♪ host: it's the washington journal for september 12 with the house and senate both back, they have 11 working days on a funding package to keep the government open or pass a solution in an effort to work out a deal.

summer republicans are looking to house speaker kevin mccarthy to open impeachment inquiries into the biden administration over business dealings for the president's son. what is your message to congress on either passing a funding bill or that possibility of impeachment inquiry. 202-748-8000 the number to call for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. inpendence, 202 --202-748-8002 . if you want to text us your thoughts either on this idea of a message for government or the potential impeachment inquiry you can do that at 202-748-8003. you can post on facebook and on x and follow the show on instagram. washington post this morning looks at the latest concerning the potential of the government shutdown and what people on capitol hill have been doing in the background to keep that from

happening. multiple people said finding a path to averting a shutdown will begin in earnest once lawmakers descend on washington because there have not been active negotiations over the recess. the majority whip and deputy whip has been several weeks working the phones to engage where redlines lie with lawmakers. leadership will convince members that keeping the government open is good for the party and will help achieve their goals, adding that complicating leadership's desire to pass appropriation bills is a threat from the house freedom caucus. members of the hard right group have demand cuts to all 12 appropriation bills ignoring an agreement on spending levels that speaker mccarthy and president biden reached earlier this year in a deal to raise the debt limit. that's from the washington post regarding a potential shutdown. when it comes to that impeachment inquiry, reporting

as of this morning that speaker kevin mccarthy plans to help sell house republicans in a closed meeting this week the launching impeachment inquiry is a logical next step in the probes of the president and his son. the house leadership scheduled a close house session so that members could get an update on the investigations led by the house judiciary committee chair and jamie comber. mccarthy plans to say that they have uncovered enough information that necessitates the house formalize the impeachment inquiry in order to obtain bank records. this is a huge step but remains to be seen whether the republicans who vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, several moderate republicans including don bacon have been skeptical of the need for impeachment inquiry. those of the two things running

together when it comes to funding of the government and potential impeachment inquiry. here's how you can let us know. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independence. if you want to text us your thoughts on either of these things. 202-748-8003 is how you do that. feel three of -- feel free to post and follow the show on instagram. one of those commenting on the potential shutdown and his division on it. bob good gave a interview on the topic. >> who ran on the policies the convictions we ran on. so we should do that and it takes them to choose not to shut the government down. we should not fear a government shutdown or cave preemptively in

fear of that and past democrat bills that keep democrat policies in place and democrat spending levels in place just so they get passed through the senate and will avoid being criticized for the government being shut down. >> representative bob goodlatte interview the took place, when it comes to the senate. republican perspective on the potential impeachment inquiry it was senate republicans, some of them saying her house gop doesn't appear to have enough evidence to pursue those proceedings against president biden. among them is john cornyn, or publican of texas he said this on the hill in interview. it really comes to how we prioritize the time. i don't know anyone who believes chuck schumer will take it up and actually have a trial and convicted sitting president said

senator cornyn. noted that house republicans could investigate without launching a formal impeachment inquiry because they control the local chamber. they got the chairman of the various committees, they can do that without a formal inquiry. members of the house don't care what i think but it's unlikely in the senate. that's from one of the members of the senate, john cornyn of texas when it comes to impeachment. chuck schumer on the floor yesterday talking about the potential shutdown and his message to republicans. here's a portion of that. [video clip] >> this week the appropriations process continues in the senate. tomorrow we will take the first procedural vote on the package of three appropriation bills. military construction, veterans affairs, agriculture and earlier this year democrats and republicans reach an agreement

on next year spending levels as part of our work to avoid default. these bills honor that agreement. reaching bipartisan consensus on these bills was not easy and it took plenty of compromise, lots of negotiations and understanding that neither side would get everything they wanted. each bill received unanimous support in these committees from republicans and democrats. so thanks to the leadership, we are moving forward. this is what functional legislative body looks like. disagreements do not paralyze the process. now as we process these appropriation bills, congress must also avoid a point was government shutdown later this month. i cannot stress enough that bumbling into a shutdown right now would not only be entirely unnecessary, it would cause immense harm to the american people. it could undermine so much progress we've made to lower

costs and restore to tens of millions of jobs are in the worst days of covid. it would also derail congress working on so many different things like the group cost of insulin, prescription drugs, fellow americans hurt by natural disasters and so much more. all of this would be undermined by a government shutdown. >> those are members of congress commenting on the idea of a shutdown. what's your take on it. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans 202-748-8001. you can comment on the potential shutdown or the potential that impeachment inquiry by the house into president biden. some of the responding on the facebook page saying wire republicans always threatening to shut down the government. the impeachment is an utter waste of time. saying you have to have

priorities. it looks at a perfect time to cut the budget in order to get the debt under control. doreen saying congress do your job. joe biden has failed this country and so many ways. the entire afghanistan debacle itself is enough to impeach the man. allies handing -- impeach the man and put him in jail. this is brian from facebook saying a shutdown. i dare you adding the president biden will not be impeached. they sold themselves to a con man who was impeached. america will outlast the foolishness. you can call us if you wish as well. the number will be on the screen. this is alex, your message to congress on a potential shutdown or impeachment inquiry. good morning, go ahead. >> this is about the inquiry. they are doing and inquiry to

get information released of what they want and the democrats are denying them that. that's why they're doing the inquiry. now if the democrats didn't have nothing to hide, why don't they just give them the information and another thing is they talk about the impeachment, they impeach trump two times knowing they didn't have the senate and they turn around saying they won't have the senate votes to impeach biden. if that ain't corruption, what is? >> that's alex on our republican line. potential shutdown as well as the central impeachment inquiry. carol is next from texas honor line for independence. good morning. >> thanks for taking my call and thank you for c-span.

i think if the republicans want to shut down the government go ahead. this is going to be perfect leading into the upcoming election to show the american people that the republican party when they will be in control if you elect them in 2024 they don't know how to govern. they can govern, they don't know what they're doing, they lurch around from one thing to another. i thought some of their members this week were saying they want the states to begin to secede from the union and their message is completely in tact with all of that. they want to shutdown the government, to secede from the union. go ahead. if you want to secede from the union, get. you don't have to be an american anymore. we can go down to the border and there are tens of thousands of people that are dying just to have the chance you have as an american citizen and we get to

watch these people and say we don't want to fund the government, we don't want to pay our soldiers. we have a senate that doesn't even want to promote soldiers who have earned their promotions. >> that's carol in texas. punch bowl reporting to the funding issues that the house and senate face, the report house republican leaders are skeptical. they can even get the defense bill to the floor at this point. a mccarthy skeptic on the rules committee told us monday night he believes what would allow for a debate on the defense bill is bound to fail possibly in the rules committee. norman is one of three conservatives mccarthy appointed to the panel this year. that is punch bowl's take on the funding front as well as the impeachment front, the potential impeachment inquiry front. republican line, this is andrew.

you are on, go ahead. caller: i'm a republican from new york and i have a real problem with the republicans now. i don't even understand how we are dealing with this. i'm a postal worker, and election official. i've taken -- it's quite obvious what they've done. how we are sitting here talking about impeaching joe biden. and i'm a republican. i voted for donald trump once. how in the world we are sitting here with half of the government vic -- very close to treason. they also -- it's really disturbing how i go to the v.a. all the time and how military people are backing donald trump.

these people have all taken that oath and a lot of us carry top secret information. the way that they just live. i've never seen anything like this in my life. host: what's the case you will make against launching and impeachment inquiry? what would you tell republicans? caller: it's quite obvious they are only doing this because they went after donald trump. there are some of the criminals in our government. but donald trump has lost his mind. gotten to the point of treason and we are going to go tit for tat with a man who committed treason. i'm for right and wrong, it doesn't matter what letter you carry. host: michigan, independent line. you can talk about the potential impeachment inquiry or the government funding situation. hello. caller: on the impeachment

inquiry i'm an independent so i don't like any of these democrats or republicans. i think they are crooks. when people say independent could go either way for democrats or republicans, i do not consider myself that. i go away from those two parties. i think biden is a crook. we wouldn't have the ukraine war without what biden did in 2014 with all that money and the coup and all of that. host: what's your message to congress on either one of these things. caller: for the funding is shut it down because you're wasting our money on the military instead of the health and welfare of our people. shut it down. don't care. host: let's hear from thomas in providence, rhode island. republican line. caller: good morning.

it's a privilege to be able to get through. i'm a disabled vietnam veteran and i follow the washington journal quite regularly and from the standpoint of the clash between republicans and democrats, i am a republican and i see that we are running and have been running a one sided type program against the republicans and also that we have a justice system that is supposed to be equal justice under the law but in fact it is not. i repeat it is not. host: are you commenting on the impeachment side of this inquiry and what would you want to tell congress? caller: as far as the

impeachment, i would say that congress should in fact follow through and impeach president biden and i believe this way he will come out of his -- host: why do you think the inquiry should be launched in the first race. caller: i think the inquiry should be run because he has -- he's virtually done whatever he wants to do, the american people are suffering, our border, our southern border is a total joke with the roughly 10 million

illegals that have been allowed to come into our country. we have absolutely no symbol of control down there and it doesn't look like it will get any better. host: thomas there in rhode island. there are some of those opinions when it comes to the idea of where congress is. they are on funding the government with that deadline insight or the potential of an impeachment inquiry being opened against the biden administration. you can continue to call on either of those fronts. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents 202-748-8002. you can text us those thoughts at 202-748-8003. here on the line you can stay on if you want and continue calling. every day we will update you on where the government is when it

comes to the funding issue and potential of the shutdown and joining us to give us the latest is anthony of politico who serves their congressional reporter. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: let's start with the number of days congress has to come to some type of decision over the government shuts down. guest: we are running out of time, the house comes back for the first time in more than a month today for their first vote and we are barreling down the path to shuts down. both chambers have not begun in earnest on how to get out of this. the consensus for a short-term patches most likely that we've got 11 or 12 legislative days left. host: as far as what's been going on in the background and coming up with at least a framework or plan republicans can support what's been going on

that front? guest: i think that's what we will look for today, we are expecting the house freedom caucus to have a press conference laying out how they see the landscape shaping up. as you were alluding to there's a meeting on the rules committee this afternoon. they are trying to stick up one bill is part of a spending package. that might be a harbinger of where things stand in the house in terms of moving appropriations packages. there's been an effort. speaker mccarthy voiced support for trying to move a continuing resolution. it buys them selves more time to negotiate a framework. so far we've not seen yet by in from the rank-and-file that that approach will be successful. time is running short. host: talking about the house freedom caucus, what are they looking for to agree to some type of funding deal? guest: they are frustrated of the deal between speaker

mccarthy and president biden for the debt ceiling. they would like spending levels with that deal to come down. those were negotiated. it will be a nonstarter for the senate and president biden. so it kind of remains unclear what exactly they could want that speaker mccarthy can possibly give them given the fact that we do have a democratic held senate. president biden is in the white house. so i think in terms of the outlook here about what we are given i'm not really sure what it looks like. i suppose we will see those demands laid out in clearer terms today but certainly speaker mccarthy will have a tough hand in terms of trying to placate both the far right portion of his caucus as well as moderates. and then of course having to get the senate and white house to sign off. host: is the speaker reaching out to members of the house freedom caucus?

guest: i think the house will come back together for the first time after more than a month. we will expect to see a lot of those conversations in person. even to the extent those conversations happen remotely when they are out of washington certainly getting back together has a way of bringing those emotions to the forefront. obviously time is short but i think this conversation will have to happen quickly. i think that's why we will be so anxious to see the freedom caucus rules committee, there's a lot of potential headaches for speaker mccarthy to the extent people are able to avoid -- voice those concerns up front i think will be helpful in determining what the outlook looks like from the house perspective. host: you've brought up the house but how are senate republicans looking at activity

or lack of activity in the house when it comes to these efforts. guest: it's sort of a split screen with the senate. they will be taking a procedural vote today on their first packet with three of these bills. it's as if they are proceeding more or less under regular order and that something the senate has taken great pains to highlight in contrast to the house and they are trying to pass these appropriation measures. that will run up against the buzz saw of the fact they will need to merge these together to get something that will hit the president's desk. if you were to look right now you could not -- it could not be a starker contrast to the house and they are proceeding as though how things normally go every year. host: we've been talking to our audience of this idea asking to comment on the spending or

impeachment issues. could that potential inquiry complicate efforts when it comes to funding? guest: i think it remains an open question. how exactly that impeachment potential inquiry plays in terms of the spending process remains an open question. whether or not that gets you some votes on the right. maybe it loses you some moderates, obviously close to 20 house republicans think president biden won in 2020 and it's uncertain how an impeachment inquiry would support such an inquiry or certainly how that would play. i'm not sure we can get -- the extent to which the analysis is one to one getting you a vote i'm not so sure. but we will have to see and certainly that may be something speaker mccarthy is looking to rally the votes to get people behind some sort of approach to

keep the government open. host: you and your colleagues have launched something called insight congress live. what is that? guest: we want to keep you apprised of every moment that matters on capitol hill every day. it's going to be fresh, it will be a lot of quick analysis and hopefully giving you the stuff you need to know to understand what's going on on capitol hill. a ton of things are going on right now. we are hoping to break it all down and keep you apprised of what you need to know. host: part of our efforts to let you know what's going on. anthony helping us out with politico. you can find his reporting at politico.com. thanks for your time. again you can comment on the funding issue side of it, on the potential impeachment inquiry. 202-748-8000 free democrats -- for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 independents.

mark in oklahoma city, independent line thanks for waiting, go ahead. guest: good morning, -- caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm fine, thanks for asking. caller: i just worked a double i'm kind of tired. host: what do you think about either this idea of where congress is on funding or this impeachment inquiry? caller: they need to stop all of this funding. where is all of this money going? host: ok. james is next in new mexico. democrats line. caller: hello. i would like to say i think that we need more money for especially our ships because china has more ships and also i

think on the impeachment, i think donald trump needs to be impeached, he's committed crimes. he has no business being in the white house. he is a disgrace to this country. host: he was impeached twice while he was in office but why not open an impeachment inquiry against joe biden? caller: well first off, they are going after his son and his son is not president. i did not vote for joe biden's son. if they can find something not the son, but the president did wrong, then it is fair. i've got to be evenhanded about this. but so far i haven't seen anything that the president has

done. i've seen what his son has done but that doesn't mean the president did anything wrong. so i think that until they can find something concrete that they can actually say the president did this or that. then they can look into it. but as far as i'm concerned, republicans have just gone bananas, just knots. they've just gone bonkers. host: from new york giving us his thoughts this morning. the white house launching its own counteroffensive against house republicans over funding issues. spectrum news reporting that saying they are taking aim at house republicans as budget earmarks run counter to the agreement struck between joe biden and house speaker kevin mccarthy. the strategy comes with only weeks to go before the september 30 deadline for a shutdown and a

member of the office of management and budget director released tuesday that the administration hammered house republicans accusing them saying they held every other party to the agreement including senate republicans and democrats in both chambers. president biden are honoring. 13 house republicans wrote -- they wrote our ignoring the agreement and passing extreme partisan appropriations bills that break the public promise to the key investment of the american people. and other outlets. independent line, go ahead.

caller: i would like to rename the freedom caucus, let's start referring to the freedom caucus instead of freedom, just dumb. we will shorten it up. nothing is going to get done until the government shuts down. until things get really dirty and it will be all thanks to them. as far as the impeachment. most of the freedom caucus should be impeached under the 14th amendment, section three because many of them have aided and abetted these people, including marjorie taylor greene who goes to the prisons. that caucus, people need to vote out of the freedom caucus if they are in your district. they are screwing this country up and they do it for fund raising and for political reasons.

they've just got off a six week time off vacation and they will get nothing done. host: jodi in kentucky, republican line. good morning. caller: i think biden should be impeached. i don't think he never should've been in in the first place. he's ruining america. host: don't make those allegations like that. we will keep it there and move on to charles in tennessee. democrats line. hello. caller: appreciate you taking my call. the big story is this budget. call your senators and representatives and tell them not to cut social security. since her republicans took over, social security is down and every right that a woman has will be gone.

it's dangerous time to be for women and elderly people. social security. host: why do you think social security is on the table. caller: it's always on the table with republicans. it was before. there's no doubt about it. they proposed it too many times. even donald trump said it would be an easy thing to do. host: several senate republicans including the minority leader have pushed back on that. caller: i understand but what happens when they take it all over. they did push back on it. i'm thankful but it will be on the table. make no mistake about it. women and people on social security call your representatives and senators and tell them to leave this alone.

who do they think is paying these people, they say they can't afford to pay it. we are paying when we go over there with the insurance. host: charles there in tennessee. either on this potential shutdown of the government over funding or potential impeachment inquiry what's your message to congress. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. text us if you wish at 202-748-8003. social media available. you can follow the show on instagram. mike on her independent line in missouri. hello. caller: good morning. my thought on the impeachment would be they are just fishing looking for something, they haven't been able to tie hunter

biden's garbage to joe so they want to try. my thoughts on the shutdown is they've already cost the country in our credit rating with what they played a couple months ago and now they are going to cost our country again just playing games. i'd like to see them go ahead and lock hunter biden up and get that over with that they don't have the evidence obviously or they would have done so already. they've just become the party of lying. one thing i want to say is while you are in congress instead of complaining about the southern border and instead of chasing joe biden around and his son, right some legislation on the border. instead of complaining, do something but they won't do that

because they are basic party and broken down. host: making those comments, he brought up the impeachment inquiry. one of the legislators talking about that on a radio show. republican matt talking about impeachment and aiming towards the current house speaker kevin mccarthy p here's a portion of that interview. [video clip] >> i've spoken to so many americans, they are disillusioned with house republicans. they think we have not put up a substantial battle to defeat the worst elements of this biden administration. i worked very hard in january to develop a toolkit for us to be able to reorient the house of representatives in a productive and positive way. i don't believe we've used those tools as effectively as we should have and when we get back to washington in the coming weeks we have got to seize the initiative. forcing votes on impeachment and

if kevin mccarthy stands in our way he may not have the job long so let's hope he works with us, not against us that we've got plans in the event he is not as productive. host: representative mann from last week talking about the impeachment inquiry. you can also comment on the central shutdown over funding. some of you posting on our facebook. saying this will usher in a democratic house and presidency. keep up the good work you really have the pulse of american workers figured out. this is sherry saying close the door this way democrats can't do any more damage. you can still post at c-span wj if you wish. republican line from california, this is rory. caller: good morning. as for money if we can shut down , the democrats will have some

real problems in new york and everywhere else. there won't be any money to pay for the immigrants. so when they don't get paid they will go hungry and start rioting and then people will defend themselves. as for biden, why bother with impeachment, go for the 25th amendment. put them before a board of doctors and they will declare him incompetent. if harris gets there we can start impeaching her also. after that we will get a republican in the white house after she is gone. host: jim in california, independent line. caller: thank you. my message to congress is they should begin to look for a new speaker. speaker mccarthy's congressional district and probably one of the biggest critics of kevin mccarthy's former congressman

bill thomas. he was the last congressman hear from baker's bill who got us a return on our investment for federal dollars. the idea of impeaching the president biden without any real evidence or any crimes or misdemeanors seems like a waste of time. most importantly people need to recognize that kevin mccarthy is not up to the challenge. and no one knows that better than the guy who used to hold the position before him, so we have some really troubled times ahead of us getting the budget through. again, my deepest apologies for inflicting kevin mccarthy upon the nation. this stain that my community carries because of his poor actions. host: jimbo in california.

the los angeles times column with a piece taking a look at potential impeachment inquiry against president biden over actions of his son hunter biden. she writes this the house republicans, there's another reason to hesitate to censure the father for his son's sins. the family tragedies and acknowledge struggles to overcome drug addiction would elicit sympathy and all but the most heartless partisan. tragedies and suffering may mitigate, they do not excuse. notoriety and congressional attention, however dishonest when he undeniably traded on his father's name to drum up business contract in china and elsewhere. the best thing joe biden could have done would have been to put the kibosh on any attempt by his son to make a career off his proximity to political power. washington is full of muckrakers

peddling connections that it's not a good look. just think hunter instead might it become an artist long ago joe biden repeatedly allowed to be played -- but that's hardly impeachable stuff. you can find that online and elsewhere. talking about the impeachment inquiry potential or the shutdown potential. we will hear next from ray in pennsylvania. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i'm partially a democrat who lives in the scranton area and has to recognize the fact that scranton joe is corrupt. you don't give $83,000 a month to someone who knows nothing, who can do anything, who has no

knowledge. are you paying million dollars a year, and these are recorded. two separate payments, one to the father and one to the sun. that is bribery. we impeach president trump twice and we impeached him twice for things that weren't clearly as demonstrable as what's there now. why doesn't the media actually report what's transpired and actually -- host: as a democrat you're calling for republicans to impeach -- open inquiry? caller: right because i'm a democrat who believes in our country and constitution and if you are a crook you deserve to be impeach whether you're a republican or democrat. we need to get back to integrity and honesty and stop all of this partisan stuff. if chris christie can campaign like crazy as a republican to get rid of donald trump, why

don't we has democrats say this guy is corrupt. host: that's ray in pennsylvania. you heard our politico guest earlier on talk about an expected press conference taking a look at the funding issues. they put out a tweet yesterday on their twitter feed saying tomorrow or today the house freedom caucus will hold a press conference to discuss the upcoming government funding fight expected about 3:00 this afternoon. look for that on our c-span networks. you can follow along on our c-span app and you can go to our website at c-span.org. from anthony in pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm glad you read that l.a. times article because of my father was vice president and i was trying to trade on his influence and make money the first thing he would've said to me was that's not ethical, you

should stop doing that. joe biden let his son go on and on making millions and i'm sure with all of these special reports, hundreds of them and all of these llcs into money laundering syndicate, they will turn this up eventually. the impeachment inquiry is an inquiry. they are going to have special powers to go and look at joe biden and his son's activity a little more than they would have without it. picture this c-span audience. if donald trump did this and his son did this where would you be democrats? host: do you think there's a straight line between what hunter biden did and the president himself? caller: it doesn't matter. host: why doesn't it? caller: joe biden has shown he has no sense of integrity by letting his son do what his son and brother has done. it may not be criminal but i think it would be -- become

criminal because i think they will find money going to joe biden somewhere along the line in some count in the cayman islands. host: that's anthony in pennsylvania. another take on the potential impeachment david smith writing that the man leading the republican charge for the impeachment inquiry has spent eight months of abject failure trying to prove the u.s. president guilty of wrongdoing according to a watchdog report. the chairman of the house are represented's oversight committee has repeatedly overhyped allegations of bribery and corruption without producing hard evidence according to the congressional integrity project. a lack of a case underlies the huge political risk facing house republicans when they return to capitol hill. this adds that comber has been leading an aggressive investigation into unsubstantiated claims biden was involved in hunter's foreign business affairs during a time as vice president.

the cnn poll found six to 1% of americans believe biden played such a role included 42% think he played -- acted illegally. but the link between father and son has been an elusive holy grail. you can add that to the mix if you want. let's hear from david in west virginia. independent line. >> good morning. i'm drawing social security like joe biden is and i have no fear of social security being taken from previous recipients. our grandchildren and children will have to be a different type of social security or some issues. as far as the budget goes, they need -- they will do continued resolutions for five times going into march of next year and

instead of playing this political game they need to do one continuous resolution for the whole year and then have congress stay until they come up with an agreement. otherwise they will keep shutting down every two or three months. just get it over with. if you -- do it for the whole year and have it for a politician stay there and negotiate. host: robert in arkansas, democrats line. caller: good morning. a guy saying be careful what you wish for. these people talking about the republican party for eight months haven't done anything but investigate. and it's the only thing they're ever going to do is investigate. they can't find anything on joe biden. these people calling and will believe it. trump said he love these

uneducated people. host: republican line we will hear from howard in texas, go ahead. caller: i've been hearing this about taking the social security away. i don't know why it's keep -- it keeps getting promoted from the democrats every year. every year they say this. i've yet to go by any amount of times when the democrats have said that. joe biden did profit on what his son did illegally. his dad had to know and he did and his family profited and that is wrong. host: how do you know he profited directly? caller: you mean to tell me he can have what he's got, multimillion dollar home, a classic corvette that has paperwork that should not of been next to it in the garage. how are any of them able to get what they have with no business?

what businesses do the bidens have? and why do you keep promoting this story and the lie about social security and republicans? host: we are not promoting nor lying about anything. people make these claims and we've had plenty of programs about those topics and you can find them at your will. patrick in oregon, independent line. caller: good morning. i was in the 101st airborne during the crisis in florida and i'm really disgusted with the way this country is going now. how many homeless schoolchildren do we have in the united states? i would like to know that and i would like to know why we are spending all of this money in the ukraine and other countries. >> specifically on this idea of shutdown or impeachment what's the message? caller: they are both too old to

be running for government. we need younger people like kennedy. host: that doesn't deal with impeachment or the shutdown. what's the message to congress. caller: yeah right. congress is going to do what congress thinks is best for them. i say we need to spend more time worrying about the united states and the property we have in this country instead of spending money in other places where it's not appreciated. host: that's patrick in oregon. continuing on with your calls on the line. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. not every republican member of congress is necessarily on board within impeachment inquiry. one of those is republican ken buck on msnbc talking with the host who served in the biden administration talking about

this idea, giving his thoughts on the potential inquiry. [video clip] >> we have really important in -- issues facing this country and we need to say focused on the border, on crime in urban areas. we need to stay focused on inflation. those are issues or publican -- americans want to see. we start going down these paths that really bear no fruit. we are not going to get an impeachment through the senate. the idea that somehow the january 6 prisoners are being treated differently than other prisoners in jail that has a history of abuse and poor conditions is just not true. we can waste our time on issues that are not important or he can focus on issues that are. the reality is impeachment process is one that's going on right now. the judiciary committee, the

oversight committee, a ways and means are all investigating, developing good information about hunter biden. i agree with your last guest that there was not a strong connection at this point between the evidence on hunter biden and any evidence connecting to the president. i'm more focused on the issues that i think americans care deeply about. host: again that will play out this week as the house is back, the senate back last week discussion expected on resolving these issues over funding potentially used later this week from a potential impeachment inquiry. you can talk to us about that on the phone lines. on our social media sites as well. new york, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think a lot of people don't understand when the government shuts down we lose a lot of money. the last time it was shut down

right before christmas and went into january it cost the government $5 billion by shutting the government down. we are not going to be saving any money. we will be losing a lot of money. plus economic growth was severely reduced. so if they do that of course it will be bidens fault. they do this stuff and then they blame it on him. it just bothers me that people don't understand what shutting the government does -- down actually cost. host: a story published in the last couple of days looks at the impact of shutdown does happen saying shutdowns have different consequences for americans. it means all but essential federal agencies stop their work. but how do officials decide essential. mail delivered will still arrive in social security recipients will receive their checks

regardless of the government shutdown. medicare benefits will continue uninterrupted. air traffic controllers will still be on the job and customs and border agents will work. however passport applications could be disrupted. that's from usa today if you want that from a couple days ago. rich in ohio, republican line. caller: great conversation. it seems like after 9/11 the memory of it, if we could have shut the border down and not had 9/11 only 20 people had to get in there. this is just dangerous. saudi arabia, russia, china we don't know who is coming in. host: either to this idea of a potential shutdown or impeachment what would you address your concerns on either one of those. caller: certain issues are important to do that to pay for to avoid 9/11.

, a stitch in time saves nine. looks at -- look at what pennsylvania is doing to go after one person. we have laws against illegals right now. no one's against -- no one is above the law. we are to blow up our education and health care system. host: ok. one bit of news outside of the discussions concerning a potential deal that was announced in the last couple of days with iran is prompt a reaction from the senate foreign relations committee. expressing concern yesterday amid reports the administration agreed to unfreeze 6 million four iran in exchange for prisoners. saying one of the conditions is that encourages hostile nations to take more americans hostage in the future. saying this is an example of why we have to make it clear to americans they cannot travel to certain places in the world

where they are likely to ultimately become a hostage. until we do that we will be in a set of circumstances where the united states faces negotiations to free detained americans. he declined to say how he would vote if it came to the senate floor. the iran news. your message to congress on either a potential shutdown or impeachment inquiry? >> i believe we should do an inquiry into impeaching biden. he's also allowing armed cartels to come into our country. i consider this an invasion of our country and they are doing nothing for it. i also have some questions. isn't buying supplies from

russia and giving money to ukraine funding both sides of the war? the second question is when the armed cartel comes across our borders, and we've seen pictures of them on tv carrying guns coming across the border is that not an invasion? the third question is if they take trump off the ballot, can you not right in his name? and vote for him anyway? host: independent line, she alluded to this pan -- planned meeting between the head of north korea and the head of russia in the discussion over -- amongst other things the funding for weapons, this story from the washington post, kim jong-un is likely to have food aid and weapons technology and returns for supplying russia with munitions. pyongyang is also likely to be interested in increasing the number of north korean laborers

working in russia. this is from the national security council saying we urge the dprk to abide by the public commitments pyongyang has made or sell arms to russia. one more bit of sound to show you. this is from the sunday shows talking about the potential of impeachment and why he's against it. [video clip] >> i don't think the chairman of the oversight committee or jim jordan think that's a good idea. i don't think they're remotely completed their work on the kind of detailed investigations and quality work that speaker mccarthy is expecting to produce before someone goes to an impeachment activity. we don't want to repeat the mistakes we think nancy pelosi made by prematurely moving to

impeachment during the trump administration. host: that's representative french hill. this is dave in las vegas prayed independent line. caller: you always cut off people that have something to say. they shouldn't shutdown the border. you can hurt people on social security. cut their checks. i guarantee they won't do it. trump tied -- tried to overthrow the united states government. he said all mexicans are murderers and rapists. the point is trump is a communist. host: we are going to leave it right there. two guests joining us through the course of the morning. one will talk about this idea of using the 14th amendment to remove former president trump from ballots in the election if

it should, that he is the republican nominee. joining us for that discussion, mark from the university of maryland law school. later on in the program, daniel garza discusses new polling on latino voters and what they are thinking about campaign 2024. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events through the day. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span powered by cable.

>> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events. to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, the free mobile app or online at c-span.org. your unfiltered view of politics. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are truly informed, where the public thrives. 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. ♪ >> this yearbook tv marks 25 years of shining a spot right on eating nonfiction authors and their book from -- span has provided a farmers pallet x --

host: joining us is a professor from -- before we go into details about it the 14th amendment itself, can you give a history or a background on how it came to be. guest: one of the main goals of the republican party after the civil war was to make sure loyal people ruled both the united states and the former confederate states and one way they thought to strike at the slaveholding class was to pass a constitutional provision that said any former or present e or federal officeholder who participated in a rebellion is forever disqualifie holding office in the united

states unless the disqualification was removed by a two thirds vote obo parties of congress. host: many times since its inception hasn't been applied? guest: there has been a spate of applications early on but after 1872 when congress amnesty to almost all persons subject to section three, the only time it was applied until recently was to a representative, victor berger in 1920. then it was applied last summer to a county commissioner in new mexico who was at the insurrection, cody griffith. host:host: when you hear the arguments or calls for applying the amendment directly to former president trump, would do you make of those calls and doesn't have a basis -- does it have

a basis? guest: it does have a basis. there have not been a lot of insurrections in the united states since the civil war and the insurrectionists have not run for office. everyone agrees that trump is a former officeholder in the united states. there is a good deal of evidence that he participated in the insurrection. if so then he is disqualified from holding office under section three of the 14th amendment, which is as much a part of the constitution is the first amendment. host: you said you are not an expert in the evidence, but as far as what you have seen or heard over the last several months or years, what did he do in order to make the 14th amendment apply in your mind? guest: several things. first, he appeared to have egged

on the effort to storm the capitol. he second, appear to have known or had evidence that this was happening. he did not use his powers to stop this. he seemed to engage in the insurrection as engagement was understood by section 3. one of the features of the american law of insurrection is anyone who is involved, even if they are not at the actual scene of the insurrection is an insurrectionist. host: by the speech that he gave ed what he said or did -- dave and what he said or -- gave and what he said or did not say is what qualifies him for insurrection? guest: he gave the speech

knowing that this was likely to incite an insurrection against the united states. host: as far as the application is concerned there was a case in new mexico where someone running for office was taken off the ballot. i think you are part of that by extension. can you explain what happened in that situation? guest: this was an existing county commissioner. he was not on the ballot. he was removed from office. the reason why was very clear. he participated in the insurrection. he participated in encouraging people to use force and violence against capitol police officers in an attempt to storm the capitol. there was agreement january 6 was an insurrection. he participated. that was sufficient to disqualify him under the 14th

amendment. i was the expert on section three. host: who brought the case against the official? guest: the committee for responsibility and ethics in washington or crew for short. host: there was a piece on cnn. "the broad interpretations of the clause went too far as far as who could be ensnared by it. one not need to have personally used force fall under this clause. one can use words that provoke insurrection. this view of the insurrection could in theory apply to a politician who speaks empathetically of protesters in

a protest that eventually turns violent." guest: that person is mistak en on the law of insurrection. if for some reason someone is particularly angry at this conversation and burns down the local television station, we are not responsible because we had no reason to know where desire that outcome -- know or desire that outcome. it is another thing when someone speaks with the intention of provoking an insurrection. when a person says we need to be peaceful and some people old in the rally -- people in the rally are not peaceful, that is not incitement. host: if you want to ask him questions about the 14th

amendment, here is how you can ask him. it is (202) 748-8000 four democrats. -- it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. do you see a scenario playing out on specifically how the 14th amendment would be used against the former president? what is the likely scenario in your mind should it happen? guest: it is already happening. a lawsuit by crew has been filed in california. a few other lawsuits have been filed in other states. it would not surprise me if a number of states disqualify. likely the issue will come before the supreme court. chances are the supreme court will try to move this case very quickly so we can clearly know

what is going on before the final election season begins. host: as you alluded to it is the front page of the washington times, highlighting that should this process begin, it would end up at the supreme court. how might that influence the final results should it happen? guest: one can simply say 6 republicans, 3 democrats. 6-3 trump stays on the ballot. for many republicans in private, trump is an albatross although they do not say this in public. it might be 2 justices, republican justices on the supreme court saying "the president did participate in an insurrection. he is disqualified. let's get this albatross off of

the republicans' back." host: mark graber is the author of the book "punish treason, reward loyalty." first call for you is from irene. irene is from colorado, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i was calling about marjorie taylor greene. why wasn't she taken off the ballot when they press charges against her? i am a democrat, so i'm just curious. how did she get reelected? guest: the answer first is remember this was not being taken off the ballot. this was being removed from office. the question becomes was a 14th amendment suit filed? how was it adjudicated?

i don't know the specific case in colorado. no one made the 14th amendment point. if my new grandson, who is almost two months old, runs for office and no one objects, he gets in even though he is not qualified for office. someone must begin the process of disqualification. chances are that did not happen in colorado. host: california, that is where vicki is, republican line. caller: i just wondered what would happen if millions and millions of people boycott the election? that is what can happen if you take trump off of the ballot. he has got millions of supporters. that doesn't sound constitutional to me, and i don't think he committed any crimes. i don't know why c-span has this guy on.

he is so biased, you could kick him up a tree and he would stick. host: there is vicki's assessment. caller: first -- guest: first, my coordination isn't good enough to climb a tree. the short answer is if trump is off the ballot, everyone can still vote. this is not an attempt to disqualify people. you can vote for people who endorse trump's policies. if there is an effort to disqualify trump, there should be a hearing. in fact, if trump did not participate as you say in the insurrection,h e will not be disqualify -- insurrection, he will not be disqualified. host: you have likely seen the president responding to these efforts, whether it be the indictments against him or this

election interference. guest: the call of elections are fearon's is enforcing the constitution. he may not have participated in an insurrection, but what the 14th amendment says is if you have such contempt for constitutional democracy in the united states that you resist the law by force and violence, you should not be a governing official in united states. the question is did trump resist the implementation of the electoral count act, the implementation of rules for electing a president? did he participate in the resistance with force or violence? if he did, you should be

disqualified. host: let's hear from steve in maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. my question for the gentleman scholar is, is a conviction required for this? i am a layperson in understanding of the constitution. we presume innocence before guilt. my concern is i am not a fan of donald trump by any means, but i'm concerned about the process here as and american citizen. someone could be banned from running for office without some process being in place in the court system. guest: you are absolutely right. there is a need for a process.

in the cody griffin case in new mexico, itt went to trial. they had to provide evidence that cody griffin had participated in an insurrection. mr. griffin had the opportunity to refute that evidence. while section three is not a criminal provision, it is a civil provision, it nevertheless requires some kind of hearing where there is evidence, where there is a chance to refute the evidence. mr. trump gets disqualified only if people can prove in a court of law that he participated in an insurrection. host: it was george's secretary of state brad raffensperger talking about this topic in a recent op-ed.

he wrote "for a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only exacerbate the grievances. americans believedhat government is just chosen by the consent of the governed." guest: the problem is the constitution removes choices. you may think a 33-year-old is the best qualified person to be president, or a person not born in the united states, but that person is ineligible under the constitution. we are not simply talking about choice in 2024 but also in 2028. if a person has showed such contempt for constitutional

democracy that they have tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election, if they are elected president, can you guarantee a legitimate election in the next four years? we are talking about what is the best decision for the overall health of constitutional democracy in the united states? not simply in 2024 but going forward in the future? host: from illinois, democrats'line -- democrats' line. caller: i understand 14.3 two mean they give aid and comfort to insurrectionists. i think that that has been proven because trump said "i love you, go home, after" they committed this horrible crime

and proceeded to support them after they were jailed. he claimed he would pardon them if you got to be president again. is that important to give aid and comfort as it is to participate? guest: a technical point about both treason and section three of the 14th amendment -- treason can be giving aid and comfort to enemies of the united states. that refers to a foreign nation. if i were to sell nuclear secrets to north korea, i have given aid and comfort to america's enemies. an insurrection is something done by the citizens of the united states. t constitutionh does not simply

say aid and comfort. it requires that you participate in some way, so the mere fact that i cheer on the insurrection is not sufficient. one has to be shown eventually in a court of law that donald trump participated, and not merely that donald trump said "go to!" host: pat in new jersey, you are next. guest: you said -- caller: you said earlier that donald trump did nothing to prevent the violence from happening, but he offered nancy pelosi the chance to post to the national guard. she and schumer turned him down. he did nothing to oppose the peaceful transfer of power.

when his term was up, he left the white house. insurrection is highly subjective. it is in the eye of the beholder. how canada jury make this charge stick -- can a jury make this charge stick? guest: you have claimed mr. trump did all he could to stop the insurrection. if your facts are correct and found by a court of law, then mr. trump should not be disqualified. there are claims and the other way that mr. trump knew about the probability of the insurrection, that he actively encouraged the insurrection, that he did things to further the cause of the insurrection, those are facts also that are not yet proven in a court of law. what i can say, and my expertise

is in the 19th century american legal history, is that these facts are proven -- that if these facts are proven, trump should be disqualified. these facts are not yet proven. host: does it matter that the former president won the charge in jack smith's indictment? guest: no. the people who have been disqualified were not charged criminally. remember, criminal is different from several. in a criminal case you need beyond reasonable doubt. in a civil case preponderance of evidence. prosecutors charge people for a lot of different reasons. the crucial question is not what is going on in the criminal --

on in the criminal cases. is there -- is they're a preponderance of evidence that proves trump participated in an insurrection? host: you can contact us on our social media sites. this is from emmanuel. he is on the independent line. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i appreciate your program. my reason for calling is the insurrection on the sixth, they did not come on their around. someone called them -- their own. someone called them. if they came under the order of

somebody, -- if he is not going to be prosecuted, then -- guest: you raise another very good, factual point -- why were the people there? who organized them? how did they get there? again, i'm not the fact expert. any person who organized people for the purpose of engaging in an insurrection, that person if they are a former or present officeholder is disqualified. is donald trump that person? i don't know. we have to wait to see what the evidence sees, but any person

who did do the organization, knowing of the probability of an insurrection would be disqualified, if they meet the other conditions of section three. host: in its history of the 14th amendment, what evidence has been brought in order to ensure a conviction, so to speak, in this case? guest: in the cody griffin trial, for some reason unknown to lots of people, mr. griffin had a private photographer taking pictures of him, crossing the barrier, taking pictures of him urging violence against police officers, so that was the sort of evidence. in the early congressional cases and state court cases, people presented evidence. this person purchased a

substitute to fight in the confederate army. this person served in the confederate government. the usual evidence that you would expect at a hearing determining whether someone participated in an insurrection. host: if that is the case, what type of evidence would have to be brought against the former president in order to make this stick? guest: i would expect the evidence that would -- they would use would be from the committee on january 6. you would have video of trump speaking. he would have evidence of what trump did before, during, and after january 6 to prove that he was not simply an observer but a

participant in the events. host: tom in florida, democrat'' line. caller: good morning, mr. graber. i would like to make a statement first. you hear this a lot now about judges. you count the number of democrats and the number of republicans and how this case will be decided. i am a liberal democrat, but i don't particularly like that. there are judges that i may not like selected by people i didn't vote for but, when they are judges, i want to live in a country where they are going to tow the line of the law. it seems like all of us are moving too much towards this business of who appointed them and how will they decide because of that? in this case here, how does

this stack up with the federalist society and what they have been saying now for 40 years or so and their theory of law and the originalists and all that? how does this stack up with them as opposed to where i grew up, thinking that the constitution was a living document and it can be interpreted different ways as we move on as a nation in our history. host: thanks, caller. guest: first, your point is well taken. in one sense we don't want judges that are representative of the democratic party or the republican party. on the other hand we have to expect that if a president believes the constitution grants the right to an abortion, the

president is likely to appoint judges who also believe that, and similarly if the president believes the constitution does not protect the right to abortion, the president is likely to appoint judges who believe that. so put me on the court, and i'm likely to vote for abortion rights not because i'm paying tribute to the democratic resident who appointed me, but because i believe -- president who appointed me, but because i believe the constitution protects abortion rights. no one was placed on the court for their beliefs about section 3. if you adopt an originalist approach, and many of the conservatives do, section 3 is very broad. republicans in 1865 did not have strong notions of free speech.

saying" happy birthday, jefferson davis was an act of treason. we don't think so. our judges who are originalists will they also be originalists in interpreting section three of the 14th amendment? we don't know. it would not surprise me to see the supreme court do what they have done in some cases, for example the covid cases and some immigration cases, and clear these cases quickly from the lower federal court. host: the university of maryland law school is where our professor teaches.

he as a constitutional law professor. let's hear from mary. mary is in michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i m a conservative republican. i am an educated college woman. i anda owner of a small businessm and a mother of three small children. i am appalled at how many educated, christian people can in any way shape or form support a candidate like trump because he clearly in my eyes has broken the law in numerous ways, not just the insurrection, but putting pressure on the georgia person in charge of the votes to

get additional votes. he is in my opinion a liar, a narcissist. he is power-hungry. i just can't believe that there are intelligent people out there who want to vote for him again. it really is just a disservice to our party and to air country. host: do have a question related to the 14th amendment for our guest? caller: i believe the 14th amendment has been broken by trump. i really do believe -- i watched the hearings and i really do believe he broke the 14th amendment, and he should be charged. he really should be in jail. host: that is mary there.

professor, if you want to respond. guest: here is the issue. i am on a different side of the political fence, and i'm very hesitant about giving advice to people on the others, but as you point out -- the other side, but as you point out mr. trump comes with severe liabilities, even in the eyes of many people who agree with many of his policies. the question is do you want to support a person with such contempt for the law and the rule of constitutional democracy when you have plenty of other people on your side of the fence who will defend your policies with more integrity? given my politics, i am not a big fan of the other people running for president on the

republican side, but i would not disqualify any of them. i would vigorously oppose an attempt to disqualify them. the american people have a right to vote for all of them because they will play by the rules of constitutional democracy broadly understood. host: robin -- before we go to robin, if one of the convictions or charges against the former president stick, one of the four indictments we have asked, people with the constitution still allow him an avenue to the presidency, do you think? guest: yes. eugene debts ran for president in jail. had he been elected, it would have been complicated how you serve in prison, but he would have been president of the united states. host: let's hear from robin.

robin alabama -- robin in alabama, you are on. caller: would a protest to a riot began insurrection? the january 6 committee was a legit committee? do you believe president trump was guilty of insurrection? guest:s good questions. the common law distinguishes between a riot and an insurrection. a riot is a spontaneous outbreak of violence. an insurrection is a planned attempt to resist of the execution of the law by force or violence for a public purpose.

if you are angry at a police officer and you throw a brick, it's a riot. an insurrection, you are trying to prevent people from executing a law. was january 6 an insurrection? republicans were given an opportunity to be on the select committee. all you can do is read the report and decide for yourself. to me the report reads right. you may disagree if you read it. i think the evidence tends to show from what i have read is that donald trump knew about the probable insurrection and provided what assistance he could from the white house. i have been following this from a distance. i am mostly concerned about the history of insurrection. it could easily be the evidence

will show my initial beliefs are wrong. that is why we have trials and hearings. host: then they asked if you think he is guilty, the caller asked. guest: guilty is the wrong word because it is not a criminal trial, but if you said give me an answer now, i would say disqualified. the better answer i think would be, "i would like to hear the evidence, more of it. i would like to hear mr. trump respond to the evidence and then make up my mind." host: you said you were involved in one case involving crew who brought the suit against the new mexico politician. do you plan to be involved if crew brings a case against the former president? guest: that is up to crew.

i am right now writing up a piece on the history of common-law insurrection in the united states. it may just prove to be a piece of paper that winds up in a obscuren academic journa -- in an obscure academic journal. that is for the future to decide. host: from new jersey, democrats' line, this is jo. caller: i am wondering if the fact that both the speaker of the house at the time and trumps family members, people who were in political positions as well as people who knew him personally called him on that day and asked him to please ask the writers to stop or go home, and he did not do so immediately, does that in any

way speak to his culpability? guest: that is evidence. mr. trump was in fact doing what he could do in his office to further the insurrection. it is evidence and it is relevant. whether it is positive is for -- host: you have probably heard the name jonathan turley being brought up. he was on fox news recently making the case against using the 14th amendment. this was in response to the comments made by adam schiff on msnbc. here's a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> does getting left-leaning states attorney general as adam schiff was referring to getting them involved here, does that

give this wacky 14th amendment strategy anymore credibility? >> i don't think so. there are academics who have thought about this seriously and support this theory. i think it is the most dangerous theory to have emerged in decades. i think it is unsupported by the text. this provision was written after the civil war, and actual rebellion where hundreds of thousands of people died. there was an army on the others. they had their own foreign policy. that is not necessarily mean it can't be used for anything that is not of that magnitude, but it is notable that trump has not been charged even with incitement, let alone with rebellion or insurrection. yet they say that this does not even require an act of congress, that any judge announced announce that he was supporting an insurrection and he is

therefore disqualified and voters will not get the choice of whether to vote for him or not. that is what makes this so dangerous. i don't think this role will withstand review -- rule will withstand review. i think it will be rejected. i am eager for them to take this to court so we can finally put it on the road, and see if they can get it off the ground. i don't think they will. host: what do you think? guest: one might note that republicans were hardly left-leaning in new hampshire, and they are bringing lawsuits. section three is in the constitution. it is no more wacky than the first or second amendments. in fact if you look at the history of section three, originally it simply referred to

people who participated in the late rebellion, limited to the civil war, but they changed it. they said the reason was because they are worried about future insurrections. one of those insurrections that people applied this to was by the klan. the klan went out and murdered people. that was an insurrection. only a few people, but it was still in insurrection. the definition of insurrection is an attempt to resist of the implementation of federal law by force or violence. that is the common-law definition. was president trump involved? if he was, he should be disqualified. if not, he shouldn't be. there is nothing wacky about that. host: this is carrie in

illinois, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. from what this gentle man is saying, he should be disqualified. i want to make this point too. the lady said how pelosi should have dispatched the national guard. that is not true. isn't that under the commander-in-chief? he has the authority in d.c. to dispatch the national guard. he sat there and watch to the malay place and did nothing. that was -- watched the melee take place and did nothing. that was his responsibility. is that right or is that wrong? guest: i want to distinguish two situations.

first, what about protections before january 6? was there more that could be done? we could say lots of people could have done more. the president, nancy pelosi, the capitol police force. they didn't and they didn't for good-faith reasons. they were not aware. once the insurrection happened, nancy pelosi was running for her life. the person who would have been responsible at that point was donald trump. there was evidence that donald trump deliberately chose to let the insurrection go on. there is evidence of 00 there may -- there may be counter evidence. host: one more call. this will be from rachel in

florida, republican line. caller: i still don't think there would have been an insurrection at all if the capitol was protected. i can't believe we are a superpower and we can't even protect our capitol from people with bear spray and flagpoles. no one got to the bottom of that in the january 6 committee. was it trump? was a nancy pelosi? no can tell me the third in four presidential succession couldn't call the national guard -- third in line for presidential succession couldn't call the national guard. guest: i live in the area. i can cycle up to the capitol where our representatives meet. the american people have access

to the capitol. they can watch our representatives in action. that is a very good thing for democracy. if it turns out that the capitol was under protected on january 6, it could have been that we wanted the american people to watch what was going on that took the risk of an insurrection, by in a democracy all things being equal you trust the people not to rebel. host: a new york times analysis added " nancy pelosi is not responsible for the security of congress. ms. pelosi only indirectly influences. it also said that mr. mccarthy refused pleas by the capitol

police, but the speaker of the house does not control the national guard." that aside as the days play out, professor, what do you see as far as indicators that there may be efforts to take this process seriously? guest: crew has filed a lawsuit in colorado. i have it on fairly good authority other lawsuits are coming. the people at crew, there is another interest organization, whatever else you think of them they are competent, excellent attorneys. their brief is well prepared. this is something that is being taken seriously, as you have noted. cnn his covering, the times is covering, we have spent an hour

here discussing the issues. in some way the most important audience is not nine justices on the supreme court, but everybody listening to the program and their friends and neighbors. based on the evidence, do you think donald trump attempted to overturn the events results -- results of the 2020 election? is he qualified to be the president of the united states? can you vote for him? he may be disqualified by voters who do not believe his actions on january 6 are those of

someone who ought to be president of the united states. host: our guest's book is "p uns tree -- "punish treason, reward loyalty." later in the program we will be joined by daniel garza. he will share pulling on latin voters. but next is open forum. call (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicanss. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. >> c-span's studentcam competition is backend this time we are celebrating 20 years of

looking forward while considering the past. >> it is imperative that we take care of them and help them succeed as they progress through life. >> we can work together to prevent fentanyl from becoming the world's next pandemic. >> it is important to understand the ramifications of -- >> we are asking middle and high school students to create a video addressing one of to questions. in the next 20 years what is the most important change it would like to see in america? or over the past 20 years what was the most important change in america? you could win $100,000 in total prizes. because we are celebrating 20 years every teacher who has students participate has a chance to share in part of the

$20,000 prize. visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings . c-span gives you a front row seat in how debates are decided with no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: you can call the phone lines if you wish.

you can post your thoughts on segments and things on our various social media sites. you can follow the show on instagram @cspanwj. the new york times and others is reporting that the ftc will give its approval to the -- the fda will give its approval to the newest covid vaccines. "the pfizer shot was authorized in the european union for ages 6 months and older on august 31. officials have been refraining from casting the new shots as boosters. the shift may reflect the fatigue that some americans have expressed over yet another round of vaccines against the virus.

next step on open forum is from grover -- next call on open form is from grover. caller: i don't understand the american people. they can't get anybody better to lead our country than donald trump and kevin mccarthy? it is sad. the man is a proven rapist. host: he was not convicted of that. it was sexual assault he was convicted of in that case. go ahead and finish your thought, grover. caller: i don't know why the republican party doesn't have anybody better than him. he has been found guilty of so many things. he filed bankruptcies so many times. he has his lawyers and things,

and he doesn't pay them. eh uses the -- he uses them and then doesn't pay them. host: christine is next. maryland, republican line. caller: i wanted to say god bless america. we still love you. host: from ed. ed joins us from ocean city, new jersey, independent line. caller: all politicians at all levels should be removed now and we need a constitutional convention in charlottesville, virginia restart the government again. host: what makes you think a new group of people would do so? caller: that is the strength of the constitutional convention. if it is run in the right way by the right people and we get

people who are able to determine who is sincere and who isn't -- it is discernment. you have to know who is sincere and who genuinely wants to help people. i no a lot of them personally, including former presidents. they are not sincere. host: what leads you to that conclusion? caller: they do not genuinely want to help people. they are in there to help themselves. they are not solving problems because they don't understand the problems. let me give you one example. mental health courses in every school starting in kindergarten. that should be their first priority. they are not doing that, because they don't understand the problem. host: james, democrats' line macon, georgia. caller: first of all, the 14th amendment to the constitution,

they are always talking about the constitution, the republican party, how they love it, how they stand by it. but when they want to break the constitution, then everything is all right. donald trump he told a big lie. a big lie! he started all this mess, and everybody is going along with giving him money and so forth to keep him from going to jail. i'm telling you it like this -- everything that he does, you need to realize what he is doing. donald trump is a crook. he has always been a crook. he doesn't pay taxes. you don't know what he is doing with his business. he lies about it to the banks and insurance companies. you are going along with it and voting for him.

i guess when he gets indicted, he will be in jail and to be the president of the united states. that is crazy. that is too much for us as americans. thank you. host: this is john in cleveland, ohio, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i tried to get through to you with your last guest. i have a couple of comments to make regarding that. first of all, i heard him say insurrection three dozen times. donald trump has not been charged in any of those indictments for insurrection. second point is jack smith, the prosecutor, i read his indictment. he quoted donald trump's speech at the capitol. he left out very important words

like "we are going to march down to the capitol and peacefully and patriotically allow our voices to be heard." jack smith left that out of the indictment as well as the january 6 committee did exactly the same thing. they left out the words "we are going to march down to the capital and peacefully and patriotically let our voices be heard." i think jack smith should be indicted for stupidity if nothing else. host: that is john there in cleveland. here are some events to watch out for. the house comes back in today. you can watch their main activities on c-span and on c-span2.

an oversig hearing will be held about the ftc. it will feature the chair gary gensler. 10:00 is when you can see it on this network. you can follow along on c-span.org. the illinois secretary of state has defined the anti-book ban law. hear his thoughts at 10:00 on c-span3, c-span now, and on the website at c-span.org. microsoft's president will testify on ai among a group of witnesses on proposed legislation to regulate artificial intelligence. that will be held by the senate judiciary subcommittee. 2:30 is the time on the app and online.

charlotte, north carolina, independent line, this is david. caller: good morning, everyone. i had planned on attending robert f. kennedy, jr.'s rally and i asked him during the q and a why he is not appearing on c-span's morning editions that you he said you guys are not letting him talk. i asked the assistant officer and and they said they are trying to get on. instead you guys keep on inviting the wacko guests. host: let me pardon you there. tune in tomorrow at 915 time. we will be joining in with robert f kennedy for that conversation. this is from larry.

larry in washington dc. democrats lying. caller: i keep hearing people say they're going to march down to the capital peacefully and patriotically. i do recall him saying you have to fight for your country or you will not have a country anymore. one is that not an incitement to -- violence? host: as of yesterday, the united states has endured 23 weather and climate disasters that have led to $1 billion in damage. that is the estimate from the national oceanic administration. that breaks the record. john, next on the republican line. caller: i am sitting here

listening to a lot of your callers. a lot of people what they need to realize, the reason why the d.c. establishment is going after donald trump is because he exposed a lot of the wrongdoings. one of the first executive orders is to go after human trafficking. number two, he went after big pharma. it was not a fan of them. he openly discussed and talked about going after the washington dc let's talk about that. a lot of your other callers were saying this is a insurrection. he has not been charged with anything. the evidence that the law professors citing or whatever, that is evidence that was

founded by a select committee that all hated donald trump. even the republicans. where are those republicans now? where are they now. they are sitting at home. adam kinzinger and liz cheney, they are gone. let's go back and the professor was saying that nancy pelosi was running. no, she wasn't. her daughter was filming her documentary. she was in there talking about punching donald trump in the face. that is what he wants to talk about. what about all of the other politicians? maxine waters telling people to get in their face, fight like hell. you guys are a a whole bunch of hypocrites. host: independent line. caller: i wanted to speak to

your last guest but cannot get on. did he think donald trump could get a fair trial in washington dc, which voted 96% for the democrats. it is the seat of the cesspool. when you're indicted by the federal government, it is not the d.c. citizen reverses you. it is the united states of america versus you. part of the solution to this problem is they should pan a jury of jurors who come from all 50 state. that is the only way donald trump is going to get a fair trial. he will never get a fair trial in the district of columbia. i get on and off. i listen on ceased trim -- c-span radio. i stream it. the next segment is about donald trump. this is a big deal.

joe biden, all of the corruption and the fact that they are finally moving towards impeachment. there seems to be more time. it is like you're trying to counter weight the narrative or the factual facts that are going on. i have to go back and look at what you are doing when donald trump was first -- that he might be impeached, how many segments did you devote to that on the mornings after that those revelations? host: go look at our website. if you look under the washington journal and type in impeachment or donald trump, all of the information will be there on every segment on that topic, when it comes to the formal president is filing monday that the lawyers from donald trump argues that the judge should

accuse herself from the case. they say it is given an appearance of a bias appeared they highlight statements that they claim create a perception of prejudgment and compatible with our justice system. cbs reporting that. minnesota. democrats line. caller: i have a couple of questions. it seems 91 felonies have been charged with. i do not understand how he is able to be out and about and running around. host: he still faces court cases on all of those fronts. they have -- there have only been charges appeared caller: have you ever heard of anyone who has been charged with that many felonies and not being charged with any pending trials? it seems excessive. when they couldn't called the national guard or swat team, why

didn't they call the fire department and hose those people down with the fire hoses? it was freezing. host: that is candy in minnesota. it was yesterday in alaska, the president coming back from his trip to the g20. he used the event and the location to talk about the event concerning 9/11. you can see the full on our app. here's a portion. >> today, we can look across the country and around the world and see anger and fear. in a rising tide of hatred and extremism, political violence. it is important than ever that we come together around american democracy regardless of our political backgrounds. we must master come of the -- we must not succumb to the poisonous politics of division. we may not allow ourselves to be

torn apart by grievances. we all have a obligation, a duty, responsibility to defend, preserve and protect our democracy. american democracy depends not on some of us, but on all of us. american democracy depends on the habits of the heart. we the people. the habits of the heart. let me close with this. earlier today in illinois i visited a marker to honor my friend, war hero john mccain. john and i disagreed like hell. like two brothers we argued like hell on the senate floor and then we go to lunch together. i want to go see john before he passed away in his home. as i was walking away i put my hand on his chest and he pulled me down and he kissed me and he said, i love you. will you do my eulogy? john and i were friends like a

lot of us who have our differences like ted stevens. we disagreed, but we were friends. one thing i like about john was how he put duty to country first. he did. above party. above politics appeared above his own person. we must never lose that sense of national unity. let that be the common cause of our time. let us honor september 11 but renewing our faith in one another. honest remember who we are as a nation. host: usa and other outlets showing photographs of president biden talking about the event visiting the memorial in illinois. that took place in -- yesterday. let's hear from mike. mike is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to

reiterate what other people have said. since day one this has been referred to as a insurrection. president trump or anyone else has not. then charged with insurrection. we handle crowds much larger than that. they had a intel. i am also a u.s. army infantry veteran. i have to also say i would never see the day that the commander and chief of the united states armed forces, who is also the president had the policy of intentionally not defending our borders. we had almost 7 million illegal aliens come into the country. for anyone to say that this country has being effectively run right now is a absolute joke. it is a absolute disgrace. that is one the reasons the army is short on the recruiting goals.

people understand what is actually going on in the country and it is a disgrace. host: mike in new york. the washington times reporting the department of homeland security tracking those who were lost as far as margaret is coming into the united states. nearly 20% of newly arrived migrants gave a bogus addresses to the border patrol making it nearly impossible to track them as they spread into the united states. sometimes the migrants refuse to give the address and other times they can't decipher what the address is, multiple times it is invalid. they can never be tracked down. sometimes migrants will share an address among themselves once they found out agents accept it. there is more reporting on the chs inspector general report

that came out yesterday. of the washington times reporting it this morning. in virginia, independent line. we will hear from rick, next. caller: you made a comment to another person about trump wasn't --. you are not a judge nor is anyone who calls in the judge kaplan says the finding that mr. carol had to prove that she was rate does not mean that mr. trump raped her. i do not know why people have to carry water for trump. this guy is the most vile guy. 40,000 lies that he has told in his presidency. 20 people talk about insurrection, come on. common sense and then there is idiocy.

host: your statement is true. they judge did release a post trial really statements. and is a chart for sexual assault and not accused r. ape. darrell in california. democrats line appeared your guest earlier sparked the insurrection as spontaneous. caller: it was definitely planned. they were wearing t-shirts with a date on it. donald trump is responsible for the death because he could've called that thing off long before he did. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: sheila is next in massachusetts. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. 1.i would like you to get a guest on and have them explain what mike pence meant when he

said the reason he did not challenge the electoral vote, was that it would have to be thrown back to congress and that it would cause chaos. he never said that it was against the law and it has happened before that the electoral vote has been challenged. this whole thing is nothing but a -- it is to get trump off of the ballot and out of their hair. they are afraid of what donald trump will expose to this country. we are in dire -- with this immigration thing, with china. we are in a impossible situation as long as joe biden or kamala harris has anything to do with running this country. thank you so much. congrats to that caller from new york. he was pinpoint on.

host: it was on the senate floor yesterday that the republican senator talking and calling for a floor vote on the joint chief of staff, general mark milley's replacement despite the hold on military nomination. here's a portion of the comments from yesterday. [video clip] >> i am very concerned appeared in the american military is not a social justice program. it is not a jobs program. the military is not a equal opportunity employer. it never has been and shouldn't be. the american military is the world's greatest killing machine. the military has one mission and one mission only. to win wars. other considerations, matter how reasonable or admirable they might be, they have to be set aside. as general macarthur famously said, there is no substitute for

victory. everything we have in this country depends on our military, everything. our entire way of life is made possible by the fact that we have the best fighting force that ever been assembled. our enemies would love to take away our role as world leader. if we lose the strong military then we will lose everything. therefore, it is my view that the senate out to vote on these nominations, especially those at the very top. in my view that this month of the united states senate ought to vote on the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. general milley received a floor vote in 2018. the nominee received a floor vote for his current position as chief of the air force.

there is nothing wrong with a floor vote on these nominations. contrary to what senator reid said, there's nothing disrespectful about a confirmation vote. if we do not vote on general brown's nomination, that is entirely in default of the democratic majority that runs this floor. host: mark and be found on our website at c-span.org. in texas. independent line. caller: i called about the justice system. we have a great justice system but it has flaws. i am a man who is trying to make it to heaven. in the same case, if you do not mind it is a serial killer killing a lot of people. the justice system, with him. he admitted that he did all of this.

they found something in his possession not by protocol. his lawyer presumes that and found him innocent because they had to throw everything out in court that what they did not find. tape rode it out of court, does that make him -- since they threw it out of court, does that make him a --. he is still a serial killer. they found something where they did not get a warrant and he got off. same thing by trump or anybody else who is doing self. if they get they people in the court to just to say they are innocent, they not innocent. you can support that. host: clive is next in oklahoma. democrats line. caller: you can see in the world

where drugs do to people. it screws the world up. thank you. host: virginia in maryland. republican line. caller: i would like to say that i feel like the race was stolen. the 2020 presidential race. i watched the 2020 election and trump was leading by a good lot. all of a sudden they close down the voting offices. the next morning then biden is all of a sudden in the lead. i do believe that there was some instigation. when the january 6 and it may be anti-fat where they showed pictures of people changing clothes -- where they showed pictures of people changing clothes. i do not think trump had anything to do with that. host:voters are looking in

2024. daniel will join us next one when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> this fall, watching c-span sydney series books -- new series, books that shaped america. to explore key works of literature. hear from future renowned experts who who will send light to these experts of the profound work. among our featured book, common sense by thomas payne.

huckleberry finn by mark twain. watch our 10 part series, books that shaped america starting monday, september 18 on 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. books that shaped america, a new series that explore key works that have had an impact on society. you can join in the conversation by submitting your pick. just go to our website, c-span.org/c-span. in 30 seconds or less, tell us your pick and why. >> the books that i think that shaped america. >> soldier written by colin

powell. >> join others as we look back on books that provoke bouts and are still talk about today. we sure to watch books that shaped america live every monday beginning symptom or 18th on c-span -- beginning september 18 on c-span. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse to our latest products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: taking a look at 2024 from the lens of the latino voter.

joining us is mr. garza. welcome to the program. guest: always a pleasure to be on the c-span and talk about the important issues that are impacting every american today. host: remind people about the initiative, who you target in your political point of view. guest: we are nonpartisan and nonprofit. what we do is engage, activate and mobilize the latino community around the issues that we fill in our founding chargers. we believe that we have centralized way too much power, too much control in the hands of politicians specifically in the federal government. we work to make sure that we honor those expressions and the sentiments of abraham lincoln when he said this is a country of the people, by the people and for the people. we are trying to empower the individual is what we are trying

to do. unleash the prosperity's we can have. host: give us the snapshot of the power that latino voters have in elections no matter who they are voting for. what power do they hold? guest: we have defined the -- a defined the outcomes in the state where we have showed incredible growth. half of all of latinos reside just in california and texas. in little over 20 million in california. 12 million in texas. we are now over one million people in states like the batter and north carolina. we are starting to really -- states like nevada and north carolina. any kind of 50-50 state or lake county's or state legislative places for example, we do define

the outcome. we are not locked into any party. we are not based in. we are up for grabs, especially at a time when latinos are -- have really piqued their political curiosity because of what they are seeing now of days. it makes it really valuable. host: who does a better job of reaching out to them? guest: for decades, it was the left that made the investments who connected better with the latino community. when i say the central left, the institutions as well. university professors, unions, televisions, radio, the party itself. the democratic party made the investment from the support of latino voters for a long time. that has changed in the last 10

years or so because of our growth. you can no longer ignore the latino electric. 65 million latinos reside in the united states are 65 million individuals with different priorities and concerns. you can connect with them on the issues that matter to them. you can show them that your ideas are superior. you're going to receive the recep -- three support of the community in bigger place that we seen in florida and texas and the pockets that i talk about that are highly concentrated. host: our guest will be with us if you want to have the conversation if you want to ask him questions about recent studies that they have done. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. latino voters, how you find

yourself, (202) 748-8003. if took a recent polls of hispanics about various aspects leading into 2024, one of the things he asked about was pessimism about the country, what did you find? guest: 79% of the latinos that we hold in states that there concentrated say they are having a negative view about the economy. they are hurting. what is happening with the high costs of medicine, the ability to even buy a home or rent a home is really causing a lot of pain and hardship. 71% of latinos say their economy -- the economy is on the wrong track. they do not feel the administration is due the kind of thing to reverse the direction we are on. a lot of the policy remedies,

prescriptions seem to impose more taxes to impose paying off college debts for the working class is more of a issue. energy development is hurting latinos. 20% of all energy jobs are held by latinos. these are high-paying jobs. the fact that labor participation rate has not caught up to pre-covid levels. 27 of the last 37 months, wages have not kept up with inflation. this is all impacting the pocketbook of latino families across the country. they fear it is going to get worse. host: one of the other things you talked about in matters of the economy when they ask about if the economy is working for them. that is how you phrased it.

48% says it has a poor sense of the economy working for them. 17% says the economy is good. 31% the economy is fair. 4% saying the economy is excellent. guest: a very negative view of the economy. also of the future of america and the future of the economy in america. you are seeing a lot of pessimism. this indicates a loss of hope, aspiration. a loss of hope in this administration to reverse current direction that we are on. i would warn those on the democrat side that they pay attention to where latino voters and whether sentiments are in the economy. they also rated the inflation the number one issue that is impacting their lives right now. jobs and economy are second and third. there is real concern. if you cannot connect with latinos on these issues, you will have a tough time. the democrat party has dependent

on the coalition of minorities to give them the margins that they need for win in the senate and state legislaturess. without the latino community, they will have a tough time. host: when it comes to those that you polled, can you define who you talk to? how did you look as far as compiling the people that you talk to? guest: most of them were in states like california, texas, arizona, new mexico, southwest. now, even in states where the growth has been tremendous like north carolina and georgia, ohio , wisconsin, these kind of states where you are seeing growth in latino community. 60% of the folks that we hold were from 18 to 34. i think our median age is 47. the rest of the country is 35. they said that one million

latinos are turning 18 every year for the next 15 years. there is a tremendous amount of energy and growth in the latino community to capture a snapshot of the community is a challenge. i will agree. 50% are just in two states. how are you best able to capture the sentiments of the latino community? i think 1000 is a really good number for a poll. host: when you take a look at exit polls from the 2020 election, it was those who identified as a latino voters, 60 5% offering their support for president biden. as far as president biden is concerned, do you think that number is still that high? guest: no. we are now seeing that. there is a lot of dissolution with the biden administration. they have a marketing campaign

called biden nomic where they're trying to sell americans on the notions that everything is a lollipops and gumdrops and rainbows. everybody knows it is not. especially in the latino community. there is a real pain out there trying to make it from one week to the next. the hardship israel. when -- is real. when there is a disconnect between the marketing campaign you have going on and the real pain people are seeing because of the high cost of everything in their lives and they cannot keep up because wages are below inflation. i think it starts to infuriate a person and a sort of anger begins to build. they recognize it for what it is otherwise there is none be electoral consequences. host: the biden campaign put out

a ad targeting latino voters. we'll show you the ad and get your reaction after that. [video clip] >> unemployment in our community has been cut in half. driving our nation's economic recovery. for our families the price of insulin, $35. who joe biden president is fighting for isn't the rich and powerful, it is us. >> i am joe biden and i approve the message. host: the selling point was income businesses and health-care matters. what do you think about the point the president is making. guest: i will recognize that the american economy is resilient. immigrants coming to america to risk their savings and launch

businesses. that is what we do. most of the time when you have too many regulations where the government is choosing who wins and who loses. if you are politically connected to the biden administration, like the union, green energy space, college graduate with debts, you will be taken care of. it is on the backs of the working class, especially those in the rural areas who are being impacted because they are out there hustling. they are trying to make it from one week to the next. all you do is imposing more regulations. there is no way out. there left to their own devices, biden would double down. now, even taking a home loan is impossible. two/energy development even more and put at risk our energy

independence and energy abundance impacts jobs and productivity. it is to draw from the productive capacities of our economy and the people who are trying to make it for one moment to the next. to cherry pick something about insulin is a insult. delusional. people are feeling pain and you're not acknowledging that. latinos are going to act on that. i am nonpartisan. have energy abundance. empower parents so they can choose the kind of education they need for their children as opposed to giving them the marketing gimmicks and campaigns. host: let's take some calls. carol in tyler, texas. carol, good morning. go ahead. caller: thanks to you both. i want to ask something i have

been very puzzled about. i understand that latinos do not -- i think we all some shared values of you know with both parties. what i cannot understand is why any latino, especially in texas where i live wherever -- would ever want to support a republican who obviously like trump aligned with greg abbott's , the cruelty we see down at the border with the fences, putting down the blockade and that sort of thing and the fear it would come back and maybe there would be more deportations and people having to worry about their children if they were deported. why would we want to go back to anything like that? that is what i am puzzled about. why would you support anybody even if you do share some of the values knowing the cruelty they are in?

guest: that is a very complex question. a lot of americans are center-right believe in the rule of law and it must be respected. sometimes that impacts people negatively. if you undo the rule of law, he would unleash consequences -- he would unleash consequences you could not get in control of your the implementation of the rule of law. folks who believe in upholding and preserving the freedoms in our founding charters. freedom of religion, expression, speech. freedom to partition your government. all of these freedoms must be protected. the fact you're imposing undue hardship through more in taxation and more money in the

federal government, it means there is a proportionate diminishment of money to the individual. when you increase power and control in washington there is a proportionate diminishment where government grows and begins to serve the role of the family, church, a market. of these are real concerns of people on the central right. it is not because of cruelty, it is because they care for america and they care to reserve those sentiments that were by our founding fathers. at the right to light, liberty, pursuit and happiness. when you see the role of government has expended to the point it is controlling every aspect of your life, there becomes a concern in the minds of people. we need to push back. so much power is being centralized in the federal government. the individual matters. the freedom of expression and

the right to partition your government and the right to have money in your pockets and lunching business for the government not to control who wins and who loses. these are all matters that impacts latinos. when i say latinos, i recognize we are interdependent with our fellow americans. you need a thriving american to have a thriving latino community. america needs a driving latino community to have a thriving america. that means unleashing the vast capacities of the private sector appeared that is why a lot of people will vote central right because they want to reduce the power in the local government but unleash the private sector forces in the capacities of the people who are americans. we proven that we were americans because we are the most prosperous nation in the world. only because we have economic system that allows for that. host: nevada. our independent mind.

you are up next. caller: i am responding to when he says the latinos are going to the wrong direction. i would like to see more latino senators, congressmen, mayors, nevada. we do not have that representation of latinos. until you have latinos running for office then that will make the change. does that make sense? guest: in the last election i will tell you -- the perspective of a central right, five latino flipped blue seats. there's a growing trend that latinos are taking ownership. the more we activate it and mobilize latinos, i can fill we have a lot of the answers and solutions to what is happening in america. you mentioned nevada. nevada is a state there is so much a writing -- riding alot of

the races. 33% of the city in las vegas alone. jacky rosen is that the incumbent. it is a 50-50 state. you have to fractional seats -- you have two congressional seats in the las vegas area that are also very vulnerable. the latino community is going to play a major role. again, if latinos could flex their muscles they could define a lot of the races across the country. i think one needs to happen here especially those of the central right is understand that you have to do essentially two things if you're going to connect with any voter in america. show that you care. that means you show up, you

addressed the priorities of the community. you stop imposing not only your agenda. you start to listen and connect on the issues that matter to the constituency. you have to prove your ideas are the other persons. if you do not show up, you show up and you do not care. how are we going to know where you stand on the policy issues? it is just so important whether you are a minority candidates. make your case. make your case on the merits of policy. i think there's too much polarization in america today. too much division. we have politicians that are banking on that as opposed to presenting your case on the merits of your policy position and why they are superior to the other person. i thank you would go a long way with connecting to the latino community. host: to what extent do you

think the latino community votes on only immigration policy and what does that say about the choices they make on that? guest: it is an important issue because immigration speaks to the heart of the candidates, where he stands on your openness in recognizing that we have to meet labor demands in america. we have a very dynamic economy. also to the compassion that you showed that people who are going through difficult oppressive situations in the countries of origin. they see america as the promised land. as many did before over 250 million immigrants have come to america throughout our history. they have made our country stronger, richer and have strengthened the institutions of america. how you speak on immigration really matters to the latinos because it is a question of your intellect but also your heart.

it is not a priority. if you are a latino who has a family member who is undocumented. somebody goes to church or that they work with, obviously they feel more sympathetic on some of the issues. if you are latino citizen who votes, like a puerto rican, maybe it is a lesser priority because you are born into citizenship. it has very much. there's a lot of complexity around the issues of immigration within the latino community. it is not like and white and cut and dry. it is very telling to see where a politician stands on the issue. the ideal position for somebody is to embrace the notion that we can do both border security and we can have legal channels. we can do both. it is not either or. just because you are pro-immigrant does not mean you

are pro-border security. we have to have order in america. we as americans decide who comes into our country, what condition and how many at any given time. when you lose the control and order, it infuriates latinos. we like order to, the law. when that is not being respected i think there's been to be consequences to that. host: this is ben republican mine from new york city. caller: i'm just calling about how i feel undocumented immigrants are coming into this country. particularly in the --. host: warren in virginia. hello. caller: i just wanted to point out a few things, especially when you played that clip, the biden commercial.

i was looking at that commercial. the people who are latino look more like pedro than they do look like him. the people who are speaking like the republicans. host: why does that matter? caller: he says he is holding the stuffer latinos. the democratic party is of the ones that are going to be looking out for them. they are the ones who are trying to make sure all of the immigrants, mainly latino immigrants to this country. the only people that you see complaining about that kind of stuff are the republicans. they are never going to do anything for you because they know they're going to keep latinos. something that you say. guest: my parents were

immigrants from the region -- mexico. i was born in california, a farmworker. i pick grapes in dinuba, california when i was born. moved to the state of washington . i was a farmworker until i was 19 years of age. picking everything under the book. we migrated from california to the state of washington. i am a high school dropout. i did not finish the 11th grade because of my farmworker situation. it was a situation beyond my control. the reality of my life that i could not finish high school. i got a ged and it gave me a second chance. i was able to become a police officer. the sun opened my eyes that the domestic violence, drugs, domestic gains that were going on. i wanted to do more. that put me on track where i

wound up at the white house working for george w. bush. think about that. at 17 years of age i am a high school dropout with no process of a professional career in america. 17 years later i am working with the white house with the president of the united states. this country has fulfilled more dreams and aspirations than any country in the world. it has a lot to do with our economic system in the founding charter that if we do not preserve them, we lose them, we will not be able to accommodate for the immigrants who have come to america and give them a better life that they are seeking. it is really is because of the freedom and the principal that are in our constitution that we are able to do that. i fight hard for that. it is not about the democrats or the republicans, it is about the principal. it is about the ideas that will get us to a better place where there is mutual benefits in the marketplace where we allow for

spontaneous border where people can choose what they want to be and choose a career that is going to make their life better and the life of their family better. i am not here trying to push partisanship. i am here trying to save america and activate the latino community so they can become a vanguard where these freedom and s we share so much. host: independent line. this is daniel garza. caller: thanks for letting me on. i am concerned about the time that there has been proposed legislation to revamp the immigration laws so that people can participate in legal fashions. a lot of people standing on the

jumping board of the swimming pool and wondering where can i fit in. they are in limbo all of these years through no fault of their own. they still contribute to society. this kind of thing needs to be resolved. from what i know, the republicans have always rejected it. when people were coming across the border just a couple of years ago, they were rejecting the children to make the parents go back to their country of origin. a lot of these people have not been reunited since kids are not knowing where their parents are, parents are not knowing who

their kids are. host: got your point. guest: what has been really frustrating for some americans like the caller said, there's just so much support for a policy like this. it is being held up because of politics. on the one side, generally you have republicans who are no longer on the central right who believe that border enforcement should be the priority. they have dug in on that. on the other, they believe that access to america almost open borders is really sort of the way to go. they have dug it on that. the other side won't listen to the other sides on where they stand on the priority. this is the frustrating part that so many americans, we can do both. like reforming our refugee process so it doesn't continue

to gain like it is right now. we can handle that and get to the business of normalizing folks who have been here for years now. 10 to 15 million people now are undocumented who should come out of the shadows and contribute freely to america and make our country stronger. we can do both. part of the problem that latinos also have with the biden administration with the issue of immigration is that biden complains with the promise that he will -- kemp -- campaigns with the promise that he will promote -- innovation. he has not done that and fulfilled his promise to reach across the aisle and say, how can we get this fixed? how can we reconcile the differences and come together and reshape consensus. the reality of immigration is that the democratic party does not decide when migration at reform is.

they both have to come together and reach a consensus. that is legislative. this lighthouse has failed to -- both sides on that issue. the republicans do not want to play ball. you said you were going to achieve immigration reform and work with the other side. we are waiting, mr. president. host: how do you think that the overturning of roe v. wade factors into the latino vote of 2024? guest: generally latinos tend to be pro-life, they are people of faith. there is a letter belief in cases of exception. i am pro-life myself. i am responsibly pro-life with over the exception of the life of the mother. i also recognize that on the others there are folks who have made that a number one issue. this is where people have to

connect. make your case on the side of a why you feel a driving pro-life policies are the direction to take. it to impose this agenda on any kind of community, i think that is part of the mistake sometimes. the parties have almost taken the latino vote for granted on one side and ignored the latino votes on the others. you do not get to impose an agenda. you do not get to say this is how latinos are. the latino community is what it is, not what you wanted to be. you have to understand what we feel on these kind of issues. you have to ask him to show up and have a conversation with us. then try to persuade us if we are wrong or you feel like a individual latino is wrong. i think people are trying to impose a agenda on the community.

as opposed to restricting us as voters and engaging with us on those issues. abortion is one of those issues. latino is a faith that feel strongly on one side. the reason i became a republican was because i was pro-life. i have never voted blue because of that issue. it is a real issue to latino voters. the other side has to understand that as well. it is a question of dialogue, connecting. host: st. petersburg, florida. go ahead. caller: i appreciate being on. i truly appreciate all of your views and i agree with you so much about the latino voters

needing to be heard and paying attention to middle-class, lower-class and making sure people have jobs. make sure they have housing. making sure they have representation. my concern is if you want housing and representation you have government involvement. in my area in florida, no one can afford to live anywhere. government doesn't step in and make more government housing more affordable housing. no one here can afford anything. i have seen it, i worked in the medical field. i have worked with many latinos are. i have worked with many cultures we fight to have our local government, to have our state government which in florida is not helpful with our government.

to have our countries government stand up for the people. host: thanks caller. guest: what kind of government do we want? i honestly believe that there are people who are truly dependent and must be helped by the government. young children, no questions asked. if there is a need we will fulfill that need. senior citizens who cannot take care of themselves, veterans we make promises to. able-bodied people should be able to work. that is the biggest -- poverty -- solution to property that we have is opportunity, jobs. when you are regulating way too much when people can't even start a business because they have so many regulations. we suffer from barriers that disproportionately maybe other

americans do not 30% of us only speak spanish. that is a major barrier for opportunity. 30% of us do not have a high school diploma. i do not, like me who was a high school drop out who have not received a gdp. 32% does not have a high school diploma. that is a incredible barrier to the marketplace. we talk a lot about equal opportunity when 50% of us do not have a driver license or do not know how to start a business, this strikes as the heart of equal opportunity. where are those major barriers that are keeping people from access to the marketplace? prepare the table so that equal opportunity becomes real and redistribute knowledge and information. this is wrong. this is wrong because it is

making people dependent and not making them independent where they can unleash their vast capacities to make life better for other people. that is where we want to see productivity, innovation. people engaged creating commerce and having purpose and dignity through work. we are moving away from that as a country. the kind of narrative we are pushing is look at government and increase the role of government as the role to everything. i strongly disagree with all of that. host: let's hear from ernest l in dallas, texas. caller: good morning. i have some concerns about what you are saying and how you are breeding stuff that latinos want certain things. we do. i agree with some of the stuff you said. you are trying to say that latinos are -- i am not sure how

to say this exactly. if you look at what has happened with the republican party, they are the ones who are taking a lot of the rights. they are the ones who are hindering our opportunities to advance. they want to reduce regulations that help us. of this started when obama was the next president. host: we are running out of time. we will let our guest respond. guest: i believe that lincoln saved the nation because he expanded freedom. he ensured opportunity and became accessible to more and more americans. lincoln made the aspirational wearers of the declaration of independence come to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

i do not believe in that i believe the pursuit of ideas. we are for the people by the people. we are requiring people to have a strong voice and work together. you may disagree with my ideas and perspectives, find but let's have a discussion within our institution of democracy. i think when we censor ideas and other people we don't like and try to shut them down, that is not right. this is a participatory democracy of the people. i respect your point of view and ideas, but let's have a discussion about that. the more we engage the more we can have honest conversations about the issues that are creating productivity and economic growth. that is what i want to arrive at. i did not want to have more

government dependency. i don't want to go down the road with the government deciding who wins and who loses, what i can say and what i cannot say, what ideas are allowed in the market and what are not. they are found at the initial -- thank you for the discussion. >> thank you for the invite. that is it for our program today. at 9:15 we inspect robert f kennedy junior them a credit resident. we -- president candidate. and we look at this security exchange commission chair and we take you to that hearing now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> fraudsters usbe