♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for september 5.

reclassify marijuana from a schedule one drug to a lower classification. this after health and human services administration made the recommendation. nationwide show support for legalization of pot. move several states have me. we start the program this morning, do you support a naonwide across-the-board legalization of marijuana? here is how you can let us know your thoughts this morning. for those of you who would support that move, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call and tell us why. ifou oppose that move, (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and x, formerly known as twitter. you can follow the show on instagram. it was in april that pew research ask folks about the legalization of marijuana.

these are some of the responses from that poll. it was one in 10 of adult saying marijuana should not be legal at all. 59% of those asked saying it should be legalized for medical and recreational use. 30% saying that when it comes to legalization only for medical use, 10% saying it should not be legal. it breaks it down by age, and overall 59% of adults saying that it should be legalized for medical and recreational use. 72% of those 18 to 29 agreeing with that. 54% from ages 50 to 64. then over 65 years old it is 46% expressing that type of sentiment. then looking at public opinion over the years, for the call of legalization across-the-board, a steady increase since the late

1990's up to the current -- he was in 2019 that 67% of those, saying legalization should happen over on the recreational and medical use. that is some of pew's. gallup did a similar type of pole in november of last year. they ask a question, do you think marijuana should be legal or not? it was at that time last year, both saying yes it should be legalized, 68% of those expressing that type of sentiment. then breaking it down from various subgroups, saying it should be legal, both expressing no religious preference it starts off with 89%. those defined as liberals, 84%. ages 18 to 29, 79% said it should be legalized. those classified under seldom or

never attend the church, 78%. it goes on from there. we will show you more as time goes on. again, if you want to tell us your thoughts this morning on the legalization and if she -- and if it should be done across-the-board when it comes to marijuana, notice no. (202) 748-8000 if you support that move. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. if you are on the line, stay on it. if you are calling in, continue to do so. we will take a few minutes to talk about this news coming from the administration about this possible reclassification. it covers the marijuana and cannabis industry. natalie for take, good morning. guest: good morning. host: tell us about this recent move. tell us why it happened. guest: the biden administration, the department of health and human services, issued a letter that outlines the recommendation for the schedule that cannabis

should be on. cannabis is currently a schedule one drug, which means it is in the same category as heroin. it has been there since 1970 when the bill was signed into law by president nixon. obviously americo's relationship to has changed dramatically. we now have half of the country lives in a state where cannabis is legal for recreational use. the vast majority of americans live in a state where it is legal for medical use. last october, right before the midterm election, president biden issued the executive order. one of the portions of that executive order asked hhs to review all of the available research on cannabis and say whether they thought it should be moved to a different schedule. there are five schedules right now. it is at the most extreme, which is that there is no medical use for it.

that is the big deal about this letter. 11 months later they have completed this review. they have said, you know, he wanted to be schedule three, which means it would be taken out of the strict parts of the controlled substances act. that is not binding. that letter was sent to the dea, which has final review and can make the final decision on whether or not cannabis will actually be moved to a different schedule. that is the next step, and i honestly don't know how long it would take. i wish i do. if anyone from the dea is watching i would love to have a chat. maybe i could come back and give you more info on that. host: the hhs secretary sent out a tweet, part of that saying, i can now share that following the data and science, hhs responded to that directive. what kind of research or science went into making this recommendation? guest: the hhs has an

eight-point process. they look at eight different categories of scientific research. they are looking for both the potential for abuse of a drug, and they are also looking for current medical use. and medical uses which seem to have -- you know, there is a good framework there for more research to be done into those uses. and rescheduling it to schedule three is going to make it way, way easier to study. right now it is very difficult. you have to get a schedule one research license. as a scientist you can only use cannabis grown by someone who has a schedule one research license to grow cannabis. that has really slowed down our knowledge as americans about cannabis and both its pros and cons. host: when it comes to if this reclassification happens, who does it benefit most?

i suspect it was -- it is the industry that would benefit from this kind of move? guest: very happy about this idea, primarily because it will reduce the tax burden they currently have. there is a code called tax code 280e, which made it so people trafficking in narcotics could not write their business expenses off. what that means is that cannabis businesses legal at the state level cannot write their businesses off. so they buy pens or tables for their dispensary, they cannot write those things off. they cannot write off payroll, which is a huge expense for every business out there. they are paying huge amounts of tax dollars right now. and this would benefit both small mom-and-pop dispensaries and the big cannabis corporations. the group of the cannabis industry it would not hugely benefit is cannabis growers.

because most of their expenses are the cannabis of self -- cannabis itself. host: when it comes to congress, what is the general attitude not only for the reclassification, but possibly this idea of legalization across-the-board? guest: a lot of responses from the people in congress both in the senate and house who are supportive of cannabis. by and large i would say they all walk a very thin line of applauding the administration, but also calling for more action. the house of representatives has already passed a bill back when democrats were in charge in the last congress to remove cannabis entirely from the controlled substances act. the senate has not come that far. there are still some democrats in the senate who are not in favor of a full federal do realization -- federal decriminalization. but congress has also been working on its own reform.

the future of those is in question, given this call by hhs. it very much depends on dea's timeline, whether some of the more piece will -- piecemeal legislation will move forward. host: when it comes to their response, have big given at least an initial response of this call, from hhs? guest: that they received a letter, and that this was the formal letter that hhs was required to send as part of this process. have given us no other indication. they have not confirmed what was in the letter or denied what was in the letter. we have not had any denials from any, you know, agency out there. so, by process of elimination i would say usually in united states agencies they are quick to tell you if something is

wrong in your reporting. i would say by process of elimination this is what was in the letter. dea has been tightlipped beyond confirming the letter was sent, and i expect them to be tightlipped about the process goinforward. host: a story our guest has online at politico.com. natalie fertig reports on the federal cannabis policy aspect of it. thanks for informing our audience about this week's move. we will take your calls. again, if you support this idea of nationwide legalization, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. tell us why you oppose it. (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. david is in massachusetts on our support line. david, thanks for holding on. ahead. caller: hey.

i'm a veteran. i'm a user of cannabis, both recreationally and for like medical. i am also a professional cultivator. i have been doing it on and off for a few years now. i absolutely think that if not lowered on the schedule it should be removed. if anything it is a first step toward making drugs a health problem and not a criminal justice one. i think that is the biggest problem in the whole equation. furthermore, one thing you guys did not mention is i am pretty sure cocaine is still schedule two. i really don't think that we can justify having a prison population was over 2 million people, most of whom are nonviolent, any of whom are in prison for possession of cannabis that was legal in a lot of states. that is pretty much my basic position.

i love c-span and would watch eight days a week if i could. host: joe in georgia on our oppose line. joe, good morning. tell us why. caller: pedro, love c-span. have a great screener with john mcardle. i am totally opposed. i think it is terrible. i think the most important election in history is coming up, and to allow people to have drugs, i'm working hard for donald trump and i certainly don't want to have any drugs that would mess me up where i could do all i can in the next year and a half to elect donald trump. i think for the american people this is the most important election in history. host: back to the issue at hand. when it comes to marijuana your state allows it for medical use. some people make the case that it is a good revenue -- good source of revenue. what do you say about those arguments? caller: for medical use there

can be exceptions, but i think drugs are, i think, terrible for the country, except for medical use. i'm totally opposed. we need to have people thinking, and i don't take drugs but i think if i did i couldn't be able to vote well. so i'm totally opposed to drugs except for medical use. host: stephen is in lexington, kentucky on our support line. go ahead, stephen. caller: thank you, pedro. to the last caller, you don't think donald trump has done drugs in his life? he is a rich white man. host: hold on. stick to the point. legalization, where are you on it? caller: i am supportive of legalization because there is medical benefits, there is economic benefits. it can create jobs. it is a great injector into the economy. half of the states are already legal.

i go to one state, one row, another state, another rule. we need some consistency in this country. cocaine is a schedule two drug. that makes no sense. it is such a disconnect between supporters and not supporters. older people, please, the elderly, listen, marijuana is not scary. it has been here longer than we have. so, i support it. it should be legal across the nation. it is going to come. host: stephen in kentucky. usa today has a list of states across the united states that allow marijuana for medical treatment only. kentucky is on that list. they -- they legalize that in 2022. joined by alabama in 2021, south dakota in 2020. in 2017 it was iowa and west virginia. 2016 saw arkansas, florida,

ohio, and pennsylvania join that. when it comes to marijuana for medical treatment, in 2015 it was georgia and louisiana joining that list. hawaii in 2000. again, your state may be familiar when it comes to legalization. legalization across the board is what we are asking you, if you support that for recreational and medical use. again, support it, (202) 748-8000. oppose it, (202) 748-8001. demetra in california on our oppose line. caller: how are you doing today? host: i'm well, go ahead. caller: here in california it is legal, and when the initiative was on the ballot i had voted against it, because i knew that once we voted to make it legal, once you get the foot in the

door, i already knew it would eventually become recreational. and marijuana contains thc, which people need to take in the form of a pill. but instead they are just using the excuse to get high on that. so, i just really wanted to thank you for taking my call. host: that is demetra in california. mary in cincinnati, ohio on our support line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i do support the legalization of marijuana in the united states under the federal government, because i feel it would address a concern for the nation. i just wanted to let stephen know in louisville or lexington that i am 69 years old and i am

not afraid of marijuana. but i do support the legalization on the federal level, both for recreational and medical, because i feel it would address a reality. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i think, frankly, as a member of your collars have noted, this is something that is part of our culture. it is part of our culture for decades, if not centuries, and eons if we look at it internationally. i think it would help in the federal legalization to explore the many benefits that are bare -- that are available with marijuana, as well as the hand industry. i think that by legalizing this we would go further in seeing what we can do both for our society and environment,

returning to hemp and marijuana. host: that is mary in cincinnati. that same story the -- usa today story you can find online, it lists the number of states that legalized recreational use. that has risen over the last 10 years. in 2023 minnesota and delaware did that. in 2022, rhode island and missouri. in 2021, new york and virginia as well. illinois in 2019. in 20 it was michigan. california, maine, and massachusetts in 2016, as well as nevada. and in colorado and washington, they did that in 2012. that is the list of states that not only legalized it for marijuana use, but recreational use.

it is the across-the-board that we are asking you whether that should be a nationwide thing. on our oppose line, this will be from jeff in would ridge, virginia. caller: good to speak with you. i would like to speak with you another time. i spoke with you before, but talked about mexico. i know the topic is different here. generally i just want to issue a word of caution about this. i went to school at uc berkeley, at the only male dorm you could go to, and you could smell the part -- the pot as you walk the hallways there. i pursued a career that prohibited me from even trying marijuana, so i never did. but i was around it and knew about it. i had friends who smoked it.

in fact, a roommate. i think he actually became addicted to it. now, move fast forward to the late 80's and early 90's. where i was in the military service. i will not mention which one. but i worked with dea. it is a cowboy culture. it depends how much powder, they will tell you, you put on the table. that is how you get promoted. you needed that. i don't know if it applies today so much as it did back then. especially with so many states now legalizing marijuana. but, again, i just wanted to issue a word of caution about this. i think there still remains to be seen what the results will

be. i will stay on the line. host: in arizona on our support line, jean. caller: hello, good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you. how about yourself? caller: i am for legalization of marijuana. in fact, i could not have said it any better than mary in ohio did. she was wonderful. also, how do you expect a study to begun -- to be done if it is not legalized federally? who can do those studies? they are not allowed to. think of the people on chemo. these people get wonderful benefits from those. so, i am -- i mean, i am in my 60's. i'm in support of it. i have seen friends for years smoke it. i am not a smoker. i am all for it. host: again, just some of those comments there concerning this idea of nationwide legalization.

you can add yours to the mix. (202) 748-8000 for those of you who support it. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. on that oppose list you can add florida's governor, ron desantis, as he is campaigning for the republican nomination for the white house. at a stop in august he was asked about drug policy, particularly when it comes to marijuana. here are some of his thoughts from august. >> i would not legalize. this stuff is very potent now. if young people get it i think it is a real problem. i think it is a lot different than people were using 30, 40 years ago. and i think when kids get on that a causes a lot of problems, and of course they can throw fentanyl in any of this stuff now. the drugs are killing this country. if you look in these places, i go to san francisco a month or two ago, and i have been railing

against san francisco because i read what is going on, i hear people come to florida tell me why they moved from san francisco to florida, and then when you actually see it drive in, within five minutes i see somebody defecating on the sidewalk in broad daylight, see these people using drugs and an open-air market right by the native pelosi federal courthouse. and you are just like, you know, this is -- it is like society has totally decayed, but so much of it the policy is to really help these folks use drugs. it is a big, big problem. i think we need to do whatever we can to keep our kids off drugs. i think we really need to fight fentanyl on all of this stuff. look, different states have handled cannabis differently. florida, we have medical marijuana. reinforce that. we abide by it.

but to take action now to make it even more available, i would not do that. in the places that legalized it, like colorado and california, the argument was -- and it was not a crazy argument. we know people are going to use marijuana. if you legalize it you contacted, regulated, and it is in -- it is going to end up being safer for people. what has happened in colorado, the black market is bigger and more lucrative than before the legalization. the legalization, i don't think, has worked. host: you can see more that on our website. it was the new york times on august 29, publishing this story about a study done by the journal of the american medical association, saying more than 1/5 of people used -- who used cannabis struggle with problematic use. research found that 21% of the people in the study had some

sort of cannabis use disorder, which clinicians defined as use of cannabis that leads to symptoms including recurring social and occupational problems. it was in that study, six .5% of users suffered moderate to severe disorder. cannabis users whose suffered or severe pendency tended to be recreational users. problematic use was associated equally with recreational and medical use. the new york times had that story, again, find it online. you support or oppose this idea of a nationwide legalization across the board of cannabis? wendy in michigan on our oppose line. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm well, thank you. caller: yes, good. i am totally opposed to the legalization of marijuana. i have never taken it. i'm 73 years old.

i have never taken any drugs in my life and i'm certainly not going to start now. the only reason you would use it would be for the medical purposes, and it is the only reason i would support it. to get into recreational leads into all of these other drugs that people take, and to me that is wrong. you don't do that. you don't have that available for, you know, recreational use. host: do you think that could happen for someone who is taking it medically, though? caller: i don't think so. if they are given at four cancer or something, they have the availability to that, that is the only reason i would see you would need it. if you are on therapy or other things like that. but not for recreational use. i have known people all of my life that have, you know, used it. i have gone in rooms where you

could smell it when you walked into a party or something and you knew people were smoking it. i see no reason for it. i don't do it and i would never go about doing that. i just don't see the reason for it. host: ok, wendy in michigan giving her thoughts on our opposed line. you can do the same. text us if you want. that number is (202) 748-8003. let's hear from danny in lisbon, maine, on our opposed line. caller: good morning, how are you? i'm opposed to it. i was a dea agent for 12 years, from 1991 to 2002. until 2004, actually. until recently i have been contracting with different entities to stop drug movement and corruption in central america. but i'm opposed to the legalization only in the fact

that, as was alluded to in something i heard someone talking there about fact that there is a black market, the dea or no one has been able to -- would ever be able to stop marijuana from being sold and used, because it is just a plant that can be grown anywhere at any time. and it is so easy to do. my thoughts are that i do not like to see the government turn into a pimp by putting people in jail for many years for selling it, then all of a sudden turning around and legalizing it to sell so they can make tax dollars. i think we should be done is that because you cannot stop at and you cannot stop people from trying to enjoy their selves -- enjoy themselves from something that is so accessible as marijuana, should just legalize it, but not commercialize it. and therefore allow people to partake in any way they hope --

anyway they want with marijuana, because it is impossible to stop you from growing at, just for an example if in new york city you go to a prosecutor, which i have done before, and he said there is someone selling marijuana in upstate new york and it is being sold here in new york city, do you want to prosecute it? there would say, how much? you would say 500 pounds, and there would say, not enough. it is not possible. host: let's hear from edward in jersey city, new jersey. support line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i supported for different reasons, right? congress, we need a national standard because it is just terrible what is happening across the country. i don't think it is fair that things can just legalize for medical use only.

like here in new jersey in 2020, with our governor's support marijuana is legal. but it is still a mess within the state. police officers in my city, jersey city, two police officers were fired for recreational use of marijuana off the clock. the courts vindicated them, the mayor's office was saying in jersey city that the federal law is saying it is a schedule one drug and illegal. so, the use of it. also the governor and state have legalized it. our cities working with businesses to legally sell marijuana. it is a mess within states, right? so, we need, you know, congress to act. also one last thing. the use of marijuana has been

enforced by our government in a racist fashion. so, we already know that black people are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. so, it is unfair what we do in drug enforcement behind the use of marijuana as well. so, we need legalization on different levels for different reasons. i appreciate the education you share. what is going on throughout the states and everything. i support the legalization of marijuana. host: that is edward in new jersey. we will continue on with this for the next half-hour if you want to make your thoughts known on this topic. (202) 748-8000 if you support that nationwide legalization of marijuana. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. text us at (202) 748-8003. a lot going on in and around washington, d.c. keep calling in if you want to comment, but

today it is the texas senate that will have the impeachment trial of former attorney general ken paxton. it could lead republican lawmakers to oust one of their own as the lead lawyer for america's largest red state. that is going to take place today. you can see those proceedings starting on 10:00 on c-span. when it comes to elections, rhode island voters will cast their votes starting today in a primary contest to whittle down a field of candidates, including a handful that could make history by being the first person of colored to be elected to congress from rhode island. nearly a dozen democrats are hoping to be the party's nominee. two republican candidates are also facing off in the primary. in utah another special election, this one to replace chris stewart. he could offer a glimpse on how republicans feel about indictments against the former

president. gop voters in utah's second congressional district will choose between a trio of candidates. that takes place in utah. nationally it was peter navarro, his contempt trial is set to begin today for charges, defying a subpoena from the house for a january 6 event. that is being reported by abc news. also henrique terrio will face sentencing today in connection with january 6. that takes place today. dr. jill biden reporting to have a mild case of covert, staying in delaware. the president being tested, with

no symptoms of covid there. that is a lot going on. let's go back to clio in california on our support line. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have to say that california is really good. we have the good weed out here. i want to say that we could have it as a constitutional right, you know, man? i know that it helps with my ptsd. people are worried about addiction we should make rehab free. the reason the people go to the black market is it is too expensive in some cases. i prefer to go to the legal places where i can get it for free were i know it is good and i can speak -- i can support the local economy. it is good, man. you should do it. it is lovely. if it is legal in your area you should try. it is very good, man. host: jim in texas on our oppose

line. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: go ahead. caller: i am a retired firefighter. been out on a lot of racks where people have been killed by drunk driving. this is purely stupid. we are going to get people on the roads, family members dead. you know, you have a bunch of people that want to get high, they do not think about the consequences on this whole thing. what is it going to take? how money people have to die before we make a decent decision, you know, on this whole thing? i'm totally against it. host: marlene up next in maine. a supporter of nationwide legalization. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think it should be legalized because, like other people have said, it has many, many benefits

to it. however, if you are a recreational shop versus a medical marijuana shop i think even with the medical marijuana if it is going to be medical insurance companies should be covering this, because it is a prescription for medical use. i think that banks should be allowed to -- the people that have their shops, should be allowed to do their banking. because otherwise they have to buy a big space. i don't understand why people don't get the fact that it is going to be grown, it has legal shops for medical, the government needs to take it away from heroin and just make it legal so that people can grow it, people can use it, people can bank it, the money they get to pay for their overhead and

growth processes, etc. i don't understand why people think it is addictive. prescription drugs are addictive if you do not get them properly. i don't understand how people say you can put fentanyl in marijuana. you can't, it is a plan. host: olivia walker saying, just make it legal nationwide already. the patchwork of states where it is legal or only legal medicinally or outright band is ridiculous. it doesn't make sense that some are making billions annually legally. this is clarence. clarence is in north carolina, in charlotte on our oppose line. caller: good morning, pedro. i am an ex drug addict, and i just want to tell most people who don't know that marijuana is a gateway drug. i started out with marijuana. after you smoke it for a number

of years, you don't get the same feeling for it. so you automatically go and try to find something else to get you higher. it is a gateway drug to get into other drugs and make people go bad experience recently a friend of mine from california, they gave me a cookie that had this drug in it. i ate the cookie and i hallucinated all night long. we don't know what is in the drugs now. it will mess up a lot of our young people's minds. it will make more young people drug addicts then we have ever seen. think we have a problem with these pills and everything. they get legal and i promise you are going to have america for loved drug addicts. it is a gateway drug to other drugs. when you start young people are taking it is all right to smoke this. they're going to find out, i need something else. they are to drop some pills, they're going to take some cocaine, they are going to want something more powerful. your body gets immune to marijuana and it makes you want something more powerful.

you can legalize it but you're going to have more problems. just like alcohol. i just wanted to say that to everyone. host: that is clarence in north carolina. you heard from governor desantis about his opposition to legalization. the same kind of discussion happened recently at the house judiciary committee. it was the drug enforcement agency administrator appearing before the hearing, being questioned by matt gaetz about the process of what happens when the dea does get a recommendation to reclassify marijuana. >> and when you receive the work product from hhs is there any basis that the ea would have to oppose the d scheduling of marijuana as a schedule one drug? >> the way the scheduling process works is hhs does a review. they then send it to the ea. we then do an eight-factor review. there is a period for public

comment as well. obviously we start with what hhs has provided us. we then go into the public commenting process. >> share with me what your perspective is on what the outcome of that should be. >> i could not prejudge it at this point in time. >> do you have a personal view on whether or not erewhon or should be a schedule one drug checkup >> as the head of the dea i will ultimately be responsible on signing off on what the scheduling is. >> and we consider the analysis being done, the studies that pretty extensively show that in states where there is medical marijuana access there is a lower rate of prescribing these opioids that then can lead to addiction, that then can lead to the deaths we have seen. >> have my full commitment that i will keep an open mind. i will look at all of the research. i expect we will get additional

research that comes in, and i will look at all of it. >> i'm seeking consent to enter into the record a study conducted by two phd's that looked at the prescribing of opioids in states with medical marijuana programs, and found that states with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8 lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate. >> without objection. >> i really hope we get this done. we are two years into the biden administration and i honestly had hoped that by now we would have already d scheduled marijuana. host: that is off the website if you want to see an ad c-span.org. this is as to bond in florida, saying, having grown up in miami in the 1970's and having regularly gotten stupid, today's

strains of cannabis are not your grandfather's way. but who am i to judge? my issue is the normalization of getting high. let's hear from coal out on our support line. hi, colette. caller: i strongly support marijuana. i believe it is the alcohol they need to get off the streets. alcohol, drivers on the road every day, they have anger issues. when you smoke marijuana you do not see anybody getting angry, driving and killing people, hitting and running. i am a medical marijuana card recipient. i have ptsd. it takes the edge off. cancer patients needed. it is a plant. it is from the earth. if you have it from the street it is being laced with things. you have opioids out there that lead from prescription drugs. people are searching for it.

i don't believe that all of the other drugs that there should be on -- should be illegal. i'm very against the alcohol. i'm very against the opioids, the prescription drugs given to our children every day. marijuana takes the edge off of veterans and ptsd people and cancer patients. it doesn't put them in a bad mood. it calms them down. it makes them feel better. if you are out there searching for part -- for pot is going to be on the streets. i believe we should support it. host: this is david. he is in ohio. caller: yeah, hi. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i oppose it. it is a drug. and biden is using it to loosen regulations to get votes from drug addicts. ron desantis is totally correct about the drug gentleman there

called earlier that was on drugs is very accurate -- -- accurate in what he is saying. i have been around marijuana users my whole life, and i've seen what it does to them. it has changed their personality and everything, and i have seen them go from good to worse. host: what you think about a lot of states legalizing an across-the-board or for medical use? caller: i think they should study it and do what they can with it, but, to me it is a drug. it is bad. and that is all i have to say about marijuana. it is not a good thing at all. host: this is amanda. amanda is in lockport, new york, on our support line. caller: hi. i am totally in support of legalization of marijuana. we have in new york -- of course, we do have it legal for

recreational now too. i was medical marijuana for years. i follow my prescription for medical marijuana. it would cost me $600 a month. i am on disability. there is no way i could afford to play -- to pay for another prescription for $600 a month. especially for the help that it gives me. not only my mental health, but also my physical health. it does not take away the pain. however, it does take your mind off the pain. that is where i find it is particularly helpful with a prescription. now, as for being recreationally , i would rather see any of my children, grandchildren smoking weed then i would have them drinking a bottle of jack daniels.

now, if they smoke a little weed at night before they go to bed they are going to be able to get up and go on the work -- going to work in the morning, which they do every day. if you drink a fifth of jack daniels at night were going to be hung over in the morning, and that is going to continue into your job. so, which is harsher? marijuana or alcohol? and alcohol is legal. host: that is amanda in lockport, new york. you can call in and give us your thoughts. do you support this idea of nationwide legalization, whether it be for medical or recreational use? (202) 748-8000 if you oppose it. (202) 748-8001. if you want to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. this is teresa in arkansas, saying she opposes it. my concern is what extras are added to marijuana to boost the effect.

at least check if the driver is high. it is easy to tell if the driver is drunk. those are some concerns there from teresa in arkansas. let's hear from will in north carolina on our support line. caller: hi. i'm calling in to say i support the legalization of marijuana. i'm not a smoker. it is not legal in my state. butba problems with arthritis in my back. it became legal, medil marijuana in my state, i would smoke it i think it should be legal to grow your own marijuana in my stay. that way you would be able to control and you could control

your own marijuana. that way they could not sick with anything. -- cannot lace it with anything. host: earlier this year voters in oklahoma rejected a referendum on recreational marijuana use. it was after that vote took place that the republican governor, kevin stitt, went before cameras. he was asked about that and why he thinks voters rejected that referendum. here are some of his comments. >> i think it is pretty clear. oklahoma has had a lot of fatigue around marijuana, and they clearly do not want recreational marijuana. i don't think anybody expected it to be defeated that bad, and as i was traveling the state i knew oklahomans did not want it. we were so tired of a dispensary on every single corner. clearly we do not want recreational, and i think there is an appetite to tighten up the medical side as well.

oklahomans voted on that and oklahomans have a big heart, as we all do, that if it is going to help someone medically we want that to happen. but we don't believe that anybody with a hangnail should be able to get a medical card, and we have to get control of that industry. adrian berry is doing a great job. we have done drug bust after drug bust after drug bust. we have tightened up last year, i think there was 12 different bills i signed. one of them was the seed to cell. one was, no more licenses. secret shoppers. we want to make sure we tag every plant. we passed a bill that required grow operations to submit electric and water usage, because that is a way we can see what is happening. are they growing more than they are reporting, right? there is enough marijuana, i've been told, known in oklahoma, to

supply the entire united states. that is not what this is supposed to be. this was supposed to be medical use, and it has gotten way out of control. we have to get rid of the bad actors, and i think oklahomans overwhelmingly do not believe in recreational marijuana. host: we will go on to joe in texas, on our support line. joe in texas, good morning. caller: hello. caller: oh, my name is jimmy. i'm a 71-year-old male. and married for 54 years. got two kids, grown. i get off of marijuana 15 years ago for my wife. we had no reason to touch any other drugs, and we got off marijuana using. we had a ball with it. it is no more addictive than any other -- you can't even get -- talk about the same situation as heroin and cocaine.

marijuana is -- and anything is addictive if you have that personality. that guy said it was a way to harder drugs? no, it's not. and i am responsible. we just have a ball with it. you do not have a hangover, you do not go out and wrecked cars. but you have to be responsible. kids shouldn't be doing it. do kids drink? yes, they do drink. marijuana when you get older than that, it ought to be. look at the opiates. they destroy people. marijuana, there is no addictive drug. if you have that habit in your brain and think you have to have more, yeah, you can get addicted to anything. before talking about oklahoma, that stuff up there, people are buying it, they are using it, and it is just a common sense thing. take it off schedule one and be smart about it.

but it is not a gateway. i appreciate it. host: in newport news, virginia. oppose line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am opposed to legalizing marijuana because of the drastic significant ramifications it could have on the health-care care industry and system. on our citizens and legal residents and other people. on our criminal justice system. when i think about and hear people talking about legalizing it, i realized they are not considering the livelihood of people developing cancers from using marijuana over the course of 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. and the health care costs it would impose on society. you are also not thinking about when stores are selling marijuana that kids could go in there and access that, or the legalization of it will filter down to unauthorized access to

children. and that could drastically impact them detrimentally in their educational efforts, as well as socially. people are also advocating for legalizing marijuana do not consent to the medical -- the mental health problems associated with it. a lot of people who use marijuana do so as a means of seeking relief from stressful situations that the deal with throughout their lives, and that is essentially an alternative form of addressing mental health problems that they should actually be seeking health care from trained and licensed professionals, rather than medicating themselves. i do support marijuana for legitimate health care problems, such as, you know, helping with side effects for cancer and otherwise, but the medical marijuana has also gotten out of control with improper

prescriptions and that being abused as well. host: ok. let's hear from rhonda in new jersey. support line. caller: good morning, america. i definitely support marijuana legalization. i'm 68 years old. when i was in my late teens i smoked pot for the first time. and i loved it. my best friend's brother gave me and her a pot, we smoked it, and all we did was laugh. i don't agree with it being sold to children or young people under the age. i would like to say 21, but 18 i think should be the beginning, that if anyone is allowed to smoke legally it should have an

old-like maturity, use to be able to smoke marijuana. it relaxes people. it will only make you go to sleep. i taught my son the most dangerous drug, in my opinion, is alcohol use. i have never heard of anyone having an accident that smokes marijuana, who overdosed on marijuana, who laces marijuana. i have never seen that in my entire life. it is safe and it keeps your mind calm. it relaxes you under pressure. as opposed to putting something destructive. you are not going to get cancer, because you cannot smoke it like that. you cannot smoke ravana like you would cigarettes. if a person smokes a marijuana they may smoke it when they get in from work, it winds them

down, then they can go inside and, you know, handle the stresses of taking care of your business in the evening. and it gives you a calming effect. i truly believe it should be legalized across the board. look at all of the tax revenue -- host: monroe in chevy chase, maryland. hi. caller: i think the discussion is far simpler than most of the callers who have been calling in recognize. and it, whom would you rather have driving right behind you? cheech and chong or foster brooks? i really think it is that simple. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i don't think you want somebody who is high on marijuana behind you, and i don't think you want somebody who is a dead drunk behind you. i do support it for legitimate

medicinal reasons, but that has to be very carefully monitored and very carefully enforced, because it can be abused very easily. these are my thoughts. host: that is munro there, by the way. we put out a twitter poll on this topic if you want to participate. it is not scientific by any means. just a general twitter poll. but asking the question, do you support or oppose the nationwide legalization of marijuana? 21% saying you oppose that. continue to add your thoughts on the x poll. that is under our washington journal handle. this is dave in florida on our support line. go ahead. your next up. -- you are next up. caller: i can't believe we are still having this debate. this has been going on my whole

life, and i am in my 60's. this started through a clandestine operation from some hyper-partisan control freaks in the government way back in the 1930's, and they demonized this weed. we are talking about possession of a weed that grows wild in nature. these people like isuy, stitt, this governor of oklahoma, it is not about marijuana for these right wing crazies. it is about control. it is about their undying, unending effort to use the government to control every facet of your life, whether it is a woman's uterus -- host: to your supportive legalization nationwide, what do you base that on? caller: i base it on free will.

on the ability of americans to make their own choices and not having somebody like mr. stitt, the governor of oklahoma, make your choices for you. it is funny why the small government folks are always behind something that they can get a big government into the picture to control every facet of your life, tell you what you can possess, what you can smoke, where you can go, what you can do, who you can love. isn't it enough? host: we will stick it there. dina in nevada on our opposed line. last call on this topic. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say i'm kind of surprised that a lot of these pot smokers who are calling in that believed pot doesn't have any effect on anybody, it just makes you go to sleep. i don't know what the real story

is. there is many people in prison right now that have driven down the road and wiped out people with 1.2 nanograms of marijuana in their system. you know? so, pot is not safe for people and i absolutely oppose it. host: thanks to all of you who participated. by the way, the senate has been on summer break. they return today, 3:00 eastern. senators will vote this afternoon to advance the nomination of the federal reserve board member philip jefferson to be vice chair. that will be on c-span two. watch that congressional coverage later this week when it comes to the federal reserve, the fcc, and the national labor relations board. all of that taking place in the senate. our next guest will take a look at campaign 2024, plus other political news of the day. that is kyle kondik, the

managing ever -- managineditor of sabado's crystal ball. and ron kathy kielynd nobel priest tries -- nobel peace prize laureate maria ressa on press freedom. not only in the united states, but abroad. those discussions coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> library of congress and literature from american history.

you're from renowned experts who will shed light and virtual injuries to significant locations across the country. accelerated authors. huckleberry finn, their eyes were watching god and three to choose. watch our 10 part series books that shaped america starting monday, september 18 at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage, your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates. announcements, meet and greets.

campaign 2024 on the c-span networks, c-span out our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided coverage of the house and senate floors, congressional hearings, already briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and the unfiltered. c-span third view of a government. >> healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can

see democracy at work and citizens can see where a republic thrives. get informed rate -- straight from the source from the nation's capital to wherever you are, it is the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning, kyle kondik, managing editor of the university of virginia's “sabato's crystal ball." welcome back. guest: you can sign up for free. we come out and analyze presidential and gubernatorial elections, handicapping, long-term historical analysis. host: now that we are post-labor

day, will people pay attention to things political? guest: i think so. at that the viewer sip -- viewership for the recent republican debate was good despite the fact that trump wasn't there. we had a high turnout in the midterms and presidential elections. americans in some ways hate politics but are also keyed in. there is a lot of interest and i think it shows in terms of people tuning in for things. i think of the republican presidential candidates hope for is republican voters were not that keyed into the race prior to the debate and as they look at it more they will move away

from donald trump. the polls suggest he has been as strong as he has ever been. host: talking about what they support and oppose but separating themselves from the former president. guest: the republican candidates have not find a good way to attack former president. some candidates are afraid to do so and i think they are worried about alienating trump supporters. it goes to show how strong he remains. if you are afraid to criticize, what does that say about your chances? a recent poll taking look at the legal troubles, 51% saying he is guilty of the election diversion case. much do you pay attention to those? guest: it is interesting to look at the questions about trump and

does it change the numbers in any material way? it doesn't seem as though they have an a general election sense. i think it is a problem if trump is the general election nominee. a situation similar to 2016, biden versus trump again, there will be some segment of the public, 50% or 20% that hold a negative view of of both candidates. the numbers for both were better in 2020. there are those who like neither candidate. others will fall to a third party candidate. both will want the other one to be more present. to the extent that is the case,

trump's legal problems make it easier for folks who more focus on biden. host: do you think it will be a rematch of 2016? guest: that is what we are looking at, biden and trump again. you almost wonder if there is going to be a curveball. it feels like for the republican candidates and drama it has been in fairly boring campaign. trump has been leading most of the time. does something happen to change that? get the feeling that something will change that, at least when it may not make it. but the numbers suggest a rematch. host: if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 four

democrats. (202) 748-8001 for robin's. -- for republicans. take a look at this mocha and we will talk about it later. [video clip] >> it is time for conservatives to win again. chris steet, a former prosecutor, a successful blue state governor. he took on the teachers unions and one and got democrats to cut taxes, a real conservative. he tells the truth and will beat joe biden. guest: a real conservative, and he will beat joe biden.

he has come after trump. his endorsement of term after dropping out of the race was an important moment in trump's quest to unite the republican party. you have christy, asa hutchinson, some that are going directly after trump what you see in their numbers, christie is in new hampshire. but he doesn't have a lot of support. nikki haley making inroads in getting news. what do you think about vivek ramaswamy? guest: they are behind ron desantis. there was a poll in new hampshire that had haley making up ground.

they were tied at 10% and trump is at 47. there were exchanges between mike pence and vivek ramaswamy about what the republican party is about. pence was more like the past and ramaswamy is more like trump. president biden facing issues when it comes to pulling issues. there was a pull out that highlighted a couple things, getting low marks when it comes to the economy. guest: biden's numbers are lousy. he turned negative after the

collapse of afghanistan but it was a blow to perception of the biden confidence and the numbers have been weak ever since. he is reliance on having a beatable republican nominee going against him. he hasn't faced any challenges from his party. there does seem to be some generic opinion that we should nominate some and ells on the democratic side but no one is stepping up. we get to this time next year, there may be some buyers remorse. we think about that on the republican side with trump but the could be some on the democratic side because there are indications that biden is in trouble but there is not much indication he will face challenge for renomination. maybe whoever would follow biden would have were problems than biden would. i think in the past you think

about this time in the cycle of bill clinton in the 1996 cycle or barack obama in the 2012 cycle. they were also in a lousy position in the summer and rebounded. biden does have positive things to point to in terms of the economy and his achievements but the public isn't necessarily buying it at this juncture. he is going to be getting older and not going to be out there on the campaign trail the same way you think barack obama or donald trump would be. if it is truly biden versus trump, you have candidates who have significant eye abilities. i think trump's liabilities are more problematic but not to say that biden is in great shape either. host: the president made visits to pennsylvania and other visits. guest: pennsylvania is where

biden was born in one of the key states that slipped from 2016 to 2020 that allowed biden to become president. it is host to delaware and washington, d.c. i suspect we will see him up there a lot and you will see the republican nominee there. it is one of a relatively small amount of states. the president taking shots at the former president. [video clip] pres. biden: nearly all these jobs since you got me sworn in in january 2020. [applause] 800,000 new manufacturing jobs, but you wouldn't know it from all the negative news you hear but it is one of the greatest job creation periods. that is a fact. it wasn't that long ago we were losing jobs in this country. the guy who held this job before

meat was one of two presidents in history who left office with fewer jobs in america then when he got elected. by the way, you know who the other one was? herbert hoover's. isn't that full incident told. we are turning things around because of you. when the last guy was here, we were shipping jobs to china, now we are bringing jobs home from china. when the last guy was here, your pensions were at risk, you don't save it millions of pensions of your help. a look at from spain and delaware. all of my time in public office

i have been referred to as middle-class joe, i thought that was somehow not come from every that is who i am. host: that was on labor day. what do you think? guest: it sounds like a speech you could hear on labor day 2024. biden is already going after him . some of the economic stats it is fair to say we had a horrible generational pandemic that affected the employment sure, so you can cherry pick some of those stats. but a lot of the baseline economic numbers he would look at were pretty good but the public isn't necessarily giving biden credit for that, whether they don't feel themselves with inflation. i think it is possible if there are any more disruptions over the next year or so the public perception of the economy could be lagging and there are good

historical examples of that. 1958 was a huge midterm wave years where republicans got crushed in the election and part of it was the economy but it was bad in late 1950 seven and early 1958 but there was a lagging feeling in the public about the economy. the same thing happened to george h w bush when he lost the election. biden administration feels good about the economy and they don't feel good about it but maybe that changes. host: let's hear from eric in george on the democrat line. caller: what biden is doing, people i know that live around don't care about ukraine. we want him to stop spending money on ukraine.

also i respect trump, i like trump. he wasn't doing anything negative to affect racism while in office. look at bill clinton and the difference they proposed. it respect trump because he follows voters. think about the united states. if the black people wouldn't be voting it would be worse than afghanistan. if republicans got to impose their policies on the whole knighted states, the religious fanatics and racist ideas they have. i liked it when trump was in office.

he needs to have people come in legally. guest: being critical of what biden has done in ukraine and support of the invasion by russia, you see that expressed on both left and the right. sometimes they will make common cause because of the desire to not be engaged internationally. trump ran as a candidate positioning himself as a dove compared to george w. bush and the iraq war and the rejection of the internationalist warmaking the bush administration engaged in. there was a lots of desire for that among republicans and democrats. host: where are minorities with president biden? guest: there was a big divide,

white voters are much likely to be republican. a lot of different nuances. if you go across the country and look at laces that have a significant number of asian americans or latin americans. you can see it in pockets all over the country. so biden won that group but notably weaker. it stayed similar in the 2022 midterm. you can piece -- see change. black voters seemed to still be overwhelmingly democratic. barack obama the first time did better in lack voters than past democrats -- in black voters than past democrats. it was predictable that when he left there would be an erosion of black voters. host: joining us from missouri

on the republican line. caller: thank you, pedro. how long are you going to suck the money out of the university of virginia when you are wrong about everything? trump is going to win the election. a list is being made and your name is on it, chris christie's name is anna it and larry -- is on it and larry sabato on it. host: i don't appreciate the tone of the talk about we will stop you there in respond. guest: you are going to get some things right and something's wrong we feel good how we did in 2020.

it is what it is and you try to do the best you can. host: when it comes to next year, you say it will be competitive. guest: the jesting we are saying trump has no chance, i would never say that. any major party nominee right now, we are in a very competitive era. back to 2000. only obama in 2008 was a moderate blowout and even obama didn't get a 10 point margin in the popular vote which we had in many elections in the 20th century. fdr, ragan, nixon, lbj, we don't have those kind of elections these days. it has been so common that saying trump can't win, i have been guilty of that the past and i will certainly not express that now because the nominees unify their own parties. you have weaknesses for both of

biden and trump. we have 260 for the democrats, 235 the republicans. we don't have over 270. we are envisioning for close presidential election. host: you are seeing tossup states emerging? guest: arizona, georgia, wisconsin are the three that we have in 2020 and then nevada where biden won by a little over two points. the trend lines have not been great in that state for democrats. as part of white democrats have been able to hang on in that state, they were able to hold onto the senate seat in 2022, because the democrats in nevada have an organizational advantage. if you are winning elections by

1, 2, or three points, it only takes a little bit to shift things the other way. we have pennsylvania, michigan and well as new hampshire. in every thing else is likely republican, democratic or republican. we are just looking at eight states and even that is too long of a list. host: from florida, joe, democrats line. caller: i want to say that i agree with your guest. you need to understand trump is a traitor. i hope he runs again. he is going to lose. i think many republicans don't want him he is going to lose. he lost in 2020.

he is a con man. he has lighted since he has been a teenager. he let his father put him in military school military school didn't change him. host: thanks. go ahead. guest: the choleric reminds me that this emerging argument that trump is somehow ineligible to be the presidential nominee and will not run because of his actions around the election in 2021. i would not be comfortable asserting he is not eligible to run. the courts will have to weigh in. one tricky thing to me legally is that trump has not yet been convicted of anything that would rise to treason or something like that, it seat charged with

that. he will have his a date in court and is facing series charges in georgia and a federally about what he did after the 2020 election. it could sometimes be the impulse on the left to be, and this argument comes from some segments of the right because some feel he is not eligible to be president, that we can figure out a way the system can prevent him from being president again. the voters are going to have to decide. when chance you had to do that is if he had been convicted in his second impeachment. there were some republicans who crossed over to convict him but it's not enough to actually convict him. you could have held a simple majority vote to prevent him from running from office and that did not happen so he is still an active candidate and ultimately the voters will have to make their determination. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents and others. any forecasting for 2024? guest: i don't think so. there are two seats in rhode island. another one that is competitive and republican against targeted it. in rhode island, it looks like there may be a more progressive candidate who at least going in percent is favored. but a gigantic field and the winner will probably not have that big of a share and there will be run offs. in utah, it is possible a republican who has been critical of her own party and supported biden in 2020 could get the nomination. although we don't have great numbers to work off in these races. those are a couple to watch. there is not a lot going on in the 2023 election calendar.

ohio there will be an abortion referendum and in virginia we have legislative races with both chambers close and will be closely monitored. host: ohio's feature of a story, taking a look at sherrod brown's election. they say the pro progressive populace he can retain support and has propelled the move to the right. the race offers a key test of whether democrats can gain support in the key state and places like it could you have a piece saying ohio you don't see changes happening. i am paraphrasing. guest: ohio was for many decades the best reflection of a national voting and had a little bit of republican lean but very often voted for the presidential winner. what we saw in 2016 and 2020 that there was a realignment in the estate. a rule motown area, white

working-class areas, they went from being sort of republican to support republican, particularly in eastern ohio where sherrod brown has been tough in the last three senate runs. there was a ballot issue last month that basically republicans saw as a way of preempting the abortion vote in november by raising the threshold of the state constitute. the voters rejected it 57-43. after that vote said maybe ohio is turning back to the democrats. but issue votes can be a lot different than the partisan races. the same time missouri was passing eight minimum wage increase, josh hawley was beating claire mccaskill and there are plenty of examples over time. the abortion issue is important to watch for november in ohio

but i don't think it is a presidential battleground. if it is not, then it becomes a question of how can shared brown run and will have to run five to 10 points -- sherrod brown run and he will have to run five to 10 points ahead he may get some crossover. look at the senate map, democrats are defending three states that trump won pretty easily. ohio is the most competitive of the three, montana, west virginia he won by 40 points. those democratic senators will have to achieve crossover which they have been able to do in the past but it is getting harder. guest: our guests piece you can find at politico. let's hear from louise in maryland, independent line. caller: i consider myself to be

very independent. i think given the past it comes down to trump versus biden i will likely vote for trump. the reasons are that the white house is basically ignoring. i went to the grocery store, 50 dollars of groceries carried with one bag with one finger. and then i went over and spent $75 on gas. biden went to maui where he only stopped in for hours and then he said basically i know how you feel because i had a kitchen fire and almost lost my vet and my cat. the white house is so out of touch with common people that when they tout these unemployment and jobs numbers, they don't know what it feels like to live in the biden economy. i think that is a failure and

that will push me to vote for trump. guest: what the color expresses is pretty common to hear about in criticisms of the biden -- caller expresses is pretty common to hear about in criticisms of the biden administration. if people feel like they are paying too much things are don't feel like the economy is strong enough, that is their experience and that will bind them. what the caller expressed is what i have heard and read of people describing themselves as independents would lean toward trump and there will be voters that. maybe they don't like the other options but decide they want change, like trump was hurt by that in 2020. host: important that bidenomics is key to their campaign. guest: if only they knew how

much good we were doing they would vote for us again. but it also is easier to think that way because you think, this is more of a pr problem than it is a substantive problem. setting aside what people think about that, it is true the biden administration has not been able to communicate what it sees as a positives. and i was reading stories over the weekend and people expressing the feeling talking about how great things are could ring hollow to people who don't think things are going that great. maybe there are downsides of getting your message out. host: this is keith in indiana, republican line. caller: i will tell you, i am just going to be point-blank. i have never been so depressed

in my life over the president. i never been political but this biden, he has done everything in his name to tear our country apart, from afghanistan to letting china fly the balloon across the united states. all the nurses and doctors that went in on covid, anything and everything he could grab a hold of he is trying to keep us busy where we can't see all the crime he is doing. he is the worst president ever in the history of the world. donald trump will be the new president. everybody wakes up every morning and wonders how much longer is this going to go on. america, please get yourself together and vote for the right man. thank you. host: expressing common republican critiques of biden. guest: part of the challenge

that republicans, biden was not as easy of a target initially to get the base to rally against. i feel like maybe they are getting their. certainly the intensity of republicans is that biden is similar is what you would see for a clinton or obama. host: looking at the house, do you see an impeachment of joe biden coming? guest: there is indication that might happen. it doesn't seem that what has been released publicly that there is not enough there. but they can impeach for whatever reason they want or of the reason it is an open inquiry is navy to get some of the things they -- documents or investigative powers that they don't have now. i don't know if the pace they have made is -- case they have made is compelling enough.

you have to remember that with the pursed -- first impeachment of trump and the call with president zelinski to ukraine, there is a smoking gun there. also only one republican senator voted to convict, romney who also voted to convict in the second. trump came out of that impeachment not particularly weak and i don't think. right around the time of his union the numbers work better and then covid happened and scrambled things. the great question historically, when he have lost without covid and i don't know the answer. it is possible he could have. but the impeachment did not hurt trump, i don't think ann may have made him stronger in the context of 2020. i think republicans think, is this going to help us against

biden? if they think so i can see why they would do it but i haven't seen that yet. host: to what degree do think hunter biden becomes part of the storyline. in the last few weeks of the president and vice president using these aliases? guest: what we have seen so far doesn't rise to an instance that you can see clear wrongdoing by the president. certainly his son traded on the fact that his last name was biden and benefited from that and there are stories with other members of the biden family but how much of that doesn't touch the president? maybe that would come out at some point. it is impossible to know. certainly republicans have used hunter biden to attack the president and given that donald trump faces all of these legal problems of his own, the problems with biden are maybe a

way to muddy the waters politically. host: jonathan is calling from texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. this is just a comment i have. a lot of my friends who live in texas are republicans and i have some viewpoints that are leaning on eight conservative side. i have more than a comment and ashen. it is amazing to me -- i have more of a comment than a question. it is amazing to me how many have bought into the trump commentary. one alert mentioned biden. let's not forget that donald trump in puerto rico. it is almost as if they are

going to defend him to the end. he was corrupt. he was never qualified to run the country. he never had any political experience. i think the take back america, for a lot of folks in the working class, it was for a certain group of. i think a lot of people are disillusioned. this can has not been a good person and a good leader. he has torn families and friendships part. and he has just not been a good leader for the country. i think going forward we need to make sure we have people in office that will represent everyone fairly and they have to have morals and values. host: the caller mentioned

trump's evangelical support. guest: particularly among white religious voters typically vote republican. for a lot of evangelical christians, the belief is that whatever you think of them morally he has basically delivered on the things they care about, appointing of conservative judges, roe v. wade is gone. publicans are having issues with abortions now that it is gone but that is a big thing evangelical christians cared about that trump got done for them. if you want to say it is hypocritical or whatever, i think those of voters feel like trump has delivered for them and

it is a very conservative group for publicans. if trump does have problems in his own party with white evangelical questions, i would -- iowa would be a place for you would see it. that is one of the themes of the reporting about iowa is how strong is trump with white evangelical orders now they have other options. it trump seems to be holding up fine but that is something to watch. host: if you are emailed usk about no labels and do you think someone will run? guest: a lot of democrats in particular have been thing is a front for republicans. and the more on that ballot be

better trump. you would not expect in all people candidate come close to winning a state or even many counties across the country. when ross perot ran got close to 19% did not win a electro vote but one a handful of counties. it is hard to go against the major party candidates when you are third party. the comparison in 2016 and that election clinton and trump had bad favorability and a big block of voters didn't like either. 94% of all voters voted for either clinton or trump in only 6% voted third party. i don't think he would see that big of a third party vote. -- i don't think you would see that big of a third party vote.

definitely worth watching. a liberal intellectual is running for the seat. voters may be just not liking the major party nominees but you wouldn't expect the vast majority of voters to come to the major party nominees. host: shall in arizona, independent line -- michelle in arizona, independent line. caller: i live in tucson and i don't see anything being done about the border crisis. i didn't vote for biden but i am not going to do that. i will be voting for trump. i see nothing happening. i feel as though it is at my back door. are any other voters feeling the same as i and are going to

change as i am? my husband passed a year ago and i sit here in fear in regard to my economic situation now. i just have questions as to do other people feel as i and will they change over? do americans see this. host: thanks for the call. guest: it is a topic that the republicans will focus on. i feel like sometimes what happens with the public is they will react the opposite of the party in power. when trump was in office it may have been that trump was too tough on immigration and now that biden is in there that maybe they are tough enough. they think about what the alternatives are and just the immigration issue is a big one in the 2020 campaign. i suspect the caller asking if

there are other people who feel that way, there probably are. i don't know if it is enough to change the outcome you but you think about some of the border states but it is becoming more competitive over time. some of the places that are directly on the border, those places moved more towards trump in 2020 humans old the overall state became more competitive. host: this is mike from maryland on the republican line. caller: i am disturbed by the discussion in the way that the guest is talking about trump and the way he has demonstrated the right character as a president. i hope he reminds the american people that any president being impeached twice is literally unheard of and the fact that he

can go home and begin so much trouble with four indictments you are telling me this is somebody i should be thinking about voting for. are you kidding me? into the american people who are leaning towards voting for him when he wants voted for biden, i don't understand what newspaper you read but if you think you are going to put this man back in office that it is going to turn out in your favor, you better look up to words, bamboozled and winked. guest: i am not advocating for or against trump. i will say there was a fairly compelling case he should of been convicted in the second impeachment and prevented from running again but that didn't happen. i am not going to put my head in

the sand and say trump can never win. there are a lot of people who say we can't nominate him because he can't win. i could see if you were a trump voter that he won in 2016 and many think he won in 2020, he is the leading candidate for the presidential nomination for his party. you can't just pretend that he can't win. certainly there are compelling arguments to make against him and the color made some but ultimately he very well could be president again and whether it think that is good or bad or whatever. host: he can be found at the center for politics cristobal. thanks for the conversation. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will talk about press eedom not in the united stes

only what abroad. kathy kiely and maria ressa on press freedom will join us. (202) 748-8000 you can participate(202) 748-8000, for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. ♪ >> the c-span podcast makes it easy to listen to all the podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place. each week we make it convenient for authors with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and culture for our programs about books, afterwards, book notes plus and

q&a. listen to bookshelf cod -- podcasts today. you can find on the free c-span now mobile video app. you can find it wherever you get your podcasts or on c-span.org/podcasts. >> this yearbook tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books. book tv has provided viewers with a front row seat to the latest literary discussions on history, politics and so much more. you can watch tv every sunday on c-span two or book tv.org. book tv, 20 five years of television for serious readers. >> up org's c-span's online

store. our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to court and assessor reese. there is something for every c-span fan. >> healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work where citizens are truly in charge. get informed from the source, unfiltered, unbiased, or for from the nation's capital to wherever you are, the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy like. c-span, powered by cable. susan: -- "washington journal"

continues. host: (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8000 if you want to participate, for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. then it resumes coming back from august break. it will take up this afternoon. axios reporting that senate minority meaner -- leader mitch mcconnell will answer the question of how old is too old to serve. he is the longest party leader in history, using his mastery of the senate to shape the judiciary. for the first time in his career, he may not be entirely in control of his own timeline. something to watch as the senate remes. when they come back to work they will work primarily today and the federal reserve vice chair and nomination. later this week issues on the federal reserve, sec and

national name -- labor relations board nomination. watch on c-span two, c-span now or c-span.org. bob starts us off from north carolina, democrats line. caller: pedro, i think it is a huge mistake for the democratic party to write off robert kennedy. he has over 21% of the democrats behind him. they did the same thing to bernie sanders in 2016 and it caused 10 million democrats to vote for trump and it could be worse this time. i think candidate needs to be treated sincerely. he is the legitimate left of the democratic party. host: bob there in north carolina. we will hear from joe next, independent line. he is in maine. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call.

i am just wondering, what is the republican party going to run on? eight nominated a criminal in 2016 and he is still a criminal today. he had been fraud it to the university. remember trump university? did you go there? host: i am not going to answer personal questions about myself. caller: ok. what is he going to run on his crimes? they say they are embarrassed because joe tripped over a sandbag. these are not winning points. the guy who was on before pouring about trump winning, when trump won in 2016, he had 90% of the republican vote and he got independents.

host: hear from don in north carolina, republican line -- donna in north carolina, republican line. caller: you guys are not even out fear information. you always have speakers on that are against trump. 98% of the time. every once in a blue moon you will put one on but you are not giving out fear information. voters who call in, we are in the worst situation we have ever been in and people are commenting that trump is a criminal. no he is not. biden is a criminal but you have nobody who speaks at about biden ever. there is nothing wrong with having elections with id and paper ballots and that is it. host: vermont, democrats line. caller: hi, pedro.

host: you are on. caller: thank you. the worst thing about marijuana in my humble opinion being on this planet for 61 years, would be you do a 35 and a 50. the most insidious drug in our society without a doubt would be alcohol, period. i can speak from that personally and anecdotally. all i am saying is, there is nothing wrong with marijuana. host: ok. abc news and other sources saying that first lady dr. jill biden tested positive for covid

according to eight communications director confirming that yesterday. she is currently experiencing only mild symptoms according to the communications director. following the positive test, president joe biden took a test monday and tested negative. the president will test regularly and monitor for symptoms. steve is on our independent line in pennsylvania. caller: good morning, pedro and good morning america. i would like to make a comments on decriminalizing marijuana. i am a 30 year chronic pain sufferer and i am a medical dilbert. -- doper. yes, i take a drug to relieve

pain. i have heard the drug that turns to a flower i have heard it demonized by people who really don't know. they have no information other than what they claim the 1937 trope about the devil weed. we need to de-schedule this. people talk about drugs. how about alcohol? it is a drug. so is nicotine. the nicotine we are serving up for the kids, we are making them addicts. they are nicotine addicts. 400,000 deaths a year. i can go on and on but i will leave it there, pedro. host: joseph in louisiana,

republican line. caller: i wanted to discuss the liberal bias the three networks, abc, cbs, and nbc. and how there is -- i'm looking at a lot of times the last election and the intelligence agents with the letter and the laptop. i can't understand why they don't investigate that they are supposed to investigate period when i was a kid, they gave credence to both sides. host: we will continue on with open phones after a short pause. if you want to keep calling, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

republicans, (202) 748-8001, an independents (202) 748-8002. if you are on the line you can stay on the line but you can continue to call as well. today in texas the attorney general will be under an impeachment trial. here to talk about the trial and things you should look out for is the political reporter. good morning. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you set the stage for why this is taking place in the first place? guest: we can go back three years where eight aids in attorney general ken paxton's office made a complaint about his elation ship with the austin developer named nate paul. bribery elevations --

thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: why is the trial taking place in the first place? guest: we are here for the texas senate to decide if he stays in office. host: how's the trial process work? guest: it not too many of these in texas history, this is only the third so it will be interesting to see how long it lasts. d could be a month. the end -- the senate is the jurors and there's 31 senators,

only 30 of them will get to participate because one of them happens to be ken paxton's wife. she is barred from participating as a juror. it's2/3 of the senate to vote to remove him from office. they need 21 of the 30 jurors but it will take a lot of republican support for that to happen. he is a republican who is -- associated with donald trump, who is a star of the fire right conservative wing of the republican party so that's a high bar for the senate to remove him from office. host: as the trial starts, how has the attorney general responded to the charges? guest: he says it's a political witch hunt, that it's a combination of democrats and

republicans in name only that are trying to kick him out of office and he says all of these allegations that he has been tried on starting today has been out there for up to three years and voters don't care. they continue to vote him in for reelection. he was voted in last year despite the republican party push to get them out of office including a candidate named george p. bush, the nephew of the former president. that's his angle but he is not noting these charges on their merit. he just says which hunt using the donald trump playbook. host: speaking of the former president, he talked about what will go on and says i love texas and i wanted twice and

landslides and many other friends came along with me and hopefully republicans in the texas house will agree this is an unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed. i will fight you if it does. free ken paxton and let them wait for the next election. guest: it's the playbook that former president donald trump in his own impeachment ran. it's effective because you are speaking to voters ultimately decide whether the senators get fired or reelected every couple of years. it's pretty clear that's the way they will go. they will say this is a witch hunt. trump is indebted in some degree

to ken paxton. ken paxton filed lawsuits in battleground states trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election on behalf of trump that has now impacted him facing discipline with the texas state bar. these guys are allies. for that reason, it's going to be hard for the senators to review this evidence objectively rather than just say we are going to face some strong political headwinds if we vote this guy out of office. host: you had said earlier that senator angela paxton, the attorney general's like not be testifying but as far as those who will, what are some names to watch? guest: the big one is nate paul, the austin developer and one time ken paxton campaign donor

who is tied into this. the allegations are that paul has many legal actions against him, criminal and civil. right now they have him on mortgage fraud in the allegations are the ken paxton turned over the attorney general's office to provide legal assistance favorable to nate paul and in exchange, naples funded a home remodel for ken paxton and hired a woman to his company with whom ken paxton was allegedly having an extramarital affair. he is going to be an interesting witness. i'm guessing he will plead the fifth. that's going to be one that's interesting. there is many others.

the senate wants to know who paid for this construction on his house. host: will the attorney general himself testified? guest: i doubt it. he filed a motion that he would not have to testify in the house prosecutors filed a response saying it's up to us. there is implications of pleading the fifth and it looks like you're hiding something. i don't think ken paxton wants that optic. i think he wants to avoid the witness stand at all costs. if he has to go go to the witness stand, he doesn't have to answer anything. host: the impeachment trial starts today. if you want to see several stories on this, go to statesman.com. thanks for setting this up for us and telling us about it. guest: thank you. host: if you're interested in

watching the proceedings of the impeachment case, stay on this network starting at 10:00 a.m. and we will carry it for you as it takes place. you can follow along on air app at c-span now and on our website at c-span.org. let's hear from sean and washington state, democrats line, thanks for waiting. caller: how are you doing? i wanted to talk about biden primary in 2020. everything he said he was going to run on, he's accomplished. when are they going to start holding the republicans accountable -- they ran on crime and immigration, we don't have a crime bill, we don't have an immigration bill. why are the american people

letting him get away with not legislating when they win the house. they haven't passed the immigration bill. they want to demonize subsidies. that's all i have to say. host: glenn in arkansas is up next, independent line. caller: i'm going to be outside of the conversation you are having. i tried to get in yesterday on labor information. my wife is a cna. the black people that work in nursing don't have to do their job. they sleep on the job and they can't be fired because they are black. they say they've done something. host: ok, let's go to tony in

texas, republican line. caller: i just want to say that trump needs to be in prison. the 14th amendment says he is not qualified to run for president because he is a hard-core criminal. host: if it's not president trump who you support? caller: mike pence. he knew he didn't have the power to overturn the votes. i would vote for mike pence. host: the wall street journal takes the idea of the 14th amendment as a possible avenue to keep former president trump from becoming president once again.

there is more there in the editorial from the wall street journal this morning. from nevada, independent line. caller: good morning, america. i just want to make a quick

comment about the lady in arizona that commented that they are not doing anything about immigration. that's a senate and house issue that needs to be addressed. they need to move forward with this. they keep pointing the finger at the president and it's been over 10 years this is been going on. more importantly, i believe that there could be i will help you and you help me and we will move forward with this. i would say, i don't know what the outcome of that is and i'm not trying to project an outcome but let me see as a wrap my head around what it is the outcome is based on the facts. host: from adam in florida,

democrats line. caller: good morning, i have a hypothetical. what happens if donald trump continues to be the republican candidate and no one opposes him? and he wins the general election? then in january 6, 2025, will vice president harris refused to certify him because of the 14th amendment, section three? in that case, who gets to be president? that's all i have to say, thank you. host: the front page of the new york times takes a look at the forthcoming meeting being reported between president vladimir putin and kim jong-un, saying in a rare foray from his country, mr. kim would travel from pyongyang probably by armored train to vladivostok on the pacific coast of russia where he would meet with

vladimir putin. mr. putin wants to -- once mr. kim to agree to send russian -- to send artillery and mr. kim once advanced technology for advanced technology and food aid for his impoverished nation. caller: good morning. the most important question i have right now is where is the press? the most important story i have heard is hundreds of people died and thousands are missing in maui. we need to know how that happened, why that happened and who is responsible for it. every time i hear anything on the news or your program about it, they change the subject. we need to know how hundreds of

people died and thousands are missing. thank you. host: the secretary of the navy and the air force and the army in a joint op-ed in the pages of the washington post this morning directed to alabama senator tommy tuberville on military personnel.

florida, jose, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. i wish we were talking about the age of biden because trump is not far away from him and look at the polls -- look at the pope. he's old but he makes a lot of decisions in this world. not that out. christians today are following these lies from trump. they better wake up. read chapter four verse one and two. host: one of the things to watch today in many outlets about the

x proud boy leader, the sentencing for his activities and his sentence connected to the january 6 incident. jay in florida come republican line, you are next. go ahead. caller: hi, i have a question about the immigrant problem we have for people coming over. i agree that they need a chance but i don't know why being down on recruitment in the military that we don't set up a system that they go into the military. they could start with a volunteer thing, they could pay, they have clothing and stuff like that.

that would boost the amount of people in the military that we are down on. they could spend two years and after that they could become possibly an american citizen. i went in after i got drafted. that would help. that's it, thank you. host: an op-ed in usa today, taking a look at nursing homes.

let's hear from jean in florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm calling in to speak on the republicans, how they have problems with the democrats. it seems every time a democrat comes in office,, two thousand nine, barack comes in and the economy was growing. trump comes in a gives this big tax break for the rich. when he left, this country was going under. over one million people died from covid because he did not handle the crisis right. biden comes in and now the country is growing. i'd like to understand their interests. host: south carolina, democrats

line. caller: good morning. i was scrolling through channels last night and i caught an interview with sean hannity and gavin newsom from california. that guy is brilliant. i was impressed with him. i didn't know he was that smart. they need to take a closer look at him. he got through all this trick questions that sean hannity usually puts on people. host: that finishes off this open forum and thanks to you who participated. up next, a conversation looking at press freed in the united states and worldwide. weill have two guests.

they will join us for this discussion when "washington journal" continues. >> this fall, what c-span new series, books that shaped america. join us as we embark on a captivating journey in partnership with the library of congress which first created the books that shaped america list to explore key works of literature from american history. this -- these are books that won

awards, provoke thought and lead to societal changes and there talked about today. here from renowned experts on the profound impact of these iconic works in virtual journeys to significant locations around the country with celebrated offers in their unforgettable books. common sense by thomas payne, huckleberry finn by mark twain, their eyes were watching god, and free to choose. what are 10 part series, books that shaped america starting monday, september 18 at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. listening to c-span radio just got easier, tell your smart speaker listen to c-span radio.

it's weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern, catch washington today. listen to c-span any time, tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span is a number podcast for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwiords podcast and listen to wide-ranging conversations. book notes plus episodes regulate feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the non-book -- nonfiction book publishing enter -- nonfiction book publishing world. down laid -- download the free c-span now app or go to our

website, c-span.org/podcasts. > a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, and 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. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is where democracy -- this is what democracy looks like, c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion of press freedom across the world with two guests joining us on zoom this morning. joining us here in the studios kathy kiely.

to both of you, thank you for giving us your time this morning. the press club is why you're both in town today. why are you there and what does it say about press freedom? >> we are here to talk about the pressure that the press is under globally. in the audience of the national press club today, to hear maria speak will probably be close to 20 journalists were currently living in exile. they really represent the entire globe from all continents. what that says to us is what we are facing is a global pandemic of authoritarianism. the canary in the mineshaft is a journalist and maria's story is emblematic of that. she is an inspiring example to

all of us who were in journalism or teaching the next generation of journalists. i think it's important to be here in d.c. to call attention to this, to our fellow citizens but also to the policymakers who can help resolve this problem. the dictators have a handbook. we see the same kind of tactics used over and over again, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. i think those who support democracy need to start developing our own handbook. host: tell us a little bit about your personal experiences and how that lead to why you are speaking today and your nobel peace prize. guest: when journalists are under attack, democracy is under attack. in statistics from freedom house which has shown that democracy has been a decline for the last 17 years and you put that hand-in-hand with world press freedom and you can see the

escalation of attacks and harassment in the killings of journalists around the world. more important than that, the leveraging off our experience in the philippines quantified data. the new technology has enabled the rise of authoritarian rule globally. in sweden, they said 60% of the world is under authoritarian rule. i said that bad but this year, 72%. that's the new number. our experience in the philippines, we came under attack in 2016 for reporting a brutal drug war. the first casualty in our country's battle for facts was many people died in the drug war. we say roughly 6000. human rights activists come our own commission on human rights has said in the first three years, 27,000 people killed. beyond that, this exponential

attack online was followed about a year later by the weaponization of the law. i will say eight arrest warrants within three months of 2019 in a little over a year and i have 10 i thought i had to develop a work load. we persist and we are still there. we still continue working in of the 10 criminal charges, seven have now been thrown out. there are three left but we still have this kind of overarching civil case against us that could lead to the shutdown of the nur's -- of the news organization highly. host: what israppler? guest: i have about two decades and i was on the manila bureau for cnn and then jakarta and they went back to the

philippines in 2005 where i had the largest news organization there. in 2020, that news organization lost its franchise. rappler was created about a decade ago when we saw technology changed everything. the old ways didn't work in the age of innovation. because we are a journalist owned news organization, we held the line. we did things that were foolish for business but extremely good for press freedom leading to the acknowledgment of the norwegian nobel committee. it was an acknowledgment of what journalists around the world have had to do just to do our jobs. host: this conversation is until 10:00 and you can ask them questions.

16 journalists and media workers were killed so far in 2023. 67 killed last year and more than half those countries, 300 plus in prison. if this is happening, how do you fight against that? guest: by talking about and raising people's consciousness. maria very effectively describes the propaganda war that is underway against journalism. people need to understand that when journalists are attacked, it's really the people being attacked. we go out and do the reporting so that you can go to your jobs every day and read our report so you were informed about what's going on in your country. and people don't want you to know about was going on your country and don't want you to make intelligent, informed

decisions about the kind of future you want, then i think they start to go after the reporters. that's what's happening. one of the things maria has done an effective job with in writing an example and those of us trying to help or hold of her people is to say this is not about us the journalists. this is about you the people who use their work. dish use our work. we are trying to let people know. evan gerskwitz is one of those journalists. when they hear an attack on journalists, who was attacking them? are you on the side of vladimir putin? or on your -- were are you on the side of democracy? this has been a very tough thing

for journalists to get our heads around, that we have to stand up for ourselves. we are used to being just the mirror of society. in some ways, we are telling you that this is the kind of pressure we are under. i think maria can talk about this more eloquently but it feels like about two minutes to midnight for democracy. i think it's up to all of us to decide which way this will go. host: do you want to follow up? guest: yeah, a lot of our work in this and part of the reason we got attacked in the philippines by our own government's we expose the information operation that was essentially shifting the way we think and the way we act through our emotions. this is something that was initially started by american tech companies were surveillance for profit aligned the interests of the tech companies along with authoritarians and dictators. what we see now is starting

2018, you had an m.i.t. study that set on social media, lies spread six times faster than facts. think about that. the incentive structure is upside down. if it's laced with anger and hate, it spreads even faster. that has led to the kind of rise of illiberal leaders but we are our -- we are electing them democratically. it's also the polarization of our society. it's interesting you have a different number for republicans in a different number for democrats. i know that's good for the producers but we never needed to do this before. we used to have a shared public sphere. if you have no facts, you cannot have truth. without truth, you cannot have trust. without trust, we have no shared

reality and cannot decide on the problems let alone central problems like climate change. we cannot have democracy. host: we have a number of calls lined up for both of you let's start with democrats in illinois. caller: my question is, how isai affecting journalism? host: we will start with artificial intelligence. guest: that segues nicely and i think the caller for the question. what maria was just describing will be that on steroids. the new technology -- my students often talk about this and they laugh if i bring in print publications like you have piled up here? why would i pay for the news?

as the great economist used to say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. the idea that people need to understand is that we do pay when we go online. we pay with our information. in a cashless economy, every credit card swipe, every time we go online and buy something or like something even spend more time on something, that's producing data and then data companies use that to create profiles of us. those profiles are being used not just to tailor the ads but the news that you are given. it's good old capitalism at work. there is nothing sinister about of these online companies want to make money. in order to make money, they want to keep us in their sites.

why would they give you news that makes you uncomfortable? i think that's the big difference. ai will just and that up further. maria is the tech expert here. host: there is a piece recently about the associated press in a partnership with openai. what goes through your mind when you hear that? guest: rappler has been selected with working openai how to use the large language model. generative ai is useful for for democracy. artificial intelligence nor intelligence, that's the first thing. it's all about confrontational power. a machine comes through in the more in power the machine has two crunch numbers, the factory gets. artificial intelligence literally just finds patterns

and trends. the first contact with artificial intelligence is not social media. it's used to find patterns and create models. everything you post on social media becomes a clone of you and it feeds the clone the companies say they only clone. that becomes the mother load database you might bring target two. best the first contact we have had with artificial intelligence starting with machinery. the social harms of social media have never really been addressed. these companies have refused to address them. if anything, there's been obfuscation. we've seen this in the philippines and worse in the global south. both the u.n. and meta-facebook in the days, actually sent

people to myanmar to elude genocide that happens there and they concluded that facebook enabled some of that. the second part is generative ai which rose out of december 2022. language models are fed with everything. up until chatgpt, gpt3 we know was fed the stuff of social media, unstructured big data which is permeated angry inc. and tribalism. we have lots of things to work out in terms of laws with large language models. the part that is quite alarming is government didn't seem to learn the lesson from the first time this technology was rolled out. these companies are the least regulated companies around the world.

chris wiley the whistleblower said a toaster in your home in america has to go through more safety testing than the software that changes the way we feel and pumps us with toxic sludge, and enables the worst of humanity. it is going to get worse and all of us outside the united states are watching with alarm as you walk into your own elections. host: let's hear from greg in michigan, republican line. caller: i want to ask their impression of what happened with twitter when it changed ownership and it was revealed there is a great deal of corruption from speech that was politically incorrect for some and not others. it permeated facebook and meta-and others and was

essentially controlled by a handful of owners of these corporations. what about government colluding with them to reduce the speech. i can put this on my twitter, on x, that shows you that by design , these companies actually spread lies six times faster than facts. my team came out with a study in 2018. that business model call surveillance capitalism wasn't named until 2019 by harvard emeritus professor, a 700 50 page book. all studies have shown that anything, he lies spread faster than a boring fact in the philippines, if you lace it with anger and hate, it moves faster.

what is alarming to me to waxes from the other side of the world is that now, the world has splintered into these conspiracy theories were what we are seeing is a total breakdown of trust and shared reality. i never realized how easy it would be too big -- break in institutions of democracy in the strongest democracies around the world. let's go back to elon musk and x. one man has tremendous power to change the global sphere and at the time he took over twitter, there was a hunger strike in egypt, one of the first people behind arab spring, and that was turned upside down because the rules of safety had been put in place and they were changed. all of a sudden, the surveillance for profit makes more money off of lies and more

lies began to spread. let's step back from any politics and step back from any partisanship and just look if we want to be fed laws or facts? how do we make decisions about the world around us? guest: number one, all of these platforms are private platforms. facebook is a company, may be a publicly held company but it's private and not a government platform. i think what is happening in this will be the policy today, is this technology that with some -- become so accustomed to now a public utility? does it need to be regulated like a public utility? that is a policy debate for policymakers but i think the important point here is --

maria's a great example because she is tech savvy -- we are not saying turn off the internet. we are not saying make your screens go away. we are saying get smart about how you use it. i think that's why maria and her organization are confirming with chatgpt because were too long, people in the news business that we don't need to do this. that was arians and done and as a result, we lost the control of the means of distribution. the big difference between soda media and then you get and what we are traditionally used to like the newspapers on your desk or the television station. those legacy media outlets have an actual financial incentive to be truthful and accurate which

is if you put something inaccurate on the air, you can be sued. the organization can be sued or the newspaper can be sued. that is why we are always fact checking and we correct the record when we make a mistake. there is a financial incentive. that is not the case for internet platform providers. the incentive is completely the opposite. our human psychology is such we have confirmation bias and one error views amplified. the technology, the digital technology that allows us to be profiled in this way allows us to be targeted for even more extreme -- to become more extreme versions of ourselves and that is what has not been regulated and that's what makes

these platforms different from legacy news media. i would say to the caller worried about this, it sounded like he was worried about censorship but twitter has the right to put whomever or whatever online they want. they are not regulated in the government, you have a right in this country so far to stand out here and say whatever you want and have whatever opinions you want. the first amendment does not give you the right to worldwide publication. that is the big difference. are the platforms going to take the responsibility of publishers which is what they are to print things that are true and publish things that are true and not published lies? host: this is from our independent line baltimore. caller: hello, i am trying to

figure something out here. when the pandemic first started in 2020, our central police station decided they were going to relocate to the biggest print press building we had a baltimore city which is the old sun newspaper. i bought a bicycle when we were told not to go out in public transportation and eyewitness them doing this. why are the police taking over our newspaper here to not allows to print anything going on in baltimore? guest: i will guess that since the baltimore sun is a very robust newspaper and if they were being censored, i think they would let us know. i will guess that what the caller has pinpointed is the other threat to journalism besides political and psychological is financial. you can write a doctorate and

what's happened to advertising and why these publications are in trouble. a lot of it is the organizations that used to own the prominent pieces of real estate because you used to have to have a lot of printing presses to deliver those newspapers. with the changed technology come a lot of news organizations are giving up those pieces of real estate and moving their printing presses to places that are cheaper. i'm thinking that's probably what happened to baltimore. your paper is still publishing and i think the baltimore sun is still going to give you the news. host: as far as local papers, what are you seeing as far as the closing of local papers? guest: i think is terrifying. this is a snowball effect. the advertising, wu a lot of

people don't realize is the daily miracle is funded by advertising. your nickels or quarters or dollars down pay for the news report, if the advertising. advertising that was most important in the united states for local newspapers are not the big display ads but the little tiny want dads. a lost puppy or whatever. nobody looks and newspapers for those anymore, they go online and that revenue is not going to news, it's going elsewhere and that's at a bigger impact in small communities in rural communities and what does that do with the newspapers close? it leads people to rely on facebook to get local news and some of it is good and true and some is not. i encourage citizens to hold up the truth and call out the lies.

host: there was even reporting that the texas tribune which was a nonprofit publication, announced a series of layoffs, the first in its history suggesting the financial aspect of producing news is probably one you have to think about a lot. guest: i go back to the impact of technology. the model of news organizations being supported by advertising is dead. the attempt to bring revenue in this way is not something we can do in the philippines where people cannot afford to pay for the news. micro-targeting is efficient because it takes their personal data and uses it to enhance roi. this is taking that advertising

money into technology. estimates in the philippines are up to 80% of advertising revenue goes to tech companies. it's not the bad thing of its innovation. for journalism in our society and for democracy, and influencer on social media does not have a set of standards and ethics. they are not legally accountable for trying to give you facts, units to who wants to challenge a powerful organization and know that you will get clobbered back? i don't want to go to jail but ask journalist. it's my duty to challenge the corruption and disinformation we see. so not only are the tech companies siphoning that money and turning it into micro-targeting, is also the platforms themselves that are killing the credibility of news

organizations, the journalist, the report is doing their best to give you the facts. absolute power corrupts absolutely. if you don't have gatekeepers who make sure you know the things you do noon -- you do not want to know your cognitive bias tells you i don't believe in this but yet it's true. , how will we survive? that is the biggest problem. we can all be entertained to democracy but entertainment will not hold power to account. host: democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i think the journalists answered my questions. in your opinion, why are so many citizens gravitating toward authoritarian forms of

government? thank you for your time. host: go ahead and start. guest: in many ways, when democracy gets too hard, when the decisions become too nuanced and difficult, what i've seen in parts of southeast asia is that we want someone else to make the call for us. we want a strong man. i cover the almost 21 years of ferdinand marcos that ended in the 1986 change and 37 years later, in the philippines, we elected his son. during that time in those 37 years, i watched for a strongman leader in the same thing happened in indonesia. almost 32 years of one-man rule. when he left, there was a new president every year and so much

change that the craving was for stability at the cost of giving up your rights. i think this is part of human nature but understand with sue's what goes hand-in-hand with a yearning for authoritarian rule is your consent to give up your rights. guest: i think maria said it better than i could. she is right, if you look back in history, most recent authoritarian regimes came in with the consent of the public. it's very difficult and one of the things that is happening in the information sphere is there is so much information out there now and people are being bombarded with so much information that there is a temptation to say throw up your hands and say i give up. i don't know what's true. i cannot do this. that is not with the dictators want. this is not easy but it's not

brain surgery. we have a system for doing this since called education. i totally believe if we are educated about how to use technology, it will not use us. if we aren't educated about out to use technology, it will use us. it's up to us as citizens of a digital world to take charge of her own destiny. host: this is paul in indianapolis, republican line. caller: good morning. i think the biggest threat to journalist now is the low trust that people have in journalism. to a large extent, i that is because the journalists don't

distinguish between truth and fact. i know the difference. you cannot report truth, you report fact. you preach truth. as soon as you tell me you are telling me the truth, i know you are suppressing facts that don't agree with your vision of the truth. that's been going on since the days of sam donaldson and nightline. it's been increasing gradually. i think the fact that x and those people are more obvious about doings but journalist doing in lot of journalists in the flagship news sources all the same -- all come from the same culture and college. it's hard to accept that they are not preaching their truth so they are reporting facts. host: thank you.

guest: i teach at the missouri school of journalism. i think the caller has a good point. it's something we preach to our students all the time, show and tell. don't show me what i can thank, show me the facts. he has an excellent point and some of the more opinionated coverage you see is driven by the digital technology which has taught us that opinion cells and the more opinionated and the more out there, the more it sells. maria described that well. on the other hand, one man's opinion is another man's pool so we have to you aware of that. one of the big changes and i wrestle with his every day -- i spent many years as a

journalist. we would do exactly what the caller said, does this version of a different opinion what's is the sources say in an effort to help our readers triangulate. but you can go too far down that road into what is known as both cider-ism. i think we need to be more sensitive and whether the i will say that has happened, all the years i was a journalist on capitol hill at the white house, getting different opinions, were shaped by the norms of our sources. we operate under certain norms but our sources operated under certain. those norms didn't lie

constantly. they might miss it thousand wrong but they didn't deliberately tell us wrong things. they supported democracy. times have changed. i see maria jumping up and down. host: we have about a minute left so go ahead. guest: let me and it with a quote by eo wilson. he said the greatest crisis we face is there paleolithic emotions, our medieval institutions -- and our godlike institutions. if information operations drills down social media and says i am in manila, people will believe i'm in manila because that is was being distributed through tech forms that connect us.

what we talk about is the difference between real dish original, investigative which every democracy need and opinion. derivatives of the facts are different and they can be interpreted many ways but you will want the facts reported to you by investigative journalist if you want to have a robust democracy. host: our guests have joined us for this discussion. to both of you, thank you so much and thank you for the conversation. on the networks today, now the senate is back from its summer rake, when they meet at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, they will start to consider work on the nomination for the federal re