nation's capital to wherever you are. it is your opinion that matters the most. this is what democracy looks like.

>> shall defense researchers discuss china's footprint added an event hosted by the heritage foundation. you can watch live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this afternoon, president biden will be in milwaukee wisconsin to discuss the u.s. economy. our live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern. you can watch live coverage are of our events on c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> this week c-span brings you campaign 2024 coverage from the iowa state fair. watch a chat hosted by kim reynolds. tonight former vice president mike pence.

then the deck ramaswamy. -- vivek ramaswamy. also nikki haley. you cannot on c-span and online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed. wow is there for you. we have speed, reliability and choice. now more than ever it starts , with great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these