>> coming upn ashington journal," your calls and comments live, thene ll discuss the nato summit in washington, d.c., marking the 75th anniversary to my first hearing from kurt volker, former u.s. ambasdo to nato, then retired master sergeanjan beardsleofhe concern veterans for america. also, punchbowl news senior congressional reporter andrew dederio joins us to talk about vision in the democratic party over president biden's reelection bid and congressional news of the day. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for july 9. starting with a new york times story about a parkinson's expert making repeated visits to the white house.

the press secretary defending the administration's effort to be transparent about the visits, specifically the state of president biden's health overall. you think the white house has display transparency when it comes to the president's physical and mental health? if you say yes, the white house has done that, call us and tell us why, at (202) 748-8000. if you say they have not, call us at (202) 748-8001. if you are sure, it is (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. you can post on social media sites, facebook.com/c-span and on x at @cspanwj. a story appeared in the new york times about that visit by that specialist to the white house repeated times, published

yesterday and found online today. an expert on parkinson's disease from walter reed national military medical center visited the white house eight times in eight months, including at least once for meeting with president biden's physician. the expert is a neurologist who specializes in movement disorders and recently published a paper on parkinson's. logs released on the white house visits, more recent visits, if there have been any, will not be released until later. it is unclear whether the doctor was at the white house to consult specifically about the president or for unrelated meetings. that is the new york times story. if you go to cbs and watched the events of yesterday at the white house, there was a sharp exchange between the white house express -- press secretary and a reporter from cbs about the parkinson's expert in

transparency overall. here is the exchange from yesterday. [video clip] >> so every year around the president's physical examination , he sees a neurologist. that is three times. so i am telling you that he has seen a neurologist three times in this presidency. that is what i am saying. i am telling you that he has seen him three times. that is what i am sharing with you. so every time he has had a physical, he has had to see a neurologist. that is answering that question. no, it is. i just answered -- i also said to you, for security reasons, we cannot share names. we cannot share names. no, no, no. we cannot share names of specialists broadly. from a dermatologist to a neurologist.

we cannot share names for security reasons. i understand that. i hear you. i cannot, from here, confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. i think they would appreciate that, too. we have to keep their privacy. i hear you. >> [inaudible] >> there is no reason to go back-and-forth. >> i am miffed about the information shared. >> what are you miffed about? every time, i come back and answer the questions you guys ask. i did not answer incorrectly, that is not true. i was asked about a medical exam, a physical, and i answered. i said, no, he did not have a medical exam. i stand by that, and the president stands by that.

he had a check-in, which he has a couple times a week, a couple times a week. i am telling you right now that i am not sharing, confirming names from here. it is a security reason. i am not going to do that, ed. it does not matter how hard you push me or how angry you get with me, i am not going to confirm a name. even in the log, i am not going to do that from here. it is not something i am going to do. what i can share is that the president has seen a neurologist or his physical three times. three times. host: later on in the evening yesterday, the white house released the letter from the president's physician, dr. kevin o'connor, regarding the background and the dcussion there, and it reads, in par president biden has not s neurologist outside of his annual physi the resu this year's exam were detailed in my february 28

letter. e was no findings consistent disorders, stroke, multiple sclerosis, parkio's, nor are there any sides of myopathy. the exam supports a finngf peripheral -fiings of the feet. he demonstrates excellent fine motor dexterity. that was just part of the letter, and you can find that on our website at c-span.org. it is on our homepage. the white house press conference from yesterday, you can still find it on our website and our app at c-span now. we start the program about transparency about president biden's health. if you say the white house has been transparent, (202) 748-8000 . if you say no, (202) 748-8001.

if you're not sure, (202) 748-8002. bob starts us off in ohio on hourly yes line. caller: the white house does not have to let the public know everything that goes on. he has a big team behind him. and it does not make a difference. there is somebody else who can step in and take care of this country. i would like c-span to release some stuff about the papers released a week ago from florida -- host: on the topic at hand is first the president's health, you say that the white house has been transparent -- specifically how? caller: they do not have to tell the public everything. as far as joe biden, i would vote for joe biden of his head was a measure -- if his head was in a jar. host: a call from florida on our no line. caller: i do not think the white

house or president biden have been transparent. one thing that they could do to be transparent is biden could challenge trump to another debate before the republican convention, the sooner the better. that way he would be transparent because he would be showing in a new debate that he could handle dealing with trump. host: there is already a debate scheduled for september. why the need for one sooner? caller: because the last one was so bad that he said he was sick because of that. if he had another debate, he is not sick, and he can show how good he can be with trump. and if he can't, it will be transparent. we need this to happen right away, not wait until september. he needs to have a debate with trump right now before the

republican convention. cnn did a pretty good thing for the last time, and they can just redo that debate because they have to system set up for it. if he challenged trump and had the debate before the republican convention, then people could see just how good he is, and that would really be him being transparent. if he waits until september, he is not been transparent. it needs to happen now. host: the next debate hosted by abc in cleveland, tennessee. melissa on our yes line when it comes to transparency from the white house on the president's health. caller: would people have to consider is that there is a law called hipaa which means your medical information is completely private. we have to remember that it is not just the president and his family that live in the white house or work in the white house, there are other civil

personnel who work there, too, so there medical information is also private. the other thing is i belong to a senior center, and there are people there in their 80's and 90's, and when you get to that age, you start to see doctors and stuff that you did not see when you were 30 and 40 years old.; neurologists -- that includes people like neurologists. there are medical conditions that pop up at this age. we have to remember that he is 80 years old, even if he is lucid and everything. he is seeing doctors now that he did not see when he was in his 30's. so we have to acknowledge the fact that, you know, if a neurologist has to see him, it is probably part of what the president would get as part of a medical exam or something that

we do not have access to because the president, whoever the president is, gets better medical care than just about anybody else in the world. host: this is carol in iowa, also on our yes line. caller: well, i think, yes, they are being transparent. i think reporters in that press pool, they want to get a gotcha question so they have a big new story. i think they just want to put biden down. some of them are just not for him. and a thought on the debate, if i have time -- host: first, you said you think the white house has been transparent. specifically how? caller: they put out as much information as security let's them put out. and if somebody wants to check something, they can go to other departments and get some answers.

they do not have to push on biden's transparency all the time. my gosh. if somebody wanted to look into my life and i was not transparent, what would they say? only as much as i want to tell. i do not want somebody knowing everything, especially the private things. host: ok, carol there in iowa. viewers, while you're waiting to get online, if you have a television or anything else on the background, cut it down to cut down on the destruction. to new york, our no line. caller: hello, yes. they should check out donald trump. how come they are not checking out his mental health? host: you are telling us that the white house has not been transparent about president biden, so let's start there. why do you think not? caller: they do not have to be

transparent about biden. they see him every day. you know, he is speaking like he is at the full capacity of his mind. the opposite with donald trump. he lies, constantly lying. they should have his medical records checked out. host: ok. again, discussion centering on president biden's state of health and transparency from the white house on those efforts. if you think that the white house has been transparent in these efforts, you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you think the white house has not been transparent, call us at (202) 748-8001. perhaps you're not sure, (202) 748-8002. take you back in time a little

bit, this is from 2018, then president trump at the center when it comes to matters of health and fitness. his white house physician was ronny jackson, at that press briefing talking back-and-forth and forth about the president. [video clip] >> can you tell me how a guy who eats mcdonald's and drinks diet cokes and never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he is? >> i don't know. some people have great genes. i told the president if he had a healthier diet over the years, he might live to be 200. i don't know. he has incredible genes, i just assume. if i did not watch -- i would not have the cardiac and overall health he does. he is quite healthy, despite those things. in the white house, he is eating what the chefs are cooking for him now, a much healthier diet.

and we will continue to work with him to make that even healthier. but to answer your question, he has incredibly good genes. host: more questions there, and if you are i and going back in time there, you can do so at our website at c-span.org. about the president's doctor, dr. o'connell, a prideful -- a profile says o'connor is a doctor and a retired army colonel and has not appeared at the white house podium to take questions about the president's physicals or other medical events, including when the president contracted covid-19 in 2022. he has declined most interview requests, including from the washington post this year. going back to the president's debate performance where he mumbled, misspoke, it has been a scrutiny on the man the president simply calls doc and his handling of the president's health. that is from the washington post. i and politico, it

highlights the fact that kevin o'connor, a story that was published on july 8, saying president biden has been leaning on the credibility of the white house physician's optimistic assessment of his health, but that physician as a family intimate and one-time business associate of the president's brother. he was looking at securing federal contracts and 2017, and o'connor accompanied him to a meeting. both you and your team clear a vision, o'connor wrote to the hospital, the family ties transcend business. in 2018 the president sister-in-law described o'connor as a friend that frequently doled out medical advice to her family. you can find that in politico under the umbrella of the white house's efforts when it comes to transparency on the president's health. on our not shoreline, this is --

on our not sure line, toya in ohio. caller: i worked on you in the medical field, and there is privacy called hipaa. they can be transparent only as much as they can. i get upset when i listen to folks talking about biden's health. there's nothing going on here. my whole thing is that everybody got complacent with trump. the whole focus needs to start being on trump. after the debate, people keep talking about, oh, biden -- and new guys, it is the -- and it is the media, and pedro, you guys, i love it, but the media talks about biden should drop out or this and that. the debate is over. trump has issues. no one is really talking about

his issues. when he has his rallies, nobody says that. with biden, everybody wants to say something. he has a stutter problem, and everyone knows they have to step back and really go as to what they are saying. as a black woman, they are saying he should step aside, but if kamala harris was in, there would be a lot of supporters. leave biden alone. caller: several reporters yesterday suggested that in this case hipaa privacy laws could be waived in the president could release more. is that the case, do you know? caller: i think it is a private matter. do you guys ask about trump? host: but because of your medical background, do you know if you can waive hippo laws?

caller: no, you cannot waive hippo laws. it is -- you cannot waive hippa laws. it is up to the person. the man had a cold, you could tell he was sick. at the debate, i was like, he looks like he is not feeling good. host: on our yes line, this is kimberly, hello. caller: i agree with toya. i believe they are being transparent. this is an 81-year-old man. no, they cannot waive hippo laws -- hipaa laws. i think they are being completely transparent. we just a president biden at the

state dinner. we see him everyday. i have no problem -- president biden has, by all accounts, and a tremendously successful president. what would that say, that we're asking him to step down and walk away? this is crazy. and i agree, you know, former president trump never answers a question. he always goes off on tangents. what do sharks and being electrocuted have to do with anything? it is ridiculous, and no one is questioning him. i just find it unbelievable that one presidential candidate is being asked to step down, and it is not the convicted felon, adjudicated rapist. this is ridiculous. president biden is a great, decent man. i will be voting for him again. host: ok, to new york, our no

line. caller: the question is not about trump here. the journalists are asking a valid question. they are not transparent. the transparent issues come from joe biden's team and family members. what is good for the country? it is not about trump, you like trump, you hate trump. no, the president is not in good shape. it is not a broken bone, it is aging. it has happened to previous president sent to family members. we do not decide by age in this

country, neither by color. but the fact is our president is not in a good shape. what is better for the country? let the family decide. is it good for the country? he is a wonderful man, but this is not about working for trump or this man. for me, joe biden, please let the family come forward and tell us don't worry. host: back in february when dr. o'connor gave the president his physical, he released a letter with a lot of things covered. you can find it online. when it comes to the gait of the president, it says orthopedics, podiatry, radiology as part of the 2021 physical, the president showed a stiff gait, and because

of a foot fracture, i assembled a team with physical therapy and movement disorder specialists to carefully assess the president. after careful analysis and review of imaging, the team concludes much of the stiffness is the result of regenerative wear and tear changes of his spine, moderate to severe, demonstrated at multiple levels. repeat imaging was obtained during today's visit, and the arthritic changes remain moderate to severe but do not result in nerve suppression significant for treatment. it goes on from there. you can read that physical from earlier this year, part of the transparency overall when it comes to the president's health. do you think the white house is doing a good job on it? on the not sure line from west virginia, this is david.

caller: the last three and a half years, the united states has been watching him do his cognitive tests, the world has been watching, and he has been failing if you have an open mind. the press secretary, the worst that they ever had, she will not answer a straight question. the books are going to come out, and it is going to tell the truth. there is going to be a mad rush to get the books out to tell the whole story. and all these people that said they will vote for a corpse are going to be disappointed. well, they are not, because they do not care. it is just the party, they do not care what is heading the party. it is going to get nasty when the books come out. have a nice day. host: jason on our yes line, oklahoma city. caller: good morning. i think the white house has been

transparent. they have given information about biden. the rest needs to be up to the family. host: ok. usa today recently had a story about this idea of a cognitive test, talking about what type of tests they are. it says it is a 50-minute test that trump said he aced, memorized a short list of words, naming pictures and shapes, and there is a 10-minute mini mental state exam, which requires the test taker to identify objects in the room and common facts. the mini cog is the shortest and it is to complete in three minutes, memorizing and recalling a three word list of unrelated words, showing the hands for a specific time. under what they can't tell us, it should be noted that older

people's brains perform differently than younger people, according to a professor of neurology at harvard medical school. while there is heightened risk of brain disease with aging, young people can learn new facts more quickly and put them into the bigger picture. and there is wisdom. more about those tests if you are interested in reading about them. on our no line when it comes to the transparency level of the white house and the president's health, jean in atlanta. caller: i am a hospice nurse, and i have seen alzheimer's and dementia patients everyday. i can tell you, the white house is misleading because they are naming the diagnosis. no, he does not have parkinson's, but he does have dementia. if you read up on dementia, you will see all the classic signs of dementia he is manifesting.

we are being misled. you notice i and all the stuff you are reading, the word dementia and alzheimer's is never cited, and that is why they are leaving it out. that way, they can cover up their lie. i did see a cnn doctor go to this exactly last night, and he explained it very well, that it is a misnomer that they are calling this parkinson's. it is dementia he has, and he probably does not even have alzheimer's, which is another type of subset of eight dementia diagnosis. thank you very much. host: on our not sure line, this is james from south carolina. caller: the reason i am not sure is because i am looking into the future. i am concerned about his mental state and what it might be two years from now, four years from

now, when he is reelected. but as far as i am concerned, and i want you to know, i love your show and watch it everyday and i know y'all are fair. so i want you to be fair about this. i have watched donald trump since the day he started tearing this country down. y'all need to ask the same question about donald trump. because when i watched donald trump -- and over the years, 7, 8 years i watched that man, he is definitely mentally ill. his niece even came on tv and told he has a mental problem. and donald trump knows about this project 25, and i saw what

the project 25 is. that takes somebody, you have got to be completely mentally ill. host: ok, that is james. you can continue with your thoughts when it comes to the trance -- transparency matters from the white house on the president's health. if you think the white house is transparent, call (202) 748-8000. if you say they are not, call (202) 748-8001. and you are not sure (202) , 748-8002. you can always text (202) 748-8003. and you can post on social media. when it comes to the former present, you can judge for yourself about his ste when he appears at a rally in florida later onoday as part of c-span's campaign 2024 coverage. you can see that on our app at c-span now, and on c-span.org, at 7:00 this evening.

the former president gives a rally today. jerome powell appearing before the senate banking committee to give the agency semiannual monetary policy report, c-span3 is where you can view it, as well as the app and the dot-org, 10:00 today. kathy on our yes line, hello. caller: good morning. first, the job of being president of the united states is normatively involved -- is enormously involved, and i cannot imagine. i was from michigan, and there was one priest. he could not retire because there was no one to replace him until his early 90's. one time he was giving a homily and he suddenly stopped.

we just waited patiently because we knew he would pick it up and continue, and he did. and nobody moved against him for doing the job he was. second, i work at a skilled nursing facility, and most of the patients have dementia. president biden's behavior does not mirror in any way what i see on a daily basis when i work. host: about the transparency level, how would you gauge that? caller: we only need so much information, and it is really up to the people to do their own research and figure things out. i do not want my medical information spread all over the place, and i only need to know so much. he is doing the job. i see him up there. i don't have a tv but i read the newspapers. i think he is doing the job. i do not really know what more the american person or people

want out of any president who is completely invested in what he is doing and has the proper people around him and things are moving along well. host: a call from alabama on our no line. caller: i was in the marine corps. when i come out, i was a working physical therapist for seven years. i am 67 now and go to doctors for issues. we talked a little politics, and every doctor that i have went to, they sort of get into politics a little bit. well, what do you think of the president? every one of the doctors i have seen, from birmingham to muscle shoals, alabama, they say something is wrong with this man, you just look at his eyes. he doesn't blink hardly. they say he has a neurological malfunction of some kind.

in physical therapy, i seen this. this guy is -- host: why do you think the white house has not been transparent on these issues? caller: they don't want the world to know. russia sees it, and look at what they have been doing since he been president, invaded ukraine. hamas. and they gave all that money to iran, and that has allowed hamas to invade israel. none of that happened under trump. ima trump guy. host: but what about the transparency of the president's health? caller: all these leaders see it. you have to be living in an alternate universe not noticing what is wrong with biden. keys to plagiarize things because he could never write his own speeches. that is what obama said himself. host: the president is expected to address leaders as part of the nato summit meeting in washington, d.c., later today,

5:00 is when we expect the president's comments. you can see them on the various -- state close to our website for coverage where you can see the president address these issues later on this week as part of the nato coverage. the president is scheduled to hold a solo press conference. you can follow along all of those things that c-span.org. the past article from 2020 highlighted various presidents who have been in white house with medical issues, starting with frequent eleanor roosevelt, say perhaps the most favored -- famous presidential secret sufferer, living with the effects of polio and using a wheelchair. unlike most polio sufferers, developing the disease at the unusual age of 39. not clear when and where he cut polio, but the effects became apparent during the summer of 1921 and he visited the families

cottage in canada. he developed lower back pain and weakness in his legs and skin sensitivity. it highlights john f. kennedy, saying most of us think of jfk as a hearty new england sort, but it appears he dealt with a variety of health issues. by the time he took office, he had near constant pain. there was hardly a day that went by that he did not suffer terribly. a presidential historian and author was granted access to kennedys x-rays and drug records from 1955 to the end of his life, and among his lifelong elements, colitis, addison's disease, low blood sugar, fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, and osteoporosis in his lower back because extreme pain and led to multiple surgeries. for more on the past president'' illness, that is the website you

can find it at. john in florida on our not sure line when it comes to transparency on the president's health. caller: good morning. i am not sure because for three years we were told everything is running along smoothly, biden is sharp as a tack. two tales in the media. you have the right wing media telling us biden was incapable and was suffering from some mental conditions. then you had the left-wing media telling us he is sharp as a tack, never been a better or smarter president. for three and a half years, we have been getting dueling stories, and all of a sudden the debate happens and we suddenly get to see president biden with our own eyes, and these are the results. so i am not sure about a lot of things but certainly not sure

why we're getting two different stories from the media. the media should be the ones that are the gatekeepers and asked the questions to keep people in power accountable. my wife has a masters degree in nursing, and she works in an elderly care unit. she has been telling me for years that mr. biden has cognitive deficiencies. i read the new york times and washington post, and i have been told for three and a half years that he is the sharpest guy in the shed and everything is going along smoothly. and then the white house, and they were kind of editing the videos from europe and all over. host: ok. john in pennsylvania on our yes line. caller: good morning. last night, a press notice was read from the white house, and

dr. cannard, the neurologist, visited the white house, three visits, and the reason why is he also examines other people, staff members, some military people, not only the president. the other thing is, i have worked in 14 nursing homes the last 12 or 14 years and also a veterans home in pennsylvania, and i have seen all kinds of organic brain syndrome and things like that and dementia. joe biden does not have dementia. i believe it. most people i listen to, the speech that trump gave about the shark and the motorboat, i think you ought to play that sometime and see how incoherent he was about that.

no one understood what he was talking about, and they never questioned his mental acuity. after four years of trump, how could anyone justify criticizing biden on his mental acuity? i do not understand. host: nbc highlighting that, saying prior to the pandemic, dr. cannard helped at regular neurology clinics, and there are many members assigned to white house operations. many military personnel experience neurological issues related to their service, and dr. cannard visits as part of that practice. a call from miami, our no line. caller: good morning. i am 78 years old, the same as joe. it is not about age, it is about dementia. we had an uncle in spain that my

husband had to go over there and take over. he had dementia. everything biden has come out, my husband always says he looks like tio. just recently at the g7, biden went there and started wandering off from the people. the prime minister from italy had to run after him and get him back. host: those events were clarified in further stories, but to the point of transparency, what do you think of the white house's efforts? caller: somebody else's behind him. we always know that. why do you think they are hiding him? now they are trying to push him out.

it is obvious that he has dementia. all you have to do is look at his eyes. and he is going to get worse. he is not going to get any better. host: matt on our not sure line, he is in north carolina. caller: good morning. i don't know, i personally don't -- i don't know and don't really care. and the reason being is the white house gives out just enough. i do not feel like they are being deceitful, but they have to limit the amount of information that we get because people spin so many things these days. and the fact that half of the country thinks it is ok to vote for a convicted felon over biden who has been in business for 45 years, taking care of the country and doing a good job for us. i am going to vote for biden

every minute of every day. i do not give a crap what is going on with him. he has kamala behind him, if something happens. host: doesn't the public deserve to know if he has a conversion -- a condition? caller: the public does not need to know. obviously, the public did not need to know why trump never turned in his taxes. it is a game these guys are playing, and i don't care. biden is the better choice. and if the american public votes trump onion, they are going to get what they deserve and i'm going to kick back and wait for four years -- if the american public funds trump in, they're going to get what they deserve. i am not going to cry if he loses, but i say keep biden in there and everyone needs to rally around him. host: again, if you say the white house has been transparent on these issues when it comes to the president's health, you can

call as adele is why at -- you can call us and tell us why at (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you're not sure, (202) 748-8002. for his effort, the president calling in to msnbc, the morning joe program, and during an exchange with the host, he was asked specifically about the state of his health. here is part of that exchange. [video clip] pres. biden: when it comes to my neurological capacity, i had a neurological physical, as well, in february. it is in all of my records, all of them. i have a neurological test every single day. you know it. they know it. i am not bad at what i do. does not mean i never make a mistake, i do. but i am making a decision. >> mr. president, if anybody i and my family had a night like that, like my joe had a night

like that or my kids or anybody, i would want to do some sort of medical workup and make sure he is ok. have you been tested for any age-related illnesses, pre-parkinson's, or anything like that that might explain having a night that were you could not sentences? pres. biden: [laughs] look, i had -- before, i was feeling so badly before the debate. they tested me before, i thought maybe i had covid, maybe i had an infection or something. they tested me and i was clear. look, i had a bad night. but the fact of the matter is, look at what i am doing. let me put it this way, if there was something that was wrong that night, it is not like that is one night and it goes away, that is why i have been testing

myself, testing everywhere i go. host: that was on msnbc. this is steven from washington state on our yes line. hi. caller: good morning. i think the transparency from the white house with president biden, i think it is spot on. i viewed this meant politically as he has spoken and stories he has given in the history of his political career, even up to now , he is so acute on details of conversations, of visits, visiting different people, citizens, talking about different policies, just families he visited in care of certain events of their past loved ones who have served the military. he went and visited these people and these families and talked

about his experience with them and the subject matter, what he spoke of to them. that is just one example. but when he is speaking, his acuity of all these events are so spot on. when he gets to talking politics, i have heard a lot of your callers speak educated, uneducated, i think they are just problem mongers. they want to seek out to destroy the human being they may not be in favor of in politics. but hey, this man has been superb in policy and explaining policy. most of these callers, whether they're educated or uneducated, they would never be able to speak in the acuity of policies, foreign policies, domestic policies, etc., etc., like this man. he is spot on. thank you. host: florida is next on our no

line, this is scott. caller: i believe they have been hiding joe since the 2020 election. they had him in the basement since then. the biden administration, listen close, the doctor, the long-standing, well doctor, as soon as the biden administration came in, they fired him, got him out. he had been there for decades. the media got caught for three and half years colluding with the white house, and now it is coming to an end. this is of the point, the big point is they cannot have him in there because of the treason committed by the last two democratic administrations. they cannot have joe in there, they are in big trouble. host: why do you think the transparency issue is not existing then when it comes to the health? caller: is an existing now? host: yeah, specifically, why do

you think it is not? caller: it is coming to a head now? people are catching it. they have been hiding it. they have been hiding it because of treason. they cannot have joe up there committing so much treason. they are going to jail, all of them. they have to replace him, and i'm getting my popcorn. host: jimmy on our not sure line. caller: jimmy here, good morning to you. i just wanted to say i am not sure about this because it is at the level of transparency we expect from the executive branch taking a pretty big hit over the years here. the press secretary is not great with the press. not necessarily being transparent. however, i think we got used to there being a lid on the executive branch after 4:00 in the morning.

president trump was making his proclamations from the toilet there. footage of ronny jackson that you played yourself saying the president could live to be 200 years old. i seen footage this past week about mr. trump saying he is a big fan of hannibal lector from "silence of the lambs." so i am not sure they are being honest with us exactly about mr. biden's mental state. but both of these men are intrusive in their lies. i think we really need to think about, not just for the selection but just moving forward, our country is in a crisis state because we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by a gerontocracy. host: donald trump had a taped

interview that aired on fox news, and mr. trump spoke about the current president, and let of him being the nominee of the democratic party. [video clip] >> what part of his cognitive decline do you think they missed or did they purposely cover for him, in your view? fmr. pres. trump: well, they cover for him and they are still sort of covering, but now it is getting very difficult to do that. looks to me that he very well may stay in. he has an ego and. he does not want to quit just looks to me that that is what he wants. i think jill would like to see him stay. she is having a good time. i noticed she really seems to be having a good time. i am hearing that hunter is calling the shots. so this is not necessarily a very positive thing for our country. i think he might very well stay in, and if he does, nobody wants to give that up that way. he is going to feel badly about himself for a long time. it is hard to give it up that

way, the way they are trying to force him out. you really have to speak to his doctors, but obviously he has been sheltered by the big news -- the fake news media. that is why they call it the fake news. host: bob in oregon on our yes line. caller: great, i got to follow donald trump. anyway, i think they are not telling anything other than what they are supposed to tell, the truth. as for that night, he definitely did not do great in the situation. it was tough. donald trump constantly lying, not answering any questions or that is what he does, just tries to talk over him. i would, too, with all the things he was saying. host: the topic being transparency from the white house, what do you think about it? caller: that is what i am talking about, as far as being transparent about his health, they are talking about his health and everything.

you keep hearing about things, and they're constantly in his ear. he has to be stressed out about what he is hearing. when you're trying to put your points across, it is hard when he has got all these things going on in his ear. he is trying to say how great he is doing for this country, and i would get a little rattled. i understand, he did not do great, no doubt. he is an honest gentleman, a very honest man, and i still support joe. the only way i would consider he should step down is if maybe michelle obama -- i have heard people say that, michelle and maybe barack obama to come back, and that would be the greatest thing. anything else would be huge risk for the country. if it was to change or someone else to go into the position, if they believe he is not doing as well, i think he is physically

fine. he has always had a stutter. he is 81 years old. trump is not any younger. people saying all this stuff, joe has dementia and stuff, these are just trumpers that hate joe biden. he is a great guy. i would rather have an honest gentleman that loves our country than a guy that constantly lies 24/7. anyways, pedro, i think you're doing a great job. host: thank you. rachel in florida on our no line. caller: hi, yes, i do not think they are being transparent. people are so accepting of this, i cannot believe it. we don't want the best, smartest person forever president, we are accepting someone who is clearly demented. if they were so transparent, why wouldn't they release the whole tape? why would they not have biden

take a cognitive test, and why no press conferences? host: the white house doctor clarified things yesterday, so why doesn't that fall under the definition of transparency, in your mind? caller: they said he did a cognitive test? i did not see that. host: they clarified on things, particularly the visit from experts, so why doesn't that fit into transparency? caller: because they lie about everything. why don't they release the tape if he is so cognitively well? these people that believe everything their government hands to them is unbelievable. they will be costing us. host: john in chicago on our not sure line. caller: hello. thanks. about the transparency issue, it is hard to know what to trust.

on one hand, we are hearing that they are saying he is very sharp, very cognitively with it. but on the other hand, you are seeing with your own eyes that there's clearly issues. and during the debate, his performance was not of someone who is really sharp. we would like to be able to believe what they are saying. same as when they say that the border is sealed, and then you are seeing on the news thousands of people coming over the border. so it is really hard to understand who to trust. where do you go for your information when you're getting such a dichotomy? host: daniel is next in maryland on our yes line. caller: good morning. yes, i think they are being as transparent as they should be. we the world knowing every weakness, especially at a time

when there are so many regional conflicts. you do not want to display weakness. at the same time, people do not really understand how the government works. there's a ton of people around the president that make it work. i really feel badly that we -- over the past 40 years since the reagan era, the right wing has been driving our conversations. just throw anything against the wall, listen to what trump is saying, listen to what they callers are same, totally irrational. if he is a puppet, why are they having a hard time removing him? it is really sad to hear the election-year nonsense. host: if there is a weakness concerned then, why not expose it to the american people, considering it is the leader of the free world? caller: depends what it is. if it is just natural aging -- i just heard his phone call on morning joe and have heard him

in interviews and other places where he sounds fine. he is old, no doubt about it. but in the current system, it is him or a guy trying to escape jail. so we're all going to pile on on the old guy because he is not performing like he is holding his own, but he is clearly a better option. it is really a nonissue. things are happening and policies are being executed. good things are happening for america. i am not even a joe biden fan, but we are accepting the right wing again and just having silly conversations. host: olga in virginia on our no line. caller: i do not believe the white house is being transparent. matter-of-fact, that believe what we should do is request the same thing that we did for defense secretary lloyd austin. get him at the podium and explain what is going on with his health.

let's treat him the same way that we did lloyd austin. thank you. host: what do you think that will offer, if that were the case? caller: i think it is fair. they scrutinized our defense secretary lloyd austin, let's do the same thing for our president of the united states. host: what do you think it would offer then? what would it tell? caller: it would put the american people at ease. we need to hear it straight from him. you know, let's get him in front of the podium, instead of his press secretary, and let's get him in front of a bunch of reporters in that room and let him explain what is going on, what happened. let's do the same thing that we did when it came down to our defense secretary lloyd austin. host: ok. our last call in georgia on the yes line. caller: good morning, america. thank you for taking my call. i just want to know why c-span

keeps bringing this topic of joe biden. people have debates. one has a mental issue, and one is afraid. why haven't you made donald trump a topic? ask republicans if they would want him to step down. when he was in the white house, they were not transparent to the american people. they lied to us. can we leave joe biden alone? we're going to vote for joe biden. just know it is about grassroots. it is not all about you. we are going to vote for joe biden. we are going to vote for him. host: ok, that finishes off this

hour. former president trump will get his own focus next week as the republican national convention launches next monday. c-span's coverage starts on sunday. this program from 7:00 to 10:00, expanded for the days of the convention, monday through thursday from 7:00 to 11:00, talking about the former president himself as republicans gather in milwaukee next week for the nomination of former president trump. nato meeting today to talking -- talk about a variety of issues, including future support for ukraine. as part of that discussion, next up, kurt volker joins us to talk about the meeting and the issues that will be involved. later on in the program we will hear about the concerns of the effort of nato from a different perspective, from concerned veterans from a rare -- for america, jason beardsley.

those conversations, coming up. ♪ >> saturdays, american history tv features historic convention speeches. watch notable remarks from notable figures and political nominees. this saturday, george bush accepts the nomination of 1980 eight, calling for a kinder and gentler america. [video clip] >> in terms of raising taxes, i will in the congress will push me and i will say no and they will push and i will say no and they will push and i will say to them -- read my lips, no new taxes. >> watch historic convention speeches saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span two. this summer, watchhe live campaign 2024 coverage of the reblican national convention

july 15 through the 18th in the democratic national convention august 19 through the 22nd. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events featuring markers that guide you towards newsworthy highlights. the points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on points of interest. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrate 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source on capitol hill, taking you to where the policies

are debated and decided with the support of american cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us to give perspective on the nato meeting this week is kurt volker, u.s. ambassador to nato, under the obama administration. served as a representative for ukraine negotiations for the trump administration. ambassador volker, thank you for your time. guest: pleasure, thank you. host: how would you describe the purpose of the meetings this week in nato and washington, d.c. ? guest: i think that the main purpose is to show that the allies remain united. after 75 years, we have 32 members of nato and everyone is committed to the idea of collective defense, if any one nato ally is attacked, we will

all respond together to protect ourselves. more questions will come up around that, maybe some that raise concerns, but the heart is that. host: how would you describe the reasoning of the uniting, the forces that made that happen? guest: it's super simple. anyone country having to defend itself if attacked is going to face existential threat. if they ban together with other countries, they are more powerful. it is going to be easier or better in terms of defending themselves against an adversary. because of that, it less likely they will be attacked. nato is actually never been attacked by a conventional force or conventional adversary and 75 years because they have banded together to commit to collective defense. the only time that the article five collective defense issue was invoked was after the terrorist attack on the united states, 9/11, different and

unusual circumstance. but in terms of russian attacks or other conventional attacks on nato, has never happened and likely will not as long as the allies stick together. remind -- host: remind people of the scope and what they bring to the table when it comes to defense? guest: nato was founded 75 years ago in 1949 with 12 countries, countries that were seen as having successfully prosecuted world war ii. we survived, we protected democracy, those countries wanted nato to protect europe against a potential soviet threat coming on the heels of that. that worked. over time, nato added countries, there's now a total of 32 that included every european democracy, western europe, central europe, southern europe, northern europe, and the latest two countries to join were finland and sweden.

they were neutral for decades and in the case of finland, hundreds of years for sweden, but they joined because they saw the threat that russia presents today and felt safer being a part of nato. now we have 32 countries in the alliance. host: you said that there could be specifics coming out of the meeting over the wide scope of unity. how much of that will involve ukraine? guest: not much, to be honest. there will be a couple of incremental steps. until now nato has done nothing for ukraine. everything has been done by individual allies like the united states, great britain, or poland. as an alliance, they have done nothing. that's about to change because we are about to take the assistance coordination process it has been led outside nato and we will put a nato flag over that. there will be a new nato mission to help ukraine. this will be coordinating military assistance, helping with the defense reform and

defense industrial production and procurement. things that will be designed with a long-term perspective in mind to help ukraine establish a capable military establishment for the future. when it comes to the immediate helping of ukraine when the war, creating any kind of fund or nato role in directly assisting ukraine, inviting ukraine to join nato, none of those things are going to happen. host: any incremental steps to the possibility of ukraine joining nato? guest: not really. they are using new language. they are calling it a bridge to nato membership. i don't know what that means, exactly. you are either invited to join or you are not and in this case, they are not. we keep promising that one day they will be, but we are not doing it now, didn't do it last year, it's actually been 16 years since we said they would one day be a member and we have taken no concrete steps to get there. host: what's your preference?

guest: i would be happier if they were in right now. they are the strongest, most capable, most battle hardened and interoperable military in europe today. the more -- the war that we face in europe right now is the biggest since world war ii and the whole reason it is happening is because they were not in nato. vladimir putin felt that he could get away with attacking and taking away ukrainian territory. now we need to help ukraine get what it needs to end the war and defeat vladimir putin in ukraine and bring them into nato as quickly as possible so that we can deter future attacks. the whole point is to prevent the next war. by letting this one rage on, especially if putin prevails in some way, we are setting the stage for the next war. host: the ambassador is with us until 8:30 and if you want to ask him questions, you can call the lines. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your questions or thoughts that (202) 748-8003 -- at (202) 748-8003. ambassador volker, i want to get your sense of what the alliance could be thinking when it comes to president biden, his health, and how it could impact the alliance overall. guest: unfortunately, this is on the mind of every single nato leader coming to washington this week. it wasn't only american voters who watched the debate. it was all of our allies and adversaries who watched the debate as well and it is now on the mind of everyone. the world needs, nato needs a strong united states, strong u.s. leadership in order to deter aggression in the world, to lead the alliance. now they have serious doubts about president biden possibility to do that. not only about whether he is a

good democratic nominee to run for reelection in november, whether he is up for the task today as president and what it means for the future of nato if president biden is in for another four years. and if we don't have him and we end up with another four years of former president trump, what does that mean for nato? he has famously come out and said that he doesn't support nato and encouraged vladimir putin to go ahead and attack countries that didn't pay their fair share of nato defense expenditures. that's very alarming to europeans as well so they are deeply concerned about the future of american leadership. host: if that's the case concerning the current president, do you share those concerns? guest: i do. i think that president biden needs to show people that he is capable. because we do face the most critical set of security threats in the world today that i can remember in my lifetime.

the biggest war in europe. over a half of a million people killed in that war already. probably more than that. you have threats from china against taiwan. iran attacked israel directly and used proxies to attack israel. there are efforts to overthrow governments in sub-saharan africa and latin america and a lot of these things are connected. russia gets its drones from iraq. they get artillery shells from north korea. they are providing missile technology to north korea. china is propping up the russian economy. we face a very serious set of threats in the world right now that are impacting the united states and our allies. we need strong u.s. leadership and the president of the united states needs to be the person to step up and do that. host: talking about the former president, post editors writing this morning that the republican national committee 2000 24 platform adopted in milwaukee

makes no mention of ukraine or nato and generically calls for preventing world war iii and restoring peace in europe, adding that it's a far cry from 2016 when they supported assistance for the ukrainian armed forces with greater coordination for nato defense planners. that being the case, what are your concerns? guest: i'm not concerned about that at all. i don't know the last time that a political party platform was meaningful at all in terms of how the party governed after being elected. better to say something than the wrong thing. there's uneasiness with where we are and that's understandable but the reality is the war in ukraine will get worse and putin will keep fighting a must we show more strength. i don't think that is a popular political passage, so maybe it's not something they want to advertise, but it is the reality. this talk of saying ok, stop the fighting, that's not going to stop the fighting.

just like president obama saying we were going to end two wars. what he meant was we were going to withdraw. it didn't end the wars, didn't stop the fighting. didn't prevent the taliban or isis from growing. all it did was get the u.s. out. in the case of ukraine, the war will go on and get worse if we don't support ukraine and it will spread to other countries because the russian empire was not just russia and ukraine. it included finland, baltic states, parts of the soviet union. these are things that vladimir putin has on his agenda if he gets away with taking ukraine. host: michelle, florida, democratic line for our guest, ambassador volker. michelle, go ahead. caller: yes. i'm 78 years old. i've been democrat republican in past years. what i would like to know is -- why are you not and some of the other politicians discussing

project 2025 and how it will impact the nato situation? i hear all kinds of things about people being not interested in joe biden because of his age. this has nothing to do with joe biden's age. this has to do with a hidden agenda on project 2025 that people do not know about. and they are not discussing it on all channels. i listen to eight different channels on tv. i listen to the radio channels. no one is talking about trump's republican 2025 -- host: what is it specifically about international affairs that concerns you the most and what did you want to ask our guest about? caller: that's what i was trying

to find out. how is the impact going to occur? what's going to be going on with that project in relation to nato and other european countries? host: ok, michelle there in florida. ambassador, you have heard about this project for the next conservative administration coming in. go ahead. guest: for your viewers, 2025 is an initiative -- initiative of the heritage foundation. they wanted to identify people who could serve in a trump administration in advance, that them and get a sense of what their views are, make sure you have a stable of people ready to go into the administration from day one. remember when president trump was elected the first time, he didn't have a lot of nominees ready to go and it was almost two years before he put people into his administration. this is the initiative the

heritage admin is -- foundation has taken. it doesn't mean that trump has bought into this or that any of those people are people he's going to nominate. this is just an entrepreneurial effort by a think tank to appear relevant and try to do something. good for them, you know, it's an entrepreneurial society, it is worth their effort. i'm not terribly worried about it. just like we talked about the party convention and the platform adopted in milwaukee, that's not going to bind president trump to anything he does while in office. likewise, nothing to heritage foundation says will bind trump to anything. ultimately it is about who is elected president, who do they appoint, and what of the policies they follow? we are going to see a lot of that, we are not going to know a lot of that until it actually takes place if he is elected. he's not going to commit himself to things in advance. he's going to observe the

situation that exists on the day when he's president and decide then what to do about it. host: joseph is next, republican line, new jersey. caller: i just got a couple of things to say if you let me finish my points. first of all, when i hear the gentleman talk about nato, the only time it was used was after 9/11. i'm a retired new york city firemen. i was down there, i did my small part. that day affected our country. but hasn't our country given enough lives for europe since world war i? how many kids did we leave on normandy beach? the korean war, the vietnam war, these young american kids killed to help other countries. this is the united states of america, not the united states of europe. i think that we worry too much about europe. one more thing, i don't trust my government anymore.

the man on here today that was involved in the impeachment hearings for president trump, president trump was totally exonerated about looking into president biden and his corrupt family. my government didn't investigate it, purposely, for politics. he turned out to be right. i'm supposed to trust my government now when he let hunter biden and his family get $20 million? host: we will let our guest address the point you made. guest: i think that the key question he is asking is -- hasn't the u.s. sacrificed enough for other countries? the problem is, take the point in itself. was it a mistake for the u.s. to support europe in world war ii, to defend britain and france against hitler's? was it a mistake to end world war one in a stalemate to prevent people from dying? it was the right thing to do

generally and it was also in u.s. interests. if hitler's had prevailed in europe, we would be facing a very different world today than the one that we face. same thing in world war i. as much as yes, it is a burden for the united states to provide leadership in the world, it's also supportive of our own interests. if we allow putin, and with putin we are talking about aggression, war crimes, rape, torture, killing, everything you could imagine, this imperialist genocidal mentality to eliminate a whole people, like we talked about with israel, israel wanting to wipe iran off the map , russia is literally trying to wipe ukraine off the map. if we allow that to happen, we will face more war and conflict in more places and it will affect us. cheaper for us, better for us to give the ukrainians the equipment.

host: there'a viewer asking this morning that president trump didn't say he supported to in didn't say he wanted prento do whatever he wanted, bragging tt he extracted brick -- greater contributions that he would help him if contribution levels weren't met. guest: that's actually accurate, whoever your viewer is, that's exactly what trump is doing. he uses hyperbole and bragging and brutal rhetoric and language to make a point. the point that he was making is that we need european allies to spend more on defense and we need to get them to actually do it, not just say so. that's what he was talking about. that rhetoric was used in a campaign rally where he was trying to explain to voters -- here is how i was tough, here is how i got european allies to spend more. it created very negative reactions in europe immediately afterwards. so, he changed it and was asked

the same question in a month, answering positively rather than negatively and it was the leader of the reform party and the u.k. who was on a stage with trump and ask him -- if a country has spent 2% of gdp on defense, it has treated the u.s. fairly, you would come to their defense question mark he said absolutely, 100%. -- defense? he said absolutely, 100%. host: there's a record number of nato allies hitting their defense targets with ukraine and when it comes to spending by nato countries, does the president have a role or are there other factors? guest: i think he does. i think he shocked some countries into spending more but the biggest role was played by vladimir putin, launching the biggest war in europe since world war ii he has because every country in europe to wake up and realize they may actually have to fight to defend themselves so they had better get ready. host: brad joins us from ohio.

caller: hello, ambassador. good to see you today. guest: good to hear from you. caller: i can't disagree with anything you just said. first of all, the constitution does tell us to fight against communism here and abroad, number one for american history. and also, it underscores the importance of nato. i've met 100-year-old vets that stormed normandy and i have a different perspective on how nato is there any general public, i guess, in some respects. and also, it's a great point to also say that ukraine, a lot of people from america, when the war started, if we remember

correctly, our own military, because of democracy and what you were speaking of and how vladimir putin is as a person, frankly, a murderer -- i mean, the guy, you know, he settler. how we don't want to fight them there is beyond my comprehension . with old, conventional weapons we have actually kept russia at the door of ukraine instead of overrunning that country. i just hear a bunch of people saying we shouldn't be there. you know? that we are spending too much money over there and there is no allocation for how it's being spent. host: got your point. thank you. go ahead. guest: i think the point that he's making, and i agree, we are very conscious of the costs of action. if we do something, we know what it costs, we have to budget for it and have to know how to do

it. we don't calculate often the costs of in action. when you allow a war criminal like putin to take over another country, the consequences of that, the consequences of what he will do next, those are things that we don't stop to calculate, they are higher than the costs of actually just giving ukraine weapons to defend itself. host: from chris, boston, democratic mine, hello. caller: thanks. yeah, 2010, the national security archives released the archives of the 1990 transcripts of a conversation between james baker and gorbachev, in which james baker promised gorbachev that he would turn to german reunification and nato would not expand eastward. since then, we found out that nato has extended all the way up to russia's borders. if you need confirmation of what

i just said, you can go to the national security archives and on page six and page nine, the references to the non-expansion of nato. what nato wants to do, what the united states wants to do is to do to russia what it did to yugoslavia, break it into its own component provinces. perhaps your guest is unaware and you should check out the national security archives website. thanks and have a hostile day. guest: well, several things to respond to their, thanks very much. yugoslavia broke up, the west that not break them up, because you had a serbian power at the center of yugoslavia abusing the other parties. at the moment they had the chance to flare independence and leave, they did. same with the soviet union. the kremlin wasn't able to control all of the other republics in the soviet union. they broke off and there

pendants because they didn't want to be -- declared independence because i didn't want to be under the thumb of moscow. that could happen within russia because there are many nationalities there that don't want to be there. as far as nato enlargement goes, you are right to say that the issue of nato enlargement was discussed by baker, gorbachev, and others at the time, but it was not agreed to. there was no commitment, there was no agreement that nato would not expand ever. there was an agreement as part of those talks on unification of germany that the nato military architecture would not be extended into eastern germany, the former german democratic republic and that has not happened. but there was never any discussion or commitment about poland, baltic states, any other country. it would be illogical if that had come up, the warsaw pact still existed at that time.

those countries, like the baltic states, were still a part of the soviet union and it was never discussed. host: i want to ask you about the missile strikes reported yesterday in kyiv, hitting that children's hospital, how those events could complicate what goes on here and from the support of nato countries and the united states. guest: first off, it's a terrible, tragic event, the largest children's hospital in kyiv hit by missiles. it's outrageous. viewers need to understand that russia does this every day. it's not a one-off, it's not an accident, it's not a new thing. this is something russia does every day. they launch missiles, drones, and attack ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. i met with someone from ukraine yesterday here in washington who was over for the summit dings.

-- meetings. they have electricity for two hours a day because russia has knocked out the power stations in that part of ukraine. they have very, very long brownouts. this is what russia deliberately does every day. it should inspire us to give ukraine what it needs to defeat russian forces. so far we are unwilling to do that and i don't think it is going to change at the summit, but i do hope it changes at some point. host: one more call from conrad in pennsylvania, republican mine. caller: [indiscernible] all the other countries. [indiscernible] united states, i hear all of the stuff about these other countries that can't turn their lights on for two hours a day, but we need help from

republicans and democrats. you all can talk about everything in the world, but we've got people cutting out and senior citizens that have to work because they cannot pay for health care. since y'all got all this knowledge, what about us? host: ok. guest: it's a fair question. i think that our political leaders, our congress, we need today care of our own country, no question about it. the types of things you are mentioning, prices, health care, education, they are tremendously important and we need to do that, but we cannot ignore the rest of the world either. we can do both at the same time. if we ignore the rest of the world, it comes to find us and we have experienced that many times in our history. it's not either or, it's both and. we have to protect arc on -- serve our country and protect war from coming to our shores. host: are you concerned about mission creep when it comes to

nato at large? guest: i'm concerned that we haven't really realized what's at stake. the mission should be simple. the mission should be to make sure that russian forces face overwhelming odds and cannot defeat ukraine so that russia recognizes that and stops the war. until russia feels that -- until russia sees that kind of overwhelming force, they are going to keep fighting and killing and we are going to face the prospect of a much larger war. so, they have to be stopped and i think we are stuck in this mode of saying we cannot escalate, cannot provoke prudent, can't go to world war iii, and we are missing the point that if we don't stop them, like when we didn't stop hitler's in the sudeten land, if we don't stop him now, we are going to see worse later and it is going to cause us more.

-- costs us more. host: ambassador kurt volker, served as a u.s. special representative for ukraine negotiations and the trump administration. ambassador, think you for your time. guest: my pleasure, thank you. host: we will continue our conversation with master sergeant jason beardsley, with concerned veterans for america, on the nato summit, veterans issues overall, and later on we will be joined by andrew desiderio of punch bowl news on the biden attempt to reassure democrats on capitol hill and how they are responding to it. those conversations, coming up on "washington journal." ♪ caller: c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45

years. here's a highlight from a key moment. >> c-span, powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, here wide-ranging

conversations with authors and others. book notes plus has hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes on the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and bestseller lists. find all of those podcasts by downloading our free app or wherever you get your podcast and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. >> get information from members of government right in the palm of your hand when you order your copy of the 2024 congressional directory with bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 118th congress with important information on congressional committees, presidential cabinet, and state governors. the congressional directory because $32.95 with shipping and

handling and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right and -- or go to c-spanshop.org and order your copy today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is jason beardsley, of concerned veterans for america come here to talk about the nato summit it comes to veterans and the military involved. guest: thank you for having us. host: remind us about the issues you deal with and the point of view that you come from. guest: we are one of the preeminent advocacy groups and we talk about responsible policies. many of us are military veterans and we represent the foreign policy tip of the spear in foreign combat and in places throughout the military. when we come home from that there is a pressing need for us to have a voice inside the policy debate.

we represent the policy and apply realistic and smart inking to what is a large part of the u.s. defense budget. host: if you are dealing with veterans, you are probably hearing from -- well, what are they saying to you about the nato involvement in ukraine and u.s. involvement? guest: we have to look at veterans has a wide spectrum, they run the gamut. combat veterans like myself have seen how foreign policy plays out overseas, making it more poignant for us, we have become more skeptical. when policies don't commit clear objectives and haven't used the military effectively in previous engagements, we have to slow down and ask the hard questions, are we doing the right thing by the american taxpayer? americans love a victory and want america to be the best they can and we are talking about strategies to do that on the defense side or health care side.

host: when it comes to ukraine, what other questions we should be asking? guest: as always, it's what is the clear objective, what's the purpose of the military, how does the taxpayer benefit the most, mutual benefit for americans bearing the burden overseas. how much should we be involved and of course, asking the smart russian, how do we get our partners to be strong allies so that we are not lifting all the burden. host: what are the answers for you and your mind? guest: for us it's about a collaboration of strength with allies so that we are not the only lopsided partner in this. not only there, but we have borne most of the burden for 75 years. we are celebrating this week the 75th anniversary of nato. it really is that time to shift the focus and burden for european defense from our european allies.

once they are in, it makes nato stronger. host: when it comes to ukraine, no american boots on the ground, even though the military is involved in various aspects. what is the concern of the use of those resources? guest: pushing back a little bit, we do have intelligence assets and advisors on the ground. there is a full ramification of personnel in proximate elation to the combat zone. but you are asking an important question about what else is important if we are not having direct military confrontation. what's important is the escalation strategy that can happen over time that we saw from vision 2022 and now we are talking about strike missions into russian territory, putting the u.s. as the lead partner in a hot war with russia, a nuclear power. we have said that we have got to be smart about how we deploy armed forces and how do we

deploy our financial responsibilities? host: our previous guests talked about endgame and how this goes for everyone involved, including the united states. would you say that that has been sketched out yet? guest: if it has, it hasn't been clear for the american public. there's never a clear strategy on how it ends. for all of that money and power and influence of the united states with our allies, we ought to be the lead in diplomatic negotiation for an end game. what's the offramp look like? how do we get back to a place of the time to with russia so that we are not in a hot or proxy simmering war? host: if you want to ask our guest about the events of this weekend and a nato and the issues involved, you can do so on the line. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans.

independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are a veteran and want to give us your perspective, call us at (202) 748-8003. as always, you can send us a text at that same number as well. talking about that last point, the time, -- détente, or at least resolve, is that the best solution in your mind? host: we've been in this engagement for three years now as a partner supporter to ukraine, we don't have a lot of good options. the problem is it can go on for a long time. some of these wars can be 10 years, even longer. if we are not asking those questions now, what we don't want to do is get to the end of a conflict like we did in afghanistan and iraq and leave whatever investment he put in the battlefield for the enemy or for the opposition to take over. if we are not planning that out, we don't really have a clear understanding of what the

détente would look like. host: you said that the problem is clear, can you elaborate on that? guest: the characterization of a great campaign is knowing what the end goal is. what does winning look like? we heard a lot about that from the invasion of iraq and afghanistan and what you wind up with our platitudes or generic statements of to read, but no one ever defines that. as a soldier on the ground, you have a difficult time working with the population to understand the end goal. clear objectives with a full commitment from the united states. anything less leaves us in a quandary and ambiguity. for the military, ambiguity is the worst thing. host: let's take some your background guest: 22 years the

military, the army, special forces operator doing clandestine military operations on the battlefield. having that optic gives me a view of not just the battlefield itself and the direct combat roles, but the policy and where the policy is lacking, where soldiers like myself have had a difficult time coming to grips with how we were dispositioned for a win. guest: jason beardsley is what with us. rhonda, democratic line, go ahead. caller: good morning. you know, i really think we give -- we should give ukraine some airplanes. there is no reason why not, it's no way to fight a war. it's obvious that putin wants the lithium that ukraine has. that's what he wants, it helps

him out. he is nothing but little hitler's. as far as or von in nato, i would give him an ultimatum that he couldn't refuse. want to go over and play patty cac with russia? we will throw your ass right out of nato and we will isolate you. you sure aren't getting military aid from us. this guy stands by trump and he is just like trump. he raped a five-year-old girl. i know what kind of people they are. guest: it's one of the great states that always support the alliance. it's been on the table from the

beginning and it's a hot topic with some complexity there. chairman mccall spoke aggressively about having the desire to get airplanes to ukraine. so, there are large contingents or cohorts of politicians who wanted that, but there is another that offered, given that deep strike capability to ukraine can lead to escalation with russia. once the ukrainians start to penetrate into russian territory, we are talking about an escalatory war that puts the u.s. in almost direct competition with russia. that's been a concern, complex, and those who agree they should have air capabilities. in addition, the u.s. has been very aggressive about patriot missiles and we think you will hear an announcement this week about, per the request of zelinski, to have six or seven of these patriot defense system so look for that to reinforce patriot capabilities.

as far as victor ormonde, we can all recognize different views on how to engage russia, but i think the important thing is not so much who or how, but that we are engaging throughout the process. in terms of an end goal situation, if there is no diplomatic treaty, we will have a difficult time before this wraps up. host: steve, virginia. caller: i appreciate your guest's comments about lack of end goal and clarity. i think the goal and ukraine, though, is pretty clear, it's to force russia to back off on the aggression. we cannot have countries invading other countries in the western world. i totally understand the escalation concerns, but it is have the fight now or have a larger fight later, potentially. it's super delicate but i think that is a clear goal.

guest: thank you, steve. and thank you for your service. as far as the clear goal, the question we are coming to the table with is -- apart from the idea of pushing back on russia or giving a counter to russia, it's what the goal looks like on the ground. geographical borders, crimea. there has been talk of retaking crimea leading to offense of strategy from ukraine. in general, yes, pushing back on russia is clear. but if you listen to the state department, lloyd austin talking about our goal being hurting russia and putting pain on their strategic forces you could argue that we have done that well so far. that by itself isn't an end goal. it's a direction or sentiment that those goals need to be articulated. are we ok with crimea in the

hands of russia or do we insist on retaking that? what about the provinces? is that necessary for a win or what does the actual victory look like? steve, appreciate those comments. it's complex and that is why we need to hear more from our leaders. host: president biden allowed certain weapons to be targeted on russian soil. what do you think of the decision itself and doesn't lead to larger mission creep, so to speak, when it comes to ukraine? host: americans -- guest: americans can look at the decision and ask -- what's happening here? in the beginning it was off the table. it had been seen as provocation leading to escalation. so, when the decision changes three years into it, americans rightly want to go to the president and ask -- what's the calculus? it was originally off the table for specific reasons, now it's back on and we need to

know why. those strikes are meant to be counter strikes and they would be limited as to where they could hit inside of russia around the mission operation strike itself. so, as that changes, yesterday we heard from other representatives saying they should be able to strike wherever they want in russia, specifically targeting their energy supplies. was this a clearly defined goal or something that they changed every time something on the battlefield changes? as a military veteran you can be sure of one thing, your plans are always going to change. we need flexibility. the purpose of the organization is to make sure that the leaders are held accountable for a transparent, clear, unambiguous victory or support decision. host: to what degree have you spoken to the white house and what has been the response? guest: i've had no direct talks,

but we have made our position very clear. there are very positive signs here. in the last 10 years we have seen european countries commit to the 2% target of gdp spending for defense. they were at three around 2014. this year they are projected to have 23 of the countries lead to percent. so, it's working. president after president going back to eisenhower, europe had to take a role in their own defense. concerned veterans for america likes to see the europeans strengthening military reverent -- readiness and becoming a bulwark in stopping this aggression. host: four@, let -- for jason beardsley, i want to say let's hear from noel in upstate new york. caller: i've been paying

attention to these wars since vietnam. they all start with military assistance, boots on the ground, advisors and things like that. but then it expands very rapidly. that looks like it'll be the thing. often settled at the conference table, not on the battlefield. i'm just concerned for, you know, getting involved in that. it's a real mess and it's got to stop. host: caller, thank you. apologies, jason is your name, not james. [laughter] guest: no, no. thank you for your comments. that's a keen observer out of new york watching these situations escalate. i wrote about this recently in a

newsweek article. when we start with things like advisors on the ground, it tends to escalate into larger complex and when that happens, you put u.s. military service members in harm's way. once that happens, we have to follow that investment with further investment. to his pony -- point, watching vietnam and my experience in a rack, afghanistan, tears of mine, if things are not stipulated on the precise mission like we had in world war ii or like in other occasions, the persian gulf, for example, when we don't stipulate that upfront, we have these long conflicts without clear outcomes and without clear outcomes, the american taxpayer is on the hook . you talked about mission creep and that has been a concern. that's why concerned veterans for america has advocated aggressively for smart policy it's not about entrenchment

american leadership will be even more necessary as we lead european allies into a stronger commitment. host: i asked about the white house, but what about congress, approving the pursestrings? guest: great question. congress is also split. it's interest -- interesting to see the right and left for members and representatives hearing from constituents about what their concerns are. our domestic economy is somewhat struggling, and we have other issues we are concerned about. we see congress continuously authorizing more and more expenditures for foreign aid. we are $130 billion for ukraine. while powers has been leading on the issue, they committed to ukraine for the long haul in general.

when i talked to or heard from representative mccall yesterday, he said he expected more backlash from the american constituents. when they went back to their districts, they didn't get the same backlash, meaning that if americans are concerned about this, they have to let their representatives know. host: steve is up next, miami, independent line. caller: morning, thank you for taking my call. thank you and all the veterans for your service. to me, the objective, and it has been stated, the objective in this conflict is to overthrow mr. putin. also, there has been no diplomacy whatsoever. in your previous talk, mr. volker, he was a liar. for him to suggested that putin is going to overthrow europe, comparing him to hit her, that's

a complete joke. that guy is a liar. we are on the cusp of world war iii. for us to even think about putting troops on the ground to defend ukraine is absolutely ridiculous. finally, if you were president, would you be for diplomacy or for the hammer? thank you. guest: steve, thank you for that call. i think that your passion, which i can last question, lord willing i would never have that responsibility as president, but to your point and not just your point, those who have been like the current cia director and the former secretary of defense, we are often times woefully in attic at diplomacy and in leading with military solutions.

as a combat veteran, i find diplomacy is our first strength. the entire force of the u.s. government, particularly with the amount of aid that we distribute around the world, ought to be -- how do we get out of this situation but because there are real lives at risk, generations of ukrainians today being ground into a grinder and will never recover from that because of this engagement. the longer this goes on, the end of that humanitarian crisis the united states will find itself back in the seat of applying for reconstruction aid for the next 5, 10, 15 years. i appreciate your sober remarks about taking this conversation seriously so that we are not exaggerating what's been said in the past. it's not important to this conversation.

to be clear, it's important that we are very articulate about what we believe. to make embarrassment like the elysian former cast did did not help the american people. host: what about your or your organization's concern or concerns over the president because health? guest: our organization looks more issues than politic old personalities -- political personalities. whether or not you take the longer approach towards eisenhower or more like bush and clinton, what we have seen consistently is u.s. policy is formidable and when the grand strategy is clearly articulated, the president becomes not quite irrespective to it, but a leader in that space and we need a leader who can really commit to their full strength and commitment of defense. that is going to transcend one politician over another.

we are looking at the long haul as opposed to the personalities. host: you think his health impacts his ability to be that leader? guest: i think the american people have the right to ask that question, but the entire administration is a machine. we have seen that work for the last three years. disagree or agree, the u.s. doesn't stop running. there are openings for people to ask those questions and it is up to the political process where we try to maintain our focus on what we can do for veterans today. host: here's rose in tennessee. guest: i'm a conservative, not a war hawk. my husband is a veteran. when i say america first, i mean american-based products and services. did you know that only 11% of our gdp is from american-based

product? we agree that we need to take down the imperial armies and the world will be a safer place. if we continue to threaten russia, they will fight back and as well they should. remove the 850 bases from around the world. fund them no longer. nor should we join the military support of proxy wars by nato. he refuses, i refuse to accept that. proxy wars have been named in spreading democracy. have a great day. host: that was tennessee. guest: appreciate that. tennessee volunteers are always strong with the military. i can hear your fashion -- passion. her concern over the disposition of the armed forces, i think we have around 85,000 stationed in europe and bases. these are questions that lead to

veterans and taxpayers in america wondering the proper disposition for the force. what we have said is the smart allocation of funds, making sure that we prioritize overseas engagements as we face places like china in the indo pacific. it's important that our allies believe we are strong enough to commit to a defense against aggressions like vladimir putin. we think the whole thing hangs together and when we want the u.s. to invest in our own domestic production and defense, it will look like right sized partnerships, not the unbalanced ones of the last 75 years. it's time at the 75th, if we want to go another 25, to look at how it was made up. host: one more call in this is from beaulah, tennessee as well. go ahead. caller: how you doing this morning? i might be speaking out of turn,

but in terms of the relationship to the president, i believe there was a yes or no question on the gas lines that he needs to have his privacy with regards to his physical situation and that we don't have to report to somebody, even if we are in the public eye. host: that was at the beginning of the show. our guest now, what is your action specifically for him? caller: this is regarding the military? host: go ahead. caller: i have an issue with the military going and seeking out. i have noticed that some persons are polling a leaked number are getting promoted.

there is a panel of people at the e-cig's they have no interaction -- e6 where they have no interaction, whether or not they should raise up to the rank of e7 and beyond. that's right, because they don't have anything but paper front of them to help make those decisions about soldiers moving up in rank. host: ok. beaulah, tennessee, thanks for the call. go ahead. guest: i think if i were to capture some of that sentiment, it's about the promotion system. one thing that we can speak highly of is the u.s. military having been traditional with a lot of reporting and mentorship and training at the enlisted level and officer level. there are always questions about the n.c.o. core, noncommissioned

officer's core, inside the military, wherry come from, has been one of the strongest n.c.o. cores, and so how they've been established but that doesn't mean we relax and sit back, particularly with new crises and evolving strategies, we also have to evolve. asking questions about promotion systems is absolutely appropriate. it should have been done in the context of what we've done in the past and how we can improve it? host: american lives are at staining -- stake if nato doesn't have a better course. our guest serves as the senior of coalition advisors for concerned veterans for america. thanks for your time. guest: that's, pedro, appreciate it. host: we'll see how that's going with andrew desiderio of punchbowl news who joins us next. ♪

>> welcome to a national crusade to make america great again. >> taxes will go up. anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth. >> our beloved nation of peace, we are in the midst of springtime hope for america. >> because we are the party that believes in the american dream. >> read my lips. no new taxes. >> i still believe in a place called hope. >> here's the question for the american people -- who do you trust in this election? >> the real choice is whether we will build a bridge to the future our a bridge to the past? >> i have unlimited confidence

in the wisdom of our people and the future of our country. >> i stand here tonight as my own man and i want you to know me for who i truly am. >> they had their chance. they have not led. i will. >> i'm john kerry, and i'm reporting for duty. >> these four years have brought moments i could not foresee and i will not forget. >> it's time for us to change america. >> i wasn't my own man anymore. i was my country's. >> i don't believe that rolling back regulations on wall street will help the small business woman expand or the laidoff construction worker keep his home. we have been there. we tried that and we're not going back. we are moving forward, america. >> under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and mr. putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone. >> he wants to make america great again, well, you can start

by actually making things in america again. >> we will make america safe again. [applause] >> and we will make america great again. >> here and now i give you my word, if you entrust me with the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, not the worst. >> this towering american spirit has prevailed over every challenge and lifted us to the summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the conventions, powered by cable. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered

coverage of government. taking you to where the policies debated and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is andrew desiderio of punchbowl news. he serves as their senior congressional reporter, talking about members of congress, particularly democrats on capitol hill, and the president's re-election bid. good morning. guest: good morning. host: you write this morning why mr. biden is surviving and the first point you make is finding out who's against him and who isn't. where does that stand right now? guest: look, if hakeem jeffries, the house democratic leader, and chuck schumer, the senate democratic leader, were to go to president biden and say the jig is up, you have to step aside, they would need near unanimity. you don't have that right now. you have about a dozen

democrats, including some house senior members, said the president should step aside and not be the democratic nominee anymore. you have zero senate democrats. they have walked up to the line without quite crossing it but that's the dynamic we're dealing with right now. we're in the middle of the zone right here. what we wrote this morning, a lot of biden's defenders are making that worse, it's amplifying and validating the chief republican attack against president biden, which is that he's too old to serve as president. and sort of the idea that democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by amplifying the president's biggest vulnerability in this campaign. host: the president sending a letter to capitol hill, particularly to democrats. what's the tone of the letter and what impact is it having? guest: defiance, right? democrats read that letter and weren't necessarily surprised. nobody expected joe biden at this point to say that he's going to step aside or show any sort of hez tans at this point. the members i talked to wasn't

surprised about this letter. it bass quite de -- it was quite defiant. the president verbally, he went on "morning joe" yesterday on msnbc and was similarly defiant. and so he's really keeping this up and trying to maintain that he's staying in this race and not going anywhere. host: just a few lines from the president yesterday. i want to note that despite all speculation i am firmly committed to staying ith race, running in thise until the very end and beat donald trump. we have one job, trying to beat donald trump. how does that factor in? guest: democrats want to make this a contrast election, right? they don't want to talk about president biden's biggest vulnerability, even though they are the ones who are bringing this up in the light of the debate in which we saw president biden very much struggle with all those questions that he faced at the debate. you know, what i keep thinking back to is in 2016 when

republicans were reacting to donald trump after the "access hollywood" tape came out. some were saying the same thing, that democrats are saying about biden right now, he's got to step aside. we can't win with him as our nominee. except this time it's happening with democrats. and so we as reporter are used to covering that in some respect. especially the concerns from members of the house and senate who are vulnerable to believe that the presidential nominee could drag them down in their own elections. and right now it's just fascinating it's completely on the other side, now. it's happening with democrats which we are not used to. host: our guest is with us until 9:30. democrats democrats independents, 202-748-7002 and text us. you hinted at it. if you're a moderate on capitol hill, how is this impacting you? guest: look, it depends on your specific race, right? if you look at senators john

tester and share odd brown. one from montana. one from ohio. they already needed to outrun president biden by double digits in their states because president trump is going to win both of those states overwhelmingly. this makes it that much harder for them to win their races and, yes, they are going to be -- there are going to be split ticket voters on each of those states. especially senator tester from montana which is distinctive from the national democratic party brand. all it does is making their jobs a lot harder leading up to their races in november which is why you're seeing them be quite cautious and say, yes, we have concerns. voters in their states have legitimate concerns, but just focus on their own races. host: we saw several ranking members of committees speak out concerns about president biden. takano from california.

morelli and nadler from new york. how is it to have a ranking member, especially higher up, make these comments? guest: these are people that have been in office for decades in some cases. i think at this point because it's still a very small number of democrats who called on him to step aside, it doesn't mean as much. but, again, at a certain point, as we talked about before, there is this split and does this split widen or does this split get closer together? you know, i tend to think that when, you know, thought leaders in the caucuses, people like, you know, members of the congressional black caucus, for example, the congressional hispanic caucus, if they were to start coming out and saying that president biden should not be the nominee anymore, i think that would be a lot more significant because those are very powerful blocks, not just of the democratic base, but within the democratic caucuses in both chambers. and right now you're seeing that the c.b.c. and the c.h., they are sticking by the president which is one of the reasons why

we wrote this morning why the president is surviving now. host: later on this week the president will give a solo press conference. he will have nato events leading up to that. i guess that's what people are watching for as far as if the tide changes. maybe there are other factors. tell us about that. guest: one of the things i heard from democrats over this past week is the anticipation of the nato summit because they view it as an opportunity to president biden to demonstrate he's up for the job, to demonstrate he can consolidate the party support around him and just show he can serve another four years as president. he talked at the debate, the idea of expanding nato, supporting ukraine. those are things that unite democrats, and the president needs to unite democrats right now because democrats are obviously very divided over these questions. we have coming into today, obviously, house democrats and senate democrats are going to gather for the first time in large closed door settings for the first time since that debate

debacle that the president had. so it's going to be a fascinating day and week shaping up. and, you know, democrats are really going to be looking to the nato summit for some -- for some cues from the president and for some reassurances. host: when those conversations take place amongst those democrats, what's the control factor to make sure anything that is said within those circles doesn't come out to members of the press like you? guest: they can try but things come out. they're meeting offcampus. they're at the d.n.c. building and not letting members bring in their phones. and senate democrats are going to be meeting for their weekly caucus lunch around the day today. so we should get some -- some -- maybe some clarity, maybe some sense of, you know, where folks are after having these what they call family discussions about the president. host: will this take president's activity in congress this week or is there still congressional

action planned despite of it? guest: there is a lot happening on the house and senate floor right now. on the senate floor, this was long planned before the debate, but democrats will hold another show vote on an abortion-related bill. this is something they have been trying to do all summer to highlight that contrast with republicans on the abortion issue because they feel like it's not only something that unites democrats but that it's a winning issue for them electorally, pointing to conservative states that voted. when you hand it to voters, they voted to codify it. it's better timing, frankly. host: and in the house? guest: and in the house republicans are putting bills on the floor related to energy policy, you know, a lot of controversy early in the biden administration about these restrictions on gas stoves potentially, on certain refrigerators. this all goes back to energy environment policy. you know, things like that that

will be messaging bills for republicans. host: let's hear from viewers. this is keith from florida, for andrew desiderio, punchbowl news. keith, hello. caller: hello, good morning. thank you for being here for answering our questions and thank you for c-span. this president has did the least amount of press conferences and stuff and also, you know, with all the faults of president trump, he talked to the people every day in the line. he had press conferences. he did a lot of interviews. when is the white house press corps and the rest quit talking about strategies and who should run and everything else and start demanding a live press conference, at least an hour, without any risk of who's going to be questioning or any questions passed to the president like they did on the radio show? guest: yeah, it's a great question and that's what democrats have been calling for. they want the point to -- the president to go out there and

make these unscripted, off-the-cuff performance, to make up for the debate. we're told that thursday will be a solo press conference. a big boy press conference, as the white house press corps often refers to it as. look, the questions aren't going to be prescreened at all. he's going to probably stand up there for at least an hour. this is something that democrats are looking for the president to continue to do because, you know, i've heard from a number of democrats ever since the debate who feel like they've been lied to about the president in the sense that the white house has been shielding him from these types of settings, from these candid moments, the unscripted moments, these tough interviews with journalists, for example. and that that was one of the reasons why democrats were caught offguard what they've seen at the debate. this has been a question lingering for the president for a few years now for his entire presidency but a lot of democrats, what they told me,

was they didn't realize it was this bad. and part of the reason why they didn't realize that is because they believe the white house has been shielding the president from those types of interactions with the public and with them in particular. host: from katrina. katrina is from maryland. democrats' line. you're next up. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment. it's almost like democrats, like the -- your guest said, always shooting themselves in the foot. at this moment, they are not united. and when you're not united you're really going to fall. at this point, everything that trump has done, of course, the republicans have left him for good. they're never going to vote for him. but despite everything they are still standing by their man. at this point the democrats need to take a hard look of what do i do. it's really too late now, in my opinion, to get a new candidate,

rally, get a campaign going and then start work. i don't know. it's better for the old man who is in office now to lead another four years than bring trump back. that's the second thing. we have to look at what's on the other side. presidents don't rule by themselves. they have the whole administration for helping them and supporting them and coming up with with plans. it's not like the president gets up -- he has quite a lot of ideas. if he doesn't, well, we have the vice president. but anything at this point is better than trump. host: okay. thanks, caller. guest: that's a sentiment you hear from a lot of democratic voters, especially coalition members, for example. and you're seeing that president biden's defenders at this point, the point they're making, it's time to put up or shut up. because the longer this discussion goes on about

president biden's viability in the race with donald trump the longer that democrats sort of drag out this conversation, the worse it gets not only for president biden in november but also for their races as well. so that's something they're emphasizing, as the caller just did. host: and that leads to point number four this morning. it's hard to dump a president. guest: it's a major, major thing to say to the president in your party that, you know, you got to go, you can't run for re-election, especially this close to election day, right? the primaries have already been, you know, been had. and the delegates are all committed for president biden. at this point the only way he could not be nominee is for him to decide himself to step aside. it would be a dramatic move and some of these even more moderate members in vulnerable red states, incumbents i was talking about before, still feel a sense of loyalty to the party and to president biden and they know this would be a dramatic move so that's one of the reasons why

we're not seeing tester and brown, for example, you know, cross that line. instead, they're walking right up to it without crossing it. host: let's hear from maurice from michigan on our independent line. you're next up. good morning. caller: good morning. i have one question. who is actually running the ship of state? i don't think the president could even drive down a one-way street. who is really running the government? i've never heard anybody actually attack that question. thank you. guest: you know, one of the things we hear from the people who are defending president biden over this is, yes, the president is obviously the most important figure in our government, in the country. you know, arguably in the world as well. but the president has many advisors around him. he has cabinet officials who are affecting policy that is enacted by congress.

he's got people interacting with his allies in congress. and, you know, really spearheading all of that behind the scenes work which is obviously critical to any presidency. so that is sort of the counterpoint that his defenders would make. but, of course, you know, the president is, you know, the president speaks for himself, right? the buck stops with him. that's always the case for every president. and, you know, that is why we're seeing these concerns levied by democrats because they see president biden's struggles as something that can harm their electoral prospects as well. and so it's not just, you know, telling people, yep. there are other levers of government that run regardless of what the president does and says. it's hard to make that argument when you see the president, you know, the way he was at the debate, you know, struggling to answer questions, losing his train of thought. you know, americans with, when -- americans, when they look at the president, they want their president to be strong,

energetic. these debates are more about optics than substance, if you will. and so it's difficult to make that argument sometimes. host: let's hear from one of those concerns. representative adam smith, who we mentioned before, on pbs yesterday, expressing those concerns. a little bit of what he said. >> so you say president biden should exit the race? does it have to deal with his electoral chances or his ability to do his job as president? mr. smith: two most compelling reasons. number one, i don't believe the president is an effective messenger at this point. we have a great message. i think the president has done great the last four years. when you look at where the economy was when he came in, he's managed that in a way that's put us in a better position than any other country in the world coming out of covid. he passed the infrastructure bill. he passed the inflation reduction back. he's pulled together this coalition that has helped us stop putin from taking over

ukraine. but what we saw in the debate and what we've seen since them and also some instances before that, he is not an effective messenger for that. and he has health care concerns. you saw that at the white house press conference today where there were not clear answers given. so i just think at this point, there are other people who could deliver that message better, and the stakes are so high. and yes, we are distracted. but i know the white house has said, members need to stop talking about it. we're not the ones bringing it up. we were not there at the white house press event today. the media brought it up, our constituents have brought it up. it's what people are talking about. yes, it is a distraction. from talking about our message, from talking about donald trump. but given president biden's performance in the debate, what has happened since then, we can't do that. i want the most effective messenger possible because the stakes could not be higher. guest: yeah, the effective messenger part is really i think the most important aspect of

this because you did see a lot of democrats, after the debate, making the point that, you know, even apart from the obvious health struggles we saw from the president there on stage, he wasn't responding to donald trump's attacks in an effective way. and you know, i heard from a democratic senator, for example, last week who said, look, we have a good legislative work, a strong legislative record to run on, pointing to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the chips and science act, the gun safety bill, all of that was bipartisan. had buy-in in many cases from mitch mcconnell, top official in the senate. not bringing up those points to sort of push back on donald trump when it comes to the president's own record is disconcerting. to them in their heads this is the obvious retort to what donald trump is saying and they believe they have a strong record to run on, especially legislatively. the problem is, as adam smith

said there, many democrats feel the president is not articulating that well enough. host: this is van. van is in memphis, democrats' line. hi. caller: what i don't understand is, we have two people. one of them lied or did not answer one question. but biden answered all the questions but he lost the debate. i don't understand. goodbye. guest: look, as i said before, debates are more about optics than substance. that doesn't mean we shouldn't ignore the substance of it. obviously, as the caller mentioned, donald trump lied at least 30 times during the debate. president biden lied around a dozen times during the debate so there was, of course, that disparity when it comes to telling the truth and substance of the answers. but, you know, again, debates are about projecting a strong message, showing you can sort of aswage concerns of independent voters, in particular, and show a strong and energetic message on that stage.

and for foreign policy purposes, show that on the world stage as well which is where the nato summit this week will be important for president biden to reassert to his party that he can deal with these challenges. host: because of the past debate, because the focus on the president, that the former president got a pass? guest: that's the frustration from democrats. yes, they are the ones raising concerns about their own nominee. but in doing so, that has shifted everyone's attention away from what donald trump did in the debate, right, and, for example, over the last couple weeks, the recent supreme court decisions that have really benefited donald trump and republican policies in general. they're not talking about that. instead, they're talking about the problems with their own party and their own party's presidential nominee and so that goes back to what i was saying before is democrats, per the president's defenders, in particular, believing this whole drama is them shooting

themselves in the foot. host: this is from david. david in georgia, independent line, hi. caller: hey, good morning, y'all. so a couple of things. first of all, your guy talking said something about trump lying 30 times. well, a lot of that was, like he said, every economist. we know it wasn't every. but people always make comments. you tell your friends, yeah, everybody wants this when it's not everybody. it's just a few people you know. anyway. we really need to go back and look where president biden has really been off the record -- out of this when we withdrew from afghanistan, every chief of staff member said they told him, do not do it. after biden pulled us out and it was such a disaster, they said none of his command -- he said none of his commanders told him not to do it. so there was a larger problem going on with our national

security because if he can't remember that seven generals told him to leave people there and he pulled them out anyway, there's a serious disconnect and we really -- the national security is more i'm worried about. i don't care if it's trump or kamala harris, whoever is president or president biden, even, but we have to have a clear person running it. and also, all of the cheap takes, as everybody was calling it, if you go back and watch with the g-7, i think it was, macron was looking at the same thing that biden was and macron turned back and smiled and laughing and told the prime minister of italy like, what's he looking at, what's he doing? host: okay, david, thanks. guest: i think that voter, that caller, is an anomaly, this is someone that focuses on foreign policy votes. most americans, the vast majority of americans vote with

their pocketbooks. it's the economy, stupid, which is the famous james carville line from the 1990's. you don't hear many voters talking about, as the caller said, i don't care if it's trump or kamala harris or biden or whoever. i care about our standing on the world stage and what our policies when it comes to national security. there are very few -- there have been very few national security elections, presidential elections in modern times. you could say maybe 2004 was one because we were in the heat of the iraq war, for example. and it was right after 9/11, of course. but it's very rare for the united states to have a foreign policy-focused election, presidential election, unless we're actively at war, right? so i think that's what that caller was expressing was an anomaly. host: let's hear from one more viewer. this is cheryl from the democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to start out by saying the guests on your show started his conversation saying

the debate is more about optics. i would have to disagree with you. you know, because as an informed voter, what i'm looking at is, what are you saying? okay. what policies are you projecting? and in that debate, i saw president biden answer every question. maybe he didn't sound as vibrant or as alive as the, you know, public might have wanted him to sound, but the substance of what he said versus the substance of what trump said, i mean, it was night and day. and i do think the media has a big role to play in what goes on here because since that debate, it's been like red meat. you know. everything about biden but nothing about trump.

and the bottom line is, a president is a delegator. that is why he has a staff, okay, is because he sets the agenda and it is up to congress and the house and the senate democrats to follow his agenda. host: okay, cheryl, thank you so much. guest: what i would say to the caller first and foremost, this is not a creation of the media. this is not a creation of the press. you can criticize the press all you want but the reality is we are fielding calls, texts, all time from democrats who are panicked, who are concerned, especially in the immediate aftermath of the debate. to say this whole controversy is being stirred up or created by us is just not true because the members of congress are literally coming to us to vent their frustrations with what they saw with president biden and try to figure out a path forward which is why they're going to meet later today, respectively the house democrats and senate democrats. secondly on the debate real

quick, yes, substance is important, obviously, but the point of these debates, the point of them -- of having them in the first place, it's an optics play, right? that is the purpose of a presidential debate. and, you know, going toe-to-toe on stage with your rival, and so that's what i would say to that. host: there's more reporting every day from punchbowl news with andrew desiderio. you can find their work at punchbowl.news. guest: thank you for having me. host: if you want to participate, 2020- -- and we'll take those open form calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party

briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front-row seat to how issues are debated and decided. with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the c-span book shows podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we're making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, culture from our signature programs about books, afterwards, book notes +. you can find the feeds on the free c-span now mobile video app

or wherever you get your podcast and our website c-span.org/podcast. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio. plus, a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the q.r. code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. c-span now, your front-row seat to washington anytime, anywhere.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: again, open forum until 10:00 when the house comes in. 202-748-200 for democrats. 202-748-2001 for republicans. 202-748-2002 for independents. jerome powell will talk about monetary policy and other related topics. you can see those conversations take place on c-span3, c-span now, our app, and c-span.org. lateon this evening, former president trump out of florida, a rally event there as part of campaign 2024. follow along with that event at c-span now and c-span.org. and again, our coverage of the republican national convention taking place next week starting on sunday with this program, expanded shows monday through thursday. with guests joining us from milwaukee to talk about various aspects of the convention in which you can comment and call in and give your input.

again, look for that next week. allen is up first on open forum in michigan, democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just like to speak to the point that i am happy with what the democrats are doing even though joe biden had a bad night. they're getting together. they're not going to lie and cover it up. they are going to search and find. they are going to check it out and do what's best for the american people. i appreciate that from the democrats. i'm a joe biden supporter. he has a lot of people behind him. he's not just joe biden. there's a lot of advisors he has there. and the secondary thing is to look what the two presidential candidates have on their side. the one candidate has proven himself with his cabinet. the other candidate has the

heritage foundation and wants to make a policy change that's going to change the direction of the united states back to the 1800's. so i would just like the democrats and the american people to remember that. who's the cabinet? one presidential person, got the supreme court. and now, look at the supreme court. look at what they just did. it's not good for america. host: okay. gale is next in new jersey, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i really don't think it matters whether you're a democrat or a republican or independent. i think what really matters at this point is that we have the best candidate for our country. and i think that because they love this country, i think president joe biden and vice president kamala harris should

join hands and step down together. just for the betterment of this country. not to say there's anything wrong with either one, but to choose the candidate that is most likely to be elected. and i think that if the democrats were to gather together, as they are, and really look for a viable candidate to run with a viable runningmate, then perhaps the independent party, the green party, the other parties would join hands with the democratic party and then, there would be no question as to who would win this election. host: okay. let's hear from an independent. this is jimmy in minnesota. caller: yeah, thanks for taking my call. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i recently identified as independent, probably defined as a double cringer. i voted for trump in 2016.

i voted for biden in 2020. and i find it fascinating that instead of the cream rising to the top on both sides, you really are stuck, as many have noted, with two options that many people are not satisfied with. and whether biden is right or wrong, at a minimum he's taking an extreme gamble with the future. and i think the republicans are doing exactly the same thing. and so i had made up my mind. i'm not voting for either one of these gentlemen. if there was a change on either side of the ticket, then one could reconsider. and final thought would be, i don't think it should be an anointment situation should biden step down. it really -- there is time to have a reasoned discourse to

identify somebody that -- where the cream actually can rise to the top. thank you for taking my call. host: hildra from california, democrats' line. hi. caller: hi and thank you for taking my call. i only have two couple of comments to say. one is, i'm a nurse and i heard on cnn, who hosted the debate, that on the debate night that joe biden had a cold and had been exhausted from his foreign trips, for his d-day trips and he had been traveling back and forth across the atlantic numerous times and then he went into debate prep and he got a severe cold. on the night of the debate, he had a cold, and everybody in the media knew that. and the reason they knew it was because -- and when the debate did a break, the press asked the

campaign, what's wrong with him? and the campaign said he has a cold. he's sick. and so every one of those symptoms or what you saw on tv, gutpta on -- gupta on cnn said everything he demonstrated could definitely be associated with things like exhaustion and a cold. so now that everybody freaked out because he had symptoms of exhaustion and a cold and everybody in the media knew it on debate night at the break. host: okay. let's hear from john. john in pennsylvania, republican line. hi. caller: hi. how are you doing, pedro? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: everything going on here, we just can't have the bickering and everything going on in the white house right now. like i said, everybody --

everybody calling in and complaining about what's going on here, you know, i've been a -- i've been a republican all my life and what i see going on now is -- like i said, is totally wrong. they fact check president trump at that debate. i prnlly don't go with -- i personally don't go with debates because that doesn't sound like everything should sound. they fact check president trump. how about fact checking joe biden for all the things he's done, what he created, you know, with the chaos going on right now in the bhous? that's all i have -- now in the white house? that's all i have to say. host: hello. caller: hello. host: you're going to have to turn down your television, felix. caller: okay. just a minute. can you hear me now?

host: we can still hear your television but just go ahead. caller: okay. i'm -- recently declared as independent. and the only reason is i don't understand why we are with the bickering? because if i'm a republican or democrat, my whole thing is about the people and the country. and it seems like one side, we're worrying about the president's health, which is very important. but the other side, we got an individual that's not a very classy person, as far as i'm concerned. he's involved in too many other outside things. and we're better off without

either one at this point. host: okay. felix there in florida. it was madeleine dean, the democratic representative from pennsylvania on pbs yesterday talking about president biden and concerns she's hearing about him. here's part of her from yesterday's interview. >> how much longer can this go on, this circular firing squad among democrats, all this public hammering whether president biden should remain on the ticket? how much longer can this go on and how much damage has this done to the ticket of president biden and vice president harris? ms. dean: how much longer this can go on, i don't have an answer for you. i do know we are at a critical phase and the election is 118 or 119 days away. that will go quickly. but i have confidence in this party. i have a real confidence in democrats. as you know, we just got back in washington.

we're voting in about 10 minutes. it's an evening vote session. and we will be in caucus tomorrow. so i don't see -- and i have to admit, i didn't watch news all day. but i don't see a circular firing squad. i talked to my colleagues over the course of the last 10 days, and to a person, they have been extraordinarily thoughtful, worried, clear-eyed, but extraordinarily thoughtful. and i think we will see that tomorrow in caucus. host: one of the events happening on capitol hill yesterday, this is reported by the hill saying, the hard-line conservative house voted to remove warren davidson, republican from ohio, after the ohio republican endorsed the primary challenger to the group's chairman, representative bob good of virginia. a member of the group and a source familiar with the matter told the hill that the conservator coalition voted 16-13 to boot davidson from the group from their closed door meeting. the caucus has three dozen hard-lined republicans.

he said i have no comments on this subject when asked about house ouster and saying that davidson drew the ire of serve conservators when he endorsed john maguire in the g.o.p. primary for virginia's fifth congressional district. an extraordinarily move to take against the colleague in the race. good has vowed to force a recount. mac, democrats' line in baltimore on this open forum. caller: yes, i want to remind those questioning or asking joe biden to, you know, to step aside. remember, 1968, 1968, l.b.j. called it quits. l.b.j. called it quits and d.n.c. convention in chicago went chaotic and nixon won the

election. it's surprising that nobody in the media has referenced 1968. you know, you cannot change the leadership in the middle of the election season. this is not a ballgame. you can't do that. you know, the real democrats, the real democrats rallied around the leader. support him. then after the election, we'll be watching you, we'll be watching this man and see how he operates. but as it is right now, it appears clearly -- and the man is strong. the man is strong. he's real focused. yeah, he messed up in the debate. george bush did the same thing when he said the two cannot be fooled again. he said that -- he made that up because he forgot how the saying

goes. host: okay. let's hear from john in tennessee. republican line. hi. john in tennessee. hello. caller, are you there? i think we're having connection issues. john, if you want to try back again, please do so. let's hear from pat, north carolina, independent line. hi. caller: hi. i just have about three things on my mind and one is the supreme court who really has admired all my life. i'm 80 years old and it's just shocking to me. trump is shocking to me. all the things he says and does. and that mark robinson, oh, my goodness, the commercials. biden, i don't know. but if biden, i think my ticket will be for biden because the

things that happen to him, kamala harris will still get in either way. we just can't have somebody that's coming around talking about the military changing, all these people -- going to kill these people. it's just beyond me. i thank you for your time and i hope you have a blessed day. host: we will hear from eddie next in illinois. democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. you're on. caller: yeah. i've been listening to your program for a while. but anyway, i feel -- i feel the government is feeling the people of the united states because we have the three branches of the government supposedly for the people. and i'm an independent democrat.

i have voted republican, but i voted mostly for the democrats. but anyway, biden and trump, that's who we have to pick from. and all this bickering back and forth, the republicans against the democrats and vice versa and then the legal department, the supreme court is getting their two cents in. that's not good for america. they need to come together purely, and i heard a lady before and i forget where she's from and she's saying the same thing i'm saying. and that's what we need to do. we need to come together, the democrats and republicans -- and they're fighting. so there's something wrong with the government, not the people. host: okay. that's eddie there in illinois. "the washington post" picks up on a theme that you may have heard of or heard of on this

show. the so-called project 2025. this is the headline. democrats focus attacks on the right-wing project. writing, this is john and hannah, writing the exhausted plan calls for, among other things, dismantling the education department, passing sweeping tax cuts, imposing sharp limits on abortion, giving the white house greater influence on the justice department, reducing efforts to help climate change and promoting fossil fuels. drastically cutting and changing the federal workforce. and giving the president more power over the civil service. it also includes building a, quote, army of conservatives ready to take jobs should former president trump takeoffs in 2025. also, writing in the page this morning of "the washington post" ", mr. trump's aides have long viewed project 2025 as unhelpful and have sought distance from the plan saying that trump doesn't embrace many of the proposals. they have privately lashed out at groups telling them to stop

promoting such work. still some of project's 2025 architects have been appointed by his campaign to work on the republican party's platform. and they have met with former president trump. again, the platform hearing taking place yesterday. the platform proved and voted on by the committee. our c-span cameras were not there this time around to capture that. due to the decision from the r.n.c. this is from connecticut, republican line, joanne is next. caller: hi, good morning. i just wanted to say, you know, they have talked donald trump for over nine years. we're all crazy. and the mainstream media has gone with it. we've seen this with president biden for quite some time, falling off up the -- falling up the stairs, falling down the stairs, doesn't know how to

leave the stage. who is leading our country? and they said they would vote with joe biden if he was in a coma. this is bizarre. this is the united states of america. and as far as the supreme court is concerned, that is to protect future presidents. they have to have immunity. it also protects joe biden for the things that he hasn't done by executing the laws that are of this country. we could have gone after george bush. there wasn't a mass weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and barack obama, he killed two americans with drones. and chuck schumer should have been arrested for being on the steps of the supreme court calling out two justices and threatening them. this is -- this is crazy town. and all the people listening to go to the r.n.c. platform, the

20 promises that donald trump is going to give to the american people. and he kept his promises. host: okay. joanne in connecticut. one of those platforms approved yesterday or at least changes to the platform highlighted in the washington times dealing with the topic of abortion saying the r.n.c. platform's committee signed off on a trump-inspired vision that omits the party's embrace of a human life amendment to the constitution and the 20-week federal ban on most abortions. ronald is next in michigan, independent line. caller: yeah. i'm taking a totally different view of this entire situation. i think the democrats should just settle back and let biden go. i watched the debate. yes, he had a poor debate. you look at it, his age, you can expect some of that. you go back in his history, he did have some degree of stuttering. what i'm looking at, he seems to be pretty strong right now. if the democrats would just keep

quiet, allow him to run and when he is elected to office and he does get into a physical or mental situation, i think kamala harris would be excellent to take his place. and what the democrats should be doing now is lining up three vice presidents should something happen to biden and kamala had to take his place. and there are three good candidates they should have available. so when she does become president, assuming that, then they would have at least three individuals to pick for vice president. as far as trump goes, i taught history and i'll tell you one thing. i am not going to vote for a man who is going to change the dictatorship of this country. he has -- used the mouth of criminals and i do not like that, even though i did vote for

him. i have to admit, i did vote for him when he won the presidency, but after what he did is beyond belief. host: okay. let's hear from alford, alford in california, democrats' line. caller: yes, good morning and thank you for having me onboard. i agree with several of your callers there. i'm not going to say a whole lot but i would vote for joe biden still. he's a strong candidate. yes, he's going through things but i definitely, definitely, definitely don't trust donald trump. he cannot have that kind of authority. he is going to -- we will be in a third-world country real quick if january 6 had completed, if they made it through, we would be in a third-world country now. so, no, we don't need his kind in that position. host: that's alford there in california. "the wall street journal" this morning, a story these featured on their front page, medicare paid $50 billion for untreated

ills saying that medicare advantage, the $450 billion a year system in which private insurers, grew out of the idea that the private could have health care. it swelled over the past two decades to cover more than the 67 million seniors. medicare advantage has added tens of billions of dollars in cost, researchers and some government officials have said, one reason is that insurers can add diagnosises to ones that patient's own doctors submit. medicare give them that option so they can catch conditions that doctors neglected to record. more there if you want to see that story in "the wall street journal." let's hear from madeline, illinois, independent line. caller: yes, i'm calling to say that -- host: okay. joy. joy in kentucky. republican line. you're next up.

hello. caller: hello. i think that biden had dementia when he was campaigning the first time and i think he has alzheimer's and i think he needs to have the test to prove that he doesn't have it. and we as americans have to think about the future of our country. everything in our lives have gone up. everything has got so expensive. we're spending all this money on illegals and the american people have been left out. we need our country to have a reasonable budget, and the senate and the house should think seriously about what they're passing when they pass a budget because we're so far in debt it's pathetic.

and we as americans have to have budgets in our -- and our country should have that too. host: okay. larry is in pennsylvania. democrats' line. caller: yes, good morning. president trump had mentioned that mentally ill migrants were crossing the border. to my knowledge, i never heard of any evidence of this at all through the media. most individuals that i know with psychiatric problems need treatment. that condition is also called a chemical imbalance. unless the diagnosis is other than that, maybe is schizophrenic, that an individual may harm a person or themselves, then that would be different. but as far as i know, i never heard anything in the media that a mentally ill person was either questioned at the border or

apprehended or sent back or anything. why would a inned -- medical facility, a psychiatric facility in another country release a person who has some chemical imbalance or mentally ill? host: okay. joseph is next. he's in florida, independent line. hi. caller: yes, i want to say iran was broke. biden allowed iran to make millions to finance the hezbollah and hamas and cause thousands of deaths in israel, palestine. trillions of dollars are being lost because he lift the tariffs. he lifted the houthis off the terrorist watch list. and now aircraft carriers and battleships are now trying to stop the houthis. in ukraine, he watched putin put 150,000 troops on the ukraine border and did nothing for three months and then, when putin

invaded, he said it was a minor incursion. we would not have these wars, we would not have these debts. in ukraine, he abandoned americans. he abandoned weapons. there are still thousands of allies still stuck in afghanistan. host: apologies for that. let's hear from one more viewer. this is -- before the house comes in, this is ron in kentucky. hello. democrats' line. caller: i'm going to make a statement about president biden's situation. number one, i like for him having to balance out the supreme court. i believe we would have an even call. host: okay. i apologize for that. we have to leave it there. the house of representatives coming in for its daily business. we take you to them now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 9, 2024.