♪ host: good morning, thursday, august 15. we are over 80 days from election day 2024.

we begin by focusing on one important segment of the electorate, current and former members of the military. we want to hear about issues important to you and how military and veterans issues are shaping your vote this year. if you are active or a retired member of the military and eastern or central time zones, it is (202) 748-8000. active or retired member of the military in mountain or pacific time zones, it is (202) 748-8001 . you can send us a text, (202) 748-8003. if you do, include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media on x @cspanwj and c-span at facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now. we are talking to veterans, current and former members of the military only, and this first segment of "the washington

journal" today. having this conversation in an election year in which a veteran is going to be the vice president of the united states. it could be the republican nominee for vice president or the democrat nominee for vice president, but guaranteed this year. here's one of the headlines from last week. walz and vance could bring military muscle to the ballot. talking about tim walz and jd vance. the story from axios making the point that they are the first veterans on a major party ticket since john mccain. one of them is set to speak today. jd vance will be in pennsylvania in new kensington speaking at a vfw facility,oid by veterans in congress. one thing that he has talked about since tim walz joined the race is tim walz's record in the military.

this was jd vance last week at an event in michigan. [video clip] sen. vance: what bothers me about tim walz is not the positions he is taking, though he has been a far left radical. what bothers me as a marine who served this country in uniform, when the united states marine corps, when the united states of america asked me to go to iraq, i did it and i did it honorably and i'm proud of that service. when tim walz was asked by his country to go to iraqi dropped out of the army and allowed his unit to go without him, a fact that he has been criticized for aggressively by a lot of the people he served with. i think that it is shameful. prepare your unit to go to iraq, make the promise you will follow through, and drop out right before you have to go. something, if you get an opportunity to ask tim walz or kamala harris some questions come he made this comment that the kamala harris campaign put out there and i think they are regretting they put it out there

now, because he was making a point about gun control. he said we shouldn't allow weapons that i used in war to be on america's streets. i wonder, tim walz, when were you in war? what was this weapon that you carried into war given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to iraq? he has not spent a day in a combat zone. what bothers me is the stolen valor garbage. don't pretend to be something that you're not. host: jd vance last week getting a response from tim walz earlier this week on tuesday. here's what he had to say. gov. walz: these guys are even attacking me for my record of service. i am proud to have served my country and always will be. [applause]

with my dad's encouragement, a guy who served in the army during the korean war, i signed up for the army national guard two days after my 17th birthday. i served for the next 24 years for the same reason that all of my brothers and sisters in uniform do. we love this country. in 2005, i felt the call of duty again being in service to my country in the halls of congress. my students inspired me to run for that office and i was proud to make it to washington. i was a member of the veterans affairs committee and a champion of our men and women in uniform. [applause] i will say it again as clearly as i can. i am proud of my service to this country. [applause] i firmly believe you should never denigrate another person's service record. anyone brave enough to put on that uniform for our great

country, including my opponent, i have a few simple words. thank you for your service and sacrifice. host: tim walz on tuesday. the back-and-forth continued in the form of tweets from jd vance after the event saying, "hi, tim. thank you for your service. but you shouldn't have lied about it. you should have said that you went to war when you didn't and you shouldn't have said you didn't know your unit was going to iraq. i'm happy to discuss this more in a debate." jd vance set to talk today at a vfw facility in pennsylvania. that is where we will go after this program at 10:00 a.m. easter if you don't want to stay here and watch it, you can watch it on c-span.orgr e free c-span now video app. in this first hour of the washington journal, we are talking with active and former members of the military only. we want to hear from you about

military and veterans issues and your vote in campaign 2024. (202) 748-8000 and eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zone. we will start in west virginia, middleton, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i was in the army, 1966 through 1970. i was drafted while i was still in high school. i didn't go to vietnam. jd vance, he must be calling me a coward and a chicken because i used my head and i went to school and went somewhere else. i went to germany. i didn't go to vietnam and die. i didn't want to die. he is calling me a chicken and a coward? that is awful.

he should keep his mouth shut. host: middleton and west virginia talking to current and former members of the military only. what are your thoughts on campaign 2024? caller: i am a u.s. navy vet. i want to correct the previous caller. jd vance did not call those who -- he didn't call them cowards or chickens. he didn't do that. i want to correct that. also, as a u.s. navy vet, there are many issues that are pressing veterans today. i agree with what vance said about walz. he is not attacking his record. he is attacking what he said. he said that he took weapons to war, which he did not. that is an ally and that is what he is calling them out on -- a

lie, and that is what he is calling him out on. this election is not about people, like harris or trump. it is about direction. this country has been going in the wrong direction for a long, long time. i support efforts to bring this nation back where it should be. we were energy independent under trump. the question that people need to answer is, what ronald reagan asked, are you better off than you were four years ago? host: that is very in north carolina. in terms of what tim walz said, this was the comment from 2018 from tim walz that jd vance was referring to. here is the 32nd video -- 30 second video. [video clip] gov. walz: he said you are the only person i know in elected office. you need to stop what's going on. i spent 25 years in the army.

i tell you what i've been doing. i have been voting for commonsense legislation to protect the second amendment, but we can do background checks, cdc research, make sure we don't have reciprocal carry among states, and make sure the weapons of war that i carried in war are the only places those weapons are. host: the final sentence is what jd vance was referring to and what has been the focus of at least the past week or so. it could be again today when jd vance is set to talk in pennsylvania at a vfw post. we will be covering it on c-span. talking to current and former members of the military only. your thoughts on election 2024. this is jay in woodlawn, tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a former war veteran of the army. i would like to say i do

appreciate mr. walz's service. i respect him for that. what i don't respect him for is -- he was a command sergeant major. he did not take qualifications for sergeant major to keep that rank. when he retired he retired as a master sergeant. him continuing to leave the service, turn his back on his brothers, the men who was a leader of, is disrespectful to all veterans who have served in

wars as well as the fact that he continued to use his rank as a command sergeant major when he was a master sergeant. host: that issue in today's "washington times" on military rank and a criticism about tim walz and what he said about his military rank. noting that he joined the u.s. army national guard in 1981. he served as a command sergeant major, rank e-9, but never fully obtained that rank. he retired the lower rank of master sergeant, e-8, although he has spoken of himself as a retired command sergeant major in the past. the story notes how that process works in terms of what requirements are needed to officially be a sergeant major and to serve in that capacity.

again, he retired as a master sergeant. that story in the washington times if you want to read more on that part of that criticism that walz received. robert, englewood, california. caller: i served in the army. like walz, i was 17. i joined in 1966 to 1969. this to me is a bunch of crop that they are trying to -- like they did mccain. started 24 years in the army national guard. i would like to see one of these guys complaining about him try to do 24 years in the army. i'm voting for them 100%, harris and walz. host: robert, you talk about the swift voting.

remind voters about that and how do you think that played with members of the military at the time? caller: i didn't like it. to me, i remember when john mccain got off the plane. when he finally got to come home i had tears in my eyes. that guy was a hero. john kerry, too. he was in country. he got awards. trump is saying things he's doing over and over. host: do remember the voting ad from that election focusing on john kerry? caller: yes. i was very pissed off, believe me. i don't get it when they say that veterans are voting for republican. i never voted republican. i vote democrat. republicans don't do nothing for veterans. i tell you, down here in florida, there is something going on in florida. i don't know if you see cnn the

other day. in the villages, that was always a conservative stronghold. they had a rally for harris-walz and that place was packed with people with signs and shirts. i have a feeling that he might be in trouble here in florida. host: robert in englewood, florida. a story from politico talking about attacks, if they will hurt tim walz. noting that it's not the first time that questioning a candidate's military record has come into play in an election. talking to a former kerry strategist about what the swift vote meant for the kerry campaign. veterans for truth campaign ad that aired focusing on john kerry service record. [video clip] >> if u.s. getting question about what john kerry is made of, spanned three minutes with the men who served within 30 years ago. >> i served with john kerry. >> i served with john kerry. >> john kerry has not been

honest about what happened in vietnam. >> i know john kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because i treated him for that injury. >> john kerry is lying about his bronze star. i was there. i saw what happened. >> his account and what actually happened is a difference of night and day. >> he lacks the capacity to lead. >> you could not count on john kerry. >> john kerry is no war hero. >> he betrayed his shipmates. he lied before the senate. >> he betrayed the men and women he served with in vietnam. >> he dishonored this country, he certainly did. >> i served with john kerry. >> john kerry cannot be trusted. host: that political ad is now 20 years old. it came out in august of 2004. we are talking to only active and former members of the military only in this first segment. this is john in sidney, nebraska. good morning.

caller: yes, thank you for calling me. host: you called me, john. what do you think about veterans issues in the selection? caller: i think tim walz needs to grow up, for one thing. he had a nice, soft pushy career -- cushy career. i was very young when i went to vietnam, thailand, laos, cambodia. jesse ventura, you know -- i had five uncles who dodged the draft by saying that they had a medical condition. the fifth one they didn't reach out to. they had a doctor say they had

it. my fifth uncle was drafted. they didn't reach out that far, so he got put in the army. they took him into the marine corps off the bus. h desertede. you want to talk about cowardness. he still got an honorable discharge. host: john in nebraska. remi in brooklyn, maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a quick, brief update of what is actually going on. being 78 years old looking back at vietnam, laos, cambodia, fast tracked through the goal four, iraq, afghanistan, the $37 trillion in national debt. the problem that i'm seeing with

all of this, regardless of who it is and where it is that you served, what it comes down to is this country is probably the most hated country on the planet. you cannot continue to kill millions in order to make trillions for the corporations that manufacture and produce those things that we have used again and again so these politicians can remain as distractors. these politicians are nothing more than distractions. they do the bidding of the corporations to keep us doing whatever it is we continue to do. you can't buy into it. host: do you think having somebody who has served, the vice president of this country, that is going to happen regardless of who wins in november, do think that that will change things? talking about the military-industrial complex, am i putting words in your mouth or is that what you are referring to?

caller: you can use that terminology. it started back with eisenhower. regardless of who we put in, it is politicians doing the same things they do over and over again. what we do to turn this around? it is to the point where ai is pretty much on the precipice of turning this country around if they continue to direct us away from what we are actually doing again and again. we can close down 500 of those military installations we have all over the world, bring home those instruments of destruction and people. set up near the border. put over 200 receiving stations for these people. these are things we should be talking about. it is not -- sorry. host: when and where did you serve in the military? caller: 1960 six to 1972 national guard started in jacksonville, florida and ended up in memphis, tennessee.

i actually saw what came back from vietnam, laos, cambodia coming off the planes and took them to the hospital. that image has always stuck with me. you cannot walk past those 58,000 names on that granite wall in washington, d.c., and if you don't have tears coming out of your eyes by the time you get to the end of the wall you are missing it and buying into the ice cream and putting that these politicians want to serve you. host: this is dan in independence, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm dan and i was in the military. for years in the air force in five years in the army national guard, nine years in the navy. i have been around the world a couple of times. i was in by guam. i wanted to bring up former republican presidents. nixon, a criminal.

reagan, the contract he was pardoned for. bush, bunker bombing, bunker buster bombs in baghdad. and trump. they say they have a mandate from the people and they don't even have the popular vote? every time they get in they say we have the popular vote so we have the mandate from the people. they haven't had a popular vote and i don't know how long. shady jd, he is not even worth talking about. i am a biden fan for a long time. host: what you think about the biden administration's record on veterans issues compared to the trump administration? trump will often bring up his administration and veterans issues. caller: i didn't mention it, but i'm also a disabled veteran. i've never had a problem with the veterans administration ever. everything i ever wanted, i talked to them and got it taken care of. host: that is dan in oregon.

this is rick in colorado. caller: good morning. my name is rick in colorado. my question for the kool-aid drinkers who like trump who calls the military losers and suckers, where did jd vance's eyepatch go? host: what are you referring to? caller: he used to wear an eye patch on and off when he was in the senate. now, i don't see the eyepatch anymore. was that a prop? he is trying to say he is a wounded warrior? that is my question. common sense. host: what do you think is the most important veterans issue right now? caller: like the guy from maryland was talking about, it's the industrial war machine that

this country has always been about. billions of dollars. host: when and where did you serve and why did you serve? caller: marines, four years. host: why did you join? caller: i joined, first of all, because it was a job. you had to be a merchant marine to get your seaman's ticket. host: this is robert in connecticut. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, john. how is your sense of humor? you are asking your choice for president. did you ever watch the show "are you smarter than a fifth grader?" host: i have heard of it. i don't know if i've ever saw it. caller: the question is, who do i want for president?

my comment to that is 70% of the people when biden was there did not want either candidate. i think maybe you tell me now if they do the poll again. do the american people want either one of these candidates? that is what depresses and frustrates me in general that the american people did not want either candidate, john. host: we talked about this on monday on "the washington journal." it's fine, we could talk about it again now. the polling when it was by then and trump, 40% of the respondents said that they were dissatisfied with their choices. that number, since kamala harris has joined the ticket and the assassination attempt against former president trump, has jumped significantly. i think something like 15 points

of people saying that they are satisfied with their options in the selection. -- in this election. more people are telling pollsters that they are satisfied with their options. we are talking about veterans today. our veterans satisfied with their options, satisfied that regardless of which candidate you pick there will be a vice president who has military service serving in the vice presidency? caller: yes. host: are you happy about that? do you think that will change things or raise veterans and military issues to a larger degree than the attention they usually get? caller: i don't know how much power a vice president really has, john. that would be my comment. so, i really can't comment. i don't know if it will make a difference. i am a veteran, disabled. i served four years in vietnam

and was wounded. i am repeating myself. i don't know how much influence he is going to have. host: that is robert in the constitution state, to the lone star state. this is bradley. good morning. caller: good morning, johncaller:. yes, sir. when it comes to mr. walz, whatever the issue is as far as his military record, it tells your campaign decorations but it won't tell if you have been in a classified operation but it will tell you deployments. as far as his integrity, if he is not going to be honest about some of the things that he's done or as far as what he has participated in in the military, what else is he willing to lie about? it seems to me that he knew

exactly what he was doing. for the harris campaign to pretend like they didn't know, when you have dd 214's to go over, they knew. he thinks like they think which is why he is their choice. host: what do you think kamala harris and donald trump think about military and veterans issues? who do you trust more? i think that we lost the caller. donald in jacksonville, florida. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am -- i call c-span a lot early in the morning. just like tim walz, i am a retired veteran. i did 24 years in the united states navy and got an honorable discharge. life has been good. i'm just taken aback about how

they are attacking tim walz when he did 24 years in the national guard. i was listening to cnn the other day jesse ventura was on there. i wondered why the national guard was deployed to iraq. it was because george bush, by executive order, sent the national guard to iraq. really, they shouldn't have even been over there. also, i was taken aback because if tim walz made that comment, we all make comments in the heat of the moment that may not come out right. but to listen to veterans who support donald trump who didn't go to vietnam, because of his family finances or whatever and because he was reported to have bone spurs.

then they are attacking tim walz for making a mis-comment, however you want to classify it, and they are supporting the biggest lawyer up ever seen for office. -- biggest liar i've ever seen for office. it is amazing how the country supporting this guy. i support tim walz, i respect his service, and i will be voting for kamala harris and tim walz for president and vice president of the united states. host: donald in florida. what you were saying about donald trump and his military service, this service, this is a column from the l.a. times from last week. the author is a 25 year veteran and cofounder of the modern war institute at west point. this is the first couple paragraphs of what he says. when i was an officer in the u.s. military, i abstain from

voting in national elections. it was one way to keep the armed forces nonpartisan. now, to uphold the same value imprint the military from becoming a palooka tool, i believe in november everyone should vote for whoever has the best chance to keep donald trump out of office. he goes on to say this is not a political statement. this is a strategic judgment based on fitness to lead to defend the united states and protect the civilian military balance that has enabled our nation to become the greatest in history. he says today's u.s. military is the world's most powerful weapon. this weapon must not be placed under an unfit commander-in-chief, as the former president showed himself to be during the previous administration and as he is bound to be again if he regains power. that from the los angeles times. this is james in virginia, just

after 7:30 on the east coast. go ahead. >> 22 year air force veteran. i will vote to support the ticket of kamala and tim walz. former president trump never served all the classified documents he has not turned over or had taken back from him as the commander-in-chief when you are in the military and you support and defend the constitution you promise to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. i do not want to call him a domestic enemy, but his actions do not speak highly of the military dedication that the men and women around the world in our armed forces have to deal with and do every day without reservation because we love and want to protect this country. american citizens -- i'm not going to disparage mr. trump,

but if he were truly -- if you truly love this country and devoted any time in the military you will know he is not the man to support this country. thanks. have a great day. god bless america. host: the new york times is taking a look at the careers of presidential and vice president of candidates. the only two who have part of their career moments in green showing military service, jd vance and tim walz. jd vance in 2003 at the age of 19 joining the u.s. marine corps , served in operation iraqi freedom, was a u.s. combat correspondent from 2003 to 2005. tim walz, the governor of minnesota, but in 1981 he joined the u.s. army national guard, active through 2005, retired from the minnesota national

guard after serving as a command sergeant major. he retired at the rank of master sergeant. their career paths listed in the new york times if you want to take a look. carry in georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i am retired navy. i did 20 years in the navy. then i taught 20 years high school rotc. tim walz is the guy that convinced me to vote for kamala harris because i have a similar career. i did 20 years in the navy and then taught high school rotc. he was also a teacher, coach high school football, so i know what this guy went through. the thing that bothers me most about donald trump more so than

kamala, i know politicians make things up sometimes just to get a vote, but i cannot take the lying. the navy is built on honor, courage, and commitment. i just cannot take that. he seems like a person that is not trustworthy, not honorable, and that bothers me. i am from new jersey. i knew about trump before he ran for office. he has been that person for a long time. tim walz is the guy that caused me to put my checkbox on the democratic side. i am an independent. host: did you have concerns about his past comments about carrying weapons of war and criticism he has received about what he said about the rank he retired in? does any of that concern you? caller: it is not because he served. he might have misspoken about his rank, but the man served.

i know what it takes to serve. i know the sacrifices it takes to serve. i was married. i know the sacrifices my family made. the man served honorably. that got me to check that box. host: what did you learn teaching rotc? caller: i learned the importance of teaching young people good citizenship because that is without program is all about. people say high school don't teach civics anymore. rotc, that is what we did. we taught kids the importance of volunteering in the community. that was a big thing. respect for other people, that was important. we taught them how to develop your self-discipline. paying attention to detail and current events. our seniors had to do current

events once a week. that was some key things i thought about rotc. host: are you opera -- optimistic but the officers of tomorrow in tomorrow's military? caller: there are more bad -- there are more good kids than bad kids. the bad kids get most of the press. they just need leadership. a lot of them are not getting it from their parents. the economy is tough. they have to work. but 95% of the kids are great kids. they just need some help. the rotc, our leadership, they took the freshmen and sophomores under their wing. we were against bullying. we told them they are part of our team, so i have a lot of confidence in the future of our young people. they are very smart.

they just do not get the recognition and press that the bad kids do. host: this is ed in florida, good morning. caller: greetings from the free state of florida. i am an army veteran, served six years, second infantry division. i am voting for donald trump. in florida, we have a congressman in the form of -- gus and donald trump did well with the veterans administration. we have a new facility here in new port richey. the veteran administration has improved 100% prior to donald trump getting into office. we are well taken care of at the v.a.. common sense will dictate the

fact that donald trump as president had a commonsense approach to business. the united states is business, big business, and donald trump is a businessman. referring to tim walz, as far as his record, there is no such thing as misspoke and miscommunication. either you were a command sergeant major and either you did carry weapons of war, if you were in combat you were in combat. if you were not, you were not. he was an acting jack, we call in the military, not a command sergeant major. that is a new word for lying. that is ed in florida.

aenlisted veteran, i supporthe harris-tim walz ticket the trump administration caused chaos in the dod nva in round one. i have no si for round two. adding no to wannabe dictators. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i am supporting harris and walz. that last statement made a statement that prior to donald trump the v.a. was better, so he's basically saying that obama and vice president biden at the time made the economy better. i do not understand how if you do not put that uniform on, no matter what capacity, or serve

in this country, how can you let a man like donald trump -- i was too young for vietnam, but i did serve 40 years in the army, infantry, but i do not see how anybody can let a man like donald trump stand there and belittle our veterans. i am not going to belittle jd vance. he served. he was in combat. tim walz, same thing. if you do not put that uniform on and serve this country, how can you support a man who makes comments disparaging -- at a rally a couple weeks ago, he was saying cut donald trump, how he would like to fire his generals and put nascar people in, that he think they could do just as good a job. if you do not think things like that, when you have a candidate out there putting down your military who did not serve --

there is something wrong with you. i do not get how you feel that man knows anything about the military. a lot of people dodged the draft and everything based off their status. you can almost go back to the civil war. people, if you could pay enough, to get out of fighting at that time they did. if you do not think that is what donald trump did, that is crazy. i do not get how people sit around thinking that man is good at the military and that when he was in there were not wars and stuff like that. biden did not start the war in ukraine and he did not start that mass in israel but somehow he is getting the blame for it. if you did not put that uniform on come and some of these people i hear calling up -- i don't

even know if you were in the military, but you would not want somebody questioning you on that. host: this is chris in arizona. caller: i served in the navy. when trump was in the office, people around the world respected america. in the last 3.5 years, people around the world did not respect america. i am going to be a trump voter. when trump comes back to office current we will have respect around the world. host: when do you think people stopped respecting america? you said it happened in the past 3.5 years. what was it? caller: when trump was in office, there was no war in ukraine. the president of russia

respecting america. north korea was not firing off no missiles. when did, -- when did kamala actually -- she has no inkling of what the military does. i mean -- host: that is curtis in arizona. donald trump is often pointed to the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan as the moment -- a change moment and how the world views the united states. he said that in speeches and comments. this picture from the front page of the wall street journal today , the taliban celebrating their third year of their return to power, security personnel in afghanistan taking part in a military parade yesterday at a former u.s. airbase to celebrate the third anniversary of the group's return to rule in afghanistan. you can see that picture there. this is ronnie in georgia.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a retired military that come up years service. i did it with honorable soldiers i served with. some are deceased and some are still alive. our veterans need respect because some of them gave -- i am going to back up. i want to start with donald trump, but i do support harris and walz. donald trump cannot let's talk about top-secret documents in his house. let's talk about january 6. calling the georgia secretary of state to find him some votes. trump is a threat to the united states of america and we do not need this guy back into office to have control over top-secret

documents or anything close to that. he is a threat to the united states. when i raise my white head -- right hand, i went in and i retired in 1994. when i raised my right hand, defend this constitution from foreign government and domestic government, and what happened to -- it is a sad day if people support this guy. the only thing he wants to do is fill his pocket and million air pockets. i love this country. thank you. host: that is running in the peach state. this is eddie. caller: good morning.

this is my first time calling. i spent over 20 years in the marine corps. there are two things that the military do. they are either training or at war. i cannot hear a word you are saying. i guess i need to turn the tv up. host: do not turn the tv up. i am listening to you. caller: ok. i cannot hear you. you heard that? host: yes. caller: you are in training or combat. do you realize how many people that were in combat? don't talk about the impact of this man unless you understand the military. i cannot hear a word you're saying because i am not listening to the tv. when i was in the military -- the whole united states marine corps. let me say this to her people. my wife and i have been married for 46 years. my dad served in the korean war.

my wife's dad served in world war ii. i served in desert storm. my son served in afghanistan. my grandson is currently on active duty. i never heard you guys talk about discrimination in the military and i can tell you some things. i want to make this clear. i love the unites states marine corps. thanks happened to me that you would not believe. but i accept that and move on and fight to fix it and correct it and move on. i cannot believe we are sitting here talking about a man who served i think 24 years in united states army and we are talking about -- we are missing the point of the impact he has had on the united states military. he trained all those folks.

that corporal jd, i respect him. he is a fellow marine. i would give my life for him as well. but the problem is when you put those records together, if you want to do that, you look at the impact. by the way, one of the things that marines like jd do not understand, the marine corps promotions are different from the army. once you make a marine sergeant major, you are there. you do not go back. so i want to make that clear this morning. i hate to see a fellow military guy get up there and criticize each other for something that don't make sense because this man has had a tremendous impact. i can tell you why that is important. when i was in desert storm, i had reserves all around me. these was a civilian people as

reserves and they were outstanding. so we cannot denigrate these people. let me say this and i will go. that is like telling a woman if she is pregnant and she don't go to combat she is not -- that is stupid. she is just as good or the impact she has put into the military to help defend this country, how can we talk about about these people? that is all i have to say. thank you for listening. host: that is eddie in alabama. just about 10 minutes left this morning about getting your sense of campaign 2024. this is randy in virginia. >> i served a .5 years in infantry and army. i have one thing to say. everybody is talking about all this stuff. trump did pretty good and i am voting for trump, but everybody's forgetting about the

code of conduct. i served to guard this country and their way of life and i prepared to give my life in their defense. that is all i have to say. i think everybody ought to go into the military as soon they get out of college. they should go for two years, everybody, because they will learn a lot like i did. host: david in new york, you are next. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. it gives you a lot of time to think about the lessons and people, so i am still mixed up about it. let me get right to this. right now, our military recruitment is down by 40,000.

you look at trump and his relationship with the military, just the regular guys. he is on their side. this idea did you serve or did you not serve, if you lie about it that is on you. that is reflected glory. i do not like to even talk about -- it is just tough to talk about who is brave and who is not. the guys that ducked it, they still have doubts in their own mind. i do not have to think about it that way. i went because it was my turn and i did not think about it any other way. i got the notice, i went. i did my time, i got out. that was it. everybody i think has some

patriotism and should have some idea of giving back to this country. i am voting for trump. i see him as a better choice for the military. he will bring it back and we need that in this dangerous world. we have problems that we are going to face and we better have a strong military. i think trump would do that. host: on recruitment, a story from military times on recruitment numbers, noting that the marine corps has brought in 101% of its recruiting target for the year to date, up from 100% this time in 2023. the navy is already expected to fall short of its target for a second consecutive year. the air force and army, which have struggled to meet their recruiting goals, have indicated they are on track to make mission as it is called.

marines and air force on track for 2024 recruiting, navy projected to miss. nate in las vegas, good morning. you with us? caller: i am. i went in the same day ronald reagan took office. everybody said you're crazy for going and because of the hostages in iran and everything. the only reason i went in is because i could not find a job. and i hear these guys talk about all the time they have spent in the military, and a lot of times you are really not doing that much. four years was enough for me. i am voting for trump. when we had trump, everybody was

in line. god bless him. the democrats -- host: what do you mean, everybody was in line? are you talking world affairs? caller: i'm talking putin. i am talking about iran. nothing was happening in the middle east. he was making agreements with all these countries in the middle east. trump is the guy. stolen valor for this guy walz. i remember when the iraqi war started up. all of a sudden, all these women started getting pregnant because they did not want to go. host: that is innate in nevada. this is j in florida. caller: good morning. i would like to correct something really quickly first. when you stated that article about the numbers being reached at 100% but you do realize they

lowered their numbers from previously because they could not match those? so that is misleading. we will set that aside. walz did mislead in his record to gain popularity. he did it amongst veterans where he was trying to gain votes, so that is just obvious. nobody is saying his service was bad or anything like that. trump never said that and vance never said that. what they said is he misled people and he did. a lot of people do it. a lot of people want to feel they were in combat when they were not. it is an ego thing. let's look at it realistic. everybody calling and against trump and for harris have stated one thing in common, and that is that trump did not serve in this and that. ok.

i do not remember biden serving and i do not remember harris serving. host: on military recruitment numbers, you are right that they have been down in recent years. why do you think that is? what is the answer? is bringing back the draft an answer for that? caller: i will tell you something. the military is a necessity. service has always been through civics. we do not teach civics anymore, so we not teach service. we do not teach service to country. most people do not feel responsible for having to do that. if it is not going to be a career or job, lack of education has a lot to do with it. when you require only a high school diploma and nothing more or a ged and that is your basic

grunt that is in the military because it is all academy. i mean my people are talking about you have such a difference in equality when it comes to the economy cut you have poor and rich and ultrarich. in the military, you have every guy that works but he works under somebody who is making a lot more money than he is and getting by a lot better. they are less affected by anything that goes on, war or anything, because they can step back from it. they disincentive eyes people to want to do it, so the highest time you get for list meant are when jobs are scarce. we all know that. that is when you get the highest recruitment. when you had four years of positive growth, they do not want to go in the military.

they were making more money. the military does not pay much. so there's not much incentive. now, with the economy the way it is, people are starting to look at it and going, i need guaranteed income. i have a family. if you have children, you can join the military. they will take on the responsibility of that family for you. a lot of it depends on the economy for enlistment, but they lowered the numbers of how many people they wanted to get in. in other words cut let's say they needed 100,000 and they got 80,000 the year before, after that they got 60,000, so they say we are only going to shoot for 70,000. that is what the marine corps day. that is how they reached their 100%. host: i'm running short on time and have more people waiting. this is diedrich in maryland. caller: good morning. i am glad to be on the air.

a fellow veteran, those of us still rolling right now -- i'm currently still serving. i'm going to have to -- one of the things i have heard about when certain people that this was better and that was better, there is a reason why there are so many corrections were things that happen in the past. my brothers and sisters in combat, diversity is not a bad thing. this stuff that fox news different. the gentleman who said something about females getting pregnant and not wanting to go to combat, when i was a young captain, there was a gentleman who was

relieved and he had to go back and take a look at what he would leave. absolutely no evidence, that is just your anecdotal evidence that you saw a your unit. that is the one i really wanted to address. every day we are in close combat. that is what you do. you had better believe we do it and we do it better than anybody in the world. i can't tell you who to vote for , just understand there is a reason why you go to general callie, they will tell you which way to go. it is the backbone of the army. bottom line is --, have a great

day. host: last caller in this first signal washington journal. stick around, plenty more to talkon on the role of big tech this campaign season and later, the closer look at recent crime trends in the u.s. we will be right back. >> campaign 2024 has evolved in some unexpected ways and from now until election day, c-span promises you unfiltered coverage of the candidates as they battled to win the white house and congress. you may not know that c-span is a private company that operates without a dime of government money and we've been impacted by core cut. we are asking for you to help support our unbiased political coverage with a donation.

best of the, an anonymous donor has pledged to match your donation. you can find out more at c-span.org/donate. help ensure that c-span's unique longform coverage of politics is hereay. anyou for watching and anks so much for your support. >> c-span now is the free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening washington live and on-demand keep up with the biggest events with live streams of four proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, and more from the world

of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download for free today or visit our website, sees and.org/c-spannow. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. washington journal continues. host: our focus now on big tech in campaign 2024. wired magazine senior editor is our guest. i want to start with each candidate's relationship with silicon valley. how would you describe her relationship with silicon valley and vice president and her previous role as a senator and attorney general? guest: harris is one of the

first vice presidents to be from the bay area. she grew up in oakland and she does have a pretty good relationship with the tech sector. i believe what is important to note with harris is that she hasn't really said too much. even in her role as a senator, she wasn't really in that role during the times in which a lot of tech policy was discussed whether that was privacy or antitrust or other issues like that. she's done a little bit more work as vice president. she leads the ai initiative at the white house for she is talking with ai leaders, stakeholders, labor groups to create some type of framework for regulating the ad industry that all the kind of get from harris is the sentiment that we want to have regulation, but the same time we want to allow

innovation to take place and not really get in the way of all of the great thing that ai could bring to the world. it has been relatively opaque. it really doesn't lend itself to describing policy very well. host: what about donald trump, how did silicon valley view him during his time as president and his time since he has been president, and how did he develop such a close relationship with elon musk that led to that twitter interview this week? guest: donald trump, even prior to end being president and also running a 2016, he didn't really have the best relationship with silicon valley and through this time it's president nearly fought against companies like twitter, a smoke and other companies like that where he had a platform and posted frequently

after january 6 when he was kicked off of those platforms and had a really bad relationship with them. mark zuckerberg became a huge target for him and he ended up creating his own social media platform because of it. in the time that trump has been elected and right now, a lot has changed for him. specifically, thinking about when he was president when it comes to tiktok. he was one of the first people to want to ban tiktok and now he is on it, working with some of the biggest tiktokers out there in order to free people for his campaign. also now he is really into cryptocurrency, something he famously tweeted that several years ago saying he didn't the understand what it was and what it was a scam. there has been a lot of evolution to trump whereas with harris, we still don't really know exactly what is that she would do. host: what did you think about that interview on x elon musk?

guest: going back to last year when robin santos was running and he announced his bid with a popular venture capitalist. they had a lot of the same issues. the audio issues, the glitching and the screeching sound was fixed. but it took them 45 minutes to even get the conversation started and then they spoke for almost two hours about a lot of things they talked about at the top of the assassination attempt and some policy issues, but they didn't really get too deep on those. the call itself, it shows just how much elon musk is supporting donald trump to give him a platform that large. at the peak of that conversation there were about 1,000,003 hundred thousand people on the call. host: we are talking with a tech and politics senior writer at

wired magazine, a tech in campaign 2024. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. mckenna kelly, explain what we mean by this term a tech and what the tech's relationship has been when it comes to getting involved in presidential campaigns in recent years. >> they tech qualifies a handful of major tech companies in the united states. that would be meta-which was previously facebook. google as well, microsoft. i think openai is becoming into this big tech definition as well. over the last couple years, i think predominantly when you look at spending at the top of the decade, a lot of these big

tech companies were funding democratic efforts. eric schmitt, who used to be a big leader in google, he is one of the premier democratic fundraisers. he has been involved in a lot of democratic politics. famously supported hillary clinton and now other democratic candidates. they've been for the rapid democratic politics for a long time. but we are seeing now is a switch amongst a small number of the silicon valley venture-capital founders making that switch over to trump and saying out loud and posting about it all the time. host: where does this spending come from? is there a big group that represents a sector in big pharma, or does big tech, is it more these wealthy individuals? guest: some of the individual companies have their own individual company packs that they will give money to. when you look at those records, it is pretty well divided 50-50

between democrats and republicans. of course a lot of these congresspeople who these companies donate to directly, they are friendly to big tech. they have worked with them before. they've spoken to them at hearings and like that. but there are also others that are more of an industry sector pack area future forward as one of the biggest operating this year. that is receiving a lot of money from venture capitalists like reid hoffman, ron conway absent invalid angel, and folks like lorraine powell jobs. i think it was just recently that as soon as harris got on the top of the democratic ticket, a lot of those people came back out and said that they were going to commit $150 million to her campaign. host: ryan is in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: i'm watching a program

about big tech and campaigns. what i've come to find is that i'm a registered independent and if you happen to be a trump supporter, you get blocked from sharing anything, sharing any data or anything that criticizes the left or talks about covid mask wearing or anything else. in america, a so-called free country, why are we allowing corporations to restrict our free speech, and why are we allowing employers to go through people's facebook and basically act like a bunch of cyber nazia and restrict free speech? guest: the question that this caller said, the main question was how can these private companies enforce these free-speech rules infringing on free speech? back in the 90's, a law passed,

and there was a little part in their call section 230. it provides companies a land of the shield for a people post on the platform. if i said something that could be considered harassment, defamation, you couldn't sue facebook. you have to sue me. that rule is also provided a bit of a new paul, a lot of lawmakers say, for people posting all kinds of stuff on the internet. the biggest thing i think is also the private companies, when we look at things like citizens united and things like that, because these two have free speech of their own, when u.s. people who support them in the industry what they will say is that these companies have run free-speech and that qualifies them to control what people are saying on the platform.

host: you mentioned in section 230. what does big tech have to gain or lose legislatively when it comes to executive orders in the next administration? what are they big concerns right now? guest: that involves all the time with whatever the important issue of the day is. of course we had conversations that misinformation, disinformation throughout the 2020 process and now section 230 being brought up again and if it allows these platforms to allow these deepfakes politicians being on the platform and also section 230, they love this law. it allows them to grow to as big as they are today to become these american giants and huge economic powerhouses.

but when it comes to what would happen this year it harris were donald trump were to be rely -- reelected, i think the main thing that she did at the time was she went after a lot of -- she became a voice for people who have had sexual photos of them posted online. she's a vocal supporter of that and section 230 could be used. but the section 230 should be amended or something like that, she has been more opaque about that as well. speech and content moderation to privacy. host: mckenna kelly, her new piece if you go t wired, the

who sue of political influencers of today. one or two of the more teresting characters that you profilthere. guest: that was a really fun project. it came together in about a week. looking into the dnc is the first time the content creators are being credentialed at the democratic national convention. some of the people on that list are going or went to the rnc a couple weeks ago. some of the most interesting folks on there, and a lot of them are interesting to me. when it comes to the people who have come out in support of trump recently like logan paul, jay powell, these are famous boxers, wrestlers who started out as bloggers online. they originally got their start on find if you remember that and recently they had trump on the podcast. a huge streamer on a platform called kik is associated with

the famous misogynist andrew tate and he just recently streamed of trump as well. i think that shows you a certain base that they are trying to reach through these specific streamers and predominantly nonwhite men. host: samuel in wisconsin, independent. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to ask your guest, could you give us an update on sam bankman-fried and the silicon valley bank and what political parties they were affiliated with? guest: sure. i'm not too familiar myself with what exactly the same of the sam bankman-fried trial cases at. i myself and not too much of a financial reporter. more of a policy person. when we talk at sam bankman-fried, you've course was one of the biggest donors to democratic and republican campaigns.

and a lot of that money is gone this year. when we are seeing now is the crypto industry, the entire industry becoming a bit more galvanized and creating their own packs and other things like that to sway candidates into spring cryptocurrency regulation that they find beneficial for themselves. host: gina in kentucky, democrat, good morning. caller: back when computers were first starting out, they kind of made a deal with tech networks and kind of gave them a free hand on everything. and they were putting rules down on them.

i think it is kind of unfair when your televised media and your paper print media and all other media, they are liable for what they say. they have to say i'm sorry. but social media and computer media, google and all of those don't have to. i something needs to be reined in. what do you think about that? thank you. guest: when you look at the differences between c-span or the wall street journal or wired, we are considered publishers. that also under the media thing they were talking about. facebook and instagram, twitter, they are just considered platforms. there the 11 to speaking into existence. those are the key differences lawmakers are looking at.

host: wed.com if you want to see the published pieces there. a lot of focusn x, on some of the viewers on the mosque-trump interview iseek. the c-span review watching along this morning writing the fillon-trump interview with just 1.3 million people eavesdropping on two of the country's most influential people, from the pages of usa today. this is the headline. truth social is over. what did the interview this week mean for the former president social media site truth social? >> he said that trump doesn't really need anymore, twitter anymore. i'm truth social he could say

whatever he wants. he returned to twitter to promote the event. posting far more on truth social that he was on x and now he is still postdated truth social primarily. i think he likes the free range that he has on truth but a lot of the people on their are trump supporters, not people who are criticizing them or fact checking him. i think that says a lot about how candid campaigns view x and whether it has that power it had to create new cycles to drive narratives in the news. now it seems like it is not really that poured in. host: line for democrats, you are next. caller: i really appreciate your perspective on silicon valley. i've worked in silicon valley for my time at hewlett-packard.

and even during my time at sun microsystems, it felt like tech was involve a lot more in what is good for the country, good for the government. i did work at microsoft for a little while and it definitely changed a bit. a bit of a disagreement, shall we say. but now it feels very much like what is in it for me? as opposed to what is in it for the country, what is good for the public good. i'm curious about your perspective on that. >> they tend to have more shareholders asking us to make more money. that is definitely one part of it.

something that you can look at now is artificial intelligence and how that can be used for good. we are still having those conversations. sam altman, fulton the white house, these meetings that they had. to do things better for the common good. maybe the hardware, the microsoft, maybe they are chasing money more than good as you are saying, but i think when we are looking for new technology, that optimism, even though it is scary to a lot of folks, there is still a certain amount of optimism about what ai could be doing. host: jd vance, can you explain his biography? guest: jd vance popped up on the

main street in 2016 when he published "hillbilly elegy,"'s memoir about his time growing up in ohio. you've course went to college at yale and peter teal, the same venture capitalist, i don't think he's gotten there yet. he really admired his thinking and through that connection got involved in venture capital, where he worked on different projects for just a handful of years. i think jd vance's connection to tech is sometimes exaggerated because he didn't spend that much time there. though he has turned into someone in the senate now as someone who is critical of big tech. he oddly supports we nick con any a lot of for efforts were even when you look at people in the tech industry on the democrat side, they will say we

like everything about the biden administration. he definitely embraces tech more than anything but i also think we need to drive home that his time in silicon valley as he did exaggerated. host: new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i was really surprised. i'm the first time caller longtime listener. i'm really surprised that you didn't get any time. host: anytime to what? caller: anytime to discuss mr. trump's speech yesterday. all the sudden you come up about military. host: we've got open phones coming up here in about 20 minutes. a half-hour of topic that anybody wants to bring up.

we can chat about it then. what question do you have about big tech while we had mechanic kelly for us? i think we lost leonard. tin is in north carolina, independent. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: most people don't understand that it is 213 for the internet where these companies cannot be seen. we've gone back and forth trying to get mostly the republicans. these tech companies can be held liable for giving this information and everything else. i think most people would know that the democrats are more toward trying to do this information, but both sides are.

i don't know if your guest is aware of that. the federal judge just said google was done as a monopoly. holding their feet to the fire to where they need to be held accountable for fraud. about the guy in washington, d.c. for $200 million. i just want to make one other comment. i used to like brian williams but it seems like c-span, even though you guys try to be impartial, it seems like you kind of lean another way. you need to go back to what this station was 20 or 25 years ago. host: i really like brian lamb as well. thanks for your comments. what do you want to pick up on from there? guest: when you look at issues like section 230 and antitrust,

like he said, the doj case that actually resulted in this win with google and deciding that it was operating an illegal search monopoly was launched under the trump administration. but when you look at these issues like section 200 30 and content moderation or antitrust laws for privacy and things like that, the main question is asking how much power to these tech companies have? how do we break them down, how do we make sure that they are working for the common good, etc.? those are the conversations that legislators are having. of course the answer maybe for some folks is section 230. breaking up the company into smaller pieces because if they have to be more competitive may be able change their policies. it will work the way capitalism does, supply and demand. i think folks are having those

conversations right now. those conversations are taking a very long time, but i think a lot of good policy ends up taking a while in the end. host: west palm, north carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. before he said that he tried a narrative, but it's very frustrating. i'm an independent voter, voted for trump in 2016 and biden in 2020. the misinformation that he propagates, i just want to know what your opinion is as far as their moral authority. just the amount of misinformation is staggering. then you have voters who rely on those platforms in a way to make decisions along with their news programs. it's very alarming, truly

alarming. guest: i think a majority of these big tech companies are going after misinformation and disinformation the same way that they did in 2020 with x as an outlier because elon musk took it over for the coming off free-speech crusader on the internet and wanting to ensure everyone had a voice. i think his answer to this is that he has this thing on twitter called community notes, which allows people in the communities to correct things, fact-check things and then essentially people vote on them to see if they are true or not and it comes up underneath the tweets. that has proven to not work out the best multiple times. and yet, i think people have that sentiment that he isn't wielding his response ability properly. host: we go back to your story about the who's who of political influences.

viewers can read it there. coming out a day after president biden welcomed digital creators to the white house for a summit to the president's remarks for yesterday. >> my staff tells me that the greater economy is rallying to $250 billion. i'd like to talk to you about borrowing some money from you all. [laughter] and it is expected to double in the next few years. you're tired of hearing me talk about it, how history is changed by mostly technology, and changes in drastic ways. but think about it. i do wonder if any of you on the side of the equation thought this was going to have the consequence it has. i really mean it. think about it.

changing not only with people listen to, but what they put their faith in. what they are doing, changing the idea that is consequential and where they go and one of the things that i found, at least as i tried to stay current, is that you all understand that you have an obligation. in the patient to report what you think is true. -- an obligation to report what you think is true. we have all been divided into competing camps. i know i look like i'm 40, you can smile. but i've been around a long time. it's never been this bad before. i mean the press, i mean the way we treat each other in politics. it's incredibly difficult to

count the number of lies that people here. they don't know what to believe, they don't know what to count on. but you breakthrough. you breakthrough in ways that i think you're going to change the entire dance of the way we communicate. that's why i went to the white house, i'm looking for a job. host: president biden yesterday at the white house. guest: i think biden making that joke at the end that he wants to give influences is pretty funny. about what he thinks his life post-white house is going to be. he is right. it is a two had a $50 billion industry. there's advertisers, creators, people who are making their livelihoods on these apps whether it is tiktok, instagram, facebook, and they are having increased power and politics. there was a recent survey conducted by an agency called billion dollar boy that found that in this election alone,

about one quarter of all content creators have been approved to make some kind of political content within that is free campaign directly or a nonprofit or another group like that. so the money is out there for these folks. there's 200 of them going to the dnc next week. they are rolling out the blue carpet for these creators to stand on it do interviews with people in the media and think it is important because it is addressing a certain issue we are having an immediate consumption diet right now we've gotten so used to getting political news from platforms like facebook or twitter, instagram, tiktok, and the news industry has gotten increasingly more fragmented as intimately more news outlets start to collapse. people doing kind of freelance commentary on tiktok reading the news and providing that to people. kind of creating these people that they are certain audiences in the millions.

they build these relationships to the audience and deliver the news that way. social media has changed even since 2020. you can type in earthquake. it's not the two men anymore. people are looking more so to individual creators and their relationships with them. host: joe biden for a second, your story from late last month, joe biden lost the internet. harris is trying to win it back. explain. guest: joe biden got a lot of praise for having used the internet. he used twitch, and he just did lofi beats which was kind of crazy in the authentic platform.

but over the years, joe biden kind of lost touch with his narrative online. he said sometimes he was dark brandon shooting lasers out of his eyes. you go to another influencer who made the work of him for a video, he's telling a really compassionate story about laws and things like that and of course people are multifaceted but when you pull out people so much like that, you give different pieces of them and they kind of lose this overall narrative, this overall description of who they are. and i think harris' campaign and she landed with that charlie xcx brat moment, and help define or something that everyone recognized. she was the silly on who you could throw a lot of things onto her because of the memes at the time. what the harris campaign is doing really well with there was content being made that the

campaign. they were able to embrace and acknowledge them without having to create the content themselves for it to become a little cringey. host: michael is next in the bronx. independent, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. a two-part question. i would like to know what she thinks about the recent supreme court stay a vapor luminary injunction which gave the biden administration and kamala harris the ability to coerce social media training to posts and centering speech. and two, why does she think the trump administration wouldn't mention that to favor their campaign and the republicans? thank you. guest: on the first part of that

question, that case was launched targeting how the executive branch and the government interacts with social media platforms. for the listeners and watchers right now, a lot of that has to do with covid and other misinformation on issues in 2020. the stay was placed and basically allowing this case to stay, i think i have this right if i'm remembering correctly. that they are able to -- the government is unable to have these conversations. i think that is still being worked out. we will see when it really hits trial. these are issues that people have brought up for a really long time and it is either going to be solved not at all, legislatively or through the courts. host: james in arizona once to come back to what is and isn't a publisher and who can be sued

for content. he says that sjostrom media coanies control and center the posted content, doesn't that make them publishers? guest: sure, anything -- people to make that argument. the other side of that is looking at these platforms and saying that they have re-speech rights of their own, and that free speech allow them to decide what goes on and what should be on the platform. host: what about the role of ai in this elections, elections to come, and concerns about what is and isn't real? guest: generative ai is a big change this election cycle. so far there hasn't been necessarily any major disruptions due to a deepfakes or ai generated content. we have course have a joe biden rubble called in new hampshire where there is a deepfake audio of biden basically telling republicans not to vote. of course that was not joe biden.

if i remember correctly it was a magician in new orleans associated with the dean phillips campaign who placed that protocol in the first place. that is kind of the most major incident we had. some little things, i think the stuff that is really shining through the selection are things that aren't necessarily ai generated. for the most part, we can kind of tell. if you look at a human ai hand, it is easy to tell whether or not that is real. but a lot of things that are just edited with simple software. cutting things down, clipping the end of sentences that candidates make to make it sound like they are something something they didn't. i think axios reported that the harris campaign had google search results make it more supportive of her campaign. i think those are the changes that cause a lot of issues in a and might be bigger issues this year as well.

of course, deepfakes pose a significant threat of we just haven't seen them used in a serious way. host: time for maybe one more phone call. this is bill in mobile, alabama. good morning. caller: i see you work for wired magazine and i'm sure your company being the company that is as giving you seminars on diversity, equity and inclusion. and i'm just wondering if you believe in those concepts and if so, approximately what percentage of the people work for wired our trump-oriented people? host: is that something you would know? guest: i don't believe this is a proper question to ask. i have course to support all of my colleagues and i think we do a really good job in the work we do to be balanced and to report things objectively with authority. host: how long have you been at wired? guest: since november.

before that i was at the verge for five years. host: and air final minutes, we are just over 80 days until election day. what are you going to be looking for and writing about in the months to come? guest: while i am planning for right now is that in going to be in the d&c in chicago next week even with a ton of creator to see how everything goes for the first time having them at the convention. that would be an interesting thing i'm watching out for. also seeing how venture capital money continues to grow and at that is going more toward the right, more toward the left, and what kind of influence that has. host: wired.com is where you can see mckenna kelly's work, tech and politics. appreciate your time this morning on the washington journal. guest: thanks. host: coming up in about a half hour this morning, jeff asher will join us to take a closer look at recent crime trend data. but until then, it is our open forms.

any public policy or political issue that you want to talk about, the phone lines are grist to do so. go ahead and start calling in now and we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪ >> maureen callahan's book "ask not: the kennedys and the women they destroyed" has been neither tom of the new york times best-selling nonfiction list since its publication in early july. in a review of the book in the washington post, she wrote "she identified the wellspring of misogyny and irish catholic patriarch joseph kennedy senior in boston during the gilded age and traces it anecdote by

andote down through jfk, rfk and teddy and t litter of boomer generation men-boys by three kennedy wives." callahan depicts as political props driven to madness and alcoholism. >> maureen callahan with her book "ask not: the kennedys and the women they destroyed." book notes+ is available on the free c-span now mobile a or wherever you get your podcasts. >> sunday on q&a, active george takei, author of the children's but my lost freedom of victims the day he and his family were removed from their home and sent to an internment camp following the japanese attack on pearl harbor in 1941. >> my father came out, and to the door and one of the soldiers

pointed his bayonet at our father. henry and i were petrified. one of the other soldiers said get your family out of this house. we followed them out, stood out in the driveway waiting for our mother to come home and when she finally came out, escorted by a soldier who pointed a bayonet at our father, when she came out she had a baby sister and one arm, and tears were streaming down her cheeks. that memory is seared into my brain. >> actor and author george tokai sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> the house will be in order.

>> sees france elevates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to work policy is debated and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: 8:45 a.m. on the east coast and it is time for open form. any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about, now is your time to call in to do so. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. as you are calling in, an update on what is happening today on the c-span networks.

8:00 a.m. events when heom to campaign 2024. white after isrogram at 10:00 a.m. eastern. if you sy re and c-span will take you to a jd vance rally in new kensington, pennsylvania, raying for the vance-trump ticket. he will be joined by members of congress, republican members of congress who served in the military. that is going in pennsylvania. 1:30 p.meaern time this afrnn, president joe biden d vice president harris will be campaigning tether for the vice president in prince georges county, maryland, just across the border from here in washington, d.c. that event on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span video app. then a donald trump news conference happening in new jersey this afternoon, we wil be covering that andisolf club in bedminster. you can watch that here on

c-span, c-span.org or the c-span now video app. with that, your phone calls and open forum starting in alabama, decatur. this is gina, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: doing well, what is on your mind? caller: what is on my mind is 12 years, six months and 21 days in the u.s. army. i was medically retired. i do have a combat patch, and i don't really respect stolen valor. you know my boy is on active duty. i would just like to point out the last color that called. i admire what he said, the one that was on active duty, because they are training all the time and they are very dedicated

guys. and i just feel like we need a strong leader, because kim jong-un just put 250 missile launchers that had low yield nuclear capabilities on the border. in north korea. the dmz. i just think people should just come together and support our troops more. it breaks my heart, it really does that people called in and i respect both of them. sergeant major wiles and jd vance, he's a marine, that is the way marines talk. they are a different breed. but i really don't see what the big deal about all of it is.

they both served. i'd just like to thank them for their service. host: this is carolyn in ohio, democrat. go ahead. caller: i just want to think that way. i would love to talk to her. i agree with everything she just said and i thank her for her service. the reason i was calling, i watched your show where you just let military call in and there was some young lady, a 28-year-old that was trying to get into the military. the washington international guard in spokane, washington on the news last night. she is a nurse, on her feet 12 hours a day.

she lost her foot at 12 months of age because of some disease. that they will not let her into the military. and she is training again to try and get into the military. i just have always advocated for people like hannah. if you watched the program that was on cbs news, she just has a fight in her that we need. i am a senior citizen. i can't get into the military, i'm too old. but to see her, she works 12 hour days and she wants to get into the international guard and she is training again to try once more to get in, and the pentagon had told her that the policy is still the same. but if you watch the program, she just acts like -- i mean,

she is a normal human being, but she is such a fighter. i hope people take up her cause and i know they are hurting in the military with recruits. my father was a retired marine colonel before he passed. i just think we are doing a disservice by not getting this girl from spokane, washington a chance at least. host: this is debby in williamsburg, ohio. independent, good morning. caller: and calling in regards to a couple issues. one is making that comment, he was actually referring to reestablishing airgun policy in the united states, which is killing so many people by allowing these assault weapons out. he wasn't trying to build himself up.

i admire the man immensely. i've been republican and democrat. i consider myself independent because i consider myself an american citizen. and whenever troops are at war, we are all in or. we are all one, functioning unit. vance to me is a joke. when he ran, he ran basically here in ohio on a's coattails. i don't admire the man, i think he is a double talking person put on to cover-up lies for all these people who are soon to be talking for trump for not really

giving policy, they are just trying to reestablish their maga views. i believe think that is what the republican party wants. that is one reason why -- host: that is debian ohio. texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i haven't called in a while because we had a tornado hit about two months ago and i live in temple. we've been here six years and we've never had damage done because of a tornado. but this time, my wife's truck got banged up pretty bad.

i was just wondering, i said had i done something wrong? why have you hit us this time when you have been before? but what i really want to say is it is time. they had an earthquake in california the other day. it is time now for us to get serious. god is putting us in the same category as the people were in the last days. the weather is against us. everything is going bad. people are snapping. but the thing is, if you elect trump, god, whenever he attacks the world, he likes to have somebody that thinks they are ruling the world in charge so he

could put them in their place. and that is what he's going to do with god. when he is going to do with trump. he is going to put him in his place. first off, god doesn't like liars and everybody knows what trump is, he is a liar. host: nancy in florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you so much for taking my call. i have a couple comments to make and i sure hope you don't cut me off. i was watching yesterday's show and i was so excited that she was on their to get through. but i was so discouraged, and i'm not asking you to comment on your colleagues, but i was so discouraged to see the way the guest was treated. actually interrupted by a moderator. please don't interrupt our

callers. let the caller: on and disparage. it was so negative and so hostile that i just couldn't believe it. i cap trying to get in to give her some encouragement, which she didn't need, she held her own pretty well. but the amount of times that they let these callers go on was unbelievable. i know that you have, ask callers not to do that to guests, but that wasn't fair yesterday. very disappointed. host: out just say i think all our moderators to a good job here. it is a tough job to try to moderate these conversations. go ahead and finish. i've got other folks waiting to chat as well. caller: i think the moderators to a good job also. but i think a better job could

have been given to the guest. but not to the point of insulting. i don't know if you watched that sake. if you did, it is your fault. i would like to comment on your first segment of the day, to thank all of the servicemen and women who called in for their service. and i think that one caller might have had dan crenshaw and jd vance mixed up with the eyepatch. host: i wasn't sure about the eyepatch, either. i wasn't sure what he was talking about. thanks her pointing that out. mike is in kentucky, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just trying to figure out how anybody could think that tim walz can be any kind of good vice president with his record.

he locked his whole state up and people could not even go out and they had a tip hotline. if you see somebody outside, call us, we will take care of. is that what we want for a vice president? and putting tam ponds and boys in high school, what is the real purpose of that? i haven't the good that out yet. caller: thanks for taking my call. i tried calling yesterday but it seems like every time i'm calling in, i get cut off. somebody answers the phone and hangs up. i had these my caregiver phone number to get in there. somebody said what is trump's

policy? same policy he's had before. open at the keystone pipeline, get the gas down, get the groceries down, get the inflation down. stop these wars. they got two years, -- ears, but they're not hearing. some callers call in and say who wants a felon in the white house? if they would just listen to the news we've been reporting, how can you take misdemeanors and turn them them in the fallon. you know it will get overturned. he's a villain. i'll tell you what. they were misdemeanors. they turned them into fe lons. host: 15 minutes left an open forum. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. a topic we have talked about, the economy. specifically inflation. inflation hitting its lowest levels since the year 2021. that's the headline in the wall street journal today. the consumer price index rising 2.9% from a year earlier. the labor department said that is below expectations of about 3%. markets reacted in muted fashion. a signed investors have moved on from worrying about inflation and now fretting about the job market. it was yesterday at the white house advisor jared bernstein spoke about the inflation report. this is what he had to say. [video] >> does the white house think the inflation problem is solved? >> the momentum is certainly in the right direction.

inflation is reliably coming down. we have a record of disinflation, meaning slower inflation. that is now 60% or more than that off of its peak. this is a consistent trend moving in the right direction. no victory laps as i tried to assert in my comments. our work is not done. as we get inflation back down to pre-pandemic levels we still have to be mindful that too many families are facing too many high costs in health care, childcare, prescription drugs, health care coverage. in every one of those areas the president and vice president are taking aggressive action not just to keep inflation on the slower path but to ensure we are cutting costs wherever we can. we are very mindful of the fact that as inflation has come down as far as it has, over six

percentage points on the cpi, the job market remains solid and real wages are growing. not just this month but on a year-over-year basis for 17 months in a row for middle and lower wage workers. host: that was yesterday on the inflation numbers. one story we have talked about is the campus protests, specifically columbia university. news on that front yesterday you probably saw. resigning as columbia university's president, ending her embattled 13 month term during which time the new york city campus was the scene of a series of chaotic and sometimes violent protests by students, faculty and other activists. a picture there when she testified before congress. she is the fifth iv the president to step down over the past year. -- ivy league president.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to know. hi no florida just had a primary that i -- i know florida just had a primary voting day. trump just voted in the florida primary on 8/14. i am wondering how he was able to vote being a convicted felon. most of the convicted felons in this country, you know, can't vote even if they have the right to vote. i am wondering why it was so easy for him to vote and he's a convicted felon. thank you. host: voting laws are state to state. that is how it is handled in this country. margaret in new jersey, republican. 3 good morning -- caller: good morning. you people out there thinking of

kamala, she will restart the draft. your teenage sons will have their legs shot off. trump wants peace. i don't care if he's from the bronx and their melding all that. he is action. bye. host: that is market. george in michigan, independent. caller: hey john. thanks for taking my call. i wanted to segue into the russian story. how the ukrainians have invaded russia. what caught my eye when the wagner guy was marching into moscow without any are the resistance or any resistance, i segue back to that movie "the good shepherd" about the bay of pigs. how when they were interrogating a russian spy the guy said it

was all that's the stuff was not there. i have always wondered if we have always offered inflated russia's capability knowing they could not hold afghanistan and historically if they had help from the west they couldn't did what they done against germany. that is what i have segued. i don't know what your thoughts honor that. host: janice in chula vista, california. republican. caller: good morning. i have about four points i would like to make. host: give me one or two. caller: i will try. the selective outrage and selective memory of the democrats. they talk about trump being a liar. what politician has not lied?

they talk about trump cheating. i do recall bill clinton was quite the cheater. i don't care what trump did in his private life. i care about what he did as a president. you democrats are so selective with your memory. you voted for bill clinton regardless of what he did in the oval office. biden has been accused of stealing from china. him and his son. now that biden is no longer an operative -- a part of the clan anymore they are dropping dimes left and right. i would like to speak to my so-called christian brothers and sisters who want to talk about how could anybody vote for trump. remember who god used in the bible. he said [inaudible] conform the wise.

i have one more. god -- a murderer. houthi trump murder? hi do recall -- who did trump murder? marion barry was a convicted felon for crack and he came back. you democrats voted him right back in office. i would appreciate it if you democrats remember your own history when you want to go there with trump. he was the best president in my lifetime. i am so sick of you guys going over this liar, liar, liar when there isn't a politician breathing who is in a liar. have a nice day. host: a little bit more on that forbes magazine breaking it down. he voted in florida in the primary, spoke to reporters outside the polling site. the forbes magazine story noting as a florida resident within out-of-state conviction trump would only be prohibited from

voting if the state where he was convicted restriction from voting. that's according to the florida division of election rules. according to new york law, trump would only be restricted if he was behind bars, meaning he can vote in florida if he avoids prison time in new york. still facing sentencing and that conviction. the maximum sentence, 136 years in prison. hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. experts doubt he will see jail time as a first-time offender here. forbes wrapping up white donald trump can still vote after his felony conviction. steve in dover, florida. democrat. good morning. caller: thanks for having me on. a long time c-span listener and watcher. all my information on politics i get from c-span. i love watching the hearings and

so forth. just replying to the woman from california, it seems to me like they say trump did not do this or he did this or he did something else. what i have seen on c-span, trump colluded with russia. that was proven in the mueller report and the senate hearing report that i watched live on your program. he is guilty in my mind from the evidence i saw. he colluded with russia. he was found guilty in a court of law for voter fraud during the 2016 election. how anybody can say this man has done anything for our country. these are rented to the taliban at camp david and started withdrawing the troops.

trump did that, not biden. that is about all i got to say. people need to watch c-span and do some research of their own. host: to the pelican state, john, a republican. less than five minutes left an open forum. caller: 60 years ago, i was at purdue university listening to brian lamb on a rock 'n' roll radio station. i have been a c-span follower for a long time. the point i want to make. one of these little things they talk about the president as the commander-in-chief. i would like to point out -- i'm a commissioned officer in the air force, retired. 31 years of service with a vietnam tour on top of that. the president is the

commander-in-chief of the armed forces, nothing about the civilian. they have their own -- they call it the uniform code of military justice, which is the bible by which you must act if you are a uniformed soldier in any of the armed forces. it is one of those little things . people think he's the commander-in-chief. that applies to everybody in the united states. it is strictly the armed forces. i want -- one of these things. a little bit of education if you would by it. host: how do you think ryan lamb did is it just jockey at purdue? caller: he was a good one. i'll tell you what. interestingly enough, to show

how much i really also admire the man, they have the school -- there is a school -- i can't remember. it's not education. brian lamb at purdue university. i think it is committee occasions. host: it is communications. caller: purdue put it in place just because of mr. lamb. i think he's a neat guy. it make my heart feel good when i see that. host: in the college of arts and sciences at purdue, the brian lamb school of communications. you can check out their website as well. caller: that was it. i have a short memory. i'm 81 years old. you lose to do things. first is your memory. i forgot the second thing. host: thanks for that call from

louisiana. josephine in the garden state, independent. caller: good morning. good morning. my concern is the supreme court. 30 years ago when the roberts court took up the decision on roe v. wade i knew their intent back then. unfortunately, the roberts court has done everything to destroy what has been established law for a long time. the idea that we can go back -- scalia is dead but sandra day o'connor, who has since passed away, said she was badgered by scalia to vote the way she did. that is number one. it was scalia who came up with citizens united. it was scalia who came up with the guns. this reference to scalia is

something else. the court, when we vote in november it is for second-class citizenship for women. granted, everybody likes the idea that they have the right to vote. if we don't vote right then we are going to lose our citizenship as far as our right to vote in the future. the idea that we are concerned about it, you should be. they are doing everything in the roberts court by their blatant -- now blatant behavior and conduct. if we don't understand that citizenship depends on how we vote. i am going to be voting for harris. it would not have only been for harris. it would have been anything against the other guy, because he believes like they do. second-class citizenship for women. barefoot and pregnant, just like

vance said. host: we are running short on time. if anthony scalia is your least favorite justice as it sounds like you are saying, who would you put is your favorite justice of recent decades on the supreme court? caller: the one who passed away. rg. who else could command the people to appear? she was always echoed. she was always -- she was always that good. host: the last caller in the open forum. about 45 minutes left. we will be talking with jeff asher, crime analyst and consultant. we will talk about crime rates, crime trends in the united states. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪ >> next effort c-span's coverage

of the political party conventions we head to chicago for the democratic national convention. watch beginning monday, august 19, as the party puts forth their presidential nominee. hear leaders talk about the administration's track record of 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 latest updates and to watch our full coverage of the 2020 for republican national convention. you can catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign, or by scanning the code. >> on saturday, august 24, book tv on c-span2 takes you live to the washington convention center

for the annual covers of the library of congress's national book festival. we featured hundreds of in-depth and uninterrupted author talks. this year's yes include library of congress carla hayden, pulitzer prize winners doris goodman and todd wynn and more. the national book festival live saturday, august when he for, beginning at -- august 24, on c-span 2. >> c-span.org is c-span -- c-spanshop.org. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues.

host: if you have questions about crime trends, now is a good time to call. jeff asher is our guest. data analyst specializing in criminal justice data. jeff asher, in your years of doing this work what do you think the biggest misconception the average person has when it comes to crime trends in the united states? guest: that is a big question. i don't know where to start with that. probably the biggest misconception is that the anecdotes people here or the general vibe they feel usually don't match up with the data being reported. sometimes it happens. especially when things are going worse and crime is going up you have the vibe that the anecdotes match up with the trends. often times you have a feeling things are getting worse and sometimes they are. often times they are getting better.

you have no conception of that because you are so attuned to using anecdote and feelings to evaluate trends. host: perceived crime versus actual crime trends. what are the actual crime trends in 2024? his crime up or down -- is crime up or down? guest: pretty much every crime is dropping like a rock. you have to caveat that. 2020-21, the biggest increase in murders ever recorded. a 30% increase in 2020. it increased again in 2021. murder was lower than it was in the 1990's but has risen faster than ever before. it has since come down. reasonably large decline in 2022. 2023 was around 10%. putting context behind that, a 9% decline is the largest ever recorded nationally in the u.s. and when you're.

10% would be the largest. our sampling of large cities has murder down around 18%. we have around 275 cities showing that. we are seeing a severe decline in murder. we are seeing smaller declines in violent crime. overall declines in property crime. it is being driven after a huge increase in auto thefts in 2022 and 2023 that was largely due to certain models of kia and hyundais being identified as easy to steal. they skyrocketed in a lot of places and then peeked at the end of 2023. we are seeing a large decline after an enormous increase. host: we were showing a chart on the numbers from a report by the ma cities chiefs association, chiefs of police. some 54 of 69 major cities

seeing a drop in violent crime. that includes homicide, robbery, aggravated assault. are we doing something different in 2024? why are the numbers down in 2024? guest: good question. if i knew why they would not have gone up in the first place. it is very difficult to evaluate crime trends to know what the trends are. that is not easy. understanding why they are occurring and what we have done or what we can do about them is a really difficult thing to do. i .2 criminologists are not sure i point -- i point to criminologists don't know why crime fell in the 1990's. we do not exact what happened. we don't know now what is driving crime town are what we may not have done. it will be decades before we

have really strong tested evidence that builds a theory as to what we are seeing the declines now. host: where the 1990's the high watermark in terms of the modern era or times we have been keeping this trend data? guest: the 1990's were by far the worst in terms of the number of murders tied with the, early 1980's in terms of the murder rate. the violent crime rate in the 1990's was the largest it had ever been seen. in the middle and end of the 1990's we had the great crime decline. year after year after year of declining crime. in terms of murder, six straight years of declining writers. none of those matched the speed at which murders came down now. people are shocked. you look at chicago where chicago had an increase in robberies and from around

2000 to 3000 robberies. you compare that to the 1990's when chicago had 11,000 to 12,000 robberies in a year. it puts in perspective it is not acceptable or good place like chicago is seeing an increase in robberies, but the numbers are substantially lower in a way most people do not realize relative to where they were back then. host: this from the pew research service showing crime decline, the chart on the far left. violent crimes in the united states, the far left side. 1993. 2022 the far right side. property crimes in the u.s. from 1993 the 2022. you can see the decline in crime. we are talking with jeff asher, crime analyst and consultant about crime trends in the united states. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

the company that jeff asher works with, ah datalytics. guest: we work with law enforcement agencies throughout the country helping to improve the data, improve their ability to both internally figure out what is going on, analyze data internally, and improve public transparency. building dashboards and reports and ways for organizations to show what it is they are working on, their challenges, their successes. we work with education organizations. we are working on something called the real-time crime index. in a couple of weeks we will have data from around 350 agencies that are reporting monthly. the trends we are talking about, we will rely on quarterly reports or ad hoc reports. it will be a regular monthly crime reporting of our goal

of 501,000 agencies that will show crime trends as they develop in a way that's never been seen before. -- 500 to 1000 agencies. host: that phone numbers are split -- the phone numbers are split regionally. eastern and central, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. jeff asher. ben in washington, d.c. for morning. -- good morning. caller: what i would like to talk about is the sensitivity of saying a crime is down. it is not happening to you are i or a politician, they say crime is down. it gives politicians a reason not to solve the crime problem in this country. i will take the gentleman's answer offline. thank you. guest: very good point. we have to be sensitive.

if you're talking about murder being down 70%, were still talking about 18,500 murders in the u.s. last year. probably 16,000 murders in the u.s. this year. that is 16,000 victims. in a place like new orleans, they went from 265 murders in 2022 to this year on pace for about 150. that is a real decline of 110 murders, 40% in two years. that should be acknowledged and appreciated. we should learn from it. we should acknowledge that is still 150 murder victims. we have to separate the trend and look at the trend in an unemotional way as much as we can as humans while acknowledging you are talking about victims of crime. people who -- during this -- tremendous rape incidents or

their homes burgled or possessions stolen. even the minor crimes like property crimes can be serious for people. i try my best to not lose sight of that. we have to allow those two concepts to coexist. a trend can be going one way and appreciated while also acknowledging the problem is not solved and there is work to do. host: wayne in harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: my name is wayne. i want to ask why is it so much crime? everyday they try to blame it on immigrants. in the black community it is murder and crime everyday. the democrats and republicans are not doing their job. we need help in the cities. it's crime, no jobs.

what is going on with the democrats and republicans? answer that question. host: jeff asher, a couple of topics. guest: just a light question. it is very difficult to answer. there are all sorts of ways to approach that question. certainly, there is the bigger picture of you can go back to the country's original sin that created inequality, created levels of poverty, created systems that eventually led to mass incarceration. you can go back that far. you can look more locally at failures of local education systems, failures of the local economy, failures of local policing initiatives. you can look at cities throughout the south and the country that have failed in generating trust for generations amongst the community. you can look even more specifically at -- we know

people are deterred by the likelihood they will get caught. the certainty of getting caught rather than the degree of punishment and the strictness of the punishment. when we look at things like how most legislatures approach these problems, louisiana being a prime example, all the legislative approaches are not how to improve the likelihood of people getting caught so we will deter crime in the future. it's how do we enhance punishment? how do we make people pay longer sentences for certain crimes? yet clearance rates in 2022 were the lowest ever recorded. the murder clearance rate has been under safety percent in the last three years for the first time on record. host: what do mean by clearance rate? guest: the clearance rate nationally for the crimes is 9% in 2022. in places like new orleans, places like los angeles, like

chicago you are talking about 4% to 5% clearance rates for the incidents. a failure to approach these issues in a way that wealth legitimately bring down crime rather than approach from a harsh tough on crime, punish the offender's arrest as much as possible, has certainly not worked since the 1990's. it is not a successful wood to potentially solve the problem. host: what does clearance rate mean? guest: in theory, can your mind it is the percentage of offenses that have an arrest. it's a little more complicated than that. if the share of incidents, the numerator at the top of it is the number of incidents that were "cleared by arrest," plus the number of incidents cleared by exception. giphy have a murder-suicide, you know who did the murder. you can't arrest a person

because they are dead but you know if he didn't see you can cleared by exception -- clear it by exception. if i do a murder in jackson, mississippi, but i drive to atlanta and do another murder and atlanta police arrest me, i'm sitting in an atlanta jail. the jackson police know we did the murder but they cannot arrest me for it because i will go to the criminal justice system and atlanta, making clear that by exception. the denominator is a number of murders that occurred that year. the number of crimes that occurred that year. it's a little more complicated but it is supposed to measure how the share of incidents leading to arrests. guest: our illegal immigrants responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes? guest: that is one where we have to be very careful about the answer you give. the answer i would say is that there is no evidence of that. you have to caveat it -- i will

caveat it with the fact that we do not collect data on offender citizenship status. when arrests are made police departments are not determining whether or not the person is in this country illegally formally. there are heinous incidents where they say this person was in the country illegally, but it is not a systemic thing we collect data on. the other challenge is that we only know an offender's citizenship status after they are arrested. clearance rates are really low. you can't tell if you have a 20% rape clearance rate which in a lot of cities is lower. you can't tell who all of your offenders are because you're not making arrests in the cases. the workaround to answer the question is are we seeing surges in crime nationally?

the answer is thankfully no, not at the moment. if you were seeing a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants, it is not drowning out the national trend which is a decline. you can look at the places you expect to see declines to determine whether or not you are seeing surging -- if illegal immigrants were committing a host of crimes into a surge you a check to see them. i will look along the texas border. in texas itself. texas has a lower murder rate than nationally. the 14 counties along the texas border are even lower than texas as a whole. they are not coming up. they are mostly staying even in terms of murder rates and violent crime rates. the trend we would effect to see, immigrants were -- illegal immigrants committing lots of crimes, we don't see that in the data which makes me extreme the skeptical that the theory or

assertion that illegal immigrants are driving crime up nationally is happening. if it is happening, it is not large enough to show up in the data, which is what i'm looking for. host: 25 and is left with jeff asher --25 minutes left with jeff asher. if you hang on c-span with the program ends at 10:00 we will take you to pennsylvania to a j.d. vance rally taking place. stay with us after this program. this is james in kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. my question to the guest is, i'm a criminology major. i was wondering what is the job outlook for a crime analyst? guest: it is a needed profession. lots of them needed in a

professional sense. i have not worked for a police department and almost 10 years so i don't know exactly what the analysis market looks like specifically. crime data is difficult. crime data isn't perfect and it needs smart people that can help tell leadership and policy makers what the actual trends are at the actual data says and does not say rather than going on guts and vibse. es -- vibes. look at your local departments and find out if there is a place for an analyst on staff. host: how did you get into this work? guest: i was at the cia for five years, the defense department for one year. i met my wife and decided i wanted to move, and be closer to family. new orleans does not think about his problems very well. i was able to get a job with the police department with the first crime analyst they had in

decades. i did that for a few years and then started a consultancy. there is a lot of organizations, not just an specifically law-enforcement but throughout the criminal justice sphere that does not understand the data or needs analytic help or needs the ability to be able to draw data that can help them understand their problems. i appreciate being able to bring that to bear. host: what was the new orleans police department doing wrong? what changes did they make because of how you analyzed the data? guest: i think -- i have been working in new orleans after i left the department and asserted working as a public safety consultant within portland city council. -- new orleans city council. we have focused on a lot of the issues happening in new orleans, which are issues happening nationally. they are just happening more so in new orleans. you look at murder rose an incredible amount. from 119 in 2019 to 260 in 2022.

staffing went to 895 today. enormous increases in response time. the average response time went from 50 minutes in 2019 to three hours on average in 2023. with the city was doing is not acknowledging the problems. starting in 2023, they started to acknowledge these were legitimate issues they needed to confront. especially the response times. the department has lost officers but response times have come down because they added 100 civilians, having a contractor taking half the noninjury traffic accident so officers have more free time to respond to emergencies and work on cases, to do the things you need

a person with a badge and gun for that you don't need a person there that will take an item number that can be given to insurance. host: in florida, raymond is waiting. you are on with jeff asher. caller: how are you doing? i appreciate all the stuff you have done in new orleans. it is one of my favorite places to go. me and my friends every year for six years, except for the one covid year, that is what we spent new year's eve. it is good to feel safe in those areas. i wanted to mention one thing. i come from a psychological background. when you are saying it's about feelings and stuff like that, you have to understand people's perception is reality. if they are perceiving that their friend on the street have the house broken into or their cousin got the car stolen or whatever, that gets into their psyche. that becomes a belief window. that is what they are seeing out

of. it is hard to change that perception. you can try but to change someone's perception is hard to do. unfortunately, we have crime. you talk about illegal immigrants and stuff like that. what a lot of americans have a problem with is not the increase like the host was saying about increasing. it's about addition. we would not have crimes it wouldn't have these people in the country. i would like to get your thoughts on that. guest: it is a challenge and becoming more challenging in terms of impressing on people's perceptions. gallup did a poll in november that found 77% of people thought that crime went up in the last year. if you look at the reported crimes nationally, at the time most people think of murder when they think of crime. the crime with the highest societal cost. murder was plunging the fastest

ever seen. it has been eclipsed this year. we had declines in violent crime, property crime. i think it is difficult to get people out of that perception. there is a lot of reasons perception persists. one of them being the old saying that the media does not cover the plane that lands. i use this saying. they key covering all these boeing airplanes that are losing an engine and the landing. it is putting a difficulty on the saying. for the most part there is no stories on there were no robberies last week. nobody was shot last week. yesterday nobody shoplifted. we only see stories when there are positive instances. when we live in a data vacuum as we often do with crime data and make it difficult to understand i'm going on how many new stories i saw this year versus last year. people are better perceiving that.

they will always have a currency bias. one factor driving is social media. you have websites and apps like next door. you can go and share every incident and see every incident that happened in your neighborhood or a large part of the zip code. in a way you never could before you are attuned to all these incidents. you are not before. that is coloring your vision. we have doorbell cams where i can see my neighbor posted a picture of so many stealing the package. the house six houses down posted three weeks ago so many still there package. there must be a surge in package thieves even though you may have 10,000 packages delivered on your street in the course of a year and those were the two that were stolen. your perception of the crime trend is driven by what you see. it is difficult to put that within the data.

to make your assertions and assessments based on a harder understanding of the data rather than just your perceptions of what you think is happening. sometimes you are right but often times the perceptions are wrong. host: more charts on what is happening from your sub stack stage. the u.s. uniform crime report. violent crime is here. murder specifically. rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, theft. of those, rape and why that number has not come down as to medically as the other numbers since its peak? what would you tell people about that specific crime? guest: that's a hard one to measure for a couple of reasons. we note there's the national crime victimization survey taken

each year by the bureau of justice statistics. it shows only about 25% of sexual assaults are reported each year. we know that there is a vast underreporting of these events. the systemic underreporting of these offenses. we know that in 2013, they changed the way that they -- agencies are supposed to calculate rates. they have basically two different definitions. a revised definition and a legacy definition. even under the legacy definition you are seeing increases in a lot of agencies because they are being more inclusive of what is and is not considered a rape. the third issue with telling this is that oftentimes if agencies are able to successfully improve their relationship with the public, improve the public's trust they will handle things appropriately, they will lead to

more people reporting. the reported numbers might go up. you might reflect better reporting patterns rather than an actual increase in the crime. you can't prove that. it might mean there's an actual increase in the crime. rape specifically is a small percentage of your violent crime but it's probably the crime -- certainly the violent crime we have the least confidence that we have accurate numbers for because of all of the difficulty in accurately reporting it. host: bill in woodbridge, virginia. caller: yes. i have a question about the report to the fbi crime statistics. it was my understanding that the fbi had changed its format and they were -- they were many cities that were not participating -- there were many cities that were not

participating. has that been adjusted for? a lot of serious crimes have been reduced from felonies to misdemeanors. did you calculate any of that? guest: yeah. what you are referring to is in the 1990's the fbi implement at the system called the national incident-based reporting system. actually it was the mid-1980's. for the longest time it was voluntary. in 2015, the fbi said starting january 1, 2021, every agency has the transition or they will not be able to report crime data to us. in 2021, the fbi made the switch. they went from getting about 95% to 97% of the country's population covered by an agency reporting crime data to in 2021 it was about 65% of the country's population reported any crime data to the fbi. it was like 52% of the country's population reported a full 12

months of data. it was a disaster in 2021 for understanding the crime trends. the fbi released their annual report and had enormous error bars. the property crime change was like plus or -50% or plus or -40%. the fbi in 2022 backtracked and said if you're not nivers compliant, you can report under the old system. in 2022, participation went back up to the mid-90 percentile. it was a major issue in 2021. i wrote about it. nobody cared back then but now it became a campaign theme. in a clinician for why crime is going down. -- an explanation for why crime is going down. it is a thing that was a big deal in the crime data world.

it is something that has been rectified and solved. a lot of people coming across now are coming across an article from 2019 when you're trying to find who won the world series. the washington nationals. that was true but no longer true. we have a different world champion in terms of who won last year. host: robert in cincinnati, you are next. caller: good morning, jeff. my comment is crime is a direct correlation with economics. as the job market has been better different crimes have dropped down other than rape. i think that is more different category altogether when it comes to economics.

as the economics improve, that is why there is a direct correlation with the crime decreasing. guest: i think you can point to economic factors as a driver, especially at a local level. i think it is harder to say if we improve the economy we will see crime go up or down. when the economy has gotten worse crime has not necessarily gone up. 20 economy has gotten better crime is not necessarily gone down. it is something you can look at as a factor, an ingredient in the recipe of the driver of crime. i don't know it is necessarily a main factor and not a factor we fully understand exactly how to work it in. we note there are other things that can be drivers of crime going down.

there is no reason to just focus on the economy or just focus on improving the fundamentals of every life. there are other things that reduce crime. host: a little over 80 days to election day. how would you assess the trump administration's record on bringing down crime in the united states and the biden administration's record over the last three and half years? guest: i tend to be a strong believer that very little that happens specifically at the level of the president is a driver in crime. sometimes it goes up under democrats presidencies, sometimes it goes down and vice versa. it is difficult to say it goes up or down based on the political party of the president. the obama administration being an example of murder. probably the lowest point it has ever been or in 60 something

years in 2014. then i went up in the last two years of his presidency. under president trump violent crime went down for the first years of his presidency and then in 2020 murder surged. under the bite administration, violent crime without -- biden administration, violent crime went up the first year and then went down the last three years. if you look at every thing that happened in 2021 and 2022 with the inflation reduction act, you could build a strong argument that the influx in dollars and influx in spending and basically getting the country moving again and allowing state and local governments and philanthropies to start spending money again and accessing these tools that

they would have been using under normal circumstances in 2020 and 2021 to arrest the surge in we were seeing, you could probably point is that as a potential strong starter in the trend we are seeing. we don't have a ton of evidence. that is my personal hypothesis that you could point to that legislation and actions as a potential strong driver of what we are seeing now. but i don't necessarily know that is the fact. i don't have hard research and hard data i can point to. it is more of a theory then i strong evidence-backed argument. host: massachusetts, this is anne. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. i saw on your charts that it looks as though it is national. i was wondering if you have a breakdown of state-by-state. red states to blue states. does it make a difference if

estate is run by a republican as opposed to a democrat state like massachusetts? if you can answer that for me i would appreciate it. guest: in general, no, the state government does not matter. i'm in louisiana. louisiana has led the nation in murder rates for the last 33 or 34 years. it has been run by democrats over that span and is being run by republicans now. i'm in new orleans, which has been run by democrats over the entirety of that span. you well and has had -- been at the top five in terms of national murder rates every year since i was four years old. we are talking about failures of both political parties. right now we are seeing new orleans a big decline in murder, run by democrats. in jacksonville, florida, up until recently run by republicans, a decline in murder.

in texas, large declines in the big cities. houston, dallas, san antonio. we are seeing declines elsewhere throughout the state. we are seeing declines in san francisco, about his blue as they come. we are also seeing declines in places that are much less blue. i tend to think the political party of who is in charge does not usually matter. when things are going up and when things are going down as well. especially as it relates to murders. there are other things a state can do, how tough on crime and increasing incarceration and things like that they can affect other crimes. i tend to be skeptical it is a red-blue issue at the local or statewide level with respect to murder. host: 9:55 on the east coast.

we are chatting with jeff asher about crime statistics in the u.s. when the program ends today we will take it to the j.d. vance rally in new kingston, pennsylvania. it will take place at a vfw post. live coverage on c-span. it may start in just a little bit after 10:00 a.m. we will hang with jeff asher until the rally gets underway. keep calling in as larry did in detroit. good morning. caller: yes sir. are you waiting for my comment? host: what is your question for jeff asher? caller: we have lost control of traffic. i think that's where we should start with getting order. before you can have law you have to have order. i have often said if you can't

control the traffic, people driving the speed limits, something that simple. keep that in order. we all know crime, the root of crime is low morals. the leadership should displayed more morals. host: jeff asher on traffic crimes and trends that can lead to? guest: we know agencies throughout the country, the vast majority of large agencies lost officers during the pandemic from 2019 to 2023. that has led -- the new york times had a piece on this. it led to big declines in a lot of places in traffic stops and traffic enforcement. it is not something that is easy. do you go dedicate resources to

traffic or to investigating violent crime? it'll probably be the latter you choose if your resources are constrained. i think it is something that is difficult and something a lot of agencies are wrestling with. it feels like there's a lot. it feels like there are more bad drivers now than there necessarily used to be. that said, i don't know what the solution is. when you do traffic enforcement, so many millions of traffic stops you will get a bad one that leads to some sort of fatal shooting. departments are not only grappling with the personnel shortages but grappling with in the 21st century of how do you respond to these incidents if you know doing this enforcement will eventually lead to some

sort of viral video, some sort of bat incident. it is bound to happen somewhere. it is a difficult proposition for police departments nationwide to deal with right now. host: mississippi, james is waiting. you are on with jeff asher. caller: i have a couple of comments about the crime thing. i live 20 miles from memphis, tennessee. every day there is at least three or four murders. my other comment is if 20 people go into a store and snatch and grab, is that counted as one crime or 20 crimes? number three, in memphis, tennessee, i would say -- i don't know how you count the crimes, convictions or arrests or what. it's at least 80% of people that they never catch doing the crimes. i would like to get a rebate on

that. guest: this is one of the cities seeing a decline in murder -- memphis is one of the city seeing a decline in crime. they average under one murder per day. 170 murders is good relative to last year but only relative to last year. it is not a good number or acceptable number. last year memphis saw a horrific increase in murders. that said, memphis is one of the cities that is struggling with handling crime. struggling with the public's perception of the agency. it is struggling with building community trust. it had a rough last 20-ish months. i don't know what the clearance rates are. i imagine they are like many big cities where they are on acceptably low. -- on acceptably

-- on acceptabl -- unacceptably low. it is not that they can start see a declining crimes. host: we are running short on time here. caller: did you answer the question about if 20 people -- guest: i was just getting to that. host: jeff asher. guest: the way the fbi counts things, if you have 20 offenders on one offense it is one offense but they are counting the 20 offenders connected to that. you don't have -- it has nothing to do with prosecution or how many people are doing the offense. it only counts how many victims of the offense you have. host: jackie is next at a east elmhurst, new york. caller: good morning. morning. thank you for taking michael.

i had one point and then just a question. i know you new york city, i've lived here all my life i saw when the giuliani administration came in and the instituted sort of the -- you know, the quality of life issues, prosecuting small crimes and then that usually lead to a decrease in bigger crimes. i can just say that between giuliani and bloomberg, we had 20 really great years of lower crime and the city was doing great and then things turned around. and then of course with the george floyd murder and the covid experience, we really kind of -- things fell off a cliff. and then coupled with that was "defund the police" movement. my question, maybe it is too full -- how do you see the quality of life issue, trying to do those low-level crimes to

hopefully decrease higher crimes? and how much affect did the defu nd the police movement across the country and in more of the blue states -- definitely the blue cities -- kind of make -- increase crime? guest: to answer your second question first, defund the police was a saying and certainly a thing in 2020, but if you look at city governments, there were very few, really none that legitimately reduced the budgets of their police department. some increase the police department budget. it's not something that actually impacted the defund movement that led to fewer dollars for police leading to increases in crime, leading to whatever. it wasn't something that from police explaining the crime

trends we were seeing was a huge factor. as to your first question, it's a difficult thing to explain because a lot of the things that new york was doing, a lot of things at once, and new york saw and anonymous decline, but so did a lot of other places that weren't doing the same thing. it is hard as i what was new york -- hard to say what was new york and what was her thing is. new orleans, which wasn't doing quality-of-life arrests, went to 159 murders. los angeles went to a couple of hundred, which is not to say that new york didn't have a miraculous decline in crime and murder. it did, but i think the explanations -- it is easy to say giuliani came in, they did stop and search, things like that. but i think that the exact explanation for it is a little more uncertain.

for someone in my shoes, that's what i look at. host: about 90 seconds left here going to ask what you are going to be watching for in crime data in the final months of 2024. what can you say right now, and what are the questions that are still out there? guest: we are entering the fun part of the year for crime data. our index will, the first week of september -- come out in the first week of september. a very interesting that that counter to the reported crime data the fbi is producing, the fbi will, with its second -quarter data in the middle or latter part of september and then the 2023 data in the middle of october. i think the 2023 data will be interesting because the two questions are did murder fall at the fastest rate ever recorded in 2023. i think it is probable, but

there is enough of a margin of error that maybe you didn't. -- it didn't. is violent crime, assuming it fell, was violent crime at the lowest rate recorded since the 1970's? i know this has become a talking point, something i was talking about, violent, was very near where was in 2019 last year, or 2022. if it fell a couple of percentage points, then we would see one of the lowest violent crime rates last year ever recorded. from a strictly data per spective, those other things we are looking for. are we able to affect the trends as accurately as we think we are based on other forms of data waiting for the fbi to come out? host: we will end it there for now but let's have a the conversation with the new data comes out. jeff ashe