>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> a fast and reliable internet connection is something no one can live without, so wow is there for our customers. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on c-span's "washington journal," your calls and comments live. then we will talk about efforts to increase voter confidence in u.s. elections would david becker with the center for election innovation and research. and a look at the cost, scope, and transparency of federal

regulations with clyde wayne crews, regulatory studies fellow at the competitive enterprise institute. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for august 5, the focused on vice president harris with the expectation that her choice for a running mate will be revealed, that she has set to go on a multistate tour. former president trump and his running mate both expressing a lack of care on who that choice will be. vance himself pushing back on those with questions placed on the republican ticket. you can comment on those stories or others related to campaign 2024 on the following lines, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.

you can comment on issues regarding campaign 2024 by texting us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook or on x. the latest when it comes to the choices for vice president harris on the final three, being reported by reuters and others, reuters saying that vice president closing out that search by interviewing minnesota governor, u.s. senator mark kelly of arizona, pennsylvania governor josh shapiro. the vice president met with transportation secretary pete buttigieg for 90 minutes friday and was also meeting candidates virtually, including kentucky governor andy beshear and illinois governor jb pritzker and other candidates interviewing for this job.

in a follow-up for the choice process, the washington post adding to it this morning, saying since president biden dropped out of the race, pporters and opponents of the vice president's contenders have tried to sway harris and her team. one of the most vocal campaigns has come from some liberals who oppose josh shapiro, in large part because of comments made about pro-palestinian protesters earlier this year. schapiro, who is jewish, compared some college protesters to the ku klux klan and encourage the university of pennsylvania to break up encampments of pro-palestinian protesters. an article shapira penned about 30 years ago in which he argued palestinians were too battle minded to establish their own state in the middle east also resurfaced late last week. the vice president and multi--- setting to start in pennsylvania tomorrow night for a multistate tour. you can comment on campaign 2024.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us and puts on social media, as well. here is the latest in polling when it comes to the choice for president, released by cbs news yesterday. this is amongst likely voters. when it comes to nationally, that choice for the vice president, currently 50%, versus 49% for former president trump. battleground states, 50% even when it comes to both candidates, falling within the margin of error. the cbs poll asked register voters by party if they were definitely vote, 85% of democrats say they are planning on voting now versus 81% as of july 18. amongst republicans, it was 88%

saying they plan to vote now, and that was 90% when it was july 18. among black registered voters saying they will definitely vote, 74% of those, now 58% as of -- 74% of those now, 58% as depth -- as of july 18. you can see that at cbsnews.com. that is part of the polling that will take place between now and election day. we will see plenty of that. in that process of picking a vice presidential candidate, minnesota governor tim walz one of those candidates. he was on the sunday shows yesterday, do not directly answer questions about that, but he did comment on what sets democrats apart from republicans when it comes to how the republican party appeals to the average american. here is part of governor walz's comments from yesterday. [video clip] >> who is asking for this crazy stuff? who is asking to raise the press

of insulin? who is asking to get rid of birth control? they do these focus groups. who is sitting in a bar in racing, wisconsin, saying we need to ban "anna foam -- ban "animal farm"? nobody. they have nothing to offer pure no one can picture them in their own lives. i brought this up, donald trump mocking vice president harris for laughing, and i made the point, you never see this die laughed. you never see him do normal things. when i get home at night, i pick up the frisbee and my dog catches it and gets a belly rub. picture these guys doing this kind of stuff. they just cannot. i made the pitch that i watched that rally in st. cloud, minnesota, where he lied about the election and about everything, but the thing i thought was a joyful is kamala harris is going to be there to provide reproductive health care to those women who were standing behind him.

she will be there to make sure social security is there for those seniors who stood there behind him as he talked about nonsense. she will make sure that workers can unionize to get a good job that is the politics. taking the country forward with a positive message on things that work, that is what people are inspired about. i am telling you, they got nothing. what are they going to tell us about? i am a legion guy. they're not talking in the legion clubs about banning books. they're talking about whether project 2025 cuts v.a. benefits? you never hear donald trump talk about that. this is a golden opportunity. this opens it up for a lot of really good people who want to know what the democrats stand for. host: that was yesterday on the sunday shows you can comment on that as part of campaign 2024. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from bill in

maryland, independent line. you start us off. caller: good morning. how you doing? i have so many problems with so many things going on. what i do not understand is why they are -- the people that i talk to, the democrats that i talk to, i do not know anybody that -- i know people that are pro-democrat party, but they are not pro-kamala, they were not pro-biden, they are not pro-party policies, they're just democrats. that is just where they have always stood. but they have such hatred for trump because that is what was going down their throat the last five years or however long, but they cannot see the fog through the trees and they just do not care. there's a dissolution, in my opinion, because when i sit and have conversations with these

people and we do subject for subject, border, economy, guns, they are all standing either in the middle or on the right that they just have such a disillusion and hatred for trump because all the lies in the media and all the manipulation that they are not going to vote or they are going to vote for kamala because they hate trump. i think something needs to be done about that. host: ok. david is next, also in maryland, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. this is david. do you hear me? host: yeah, you are on. caller: good. i saw a curious thing on the foxbusiness channel this morning. the host and the two people on the panel there are already talking recession with the dow

jones, standard and poor, those indices being down. isn't that curious how this all happens? right away, when kamala possibly is ready to take over a new administration and maybe likely will be elected that this kind of -- i will call it crap, pardon my language, but how this stuff starts. do you have any comment on that? host: that is related to a story about the japanese stock market not doing well, impacting other markets, as well. we will probably see that play out once wall street opens up. let's hear from justin in florida, republican line. hello. caller: yes, this is jesse. i am a registered republican, but i must admit that i would never vote for trump. now i will not be voting against trump, i will be voting for kamala harris. i think the one thing democrats

have done, in my opinion, it will keep this country safe. we cannot afford to have donald trump as the next president of the united states. host: what is it on policy that you agree with the vice president on? caller: it is not necessarily the policy that i agree with her, it is the fact that i am so afraid of what donald trump will do if he gets in the office. when it comes to issues, i still lean republican. but when it comes to the president himself, i am definitely not leaning toward donald trump. anyone but trump. host: ok. jim is in minnesota, independent line. caller: yeah, can you hear me? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok, yeah, i think walz

should probably stay in minnesota. i think buttigieg are one of the others should be harris' pick. the maga movement, they like to -- i cannot call them republicans because there are a lot of good republicans out there, but the maga movement are always preaching about hate and hate for one man, that is all trump has done, spread hate for the last, what, 12 years, from the birther movement everything else. if you do not agree with him or fall in lockstep, you are a communist. and they have spread hate all this time. with all trump has done, they want to cry about the hate? when that is all they have shown ? i mean, come on. host: why not have governor walz as a vice president to harris? caller: i think he needs to stay in minnesota.

we have a strong republican party, and walz has done a good job in minnesota. he helped bounce us back from the mess with covid and everything else. host: why pete buttigieg? caller: he is somebody newer, a fresh face. he is younger. it would be great if there was an independent, one of these presidential candidates would pick an independent candidate not connected to either party. but i think he is a good young voice, and we have got to start looking at the younger voices in this country. host: ok, jim in minnesota giving his thoughts on campaign 2024. the attention on who vice president harris will because a running mate, expected in the coming day, by today or possibly by tomorrow before that

multistate tour takes place. the cbs poll looks at the choice for president among likely voters for men and women. today, among those likely voters, 45 percent of men, 54% of women planning on voting for vice president kamala harris here and when it comes to the former president donald trump, 54% of men and 45% of women planning to make that choice, as of today. coy -- two point 1% margin of error there when it comes to the cbs poll that was put out yesterday. you can read those things into the discussion if you wish. you can give us a call. you can text if you want at (202) 748-8003. you can use social media, on x at @cspanwj or facebook at facebook.com/cspan. don is next in michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. prayers out to florida and the

southern states they're getting flooded. god be with them and watch over them. far as my vice president pick, i think it would be -- i think shapiro would be a good pick for the ticket. only thing worries me about that is the palestinian vote here in the detroit area. but besides that, i think kamala harris would be a great president, and we need to start looking towards the future of this country, not the past, what the maga movement is looking at. they want to take us back 50 years to when i was a kid. so i think kamala, if she keeps doing what she is doing, she should be all right. hopefully get this pick out the way tuesday, and hopefully we

will get this maga movement over with in the next 94 days because they have been a disgrace to this country and a disgrace around the world. donald trump is a -- he is not america, he is what america used to be. tired of this crap. host: ok. sherry in mississippi, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i have been watching kamala harris' campaigning, and my goodness, it is just so exciting and it is showtime and i practically want to vote for her myself until i think not all that glitters is gold, and i have yet to hear the substance of what she is backing up. she tends to flip over everything from what she has done in california, what she has

done as a prosecutor, she but more black men in jails than anybody for smoking pot, then goes on the podcast and admits, yeah, she smoked pot and she laughs about it and the podcaster looks at her like, oh, my god, who is this woman? host: politico has a story on their website looking at some of those issues where the vice president may we differing from other progressives, especially as they look at specific policy issues. they say the wedge issues are emerging between harris and the left. harris is calling for restoring roe v. wade, the same position biden took during his campaign. but it falls short what many activists hoped for. some within the movement are frustrated because the status quo protected abortion only until the fetus is viable, around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

the president and the ceo of reproductive freedom for all, an enthusiastic supporter for harris, shows that they have more to do as a movement. let's hear from washington state, independent line, this is joann. hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: yes, i just heard on probably c-span2 or 3 that the indian tribes want to vote that are not registered and cannot vote, so i would like to see the democratic party look into this very seriously because that is not fair. host: ok. earl is next in redding, california, republican line, on campaign 2024. caller: thank you. two points, you know, donald trump, before he became

president, very successful. he would use his name to brand for things, i show, college, maybe a couple casinos in atlantic city. two hotels in atlantic city. everybody says, gee, donald trump is a horrible businessman because he filed bankruptcy. he has llc on over 100 is nessus, and if three bankrupt over the course of 10 years, this makes him a business genius that she has llc on over 100 businesses. i wanted to put it out there because low-level voters talk about his business -- i cannot afford the tuition fee, but

donald trump did come on live to give advice, and i took that advice and parlayed it into $1 million. a pretty good deal. anyway, i don't know what else i have to say. host: ok. the next call is from north carolina, independent line. caller: i am going to vote for kamala, and it is not because i so much vote for policies. the only policy i know she has is on abortion. i am going to vote as a protest vote, going to be honest. [inaudible] if i would vote for joe biden, i would surely vote for kamala harris, but i do not know what her policies are. host: what do you mean about the

protest aspect? why is it a protest vote? caller: because donald trump is so offensive, so utterly offensive, i cannot for for donald trump. those policies are not that helpful towards minorities all that much. so that is my reason. host: ok. axios looks at interviews done by the former president and his running mate, senator j.d. vance, yesterday. they talked about their lack of care about the upcoming choice from vice president harris. it was then senator vance himself talking about criticism he received from some within his own party about being on the republican ticket. here is a bit of that exchange yesterday. [video clip] >> you have a lot of people talking about you on both the

democrat side and the republican side. some are saying you were the wrong pick for trump's running mate. what are you doing about it? >> all i can do is go out there and prosecute the case against kamala harris and remind people that things were more prosperous, more peaceful when donald trump was president. there are a lot of folks, even the gop establishment and certainly on the far left to do not like the fact that donald trump picked me. i take their criticism as a badge of honor. of course the media is going to attack the people they fear the most. the media will attack people who they think will most effectively being donald trump's message to the broader electorate. you know i grew up as a poor kid, did not come from a political family or wealthy family. i worked what my way through college and the marine corps and eventually is donald trump's running mate. i am not shocked that a lot of inside the beltway media types do not like me. but their policies are the problem. of course they don't like me

because we are running to fix what they have broken. host: more analysis in the new york times this morning on j.d. vance. bumpy early weeks as mr. vance has strained to combat a democratic attack line that he is weird and richer grade, talking about childless sociopaths and cat ladies. many of his intellectual allies agree with his opponents on a core premise, he has ascended while advancing some ideas that although outside the traditional political mainstream, he says sometimes there is a zero-sum strategy. he has urged republicans to seize the endowment of left-leaning and dramatic changes to the tax code, and he quotes richard nixon observation about higher education, the professors are the enemy. more there at the new york times this morning.

let's hear from samuel. he joins us from california, republican line, on campaign 2024. go ahead. caller: thank you, pedro. i like president trump for president. kamala harris has not had an interview -- they have not question her in 15, maybe 16 days now. we do not know who she is. we know what her politics aren't everything. but i do not even think she is running this country, obama is running her. she is a marxist. i like trump to win by a landslide. we will get this country back. illegals coming over the border, 10 million to 15 million, they are going to get them to vote. host: you said you do not know who she is but you know her politics. how do you square those things? caller: i square them by listening to the mainstream news

media. they are always right. the mainstream is always right. i am saying i know what her politics are. but as far as -- i know who she is, no she worked for william brown, i know these things, but what i do not understand is she is flip-flopping left and right, left and right. but she is not presidential material. she is way out of the -- if we get into work, she would not know what the hell to do. who would be running this country? nobody was running joe biden. joe biden was not running this country. host: to ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, i have two comments. one, the last caller set about the main media, the main media is made up by republicans, conservative republicans, and they own 98% of newspapers,

magazines, everything. but what i want to ask is something that came up in the washington post about trump getting $10 million from egypt, and then he changed the law or something or another for egypt, and egypt got $2 billion. do you know anything about this? host: you seem to know quite a bit yourself, so what is the point to it? caller: i just wanted to know more about it. i do not know why he got the $10 million and when. i heard it was during 2016. but i heard also that he got $5 million from saudi arabia and $10 million from another country. can you tell me anything about this? host: i can look about a story,

but you talked about the media to begin with. do you believe what the post is reporting about that, in a general sense? caller: i looked at all the newspapers, and i just got a glimpse of this from some news station, i think it was channel 2, cnn, i believe. they said something about it, and i did not hear all of it. i like to get all the facts before i make a judgment on anything. host: viewers, if you are interested on the washington post's take on this story, here it is, you can find it online. 10 million cath withdrawal first secret probe into money from egypt, and exclusive for that paper, if you want to read for yourself on the post's website. mark is next in michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, hi. all i really wanted to say is

all i see is that the trump followers are just one big cult. host: ok. how does that apply to campaign 2024? caller: and i am voting for kamala. host: why is that? caller: she makes sense when she talks. if i was just born yesterday, she would be the one i would vote for. trump, i am never falling for him because he is a con artist. she is the one i want. host: as far as things she has spoken about, what it has she talked about that you agree with? caller: things she says about trump, just listen to her, she is talking more truth about him than he knows about himself. host: ok, mark there in michigan. juanita joins us from the bronx, republican line. caller: hey, love and light, love and light, love and light. it is amazing to hear the rhetoric coming from democrats.

and i have a message for all democrats. let's take away from both candidates donald trump, kamala harris, and let's really be truly informed with what is really happening. i mean, we are making it seem as if maga is a cult, as the last caller just imagined, maga is an acronym for make america great again. if you are not about making america great again, why are you in america? if we are the leaders of our nation and we are trading across borders or an international environment, why are we taking the biggest financial hit and risk? why? your democratic policies are for international trade and going against america.

democrats, please wake up and understand and over no plate -- and overstand, that you are being pulled into what we are suffering from today. host: what about the trade then, elaborate on that. caller: anything that is being traded from the u.s. into china, we are being taxed over 100%. anything that is coming into the u.s. from china, we are being taxed. there is a double play on that. it is as if democrats are people who prescribe to the democratic policies are just like blind for that. host: the former president trump himself said if he were elected, the possibility is that more tariffs on china will take place. caller: in reverse, where we will be charging china tariffs

on things that they are importing and exporting. we have to be very key on what it is we are saying and what it is we are actually translating in our mind. for someone to say the mainstream media is republican-owned is false, absolutely false. host: you can continue calling on campaign 2024. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003. and you can post on social media. x at @cspanwj or facebook at facebook.com/cspan. the cbs news poll talked about or asks questions of both the policy positions of the current vice president kamala harris, former president donald trump.

this was the take away, saying when it comes to those policies, among registered voters, 18% of those saying those policies are entirely the same. 64% of those saying that those policies are mostly the same. and only 18% of people asked during this poll saying that there mostly entirely different when it comes to the two candidates at play. and there are other factoids from that pole if you want to look it up, cbsnews.com. let's hear from jacob in alabama, independent line. hi. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i have not heard a whole lot of people talk about senator mark kelly as the vp pick. i think he would be a great choice. he was a pilot, from what i understand, not sure what branch, and he was an astronaut, which i think transcends politics and countries, as well.

people would respect him. from what i understand, arizona has been historically red, soaping elected -- so being elected a democrat senator in that state could bring it blue for her. there are all these other people talking about protesting donald trump and voting for kamala just because i do not want to vote for donald, people forget that we have other choices in this country. we have chase oliver, a libertarian pick, and dr. jill stein, probably one of the most competent candidates in this race. but people tend to forget about them and not ever talk about them. so we do have other choices besides just red and blue. host: that cbs poll, one of the last things it offers with the questions is among likely voters, who they would choose for president. 49 percent saying vice president kamala harris, 40 7% saying

former president donald trump, two percent saying robert f. kennedy, jr., and no takers for jill stein, cornell west, and chase oliver. that was in that poll released yesterday. let's hear from edward in toms river, new jersey, democrats line. caller: hi, i actually thought i was calling in on the independent line. host: i am going to have to stop you there then. we invite you to call right back that independent line (202) , 748-8002. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. willie, republican line in texas. caller: it is very interesting to hear democrats -- with trump -- [inaudible] they say trump supporters are a cult -- [inaudible]

host: you are fading in and out. can you put your mouth closer to the handset -- caller: i am sorry. how am i now? host: that is better. caller: the democrats who say that trump supporters are calleds -- cults and that donald trump would be the worse for democracy is amazing to me. you had a couple of folks who said that they are doing protest votes. to me, it is unfathomable that these folks can even think like that, because if you listen to a trump supporter, we generally know the issues and the policy concerns for each side, because we study. we study. you asked one of the callers

about kamala harris, and he was able to tell you exactly where he got his ideas from as far as making an educated choice on who to vote for. again, i do not understand these democrats. i hope that the majority of the democrats are not like that. hopefully the majority of the democrats can actually reason and logically figure out exactly what they want to do. one last thing really quickly, josh shapiro -- a report from the philadelphia inquirer was unearthed that talks about josh shapiro and hush-money payments because of one of his assistants who was involved in a sexual harassment complaint. the philadelphia inquirer, as we all know, is one of those washington post type papers that

are not anywhere for conservatives. so it would be interesting to find out more about that and have c-span kind of cover that. host: ok, the associated press reporting that it was the vice president's campaign sunday, yesterday, launching republicans for harris as she looks to win over voters put off by donald trump's candidacy. it will be a campaign within a campaign, act evading the network with emphasis on primary voters who backed up nikki haley. it will kick off with events this week in arizona, north carolina, and pennsylvania. republicans backing harris will also share rallies with the vice president and her soon-to-be name to running mate in the coming weeks, according to the campaign. the team is trying to create a permission structure for gop voters who would otherwise have a difficult time voting for harris, and it will rely heavily

on republicans and republican voter contact. they will hear directly from another republican making the same choice. james in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning, america. i am calling in to say i will never vote for donald trump again. donald trump, to me, is a pathological liar. he has a mental illness. he has 34 felony counts. he has the maga party to try to overthrow our government, overthrow. officers were killed at the capitol, and people have to realize that that man is a pathological liar. and why people want to vote for him i could never understand. and he also, to me, is a racist

and he says racist things, trying to divide our country, instead of ringing the people together no matter what skin color you have. that is all i have to say. host: what is your choice then? caller: i am going to vote for kamala harris, trying to bring the people together, not because of the skin color, because we all human and when you cut us open, we all got the same color. host: how do you think she will bring people together? caller: bring all races together and join hands, show love among one another as a human being. host: lee is next, democrats line, south carolina. caller: it is desperation, desperation. they have no answers. they just spew hate and venom

every day. these people, they don't really have a brain. i do not know where they are using it for. right is right, wrong is wrong. kamala harris will be the president. we will have an intelligent person in that white house to where we can deal with the dish -- with the issues we have at hand. covid was a wake-up call. but they seem to want to go the wrong way. the guy from texas, he did not know what he was talking about. people getting over here illegally, then they claim they are patriots. they are not legal. they do not even want to assimilate to american values. yet, they can ride around, do things they want to do, ride

around in these cars and trucks, do what they want. yet, they are against democracy. a fundamental thing that we have as a right for the people. they better get it together. host: ok. in ohio, republican line, this is john. caller: morning. i don't understand why we have to go over personality over politics. in the four years donald trump was president, basically, every promise he made, he kept. he brought this country in the right direction. low interest rates, low inflation. basically, industry was running good. now all of a sudden, we're going over politics and going over procedures. why do you want someone who is not proven?

basically, we will have another puppet like the last four years, where we will have high inflation, a terrible economy, and again, bunch of lies. host: how did you think former president trump achieved those things? caller: he did it by doing exactly what he promised in his campaign. he promised he would make america great again, and he did. host: ok. anything else? caller: as far as january 6, there were a lot of people that were not maga supporters that were there and went into the capitol, and they were not maga supporters. they were basically there to disrupt and act like they were maga supporters but they weren't. host: ok. rick in missouri, cam -- independent line, campaign 2024. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to hit on the coverage

of the campaigns, both on the republican and the democratic side. you know, most people, they call in here and they have hate for either side. and most of the folks out there get their information from one source. example, republicans get most of their information from fox and newsnation. people on the left get a lot of this from msnbc and abc. they really need to do some research because both sides have issues, if everybody's totally honest. host: such as what? caller: like on the republican side, i mean, there are some things that trump could toot his horn about, but he does tell a lot of non-truths, non-facts. the facts don't match up. he said i had the greatest economy, it is something like

the eighth greatest economy ever. that is just one example. on the other side, they also talk partial truths. they emphasize a lot on what is negative about the maga side, and to be honest, both sides have issues. you have got to do your research, and that is how we make educated decisions. that is how i'm going to make my educated decision. host: one of the people talking about the coverage of vice president harris' campaign and criticizing it was senator tom cotton, republican of arkansas, called out media outlets over the coverage, particularly what the vice president stands for. here are some of his comments from yesterday. [video clip] >> i think we always knew this campaign was going to be a close race. remember, she has only been the nominee for two weeks now. she has not answered a single question, not one single question by the media. there was only one single unscripted moment thursday night

at andrews air force base walking the hostages by, and she served up an income principle word salad. when she has encountered the media, she will have to answer for things like why she wants to eliminate oil and gas production in this country, why she wants to ban gas powered cars, why she wants to confiscate private firearms. we knew this race was going to be close all along, whoever democrats wanted to put up against donald trump. but kamala harris has not answered a single question. when the american people get a better look at her and heretical positions, they will see that they do not -- and her radical positions, they will say they do not want her to continue. host: one of the people advising the vice president on her decisions is her brother-in-law, also served as the chief legal officer at uber. here are some of the analysis from the new york times, saying

he is serving as an unpaid advisor, though he made a mark on her campaign, he recommended ringing on eric holder, former attorney general, to handle the vetting process for her running mate. he has also helped shape her campaign by supporting the elevation of a long time poster -- poster, and he has served as a critical context for business leaders and major donors. the new york times saying regardless, mr. west's proxima see -- proximity to his sister-in-law's views, key to defeating donald trump, embracing liberal populism. ms. harris in recent days has dialed back liberal stances she took in her 2020 campaign on health-care and the environment. he is worried this could bring up issues like antitrust

enforcement, data privacy, and labor rights. that from the new york times. more there if you want to read about those, advising the vice president and her choices. this is lyle, democrats line, kentucky. caller: good morning. nice to see you, pedro. we missed you. being in kentucky, i appreciate that andy beshear is in the conversation for the vp pick. i would hate to lose him as a governor, and i do not really think he would be able to deliver -- kentucky is very, very red. we have a very small blue spot that keeps us with a democratic mayor in louisville, kentucky. i have also been looking at mark kelly, and i think he could provide a lot of help, especially with gabby gifford and the gun control issues. the problem is somebody is going to lose. if it is mark kelly, they will lose their democratic senator. kyrsten sinema will no longer be

a senator. it could possibly leave us with some kari lakes in arizona. someone is going to lose their senator or their governor as their pick. host: as far as personal qualities, what do you think andy beshear would bring if he were chosen? caller: he is a very young man. i think his day is coming. he has a good relationship with all of our border states. with ohio and indiana and such. various market -- very smart guy. he is just a good governor. host: that is lyle in kentucky talking about those choices for the vice president when it comes to choosing a running mate, expected today, possibly tomorrow, with the first event scheduled for tomorrow night.

follow along on our website and our app for these things that go on with campaign 2024. we have dedicated a whole page on the c-span website to campaign 2024 issues, featured events, other things, our coverage of the republican national convention. it will and -- include the upcoming democratic national convention in chicago. our campaign 2024 page, all the information housed there at c-span.org. let's hear from caleb in mississippi, independent line, on campaign 2024. you are next. caller: thank you for having me. first and foremost, i come from a household of eight sisters. trump's business. that is what america needs, i

mindset of business versus depending on whatever crutch the government is able to supply. but he does have some stuff i don't agree with, trump things. we also have to look at this, he has good international relations. but it makes you wonder if there is a double standard. i thought about joseph starling of 1940, 1943, but i believe we need the focus of america on the issues such as sex trafficking. we need to focus on the things that will build this america, this country. we are dealing with a lot of historical things such as immigration and stuff like that.

we have to apply our energy here first. it starts at home. we need somebody who has a mind for this country. host: ok. caleb there in mississippi. let's hear from joe in virginia. caller: yeah, before i comment on why vote for trump, i want to say i am former military and a lot of people think they are badasses, but to be honest, nobody knows how they are going to react when they get shot at or get shot. and trump really showed who he was after he got shot. he did not get up and have them run him off the stage in fear. he faced his attacker. he faced the shooter and put his fist up and said fight.

that inspired the crowd, and that inspired me. as far as i am concerned, trump did not just take a bullet for democracy, he took a bullet for me. i have been with trump from the very beginning, and i will be with him to the very end. i want to follow up on with the less voter was talking about, and that is to my fellow americans, i believe you need to be mature voters. what i mean by that is stop voting on emotion, especially the emotion of the democrats, on race and gender and everything else. on the issues itself, we have already seen a trump presidency. we should compare the trump presidency and his policies to the biden-harris policies. hands down, my life in america and the world was better under trump. there was no inflation, energy prices was down, food was on the shelf, he decreased taxes, immigration was under control of

the border. hands down, trump's policies were better. do not vote for someone based on personality. just because you do not like someone, his personality, or you don't like his tweets, don't vote on what a president -- vote on policy not personality. 15% of the population right now, because democrats over the course of 50 years have set up abortion clinics in your neighborhoods and convinced your women that abortion is health care, the statistics show african-americans would make up 30% of the population right now if it was not for abortion. host: ok. let's hear from john and marilyn, democrats line. caller: yeah, good morning to you. i am listening to the last guy, don't know what planet he is coming from. donald trump in the debate told the american people why we have inflation today, because barack obama had those protections on

every organization that participate with the american people. when trump came in, the first thing he did, he deregulated everything. i mean, i don't watch sports, i am watching the news, the supreme court, the congress, and the senate, and he told the american people that elon musk, whatever the guy, he will give him $45 million a month, and he told the american people who he owed himself to. number three, there is a spiritual, political movement in this nation, white nationalist christians. people not paying attention to them. i do not understand how their backing donald trump. he is an adulterer, liar, and convicted felon. you listen to him long enough, he just got through telling the christians, if you vote for me, you will not have to ever vote

again. he is telling the american people what he intended to do. america is not a race, not a place, it is an ideology. new can take america anywhere you want to go. we have some of the greatest institutions on the earth, but we put the wrong people in the right institutions, and they corrupt institutions. we got the greatest institutions on this earth, but we put the wrong people in place. i don't understand how these christians can follow this guy. i read many articles about how republicans will stand there and lie for this guy, knowing he lying, and will back his lies. before donald trump came into office, we would not attack people exposing wrong people. we would have the person doing wrong express what he did wrong. donald trump came into this office and this dang done switched. you don't have no morals. you lie today, and you are good. host: robert in ohio,

independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a black american man, and i will never vote for kamala harris. she hasn't did nothing for the black community. she did nothing. we have no crime bill. we have nothing. also, i will not vote for trump neither. he hasn't said anything for black americans about an anti-bill, did nothing. and for vice president, i really don't care. shapiro, he is against black people, too. host: so when you clarify that the vice president hasn't done anything for black people specifically, you directly associated that for crime itself

or crime issues or are there other things? caller: i just believe that she is always trying to get the black vote. she hasn't did for nothing. just remember, when she was running for president, she said i am not going to do for black people, no. i was like wow. that really shocked me. that is why i will not vote for her, not voting for trump. i am not voting for nobody. i am going to vote for the couch. a lot of black people watching here this morning has been like it is a shame that they will vote for kamala harris, for what? because she hasn't did nothing for black people. host: ok. ann in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you. i am going to agree, a rare

event, agree with a trump voter who said that when trump stood up after having been shot at, he showed who he really was. i just disagree about who he really is and what he showed. context is important. he stood up after the secret service advised that the threat had been neutralized. trump gathered himself, and he showed what he is. he is a con man, a show man. he made a big show of being a tough guy. he is the first president i can -- i can remember the first outgoing president who did not accompany the incoming president to the inauguration. he cannot bring himself to attend because it would emphasize that he had lost. he insisted he had not lost to the point where my son, an army national guardsmen, and thousands of others had to go defend the inauguration of the president of the united states. it was despicable, and i will never understand how anyone

would want to repeat that. thank you very much. host: one more call, this one from will in maryland, republican line. caller: thanks for having me. i agree with the caller from woodbridge, virginia, thank you for your service, sir. i want people to really understand about who kamala harris is. she has done nothing for three and a half years of being vice president. now suddenly she wants to be some leader and they are trying to portray her as this. we all know what the democratic party is, they are the party of racism and division and all these things. they are not going to do anything for this nation but continue to divide and conquer. i encourage everybody to go watch the documentary, the secret life of the democratic party, and it will shed a lot of light on who these people really are.

they don't care about us. they care about money and power. and the people need to come together. i agree donald trump might not be the best speaking person, but i honestly feel he is a new era of paul revere. he is letting us know what these people are doing to us. he loves this country, he really does. there's very few republicans or even a few democrats that support him on this because they know what is really going on. host: gotcha. that is the last call for this hour. thank you for those who participated. coming up, we will hear from david becker on efforts to increase voter confidence in the upcoming election this year. later on in the program, wayne crews about their oort -- annual

survey about what it costs the average american when federal regulations are put into place. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> next up for c-span's coverage of political party conventions, we had to chicago for the democratic national convention. watch live on monday, august 19 as the party puts forth their presidential nominee. here democratic leaders talk about the administrative track record and their vision for the next four years as they fight to retain the white house. the democratic national convention, live, monday august 19, on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment, visit our website for the full schedule of

updates and coverage of the 2024 republican national convention. you can also catch up on the conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code. >> friday nights, watch the c-span 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of campaign coverage with a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch the 2024 campaign trail, friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download it as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile apps or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of suck -- covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source on capitol hill giving you unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is david becker joining us, founder and executive director for the center of election innovation and research and co-author of "the big truth," supporting democracy. what's your intended purpose? guest: nonpartisan nonprofit, working with republicans and democrats from maine to california, alaska to florida, to help them and support them in elections that voters should

trust and do trust and now more than ever we are doing a better part on that. our elections are as secure as they have ever been but so many americans unfortunately believe host: the exact opposite. host:how do you work with officials? guest: we work with them as they try to share best practices across the country like rhe countable paper ballots of which 95% of americans are going to vote on and helping them with procedures where they audit the ballots to make sure that the machines count them correctly. helping with voter registration to keep those lists as accurate as they have ever been before. sharing data better, keeping the data up to date in their states as voters move or die to reflect the voters accurately and we provide research to help inform them on best practices. host: i want to talk about those candidates but we had one on the

democratic side and now we have a brand-new one. what does it mean as far as the election process for you? guest: in reality we've never had a democratic nominee for president, but we do now, but two weeks ago joe biden was the presumptive nominee, but there had been no wealth. both parties have rules's saying there has to be a delegate vote before there is a official nominee. but biden withdrew there was no official candidate in they are now working through their process you have plans in place to get through this process appropriately. the process has been open and consensus. the democratic party has rallied around one particular candidate who quickly wrapped up the delegate votes necessary to receive the official nomination. every voter in the country should understand that at this point, every single ballot everywhere in the country is

going to have the democratic ticket as officially chosen by the democratic party and republican ticket as officially chosen by the republican party. host: no early printing or scratching out the name, nothing like that? guest: in fact many states are still holding primaries in the coming weeks as we speak in that process is still going to play out. if the democratic party had waited until the end of their convention for their nominating official it would have been ok in every single state but as it happens they did it earlier. the first mail ballots go out on september 26. the ballots have not been printed yet. they will be printed shortly in the next coming weeks. host: talk to us about the virtual roll call. is it the same as in chicago? guest: under party rules, yes, in 2020 they have virtual roll calls.

the convention had been virtual. they established those rules in place. they confirmed, remember, these are not secret ballots. there's no real problem here. you publicly express who you are voting for as a delegate and there's no problem here, it's consistent with party rules and a ceremonial vote in chicago. the official vote has already taken place. vice president harris appears to be the nominee. host: there were rumblings from some republicans about changing the candidate out leading to lawsuits. guest: as you have seen, there have been note lawsuits. that was all just politics. there's nothing behind that, no legal basis. because the party didn't have a ere was nothing to replace or substitute. there was a lot of disinformation swirling about where the democrats couldn't substitute a nominee, but the fact is they didn't have a

nominee so there was nothing to substitute. the official nominee is going to be harris, placed on the ballot with her vice presidential choice. host: what are the things you are watching closely when it comes to election integrity? guest: they are as secure as they have ever been because of the professionalism in the space and bipartisan improvement. i mentioned voter lists. states are sharing data in getting better information, ensuring as we have had for 20 years that every single voter needs to provide id under federal law. we have better voter lists than ever before and we have more paper ballots in the country than we have ever seen for 100 years. that means that the paper ballots in almost every state, including every single battleground state, they have paper ballots that we can go back to and confirm the intent

of the voter it recount if necessary. we can audit it to make sure that the machines counted them correctly. the only states with a significant number of non-paper ballots are states like louisiana, mississippi, tennessee. we will see more security than ever before, more transparency than ever before. we will see poll watchers and observers from both parties, campaigns, throughout the country watching the process overall. what we should be aware of is that process has security, we should let it play out and we live in a divided country, the margins are likely to be narrow in some states and when margins are narrow that is something that election officials cannot do anything about, it just means we have a closely divided state it it might take a few days to predict who won the election. we often think that we knew the winner of presidential races on election night, but we never actually do the winner. the official winner isn't declared in two weeks afterwards and the results are narrowly

divided, so it might take a few days. host: claims from republicans that on several fronts there were things that were not well done when it came to the counting and tabulation of votes . how has not born itself out as we face another election? guest: in two thousand it spurred a lot of positive bipartisan reform, like the help america vote act, which large majorities of democrats and republicans, it made the voter lists more accurate, has required paper ballots and spurred auditing a ballots. in 2012 there were allegations of long lines at polling places. after that, president obama established a presidential commission cochaired by his former counsel, bauer and ginsberg, spurring a lot of professional bipartisan improvements in the election system to get to where we are

today. host: our guest is with us until 8:40 five if you want to ask questions about election integrity and security, you can call the line. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8002 for independents. text us your comments at (202) 748-8003. you talk about who is watching the polls, among them the republican national committee putting out their own team. this from a statement from earlier in the month, "comprehensive training sessions will be conducted every month on the monitoring of ballot sites and tabulation centers givin the volunteers the knowledge and skills needed to oversee potential problems in the electoral process and guaranteeing that every vote is counted accuratelynd f" going on to say "attorneys will at every processing center in the program starts with lawyers

committed to batund state polling sites, secretary of state offices and republican county war rooms." is that a welcomed presence when it comes to overall integrity? guest: a lot of those things are good. first of all they are acknowledging transparency in the process where the observers are allowed and will be everywhere, counting rooms and in many election administration locations around the country. you are hearing them acknowledge the importance of training, which is important. regardless of if it is democrats or republicans, both parties will have a big presence in those counting centers and elsewhere to make sure the process is running appropriately and it is important that these people are trained. you are essentially a fly on the wall in these locations. i'm a former department of justice lawyer in the civil rights division. i used to monitor elections all over the country at thousands of polling places and one of the

things they train you, even as a department of justice lawyer, your job is to simply observe it. you don't interfere with the poll workers, who are doing an important job volunteering. you don't interfere with voters. you don't talk to them is the process is going on. if there's a problem -- when i was a department of justice lawyer i would call those officials and ask them about it. specifically the poll watchers, they need to be adequately trained. hopefully based on that statement, they are will be working hard to train them in appropriate conduct so they don't interfere at all and hopefully we will have a lot of observers who are well trained and well behaved and polling places observing and confirming. host: i guess one of the things you have to do is define what interference is. what's on the line when it comes to interfering, when is that line drawn? guest: obviously you don't want

to intimidate or hover over these workers. we will have hundreds of thousands of not millions of them working around these spaces. these are neighbors, family members, the parents of children that our children go to school with and we should recognize that when this is happening. they are doing the best job possible under tough time constraints, getting up early in the morning, 4:00, 5:00 on election day, they might not be leaving until midnight or later. respect the people working the process, they are heroes in many ways and are doing an important job. if you see something legitimately wrong, there are authorities, election officials in every jurisdiction you can call. there are people if you have a well-trained program, you know who those people are, told them where you are going to be, they can handle a problem if it occurs. host: this is david becker joining us taking your calls on

election integrity when it comes to campaign 2024. ron starts us off in philadelphia. you are on with our guests, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have always had a question on two things. one, ballot harvesting, is it legal? number two, if a person signs with an x or an illegible signature, how is that handled under the scrutiny of the election protocol? those are the two questions. guest: both really good questions. ballot harvesting is a term used as a pejorative, but it basically means that someone is returning a ballot other than their own. could be a spouse returning a ballot for another spouse, family members or a nursing home worker returning ballots for voters who might not otherwise be able to get out and return them. probably this answer will not

surprise you, this varies by state to some degree. but the laws often allow for people to return ballots for a close family members and for people who are disabled or who otherwise have trouble getting out. there has been a lot of disinformation spread about this, including a fake documentary withdrawn by the producers that it was widespread, it really isn't widespread. it's used almost entirely for close family members and people who need that assistance in many ways. of course, this is only for male voting. someone who wants to vote in person, that's available in 47 of the 50 states. 97% of all americans can vote early in person, it's a wonderful way to vote and those are among the votes counted and reported out first on election night and you can also choose to vote on election day. as far as verifying signatures, that's done in every single

jurisdiction where they check it against the signature on file that the vote or put on their registration form were sometimes at the motor vehicles agency. x might be a problem -- if there is a signature mismatch for some reason, most states allow for a check on that signature and then some kind of notice and securing process where they contact the voter in advance after they see the signature and say it doesn't look like this matches or that there's a problem or something might be missing on the envelope and they give the voter a chance to independently confirm before the envelope is opened. they give a chance for the person to come down and verify that that was indeed there ballot before opening up and counting it. those are really good processes and all the more reason that if you choose to vote by mail, return the ballot as quickly as possible so that if there is something on the outside of the ballot, election officials can notify you. host: judy is on the republican

mine in indiana, fort wayne. you are next. caller: a little bit of something about me, i am old enough to have watched the first convention in 1952. very middle-class democratic family goat -- growing up. now that i am retired, i'm a republican, my husband and i changed our thinking during the reagan years. because of jimmy carter. anyway, i do work in the polls in indiana and have for five years. i feel they are so good, at least in our town. we use machines, but we vote, we have classes for our workers. and when we work, we are there from 5:00 in the morning until almost 7:00 that particular voting day. we don't leave until every vote

and if someone works without the final one, someone goes into the parking lot to make sure they finish and if someone slips away quickly, the republican and democrat go over to it to push the vote button. i just feel indiana is such a safe place to vote and i feel confident. i love politics and i love c-span, because i get to hear all the voices. i do not ask my friends who they vote for. some of them cannot afford to have cable, therefore they don't see everything. they are influenced by national television. i've spoken too much and i'm sorry. host: no no no, thank you for calling, judy, we appreciate it. guest: thank you, judy.

i'm so glad you called. there are literally hundreds of thousands of judy's all over the country. people serving their community, their neighbor, they don't care how they vote. they are coming in for training days before the election, coming in really early in the morning to help set things up, working very, very long days, staying late and working alongside people of the other party and they don't care. it's about serving the community . serving our democracy. what judy is saying in the indiana, i can guarantee you you will see it everywhere in the country. doesn't matter if they are blue or red states or something in between. every single state there are so many people like judy, heroes and citizens giving their community and neighbors voices in their elections, giving up time and energy, doing it in a way that just embraces the best of american traditions, not asking about who someone is voting for, not trying to encourage people to vote for a

certain candidate, they are giving everyone a voice. it's one of the reasons that elections in indiana and nationwide are as secure as they are. host: from the perspective of the caller it sounds like there are checks and balances for the people involved. guest: that's exactly right. this is happening all over the place. in almost every single process there's no way one single person can perform part of the process by themselves. they are always accompanied by other people who are also poll workers. they are often bipartisan teams with observers watching these processes. there are multiple redundancies. you might have a vote count on a machine on some kind of a removable media, but also on a paper tape and maybe multiple paper tapes. those are all reconciled and checked over multiple periods of

time and that's why they certify the election because you need to double check those numbers and make sure those numbers match the people who cast ballots. so much work goes into this that people don't realize and the best way to discover how secure our elections are is to do like judy, volunteer to be a poll worker. you will see how many redundancies and checks and balances are built into the process so that you can be confident that the results of the election are correct. host: we get this question a lot from the phone calls, dan in pennsylvania asked if noncitizens will vote in primaries or presidential elections. guest: there's a 1996 federal law saying that noncitizens cannot vote. it was a bipartisan law. every single voter who registers the vote needs to provide id, driver's license number or social security number that can be checked against the files at the motor vehicles agency.

if you think back to the last time you went to the dmv, you had to show proof of legal presence and sometimes that's citizenship like a birth certificate work passport and sometimes accrues you were not a citizen, like a green card or a work visa. that's in the motor vehicle database and it can be checked to make sure you're ok. we know those protections have been enormously successful. states like georgia have gone back and done a complete audit of their voter file recently in the last two or three years. they found literally zero noncitizens voted in georgia in recent elections. they have the tools necessary to do that. it occasionally happens were a noncitizen will register to vote, we know it's usually accidental, a form will be shown to them and they fill it out and they don't understand it. we also know that these people almost never vote. there's a very good reason for that. if someone is here and not a citizen, they might be

documented in working their way through the process of becoming a citizen or they might be undocumented and have risked a lot to come here, probably to live a better life for their families. whether or not you believe they should be here, they will never paint a bull's-eye on themselves to say hey, here i am, just to cast one ballot in an election where 160 million ballots are cast, they will get found, deported, and prosecuted. especially for someone who is here in a documented fashion and working their way towards citizenship, if they are found to have registered to vote or even worse, voted, it will likely disqualify them for citizenship and result in deportation. guest: -- host: in any election cycle, to what amount does election fraud occur? guest: it occurs and it is not zero of a very low. i'm a former doj lawyer who has worked in these spaces for quite some time.

election fraud is one of the easiest things to find. there are multiple places to look for it. on the voter file, in a request for ballot work if you vote in person. if you have voted in person and try to impersonate someone else, you have presented yourself before 5, 10, or more witnesses who can identify you. if you send in a mail ballot for someone else, your signature is not going to match, driver's license number, you are probably not going to know it and you have created a documentary paper trail of your crime. the likelihood is that if you submit a valid for someone who is not yourself, that person is very likely, there are very likely to try to vote and when that person tries to vote, it will be a huge red flag for election officials to investigate the prior ballot and they will find you. voter fraud does occur, very rarely, and when it does it's discovered and prosecuted. it's a really great way to risk

growth -- going to state or federal jail for the great privilege of having cast one extra ballot in an election of 160 million. host: this is wayne crews -- this is david becker of the election center research program joining us. caller: i think you are one of the best there. mr. becker, i appreciate your words, they are very comforting, however, in massachusetts, not being a singular state with this , you are automatically registered to vote when you go to the mass rmve. undocumented, illegal, lines of them at the rmve. i saw it for real last week. i know this is not hyperbole, this is fact. they get the mass id, they get their drivers license because massachusetts voted to make the

highways safer, wanted illegals to have driver's licenses. the next button pushed is registering them to vote. massachusetts is not alone in this. when they are registered to vote, we are not an id state. there is no requirement for id when you register to vote. when i renewed my driver's license a few years ago, been voting here 34 years, they registered me to vote. i've been voting for 34 years. i could have submitted two ballots. i don't happen to be that kind of person. i love your words, they are comforting and soothing and whatever, but this is a real thing and we've got 10, 12, i don't know how many illegals. and they aren't just voting in local elections. there is no differentiation in the system. so you know, sorry, i would love to feel comforted, but i'm not. host: guest: ok, that's marge. guest:i think a lot of people

see what's going on at the dmv and get some impression about what's happening, but here's the thing, there are systems in place behind the scenes that voters are not seeing. for instance, when you go into it dmv, because of real id, you must show proof of legal presence. you won't be able to get on an airplane next year or less you have a real id compliant id and in almost every state and i think that massachusetts is one of the states that is real id compliant, to get an id like that you need to show proof of legal presence. i encourage everyone to go on to your website at your dmv and look at what you need to bring. someone like marge might have been there multiple times and shown their proof of citizenship way earlier, which is why she may not have been asked to that because hopefully we live in a country where we don't have to show our papers over and over again, but they are checking that information for real id.

when someone shows their documentation and that documentation, if the documents show they are not a citizen or doesn't confirm they are a citizen, there should be processes in place. people will not see this because it will be on the screen that only a voter or citizen going to the dmv can see, there will be different screens different people can see based on the documentation they have shown to dmv. if states roll out what they call pre-registration, where 16-year-olds can get preregistered to get automatically registered when they are 18, a 16-year-old will not get the opportunity to register to vote. there are a variety of things happening behind the scenes that people may not see if they are just looking at the lines and they will not be able to see an individual just going in. there have been occurrences where mistakes have been made in this process. the state can fix those mistakes.

when noncitizens have registered to vote, they have been discovered. so, if anyone wants to claim, please listen, if you are worried about voter fraud, there are people, especially people who might be losing elections, who want you to believe and want to raise money off of you based on the eight idea that voter fraud led to a stolen election and what we should all be asking for is where is the proof? there will be an extensive paper trail of this. this person will have shown up at the dmv without papers sufficient to document citizenship and if that is the case, it can be discovered in the fact is we are not seeing evidence of that on any kind of scale. host: scott, richmond, democratic line, you are on with our guest. caller: so glad you are having this conversation today. i have a quick question. recently, i saw a lady who was a whistleblower, she worked in one

of the polling places. she blew the whistle that there were one foot thick stack of suppose it mail-in ballots that came in that were unfolded at all. every one of them had been typed . you know, had been filled out by a computer, except for, you know, someone checking the bots. i would like to know how that happens and how these mail-in ballots cannot be folded and still delivered in boxes to the polling place. guest: this is a piece of disinformation that swirled a lot, especially spread by losers, losing candidates in an election, they show videos on these things, people claiming they are whistleblowers, but the fact is these are entirely false. every single one of them. there are reasons that there

might be unfolded mail ballots. they might have been returned in person or delivered in person at polling places. secondly, ballots that are filled out are almost -- i have literally never seen, outside of maybe some ballots that were machined as designed, voting machines in places like georgia and pennsylvania where you vote on a touchscreen and they instruct the ballot to be machine marked. in most places, say perhaps with a disability you might do that, but almost all of them are hand marked infill by hand and create ballot images that can be reviewed. these are all often public records. again with all of these claims, ask why they are being spread on social media and why are they not being brought into a court of law? if there were thousands or millions of unfolded manufactured ballots that couldn't be tied to the voter lists, which wouldn't occur at all, there would be extensive

evidence trails. we are sitting here now 45 months from the 2020 election, 45 months. dozens of legal cases and we still have not had one shred of evidence presented to any court anywhere in the country to cast out on the 2020 four 2020 two elections despite multiple opportunities. well over 60 cases brought in the immediate aftermath of that election brought before judges appointed by the losing presidential candidate himself. multiple defamation cases brought against people like kari lake, rudy giuliani, against fox news and in every single one of those cases the best defense would have been -- you were telling the truth, the fraud existed. in every single one of those cases they didn't just lose the argument, they did bring it. they conceded liability. rudy giuliani went right to the damages phase. kari lake went right to the

damages phase. fox news settled the case before it went to trial for nearly $800 million. that's a lot more telling than a video you might see spread on social media claiming certain things. we all need to be much more sophisticated media consumers. a lot of people across the political spectrum want to raise money and get us angry and divided against our fellow citizens, who want us to believe that our fellow citizens are our enemies. there are at -- enemies across the world, russia, china, iran, who want us to hate our fellow americans. we have to be sophisticated media consumers against those kinds of things and recognize that we have more in common as americans then those who would choose to divide us. host: wisconsin recently ruled that dropbox is would be a part of the election system. guest: those are essential to integrity. we will have mail-in voting.

39 states allow mail-in voting without any excuse. it has been with us since the civil war, maybe earlier. it's a secure method of voting for those who choose to vote in that way. if you think about it, dropbox is the most secure way to deliver it short of handing it to an election official. they are secure, locked up, checked regularly, eliminating the middleman of the postal service, which you can choose to use that as well, but the postal service will take some time and there will be multiple stops on the way. a dropbox goes right into the hands of the election officials. election officials pick it up almost always that same day within one or two hours. they document that the ballot came in and that it will be counted quicker, often, then if it came in by mail. if you are choosing to vote by mail out there, it's a perfectly secure way of voting, but make sure you get it in early.

for example, dropbox is a very secure way of delivering that right to the hands of election officials. host: bob, virginia, go ahead. guest: the most important -- caller: the most important issue facing the united states is guaranteeing citizens the right to vote and this can be guaranteed by 8 -- by issuing identification cards like a credit card. this card would have your birth date, location, the area you are registered to vote in. it would have verification of your u.s. citizenship, like photo id and all other relevant information. when you vote, this card would be inserted in a voting machine. if a candidate that you are allowed to vote for, they would be displayed on a touchscreen. then you could make your selection impressed none.

the machine will register your vote and print you a receipt showing who you voted for. this receipt would have a random code number that you can use to verify your vote on the internet . with this system there would be no reason for early or late voting, because these machines would be available everywhere. such as military installations and other countries. with this system your card would only allow you one voting ballot in the district you are registered in. ok, got that thought out there. gave a lot to the guest. yeah -- guest: yeah, you're quite right. we are one of the only countries in the world that doesn't have a national id registry. that is because we have chosen to be very decentralized. we are a very federalist system.

we've given power to the constitution to run elections at the state level. that's why we have some states offering more than others, some making mail-in voting easier than others, some states using different machines and others even within a state different machines from county to county. it's an active choice and there are pluses and minuses. decentralized systems make it virtually impossible, realistically, to hack a national election. you cannot get into one system and change it. you cannot even get into one system to change a system -- a single state. there are multiple systems in places like florida, pennsylvania, michigan. decentralization comes with significant advantages and as a society republicans and democrats have chosen not to nationalize elections in washington, rather to allow the states to do it. that has yielded some benefits

particularly regarding security. one other thing, there was a point about concentrating all voting on a single day. this has become a talking point among some. i cannot stress enough how insecure that might make elections. elections, really, if you concentrate all voting into a single 12 or 14 hour period in november you create a volatile single point of failure across the country. it wouldn't just be a point of failure that could be attacked by bad actors overseas or there might be violence or something like that. it's much more likely you can see power outages or traffic or whether. we saw this in nevada 2022. we just saw the crowd site -- crowdstrike issue affect early voting in arizona. because it was early voting there wasn't that much activity and it didn't really affect the election. if you want a secure election, and you don't want to concentrate all voting on a single day.

that's why it's really good that blue and red states across the country offer some kind of opportunity to vote early in person by mail if they choose or by election day. host: the caller tangentially brought it up, overseas, military, when is my vote counted? guest: it depends on when it arrives. one of the biggest challenges for members of the military and those serving overseas is receiving a ballot in time and returning a ballot in time. every state allows for those to come after election day, if they come. there has been some improvement on that. i work on this when i was with the pew charitable trusts a decade ago. there was an act in 2010 that required military ballots to go out 45 days before the election to allow for plenty of time for those to be received by members of the military no matter where they are serving, give them time to review and fill out their

ballots and return the ballots back. we discovered it could take as long as 18 days for the ballots to get out one way and come back another. that's where the 45 days came from with that initial roughly 45 days for consideration of the ballot. hopefully military voters will have those but they also have the alternative of the federal right in ballot, they can fill it in and right in who they want to vote for so that ballots will be cast for federal offices and some states allow for electronic delivery. there is controversy about that because it's less secure than paper delivery and it might impact the secrecy of the ballot to some degree, but states are trying in multiple ways to make sure that the military serving overseas can vote and that they get extra time for the ballots to be received by election officials. host: let's hear from donna in illinois. democratic line, you are next up. caller: i would like to ask you

-- in regards to the maneuver that donald trump tried in 2020 with calling the secretary of state and asking him to change the number and arranging for new delegates, that entire maneuver, with that, would -- is -- with network again? can he do that again and find people who will go along with it? guest: thank you, donna. i am concerned a losing candidate could try to pressure election officials in cause division and spread lies about an election. we saw that in 2020, of course. we should note that it didn't work in 2020. election officials stood firm to their principal and did what they needed to do. in many states to their great credit the people who voted for a losing candidate stood up for voters and for their votes to be

counted as they accurately were in every state. that is a very good sign. we have further reason for optimism. 2022 we had something called the electoral reform act passed, putting further guard rails the process in establishing a timeline by which electoral votes need to be ascertained and voted for. making it clear that the vice president doesn't preside over the joint session of congress on january 6 and doesn't have the power to decide to disenfranchise entire states because they happen to vote for the opposing candidate. we have seen in our history at least twice in modern history, republican and democrat, where sitting vice presidents presided over the joint session three times, if you count vice president pence, after the 1960 election, vice president nixon presided over the session where

his opponent was the river -- declared the winner and vice president gore over the joint session where george w. bush was anointed the winter and of course, 2021, january 6, vice president pence as well, anointing president biden the winner. i have confidence that this strategy if employed by the losing candidate will fail, but i'm most concerned with losing candidates over the past four years who have been willing to spread lies and insight anger and violence and the violence it troubles me, the potential for violence troubles me a great deal and it is one of the reasons that especially election officials who are in the same party as the losing candidate, how they have been just so courageous and acted with such principles. people like secretary raffensperger in georgia or the governor of arizona, with county

election officials all over the country doing the same thing, they really stood for the best of the american democratic experiment in tough times. host: you talked about this and it was just decided here in d.c. that that election will get another hearing on august 16. how will that proceed in light of the supreme court immunity decision? guest: the immunity decision led to some troubling outcomes, essentially, but it didn't close the door on the prosecution of president trump. it left open the possibility. justice barrett's decision was instructive and there were certain acts engaged in by the former president that were clearly on presidential ask for the prosecution. what we will say in the next phase of the district court's hearings as to what degree certain actsa for alec -- acts

or allegations fall into its category. you thought it was unofficial that attempt to organize state electors. the president has no role in overseeing a presidential election. that is left to the states under the constitution. the idea that a president would call a secretary of state of either party and demand that that person find just enough votes for them to be anointed the winner? imagine if you were a republican and a president obama had done that in 2016 and said hillary clinton lost your state, find me 10,000 votes in the state of michigan to make hillary clinton the winner. republicans appropriately would have been outraged over that and that is what happened in 2020 with former president trump.

i think that the judge will find is justice barrett -- justice barrett alluded and it was an unofficial act and the burden of proof will still be there for prosecutors where they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump engaged in crimes. guest: -- host: our guest is the caustic -- co-author of "the big truth," thank you for your time. guest: thank you, pedro. host: coming up, we hear from david becker -- from wayne crews , taking a look at regulations in the united states in what they cause the average taxpayer. that discussion, open we continue. ♪

>> we will welcome them into a great national crusade to make america great again. >> it's been earned through progress and prestige. >> taxes will go up. anyone who says that they won't is not telling the truth. >> we are in the midst of a springtime of hope. >> where 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 the election? >> the real choice is building a bridge to the future or the past. >> i have unlimited confidence

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

>> we will make america safe again. 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. >> a towering american spirit prevailing over every challenge, lifting us to the summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the convention, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is wayne crews joining us out from the competitive enterprise institute, a fellow in regulatory studies and of the author of 10,000 commandments, annual snapshot of the federal regulatory state. welcome to the program.

at the competitive enterprise institute, talk about it, what perspective do you come from? guest: cei, competitive -- born in the year of orwell. a small libertarian think tank, folks working on the federal budget, doing the war, welfare issues. we tend to focus on the hidden tax of government regulation, but it entails, costs, and what we might do about reforms. host: how was guest: your organization funded? guest:probably like every group on here, private corporations, individuals. we tend to have specific libertarian ideology that remains consistent, so what you find in a situation like that is you do not always agree with your benefactors all the time. key issues in that regard are antitrust. since 84 we always opposed antitrust but different benefactors are in favor, here and there were -- you're in there and so forth.

we don't take any government money, put it that way, right? [laughter] put your mind at ease? host: when you talk about regulation, what do you mean about the framework you referenced? guest: ok, the federal government spends $6 trillion a year. we hit that level during covid and we never quite retrenched. the debt has hit 35 trillion recently. spending is not the only way that government affects the economy, it affects society with the regulations they issue. economic regulations, health and safety, environmental and labor regulations. paperwork. all the things coming on board, too, like artificial intelligence and drones. all of these new technologies and energy methods. they all seem to involve regulation and a lot of times i say they should not, we should be doing things differently. those have costs, too, and

that's a lot of what the report is about. but there are more things than just costs when you talk about the regulatory enterprise. so, while there is a lot of attention paid to the budget practically every day, you get a little bit less attention that i think is -- then i think it is merited by the enterprise. that's the origin and i've been doing it since the 90's. [laughter] host: if i understand i'm taxed something, it costs me directly, but regulation? guest: if folks remember econ 101, sometimes you hear about the debate over corporate taxation and they pass it on to individuals. a part of that tax depending on elasticity is demand and all that good stuff and corporations will pay some of it, individuals will pay some of it. same with talking about compliance costs or declines in productivity with respect to

environmental economic regulations and so forth. the costs of regulations will percolate down to the individual level. we debate whether appropriate regulations are good or bad. whether or not you are getting what you think, getting the bang for your buck. host: some of those highlights from those 10,000 commandments, total regulation for compliance reflecting 2.1 trillion. guest: yes, some people say the costs of regulation is more than i do. manufacturers put out a report last year of 3 trillion in the costs for the regulatory enterprise and there are estimates that go higher. i use a baseline and call it a placeholder. i'm comfortable using $2 trillion. i think it's a lot more and it's not easy to measure regulation. you can look up the debt. you can look up the deficit. no such thing is that.

in a way that's a reason for the 10,000 commandments report. i would love for there to be a way to look up regulations and historical tables for the federal government. it's rooted way back in something called the regulatory right to know act that congress passed in 1999. the white house office of management and is supposed to issue the costs of regulation. they quickly abandoned it after 2002. now the omb issues reports to congress with a costs and benefit on regulation. they appeared sporadically but are supposed to appear annually. it's just a handful of rules and we might get into some of those numbers. host: here's a number, households pay an average of 15,000 $7,080 in that hidden

regulatory. give me a for instance. guest: when those costs come down, if you take the bureau of labor statistics in what they call consumer units per household, percolated down, it ends up at 15 trillion dollars, closer to $16,000 per household. that is greater than every item in the family budget other than housing. right? greater than transportation, greater than savings, greater than food. it's a huge amount of money. if you think it is worth it, necessary or reasonable to look into, look at what they are doing. look at what they are succeeding out, failing at, what they need to do to reform something. another thing about rules and regulations, and we might get into this in a separate question, but they are coming from agencies who are not elected and we elect congresspeople to do the lawmaking.

regulations or laws. meanwhile, regulatory regulate -- agencies put out 3000 rules and regulations and because of that that's one of the reasons it's important to look and make sure the costs we are talking about makes sense. host: our guest is with us and if you want to check on the federal government and regulations and how they impact you at home, call the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. the democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. this might be simplistic, if i'm a homeowner and there are more rules on energy companies, costs come down, is that oversimplistic? guest: it does happen, if companies have costs, they won't just eat that.

sometimes the costs are direct. if people are upset about gas stoves or dishwashers being regulated, having to run them twice instead of once, when you talk about rules from the energy department or the epa, your major household quote -- appliances, it makes a big difference if those regulations affect things like the household. so, you get the indirect costs and the direct costs. host: let me extend that. if i'm going to buy a car in the future, how will this framework impact me? guest: one of the costliest ones we have seen debated on the hill are the tailpipe rules around energy efficiency for new fleets of cars that come out in phases. the biden administration is on a zero carbon program. there are provisions in place to

phase out gasoline engines or work towards that goal. but that's expensive. we have seen the rules -- the news in recent months about a bit of a turn back from election -- electric vehicles. you don't have -- you don't run before you walk. sometimes you don't have to knock down the wall, you can just walk through a door. we were already making tremendous progress on reducing carbon intensity. tremendous vehicles that still make sense. people still want them. the torque that they can give you, great stuff. when you try to impel those vehicles to switch to a system where the infrastructure and desire is not all there, secretary themselves are not all there, it's usually costly in my view. i think that you can get there and get what you want by taking more reasonable steps.

yeah, these regulations, there are a lot of rules affecting a lot of consumer products. host: the report says 97 major rules, some completed over the last six months, far exceeding the previous 10 years. guest: remember what i mentioned to congress passed 65 laws in the agency had issued 65 regulations? there are almost 20 more rules for every law congress passes, but according to article one they are supposed to be making a law. it's a nice way to a law can be trivial, same thing with regulations. but there is that court that used to be called economic or significant, meaning it had $100 million in annual impact. it meant cost.

when biden came in, he throughout the trump era regulatory regime. you might recall that trump visibly instituted the cost freezing lay the form of one in, two out. and with respect to guidance documents. but when biden came in, he threw that out and instituted a new memorandum called modernizing regulatory review. last year, he made an executive order under that very same name. so the trump era that is gone, there is more emphasis now on government to pursue net benefits, according to this administration, different things like climate science, climate crisis, the net zero energy, equity, competition policy with a lot of price control issues and things of that sort. so biden's white house is

issuing more of those economically significant rules. but there is also threshold, and some merit extra omb review, and that threshold was raised to $200 billion. more rules that are costly can slide under that radar. it is important for congress to look at that kind of thing. i do not say that in a partisan way. we are a small libertarian group, but when congress addressed regulation in the past, i can tell you it was extremely bipartisan. there are a number of things we can do about the issue now that you have bipartisan pedigree. that we are seeing that uptick in economically significant rules. with regulation reform, there was a small business getting overburdened in state and local governments getting overburden, and you had both coming to washington demanding for change. host: michael joins us from illinois, independent line. you are on with our guest. caller: pedro, please allow me

to develop my question. because i resent sometimes when commentators cut people off because you are satisfied with the way the question is developing and you do not let the person have their say. now, here is my question for you . we're talking about government, system under which we rule ourselves. there is always going to be tremendous inefficiencies in government because sometimes we want government to do things that we want and we do not care the cost. if you had a child born with spina bifida, if you did analysis of what this child is going to cost society as opposed to what it is going to draw out of it, you would come to a conclusion that it is a lost cause and euthanize the child

then. i am not advocating that, but that would be your monetary conclusion. but my point is, and this is what i want you to respond to, we do things sometimes that cost a lot of money. look, money is not the issue. it is our survival, our health. that is the focus we should be thinking about when we talk about government. government is not a business. government is a system under which we behave so we do not kill one another. host: ok, i will step in and let our guest respond. guest: look, you always have regulation. your choices whether the regulation is going to be politically driven regulation from agencies or whether you have some notion that we advance and we advance safety and health along with our growth and wealth, as well. there is this notion, i think,

that business is out to get people and hurt them. but you got to remember, business has upstream business suppliers, downstream business customers, consumers, wall street, advertisers, the media. i think we take it into account and compare that to what you get from regulation. you talk about extreme cases, that's right, there are some cases where you do things where money is no object. we are talking here about normal governance in society, when talking about programs that work or regulation of all the bills like we talked about or appliances. we necessarily have to make some reasonable choices and make trade-offs. you cannot pursue every costly thing. you have to make trade-offs. that is normal. it is bipartisan policy with respect to regulatory reform. you just have to compare whether government regulation is going to achieve the successes you're talking about. that may not be the case,

because free markets and free enterprise to not just create the products and services that we benefit from, but if it is done right, it also necessarily has to involve the health and safety and risk management and disciplinary measures alongside. often, government regulation comes in and sets the cap. government regulation might swart things by interfering with those forces that move to discipline actors in society -- government regulation may thwart things. you have to weigh the trade-offs. host: this is from mark on the republican line, texas. hello. caller: yes, i was calling about regulations. i know they are important, and an extremely important one would be the federal government sitting regulations allowing communist countries to buy airport bases abandoned.

kelly air force base was purchased in san antonio, texas, years ago, and it borders the east side of another air force base, one of the two air force bases. if you look at a map you purchase at a store, it just shows a blank for that entire area. that air force base i was thinking of was the largest, longest landing strip in the country, i believe, for cargo planes big enough to carry tanks and such. i am wondering why there is no restriction on selling land to communist countries. host: thank you. guest: that is not one i know what our policy on that is, but i would just say that if the pentagon is doing its job, you might see a blank on the grid there, but i think they are being monitored very closely and the surroundings. i do think there are concerns

about that, not being flip about it. but when you talk about sourcing certain natural resources, there is a role for doomsday prepping with respect to the federal government's health and state and governments and households and individuals. but not a policy for me to look at the cells of leinster foreign nations -- to look at the sales of lands to foren nations. host: somebody writes in, i nder if they look at what is not being regulated in society. guest: in a way, you kind of bake that in, because think about it, you have economic regulation, health and safety, environmental, labor. with moving along products being created, services offered, government steps in to address an issue -- key example, the way

to think about an issue like that is on the frontier edge, like the risks of not regulating ai, for example. he want to pay attention to that. on the other hand, government is already heavily involved in artificial intelligence and the investment of it and funding the science and things like that. competitive discipline matters. a lot of the oversight matters. but you need to know that there is a problem. you say risk of not regulating, it is not really come up that way because a problem presents itself and then you figure out how to address it. the 3000 rules and regulations may not always be the best way. i think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on that, especially when you see the costs that do emerge. host: i imagine that if you are an industry then that has the threat of regulation, you will say why not self regulate, and how much confidence do you put into that? caller: i do not like the term

self-regulation any more than some of the skeptical callers do. corporations cannot work in a vacuum, they have to respond. you cannot just think of a value and the name and agency after it. businesses do not operate in a vacuum. they have a lot of sources, and the worry i have is self regulations -- they have a lot of other things going against them, but there is something called reg seeking. a lot of businesses are not opposed to regulations like you would think they would be. it was very hard for trump to roll back a lot of certain environmental regulations, for example, because businesses would count on them. businesses will like it if it shuts out other competitors, and you will see that in various aspects of regulation. you will see that with antitrust. some businesses want antitrust intervention because it will hurt the competitor. you always have to watch out for

that. self-regulation has a certain role, but i think it is kind of a misnomer. it is not even an option in a proper free society. you have rule of law in place, you do not commit fraud or commit crimes. in a setting like that, self-regulation is not quite what you're doing. you have those sources that make you behave. host: art in san diego, democrats line. clyde wayne crews. caller: thank you for taking my call, pedro. i hate to jump in on mr. crews, everybody seems to like the regulations, he kind of commented that a regulation is a law and congress has only passed 65 laws this year, while there's 3000 regulations. congress is cumbersome. if we asked to have every congressperson become an expert to make a regulation that the

experts have made, then there would be no regulations. people pretty much like regulations to prevent dumping of cancer-causing chemicals from a business that is doing that to make money. i could say more, but i will keep it brief. host: thank you. guest: thanks. i wish he would have been at a hearing about two weeks ago, and i had a chance to testify. you would be surprised, there is a lot of support -- you would not want to hear me say it, but forgiving more resources to congress to develop the right kind of expertise -- but for giving more resources to congress to develop the right kind of expertise as opposed to having delegated powers for agencies and having them at arms length. there is the congressional office of regulatory analysis, or cora, being explored, rooted in earlier bipartisan

regulations. in the past, it involved regulatory budgeting, small-business relief, unfunded mandates reform. a lot of that was addressing with the agency is doing, but there was a recent decision in the supreme court that kind of rolled back on the delegation of power to agencies. the notion was, well, agencies were interpreting ambiguity in the statutes and had too much leeway in doing that. there was a recent court decision that revoked that. i think agencies will still go and regulate. what they will do instead is in the statutes, they will look for less ambiguity. we did it with the tiktok b an. they attempted to do it recently with child online services on the internet. so you can see that if somebody is savvy enough, they can easily get a statute to be less ambiguous about what the agency is going to do later.

would dispute the wisdom of some of those laws because i think that is what we will turn to, and there is support from the notion of, well, if congress is not going to delegate as much to agencies or if they are not going to have that much leeway, there needs to be more expertise in congress. i think the watchdog function for cost benefit analysis of agencies has deteriorated, so i think you are going to see a lot more attention to this notion of congress having more of the resources to do the things it needs and maybe not quite delegate so much to the bureaucracies. host: that supreme court case was -- had something attached to it called chevron deference. explain what it means. guest: basically, for 40 years, since the 1980's, the chevron deference doctrine, it was a natural resources council decision, ordered courts to defer to agencies on their

reasonable interpretations of statutes when there was ambiguity involved. the argument against that was it gave too much power to agencies to make decisions on their own that congress might not have preferred or that the courts might not have preferred. that has been revoked now, so that deference to agencies has gone away. so what you will see, as i mentioned, is you will see more artfulness in the form of statutes. and i mentioned 65 rules, 65 laws and 3000 rules, but there is also something called -- we did a section on this in 10,000 families, we called it regulatory dock matter. guidance documents, notices, bulletins, circulars, letters, all these ways that agencies also influence policy without doing a notice and comment regulation like what we're talking about. in the wake of chevron

deference, i think we will see more attention to the way statutes are worded and we might see an over reliance on dark matter, which is a bad term, because if we said that regulations are not closely guarded enough or unlocked -- or are not monienough, then it gets worse. host: justice kagan set a rule of judicial humgivea rule of judicial uber spirit one swoop, this gives exclusive power over every open issue no tter how expertise are policy related involved in regulatory law as if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the countries administrative czar. guest: the premise is the agencies are necessarily were the premise is. it is true to agree. i was an fda guy for a very short time. be careful by saying agencies

have that expertise. we need a lot of expertise with respect to the rollout of artificial intelligence, for example. even with respect to energy efficiency technologies, that expertise does not lie all at the agencies. a few years ago, drones were the hot issue, the way ai is now. i remember looking at the way the fcc, the faa, and congress were looking at the issue, and they were thinking drones, dumping them into a.d.-year-old the faa airspace categories -- dumping them into 88-year-old the faa airspace canneries -- categories. the intrinsically, kind of tongue-in-cheek, but you could pass the sky with a neutron star given those corridors. agencies can be impediments to expertise. this is all related to kagan's

point. you really have to challenge that, and the majority did not challenge that expertise notion the way i think they should. that we regulate water, sewer, electric, telecom. imagine if those walls between those sectors were torn down so that those new infrastructures -- we passed infrastructure law, so it is important, but imagine if we removed those barriers between the sectors who are not artificially isolated by regulation. speaking of regulatory costs, they could work together and expanded. we need expertise in rights-of-way. we need expertise in expanding airspace. we need expertise in the rollout of artificial intelligence. a lot of what i see does not live in washington, d.c. it is out there and needs to be disciplined, but you have to be careful and think about where the expertise truly lies. host: dee is in maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. does your agency have anything

to do with illegal immigration as far as employment is concerned, specifically e-verify, and how does that play into your agency? thank you, c-span, for the good work. have a good day. guest: we do not work the immigration issue at all, but we have always had concerns with notions like e-verify and government surveillance. one of the unmeasured costs of regulation that i was talking about happens to be that, the notion of government invasions to privacy in too much surveillance in society. the internet makes a problem even worse. i would not be surprised if you had a show about the remote disabling of callers/the notion that it is demanding too much, so we will tweak it. lots of databases are growing.

lots of debate over crypto. lots of debate over artificial intelligence. privacy is a huge concern. host: this is a viewer, did you -- you talk about regulation, but nobody does anything about them, please name your top five regulations to get rid of. you do give some recommendations as far as were folks should go as far as less regulations, nesters with regulatory budgeting. guest: here is what i would say, regulatory budgeting -- you make a decision, and we know the fiscal budget, too high, but it is $6 trillion. we spend more in the deficit. there is no counterpart to that on the regulatory side, and there should be. it is a democratic idea, jimmy carter's 1980 economic report on the president called for a regulatory free budget.

assaying spending is not the only way government influences the economy. it also issues rules and regulations and we ought to have a budget for those. then lloyd benson champion to the same idea, and he was the treasury secretary later in the clinton administration and had legislation for that. so the regulatory budgeting notion, the simplest version of it -- there was introduced legislation and congress for it, too. the simplest version is a cost cap regulation. when you talk about how many lives can be saved potentially, what does that mean for the way you make decisions, or how much economic benefit can you have in regulating a certain sector? you decide what society should allocate, because there are always trade-offs. if you spend on something, there is opportunity costs all the time. but budgets, i would not go all out and try to do a sweeping regulatory budget.

i think what they should do and would do is experiment in it. the trump one-, one-out notion, that is the most elemental regulatory budget you have. a lot of the energy conservation stuff drive people crazy and things like that, but i am more concerned over the overall picture. making those trade-offs among those areas were government is intervening or might intervene would be a good thing. host: creating a regulatory reduction commission and mandating congressional approval , gets congress into the game. guest: the notion of a regulatory reduction commission, years back we had e military base closure commission because it was too politically conttis to figure out if i will be shut and if it is in my district, there will be a hit.

allocating that outcome everybody takes a hit at the same time. it becomes more doable. there was debt reduction commission. there is one like that in play now. it was to look at the entire regulatory enterprise and say it will be bipartisan and make decisions about what to roll back and then have congress do that. that is one of the key things to do. the notion of having controversial rules be voted on by congress, there is the congressional review act that is controversial because congress can overturn a rule that an agency issues if it was in place since the mid-1992. until trump, it was only used once. trump used it a dozen times to get rid of obama era regulations. the congressional review act does not get oh rid of a lot of rules, gets rid of a few. but it was passed innocent unanimously, overwhelming

bipartisan support -- it was passed in the senate unanimously , overwhelming bipartisan support. if you take an additional step, it would be congress approving a controversial or costly rule, and there is a version of that in congress now, regulations for executive in need of scrutiny. the congressional spots popped act -- the congressional responsibility act, what that would do is if a regulation is overly costly or debatable, congress would have had the ability to overturn it. host: let's get to merriam in texas, democrats line. caller: yeah, several things come to my mind when it comes to regulations. everybody needs rules. your household needs rules. i work at a school. we have tons of rules we have to

abide by because there's a bunch of different people we have to take care of. another thing that comes to my mind is like in louisiana, there is a section in their were a lot of people have cancer because there is not enough regulation. there are corporations that take advantage of that. you are asking congress to regulate -- are you kidding me? they do not even function. the congress is unfunctional right now. even with the pill for abortion, there is a whole controversy about that. another one comes to my mind about corporations that are super greedy, you are telling us that we will end up paying, yet corporations are the ones getting a whole bunch of profit, multimillionaires that are out there. it does not make sense. host: ok.

guest: i hear you. congress has actually done a lot of regulation, and a lot of the laws it is passing is highly regulatory. the cares act, infrastructure law, inflation law, chips and science, irreverent -- american rescue plan. a lot of those are extremely regulatory before bureaucrats write the rules. the only thing i am saying is that you never have no regulation, the choice is always going to be, what is the source of it? where does that regulation come from? as i have indicated to you, you have the choice of having an agency issue a rule, but i submit to you that that is not always regulation and will not always solve the problem. the same corporations often will influence at regulatory process in a way you might not like. host: one more call, tom in jacksonville, florida, independent line.

caller: first off, i want to thank c-span. second, i want to appreciate mr. crews. how does -- how do you put a dollar value on regulation? second question is, of the $16,000 per household, how much, in your opinion to test your opinion, is spent on good regulation and how much of that $16,000 is spent on bad regulation? one last question, harvard just released a study on income inequality -- income equality, and there is a big aid the-year study on income equality were a police officer in jacksonville makes $65,000 a year, and they say if we had stuck to kinsey and said -- economics versus trickle-down economics, he could

be now receiving about $100,000 a year. can you please comment on those things for me? guest: you mentioned a lot. on the faa and air safety, the faa regularly issues airworthiness, safety regulations come about with the incidence -- not casting blame, but the instances with boeing, that is a highly regulated company and industry, just goes to the point that regulation might get you what you want but might not. as it refers to the $15,000 per household, what is good or bad, a lot can be good, but on the other hand, a lot of the regulation might be dampening wells in the sense that we would have solved these same problems in other ways that lead to a freer society and give us more wealth and the same kind of safety without doing it the way we do -- a lot of the regulation might be dampening wealth. i do not have a lot to say on income inequality, just to say

that regulatory, to the extent it makes us poorer costs jobs makes a huge difference, and that is one of the key costs of regulations, the effects it can have a low income folks. host: our guest founded cei.org, wayne crews, thanks for giving us your time. guest: you bet, pleasure being here. host: we will finish with open forum. if you want toarticipate, it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls for open forum when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> c-spanshop.org for products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories, something for every c-span fan, and purchases help support our nonprofit corporation. shop anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the latest events with live streams of floor proceedings of hearings of u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio, plus compelling podcasts.

c-span now is available at the apple store and google play, scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website c-span.org/c-spannow. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> 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 interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. if you ever miss any of c-span's

coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other evens future markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and send a view minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is open forum. if you want to participate, here are the numbers. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can always make comments on our social media sites, on x at @cspanwj or facebook at facebook.com/cspan. the wall street journal shows what has happened with the dow jones just opening up, wall street opening up, almost a 3%

drop in the dow jones industrial average, the s&p dropping 4%, nasdaq dropping over 5%, this after concerns and the japanese stock market and other factors concerning the u.s. economy. that is the headline at the wall street journal, stock market, global selloff intensifies this prompted a response from former president trump on his truth social site, saying in all caps, stock markets are crashing, jobs numbers are terrible, heading to world war iii, two incompetent leaders, this is not good. this playing out as the markets open up. we will keep track of that over the next half-hour or so on this open forum. let's hear from carol in kansas, republican line starting us off. caller: good morning, pedro. i just wanted to call -- your guest talking about illegals voting and having to have a real id to do so, it is not really correct.

i am in kansas, just got mine redone, and i did not opt to get the real id. so if you do not get the real id, you can go right through without giving them any paperwork. so i wanted to make sure that everybody knew it is not completely true. thanks for your time. host: walter and baltimore, independent line. caller: you know, we have a lying coward running for president. we have a libertarian party joke that says every man for himself. then we have a semblance of justice in democratic party that, as an independent, of the three choices, a lying coward, a libertarian every man for himself party, or a democratic party that at least listens to people and, even though they are not perfect, they are not liars, not cowards, not money hungry

creeps -- how can we support a d evil, to no result of justice for the mass of people -- i remember the baby food shortage. i wonder if white america remembers the deregulation of the baby food industry here. i feel that we need a galatians -- we need regulations. we ain't superman. having government is a way of life for us, it is not a joke. it is a way of life for us. we will not live without government. thank you, c-span, for at least adding these sorry people -- host: ok. tom is next in california, democrats line. caller: yeah, hi. this is for the maga people and

trump supporters, how do you expect us even to have a conversation with you when you guys -- pedro today had a specialist on there and said there was over 60 cases of voter fraud brought before the courts, not one was voter fraud. you had fox news having to pay $700 billion because of the big lie. what are we to do? you had a guy just call in and say real id, well, i didn't have to take it. there is a window for it. they will not make you take it, they will give you a time period to do it, so that is not even relevant. how do you expect us on our side to even have a conversation with you guys when you do not have anything you can find wrong with donald trump? you think he is perfect. then you turn around and you do not even accept facts or truths. you denied them. after we have a specialist on tv this morning telling you that there was no voter fraud, you guys call in and say there's all kinds of voter fraud. you are not behind the scenes. you are not seeing on the

screen. all you are hearing is what you want to hear from fox news.that is why we cannot conversation with you. that is why you have this divide. stop listening to fox news. host: ok, to west virginia, republican line. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. i want to remind people that 9/11 will occur with all the immigrants coming across the border and thousands -- you take a thousand immigrants together, they can destroy a lot of american people. and i believe that we are doomed. thank you. host: ok, that was budd and west virginia the washington post reporting out of drizzling, -- out of jerusalem about an exchange of fire overnight, and

according to the israel will a terry, the country remains on alert for major italia should. -- for major retaliation. over the weekend, there was an attempt to diffuse regional tensions to avert an all-out war between israel, hamas, and gaza. more than 2 million palestinians remain under israeli siege and bombardment. the national security advisor talked about the u.s. moving in multiple directions, particularly with this recent iran concern after the assassination last week. here is the advisor on the sunday shows come on abc. [video clip] >> i won't lay out what i expect iran to do because i do not think we want to show our hand in that way, but we are preparing for every possibility, just as we did in advance of april 13 when iran attacked israel and the u.s. and a coalition of partners and allies

worked with israel to defeat that attack. in the current moment, as you just said, the pentagon is moving significant assets to the region to prepare for what may be another need to defend israel from an attack, while simultaneously we are working very hard to deescalate this situation diplomatically because we do not believe a regional war is in anyone's interest. that is something we have been trying to avoid since october 7. >> you mentioned the april 13 attack, and there was preparation. and there were back channel talks signaling to each side about how to contain the escalation. have there been contacts with iran about that this time? >> again, part of what makes back channel messages and conversations effective is that they need to stay private, so i will not speak to the details of diplomatic activity underway other than to say in close coordination in conjunction with israeli allies and other

partners, we're doing everything possible to make sure this situation does not boil over, even in the context of providing significant u.s. assets and the help of other countries to defend israel. >> israel targeted a hezbollah commander this week. is that part of the rotation? -- has that been part of the conversation? >> we have had a number of conversations. we think the cease-fire and hostage deal has to take place as soon as possible is what we have said. host: florida, independent line, larry. caller: i'm tired of hearing the democrats saying that the reason that the republicans did not make that deal with biden about the aliens is because trump didn't want it. the reason he didn't want it, he did not want 5000 aliens coming across the border per day. you take that per month, that is

a big city every stinking month. while we have had enough aliens coming across. and that one democrat said the only thing that is going to stop trump is a bullet, and a couple days later he gets shot. that guy should be kicked out of our government. host: pennsylvania, democrat line, hello. caller: yes, the reason i am calling is because we have so many different issues that the government has to take care of. we cannot all agree on everything. and we will never know what goes on behind closed doors. c-span is the best information on what goes on behind closed doors because you see people voting in talking when no one is watching. so i have to say the only thing we can do is look for who has the most integrity.

who actually looks like they have some real common feelings for anybody. because if we don't, were doomed. thank you very much for my call. host: the washington post reporting, amongst others, the first f-16's have arrived in ukraine, with the president zelenskyy saying we made it happen. he said in a video, i am proud of all of our guys who have already started using them for our state. norway and the netherlands have pledged to supply ukraine with american-made f-16's. they did not provide further details about how many planes had been delivered or which nations had supplied them or how they were being utilized. that from the washington post. let's hear from anthony, staten island, republican line. caller: how you doing? off the bat, people, you got to

do research. these democrats are clueless. you know what, maybe we are a little suspicious of voter fraud. but 80% of every group agrees, ok? you let all these people in on purpose. the point about trump, i am sick of all these people lying about trump. all these people, clinton, schumer -- i am from new jersey, and they all took donations for him before he ran for president. when did he become racist? when he decided to run for president. host: paul is next in florida, independent line. caller: i am calling in response to the gentleman who called four or five calls back. first of all, i am an independent and i love to talk about politics with either republicans or democrats, does not matter. play devils advocate for both

sides. but the man said he cannot sit down and republicans do not want to listen because they do not believe anything. i would like to remind him that democrats played the russia hoax and cnn and abc, nbc, all the mainstream media just bought into that and force it down america's threats for the longest time. and then the hunter biden laptop. everybody needs to calm down a little bit and try and have it open and honest discussion and talk facts. he mentioned the lawsuit, fox network sued for $700 million or whatever, that was a slander issue because something kennedy said. just the facts of what these things are really about. that is my recommendation to america. let's figure out how we can sit down and have open honest

conversations. i am 70 years old. i can remember that my parents who would be able to speak politics -- host: i apologize, if. thank you for calling. oklahoma is next, this is alan, democrats line. caller: yes, sir. speaking affects, what a remarkable performance in the getting americans and others out of russia. something like that is never 100%, but it was just an incredible, remarkable multicountry cooperation that withheld secret for months and months should not be forgotten quickly. second, the f-16 is going to be a game changer in the ukrainian war. i was in an f-16 unit for a number of years. they are remarkable performance aircraft. the russians cannot match those.

there aircraft will stay on the ground mostly. finally, does not matter to me who the six or seven nominees for vice president will be, finally selected tomorrow night, all of them are remarkable men that will beautifully balance the ticket. thank you. host: the washington times this morning in their commentary section, an op-ed, by cochair of the republican national committee, ridiculous abysmal project 2025 in which she writes democrats cannot stop talking about this fantasy because i do not have a plan because their candidate was so weak he dropped out of the race and they're trying to distract from ms. harris'failure. it will be far worse and anything president biden would have carried out. it says project 2025 is not a blueprint for a second trump administration, it has ideas that, as mr. trump said, are

ridiculous and abysmal, while mr. trump tried to warn people that these plans did not speak for the campaign. and it was anonymous speculation. only one person speaks for donald trump, and that is donald trump. you can read more at the washington times website. let's hear from emory in pennsylvania, republican line. emory in pennsylvania? caller: ok, i am calling about the gentleman that was on their about the elections. 1972, i was in vietnam. i signed up to vote in pennsylvania before i went to vietnam. i got an absentee ballot in vietnam, mailed it in, and when i came home a few years later, i was at the courthouse and asked if my ballot had been taken, if

my vote had been taken, and there it was. says 1972 absentee ballot -- i said, so if my absentee ballot can get from vietnam to pennsylvania, what is the thing with people today? since then, i voted in person every time because i feel it is my privilege. but they are making this big issue about all the absentee ballots coming in, mine went halfway around the world and got there in time to be counted for the election for next and who, in my opinion, was the best president we ever had thank you very much. host: independent line, george in ohio. caller: hi, well, i think the government regulates for the people, but they don't regulate for themselves. i mean, we had a nuclear dump in

marathon, ohio, causing bone cancer and let the kids around there, and they dumped the stuff in there since 1973, for years, truckloads of nuclear waste. now it is in the soybean fields, just a little mound. but if you get near it, it feels like there is a battery on your tongue. they said they were going to clean that up. or move it one day. they never did. now all the kids are getting bone cancer. all the kids around there have bone cancer now. they talk about a cure for cancer, but they never talk about the source of the cancer. we have 10 of these dumps in ohio. they need to be cleaned up. i have complained, called senators, called everyone. i have been on this program about it. i have never heard anyone talk about it, anyone mentioned it,

or do anything about it. i think that is a big problem in our country. they can regulate us, but they don't regulate themselves. a billion dollars disappeared of our tax money and could have went to clean up one of these dumps, but they never get around to it. what about your children? and you are worried about cancer . cleanup the dump in marathon, ohio, please. host: ohio again, art, democrats line. caller: last friday, i was watching a newsnation call, and he had on the news that x president trump had a fundraiser , $500,000 a plate, in the hamptons. i watched all week, flipping back and forth, nobody reported on it. can you check it out and see if that is true? host: if that is the case, what are your concerns over it? caller: it did not make the

news, the news is more corrupt than the $500,000 a plate, if it is true. can you check it out? why didn't nobody check that, like cnn? just to see if they were reporting on it, and they weren't. the corruption with me is the media for not reporting that. host: that is art in ohio. this is from the papers this morning -- yesterday, saying almost every week, u.s. senator tim scott has prayed for life, and he admitted he found himself asking god if god is hearing his pleas. on august 3 at age 58, his prayers were answered, and he had a ceremony. the south carolina republican exchanged vows with a

47-year-old interior designer. let's hear from marianne in minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning. i have two issues. i haven't called for over six months. a gentleman just called about cancer and regulation. the fda does not regulate. we have over 200 additives in our foods that they are allowing in that other countries do not. when no the worse is high for joe's corn syrup, which is really horrible. just wanted to get that -- one of the worst is high fructose corn syrup, which is horrible. in one of the gentleman talking today, he failed to recognize that there were over 60 people that took the oath at the risk of going to jail to write down what happened when they were watching, and they were not given standing in the courts so they were really never

adjudicated. i would like people to realize that that happened. there are now several cases i am reading about where there has been voter fraud found and so forth. it does happen. so i wish people would realize that the machines are the worse. there are honest people, but there are a lot of bad machines. host: thanks. nbc and others reporting that robert f kennedy, junior, acknowledged she abandoned a young dead bear and central park after he initially planned to skin the cup for meat. he said the new yorker megson found out about the incident and asked for confirmation -- the new yorker found out about the incident and asked for confirmation. here is a bit of the video released yesterday. [video clip] >> one of the most important things is that they have hosted

events were republicans and democrats -- >> i was driving up really early , like someone :00 -- like someone :00, and someone in front of me hit a bear and killed it. so i pulled over and picked up the bear, put it in the back of my van, because i was going to skin the bear, it was in very good condition, so i was going to put it in my refrigerator, and you can do that, roadkill. so then we went walking ahead of bear in my car. we had a really good day and went late. we stayed late. instead of going back to my home, i had to go right back to the city because there was a

dinner at a steakhouse. at the end of the dinner, it went late, and i realized i cannot go home, i had to go to the airport, and the bear was in my car. i did not want to leave it in my car. that would have been bad. so then i thought, you know, this was a little bit of the redneck in me, there are bicycle accidents in new york with the bike lanes, and people get badly injured. i thought -- i was not drinking, of course, but people were drinking and thought this was a good idea. i sent, let's go put -- i said let's go put the bear and central park. [laughter]

people said that's a great idea. so they thought it would be amusing for whoever found it or something. host: that full video on robert f kennedy, jr's, website. sally in illinois, independent line. caller: good morning. i hear about every other day that there was no russian collusion and it was a hoax and it was all the media. i want to explain to the trumpsters and republicans how i know that there was russian collusion. i did not get anything from the media, and i am going to tell y'all how you can find out for yourselves, too. ok, i watch live hearings by witnesses who were there. they already had the russian agents under surveillance because that is what they do.

the cia agents testified and the fbi agent's testified that when a foreign adversary comes to america and tries to do business or talk to political people, they put them under surveillance. it is automatic. personally, i think that is taxpayer money well spent. they had paul manafort under surveillance and trump cowards because he was meeting his russian agents in trump tower, ok. now, paul manafort, the dossier, i watched christopher steele's testimony. his dossier was not started with hillary clinton, it was started with the ted cruz campaign. it was all done by the time hillary bought it, by the time the democrats bought it. how do i know that stuff? write this down.

host: are you there? caller: -- ok. no msnbc, no cnn. you can go look for yourself. host: ok. you can find those things, too, at c-span.org in our archive. let's hear from maverick, last call, democrats line, las vegas. caller: i want to comment on a couple things. someone called in and said that fox news wasn't suit or something but they were sued for slander. fox news was sued because they were telling lies about domain in voting machines. they were sued and found guilty. another caller said illegals were coming across the border in voting. first of all, illegals come across the border, there thing is not to go and to vote.

that is something people make up. if you want to talk about the border, another caller said they want to vote on a bill to stem some of the crossings at the border, and trump voted against it, and the reason why he voted against it is because it was still going to allow 5000 illegals into the united states. you cannot have it both ways. you can't get on fox news saying hundreds of thousands are crossing the border every day and then someone comes up with a plan to get it down to 5000 and you cannot sit there and say someone not even in office, like donald j. trump, telling the republicans what to do. i think it is pretty disgusting. host: ok. host: that was the last call. thank you for participating. we are awaiting the choice for vice president for kamala harris. other things related as well.

you can always follow along on c-span.org and on our app c-span now. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. vice president ford will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office. >> president richard nixon resigned fro office august 9, 1974. saturday, american will air 24 hours of programming focusing on the 37th president, the

watergate scandal, and the key players in the nixon administration. at 3:30 eastern, the july 8, 1974, supreme court oral arguments in the case of the united states versus richard nixon focusing on his use of executive privilege. at 6:00 eastern, his farewell to white house staff. at 8:00, his resignation address to the nation. throughout the day, see discussions on richard nixon's legacy, historic footage from the white house, and interviews with nixon administration staffers, and those who served and worked in congress at the watch our special on 50th anniversary of the resignation of richard nixon saturday on american history tv on c-span2. >> ♪ >> next stop, we go to chicago

for the democratic national convention. watch live beginning monday as the party puts forth their presidential nominee. hear democratic leaders talk about their vision for the next four years as they fight to retain the white house. the democratic national convention, live monday, august 19, on c-span, c-span now, for online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment. visit our website for the latest schedule updates and to watch full coverage of the convention. you can also catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code. >> ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a

community center? no. it is way more than that. >> students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> deputy attorney general lisa monaco talked about the justice department's work to secure and preserve the integrity of u.s. elections. she also evaluates the role the legal community plays in those efforts. this event was hosted by the american bar association. [applause]