the republican party went crazy, is out in paperback this tuesday. always appreciate your time. we will see you down the road in the election. guest: thank you, i hope so. host: that is going to do it for "washington journal" this morning. we are going to do it again tomorrow. in the meantime, have a great sunday. ♪

♪ host: good morning. it is sunday september 10. we have three hours of washington journal ahead. supporters of president trump base efforts on the 14th amendment. this morning we want to know what you think about using the

14th amendment to disqualify trump from the 2024 ballots. if you support the (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you do not support it, (202) 748-8001. you can also text us at (202) 748-8002. a very good sunday morning to you. you can start calling in now. here is the story from the associated press last week. the headline on that story, "a lawsuit seeks to block donald trump from the presidency in colorado." citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington was on this

program a month or two ago talking about this effort to use the 14th amendment to disqualify former president trump in 2024. [video clip] >> the 14th amendment to the -- guest: the 14th amendment to the constitution is one most people do not know about. it says if a person swears an oath to support the constitution, and then engages in insurrection against it, that person is disqualified from office. the framers of the 14th amendment had in mind were people who tried to overthrow the government, overthrow the democracy should not be placed in charge of it. specifically, they were thinking of confederates in the wake of this of the war -- the civil

war. in the years after the 14th amendment, most people understood that and accepted it and confederate leaders did not try to get state or federal positions. some did and were disqualified. that is something that is still very much a part of the constitution. it is a living part of our law, and it is something that really was designed for the moment in which we find ourselves. you had an effort to overturn a free and fair election. and to do it violently. that is the part of thing --

kind of thing the 14th amendment was designed to address. if you try to overturn the constitution of the government, you should not be able to be in charge of it. host: that was back in july, the head of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, one of the people leading this effort to disqualify donald trump from the 2024 ballot. this was from trump's truth social account. "almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th amendment has no standing relevant to the upcoming election. like election interference, it is another trick being used by the left to steal an election that they are candidate, the most corrupt president in u.s. history, is incapable of

winning." the former president last week on truth social. one more opinion on this, and this from brad raffensperger, the secretary of state for the state of georgia. well known as the secretary of state during the 2020 election and after the election. he wrote in the wall street journal last week. "i can't keep trump off the ballot." "for a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievces of those who see the system as corrup denying the voters the option to choose is anti-american. taking away the ability to choose or object to the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent." brad raffensperger, the

secretary of state of georgia in the washington post. this case filed in colorado is an ongoing conversation. if you support the effort, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . we will start in fort lauderdale, florida. this is nixon. good morning. caller: good morning, friends. i really do support keeping him off the ballot because everything he has done so far is not presidential. we have got our leaders across the world looking at america like "we are supposed to follow these guys, but look at what these guys are doing. how can we follow that?"

they say "do what is right," and look at what they are doing. there is no way we can be the leader of the free world. people do not believe -- he does not believe in our constitution. he wants to rip it apart and throw it away. host: this is richard in north carolina. your next -- you are next. caller: have they run a forensic audit on the voting machines? host: what do you think of this 14th amendment question we are asking this morning? caller: that is what i am asking. have they run a forensic audit on the voting machines? did they turn over the routers? until they do that, you don't know if this election has been stolen or not. host: do believe that the

previous election was stolen? caller: oh yeah, it was stolen big time. until you do a forensic audit on the voting machines and turnover the routers, you won't convince me any other way. host: will you vote in 2024? caller: i will vote for trump. host: do you trust the integrity of the elections? caller: no, not until you get rid of these voting machines are run an audit. until you do that, you can prove to me nothing. host: this is my linda in twitter saying " -- myland -- this is what the constitution says when we are talking about the 14th amendment. this is the crux of this legal case that is being made, a case filed in colorado last week.

"the 14th amendment bars from office anyone who took an oath as an officer of the united states and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless congress removes that disability by a two thirds vote." this is a civil war era law. the 14th amendment was ratified after the civil war. it has only been used a few times, although once recently. this legal effort is focused on removing donald trump from ballots in the around this country. john in new york opposes the effort. why? caller: thanks for taking my call. i am not a constitutional lawyer but i do watch fox and cnn and i

try to move back and forth and try to get some semblance of fairness. it seems to me donald trump, like him or hated him, got 74 million votes. it seems at least progressives are stretching the boundaries of the constitution as far as its interpretation. they can use word salads to come up with this reasoning. the only president that has ever been barred really from running if you do a little bit of research has been a abraham lincoln during the election of 1860, he didn't appear on a ballot in the south end he still won the election. what democrats have done, they have pushed the boundaries of decency and legality. this is going to make a martyr out of trump if they try and do

that. you have to go through all of the people and that is pretty obvious that is not what is being done right now. host: this is maryland, madison heights, michigan. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my opinion, just my opinion, trump has done anything and everything against the government. if they let the people vote, let them make the decision, trump has done any and everything negative. like they said, if the general tells you to jump off the bridge you would jump. he is the general. in my opinion also whatever republicans want, donald -- if

he wants the people to do it, he tells them. host: what you are saying is don't remove his name from ballots, let people decide? is that what you are saying? caller: he should not be allowed to run. host: so you are saying he should not be on ballots. caller: his name should not be on the ballot. they should abide by the 14th amendment. do not let him. do not even put his name on it. host: that is maryland in michigan this morning -- marilyn in michigan this morning. this is not will tread legal ground, and it is likely to make its way to the highest courts. if this effort proceeds in states, politico with their story from last weekend, taking a look at what could happen

here, the legal test of using the 14th amendment this way. "there are two ways this could be put. file lawsuits. that happened in colorado. that is in its infant stages in new hampshire and florida. one or more states could embrace the theory out right and simply refused to list trump on their ballots. that might force trump to file his own lawsuits. so far no states have moved to bar trump from ballots. brad raffensperger -- either scenario could drag the supreme court into an unsettled debate over the meaning of the 14th

amendment." this is don out in california. caller: this is just once again the democrat party twisting and perverting the constitution to attack their enemies with. ayn rand and her book said that you use the justice department as a club. read the 14th amendment! trump was not charged with insurrection. nobody on january 6 was charged with insurrection. the fbi is investigating it as a riot. this is so ridiculous. i don't know why you people give it any time at all. these people are ridiculous.

they used our justice system, they used our tax dollars to attack their political enemies with trump's to impeachments, with the trump-russia thing, and you guys sit there and actually take it seriously and want people to call in on this. has trump been charged with insurrection? has he been convicted of insurrection? has insurrection -- host: what the 14th amendment says is anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the government. that is what would have to be proven here or interpreted by courts. a little used provision, the 14th amendment. 1868 is when it was ratified. it was invoked a few times against former confederates to bar them from running for office

in the years after 1868. this is tim, rochester, new york. good morning. caller: you should be kicked off. -- he should be kicked off. he didn't want to leave. be a man and leave office. if obama did this -- i'm sorry, i'm a black man, but these white republicans would go berserk. 85% of trump voters are racists and bigots. host: our next caller is in pennsylvania. caller: i believe trump should be put on the ticket. there is nothing charged against him. they charged him a lot, but nothing has been proven. what the democrats are doing,

they tried to blame it on trump. the guy before me, i'm tired of the racial stuff. i am a white person. i take a person by the way they act, not by their color, so don't say racial all the time. trump should be put on the ticket. nothing has been proven, nothing. thank you. host: shirley in virginia, you are next. caller: good morning, america. good morning, john. i look at it like this. if you are going to fight over your first amendment rights, if you're going to fight over your gun rights, you absolutely want those rights, the 14th amendment should be the same stance. he should not run. you want this man, really people, to be your president? an adulterer, a liar, a thief?

he is supposed to be a millionaire. come on, people. let's get on the bandwagon. we what someone in the white house who we can trust 110%, and he is not it. thank you so much, john, for letting me completely finish what i have to say. host: michael, lake ridge, virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. it sounds like another biden campaign event on c-span. i don't know if you write this off as a campaign contribution. the 14th amendment, there is nothing that bans donald trump trump from running for president. the people who write this stuff up are wrong. in addition, donald trump didn't get convicted of anything.

as other callers point out, he is not even charged with the kind of language mentioned in the 14th amendment. due process under the law, the right face the accuser, there is no evidence or indication that president trump did anything against the constitution. it is ridiculous. it is ridiculous we are having this conversation, that you're taking this stuff serious. if ballots are counted that do not have a signature, do not have a date, anything like that, then everybody has an absolute right to question them, especially candidates who were involved in the election. to say that the votes should be audited, they should be. i don't know what the outcome would be if they were audited,

and they looked at ballots with no signature, no date. i heard ballots were counted after the election, things like this. it was a weird election with a lot of mail in ballots and it dropped off ballots. they should have been audited. when they stopped the count, kicked out the observers, started counting again and by then is way up -- biden is way up. i'm just saying, the candidate has a right to ask questions. for the integrity to be there. it seems there is strong intimidation. do you accept the upcoming 2024

election, like if people question in the election coming up it is criminal. it is not criminals question the integrity of an election. this is abhorrent. it is typical the way c-span is going by giving credence to idiotic reporting. i don't care who it is from, if it is from the associated press or somewhere else. i can only imagine your upcoming guests from mother jones what sort of ridiculous insight they will have, but it is the far left -- a far left publication. to encourage this kind of talk and speculation is wrong. the 14th amendment has nothing to do with donald trump being on the ballot. there is nothing that matches the criteria. you know it to be true.

let the constitution take its place. let due process take its course, and let's look at all this evidence. let's face the accusers. as is mentioned quite clearly in the constitution and trump, 2024. michael, if you are not excited about our guest coming up, you may be more interested in dan caldwell of the center for renewing america. he will be joining us as well this morning. phone calls this morning on these lines, if you support this effort, the legal effort to disqualify donald trump from ballots, call (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text message, we will watch

for those. (202) 748-8003. this idea of using the 14th amendment to disqualify former president trump was discussed by adam schiff last sunday. here is some of what he had to say in that conversation. [video clip] >> an argument is speculating whether the 14th amendment, which prohibits anyone who engaged in insurrection from running for office bars donald trump from running for office. this has not been tested in our system before. what is your take on whether it is a valid argument? >> i think it is a valid argument. amendment 14 section three is pretty clear. if you engaged in acts of insurrection against the government, you are disqualified from running. it does not require that you be convicted of insurrection, it just requires that you have engaged in these acts to describe wha -- to disqualify

you from running for office again. it fits donald trump to a t. i what imagine it will go up to the supreme court, and that is the big? through all of this. what will the supreme court do? there are prominent constitutional scholars as well as prominent progressive scholars who believe he should be disqualified but will the court take that step ultimately? only time will tell. i think it is a very legitimate issue by the clear terms of the 14th amendment, he should be disqualified from holding office. host: that conversation happened last week on fox news. constitutional lawyer jim turley was also asked about this use of the 14th amendment.

here is he had to say. [video clip] >> is getting left-leaning state attorneys involved give this wacky 14th amendment strategy any more credibility? >> i don't think it does. there are academics who have thought about this seriously and have supported this theory. i think it is a dangerous theory. it is entirely unsupported by the text and the history of the 14th amendment. this provision was written after the civil war where hundreds of thousands of people died. there was an army on the others. they had their own foreign policy. that is a rebellion. it does not necessarily mean that it can't be used for anything less then that magnitude, but trump hasn't been charged with incitement let alone insurrection or rebellion.

they say this does not require an act of congress, any judge announced that he was supporting and insurrection in tahiti is therefore --and he is therefore disqualified. that is what makes this so dangerous. i don't think this will withstand review. they could end up getting a couple of judges to go with them, but in the long run i think it will be rejected. i am eager for them to take this to court, so we can finally put this on the road and see if they can get this off the ground. host: that was fox news last week. we are talking about the 14th amendment. it came into effect after the civil war. former confederate soldiers running for office again. it has been rarely invoked since to keep someone's name off the ballot. the most recent time it was used it was last year. a county commissioner, cory

griffin, a new mexico state court decided that he would be kept off the ballot. he was convicted of trespassing as part of his actions on january 6 at the capital, so it has been used recently on the county commissioner level. the case was filed last week in colorado. efforts are underway in other states. we are asking if you support or oppose this effort. this is norman in indiana. caller: good morning, america. the previous caller said that trump has not been charged. he has been charged with dozens of violations. if trump was applying for a military academy appointment today, he would be disqualified after an fbi investigation.

the fbi would deny you recommendation for even the military academy, if you had a drunken-driving charge. he could not be qualified to be even a cadet in a military academy, let alone the chief military officer as the president. in my opinion he should have been court-martialed under the ucmj. under the ucmj you can be found guilty of adultery, charged, and convicted. . that is my story -- that is my story. think about it, america. host: steve in tennessee is next. caller: good morning.

can you hear me? host: yes sir. caller: i don't think we can go down this path. i think the republicans are trying to keep him off the ballots. that is what is happening here because they don't want him on the ballot. the republicans are scared of him. when you get down to it, it is the same old republican thing, doing away with women's rights and cutting social security. he just takes people's rights away from them. if it had not been the electoral -- if it had not been for the electoral college, al gore would have been president, and hillary clinton have been president. host: would you agree with jerry in west virginia who said that allow citizens to decide their vote?

this is another incidence of government trying to decide what is best for the people. caller: yes. in tennessee we have done away with the superintendent. yo can't keepu -- you can keep doing this. look at them cutting social security. look at the rights we paid into. i'm not a trump fan by no means, but i'm not for keeping a person off the ballot just because you don't like him. i don't think trump can beat joe biden, but i don't think republicans can beat him in the primary. they can't beat him. that is where i think it is going to. host: in the land of 10,000

lakes, this is voelker. caller: morning. that is just my opinion, but commander in chief who spends three hours on tv and watches crowds with his name wanting to hang the vice president, i don't know if that is a good choice. if he at least would try to speed up those court procedures to clarify before the election and not try and get out, wash his name clean before he gets the power to change the law, then i would change my mind, but so far if that does not happen, no i don't think he is suited, that is just my opinion. host: voelker in minnesota.

this is mike in california saying "perhaps the question asking does the 14th amendment disqualified trump from being on the ballot should be 'is there enough evidence of trump's conduct on january 6 enough of a breach of his oath as president to protect our country's sovereignty'? i would say that it is." this is joe in data and, ohio -- dayton, ohio. caller: donald trump needs to stay on the ballot because it is constitutional. with the democrats are trying to do is unconstitutional. the democrats have tried to attack this man since 2015 and it is disgusting. it is up to the people. for adam schiff to go on msdnc

and talk about donald trump when he pushed the russia allys -- russia lies, he should be removed out of office. you can indict a ham sandwich. donald trump is not guilty of any crime. in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty. donald trump has every right, and the democrats are petrified of donald trump. donald trump is going to win, and joe biden should be removed off the ballot. mitted treason! he took millions of dollars from china, russia, ukraine, bulgaria, has not paid one penny of tax. have a good day, sir. host: the reason we are having this conversation this morning is this filing in colorado

courts. there are also efforts underway in other states. citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, one of the groups leading this effort, and a half-dozen colorado voters are part of this case that was filed last week. here is a little bit of the wording from that filing. "with this case a court can uphold this decision in court. the january 6 insurrection was a shameful day for ouration. donald trump incited tt attack, and he should not be granted another opportunity to serve in government." that starts here in colorado, enforcing section three of the 14th amendment against him. section three of the 14th amendment, i will read it in its entire ready.

"no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or hold any office civil or military under the united states or under any state wh havingo - - who having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to enemies thereof. a two thirds vote from both houses of congress shall remove such a disability." that is the crux of this case that was filed last week. michael, sanford, connecticut, you are next. caller: the 14th amendment, it pretty much says right there, if you have in insurrection or whatnot. didn't trump say "we have to go

to the n fight"? "you have to be strong, we have to overturn the selection." that is not in insurrection? that is not going against the government? how are these people so delusional? all of these trump people, i don't think they watch donald trump on tv. if you did, your head goes numb because he says the same thing over and over again. he is calling everyone a fascist and a communist, but that is what he is. everything he says is exactly what he is. this is what he has done. he should be taken off of a couple of state.s why not? he has done a lot wrong. he has been convicted of rape. hey, all of you people out there, rape! do not understand this? he has been charged with 91 counts. what were you -- what if you

were caught with 91 counts? you would be in a lot of trouble. he is trying to run for president. he was a horrible president. he didn't accomplish anything. he didn't get anything done, except driving up the debt of the country. what did he do? host: that is an michael in stanford, connecticut referring to the e. g. carol case. e. g. carol won a defamation lawsuit against the former president. she must show only the damages that trump must pay for comments he made in 2019 after she first publicly accused him of raping her. mr. trump walter accusations totally false. ms. carol, 79 won a lawsuit in

may based on comments trump posted last october on his social media site calling her case a con job and a hoax. the court awarded her over $2 million in damages for the attack, also awarding ms. carol close to $3 million in damages for defamation. this is george in rutherford glenn, virginia. caller: good morning. i don't believe that donald trump should be removed from the ballot in any state. i support one of the other republican candidates, but i just don't like the way any of this is being handled by the courts. i think they have weaponized the courts quite a bit against former president donald trump. as some of the other colors have

said, i think there needs to be a conviction before you could begin removing him from any ballots anywhere in the united states. that is all i have to say. i appreciate your time. host: do you mind me asking who you are supporting in the republican primary as a republican? caller: i really like tim scott. a lot of what tim scott has said makes a lot of sense. i i'm watching him closely to see some of the things he does say. i was to a point supporting chris christie, but i recently haven't liked some of the things i have heard coming out of him. i will support whoever the republicans put on the ballot, but i think the democrats are making a big mistake. i think donald trump is the only person joe biden could possibly defeat again. host: are you of the mind "lt

the voters -- let the voters decide"? that is what brad raffensperger wrote. caller: absolutely. if the voters want him, that is what this country is all about. i don't see how you take that away from us as the voters of this nation. can i tell you something else, you might find a little interesting? i have known who joe biden was since 1966 because that was the year he married his first wife. she was my eighth grade english teacher. host: did you ever get to meet him back then ? caller: no. they lived in the neighbor -- did you ever get to meet him back then?

caller: no, they lived in our neighborhood. host: what did an it greater think of him? did you know he was a politician? caller: he wasn't back then. he was just a law student. he and mrs. biden were settling, as many people were in the 60's. she was a very beautiful woman both inside and out, and she introduced me to one of my favorite books. host: which is what? caller: it's a book called rascals, a true story about a boy who raised a raccoon during year in the middle of world war i. host: we were talking about brad raffensperger,'s piece in the wall street journal. a little more from that piece. brad raffensperger is secretary of state, and this conversation

is happening among secretaries of state to see if this is a possibility, of secretaries of state to do this, whether this is a legitimate move or not. rad raffensperger argues that he cannot keep trump off the ballot. "invoking the 14th amendment is just the latest effort to bypass the ballot box. it does not work. stacey abrams' claim of disadvantage meant were denied as were mr. trump's. mr. trump good win or lose. the outcomes should be determined by the people who show up and make their preferences known in the election." this is charles, fort collins, colorado. what are your thoughts on the efforts to use the 14th amendment to disqualify former president donald trump from the ballot? caller: i was reading the

insurrection and the 14th amendment. it seems like when trump was not telling the people in the white house to stand down and disburse --disburse. can anything become in insurrection? i don't know. one thing i'm curious about too is one of the colors -- callers said they had no recounts. georgia had 3 recounts. there were recounts all over the nation. there is no bad voting system. our voting system is sound. i was also just wondering if the case in georgia, if trump is

found guilty by his peers, not by the democratic party, but by a group of his peers, which does carry a minimum five year sentence, the republicans are going to then say, he was found guilty in a court of law legally by a group of his peers. he should go to jail. that would be something i would like to see. thank you. host: you said you read the 14th amendment. let me bring up the language again. it talks about people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states. it does not say convicted of insurrection and rebellion. that is one of the legal arguments here of what that word could mean or what it should mean. do you have any thoughts on that ?

i think we lost to the caller. this is rj, waiting in mcgill, oklahoma. caller: i am a retired psychiatrist. i am an american indian. i am blackfoot, osage, and irish. this is a joke. you are manipulating people with their mind. if you can't underline and say what the constitution means, and you can twist it what the hell is it good for? everybody has their own opinion. we can just turn that anyway we want? that is a joke. you our manipulative people. you do this every day. host:o think the constitution has been twisted over time? caller: yes, it has been twisted.

nobody knows what it means. does it mean this or does it mean that? do you know what i mean? ir meant -- it means one thing like they -- politicians are crooked. i'm independent. i don't trust any of them. host: there is a whole branch of law, constitutional law in which the wording of the constitution is debated and argued about. these debates and arguments happened in front of the supreme court when we see cases make it before the supreme court. is that twisting or trying to interpret the constitution? caller: the supreme court where some dumbass lawyer tells you it is the truth -- a lawyer can twist your brain like you haven't seen. he is the biggest con artist in the world. i don't know what you're talking

about. america is going down. host: that is rj in oklahoma. this is al in florida. caller: good morning, john. thank you for taking my call. i say on january 6, trump -- there's no question about it. he send thousands of people down to the capitol to disrupt an event, the chain of power. he said "you need to fight like hell," and what he was talking about was fighting those poor police officers. i am retired myself. i could not watch that. tears came to my eyes because no one came to them. i no trump had something to do with that as well. no help came to those officers

who are being beaten by the crowd he sent. host: you think that those actions meet the definition of "engaged an insurrection or rebellion against the united states"? caller: yes. that is a rebellion. he sent those people down there to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. he wanted pence to do something he knew constitutionally he couldn't do. host: about 10 minutes are left in this first segment of the washington journal, asking about this effort to use the 14th amendment to disqualify former president trump from primary general election ballots. just to give you an update on where the president is today, this weekend he has been at the g20 summit today. he is expected to have a

high-profile meeting in hanoi with people from vietnam. the new york times today with an interesting story about vietnam and its weapons program. "when president biden is greeted by vietnamese officials in hanoi today, he will be celebrating the prospective adding another friend in asia. but even as the united states and vietnam have nurtured their relationship, hanoi is making clandestine plans to buy an arsenal of weapons from russia in contravention to u.s. sanctions according to any internal vietnamese government document. ministry of finance document whose contents have been verified lays out how vietnam proposes to modernize its military by paying for transfers . signed by a vietnamese deputy

finance minister, vietnam is negotiating a new arms deal with russia that would strengthen strategic trust at a time when russia is being embargoed by western countries." that is from the new york times. we are expecting that meeting in hanoi to take place in 45 minutes or an hour. we may have some of the full feed of that to show if and when the president makes comments there. factor calls. our next caller is from south carolina. caller: hi. i oppose to donald trump being president again. either you believe the constitution, or you don't. that is what it boils down to. people have their right to their own opinion. if this was president obama, and

he would have done some of the things that have been accused of all of this insurrection, rape, what what the people say then? host: you oppose donald trump being president again. do you oppose his name even being listed on a primary ballot? caller: either you believe what it says in the 14th amendment or you don't. host: that is selma in south carolina. this is terry in akron, ohio. caller: hi. what is going to be interesting is when it gets to the supreme court and to see how these strict constructionists twisted their way out of it. these maggot people -- maga people always talk about how they believe in the constitution.

"my second amendment rights!" it is clear to people that he gave comfort to the seditious conspirators. i'm kind of glad it was brought up. let's go to the supreme court, see what they say. i i hope he stays on the ballot in away so that he can get defeated soundly, and may be the american people can get the message. host: what do you think a conservative majority supreme court does with a case like this, if it were to make it to the supreme court? we lost the color. this is curtis i -- caller. this is curtis in south carolina. caller: i will tell you something, everything is about trump. this is ridiculous. he needs to be taken off the

ballot in every state because what he did was wrong. if he peepee'd down somebody's back, he would tell them it was raining and they would believe him. he needs to be taken off the ballot. host: that is the color from -- actually, i don't know what state that caller was from. this is vivian. caller: it boggles my mind that these republicans who support trump claim -- and it is obvious that they don't really understand the constitution or the functions of the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of government because with the elections needing to be audited, they were in a sense audited by the courts, dozens and dozens and dozens of times

when trump challenged the election in the courts and he lost those vast majority of cases, except for one or two in very conservative states. those who say trump has not been convicted of anything disregard the convictions of the university that was defrauding people and defamation of character convictions most recently. i do not understand wire they so limited in their scope of understanding. with regard to the 14th amendment it is really clear those 100 or so words. the word "or" is used many times. it is not just insurrection. it is any act against the government. it does not say anything about conviction. "or" is a two letter word.

host: the phrase is acted in insurrection or rebellion against the government. caller: the word or is doing a lot of work in section three. we need to understand that. "or" means this or that. host: do think this was insurrection or rebellion? caller: yeah, all of it. the word or is used several times in that third section, so it is giving people options with regards to interpretation. if you cannot prove the details of insurrection then you go to the word rebellion, and you try to analyze what that means. that is what constitutional scholarship is all about. host: vivian in new york city. here are two text messages this morning, the first from james saying "i don't support keeping

trump off the ballot. what is going on is not the tactic. democrats are teaching republicans how to do it." this from mike in chesapeake -- "trum committed -- trump committed a coup and he should not be allowed to hold office." efforts are underway in other states. to don in nevada. caller: good morning. good morning. i would like to make a short statement before i tell you what i think about this disqualification. hit lorenz stalin -- hitler and stalin eliminated their competitors by either shooting them or them disappearing.

the marxists are marching here every day. take a look at what has happened with our doj. they have arrested every person that supported trump. they have 19 people in atlanta they want to arrest. in our country you can't shoot a competitor. what you do is you either bankrupt them or you send them to jail. so when trump said at his speech to march peacefully down to the capitol, how can you disqualify him after him saying

"march peacefully"? this is getting to be such a joke in our country, and the world is laughing at us. host: that is don in the vanda. 0 -- don in nevada. caller: i feel like trump's name should not be allowed on the ballot. the whole giving aid or comfort to the people who engaged in insurrection, the video he put out when he was calling for the people to leave, he was saying "we love you." it is all ridiculous. it is sad we have to go through all of this. i think he should be disqualified from being able to be on the ballot. host: that was zach in georgia,

our last color in this segment of the washington journal. stick around there is plenty more to talk about this morning, including up next. we will be joined by don caldwell. we we'll talk about foreign policy in the republican party and later on the washington journal we will be joined by david corn to talk about campaign 2024. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors guessing the latest nonfiction books. the atlantic staff writer franklin foer looks back at the first two years of the biden administration with his book "the last politician." then former vice president mike pence with his book "so help me god.

then on afterwords, cara fitzpatrick on the future of education in america with her book "the death of public school." she's interviewed by mariah balingt. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and defined a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at the tv.org. ♪ >> c-span studentcam documentary competition is back and this time we are celebrating 20 years with this year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. >> the youth of today are leaders of tomorrow and it is imperative we take care of them to help them succeed as they progress through life. >> with more awareness we can work together to prevent fentanyl becoming the world's next pandemic. >> inflation it matters so it is

important to understand the ramifications of allowing it to go out of control. >> middle and high school students create a five-minute or six minute video addressing one of two questions. in the next 20 years, what's an important change you would like to see in america or what is been the most important change in america? show supporting and opposing perspectives. we're giving away $100,000 in total prizes with the grand prize of $5,000. because we are celebrating 20 years every teacher who has students who participate in this year's competition has an opportunity to share a portion of an additional the deadline $50,000. for students to submit is friday, january 19, 2024. four more information about this year's contest and rules visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not

just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, citizens truly informed, a 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 because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we focus on foreign policy views and the republican party. dan caldwell is our guest. how did you get involved with it? guest: the center for renewing america as a conservative policy institution founded in 2021. the mission is to renew

consisted of america as a nation under god with unique injuries where the -- where the of the people and individuals enjoyment of freedom predicated on just loss and healthy communities. we aim to accomplish by advancing america first policy agenda which focuses on ending the threat of weaponize government, securing orders and driving in realistic foreign policy. relist and restrain, in regards to realism, we accept the way the world it is outside of u.s., we have limited ability to change it and dollars of power between nations changed. restraint, we recognize american powers is limited and we need to be judicious in the use of our power overseas, particularly mentally force. military force should only be used when there are real threats to american safety and

conditions of our economic prosperity host: delete -- do we have more limited ability to change it there use to in the 1980's? do not have as much influence in the world? guest: there's always been limit on american power. in this current moment, since the end of the cold war, our power up more constrained than any other moment, since the end of the cold war, our power is more constrained. $32 trillion national debt. a competitor in china, record inflation. we have military worn down by 20 years of middle or in middle east. we built the military to brush brushfire wars and instead of peer adversaries like china. it limits our ability to do all around the world, many on the left and right of the

establishment want us to do. host: did we have a real competitor in the 80's, 90's had been fighting a cold war around for decades and putting our military in places around the world, including vietnam, to fight these wars and inflows the world? how is it different? guest: you're talking about two different errors. -- eras. in the cold war, we had a real adversary. the soviet sphere and you had the u.s. -- the soviet fear and he had the u.s., their allies, and there is a true come this global block that needed to be checked and it posed a real threat to the u.s. and our safety and condition of economic prosperity. that mandated a more forward and global posture we needed to take. once the soviet union collapsed,

u.s. in 1990's became the world's dominant power. there is not a competitor. i think this calls people to think they were not limits on our power and there is that hubris that led us to take foreign policy actions, particularly late 1990's, and early 2000, that were detrimental to u.s. security. it caused us to go into places like iraq to initiate nation building in afghanistan, to undertake the intervention, which has made us less safe, racked up the debt, cost us thousands of lives, and distracted us from more urgent national security priorities, particularly the rise of china. all those put this in a situation where we have a global power position that is constrained. i think what is important is that we need to recognize that. we need to recognize we cannot do all these things are foreign

policy establishment want us to do. we need to prioritize what is important. the prioritize -- host: the the two sides of this foreign policy, more forward global posture, limited america first, who represents those two sides of the debate in the republican primary field? guest: the top three candidates right now, president donald trump, ramaswamy, governor desantis, to varying degrees largely acknowledged u.s. exists within a world of limits. as a result, we need to prioritize what we are doing. the three of them would say that our top challenge is china. we need to do this in other parts of the world to focus on that. those three represent about 75%

to 85 percent of the public and electorate then you have other candidates in the primary. nikki haley and chris christie as two prominent examples that do not recognize there are limits on american power. essentially described foreign vision were u.s. essentially serving as the world's global policeman and that we can continue to do all these things we did in the 1990's or had ability to do. that includes continuing to support ukraine, indefinitely, employing thousands of more troops to europe. in iran and lodging new cold war of china at this same time. those three when you hear those individuals who do not recognize our limits, you hear them talking, they do not recognize we have real constraints that

prevent us from doing all those things. host: is the republican primary electorate voting on foreign policy? is donald trump and desantis, ramaswamy, leading because of the foreign policy issue? is that the top issues in voters mind? guest: in most polls, foreign policy really rises as top issue. -- rarely rises essence a top issue. in a primary where you could have races that come down to thousands of those or candidates agreeing on a large set of issues, foreign policy could be a differentiator. i think overall for republican candidates and policymakers running for reelection, the political advantage is to support a more realist and restraint foreign policy. host: dan caldwell is our guest this morning. joining us to talk about foreign policy, specifically as

explained out in debates in the republican primary. he's with the center for renewing america, the vice president there. phone lines are as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. go ahead and start calling as i show viewers this headline from today's washington post. gop lawmakers clash over a blank check for ukraine, threatening future aid. what is your view of future funding, arms transfers to ukraine? guest: i do not believe that congress should authorize more aide to ukraine. the congress has authorized 113 billion dollars in support and that includes direct military, financial and humanitarian assistance, and aide to country

that border ukraine an additional military forces to europe. u.s. has contribute more to support ukraine at the moment the any other country. i think ultimately the amount of money we contributed to ukraine and the risk it is occurred is not in line with our interests are. the reality is there are no vital national interest at stake in ukraine. i know some people might think that is a harsh and direct thing to say but it is reality. i am deeply concerned the more involved we get in the conflict, the more arms we send, it heightens the risk of an escalation to direct conflict with a nuclear armed russia. some of the list systems being discussed sent, i worry could -- weapon systems being discussed,

i worry could lead to escalation. the more troops and contractors we have to deploy the borders of ukraine, someone to push them into ukraine to support the weapon systems, it heightens the risk there could be accidental confrontation between russia and american forces. i did not think any to tell you her listen is where that could lead. this is primarily european. they have the financials industrial military ability to own the lead. going forward europe needs to step up firmly into the lead and they started to do more. what they say they're going to do sometimes did not follow through with and that is good. i think ultimately get to a place where they are leading, u.s. steps back, we focus on parts of the world more important to us economically and security, mainly asia. host: mitch mcconnell one

republican who would disagree with that assessment. he took to the senate floor to talk about aid to ukraine. [video clip] >> president biden has not been as decisive as many of us would've preferred but it is no excuse for congress to compound his administration failures with failures of our own. nato unified and republican for its defense holiday and started to spend money on a collective defense, it is certainly not the time to go -- ukraine relate defending his sovereignty and eroding russia's capacity to threaten nato. it is not the time to ease up.

with russian and china friendship without limits, it is not the time for america to step back. mr. president, on the conflict of ukraine, the president has been not decisive enough, our system being used to good effect , how additional appropriations are critical for our defense industrial base and competition with china. but for now, let us be absolutely clear about a few things. helping ukraine retake its territory means weakening one of america's biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot. determining another one -- deterring another one in the process. investing in american strength,

military and economic. our colleagues have opportunities to do all of these tasks to supplemental appropriation before the month is out. host: senator mitch mcconnell on wednesday. we heard this argument before from supporters of additional funding and additional aid, the best way we can invest our defense in terms of directly impacting russia's ability to make or, reject his self overseas in europe and different countries. guest: i respectfully disagree with senator mitch mcconnell said. there is something he said at the end i want to respond to and other make this argument ukraine aide helps grow our defense industrial base at home and creates jobs at home. i would say war is not a good long-term jobs program, were that could escalate into a nuclear conflict.

in regards to the overall argument, this goes back to divide we talk about earlier. there are those of us in the conservative movement who believe u.s. needs to drop more restraint -- adopt a more restraint policy because we exist in a more constrained power environment. we look at russia's ability to threaten us, look at where russia exist globally in the world and who their neighbors are, you look at a country like china, it is clear russia is less of a challenge and direct us then china is. in my mind, we need to prioritize china over russia. i do not believe russia is as big of a threat as a lot of supporters say they are. it is worth noting even before the arrival of large amounts of ukraine aide, russian army could not take the city of kharkiv, 30

miles from its border. i do not think russian army to take paris, berlin. they have only 1/10 gdp of europe predictably the gdp is lower than italy and spain. you have countries under border that could contain them essentially on their own would help from western and central european countries like germany and france. i do not view them as threatening as a lot of people who want to support ukraine. we are pushing them closer to china. these are two countries that have had historical disputes. natural tension between them. they share borders. they have times going back to the late 1960's engaged in open conflict. i think this alliance between russia and china is one two our

policy towards russia we are creating when we should be exploiting natural tension between them to pull them apart. it is not mean russia becomes an ally of ours. but i do some think we need to consider when talking about policy towards russia and china. host: plenty of colors waiting to chat with you. we are talking with dan caldwell. we start on the republican line. nelson in florida. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yes, sir. caller: some of your comments seem to be contradictory. you cannot fight or stand up to china without being involved the rest of the world because china is in the rest of the world. that goes for russia as well. russia -- what russia is doing is a crime against humanity and

although i am a republican and would never vote for joe biden, i happen to agree with the policy at this time of trying to help ukraine defend itself as we should also be doing with taiwan against the chinese. both of them are adversaries. both are highly involved in the rest of the world. we cannot disengage as you claim. your comments. thank you for listening. guest: i'm glad you brought this issue of supporting both ukraine and china. -- ukraine and taiwan. ultimately, we cannot do both. we have limited industrial military and financial capability. right now, a backlog of arms delivery to taiwan as a result of our support of ukraine. some people try to deny there are trade-offs but they are --

there are a pre-many of the same weapons we are sending to ukraine. -- to certain weapons systems , certain aircraft and things like that. the reality is we cannot effectively do both. that goes back to it has been the theme throughout our conversation. there are constraints on our power and as a result we need to prioritize. i will say china is a global economic power. they also integrated in the world in a way different from the soviet union. that makes the challenge of dealing with china differently. i worry about adopting the cold war firm 1945 mindset of dealing with china.

the soviet union was never integrated economically the same way china is with us. that requires different solutions and this is something else that is bothering me about the republican foreign policy discussion is that they want to apply the same model be applied to the soviet union to china. i do not think it will work. host: how likely do you think there'll be an invasion of taiwan by china the next several years or decades? guest: i do think that is a signific possibility. i do think it is much more difficult to invade an island nation to conduct an airborne assault than it is to conduct a land invasion. the marine corps right now completely rethinking, redesigning itself because the era of force large operations is

over. i think in order to best prepare taiwan for this possibility to create an environment where they deter china from invading in the first place is we need to preoccupying them, armed them with certain weapons that would make chinese invasion extremely costly or visually impossible. those include things like patriot missiles, things we are currently sending to ukraine. it goes back to the problem with trade-offs and our current constraints and reality is we cannot do both. we cannot do what we need to do for taiwan and continue to support ukraine at current levels. host: to florida, this is steve. democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i had things as going to say and i do not think i would say this being a progressive person but i agree with mr. caldwell statement. the military-industrial complex is not a job program. my question is and this is another one i just thought of according to the conversation, but we are talking about conventional or. -- war. what is your foundations stands on cyber war? we are talking about situations that apply maybe 10 or 20 years ago but now there is so much of a threat to our computer grades and intelligence -- computer grids and intelligence and

top-secret information, is that something your organization goes into? guest: we have not delve into it too much but it is a major issue. i think it is another area where the u.s. is behind . i think it goes back to what we have ultimately invested in and focus on in military. for 20 years we were engaged in these brush fire conflicts in places like iraq, afghanistan, and syria. military operations still going on in iraq and syria. not focus on his are just that did not have a lot of technology, that did not have -- insurgents that did not have a lot of technology so i think we are behind on building a letter cyber capabilities. another area we are behind on his wicking up to the fact that china has ultimately created

technology that has been integrated into our economy that could prove devastating to our economic prosperity if we get into a war with them. they have holes on key supply lines like medicine. -- holds a key supply lines like medicine, they control social media channels and they can prove problematic. it is an area that is a major concern. host: you brought up iraq and syria. there is a report earlier this summer. a new posture for the middle east. guest: this is one region that should be have lead to prioritize -- deprioritize. we squandered thousands of lies,

trillions of dollars of these foolish nationbuilding wars. i served in one, iraq. we still have too many troops there. it is out of alignment with how important it is to u.s. and our economy, our safety. i think we need to go to a posture we had in the 1970's and 1980's were we have a naval presence out by rain and a counterterrorism voice focus on dealing with terrorist groups that have the intent and capability to harm us. we should not have a major ground presence there. we should not have a lot of air assets. it should not be a priority where you are possibly having to carry a bottle group or large-scale force rotating out. we need to pull out of iraq and syria. we are still spending less numbers, $10 billion a year supporting the operations.

that is coming at the cost of other things we need to be doing at home and abroad. host: to connecticut, this is michael. independent. caller: thank you for taking the call. i want to point out -- i'm looking forward to listening to the gentleman. , opening line you begin to talk about his organization being a committed to the prospect of a nation under god. i just want to simply say you are speaking to the u.s., a nation that is supposed to be inclusive of everyone, whether you believe in god or not, all religions. i'm guessing you said nation under god, you meant a christian god, which just for the device us. i think begin the process of your discussion already dividing us. i think it is dangerous.

it is a dangerous place ago. you also said the name of your organization, center for renewing america. america does not have to be renewed. you have to comply with the guidelines that exist. for example, the first amendment of the constitution, the congress shall make no law respecting relation. -- religion but you open your discussion saying you're an organization committed to the concept of a nation under god. guest: you brought up the constitution. we are a radical politician lists at the center of renewed america. we do not want to create an environment where we are forcing anybody to follow along religious or other, but we do believe we are one nation under god. for most of our histories we have had, people who have led

this country that have religious beliefs and they have been inspired by those beliefs. i do not think that conflicts with religious freedom in any way and again by no means do we advocate establishing a state religion. host: dave in georgia. republican. caller: hello. i agree with a lot of points. $32 trillion in debt. we have an open southern border. people are coming here whether we want them or not. you look at what is happening in our cities with the civil chaos. also, we are disarming ourselves, and and talking fossil fuel. we are at everyone else's whim with how we are treating our

stuff. you wonder if we are not the devil. that we are doing it to ourselves. you want to second-guess yourself when you do these kinds of things. it looks bad for our nation. i just hope it turns around. guest: in regards to fossil fuels, i agree. we are hurting ourselves by in many cases taking an anti-fossil fuel stands and antinuclear stance. that affects our security. energy security is directly related to our overall national security. i think decisions made by the biden administration, canceling oil and gas leases in alaska that harms our economy and harms

our national security. here is what i think people forget. the source of our military strength is our economic strength. when you undermine our economic strength, either through regulations on the economy that hurt our energy security, or by running up trillions of dollars of debt, you make it harder to find a stronger military. i think is important to point. host: president biden in vietnam. a bilateral press conference getting underway. there is the president there. live pictures. coming on the same day the new york times put out a story about vietnam in secret talks to buy russian arms even as u.s. nurturing the relationship.

the story knows v9 making claims to buy arsenal weapons in contravention of american sanctions. have you seen the story? guest: i have not but i am aware of the dynamic. this shows the challenge u.s. is facing in regards to ukraine policy. we have tried to force the rest of the world to take a side of the conflict but most of the world does not have an interest in this conflict and they have commercial relations with russia , military relations. it is not in their interest to cut those off and that includes some of the world's biggest democracies like india, brazil, and there are countries like vietnam's interests -- in our interest to pursue close relations with. it goes back to how are ukraine policy is undermining our security. we are not recognizing the fact that most of the countries in the world, those in the global south, do not simply share our

view of this conflict and by trying to force them into a plot against russia, we risk pushing them away from us and pushing them closer to china or russia. it is not surprising that they are looking to buy more arms from russia. they have a military that after the end of the vietnam war was largely a clip by the soviet union -- equipped by the soviet union. they have been russian weapons. in order to maintain the military, they have no choice but to go back to russia because they do not have time to switch over to a nato standard and because we are devoting so much of our industrial capacity supporting ukraine, even if they wanted to re-equip under nato, american standards we cannot simply do it, but russia can provide the spare parts and

certain weapons they need to defer, to deter china which is a country that poses threats to us. host: we are taking your questions, your calls. ken in d.c., independent. caller: good morning. what you suffer from a serious amount of jingoism. for those of you who did not know what it is, nationalism in forming aggressive, proactive foreign policy. advocates actual threat of violence to other nations to maintain certain piece and they had behind what is perception of what our best national interests are. i noticed at the beginning how you had the audacity to

instigate or utilize the term under god. all of these things, colonial, descendants of the so-called founders of this nation, have done nothing on behalf of god. i ask you, but what has more power, commandment or amendment? we know who fall short when it comes to who is making the most rational decisions, whether it is god's work or what we decide we think is best. host: a lot of their. guest: i'm always pleased when someone wants to read back a dictionary definition to me. in regards to be aggressive and going around the world and attacking others, i want less of that. i believe a lot of our wars the last 30 years have been unjustified. i served in a conflict. it is awful. i want to do less of that. one of the reasons i support

policies i do in places like ukraine is because i do not want to see a current ongoing war grown a something else were more people would die. i disagree with the characterization. host: where and when did you serve? guest: iraq in u.s. marine corps in the western part of the country, northern part of the country from end of 2008 to the summer of 2009. host:country, why did you want o into the marines? guest: i've always been a big history buff. the most proud branch, the brentwood reputation as the toughest and hardest. -- they have a reputation as the toughest and hardest and proud of the fact they often get less money than the other branches but often perform better. that is what drove me to the marine corps and i had a desire to serve after 9/11. i believe that we needed to do

something about the threat of islamic terrorism. looking back, like a lot of americans, i think there are a lot of things i believe back then that are wrong. it is clear looking back that the patriotism of people like me and others was exploited to pursue a foreign policy nationbuilding, neoconservatism that was not in our interest and lead to awful results. host: what does the pendant what does the pendant represent? -- pin represent? guest: the first marine division. host: what was just war? guest: i think we were justified going into afghanistan in 9/11. we were attached. people planned, finance, and orchestrated the attack. we needed to punish the taliban for shuttering al qaeda create we need to degrade the central

branch make sure they are not the central threat and kill osama bin laden. we are justified originally going to afghanistan. the problem with the war in afghanistan it turned into a nationbuilding project, we attempted to turn afghanistan into a liberal democracy in our own image. the lead to disastrous results for the american people and afghan people. i think that is an example of where you have a justified use of force with clear and what i would say narrow objectives that morphs into something that is not in our interest and long-term makes it less safe. host: new york city. this is russ. democrat. caller: i would like to ask you do you think the future of the republican party will be conservative or populism and which one would you prefer? do you think vice president pence

in on the effort to hold the electoral count? is it. guest: in regards to the conservative vote versus populism debate, i find these debates difficult to engage in because you talk to five different people and you get seven different definitions of both things. i think there are a lot of conservatives who call themselves populists that are not and populists are more libertarian or traditional conservatives. there a lot of republicans wondering why the conservative grassroots and republican primary voters have turned against things like free trade, limited government.

i often think that shift away from limited government is often over exaggerated by certain people. but there is such disdain for the conservative establishment and republican establishment because of the fires we have talked about today. you cannot talk about the rise of people like president trump talking about things like the iraq war or the growth of our security state after 9/11 or -- those created conditions for politicians like president trump and others to challenge the status quo. i think a lot of the people that are condemning the rise of populism are responsible for the rise of populism because of the policies they advocated for, particularly early to mid 2000's. host: laqyelle in georgia.

euronext. -- you are next. what is your question or comment? caller: i hear often you speak of the war in ukraine. it seems as if you're coming from a fall spectrum that the economy of america -- false spectrum that the economy of america, rest on war bearing and not human rights and not a type of peace and treatment. a type of blame that kind of like america can go gung ho towards like islamic terrorists were they may not be the stomach tears. where there may be homeland like

ku klux klan and several others, led organizations, which are being ignored. my question is centered around his america -- his america aimed to reshape itself with the because addition in mind and the economy as opposed to just blaming warfare? guest: there's a lot to unpack. i would say in regards to the groups you mentioned, whether it is the threat of islamic terrorism or so-called domestic violence extremism, one trend we have seen especially after 9/11, but before that, there is a

tendency at times exaggerate these threats. ultimately the national security , our federal law-enforcement, federal intelligence services have incentive in various ways to exaggerate those threats. if things like islamic terrorism, domestically and abroad, viewed as a threat to our existence then the fbi, cia, other organizations can request more money. there is currently a system set up within the fbi that incentivizes fbi agents to keep a certain number of domestic violence extremism cases open and that is tied to their financial compensation. you can see how that creates incentive for them to say this group of so-called domestic violence extremists bigger and more of a threat than they are.

i think that is something we need to reckon with. if you look at how the fbi has dealt with the issue of domestic islamic extremism, you see case after case where they are inciting these incidents or in trapping most of america's into plots. there is a case where there is a piece of driver outside of detroit where he had fbi employees pretend to be isis bribes in syria to convince him to join isis and they took advantage of him, his emotional state, and he was arrested for trying to join isis and for having a firearm. he had many cases like that have occurred where you have these terrorist plots stopped and when you dive into them, you see the fbi stirred them up.

he saw that with the suppose it planned kidnapping of gretchen whitmer. that was excited by fbi informants -- that was created by fbi informants. that is a huge problem we talk about because of extremism. we need to be realistic about what the threats are and not inflate them so we can justify bigger budget for fbi or department of homeland security and cia. host: bob in tennessee, independent. caller: the democrat party want to take out god. look at the country, it is like russia and china, who does not have died in it. this is the country date want. now we are modulating little boys. democrats are evil people.

murder babies. i'm sick of this. host: i will give you the final two minutes as you look ahead to congress this month, debates on foreign policy that we should be looking for down the road as the house comes back next week. guest: there is one issue i want to bring up that is getting a lot of attention related to national security. that is senator tuberville hold on military promotions. i think national security press corps has been doing a disservice to the american people. by misrepresenting what he is doing. senator tuberville is doing what every senator has a right to do and that is prevent large batches of military promotions for moving forward under unanimous consent. he does not have the power to unilaterally block the power

indefinitely. the power indefinitely. majority leader schumer wanted to come months ago, he could've started bringing up these promotions on individual basis with individual debates under regular order. all these complaints about senator tuberville hurting military and keeping the positions open, he does not have the individual power. if you are mad about that, it is on senator schumer. senate process aside, i strongly support what senator tuberville is doing. department of defense started this when the government an illegal immoral policy to allow servicemember -- prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions and it is unfair. when i was in the marines, if i had a family member who died suddenly and i wanted to take leave and that was approved, not only was he leave charged against my annual leave account,

i had to pay for my own travel expenses. if a service member wants to take an abortion, not only is there travel paid for, their leave is not charged against their annual leave accounts and there is a financial benefit that because at the end of your service you can sell back your leave. it is unfair. i think policy is unjust. i think by doing this, senator tuberville has caused us to take a closer look at some of these general officers or colonels held up for promotion. look at their records. you would say many of these officers do not deserve a promotion. you look at general brown has had of the air force he oversaw decline in readiness rates, our

fleet was grounded for five months. you have one colonel nicholson who wrote an op-ed accusing his white colleagues are being blind to racism predicting those are two individuals who do not deserve a rubberstamp or motion. i hope senator tuberville holds firm. i hope it sets a precedent where we take a closer look at these military officers and not just push through hundreds at a time because that is how we got this military leadership that led us poorly during 20 years of endless war in the middle east. host: dan caldwell, vice president at the center for renewing america. appreciate your time this morning. coming up in about 25 minutes, we are joined by david corn of mother jones talking about campaign 2024, but until then it is open forum. any public policy issue or political issue, we turn the

phones over to you. the phone lines are on your screen. we'll get to the calls after the break. ♪ >> since 1970 nine in partnership with the cable industry, c-span provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided. no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span your unfiltered view of government.

>> books that shape america's, a new series that explore key works that have an impact on our society. go to our website c-span.org/books that shaped america. click your input to and select record video and 30 seconds or less tell yosi your pick and why -- tell us your pick and why. >> beloved by toni morrison. >> soldier by colin powell. >> join others across the country as we look back that provoke thought, policy change, and still talked about today. be sure to watch live every monday beginning september 18 at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span shop fall sale going

on right now at c-spanshop.org. save up to 20% on apparel, drink ware. every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. the fall sale going on now. scan the code on the right to shop now at c-span shop.org. host: it is time for open forum were would you lead the discussion. the phone numbers to join the conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. situational awareness this morning, president biden is in vietnam and just finished up a joint press conference there. has been this weekend with the

g20 leaders in india and made this trip to vietnam speaking about what was happening at the g20 this past weekend and u.s. relations with vietnam that happening 15 minutes ago. robert in south carolina on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i'm calling you because they got you had on before was discussed think about the commanders -- disgusting about the commanders being promoted and the only thing he questioned about was the two black commanders. host: i'm listening. caller: the only question he had was about the two black commanders. as a combat vet, vietnam vet,

this guy had not said anything but he served in iraq in 2008, 2009. my question to him would have been what war or combat did he face? do not criticize the black commanders. to tell me senator tuberville is right, i believe you should leave no soldier behind and if you are against the females, you did not deserve to come on your show and spread that propaganda. the females are soldiers too. why should we not help them? if we cannot take leave, let's cut off all leave for all soldiers and then let's see what turberville say or better yet hold up his pay. he is not served in no war. i had a brother die in vietnam.

two stars and a purple heart and i get this guy spreading propaganda about black people. i'm a black vietnam vet and i disagree about what he said about the two black commanders. they have been there. he served two years. i did 22. he got the nerve to come on the show and spread the propaganda. what is woke? turberville never served anything. host: cory, jefferson city, missouri. independent. caller: good morning. i had a question for dan caldwell. i was wondering if he was running for putin's vice presidency. he seemed to be leaning heavily on letting ukraine to be turned over. the navy seals eat the marines

for lunch. host: in virginia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you goal support -- if you go on supporting ukraine, there are united states citizens, they do not have money to buy stuff but you have money to send a $40 billion to ukraine. does this make sense? this course is putin to use nuclear weapons in ukraine -- forces putin to use nuclear weapons in ukraine. it is not good for u.s.. it is not good for ukraine. i think a support should be stopped. host: ron, virginia, democrat. caller: i want to follow up on two things, the weaponization of

the constitution. our far right party in america is complaining about weaponizing the constitution when that is what they do also. this is a combined effort across america. when they took rights away from the woman of america, that is weaponizing the constitution. when they allow police officers to not to be held accountable for using force in the wrong way, that is weaponizing our rights. the second thing, where is the balance that c-span owes against the center for america renewal? there is no counter balance. he has a right to his free speech but we did not listen to people who are wronged. who funded the organization? they do not believe the melting pot of america. he does not have any experience to talk about national security, national defense.

why don't you bring on experts? i should be allowed to come on the show and talk about something i believe. what can we do about that? host: stick around. you might agree more with david corn of mother jones coming on in about 15 minutes but he talk about you should come on to talk about it, what is your background? caller: i start in the army since 1979. i'm a cold war veteran. i worked at checkpoint charlie. i was in 82nd airborne division. i served in panamanian for the security operation against noriega. i served in bosnia. i served now. i helped design strategies for our country to defend ourselves. host: where do you design strategies? caller: i design strategies at the national guard in the u.s. army. host: tell me about working

checkpoint charlie. caller: it was actually, i investigated a car accident in east berlin and when i saw the materials the soviet union was using, compressed carport to make the cars, i thought that was very illuminating. here i am 18-year-old, i am working the security checkpoint communist apparatus of east berlin. our work the duty train for six months from berlin to frankfurt that would allow -- berlin was 100 miles behind enemy territory. i used to joke you can turn the signs around as a concentration camp. we have to understand the soviet union which is really russia trained the world to be communist. they had universities. they taught the chinese how to be communist. they taught the north koreans how to be communist.

they taught vietnamese how to be economists. they have not changed their ways. we go back in history, the most important think we did not realize, foreign governments including our own try to take countries we do not agree with everything that the century for renewable of america side -- the agency -- where we have been in bad wars? everybody criticize president obama and said he was going around the world apologizing for america. that is what that guy just did. i did not agree we should have invaded iraq. that is a different problem. but, what are we really doing? i believe when the nazis invaded poland, they would have been ok with it and told us not to worry about it just like we did. we set ourselves up for failure in the world. we have to find a peace dividend. he talked about the fbi.

why didn't you confront him on what he said about how the fbi gets compensated? there government employees. if they open up cases on dissidents or organizations that want to throw the -- to overthrow the united states government, that is ok, is what he is saying. i do not think that is right. do you have another question? host: no, they queue for sharing your background. chris, republican. good morning. caller: how is everybody doing today? hi. first off, i want to say, c-span has been taking hits this morning. compared to the regular news media, i love listening to c-span, particularly "washington journal" because you get to hear what people think. host: it is part of the job, chris. taking hits is part of the job. caller: yeah, i got it.

my concern is what i hear from all the colors comments -- calle rs comments, a fear that we as a society are losing our perspective. i think our ruling elite are more driving us. i hear a lot of talking points that are brought up, instead of taking objective views of situations. i am really concerned that we are slowly losing liberties overtime that are guaranteed in the constitution. i want to say out right, i am not for trump. i do not agree with what happened on january 6. i do not like how that whole situation is going. i'm mostly concerned with what just happened down in new mexico and albuquerque with the governor revoking peoples rights to gary -- to carry guns.

that is a blatant power grab against our constitution. i did not like what biden did, forcing -- trying to force vaccine mandates. and take away our liberties. quite honestly, i felt that was fascism because you are driving people's economic ability to make money by losing their jobs because you do not do what is popular. so, when i see those type of things, i get really concerned. instead, we get focused on these issues. i hear a lot about -- race it's brought into everything, where racism is not an issue. the more popular talking points, the racism -- when you think about the percentage of the population affected by that, it is very minor. i really wish everybody would

take a bigger picture view of what is going on and how things are being manipulated to drive the popular view to a certain point. host: got your point. you talk about race and the issue of race and politics right now. today's sunday take with dan vault in the washington post takes a deep dive into that issue. here is how he starts his piece this morning. in a polarized united states, what divides democrats and republicans the most is not gender, education, income or religion. it is the issue of race auto whether it regards to backgrounds of the voters that make up the two party coalition or the conflicting agendas and priorities each side advocates in the pursuit of power. that reality brought home in a new report by the american little science foundation -- political science foundation. he goes through recent examples

that illustrate the racial division between the parties. in 2016, he writes then candidate donald trump won 57% of white voters but 8% of black voters. there is his support between white and hispanic voters and white and asian-american voters. no other democratic differentiations, whether age, income or religion came crows -- close to that divide. the composition of republican and democratic vote in presidential elections. in 2008, 2012, 2016, 96% were received -- came from white people. that shifted a bit from 2020, 82% of trump's votes came from whites according to latest numbers. half of the votes for democratic nominees come from people of color. this is robert, greenville,

texas, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment, to connecting comments, on your show this morning. the first about the 14th amendment and whether it should per clued donald trump from being able to run. obviously, i think the 14th amendment was pretty clear on this. the people involved in january 6, some have been convicted of insurrection. most of these people like the recent one -- gosh, the proud boys member -- he asked a question while we were only doing what we thought donald trump wanted us to do. host: henrique cario? caller: yes, sir. that was part of his public statement at trial, that he felt he was working on behalf of the president.

that should be considered evidence that supports the idea that trump was involved. obviously, we all saw it on television. there is no getting around the horrific event that happened. to move on to connect that comment, obviously, he should be precluded from running. the problem i am seeing is your second show this morning with the republican strategist on foreign policy. i am so confused. after being a lifetime republican -- i am an independent now -- after that happened, i saw a total disintegration of the republican party. it used to be the law and order, strong foreign, common enemy was

russia, we were trying to promote democracy and russia was promoting communism. we went through about 50, 60 years of absolute cold war, people being told, you can -- the bomb squad, underneath the desk. it was insanity. after so long of a battle and not having to put one boot on the ground or defending the expansion of the soviet union towards europe, and the republican party seems to be totally divided over what is to be a pretty common purpose of the republican party. i am just looking at the republican party and i honest to gosh, i would love to get back where john mccain was.

just about reaganism, the whole bit. we are an exceptional country. host: do you see that ever happening again? getting back to those places in the republican party? caller: i have got to be honest with you. i think the republican party after the fiasco of the last, well, ongoing still with court cases -- the republican party is going to take 20, 30 years to regain the stature it once had. all i can hope is that somehow, maybe they block him running again with the 14th amendment, may be more sober minds take over the republican party. we get out some of the radicalism that is going on in their division -- that is going on in their, division going on in there. the new faces that want to build bipartisan consensus. host: last question. who do you think you are going

to vote for in 2024? caller: well, let me answer it this way. i do not have a preferred candidate yet. what i do have is a firm belief that we probably, the two candidates that are front runners right now, will not be the next president. i do not believe -- one, biden is getting up in age. number two, i think donald trump is going to get convicted. who emerges? hey, democrats really do not feel much of anything other than this kennedy fella. there is not a whole lot of good alternatives right now. i was really shocked that the republican debate, how so many of these people were like, hey, i pardoned trump. you know. i would still support him if he was a front runner.

it is scary. he has divided that party and he is destroying it. host: that is robert in greenville, texas. this is ron in michigan, line for democrats. caller: there is oatmeal. host: there is oatmeal, ron? where is there oatmeal? caller: [laughter] i want to talk about vietnam. i am a vietnam veteran. we just had dr. martin luther king anniversary speech. what was left out is his opposition to the vietnam war. when he spoke out about the vietnam war and his opposition to it, he was gunned down by the cia. the cia was the vietnam war. that was their baby, ok? every war since, every president has never questioned our involvement in the war because they know the consequences of that. joe biden, who i voted for, went to vietnam and visited. he should have went there and begged for their forgiveness for our genocidal policy in vietnam.

what the russians are doing in ukraine is wrong. but, so is the united states for pushing nato down their throat. now, we go to vietnam and ask them to send their young men and women to shed blood, to fight china. china, who supported them with weapons to fight u.s. imperialism. that -- in world war ii, the russians, the communists, killed seven nazis for every tenant nazis out there. when we landed on the beaches of normandy, there was a lot of dead nazis. thank you, communists. host: ron in michigan this morning. president biden at that greeting ceremony about 45 minutes ago. the formal joint press conference is getting ready to get underway. that, happening as part of president biden's overseas trip. he was at the g20 yesterday. this joint press conference, still awaiting a two minute warning on that. it seems like it might be a

little longer. only bit -- only a little bit of time left in our open forum. this is new jersey, lewis number republican. good morning. caller: good morning to all. a few things to mention here, one being -- about a month before the 2020 election, hillary clinton asked president trump if he loses the election, would he leave the white house peacefully? i asked myself, why would she ask such a question? a bad joke, i thought, would president trump asked voters to vote for biden during the primaries. he will be easier to beat, he said. also, how much money was made on just the odds of who will win the 2020 residential election? the first people to congratulate biden was netanyahu, putin and zen. is that how you say it? does that tell you anything? host: last call here in open forum, kendra, indiana, line for

democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to maybe change up a voice, a female, not somebody who has served in any foreign wars and is generally listening this money. i think i am probably more hopeful for the future than what i'm hearing here. i definitely think that more women and younger people need to get involved at the political level. it is definitely a pressing issue. i notice it in my community, a very small community. i am definitely in my state and at the national level, so while i appreciate all the voices i have heard this morning, definitely some reactions from me to for the original speaker. i know we are running out of time. i just wanted to be heard as a female voter, not a boomer. sorry, did not mean to say boomer. not somebody who has the military experience. host: kendra, what makes you

hopeful? caller: oh, my gosh. the young people and the creativity and the absolute ability for us to heal. i know there are some deep, deep wounds. i know we are still looking at things like racism grade i was a teacher for 20 years. i was passionate about that and i recognize that. host: kendra in plymouth, indiana. our last caller in this open forum. stick around, 45 minutes to go. we will be joined by mother jones bureau chief david corn, we will discuss campaign 2024, the progressive agenda. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪

>> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate returned with both chambers taking up federal spending bills to avoid a government shutdown deadline of september 30. monday on the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, live coverage of commemoration ceremonies from 9/11 memorial plaza in new york city and the pentagon. later, president biden will deliver remarks on 9/11 from a military base in alaska. tuesday, the chair of the securities and exchange commission, gary gensler, testifies before the senate inking committee oversight hearing. thursday, the democratic national committee's rules and bylaws committee will meet to consider states plans for 2024 primaries. caucuses and ellicott selection. friday and saturday, coverage of

the prey, vote, stand summit in washington, d.c. hosted by the family research council land other conservatives and religious groups. watch this week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free, mobile video app here and also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own minds. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, our free, mobile video app or anytime online at the span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪

>> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a 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 what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: david corn is back at our desk this morning. his latest book from last fall is american psychosis, a historical investigation of how the republican went crazy. welcome back. caller: it is from last fall, but the paperback version comes out on tuesday. we are celebrating. host: i want to get to the book,

but let me get to a question a lot of people are asking right now. is there such a thing in your mind as being too old to be in political office? should there be an age limit? guest: i thought you were saying, to hold to do c-span. host: we are welcoming you into your 92nd. guest: i think the answer is yes. there is a question when you have donald trump, 77, and joe biden, 80, about age. there is an issue with senator dianne feinstein, mitch mcconnell. it is bipartisan. people in power went to hang onto power. i think it is right for voters to think about this. looking at the biden-trump decision, which seems to be the likely decision in 2024, that is where the smoke is getting the most focus. republicans like to make a big

deal about biden, but i see biden riding bicycles. i have not yet seen donald trump ever ride a bicycle. he plays golf and walks. who has the better argument between those two? i think people are right to look at age, but also in terms of generational change. older people getting out of the way for younger people might be closer to reality in some ways. then people who are at that age, that point in their career. i think it is a real thing in trump versus biden. i do not think it is an advantage for one or the other. host: do you foresee a situation in which joe biden voluntarily steps aside before the 2024 election? guest: i think with both donald trump and joe biden, they are at the age were virtually anything can happen.

those of us, people who are close to that age, parents at that age, realized things can turn very suddenly. particularly, if you are not in good health. i can see either one of them having a health related issue that may be public or not public that changes things, or coming to the determination that may be they are not on their game is much as they should. it looks like joe biden has been performing well as president if you look at what he has achieved and it has not gotten in the way. it is not like a situation like woodrow wilson or past presidents who have been incapable in office. i do not see any signs yet he needs to do that. i would think he and donald trump should both look at their capacities and be honest about it. host: you mentioned your book. you spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the republican party. what happens in the republican party if mitch mcconnell steps down? guest: if he steps down -- let

me put this thing back in. it popped out. i can still hear you. i do not think it changes much in the dynamics. there is a leadership fight between john -- host: all the john's. guest: who is the third john? to become a minority leader in the republican party. but, i think they are all trapped by the same dynamic. mitch mcconnell has been trapped by the fact he republican party has essentially become a trump party and some call it a trump colt and that sets -- trump cult and that sets the agenda. even though he came out after january 6 and said donald trump -- it was donald trump's fault and he should be held accountable, he quickly backed away from that position because he saw the base of the party was sticking with trump despite the violence and if he went against that, he would create a civil war within the party for

attention, support and primarily for dollars. that is the basic issue with the party. it is not that -- people say, why doesn't mitch mcconnell lead the party away from donald trump or stand up to him? we know what they really think about him. behind -- offstage, behind closed doors when not on camera. the reason is, they are not courageous per se, they read the party a certain way. the party is dominated by trump and trumpism and far right extremism. whoever comes into this row after mitch mcconnell, which will happen eventually, will have the exact same dilemma. i am not sure they would navigate it to family. host: in terms of how you think we got there, and your book, american psychosis out in paper book now -- guest: on tuesday. host: this week.

what is the art you trace here? guest: i go back second -- seven decades. it shorts the relationship, it has always been there between the republican party and are right extremism, bigotry, paranoia, conspiracy monitoring. the premises the party has always encouraged and exploited these elements of our political world. or, extremism. i pick up with mccarthyism, which starts after world war ii, in which the republican party argued in essence that the main threat to the country was not even the russians, but this internal threat and joe mccarthy was claiming that the secretary of defense under eisenhower -- a republican -- was a communist stooge who was trying to destroy america from within. and, he was playing to the most far right, extremist, paranoid

notions that were out there. eisenhower, while enraged by this, did not challenge him openly. they did not want to get into a fight with mccarthy over this and split the party. from there, you see the party again and again and again making alliances with far right extremists. it was southern segregationists with nixon, the southern strategy. before that, barry goldwater embraced the john drake society, which was mccarthyism on steroids. john brooks society is basically the qanon of its day. saying that communists had taken over everything, every media, every church, every educational institution. the democratic party and the republican party, the society said eisenhower was a communist agent. you go into the 1970's, you have the new right and the religious right.

reagan embracing the moral majority. when the moral majority had people in higher echelons who were saying it was ok to kill gay people under god's law not that it would do it themselves. they were out there again, kind of like mccarthyite's, saying democrats and liberals will -- were anti-god and had to be defeated. it was true, this alliance, this religious right that ronald reagan got into the presidency. we see in decades since the public in leadership again and again making these partnerships with far right extremists. often, it was kind of done on the side. this is not the republican party establishment, but you had whether it was newt gingrich in the 1990's, both george bushes

creating political alliances with pat robinson. pat robinson was a crazy, conspiracy theorist who wrote a book called the new world order in which he said, a jewish making family and other elements around the world were trying to create a one world society that was satanic and demonic and george h debbie bush was helping them do it. -- george h dubya bush was embracing it. they wanted his support, his money. the same thing in the 1990's when newt gingrich was playing to the right and telling republicans they had to be mean and extreme and call the democrats treasonous, traders, enemies of the nation. there is always a threat of playing to the far right all saying democrats were an internal foe to america and a

threat to america. the tea party did that with -- john boehner welcomed it. fox news, what started the official head of the tea party, every night on fox news, he was out there saying that barack obama wanted to create concentration camps. fema camps to put people in, destroy the economy so he could become emperor. he was a secret socialist muslim born in kenya. there was a conspiracy theory on fox news everyday. what happened? john boehner, sarah palin and others would go on that show and validate glenn beck as a spot of wisdom. john boehner wanted to be elected with tea party support and ended up -- he rode the tiger and the tiger eight him. this all comes up to donald trump. when donald trump finally says, i do not have to pretend. john boehner was not a glenn

beck type. he does not believe that stuff. he was not out there calling barack obama a nazi. he kept them at a distance. when trump comes along and he is running against 15 governors and senators talking about policy -- chris christie knows about housing and urban issues, he comes out and is, screw it. i want to play to this radicalized, republican base. i am going to go on alex jones' conspiracy show and tell them that muslims are destroying the country. he took this relationship that has always been there and often, more to the side, and made it centerstage and said, i am your person. guess what? he was right. host: david corn. the book is american psychosis: a historical investigation how the republican party went crazy. out on tuesday, if you want it

in paperback. for the next half-hour this morning, we will take your phone calls and questions on "washington journal." (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. calls for you already. we will start here in new mexico. brian, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. david, i enjoy hearing your commentary and seeing you on tv. i think the unexamined topic in american politics is, in spite of the republicans on the grip of a criminal psychopath, a lot of medical america is not squawking to the democratic party. i would like you to examine that as a future topic. i am from a a democratic family.

i will throw in my two cents. there is drift towards utopia socialism, the democrats is turning a lot of common sense middle americans off. you boil down all of the talking points of the prominent democrats. it can be summed up as, give everybody anything, anything goes. with immigration, it is becoming a big problem in our major cities. so is the housing shortages in our major cities. no democrat is talking about limiting immigration. it is always, let them in, let them in, let them in. why isn't knittel america attracted to the dimmitt -- middle america attracted to the democratic party? guest: we can spend the rest of the show on that. ryan, thanks for your kind words about my work. i appreciate it. right now, this is the smaller version of this bait, it focuses

on joe biden's approval ratings. the economy has gotten objectively better in the last year. wealth is up. unemployment is down. inflation, still too high, especially in some areas has gone down from what it was. he seems to get little credit for that. i think the democrats by and large have been terrible at doing messaging. when donald trump was president, even during covid and after covid, he kept saying -- the economy is great, the best economy we have ever had. i'm the greatest president ever. that was objectively not true. it was not the greatest economy ever. he did not create the most amount of jobs. he said it every moment. his team, his side, absorbed and said -- this is the greatest economy, which is why we have to bring him back.

on the democratic side, democrats worry too much about policy and governing and not the advertising component of leadership and making sure people understand what is going on with the inflation reduction act on the was a terrible name for a bill to begin with, and all of the pioneering things he is doing in terms of the economy and alternative energy. basically creating energy infrastructure. i am flummoxed. i do not understand what happened in the obama years, the same problem is now being reflected in the biden white house with some people who actually served back in the obama years. host: who was the last democratic administration that was good at messaging in your opinion? guest: i think bill clinton. he seemed to demonstrate when he was running that he cared about this, that he was focused on the economy. he called it putting people first. he was the beneficiary of the

dot com bubble that went on. people did get better after the george h w bush recession. he seemed he was focused on it and did a good job. i think democrats need to learn from that to some degree. host: the caller was asking about the issue of democrats on immigration. guest: it is a caricature to say , let them in, let them in, let them in. it is humane treatment and figure out ways to keep them from coming without launching missiles at mexico war using a wall, which has not worked, does not work, especially saying mexico was going to pay for it. it is a terrible, difficult question. without any problem, you need to get to the cause of the problem. why are people coming? not just from mexico, other parts of central america and elsewhere. we need a secure border. i think democrats should be

saying that, but there needs to be ways to process people so we do not have humanitarian crises at the border. we need to find a way to boost economies and stabilize politics from these other countries so there is less people coming in and trade deals in the past have done the opposite. it is not a quick fix. it is a lot of long-term fixes and a few short term rings to deal with these -- the humanitarian side of it. host: shiner, texas, john. line four republicans. caller: i want to touch on two things. that's go back to immigration. it is a very simple fix. you can just tell them when you come, you will -- we will not give you free health care, we will not give you free education. we are going to turn you around. i lived in mexico for five years. if we had mexico immigration

laws, we would not have this problem. second, david, you seem to be a nice guy but you spew so much misinformation and hate. let's talk about reality. which party tried to overthrow a duly elected president -- president trump -- by falsifying the russian collusion, faking all the details that we know now are not true? we know that president biden has sold out the country. hunter biden committed treason. yet, used there and try to blame us. the governor is in mexico, just decided to suspend the constitution because she decided to. who is protecting democracy? the republicans or the democrats? host: david corn, a lot there. guest: we talk about immigration, let's stick to what he just said about misinformation. it pains me to say this to you, john in shiner texas, but you do

not understand what happened. in 2016, in 2016, russia, vladimir putin, announced an operation to sway the election here and help trump and hurt hillary clinton. they released emails and other materials to hurt hillary clinton. it worked. it did hurt her. it didn't slow down her campaign. throughout it all, donald trump kept saying, this was not happening. even though he had had a meeting or his top aides, jared kushner, paul manafort and his son, donald trump junior had a meeting with a russian emissary and had been told during campaign that russia wanted to help trump secretly win the election. he said, this was not happening. he provided cover to a foreign adversary who was attacking the campaign. there are a lot of details about what happened with memos and everything else that trump like

to focus on. there were problems with the fbi investigation. even john durham said the fbi investigation was legitimate. he just wanted to proceed at a different level. these are the basics. trump said there wasn't an attack and that helped. he republicans and trump have done a great job distracting, deflecting, saying it was the deep state and things are not true. if you do not believe me -- i doubt you will -- if you want to know what happened, it is very simple. if you care, it is going to take time and work. the intelligence community put out a report. people say, that is the deep state. ok. you trust senator marco rubio. you trust him. he is a trump supporter, a republican, he ran for president

as a republican. trust him, john? i assume you do. you do not think he is part of the deep state. in august 2020 when he was chairing the senate intelligence committee, he put out a report, signed off by the republicans and the democrats on the committee. senate intelligence committee report, volume five, was all about the trump-russia scandal. it is 700 pages. it takes time to become informed. it says exactly what i just said, describing the outlines of what happened. that russia did attack and the trump campaign tried to take advantage of it. throwing this on the side, paul manafort, the chairman of the trump campaign for most of 2016 -- it says that he met with a russian intelligence officer, handed him information and this officer might have been involved in the hack and leak operation

the russians ran. this is all from senator marco rubio. you do not have to believe me. i wrote a whole book on this. i know you will not believe me. read this, then let's talk again. if you are serious about understanding this, you have to look at these details. if you are not, you are not. host: what are your thoughts about the controversy over the second amendment in new mexico? to reiterate what down there in the past few days, the governor of new mexico announced the 30 day ban on carrying firearms in public areas for state property in albuquerque and its county, a move she said was necessary in response to gun violence in the region. that pretty announced is unconstitutional executive order permits open carry firearms in public schools, public parks with exceptions for police officers and security officers. that is the outline. guest: it is both dramatic and limited at the same time.

it is only in certain areas. i am not a lawyer. i have not looked at the legal end of this. obviously, gun violence is a tremendous concern, threat and danger in this country. we have this issue unlike any other western economy in the entire world. people upset about this, i would ask them seriously -- what would you do? what would you do to limit the bloodshed and the carnage? donald trump, when he gave his inauguration address, talk about american carnage. this is the carnage that is going on there. i do not see anybody on that side taking it seriously. all the lawyers argue whether -- i will let the lawyers argue if the governor has the constitutional right to do a 30

day ban. the larger issue is, what do the republicans have to say about these deaths that are happening? i have lost neighbors. i do not know if there is anyone in america now who has not been touched by this. things should be constitutional. trump should follow the constitution, even though he called for suspending it last year so he could be reinstated. i do not know if john is worried about that. we need to address this in dramatic fashion. host: steve in florida, line for democrats. caller: good morning. only a couple of things i would like to say. i studied trump for years and years. if he tried half of the stuff that he did like overseas, building his hotels, building this and that, he all of a sudden would clear bankruptcy and turn around and reimburse the laborers $.15 on the dollar.

he was put on an allowance of $400,000 a year until they could reach a settlement in his bankruptcy. things like trump college, he was forced to pay back. even his charities, he was forced to take back. i cannot understand the religious right, not worshiping false gods before them is part of the 10 commandments. host: why don't we focus on that with even corn? the religious right and donald trump. guest: those of us who are not part of the religious right are sometimes rather shocked by liberal attitudes towards donald trump. this is a guy who, according to washington post, light or made false statements 30,000 times at a minimum while he was president

. the way he has talked about women, the fact he has had affairs, shows that he is not a family values guy. they have just decided to throw in with him, because he has given them the judges that they want to outlaw abortion and other measures. the religious right and even della goals often talk about putting principles -- and evangelicals often talk about putting principles, becoming totally transactional. the caller mentioned the bankruptcies. trump university, $25 million sediment. trump inc. cited for misusing charities. they had to take a course because they misused charitable funds as part of a settlement. all of these other -- screwing workers over, not paying bills, it is legendary.

to me, i call it the white tablecloth theory. john, you and i were to go out to dinner at a nice restaurant. there is a white tablecloth. you spilled your red wine on the tablecloth. i go, look at that. cannot go anywhere with this guy. if we went to a restaurant and they put out a tablecloth that was covered in wine stains and you tipped your wine and made another stain, it would not matter. oh, yeah, -- trump's record as a scoundrel, not paying bills, bankruptcy, not succeeding in a lot of businesses though he still does have a big plane -- his people except that and go on and on about hunter biden and corruption, even though james comey, the chair of the committee investigating the bidens, says they have no evidence yet.

you open up the new york times a few weeks ago and see that donald trump is working with the saudi's, a multibillion-dollar deal in oman that would sell luxury villas -- two who? super rich people from russia and iran. they did not bat an eye on the corruption, the $2 billion that jared kushner got from the saudi's after being there advocate when he was working in the white house. i think it is awful that hunter biden and other people related to presidents trade influence. it has gone on. hillary clinton's brother tried to do that. timmy carter's brother did that. neil bush, george w. bush's brother, tried to do that with his dad and when his brother was in office. it happens all the time. my dad, my brother, whatever. with hunter, he tried to do the

same thing. there is no evidence he did anything illegal. it was sleazy, but not illegal. when jared kushner is collecting literally billions of dollars from people he did neighbors for he was in office -- he did favors for when he was in office. trump, while running for office, is trying to cut deals with russia and this gigantic development with saudi arabia, a country that kills journalists and imprisons people and sends to death people who put out tweets about the government. the evangelicals, trump supporters, they do not see a problem with that. host: the question a lot of people ask -- staying on hunter biden for a second -- is about joe biden's response to his son's action. you talk about opening up the new york times, the peril in biden's inability to say no to his son. that is on the front page of today's new york times.

guest: i read the story. good piece. it was all about the human side of joe biden. when you have a son who has gone through addiction and other issues and maybe has done things -- not illegal, but you would prefer him not to do in terms of business -- what do you do? especially when you have this whole history of tragedy with the death of his mother when he was young, the loss of beau, which impacted the whole family and joe -- what do you do with a person like that? katie rogers devoted 3000 words to that. there was nothing in this story that shows joe biden doing anything illegal or wrong. people would like him to distance himself more from hunter. he does not want to do it for obvious, personal reasons. i think you can still understand that.

you can see that so far, there is no evidence of any corruption on joe biden's part and if they nail hunter for a gun charge or not paying taxes, ok, that is fair, he should be treated everybody -- he should be treated like anyone else. it still does not compare to ivanka trump getting chinese patents while she is in office and what jared has done. i would like to see all of that stuff investigated on hunter's side, jared's side. it should all be there. to focus on hunter now and say it is grounds for impeachment seems to be absurd overkill, wearing blinders about trump's own conflict of interest that are ongoing at the moment. host: 10 minutes left with david corn of mother jones this morning. baltimore, maryland, independent. thanks for waiting.

caller: good morning, mr. corn. i love what you are saying. one of my favorite guests in a long time. i wanted to comment. you used the word transactional earlier to refer to trump's relationship with his base, how he says i will get you what you want, just vote for me and put me in office. i would like to see some of that from democrats, especially when they say trump is so dangerous -- he is a fascist. maybe the reason to call back -- the reason people are not flocking to the democrats, they are not delivering on material benefit for them. maybe, i cannot by groceries on a low unemployment rate. i have a job, it may not be paying me enough to get my groceries, maybe if we did that, we could keep trump out of office. go ravens. thank you. guest: good point. i think that the -- those biden

passed with bipartisan support, chips act, inflation reduction act, the covid relief, have given benefits to people. there are jobs being critiqued -- created now from chips manufacturing, often a lot of red states, that are helping people. that is something trump never did. he talked about infrastructure week for how many weeks, and it never happened. prescription drug benefit -- the prescription drug benefit he talked about this week, making some of the most common drugs and expensive drugs less expensive for people. they are there. they did want to add dental benefits to medicare. one quarter of elderly people in west virginia do not have their teeth. america is saying, we would like to help you keep your teeth. seems hard and fast of a benefit.

unfortunately, joe manchin and the republicans said no. the democrats are out there trying to deliver more. they are not doing a good job showing what they are delivering. also what they are not doing a good job saying, if we have votes from republicans, we would get these things done. whether it is expanding headstart so your kids can get an early start on education, whether it is day care, child care tax credits, all of these things. some of these things they have delivered on, some they have not. they have plans that are being thwarted again and again by the republicans who still keep talking about hitting rid of obamacare. obamacare gave people health insurance who never had it. they still talk about getting rid of it. donald trump said he would get rid of it and give us something better. he did not, either, and he has yet to put out a single sentence about what his health care policy would be if he gets elected again, even though he did nothing for four years.

the democrats are doing some of what you suggest. what they cannot get done is often because of republican opposition. that should all be talked about at a much higher volume by them. host: because you brought up joe manchin, do you want to see joe manchin run for his senate seat again? and, is there any other democrat besides joe manchin that could win a senate seat in west virginia? guest: i doubt any other democrat could win a senate seat. for the democrats, he is a pain in the backside, right? but, he also helps them maintain the majority. unless they took up all the seats, which would be hard way the senate map looks in the 24, they need that seat. over a year now, he was telling people he was considering running the democratic party and would run as independent. a caucus for the democrats, they

would maintain their majority if they needed to use his vote. that is a possibility. the other thing i have been reporting a lot lately, no labels, which is an effort to have a third-party candidate run in 2024. he has been discussed as a possible candidate for that. a lot of democrats and never trump republicans are very fearful of this effort, thinking it will steal votes from biden and trump. even though biden would likely gain millions of votes nationally in key swing states, it could swing those states toward trump. he has not said whether he will run or not. the group has not revealed financing yet. i found some funders. mother jones, we put out a list. it is a pretty shady thing and unclear of how it is going go. i hope at the end of the day, he

decides not to do this so it is a clean election and there is no spoiler running. i bet he does not want to be known at the end of the day for running a national race he would likely lose and helping donald trump return to the white house. host: to the centennial state, sean, line four republicans. caller: good morning. yeah, democracy is at risk crowd again with committed, journalistic treason. hillary clinton paid for the steel dossier. january 6 was a staged event by nancy pelosi because she fired the police chief that admitted there was emphasis on the ground. biden got 149 bank records showing $50 million. we ignored that kernel a stick treason. host: why don't we let david corn take up some of that? guest: you know, i cannot help you.

i am sorry. i was in washington. i had reporters on the ground. january 6 was not a staged event. donald trump decided -- incited a crowd. the crowd ascended on the crop at all -- on the capital. he knocked the crap out of police officers. most being found guilty, and we see the film footage over and over again of people -- pepper spraying officers, hitting them with batons, hitting them with american flags. and, you say it is staged. the whole ray epps thing has been debunk. even if it was true, one guy in a mask, thousands of people, tells one person one thing and that triggers this?

it is absurd. you are looking for reasons not to see reality. i am sad. i am sorry. it used to be in this country we argued over policy. you like high taxes, you like low taxes, you want to do this with housing, we should do this with health care -- we would argue about what was the best way to do things. now, we argue about reality. climate change is not real. well, it is. january 6 was estates. well, it was not. donald trump was never a bankrupt -- well, he was. that is the real effect to democracy. when thousands of people use violence to try and stop the peaceful transition of power, people want to excuse that and want to come up with conspiratorial, paranoid theories to explain it away and not deal with the reality. we just saw this week that the

head of the proud boys got 22 years for sedition. we saw the oath keepers get a long sentence. these people came to town looking to do these things. they have been found guilty, all of them, again and again and again. i do not know. if you think january 6 was not real and think it is all deep state, conspiracy -- i do not know. i feel sorry. host: let me end where we begin our program this morning. we asked about the effort to use the 14th amendment to remove donald trump's name from primary ballots or general election ballots. do you think that is a good idea? guest: good question. i have a newsletter called our land. it comes out twice a week. you can get it, david corn.com. i wrote about that a couple of days ago. i looked at the legal arguments. the lead legal arguments for it

comes from these two conservative law professors who worked with the federalist society, which is a right wing, conservative -- they said it was a slamdunk case. there is no question about it in their mind. i understand and -- the judge, another conservative champion of the law, has said the same thing. i think there is a very strong argument for it. how this happens is a big thing. there is a political element to it. as it gets down to one secretary of state and one state deciding he is not going to put trump on the ballot because of this, you have one person making a decision that affects the country at large. if the law is the law, sometimes, that is what has to happen. obviously, people like sean who just called in, will see this as

a deep state conspiracy theory and will not be able to listen to the legal arguments and see there is an argument for it. there is an argument for it whether or not it is a winning argument. my question is, if that happens, is it -- i worry about inflaming and causing chaos. if some states do it in other states do it, what happens if people write in trump? what does that mean? it could create more chaos in our chaotic system, although i certainly think that it qualifies for consideration. host: david corn is washington bureau chief at mother jones. his book, american psychosis, historical investigation and how the republican party went crazy, is out in paperback thi that is going to do it for "washington journal" this morning.

we are going to do it again tomorrow. in the meantime, have a great sunday. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's washington journal will take your calls live on the air as we commemorate the anniversary of september 11. we will discuss current threats against the u.s. with daniel, the former staff member of the 9/11 commission. then we previewed the spending

bottles on capitol hill for this fall including the september 30 deadline to fund the government. c-span's at washington journal, join in the conversation live at seven eastern on monday on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> congress returned this week facing the september 30 deline to fund the government and avert a shutdown. the sun is back on monday at 3 p.m. eastern. senators vote to advance the nomination of tonya bradsher. if cfirmed she would be the first woman to serve in the department second-highest post. later in the week that senators will work on a package involving bills for funding for next year. and the house returns tuesday at nooeastern time. mbers will also work on 20 for federal spending legislation, nding for the homeland security department. watch live coverage of the house

on c-span, the sd on c-span2 and a reminder you can watch a of our congressional coverage with our freeze -- with our free video app on c-span now. or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> up next president biden in vietnam meeting with the vietnamese general secretary. and 2024 presidential