there is so much more to this story. the book is called american caliph. the 1977 siege of washington dc. thank you so much for the hour. shahan: >> all q and day programs are available on our website or as a podcast on our c-span now mobile app.

♪ host: this is the washington journal for august 21. the rnc sponsors its first debate on fox news and former

president trump says he will not be in attendance. he made the announcement on it -- on his truth social site pointing out a strong lead over gop contenders. some of those contenders spoke out about the possibility of mr. trump not going and how they would set themselves apart. to start off this morning for republicans only, should the former president reconsider and attend the debate on fox news? if you say yes you should attend and want to tell us why, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. for republicans only. if you say no, 202-748-8001 is how you can let your thoughts know there. you can also post on facebook at the site formally known as twitter. you can follow the show on instagram. 202-748-8002.

speculation the former president would not attend the debate. he made that official yesterday. it cites a new cbs poll. it just out leading by legendary numbers. ramaswamy at 7%. scott at 3%. chris christie at 2%. hutchinson at 1%. the public knows who i am and what a successful presidency i had with energy independence and military. no inflation. strong as the economy in history and much more. finishing off by saying this i will therefore not be doing the debates. that's from the truth social sites that he made that announcement yesterday. citing the cbs poll that came out yesterday that did show mr. trump of the considerable lead over the republican who want to

be in the white house of 2024 but also showed a little bit of information about the debate itself this week when it comes to the debate mr. trump's opponent should focus more on -- 91% saying they should make the case for themselves and 9% only saying it makes the case against former president trump. again that some of the polls there. we will show you others. in this first topic when it comes to republicans only and that fox debate the rnc debate should president trump change his mind and attend. saying he should be in attendance and debate his challengers, 202-748-8000 is the number to call and tell us why. if you say no, 202-748-8001. you can also text us if you wish at 202-748-8003. facebook and twitter available.

several posting on facebook this morning leading up to the start of the show saying he's the front runner, why would he. in my opinion this is the vice presidential debate, nothing more. realizing he has no future in the 2024 race. and all of his support. behind the obvious presumptive nominee. vicki from facebook saying it's not necessary. that interview he's expected to release with tucker carlsen will be far more worth the popcorn. loomis from facebook as well saying he's already proved himself and then, just adding the word absolutely to the mix. you can post on our facebook page if you wish. the site known now as x, the

handle is still the same. you can post or text us. speaking of polls, of the des moines register this morning out with a poll of likely republican caucus-goers. this is in the lead up to the iowa caucus. you can find it online saying the polls, to support a president who grapples with the fallout and the pack of other top contenders pairing to gather for the high-stakes presidential debate in milwaukee on wednesday. 42% say they plan to support president trump. who is 19%. u.s. senator tim scott from south carolina follows in third place with 9%. the debate expected later this week should the president will former president trump be part of that activity. call us and let us know why you think so or maybe don't think so.

stan in oregon does not think so. good morning. tell us why. caller: i believe he doesn't want to come in the other reason why is i think biden should go to the debates. they all come against him. everybody has things they've done wrong. not judging, but the wildfires and this weather thing it's got to be done on the ground. i hope president trump does something different because 1972. host: why shouldn't the former president debate those who want to challenge him. caller: those other people that don't have a chance, everybody listen to what they have to say and their views.

everybody's got views. and they're so much hate on this earth it's tearing me up. my sister had to evacuate from a fire today and the president doesn't have -- host: president biden heading to hawaii to survey the damage in maui. that will take place later on today as he travels there. continue to call in on the debate. one of the people commenting on the president not showing up to the debate was the chair of the rnc who talked about the debate itself. here's a portion of that interview. >> i think this is the beginning of the general election. i thing a lot of families have been out in the summer. getting the kids back to school and now dialing in the fact we will be electing a new president within a year and this will be the debate stage where we will be able to tout what republicans

can do versus the failure of joe biden. people are hurting. the average family pays 10,000 more under joe biden. this bidenomics is costing families. with crimes surging they are looking for a solution and this is can give them that first glimpse of hope for 2024. >> let's look at the lineup there. i think president trump will not be there on the debate night. what are your thoughts on that and who does make the debate stage. >> i'm holding out hope president trump will come. i thing it's important the american all the candidates. but there's a lot of candidates who have qualified. we are at seven who officially qualified with the small dollar donations and the polling threshold and the pledge. we have others on the cost. we will be looking at polls next few days. three or four waiting for 1% in

another national poll to make the debate stage. host: amongst those who are going to be on that stage when it comes to the requirements there were two fundraising requirements saying at least 40,000 unique donors from the campaign committee. at least 200 unique donors. the candidates must argue more and 2% in national polls. different early voting stage. either iowa, new hampshire or south carolina. the rnc said it would recognize after july 1. mr. trump on the list of those who qualified saying he will not participate though. the others to expect. ron desantis, senator tim scott. chris christie. mike pence, nikki haley.

doug burgum. and asa hutchinson who just came in and qualification. as we expect, mr. trump part of that list. should he be part of that list. saying yes he showed or no he should not. judy, hello. caller: i will tell you what i think. i would like to know we don't know who the moderators are. we don't know what the format is. what the rules are frankly. given the past history.

the wild thing to get on. i don't think that should be right. i would like to see a well-run debate and no what each one's policies are. i don't want to know about what they've done. the plans are for the united states of america. host: do you think mr. trump benefits for comparing and contrasting his policies. caller: i don't know the benefit. he hasn't said anything about his policies. he's talked about institutions we've always believed in. and should believe in. we are americans. i want to know what his plans are and what his policies will be. what is he going to do.

host: texting us this morning about the debate and if mr. trump should be part of that saying if former president trump is a candidate, why not. let's see what he's got. when it comes to the previous caller about the moderators for the debate on the 23rd this week, it will be bret baier and martha mikal as moderators of that first republican debate. a debate mr. trump says he will not be part of. if you think you think he should change his mind. on our no line, nancy from north carolina. caller: good morning. i don't think he should be on there. it would just be more of a three ring circus which is what it's been forever and never since he's been on the political scene. why should he be? the news media has given him the

next presidency on a silver platter. why does he need to be on therefore. the news media covers him right and left everywhere he is in everything he does. i feel sorry for all these candidates. who don't get equal time on tv for expressing their policies. i hate to say it, but c-span and pbs, i am including when i say the news media. as much as i hate to say that c-span is cowering down to trump , that's the way it has to be. host: back to your point about the other candidates. you think they benefit without the presence of mr. trump. >> i certainly do. they could have a decent honest discussion of their views and

their plans for the future without him on the stage. all it is when he's on the stage it becomes a three ring circus and everything that's done on tv with the news media is praised and the decision, what do you think trump will do. every candidate, they don't come on and give them time to talk about what their policies are for the future. what their hopes are for the future. all they do is phrase it in terms of how do you think everyone else will do in relation to trump. >> the editors of the wall street journal talk about the debate and mr. trump's decision not to do attend the debate. they write saying republican voters like that mr. trump is a fighter but for whom is he fighting. them or himself.

he would collect more baggage than the british royals if they expect to nominate him without so much as a primary debate. much less a real nominating contest. they're so five months before the iowa caucuses and the new hampshire primary and perhaps mr. trump's presumption is mistaken. political parties have made repeated nominations in the past and suffered repeated losses for it. democrats of done it three times with william jennings bryan. republicans are tempting the same fate. the wall street journal you can find that editorial. should president trump -- former president trump part of the debate. joe says no in louisville, kentucky. go ahead. >> just wanted to say trump has nothing new to say, nothing intelligent to say and is taking up time from other people who could benefit from being on stage.

host: such as who? >> this guide does not deserve to be up there on the stage. host: amongst the other candidates who are you watching? caller: pretty much chris christie right now. host: why him over the others? caller: he's the only one that really had the gusts to say what needs to be said. the rest kowtow. just speak the truth like he's doing. that's all i ask. >> from nick in point arena california. good morning, go ahead. caller: personally i think president trump should go to the debate and the reason why think he should is because i feel it

there's a lot of hype surrounding trump, i feel like in the past he has threatened to skip the debates. i think you should do it this year because it's important for them to bounce back, last year he wasn't able to win the presidency and i think there are a lot of people who are coming up for example, i don't know if he has a chance at it this year but i think he will make a mark this year and i think ron desantis has some pretty big -- i think they have -- i think pence is a smart person and has a pretty good shot of making it. host: do you think the other candidates will benefit by not having mr. trump there to talk about their own policies. or can they compare and contrast compared to the former president. >> i think desantis and pentz would have a better shot at being able to compare and contrast.

i think it would probably put pressure on nikki haley. they are younger and have more experience in debates and stuff like that. having trump there is a really big presence to bring to a debate so i think that's really important, i think it would be important to make a big impact. >> you can tell us yes the president should be there or he should not. republicans only. wherever you are as far former president trump attending this debate he said on social -- true social he would not. you can say no at 202-748-8001 or yes at 202-748-8000. they talk about the debate and mr. trump's rival under the headline gop worries about electability, shane writing as

it will take the stage for that first debate on wednesday the perceived weaknesses of mr. biden have undercut one of the core arguments that mr. desantis of other -- the party needs to turn the page on the path and move beyond mr. trump to win in 2024. the basic notion of which candidate has the best shot of winning the general election. the most intense in the aftermath of the disappointing midterms. republican struck by losses of trump back candidates in places like michigan and pennsylvania and it offers a way for to sway the republican electorate still very much in the throes of mr. trump to consider filling in the slot with a fresh face in 2024 with the permission slip to move on. right there the new york times this morning. jason is up next. in north carolina, go ahead. caller: he should not show up.

for what. to help fox news's ratings. it's not going to matter if he shows up or not. going to spew hatred towards him for the next year and a half anyway. >> is a just a matter of ratings he shouldn't show up. >> why should he give you talking points for your hate. host: there are no talking points or hate. were asking a question about the debate. caller: i'm telling you what i think. but you don't want to hear what i have to say you just want to cut me off and shut me down. can i tell you what i think now? host: you repeated twice already but go ahead. caller: you are nothing but once of white supremacists. host: i'm going to stop there.

you are on. caller: he should debate. i think he will do a lot better the oil and gas industry all the cleanup and department of justice and the fbi. and can protect america and boycott china everything should be american and american only. are you there? host:host: how does he achieve all that by the nature of showing up to the debate. caller: the people have to realize that all of these other news stations, they don't tell the truth on what's going on in washington.

they need to clean house. on a scale of one to 10 they are both about even with the public in a democrats. you'll tell when a politician is lying. the tell you anything to get something done. the best person for the job. caller: -- host: finish up your point. anything else you want to add. >> i hope he does get reelected and clean house because he's the only person for the job. host: jim there on our yes line. inning you think he should show up to the debate this weekend. sponsored by the rnc. if you say no, call us at 202-748-8001. if you want to chime in on the yes line, 202-748-8000. even though the debate will take place reportedly without mr. trump or he will still have

supporters there. before he made the debate they report at least three of his staunchest republican allies in congress plan to be in milwaukee, wisconsin. including georgia represented marjorie taylor greene of georgia as well as matt gaetz and byron donalds. kari lake who lost in arizona is also planning to travel to milwaukee. he is one of eight presence of candidates to meet the rnc fundraising requirements to qualify for the debate. that shows some of the supporters being able to talk to the media and talk up mr. trump as well in his absence. oklahoma is next on our no line. this is bill. caller: i don't think that trump should debate because he's full of lies, he will get the young people on, they are all on the

pots now because it is legal. we need more biden. host: you are not a republican i gather? caller: no. host: you are calling in on our public and only kind of call in so make sure you follow the rules. republicans only. if you called in the last 30 days, please hold off. you can call us on the line. the yes or no line and you can also post on social media and text us. charlie in missouri, hello. you are on, go ahead. caller: so chris christie can give us and him. host: what do you mean by that. caller: what he deserves. it's obvious what he's all about. i hope see shows up so chris

christie can point out everything that needs to be point out. the rest of them are not going to do it. thank you. host: that's charlie in missouri. as part of a pole we showed you earlier when it comes to the debate they also have those likely primary voters about the debate themselves. participating saying it's important during the debate from those candidates 86% of those said the candidates should talk about their plans for lowering inflation. 3% of those said they should talk about how they plan to reduce violent crime and then 81% saying when it comes to debate topics and what should be discussed stopping illegal immigration on that list at 81%. cbs releasing that pole. cbs news.com.

this is sandra and pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i want to say trump has debated every day 24/7 47 on the news media. now it's the new candidates turn to give us their views on what they would do if they were president of the united states. host: why not hold up those views against the former president? caller: we hear that every day on the news media. about what trump does and they are making comments. they need -- we need to focus on these new candidates. we know what trump wants to do. we've heard that 24/7. host: which of the candidates interest you most. i'm tired of the polls. i think we should concentrate on what they're saying and give them a chance to tell us what

they want to do. we need some new people in our government now. i'm tired of the old people. host: who stands out among these new challengers. >> i would say desantis, tim scott. i like him. they're all very worthwhile listening to and i hope republicans will listen to them and quit talking about trump all of the time. host: some of you commenting on our facebook page if you want to post on there. elvin brown makes the comment saying why should he risk it. he's already leading in the other candidates by double digits. let the others fight for second place.

craig saying that if all politicians need to earn our vote every single day, he has a lot of baggage that was self-inflicted. it appears to be taking the route of the career politician hiding from the tough questions and then rich castle saying if he's a no-show he will still be the topic. you can see that play out on wednesday should the president be part of that debate is what we are asking republicans only in this first segment. if you want to call us and let us know. saying he should be part of the debate. samuel in texas on our no line. tell us why. caller: good morning sir. host: you are on, go ahead.

caller: the reason president trump should not show up is because america knows what he stands for. america first. anybody that says they don't know what he stands for must-have years but doesn't know how to listen. they see what's going on in our country but they seem to have eyes but don't see. that's very sad. and for the other candidates, they are all good people. they are, they are republicans. except for christie, i don't think he's a republican. now president trump today and forever. god bless america. goodbye sir. host: without president trump

being part of that debate would you still watch? caller: yes sir. i probably will to see christie make a fool of himself. host: as far as a person saying he will still be the president after the debate even if he doesn't show up do you think that will be the case. caller: i have no idea what the president is going to do. host: nancy from michigan on our yes line. caller: i'm just so sick of what people are doing to this man who has done so much more for us then what biden certainly is doing now. i don't know how many of them know what the trilateral commission is. host: you call in saying president trump should be part

of the debate. tell us why. caller: i thought maybe if he would appear he could remind people of some of the things he's done and have time out from just the pounding and then when i watch that woman who was on from atlanta, her father was one of the black panthers. host: don't you think the former president would show up, wouldn't you receive our questions from his challengers? caller: what more can they do to him? what more can they do to that man. if he shows up, his attorneys apparently are telling him not to. i'm surprised that he would even be interested in doing anything for our country anymore.

to let some of these democrats talk. if they like being democrats and socialists, why don't they all moved to russia. host: that is nancy there in michigan. one of those commenting on the sunday shows it was his vice president mike pence talking about the possibility of the former president changing his mind adding what he plans to bring to the debate wednesday, here's mike pence from yesterday. [video clip] >> this will be your first big moment. whether or not he comes with the other candidates prayed what's your strategy? the peep end -- vp pence: it's different with a group on stage. i'm just going to be me. i feel like i've been preparing for this first republican presidential debate my whole life. and frankly as we've traveled

across the country one of the things we've come to realize is i'm well known but not known well. would most people know about me is i'm a loyal vice president who fought alongside president trump until the day came my oath to the constitution required me to stand apart. you know me a long time. back in i was a house conservative leader. you knew me when i was a conservative governor with a balanced budget and expand educational choice. one of my goals in that debate is for the american people to get to know me in a little bit broader context and demonstrate the leadership. this country is in a lot of trouble. joe biden has weakened america. it's no time for on-the-job

training and i want to project when i'm on this stage to the american people all of what came with the experience of serving as vice president and governor and as a member of congress. my determination to that conservative record. >> you will be there. what will it say about him if he doesn't even bother to show up. to the first president of primary debate? vp pence: i served alongside the president for a long time and what i realized is it's not over until it's over. i'm still hoping he shows up. to get on that plane and get out on that stage. everyone of us that qualified all to be on the stage being

able to square off. and also draw a bright line. >> talking about the debate that scheduled for wednesday. it's something he plans not to attend the debate. on our no line we will hear from jim. caller: good morning. it's tim but no big deal. host: sorry about that. caller: just to clarify i perfectly understand why he does not want,. it was obvious from the start because he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. does that mean i think trump is a guy. no i don't. i think the reason he doesn't want to come is showing up against his opponents is only going to make him lose. the question every republican voter should be asking is is

this about one man, is that about donald or any of the others or is it about putting joe biden out of the white house. who will do that job the best. i think a lot of us realize trump is going to have a hard time of it. he has legal cases extending through next year. and that's all the talk will be about. it's going to be about donald trump's legal trouble in the nonstop coverage of that. it's not going to square well with independent voters and moderates which is needed to win a presidential election. i think ron desantis is the man to go with. he has an amazing record as governor of florida and he's a good man. that's who i think should be at. host: in your mind he has the ability to beat president biden. >> absolutely. his style of governing and is

common sense. you can hear it when he talks. he's a common sense guy and doesn't have that rhetorical way the trump does. i think he will go well with independents and voters who love america and want good for their country. host: eddie is joining us from virginia on our yes line. >> good morning. i'm definitely yes. trump should attend the debate and my reason for that is i think it's time we bring a lot of people in. i'm a lifelong republican. president trump i like him. there's a lot of baggage and i'd like to see us go through the process and i like nikki haley, i think there some young rising stars in the republican party that we could hear.

i think age, this presidential election i think our leaders and all parties we need to think of bringing in some new ideas and fresh people. that's my thought. at least here on the debate stage. >> talking with the current field that it was the iowa governor interviewed many people at the iowa state fair. you can see that if you want to find it there. she said yesterday the gop needs to narrow the current field of 2024 candidates serving more debt urging against more people entering the already crowded race. saying we have a great field of candidates right now and we don't need any more candidates in the field. we probably need last. the governor was asked about the possibility of more candidates entering the field following a report that virginia governor glenn youngkin and the georgia governor brian kemp were

receiving proposals from topper publican donors. reynolds says they are not ready -- not really to protect the winner but to start to narrow the field. that's comments from the governor there as far as the current field. let's hear from nate in las vegas on our no line. >> trump does not need to go. we have enough to narrow the field and i think seeing these guys on wednesday go added with each other. i wish the first words that it, out of all of their mouths is that we need to get rid of the biden crime family. and all of these things that he's done that the media has ignored and that his son has done. and he's got to go. i don't think biden will be the nominee. i think you will see a surge of the media i think is going to see them turn on him very soon

and trump doesn't need to be there. trump is the guy. he's america first. just think about what the media and the democratic justice department has done to this man. this guy is going to win. host: as far as specifics why the former president versus the current field of those interested in the job for president. caller: he's got the charisma. he's got the record. he made this country great again and god knows where we would've been if he had gotten another four years. we would be way ahead of everything instead we got this guy in there, this plagiarist, this guy who's a public servant for 50 years and now worth millions of dollars. he's corrupt. he has to go. so i don't think he will be the nominee.

i don't think biden will be the nominee. i think it's going to be, they might even draft obama's wife. host: are you interested in any of the current candidates who are not trump? >> i will be full of things through. i usually watch about five or six things at once. i will be checking it out. but none of them have a chance against this man. >> let's hear from henry. hello. caller: i'm sick and tired of trump 24/7 all the time. enough is enough. he shouldn't be there, he should be disqualified. and i'm a republican. i'm tired of this guy. host: if he is not there as far as that concerns why not have the debate is policy versus the

other policies including governor desantis. caller: we have enough about trump. he is a proven liar and a criminal. desantis knowing about him, he's the guy. he's more experienced, a very firm and he's good. i'm a republican latino and i go 100% for desantis. he's the guy. host: here in florida talking about governor desantis. the governor of his state who will be part of the debate on wednesday without the presence of mr. trump again should the former president be part of it. if you say no. 202-748-8001. the -- offering context of those who did not show up for debates. highlighting the fact lyndon johnson was the overwhelming

favorite when he denied entry to debate from his republican challenger barry goldwater. the democratic incumbent went on to win in a landslide in 1960 during the first televised debate. richard nixon's appearance and 5:00 shadow ruined his candidacy against john f. kennedy. it was no wonder he later bypassed debates against hubert humphrey in 1968 and george mcgovern in 1972 when he won a second term as president. jimmy carter opted out of the first three debates against ronald reagan and his republican challenger. the democrat at the inclusion of a third-party candidate on the stage fearing he might siphon off votes with a strong performance. reagan winning the white house. historical context there. those who decided to debate or not to debate. former president trump deciding not to attend the first debate.

saying he should be there. go ahead. caller: definitely. what he did. i'd like to find out what he's going to do if he gets elected and what he can do for the country. we've got to get rid of that criminal biden. we can take more of him. >> that celani there joining us from pennsylvania. we have another floridian in st. petersburg on our no line. you are on, go ahead. >> i'm from st. petersburg and i'm feeling trump doesn't have too much going on right now that he should not appear in nothing. he should be disqualified like the other guy said in front of me. to santos, we don't want him

anywhere. he should not be a front runner. >> what republican would you support. >> if anybody it's going to be a democrat. host: are you are publican or democrat? caller: democrat. host: i'm get a stop you right there because we set aside this hour for republicans only. wayne in west virginia on our no line. caller: i'm a trump supporter but stating he should not attend the debate. we've always had an illusion of choice in this country and going there to the debate isn't going to help his candidacy in any way. most likely going to be a set up. there's nothing really that supporters of trump will learn from this and most likely people who hate him already aren't going to change their minds. host: what do you mean by that?

caller: i think the candidates want to set him up to make him look bad. so why even bother. they are not there to debate what he's done for this country. they just want to continue to make him look bad and frame this narrative. host: wayne in west virginia. continuing with your thoughts until the top of the hour. the latest bit of news as far as a latest candidate is the former arkansas governor asa hutchinson , just received information he qualified not only on pole support but donation support. he was talking about his candidacy in the former president. here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> how much will they matter without donald trump on the stage and what is your approach going to be to the elephant in the room so to speak. >> i expected to be more

important without donald trump on the stage because this is the first time voters will be able to contrast the candidates and their positions. i know we wanted to be civil but it's going to be a vigorous exchange and it's important because there's a difference between the candidates. donald trump will be in the background because every candidate needs to say what their position is on donald trump, whether in his actions on january 6 and talk about the differences for future. he has a very isolationist view of the united states of america. wanting to give russia victory in ukraine. that's not where i am and i hope that will be made clear on the debate stage as well. >> is it not just an example of what we saw in 2016 where essentially all of the candidates one at a time went up against donald trump and tried to take him on and failed. it became a fight for second place.

is that what we will see on wednesday? >> i don't see that happening. first of all it's really early. i talk to voters and i'll and new hampshire and they will be late deciding and that's why you will see in iowa where trump's numbers come down first it will be here in iowa in my prediction. so they need time this debate is important and they will start making decisions later into the fall. this is a reduced number from 2016 with eight or nine on the debate stage. we'll see who else qualifies for it. the voters will be able to lock in and make decisions and they won't be in a hurry to move so everybody needs to be patient including the media and to let this unfold over the next three or four months and the alternative will surface. >> one of those folks you will see wednesday in that first rnc sponsored debate without the

former president. we are asking you about the president's decision and should he reconsider that for the next few minutes. 202-748-8000 if you say yes, 202-748-8001 if you say no. all the candidates as they make their way across the united states you can see most of them on the website at c-span.org as part of our 2024 coverage. go to the website and type in the candidates name in the box and you will see everything today could we have on that person. you can do that on our website. in florida on our yes line this is pablo, hello. >> i want him to go out there and have the debate committee, didn't they say if you don't pledge to support the final candidate that you couldn't be on the debate stage. host: that's been a point of

contention. caller: i want to see them eat their words. i want to see them trash christie, i want to see how good he is trying to put down trump face-to-face. i want to put him completely out of the running. host: governor christie getting a lot of criticism. why do you think that is? he is getting a lot of criticism as far as the comments he's made about the former president. caller: because he lost all respect. from obama went there hugging obama and that really rubbed a lot of republicans wrongly. host: after the flooding of hurricane sandy and the president visited the state. caller: but you don't hug him like he's your best friend.

he was my best friend. he lost all respect i think with half the republican party. i want to see him confronted and i want to see the debate committee out there swallow their words and say yes you don't have to abide by these rules that were only made for trump. >> this is allie from texas -- texting us saying when it comes to mr. trump presidency, of the debate he should be there to defend himself. from the possible attacks you will get from the other candidates. richard in las vegas says i hope president trump stays -- the former president stays away. you continue to make those thoughts. you can text us at [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, . --202-748-8003. at c-span wj. let's hear from jerry in

california on our no line. caller: i think trump should stay away because he's way ahead. as far as the former vice president, she's going to tell even though he had an obligation. donald trump is a billionaire and has his own jet. what do the other guys have, nothing. all these career politicians. nikki haley she did a good job, she didn't stab him in the back like the others did. there's a lot of work to be done. nobody recognizes our country.

we look at the united states, what happened. host: st. paul, minnesota on our yes line. you are on, go ahead. caller: i think trump should definitely get up on that stage and i think it's not fair that the not letting him. we have a two-tier justice system. let them up on the stage. host: he made his own decision not to go on the stage. the rnc encouraging him to do that. -- two go on the stage. caller: i hope he goes up there and hopefully he can talk with the national debt which is the biggest concern i think everybody is thinking about. these debates i really respect the charts and numbers we can see. sometimes they don't even answer the question. there up there talking about all

manner of things. i think if we could have that and just sort of cut them off they're not answering the questions, turn their microphone off. host: several caller sing mr. trump has nothing to gain from being part of the debate. only concern because of the treatment he'll get from the other candidates. caller: trump is a really rabid debater. when he gets going i think he really shows what he's got. i think if he says he doesn't want to do it it makes it look like he scared. i suppose i'd like to see him up there. thank you for taking my call. host: before we take a few more calls you should know leading up to the debate the biden campaign has plans to release a series of ads in the lead up of the

debates to highlight president biden's reelection efforts. here's one of the ads leading up to wednesday. [video clip] >> the worst pandemic and 100 years, the worst economic crisis since the great depression but america fought back. unemployment is at record lows. our economy leading the world. joe biden rebuild the country. he knows is the american people who are the heroes of this story. >> america is back. we've shown each other and the world there's no quit in america. >> in small towns and big cities we are coming back stronger than ever. manufacturing jobs are coming home. high-speed computer chips are getting made right here. america is leading the world in clean energy. there are some who say america has failed. not joe biden. he believes our best days are ahead because he believes in the american >> those who bet

against america learn how wrong they are. it's never been a good bet to bet against america. i approve this message. host: the first rnc sponsor debate amongst public and presidential candidates. the former president says he will not be in attendance. should he be part of what happens on wednesday. let's hear from mark he's in california on our no line. caller: good morning. i didn't think trump should be in the debate. i think he's pretty much got it sewed up. the nomination. i think it's basically for vice president and i just want to call in and voice my support for donald trump. host: will you be watching wednesday and as far as the candidates are concerned the current field you see do you

like any of those is a potential vice president? caller: i believe he's very smart and good candidate. i don't know if he's interested. he said he's not interested in being vice president. that remains to be seen. host: what sets them apart from the others? caller: i just think he's sharp and i like his attitude. the others are politicians. they have records. i know who they are and what they do. i prefer him over all of them. host: that is marked. we will hear from timothy in florida on our yes line. go ahead, you are next. caller: to answer one of the previous questioners i think

trump has a lot to gain from going to the presidential debate. there's going to be more than just trump supporters watching. there will be independence, moderate republicans and some democrats. even if the primary at times can feel like a gigantic popularity contest these debates still bring up important topics for the candidates to discuss amongst themselves. you can see how they handle it and just overall see the differences in their politics. they do see kind of -- seem kind of small at times. host: do you think discussions will overshadow substantial discussions about what you are interested in? caller: i don't think they should let the discussions overshadow economic issues or international or national issues.

host: ok. timothy from florida. finishing off is a most hour of calls on wednesday. the former president the united states not being part of that debate. later on in the program we will be joined by scott mcfarlane. talking about what's next when it comes to president trump's indictment. we will start by looking at the highest court in the land. this will be airing in prime time, oral arguments and tonight's focus will be the decision on the case which upheld section two of the voting rights act. will be joined by george washington university law professor as he talks about the signicance in the impact of th case, the conversation coming up next.

to start it off take a listen to the opening oral arguments of the case. >> we will your argument first this morning case 211086. in the consolidated case. >> mr. chief justice in may it please theourt. alabama conducted its redistricting in a lawful manner. they retain their districts and equalize populatns. they argued section two of the voting rights act to replace its map with the racially gerrymandered plan maximizing the number of districts. it requires electoral process ually open toll. it does not and cannot allocate alabama to abandon --

to be replaced by district lines dividing black and white with such racial precisn that alabama could ner constitutionally have drawn those in the first place. if that's what it's been commanded to do, the only way to add a second majority minority district is to make race a non-mug did go she will criteria. the plans offer only one y to get that second majority black district, split mobile county and divided by race. the new version of district one and two thin stretch the width of the state to group together black voters from disparate areas as for was his mobile and as far east as the georgia border. the district court relied on these outlier plans to validate the states neutrally drawn map. that was a legal error requiring states to scrap neutral plans in favor plans drawnn account of race sets section two at war

with itself in the constitution. the court should make clear that if a state's plan is the product of the states neutral districting principles, the plan is equally open to all voters. because of the alabama plan, these claims fail. i welcome the courts questions. host: this week on "washington journal," we will look at some of most consequential cases of the recent supreme court term. they took of executive power, free-speech, religious liberty and today, we will look at it case that dealt with voting rights and why that discussion matters. peyton mccrary served as a former historian, thanks for giving us your time. guest: happy to be here. host: when it comes to the large topic of voting rights, what was the significance of this particular case? guest: the specific case was a

welcome surprise to many election law experts because it simply affirmed the way in which the supreme court has addressed cases brought under section two of the voting rights act for almost 40 years. host: when it comes to the specifics of the case, set it up as far as the challenging party and those bringing the case. what was the significance of the case? guest: the challenge was brought by minority voters in alabama on the redistricting plan created by the alabama legislature after the 2020 senses on the grounds that it diluted minority voting strength, limiting african-americans representational opportunities to one district out of seven when the black population of the state was over 25%.

this was the kind of challenge that's been brought by minority plaintiffs for well over 40 years, even before section two of the voting rights act was amended in 1982 to create a result test, replacing the former test the supreme court had handed down in 1980 in an earlier alabama case, and section two was amended to eliminate to prove discriminatory intent in voting rights challenges. it was interpreted by the supreme court in 1986 in a way that created an easy roadmap for the courts to follow in addressing the complex fact in cases all over the united states. as a result of effective

implementation of section two, the voting rights act, in many areas of the country, african-americans have been able to approach the degree of proportional balance and never exceeding it for all practical purposes. because of the effect of section two in supreme court in the decision authored by chief justice john roberts, simply reaffirms the way in which the court would handle these cases despite the challenge that the state of alabama which was a lower court decision and ridged alabama and purge the supreme court creating a new standard requiring completely race neutral redistricting in which legislatures didn't even take a count of the racial composition

of their state. the court said it wasn't going to abide by alabama's efforts to recast the way in which the court interprets the voting rights act. host: our guest will talk about this case, looking at voting rights and you probably member it from the recent season of the supreme court and if you want to ask specifics on the case, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002 you can send your questions are comments via text at (202) 748-8003. peer is a part of what chief justice roberts wrote on this decision when it was leased -- when it was released back i june.

can you elaborate on what he said in context of the case? guest: the supreme court back in 1986 set up a set of preconditions that minority planners had to meet before the court would even consider what they call the challenging of the circumstance test which had been used by the court in 1970 in addressing this sort of racial claim. in that decision in 1986, the first precondition requires minority planners to take race into account because it requires that in order to proceed, they

have to be able to show that they have an illustrative district that would remedy to some degree, the problem of which they are complaining. thus, the voting rights act is always been interpreted as requiring states to take a count of race in the drawing of plans simply not making race the predominant motive so that they would have an unconstitutional discriminatory intent. thus, alabama is in effect requiring the supreme court to reinterpret the language of section two of the voting rights act in direct conflict with the way the congress had drafted it 1982. the court majority rejects that effort. host: what did you think of that

majority not only including the chief justice and associates -- associate justice brett kavanaugh. guest: it included not only the four reportedly liberal justices but also justice kavanaugh who was appointed by former president trump and his regarded that is one of the more conservative members of the court. justice kavanaugh concurred in the opinion, agreeing with the majority opinion except for one particular section of the decision in which the court considered and rejected the arguments of the centers of justice thomas and justice alito. justice kavanaugh was reluctant to address the issues that the

court was addressing to the defenders and therefore, that particular part of the opinion was only a plurality opinion and not a majority which gives it less strength. host: go ahead. guest: i finished that thought so you can go on to your next question. host: let me read you of justice thomas's dissent he wrote --

what do you think of that portion of the argument from justice thomas? guest: ever since justice thomas got on the supreme court in early 1990, he has consistently rejected all the presidents of the supreme court regarding the enforcement of the voting rights act, both section five and now discarded in 2013 and section 2 as amended by the congress in 1982. justice thomas is always argued in effect that thornburg -- that the 1986 decision that has been a leading president of the supreme court was wrongly decided. he has consistently argued, citing as is evidence primarily 's dissent that he himself or

other justices wrote in dissenting from the majority opinion of the court. he has no regard for the principal of a consensus in which the court takes the account of past decisions and tries to follow the precedent that it had established in -- and following other decisions. it's no surprise the justice thomas was in december because he's always been a dissent and his argument assume things about the weight in which the court has handled section 2 of the voting rights act is amended which is contrary to the with the supreme court decided these matters. host: our guest is from george washington university law school, talking about the specific case at the supreme court, the impact on voting rights overall. let's hear from david in

alabama, birmingham, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning to you. thank you for accepting my call. i have lived in alabama all of my life. i was involved with the first redistricting plan. we had enough voters than that i think they didn't except 51% and district to would request a little more. the reason why that plan did not go through is because of the air force base. they didn't want the air force base a black district. on the last election, on the committee, they had 11 white republicans and neither one of the democrats on their served as the vice chair of the committee.

i think something's wrong about that. the two plans i back, i like the singleton plan. two of the plans were good. thank you for accepting my call. host: how has alabama reacted to this decision? guest: i'm sorry, what was the question? host: how has alabama reacted because of the supreme court decision? guest: the alabama legislature essentially ignored the commands of the supreme court decision. it drew a new plan which would clearly violate the approach the supreme court had found appropriate and accept another plan that was directly contrary to the instructions of the supreme court.

it was no surprise when the trial court that had originally heard the case promptly held a hearing to evaluate this new plan. the alabama legislature had adopted. it's no surprise that they are moving to quite a special master to draw an alternative plan under the instruction of the trial court that would in fact remedy the violation of the supreme court had they affirmed the lower court's decision. thus, alabama is once again, as it has for decades, defied the federal courts and tried to continue to to go contrary in the way in which the federal courts of the land have commanded. host: it's reported that the

case the lawmakers make is that we passed a new law and we have new standards that will supersede the decision supreme court handed down. how does that hold up legally? guest: the alabama legislature's efforts are not likely to be accepted by the trial court. the trial court will provide an alternative redistricting plan no doubt the state will appeal to the supreme court again and come in all likelihood, they will lose again. host: what makes you say that? guest: the history of the case law regarding the enforcement of the voting rights act for 50 or 60 years, ever since the 1965 voting rights act was adopted. host: this is something justice kavanaugh wrote --

does that stand out to you? guest: it suggests what justice kavanaugh is speculating about. what may come in the future is something that i don't get into the business of [no audio]

host: were having some internet conductivity issues with peyton mccrery of george washington university. if you want to continue to ask questions, call the phone lines and once we reconnect, we will connect you to him. (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8002 independents. go ahead and finish your thoughts, sir. can you hear me? host: i can, go ahead. guest: i'm seeing a message that my internet connection is stable. host: you're good for now. guest: the 1.i was making is the quote -- the point i was making is from brooke justice kavanaugh is speculation about the future which has no particular relation to the existing case law.

he did not address it because alabama, even in its extreme arguments did not raise this question. it is of course true that some time in the future, the court might revise its interpretation of the voting rights act. i'm not in the business of speculating about what might happen sometime in the future. that is the tenor of justice kavanaugh's musing. host: you have history at the justice department, looking at the cases of civil rights and those that do will voting rights. talk about the history of yours. what has your work been on the subject and why are you interested? guest: i've been involved in voting rights led -- litigations in 1980 when i began serving as an expert witness in the two mobile cases on the supreme court after the court handed down the intent standard.

in those days, cases of this nature, registered cases and other challenges to election practice were decided under the 14th amendment. court decided in 1980 that it was necessary in a 14th amendment challenge that the challenge practice was adopted whether racially discriminatory on purpose or was being maintained for the racially discriminatory purpose. i testified at trial under that standard in both cases. the evidence that i provided to the court based on historical research demonstrated that the city's at-large election plan for its city commission and the county's at-large election plan for the county school board were

originally adopted with the racially discriminatory intent and that they are being maintained in 1970's when challenged by mobile loosely legislators who were in the majority. they weren't successful. city and the county remainder with their at-large election system for a discriminatory purpose. the claimants one those cases but the congress had already decided that the standard was extremely difficult to discern from cases long ago when i was asked to provide written testimony to the congress when it was considering this considering amending section 2 in 1981 regarding how expensive and time-consuming it was and if that was the correct question

for the court to be addressing which i argued it was not. i urged congress then section two, it makes it unnecessary for historians to research events long past in the history of the city's election methods. the congress obviously had a lot of other people taking that same view and there was strong public out cry against the intent standards in the congress acted with overwhelming voting strength to reject the intent standard and amend section 2 so as to require the courts to use a results test in a testing question of this nature. i i have been involved in alabama voting rights records throughout the 1980's. as an expert witness when i was still a history professor.

in 1990, i joined the staff of the civil rights division that serves as an in house expert on voting rights cases which i did for 26 years. i retired in december. after that, i returned to the role of serving as an expert witness for minority plaintiffs in voting rights cases. a year ago, i decided not to think on -- not to take on new cases because i've got a book to write and i haven't been able to do any writing since i retired from the department of justice. host: let's hear from jim in idaho. this is our republican line. caller: yes, i've a question. [indiscernible] there is about three states that

allowed non-u.s. citizens to register as voters and they said you can vote for u.s. president. there are not another seven states that allow it. guest: i'm sorry, the connection was rough that i could not understand your question. host: we have a viewer on x saying -- guest: that argument has never been accepted in the federal court since the 1965 voting rights act was adopted. host: pain may carry is our guest from george washington university law school and talking about voting rights as we look at oral argument cases all week from the recent supreme

court session. you can hear the oral arguments tonight as we kick off the week at 9:00 eight -- at 9:00 p.m. eastern you can see that on c-span a go to her website as well for all the oral arguments on the key cases. you can do that at the website at c-span.org. how does the decision on this case impact other states that might be going through the same issue of redistricting? guest: other states will clearly have to follow the same guidelines that the federal courts of handed down. they handed them down starting at least in 1986 which followed the view of amending section 2 that the congress adopted in creating the test. in other words, the decision simply preserved the status quo in federal law that states and

localities have two follow if they're going to be found legally appropriate. host: as other states present their cases to the lower court and they make their way through, how does the decision we are talking about impactors future special-effects. how could it be applied? guest: the lower courts are required to follow the rulings of the supreme court. the supreme court decisions have always been binding. if any state wants to argue to the contrary one earlier port in the early 1980's remarked with tongue-in-cheek that the states were inviting the court to a

life of high-end venture, meaning the trial for him. no trial court wants to be summarily reversed by the supreme court on the view that the lower court has ignored the precedent set down by the highest in the land. host: what does it matter if the state decides to use an independent body to redraw the maps or an in-state body to redraw the map? does that matter? guest: an independent commission has had a more complex history as deemed by the federal courts. it is an acceptable way of doing an alternative read just doing plan -- brand under the circumstances. the court looking at such a decision by a state that used an independent redistricting

commission looks at the facts as to whether that commission is really independent, the local decision-makers or whether it's tied into the current political powers that be in such a way that creates the same problem that would have faced the courts had the decision been made by the legislature. independent redistricting commissions are away under the proper circumstances on how they are constructed by the state law. doing redressed taking dish doing redistricting in a way that can do away with lower court rejection. that's the path that states could follow if they are not trying to evade the requirements of federal case law.

host: we will hear from mark in california, independent line. caller: good morning. first, is donald trump, no matter what happens to wind up setting some kind of supreme court precedent? that's my question of the supreme court and out of what universe is somebody keeping him out of these debates is what interest me. i don't know if those things will intersect but ultimately, does the drum thing wind up setting a precedent either win, lose or draw? host: thank you, caller. guest: i'm not sure i understood your question. it seems to be addressing the prospect for the 2024 election

in regard to the candidacy former president donald trump. is that correct? host: sorry about that. the caller dropped but thanks for the response anyway. this is from twitter -- guest: first of all, the demography of the state has changed during those decades. now, it's possible to do a fairly drawn opportunity districts for minority voters given we have a realistic chance to reelect -- to alike represented of their choice. not only has the democracy of the state change but it has increased slightly. the degree in which voting patterns are racially polarized

in the state has declined to the point where the courts have always interpreted the decisions where the rachel polarization has declined to the point where it still exists but it's possible, because of white support for minority preferred candidates, it's possible to win with a lower black percentage or minority percentage than used to be required. therefore, the districts that the lower court had accepted as the standard and they accepted it as appropriate, district that provide a fair opportunity for black voters, direct representatives of their choice whatever their race, with only a bare majority of the voting age

population. therefore it possible for the first time to draw for minority districts in alabama's ruse hadn't been true beforehand. that's with the trial court said with a valid view. host: let's hear from keith in denver, colorado line, independent. caller: good morning, i also hear conservatives media and conservative dog leaders that there is no such thing as systemic racism. however, if redistricting is racially based in places like alabama or west virginia were

whatever, isn't that proof that systemic racism still exists in the united states? guest: whether systemic racism still exists in the united states isn't really the question before the court. it is certainly required in the court to show that the degree to which elections provide opportunity for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice because the court focused on the degree to which voting patterns are racially polarized. the second and third preconditions that the court set down in 1986 required proof that minority voters are cohesive in their view and white voters are cohesive in rejecting the

candidates preferred by minority voters. that's with the fact showed in this case in this alabama case and all of the alabama cases i've ever been involved with or ever read even when i wasn't involved in them. racialized voting is not restricted to alabama or to the south. there is racially polarized voting in many jurisdictions all over the country. i have worked on cases involving northern ohio, westchester county, new york, indian voting rights cases in south dakota and montana and so on. these are cases involving hispanics in california and the southwest and in texas and racially polarized voting is present to varying degrees in this country. whether that addresses your question of systemic racism, i'm

not sure. host: there is one more question about the alabama case -- guest: the federal courts will do it using a special plan. the court routinely had to step in but states are so recalcitrant, they do not follow the command of the lower court and the supreme court. host: are there any other voting rights cases your keeping an eye on yourself whether be the supreme court on the state level when it comes to voting rights? guest: one of the key decisions by the court also in june of this year involved redistricting congressional redistricting in north carolina. there, the legislature had drawn

a plan that was regarded by the courts as a partisan gerrymander. it was drawn in order to benefit the interest of the republican party and limit the chances that the democratic party could elect candidates to the congressional seats from north carolina. initially, the state supreme court in north carolina ruled that that was in violation of city constitution they decided that partisan gerrymandering was not one the supreme court was willing to have the federal court address.

the state supreme court decided that under the state constitution, this partisan gerrymandering claim should be struck down. because the republican party was able to elect a majority of the supreme court justices in north carolina in the next election, the court swung from -- the state supreme court's one democratic majority to republican majority in the republican supreme court in north carolina reversed the decision of its prior decision regarding congressional redistricting. they ruled the plan could go into effect. the case was appealed to the supreme court and north carolina offered a theory that is considered but almost all the commentators among election law

experts as a dangerous theory. looking at the text of the portions of the u.s. constitution that relate to redistricting authorities of state legislatures, the literal wording of the constitution was required and was read as requiring that state courts, the state legislatures have sole authority to draw congressional redistricting plans without regard to the state constitution or the rulings of the state courts including the state supreme court. that theory was known as the independent state legislature theory. it was addressed in june of this year in a case in which the

court rejected that extreme interpretation of the independent state legislature. it sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration, avoiding the most extreme version that could have been adopted at the court accepted the arguments of the north carolina legislature about its authority in drawing congressional redistricting plans. it only applies to congressional redistricting plans because that's the specific language of the federal constitution on which it was relying. that is an important decision as well of a little different nature from the alabama decision which was simply reaffirming

almost 40 years of court precedent3 . host: peyton mccrary, a professional election law historian here to talk about the case and taking a look at voting rights. you can see those oral arguments at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. thank you for your time and thank you for participating today. guest: happy to be here. host: coming up later in the program, we will be joined by scott mcfarlane to discuss what's next about donald trump's indictments. first is open form and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats, and (202) 748-8002 independence. make those calls now and we will take as many as we can and we will be right back.

>> le on sunday, september 3 in-depth, the author and essayist joins book tv to talk and take your calls on religious freedom and the sexual revolution in america. she is an expert on christian culture and the author of many books including it's dangerous to believe, how the west really lost god. joining the conversation wh your phone calls, facebook comments and text messages. in depth, live sunday, september 3 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work and were

citizens are truly informed and a the republic thrives, get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, it the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span's campaign 2020 for coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign, 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> this year, book tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books from author talks, interviews, book tv has provided viewers with a front row seat to the latest literary discussion on history, politics and so much more. you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or online at book tv.org. . book tv, 25 years of television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it's open forum, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000s democrats and independent (202) 748-8002. the report on the president and first ladies trip to maui to day

. >> i think the biggest thing is he will be able to see what i saw when i went to maui last week and just really experience the complete another -- an utter devastation the town had expressed but he will also be able to talk with people and

hear their stories and provide a sense of hope and assurance the federal government is going to be with them and we will continue to bring in resources to support the request of the governor and the needs as they go through their recovery process. >> as you bring in the resources, what are the greatest needs for survivors in maui? >> the biggest thing for them right now is we continue to get them into the system so they can either move from congregant sheltering where the population has reduced drastically and into the short term rental assistance whether that's in a hotel or a motel using airbnb and as we continue to work with the governor and his team, working with each of these individuals in each of these families to help them with what their longer-term strategy is going to be and where they will stay while they're making plans for what they will do to rebuild.

we've got teams that are working with the individuals case-by-case because we know that everybody situation will be unique to them. host: that's from yesterday's sunday show talk about the president's trip to hawaii. the san diego times reporting that --

that's part of the president's travel plan visiting hawaii and california. open forum until the next guest. james in columbus, georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the political divide in this country. over the weekend, was reading an article, it was in ohio research and it was saying that conservative or republicans are more likely to believe falsehoods than democrats and liberals. if that's true, then it's going to be hard to get everybody together if your presented truth

and facts and you got the leaders of the party not believing it and we are kind of sunk in the water. host: that's james from columbus, georgia we will hear from caroline in ohio on caller: caller: our democrat line. yes, this is kind of out there because it was on c-span i believe a week or two ago. i just saw it before you started this morning where they were asking people to name their three favorite books. sorry, but my laptop is down so i can do it that way. i will just say one for time sake but there is a really good book, i'm a senior citizen and when i went through college and all that, i just realized that

there wasn't a lot on women's history. i knew there had to be. i found this book that's called susan b. anthony's left ear, a guide to american women landmarks. that really has meant a lot to me. that first printing was in 1976. it helped me a lot. there are other books but i know other people want to get on. host: before you go, you said you read three books and did you hear about it from our series coming up? caller: before you came on, there was a repeat i guess. i was sad because i missed it

but i got to see mr. buttigieg, not pete but chastain i think is how you pronounce it. host: that was probably the national book coverage last week. caller: it was fantastic and i read his book from 2020. i hadn't read his book from 2023. that would also be one of my favorite books. i was a teenager when a family member came out to me and no one else and i'm afraid i didn't handle it so well. i really believe if i had that book then i would've handled it way better. host: how did you hear about the first book? how were you drawn to it? caller: like i said, i had been through college and i just

didn't have much knowledge of women in history and i knew there had to be something and i believe i just went to a bookstore and wanted -- i probably asked them and said something like i wanted to find out more about women in history. it covers so much. i'm sure they probably updated it because the one i have says copyright, 1976 in the 1994. i'm a senior citizen so i've had it a long time. i still refer to it and i have notes in it and papers in it. it has meant that much to me. i think the author was a journalist but i'm not sure. i think she was a journalist if

i remember correctly. i think she is older than me but that doesn't make doug difference. host: thank you for that and you can still see portions of the national book fair on our website at c-span.org. the recorded video she talked about is part of a new effort we are making in his series of 10 weeks. if you go to the top of the website where it says record video, gives you instructions and you can give your input on favorite books that shaped you as you were growing up and maybe even currently. you can go to that record section of the video at c-span.org. is part of the forthcoming series. jerry is next in kansas, independent line. caller: good morning.

you have a great smile. host: thanks, go ahead. caller: i tried to get on the program yesterday about the political divide. you had a call yesterday and a couple of times ago i heard and it says that the republicans believe falsehoods and they aren't educated and have mental health problems and they are misinformed. i've a question for them -- if the republicans fall for the falsehoods, why did the democrats believe that there was russian collusion for six years with no merit and they won't admit to that but then they came after president trump with 69 or 70 charges of foreign indictments. there wasn't any indictment on the russian collusion.

i don't understand why they don't want to believe the hunter biden laptop was true. that shows that there is election fraud because the fbi and doj held that information away from the public and would it -- and it would have affected the 2020 election. host: on the front page of the washington post -- you can read more at the washington post and on its website.

judy is in maryland, republican line. caller: yes, last night i was watching pbs news. it was one of the most chilling things i have seen. i'm going to be afraid. this country is going to be in trouble. everybody, please look that up and look at it. host: what was concerning to you? caller: what they said about lindsey graham and mitch mcconnell. the man is telling the truth. and he's a republican. he said they are going to have to remove anybody from any party who did not understand what happened on january 6. it's chilling. host: joan is in minnesota,

democrats line, you're next. caller: hi, i just wanted to make a comment. every time you turn on the tv for 24 hours per day, we see donald trump and i think whether people agree with him or don't or whether he says something good or bad, he doesn't care as long as he is in our faces. i think part of the problem is he's the main topic of every program and i would like to see a little bit of diversity and a little bit of positive things about our country and i'm tired of hearing is negative and heartbreaking comments about people i care about whether it's a democrat, republican or independent. we are in for really bad future.

i think the newscasters need to think of somebody else to talk about something good or what's going on the country that has a positive effect on people. i think he should just be off the pages 24 hours a day. host: a couple of things to watch for on the network today. a discussion on china's economy and global markets hosted by the u.s. china and economic review and we will join the conversation at 10:00 after this program. you can follow along at -- on our free mobile app and c-span.org. later this afternoon, president finds reason trilateral meeting with the japanese leaders will be a topic hosted by the korea economic institute of america. 2:00 this afternoon on the main channel c-span and their app and the website at c-span.org.

let's hear from bill and stony point, new york, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. i have a couple of comments. i usually follow this quite a bit and i gotta comment on afghanistan. maybe i can get some interest on your channel. when afghanistan had 20 years of war there, why didn't they bring in pompeo and trump just to interview them and asked them why they were dealing with the taliban and not the president of that country and why is it they bring some of the lieutenants or some of the main people for part of the afghan war situation and bring them in because i'm getting tired of hearing about weaponizing biden for what happens in afghanistan. it should have never happened but with a 20 year war, i don't know what will modify it or correct it but somebody has to talk to these two people.

they need to bring them into get answers from these two people because nobody should have been dealing with the taliban. host: one more call and this is from mike in florida, independent line. caller: good morning thanks for taking my call. i'm a first-time caller. i've been listening to your show last two or three years. it's the most informative and the most nonpartisan and the most unbiased. in regards to the [no audio] [applause] host: are you there? one more chance for mike, are you there? apologies for that. it seems like we lost your connection. call in and you won't be under the 30 day rule so close next

time you have a chance. coming up, we will discuss the various legal issues that former president trump faces, particularn the matters of indictments and other related matters with scott mcfarlane who closely follows these things in his -- and he is the congressional correspondent will talk about the issues when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> sunday night on q and a, in his book, university of richmond journalist professor looks at the 1977 siege of three buildings in washington dc by a group of somali muslims.

-- it is amazing how this story -- >> it is amazing how this story has receded in the background and we don't talk about this much. a lot of it was lost and nobody has talked much about this. some federal records were obtained. i was able to find and uncover that transcript and the 1000 pages. and it was every witness during the trial and it helped me on top of all of the records and everything else i found. that record really helped me piece together the secret -- the sequence of events in washington of those two days. you can listen to q and a on our podcasts on the free c-span now

app. the match -- >> when it opened in 1901, it was a symbol of russian prosperity. it was often used by lenin to give speeches. during world war ii, it became a home and office for almost all foreign journalists allowed to work in the ussr. a british journalist written a book about those days called the red hotel. >> the author on this episode of book notes plus. it is available on c-span now or reverie you get your podcasts -- or wherever you get your podcasts. host: we welcome back scott

mcfarland of cs -- cbs news. thank you for your time. if you are looking at the calendar, the calendar now only for the political interest but running for the white house again? guest: they are inextricably intersecting. these four tentative trial dates are in 2024 and they mesh within the primary calendar. the proposed trial date for the 2024 conspiracy trial, they recommend january 22 and the second proposed date is march 4. that is the day before super bowl -- super tuesday. followed by a may 20 trial date

tentatively from the special counsel in florida and a lot of legal action in the middle of primary season so it is hard to understand at this moment how anyone else can get the oxygen they can get on the -- otherwise from the news media, from cable television and online news sources. it is hard to understand how donald trump can message anything outside of his legal battles. host: what is the attempt from the trump team to push the case after the election? guest: the 2020 conspiracy case -- let's start with the 2020 conspiracy case. there are no co-defendants and it has the potential to go to trial first and donald trump's legal team recommends its -- recommend it is pushed back to

-- august 28, we will get at least a tentative trial date in the first case. he has been doing then -- that since they were charged and in florida he recommended that it goes after election day. the prosecutors wanted to happen it -- it to happen in december and they met in the middle. none of them should be met -- written in pencil. host: when it comes to later on this week, we are inspecting the president to turn itself in when it comes to the election case in georgia. what might or might not act -- happen? guest: he has until the deadline to surrender himself. the fingerprinting, looking photos and administrative

paperwork that happens at the rice jail which we are told it is -- told it is all -- told is open 20 47. he could try to choreograph that to happen wednesday. host: as farhost: as the legal strategies on these four cases, what is the president's general approach or the sense of the floor? guest: there should be some differences, two are local and two are federal and let's start with the january 6, 2020 election conspiracy case and donald trump is arguing he exercised political speech and first amendment rights. in this grant jury indictment, it accuses the former president of obstructing its -- the

preceding -- all of this includes the actions between election day 2020, november 3 and january 6, 2021. be it be efforts to leverage if not it's him they local election officials to overturn results and using january 6 and capital right itself as a bit of cover and a tool to reach out to members of congress and have them hold off completion of the proceedings. so he will make an argument of first american -- amendment rights. in florida, he will argue the forms were his and he was out obstructing justice and the investigation. in georgia, we have something

symmetrical to the 2020 election conspiracy case. there is your connective tissue between all four prosecutions. the former president has argued this is prosecutor -- prosecutor -- prosecutorial overreach. host: if you want to ask him about various issues about the former president, you can do so on the line, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, and for independents (202) 748-8002. can you explain what the talk is and how realistic it is? guest: the argument is three efforts just this month to

defund jack smith, and one of them as matt gaetz, who would restrict federal funding for the special counsel's investigations. you have congresswoman marjorie taylor greene of georgia who has proposed legislation into the funding bill, the appropriations process that would prohibit funding to special counsel and that one has the potential to be impactful. the first two will not get the support they need to pass the house and senate and get to the president's desk where it would be vetoed but if congressman green got support from others to add appropriations bills to add details -- we are already about against a deadline and we are about 45 days away from the ending of federal spending, the appropriations for 2023, fiscal year 2024 begins october 1 and the congress has not passed the

bill needed to prevent a government shutdown and to keep the government open nationwide. if that lingers makes it -- if that language makes it into the bill next month, the bill will not go anywhere and we will look at the process -- at a prospect of a government shutdown. host: you talked about the prosct- the charges brought by jackmith. what is the criticism there? guest: plotting to block the peaceful transfer of power in america, the highest level of charge in any way january 6 case so far -- in any january 6 case so far. he is facing account worth underscoring.

310 other january 6 defendants have faced the car -- the -- that charge. those who were at the capital, part of the mob. the department of justice has developed muscle memory in getting convictions in that charge. they are going up and down with george's at the appellate level trying to ensure that charge is appropriate in this case. that is the charge they bring against donald trump and has -- i have seen cases where -- and receive prison time for that. guest: i suppose whatever the outcome of the president's case is, could it impact the outcome of those who participated on the day? guest: the nightly protest/ visual they hold against --vigil -- they hold --

you are now one of nearly 1100 people charged in connection to that historic and horrific day in america. will his case and pack their cases? let me play it out. it is possible that if there is any conviction, if there is a bit of a contingency, any conviction of former president trump will be appealed and very well make its way to the supreme court. it is a possibility that one of those rulings could impact the others facing the same charge. that is playing out years into the future. of those 1100 people who have been charged, nearly half have had their cases closed. they have pleaded guilty or are convicted. we are expecting more people arrested and there are hundreds of people who are serving sentences or whose cases are nearly closed. any impact donald trump has on them as part of a big move. host: joining us for this

conversation, we will start without -- we will start off with george -- with joseph in new jersey. you are on the republican line. caller: switching it to you, to the gentleman from cbs, this country is divided. you are talking about the january 6 -- we have a vice president in the white house that bailed out and supported and gave money to protesters in 2020 where people were killed and ate the protests. no one talks about that and you have a correspondent focusing on donald trump. does anybody in cbs talk about president biden and the bribery problems he has and taking money from our country with his son? no one talks about that. this country is divided.

it is going to blow up. it is the inequity of the way they treat donald trump and president biden. guest: the different points. upcountry divided is the phrase joseph uses and a phrase used in january 6.you have a number of people who were there that day who were chanting hang mike pence who came with weapons, some of them have guns -- had guns. there was a gallows and news erected outside and epitomizing a point of a country divided and it reared its head on january 6. about the 2020 protests, i think he called them bailed out protesters in 2020, that issue has come up in the january 6 prosecution and the number of defendants charged of being a

part of the cover rights have made the equipping ash the equivalency of what they are doing is symmetrical and perhaps not as bad as what happened in 2020 in cities across america. that article has surfaced in cases before and it has not been enough to secure acquittals. the point of covering president biden, cbs news has been covering the hunter biden criminal case and i have been covering the case that remains open and the plea agreement has disappeared in -- delaware. host: bill in new jersey. caller: i want to know why is there any question -- authors can resume office if he is given a or comfort to the

enemies. it is plain as day, why is there any question about him becoming president again? guest: that argument has been made and our legal scholars reaffirmed their position that donald trump might be or could eventually be disqualified. with the constitutional provisions of the 14th amendment. not being a legal scholar myself, i don't want to weigh in. it is out there. as part of the discourse in washington dc. if congress returns here in a couple weeks and resumes business and didn't make itself part of the congo -- floor debates, i suspect a number of democrats will once a message on that argument between now and november. host: one of the legal arguments is about the judge in the d.c. case. tell us about her.

guest: she has been here nearly 10 -- 10 years. she has served in the u.s. district court for d.c. and has handle dozens of these january 6 prosecutions. i have sat in her courtroom for many of her hearings and i listened to what she has to say and she has a distinctive voice and she has been vocal with her concerns about what happened in january 6 and what gave rise to it. she has said our democracy remains in peril and it speaks to the point joseph made earlier that we seem to be a country divided. judge chutkan has noted that. she is one of the rare judges i have seen to exceed the recommended sentencing levels. the judge decides where to go. judge koch and -- judge cut --

judge chutkan has been one of the where judges that has exceeded -- it is noteworthy. host: duke -- guest: i posted some of the words judge chutkan has used in court and donald trump's team has reiterated and disseminated what some of the judge has set. he has made the argument the judge should be recruited -- we cruised -- be refused for the case --be recused or the case may be moved. we have heard trump's legal team talk about the idea of moving the case of the northern district of west virginia or what -- elsewhere in those motions -- and those motions

have not succeeded. no indication this would work and you see what is going on, the former president using his platform to criticize the judge in the venue. -- and the venue and the judge has said if that rhetoric continues, keep -- she make be inclined to move the trial date earlier to prevent the contamination of the jury mindset. there is leverage for the judge to say stop this language or i will move to a early trial date which you do not want. host: jake from san diego, independent line. you are on with our look -- guest. caller: could you please comment or explain further on the judges

that will be making the decisions on their positions and their thought processes and some of their background and it is clearly evident the democrats, from the timeline you explained earlier, as to when these issues will be brought to trial, that the democratic think tank has gone scientific on this and has timed everything perfectly to the point they are working at breakneck speed to keep donald trump from running in 2024. that is my comment. i will take your answer off line. guest: i will take your question in reverse, the timing is an argument we have heard, the concern about the timing that all these cases are on trajectory for trial in 20 24th

which is the election year for the presidency. donald trump appears to be the last feet front runner for the nomination, that timing is going to fuel criticisms. it has for the former president that these are selected or politically motivated prosecutions. the timing will raise criticisms. it will fuel them and it will get louder and more vibrant as the 2024 election cycle begins an actual primaries and actual trials. you asked about the judges. i will talk about three, the georgia judge i will put aside because there is a potential that changes after former president trump is processed. in new york city, one judge is assigned the hush money case, the local prosecution of donald trump. he is a veteran of the manhattan courthouse.

there will be no cameras in the courtroom. it will happen somewhat invisibly to america with reporters and visitors allowed. the two federal judges, you heard me reference judge chutkan in washington dc. obama appointee has handled and developed quite a workload of january 6 cases. she knows the issues of january 6 and the back story. she knows the instances. she is quite familiar with some of this. in a florida, the federal judge in fort pierce. she is a trump appointee and she has been criticized by some of the decisions she has made during the short -- the search warrant battle. there was argument over the search warrant in mar-a-lago. she made rulings that were overturned on appeal. she handled -- so far, she has

had a trial scheduled that split the difference. she has not sided with donald trump or jack smith. she made her own path on choosing her trial date and it is early to get a measure on these judges. these trials are in an initial state. caller: hi, how are you? host: good morning. caller: i would like to know with all of these trials coming for trump, why he won't do any prison time? guest: assuming you mean pretrial detention. the ability -- caller: if he is found guilty, they are saying the secret service thing and everything else, he could not go to jail. guest: that is a good question. why would he not go to prison if convicted or he pleads guilty to

some charges? that is outside my area of expertise. when i go to the courthouses, i have been to three donald trump arraignment this year, shut down the whole city. a bit of a hyperbole but they shut down several blocks around the courthouse. i have secret service sweeping the floors. -- they have secret service sweeping the floors. there is a unique security protocol over way -- underway. i am not sure how that would manifest itself in a department of corrections facility. i don't know how they make accommodations for a former president. it is a good rhetorical question. how would they make that work? to be clear, the charges he faces do come with likely prison

time. the federal charges in washington dc, when they have been bought against a defendant's head resulted in years in prison. the potential is there. that has not been actualized. a prison term for a former president is a question i am not qualified to answer. in terms of pretrial detention, which many federal affinities are required to serve, these charges don't rise to the level of pretrial detention according to prosecutors. one of the reasons, federal prosecutors seek pretrial detention because they worry the defendant of flight risk. there is a belief that donald trump is not a flight risk, they know where he is at all times. host: i know it is in the future

but what is the scope of the potential present time? guest: the federal cases are clear, these are felonies. when convicted upon, together, can result in gears, if not decades -- years, if not decades. the federal system has something called federal sentencing guidelines and you have arrange endpoints that are the ducted or added in certain complications, criminal histories, issues involving taking -- accepting the responsibility. it is unclear how donald trump would fit into federal sentencing guidelines. the federal system has codified guidelines to control the range that a defendant would face. host: a viewer asked about the georgia case. this is our two of the council in the georgia case based upon tweets sent by the president's account where someone said there

was evidence of electric -- election fraud in georgia, is in this categorized as -- doesn't this come close to criminalizing free speech? guest: this is a rico case. this is racketeering. the fulton county is a alleging, this -- the tweets would be an active furtherance of elected racketeering. -- of a legend racketeering. -- of a legend --alleged racketeering. caller: what is the status of those cases? guest: there is a collectors case brought by michigan by that state's attorney general and it is in its infancy.

this does not preclude the possibility that there are other local prosecutions of other so-called fake electors but there is a key component of these prosecutions up donald trump -- of donald trump. they are referenced in the prosecutions in fulton county and d.c. people call this jackson met special counsel 2026 election case, the january 6 case. it is not so much of the violence any january 6. donald trump is charged with alleged misconduct after the election before january 6 to include the alleged fake electors scheme. at the state level, they are charged in election -- michigan.

host: we gotten any closer hints from jack smith's -- have we gotten any closer hints from jack smith's team on how they will prove that? guest: it is devoid of the names of the alleged co-conspirators. obstruction of official proceeding, i have watched them try that charge. in other january 6 elections -- cases. they have showed the video of the evacuating members of congress and the holding. they have shown the images of the mob of truck -- approaching the capital and to a degree, it is obstructing the proceeding by forcing congress to evacuate. it is one of those cases where you recognize, wheeze -- we all

saw this and watched it play out and quite possibly jack smith makes the symmetrical case, we watched this and the timestamps coincide with trump tweets. host: it is similar to what congress did with its investigation of january 6 as part at -- as far as the evidence shown? guest: there is a lot of parallels on what we watched on national tv and what the department of justice argues during some of the court hearings. there is overlap because facts are with the facts are and mike pence was standing in front of congress that day to do his ministerial duties. he was stopped and ushered out and evacuated out that back staircase to an emergency location. he insisted on staying and all the while, the proceedings were obstructed and it is a baseline issue. they are arguing it is --

host: this is carrie --terry in iowa. independent line. caller: i would like to as a couple questions. do you consider yourself a fair and unbiased reporter? i don't think you are. the reason i say that is part of what you said, the video does not light and we saw it unfold in front of us. can you explain to me why ray apps and your pup piece on 60 minutes was on --puff piece on 60 minutes was on last night? guest: we strive every day to be unfair and unbiased. we work toward and we do our best. the video does not lie. yes, there are different videos that have been shown that people

say are -- i think the phrases dispositive evidence. this video that shows at times, the crowd is mulling about. there were times on january 6 where the mob was mulling about. looking around. there were times where the mob was somewhat peaceful. there were other times, and ate the same continuum, where the mob -- in the same continuum, where the mob was beating police officers with baseball bats, pepper spray, using stolen pepper spray from the police against police. there were times when the crowd was dormant and there were times where the crowd was attacking so we have seen that played out where people take pieces of videos to show things they want to argue. you can do that when there are

tens of thousands of hours of video from that day. a lot of ways to take a video and make it -- an argument and i will take your point at face value. sometimes, the video shows peacefulness. the video shows people walking around and talking. went prosecutors charged in court, there are times that the video shows a mob attacking the u.s. capitol and attacking more than 100 injured police officers. host: people bring up the name ray epps. who is he? >> he is a figure that has circulated quite a bit, he was linked -- late to have his name surfaced in court compared to other january 6 defendants and there was an argument that he was a january 6 provocatuer. that allegation doesn't coincide on what we have seen in federal

charging documents. we haven't seen these cases where he has been part of the prosecution team. host: the news lately, this was the 30 year sentence is being socked for problem boys leaders. can you explain the narrative and what they are being charged with? guest: that would be a new hybrid market -- water mac -- watermark. dilaudid -- longest sentence of art was 18 years. an rick gates aria --enrique tarrio, one of the code -- co-defendants -- the prosecution has recommended sentences ranging between 20 and 33 years for the group, 33 years for tarrio who is currently being held at the alexandria city jail

. he has made the argument it doesn't warrant a 30 year sentence and he has been suffering in pretrial detention for all these years but it will be an interesting market -- marker when he decides what sentence to give these proud boys because they face the most serious charge of anyone -- charges of anyone. it really does shift things potentially for future defendants if others are to be charged in the future with seditious conspiracy. it raises the average of what people will face for january 6 cases. host: the report that one of the charges, an fbi fugitive. guest: one of the problem boys from january 6 has gone on the lam. he was supposed to be sentenced on friday.

not the only fugitive from january 6 but the latest. host: let's hear from mark in ocala, florida. democrats line with our guest. caller: pedro, i love seeing you on the show and scott, you are a tremendous spokesman. you are doing your job well. i am a former u.s. marine. i was a cop in miami and i went into the marine corps. i wanted to say the adjectives used a lot in conservative description of the justice department is weaponization of the justice department and that word appeals to a lot of folks but in pushback of the word weaponization, from my perspective, my association working for the u.s. government, in a marine corps capacity at

the u.s. embassies but when you break the law and you are an fbi agent, you get arrested. the fbi arrests their own people if they find them to be breaking the law and they also arrest department of justice employees. it is interesting, living in a country where the secret service or cia or nasa or marines, you name a federal agency, they are all wrong but everybody is placing from conservative standpoint, all of the trust into one individual. to me, that is astounding comparison so i trust nasa. i watch them lunch stuff --lau nch stuff. you are a tremendous spokesman and you are on your game and i appreciate your hard work. host: thanks. guest: i appreciate that.

it is a process, being a fair and unbiased reporter is a goal we set as journalists. this case, in january 6 and the 1100 or so defendant has been tireless work to keep up with these cases because each one has its own picture we already. -- its own picture lee already -- peculiarity. from supporters -- from supporters have called this -- trump supporters have called this weaponized prosecution. that criticism resonates with a

number of americans and that is why it is used -- huge. the u.s. house has set up a weaponization subcommittee of the house judiciary committee to investigate what they seen -- being to be the weaponized asian -- the weaponization of the department of justice. here's what i can say as someone who sat in the courtroom and watched many cases. it is noteworthy with the defendant say when they asked for leniency, when they go to the judge and ask for mercy. many of them say, they wish they were not there that day and they understand what happened that day was wrong. very few of them, i can't remember one or two by name, so few of them mentioned donald trump. his name doesn't come out. they are not arguing that i am the victim of weaponization, the victim of an overreaching department of justice. they don't talk about trump but

the case. some of this, when he gets down to the courtroom and judges, has been the politicized --de politicized. host: what has been the end result of that. guest: they aspire to have a similar budget of the house january 6 committee. if they do have the same budget, we haven't gone through the reports, they certainly have not received the same amount of attention. they haven't commanded the attention of the nation. they haven't got the attention of americans by showing rebellion -- rebilling footage. -- revealing footage. the house january 6 select committee has the footage and the stories of january 6 and

america's found out where the other time and republicans boycotted the -- and unique thing in congress that can make for a compelling message. the democrats did not boycott the weaponization committee which means it is somewhat five minutes for one side and five minutes for the next. it can be some disruptive and disjointed messaging and difficult for americans to watch. host: that is because speaker pelosi initially rejected the nominees the republicans wanted for the committee. guest: including jim jordan, who republicans wanted to sit on the january 6 committee whose appointment was overruled by nancy pelosi. host: our conversation of scott macfarlane where cbs news continues. this is barbara, republican line. caller: hello. host: you are on.

go ahead. caller: yes, why would they use the ricoh lot when it was supposedly supposed to be used for going after -- why was -- host: you're going to have to stop listening to the television and ask your question. caller: why are they going after trump with the ricoh law or reducing it -- for using it -- it was supposed to be used against mop bosses --mob bosses. guest: i think that barbara is watching. the ricoh law --rico law -- it is broad fight nature. it has been used against mop --

mob cases. the argument barbara once to make is maybe it is not appropriate to use ricoh in the case. we will find out in fulton county. host: talking about some of former president trump's associates, what other charges rudy giuliani the -- basis --f aces? guest: he is accused of not only knowing we -- doing so in a way that aided the racketeering outfit that was trying to overturn up -- election results. rudy giuliani is i think the

second most famous name in this indictment. there are -- many people but he was america's mayor. he was a presidential candidate who is getting traction early and rudy giuliani is accused by the prosecutors of fulton county of knowingly disseminating false information. people being accused of doing this and knowing it was false. mark meadows is going to be in court august 28. arguing that that case should move from local court to federal court to georgia. he wants to change the court system in which it will be argued. he wants to shifted to federal tort -- court -- shipped it to federal court. -- he wants to shift it to federal court. the second reason that is important is because the

argument mark meadows space next monday -- mark meadows makes next monday -- there are small and big differences between local court in georgia and federal drug -- court. you pull from the water -- the wider swath of georgia. federal court, no cameras. looking to federal court, like the other three prosecutions, none of it happens on tv in their different points of law. -- and there are different points of law. host: there are those that say the cases should be televised. what is the likely list -- what is the likeliness of that? guest: it is near impossible to move federal courts with a camera.

they believe doing so would distort the federal system. the chief justice of the united states could intervene. what is more realistic, maybe an audio feed could be pumped out. we know they have practice of doing that because the federal court system in washington is a practice and rule during covid. they wanted to make the hearings public and they had a teleconference. a lot of the january 6 hearing, the criminal prosecutions happened to a national audience on telephone and maybe they can issue rules allowing major cable outlets to disseminate that feed. it is the most likely possibility but it is a long shot. host: steve, independent line. caller: mr. mcfarland, an earlier caller called you a spokesman and you said thank

you. you have a future in the democratic party, whoever is the next president, democrat president, you will probably get a job as a white house spokesman. you're very nuanced and slick about the world -- words you choose. you answer questions without really answering the questions. host: what is your question for the guest? caller: you mentioned ray epps. you blew that off, he hasn't been indicted. let's just forget about him. he is on video saying we are going inside. we are going inside tomorrow. oh no, let's forget about him. don't worry about it. it is like -- host: thanks. guest: it brings up the issue of

ray epps and other points. he says that ray epps isn't getting -- getting talked about enough, without being an fbi agent, i can't speak to what federal investigators know that i can tell you that someone who is watching nearly all of the cases is i don't see ray epps popping up in other cases as a relevant factor. as a relevant name who is an interval -- and trickle --intre egral arts --part. host: how many cases are being held in prison awaiting for trial? guest: there are dozens of those 1100 who were -- currently serving pretrial detention.

host: is it here in the district of columbia or other places? guest: almost universally in washington dc. there were people held in a local jail. there are defendants may be held in a local jail pending transfer for they are here and that is why there is an at least process outside the washington dc jail and not only are there supporters out there every single night, they take speakerphone phone calls from the defendants in jail and pump them out over a loudspeaker, not just for those in attendance but for streaming services. hundreds of people will watch each night. host: gina, democrats might, alexandria, virginia -- democrats line, alexandria, virginia. caller: i am concerned about --

donald trump and i have been trying to think of ways, does he have the money and amount of orders and maybe before his trials or if he goes to jail, [indiscernible] you could create how you want your settings to run. she always talks about how people look and he can make people look how he does -- host: what is the question? caller: this is to donald trump.

host: thanks. guest: let me take a narrow strip out of this that is worthy of talking about. assuming crypto -- criminal -- in a the federal justice system, if you are convicted of a federal crime and you plead guilty, they typically in d.c., don't walk you to the jail and the -- sa begin your service. there is a sentencing process involving -- three -- investigative reports and there is a process that can eat up months. steve bennett was convicted in -- for contempt of congress. he is not serving the sentence because there are fields that

can hold off the serving of a jail sentence. it is quite presumptuous to assume even if a conviction occurred for donald trump, he would be walked over to jail even in months. host: how many does he have to show up personally to? guest: for certain hearings, he has to show up for any of the crop -- the four cases but only for certain periods. --hearings. sentencing, the defendants has to be there -- the defendant has to be there but the defendant doesn't need to be there for all the back-and-forth. host: let's go to roy in georgia. republican line. caller: hi. as a georgia voter, i noticed that when i was here i got, as a republican voter, i got one absent people -- absentee vote.

my mother who is a democratic voter, she got one a day, every day she got a absentee vote. this is what happened january 6 and you say you watched thousands of hours of january 6, where are deleted ones that they admitted they deleted? guest: the videos, 40,000 plus hours of video because i have not personally watched because to do so, it would take several years of time, are in possession of a republican congressman from georgia. the congressman from georgia who chairs a subcommittee who has possession of the materials selected by the house select january 6 committee. he has talked about sharing some of that footage, some of the

defense lawyers may requested. tucker carlsen requested access to some of that video and was granted that access by the chairman and by the republican house majority. that video has been viewed by some and it is accessible to some and it has not been deleted. this video has not been deleted from january 6 and it is in the position of house administrators and there has been criticism that the house january 6 committee did not preserve all of its evidence and chair of that committee said that is not so. it is turned over when congress changed control. it is important to recognize congress, many years ago, immune and iced -- immunized itself from the freedom of information act. congress exempted itself so congress is not subject to its own law.

it -- in this case, the case you referenced, the 40,000 plus arrows from january 6 is in possession of the house. host: kent jack smith gain access to that -- can jack smith gain access to that if he builds the case? guest: a lot of that video has been used by the justice department. that video is now only available to jack smith but it is available to all of us. it is in the public domain. the raw footage that may exist was accessible to members of congress. members of the cute -- you house -- big u.s. house republican majority can dispense the video to anyone who asks. read the indictment from jack

smith and adc and you recognize it is not so much about the right. --riot. back smith alleges donald trump used the distraction and chaos as a way to try again to call members of congress and get them to slow down the electoral vote or a tool trump used versus something trump is accused of conspiring. host: michael is in queens, new york. caller: good morning. my question is about the campaign. i don't hear anything about trump's running mate and from what i understand, it looks like from what the trump people are doing and the right wing, they are always talking to rfk.

they are schmoozing this guide, buttering him up and i think they will run rfk as drunk but spotify's president. guest: it is a parlor game trying to deduce who these republican candidates will choose as much cash running mates -- as running mates. there is always an undercurrent where somebody tries to position themselves as a running mate of someone else. donald trump will be -- will not be at the debate. he said he will not be going to the debates through his polling lead. which is quite large in our latest cbs news poll. like you see wednesday in walkie, someone jockeying to be someone else's running mate, that is your best sense to get who will be a contender. host: we will take warmer call

-- one more call. independent line. caller: my first question was already answered about the january 6 committee destroying evidence. whether that was true or not. i guess that is not true? guest: the chairman of that committee was asked a question with evidence -- was evidence deleted? he said no. it was handed over as congress changed majority. we know that they have all the video. they have made the video to -- available to certain people and they offered the opportunity for others to request it. the 40,000 hours of january 6 video still exists. host: as far as where we are at, what are you watching? guest: the big day is monday,

the 28th and what happens at 10 a.m. eastern time to be in have both to where this goes and two things happen, donald trump's hearing in washington dc with the jack safed -- the jack smith case. also judge chutkan could react to many things donald trump has said about her and jack smith in the district of columbia -- and the district of columbia. mark meadows is in a coordinator trying to move that fulton county case to federal court and if he gets any traction in the hearing, it could move trump and others in -- to federal court if they get traction -- if they get traction. host: congressional correspondent scott macfarlane joining us. thanks for your time. guest: great to do it. host: another addition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning and we will take you to