Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Steve Gutowski  CSPAN  June 7, 2022 7:01pm-7:47pm EDT

7:01 pm
ardor is connecting us for. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to
7:02 pm
democracy. >> the next guest is the founder and editor of the reload. you can look at website. news about gun issues and the latest shootings and the latest efforts in new york state and congress to pass gun laws. welcome back to "washington journal" per. >> thanks for having me but. >> tells about your publication. why did you start? and how has it supported you? do you have ads or subscribers? >> is a member funded organization we have subscribers that are source of funding. we don't have advertising its independent publication we exclusively on firearms in a serious way. >> do you feel like these issues were not being covered inth a specific way or being covered not as much as you would like to
7:03 pm
see? >> i think often times most movie outlets especially large media outlets have very little knowledge about firearms. how firearmst works, or even gn culture why people own guns. why the politics surrounding the fight over different restrictions. i'd tried to relate to bring more expertise to the topic and a little bit more specific focus. i've been reporting on this exclusively for the last decade i was with the washington for most of that time were a broken number of stories on issues whether aboutab the nra or about legislation in congress or the atf director position. i have had a lot of experience. and a gun owner of course.
7:04 pm
>> there's many stories in the main stream media. what you think some of the fundamentals reporters often get wrong and the reporting stories about firearms or firearms used in the commission of a crime or a mass shooting? i think a lot. a lot of mistakes made but the basic function of firearms a fully automatic a gun while fire continuously pulled the trigger down. there is a myriad of mistakes that are commonly made about what our gun laws are, how they work, what different proposals would actually do to change that. there is also a complete focus on just the criminal use of firearms. we talk a lot about this during mass shootings which makes sense it's v very important to have
7:05 pm
questions and cover them. we don't talk about firearms in many other contexts at all. a g. normal people own guns. there is a lot more to the story of firearms than mass shootings. >> you mentioned the term gun culture in thehe united states. what are some of the others that are under supported stories about america's firearm ownership? >> or the biggest stories over the last decade has been that changing face of gun owners in america. we seem a lot more women buying guns or seen a lot more minorities buying guns, theng stereotype who likes to hunt and that is becoming increasingly out of touch with reality. there has been some coverage of this media it is something that has been largely ignored and the
7:06 pm
impact it is having on politics has been under examined. and the reasons why people buy guns are really simplified. this a lot of different kinds of people who own o guns and they n the for different reasons. what does curse about your recent teacher newsletters had nra stumbles as gun-control momentum picks up steam party wrote this after the recent nra annual meeting in houston. tells with the stumble was by the nra and what is your editorial approach to the nra? >> we try to provide fair coverage of the nra not just the general public but for members to understand what's on inside of theto organization. we try to do it in a fair way that is not unduly attack in the organization or take a political stance. we do not run editorials or have opinion pieces. we do analysis and so in this most recent case we reported on
7:07 pm
the end of report they put out that shows their finances for groups that make up the nra. and frankly it's not a very good report. spending has been cut dramatically over the last three years and so has revenues in members their way down from what they were a couple years ago. >> any idea what's behind that? >> probably a number of things obviously covid had an effect on basically all charities. it's not just covid that cause them to cut people they have not rehired all those people that had internal turmoil for the last several years at the same time. for all the declines in revenue happened and they lost a membership that is based off of corruption allegations other members of leadership that created the internal fighting and really put a damper on a lot of members attitude toward the organization. youav also have the fact they're
7:08 pm
using very old fundraising and membership development that relies on direct mail. it's not so clear there picking up what i was just mentioning. we have a surge buying in the last two years and every thing that followed without the nra did not grow its membership at that time. that's a subject and of itself. >> you are in recent meetings as he pointed out was attended like there? >> attendance was very low even by their own numbers it was the lowest attended nra annual meeting since 2006. the same can be set for the board election nra membership organization part of it is the members vote on who is going to bed the board of directors. they had the lowest participation the fewest number of bouts returned since 2006. the members are not as engaged as they have been inn the past
7:09 pm
and they're not giving money as much regret steven is our guest founder and editor of the reload will be talking about congressional issues to congressional efforts to address gun violence we welcome your calls and comments as well. lines have been divided for republicans (202)748-8001. 2-027-488-0004 democrats. and for all others i'm sorry for gun owners f it's going to be 2,027,488,003. independence (202)748-8002. before he gets a congress i want to go to the story. that we started the program the reload's reporting on new laws that have passed and new york. to your view it were in your view is notable in some of these laws that have passed and now signed by the governor of new york? quicker. >> probably most notable some micro stepping require it's a new law that mirrors what california did years ago.
7:10 pm
the focus there is to require handguns to have technology that imprint the special marking on every showcasing that is fired out of that gun. the issue with this in new york the law will be once the state determines its viable to do that you will no longer beon legal to sell any gun does not have stamping technology for the fact is no manufacture in the world right now makes a gun with that technology despite the decade-long requirement from california. that's a total ban on the sale of handguns once that while goes into action. >> also part of the newark package that deals with higher capacityty magazines? >> there's actually a competition measure in the newark package of legislation because what they are doing is
7:11 pm
they limited the size of magazine but they allowed the ones people alreadyhe own to remain illegal per. >> grandfathered those in? >> grandfathered exactly. with the are now doing is removing that legal protection so if you possess any of those magazines you may have purchased legally at the time that would become a crime. you have to give them up or destroyde them. bucks have you heard how they plan to address that will they have some sort t of buyback orca grandfather. were you can turn them in? >> there is a grace. but new jersey is a similar action a couple years ago. they did not have a buyback they also did not couple with any sort of enforcement mechanism they were not going door-to-door necessarily to try to find these magazines either. usually the way these work is often times there used to pack on crime somebody commit some other crime with that done they
7:12 pm
happen to have a magazine above the limit that's probably how this will turn out in the end. >> the house is taking up legislation this week it was passed last week by the judiciary committee. it's called protecting our children active. some of the pieces include that would raise the purchase age for semi automatic weapon from 18 to 21 outlaw high-capacity magazines and sucks for civilian use. a require for the regulation of storage of firearms and crackdown and some purchases. subject those to background check requirements. lotsou there. the question we ask our viewers in the first hour in terms of raising federal age from six or seven states now to raise the age of 21, what is your view on that? >> obviously it's something that also lost in court just recently in california and the ninth circuit. i was in front of a panel but it
7:13 pm
was determined total ban of ar-15 and similar rifles for anyone under the age of 21. are between 18 and 21 is unconstitutional. it essentially age discrimination and a broad base was a ruling in that case. of course if it goes to the panel the full ninth circuit people expect that will uphold the law. obviously it is something even florida has done i you said only if you have tried these. a lot of laws are new have not gone fully through their legal challenges yet. will bee interesting to see we have is the regulate handguns based on age right now. that's general because handguns are much more commonly used in crime than long guns, rifles or shotguns. i also do not see at passing the
7:14 pm
senate frankly i talk to staffers on both sides of the discussion in the senate. age restrictions for certain kinds of rifles let's just not something's going to pass by. >> one of the elements of them caught my attention was the t bn on stocks for civilian use. correct me if i'm wrong i thought that was addressed by the executive order, byn legislation was it after the las vegas shootings? >> yes. president trump initiated federal rulemaking to ban a bump stock to reclassify them as effectively guns under the national firearms act which made anyone who had them you could not legally own them anymore after that. i guess this law is meant to codify that. right now it's already illegal to possess a bump stocks know it makes them. it sort of a redundancy i guess.
7:15 pm
>> you say you've been talking to some senate staffers about the negotiations are going on, what is theer difference? would you hearing it's different on the senate site as opposed to at the house is doing? what you think is possible in the senate? >> i think right now the discussion that has the best chance of ending in a deal to do with the red laws. not a federal statute that would allow federal courts to issue these emergency orders. but a federal model legislation with funding to incentivize states to pass those sorts of laws. that seems to be picking up the most esteem in the senate coupled with school security type measure like senator grassley's eagle act which would use the assessment center to look at schooll threats. i think that's probably the most likely thing tost come.
7:16 pm
but even that there's a lot of pessimism i think democrats are willing to take anythingg on gus that republicans are willing to put on the table. most republicans are more focused on things like school safety or mental health it's very similar too the debate we have seen before per. >> all of these mass shootings are horrific events. been watching this for a while you've watching reaction on capitol hill to these events for a while but is it your sense congress is closer than they have been in some time to passing some type of legislation? >> yes but that doesn't mean there actually that close i guess. closer i do such a horrendous event that's garnered a lot of attention and outrage of courser but solution on each side are very different from each other. so it is hard i think to find that common ground beyond something relatively small is not going to make either side very happy prickly flip calls
7:17 pm
for steve in north carolina on the independent line. goodin morning. >> good morning. i'm a first-time color i've really enjoyed the program today. i have a couple ofi questions. one raising the age to 21 how does that work with the voting age only being 18? i think the logic would apply to raising the gun to purchase age to 21 that is the voting age. i would not go along with raising the gun purchase age of 21 unless we also raise the voting age to 21. the second thing is i am wondering about how the violence we have seen gun violence in chicago, philadelphia, los angeles how is that going to be addressed? i don't think any of these laws seem to have worked. i think it's forcing the current laws a lot of cities have very strict gun laws they also have
7:18 pm
very -- the highest amount of gun violence in the u.s. and the one thing i would also like the gentleman there to explain is the red flag laws. my understanding with the red flag laws are going to violate pdue process. does that mean people are going to be ablein to complain about their neighbor being crazy and someone come take their guns? that is what i am concerned about. i will hang up and let you answer my question. >> those are all really good questions honestly. in the 18 -- 21 that is one of the objections of course to the sort of legislation wanted that legal arguments against it it's effectively age discrimination. we always have an age disparity under federalis gun laws because you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. but certainly the question becomes when his adulthood if we continue raising these age
7:19 pm
limits for gun purchases or for all sorts of other rights that are guaranteed in the constitution. it is something that is obviously an objection to the sorts of laws and something you see a lot of republicans and the senate effectively agreeing with this is not appropriate. it's not anpr appropriate remed. you also get into the idea of judging people based off their demographic group can be very dangerous idea of course we have seen throughout american history of that sort of logic take hold and lead to some very ugly things. and of course at the same time these are issues that are difficult to solve because most of violence as males between the ages of 16 and 25. that is what people want to target these sorts ofge laws. red flag laws, one of the
7:20 pm
important caveats to red flag laws these are designed to allow temporary seizure of firearms if somebody is proved to be a threat to themselves or others. but of course you have to be very careful about how you set up a red flag law because the common critique as they do violate but they do not give the opportunity for the person accused of being a threat to themselves or others to defend themselves. a in court and can be orders the defendant's money can be present for the first age of this process. then there is follow-up time how long it is before they can get into court and offer their side of the case. but that is too long that's of is a problem. then you have issues who can actually raise a red flag order. that varies from state to state right now. most states do not allow just
7:21 pm
anybody to do it. some have extended it to newark for instance allows police, prosecutors, family members, health officials was one of the things the dis- change in their lot and school officials. of course when you have them available to the fact it does not always work out anyway. look at the buffalo shooting presentation to a hospital for a psych evaluation and was apparently found not to be a threat to himself or others of humans later he carried out the attack. nobody use that in the case for i believe there is a third question they are. first. >> host: of the red flag logs city violence particularly what happened over the weekend shortly after the uvalde shooting brickwork sent a very good point.
7:22 pm
the other problem with media coverage focusing almost exclusively a mass shootings is different kinds of gun violence. most are suicide that's can be a very different solution to that issue of it's going to different policies to try to prevent mass shootings the same is true forui street crime or your everyday sort of murders which have increased over the last long decline. i think the issues you have to find the proper balance of policy is not one policy is going to address all these differentt things would probably know policies going to solve any one of them perfectly either. >> author from baltimore excuse me beutler indiana. walters on the republican line. >> good morning, thank you for taking my culprit hey steven how are you doing today? it is kind of funny i read steven's from that reload were
7:23 pm
talking about guns and weapons. i am a nice it's army veteran. we talk about race lot from 18 to 21 does that mean the military men and women of this country to have guns you think they are not going to be able to carry a gun until 21? that is preposterous the whole thing. i am sitting here looking i have an ar-15. thing is not moved. it has a high-capacity magazine and it. i've had it for years. it is never moved out of my room. it has never shot anybody. it has never attacked anybody. it is funny the gun did not hurt anybody. maybe it is not the weapon may be it is the people. that is a whole other issue. you get these in knucklehead seas of politicians and pundits" on tv that go weapons of war. and sheila jackson lee could not even describe what a whack at weapon of war is. what is that? i had a semi automatic had an
7:24 pm
automatic rifle in the military i had a 45 on my side so let's get rid of all the weapons of war? then we need to get rid of bombs and guns it is the same old same old pretty get to be old you realize anybody that is trying to fix the problem would go to the people who caused the issue. that's a family, church, god. it has nothing to do with that, let's ban cars because cars kill people. let's shut down abortion clinics because they kill people. so it all right walter in indiana on the ar-15 how often is that bought as a home protection firearm? >> that's one of the most common reasons folks by an ar-15. of course there are about 18 million ar and firearms according to the national shooting sports foundation which is industry trade group. some politicians might call assault weapons it includes ar-15 is the primary gun in
7:25 pm
there. most people do p buy them for he defense but i personally have one for that reason. they're also good for sports shooting as well. you can hunt with them depending on what kind of game you are hunting. that usually require a hybrid caliber to hunt things like your larger animals but you can hunt them there. but primarily outs a home defense is the main reason by them sports shooting comic target shooting being the others brickwork out here this time from baltimore robert is on the independent line. go ahead you are on. >> thank you so much for program. brought out this ar-15 i have pretty much a comment regarding the shooting in uvalde, texas. this young man i think was 18 years old clearly mentally disturbed. i don't think enough attention is being given to the fact this young man was able to acquire
7:26 pm
two ar-15's and at least 3000 rounds of ammunition. to an 18-year-old those types of products are well beyond their financial reach. so i am wondering who financed this young man to get thesese weapons? he was clearly already mentally disturbed. and i am thinking and i hate to sonic a conspiracy but someone is behind this young man acquiring these weapons. i think every time these mass shootings y take place there is always a so-called quote unquote opportunity for the far left to jump on this bandwagon about disarming people. you can clearly tell by my voice i am an african-american. i am ace cool teacher a graduate degree former marie court reservist. the nra lost me was a shooting that took place back in early
7:27 pm
2010 with the young man who coincidentally enough was in kansas. he was an nra member when he was pulled over by the police. and of course he told the officer i have a gun in my glovebox. i am an nra member. the guy got shot by the cop i'm not going to talk about that for what i am focusing on with the story is the fact the nra did not come to this man's defense. you cannot be collectively applications when it comes to a person. you all your members or none at all. that's when he lost me this guy had a legitimate case to have a weapon. his gun rights were clearlyai violated any paid for with his life. but those two issues disturbed me as far as who is financing the young man in uvalde, texas. and also the nra selective enforcement of their own policies.
7:28 pm
>> first on the money question there is no evidence anyone else paid for his gun we do not know that yet that is an interesting question those were expensive rifles that he bought. it would be good to know how we got the money to do that. given his age and lack of apparent income. as far as the nra question goes this is a common critique you hear a lot from american gun owners with the nra they do not speak up in situations like whas happened and it was of course killed by a police officer will legally carrying his firearm during a traffic stop. he had a concealed carry license and was allowed to have the gun he had on him. the nra did not do much in response to that shooting. and so you hear the criticism. >> is the nra responded to that criticism? >> the nra certainly has a lot of african-american members.
7:29 pm
they do often promote them in their marketing material when their speaking with the nra or have events for instance in detroit teach women there to carry firearms as an nra instructor's not they don't and in the african-american community it is a common criticism you'll hear when it is something that has led to impart the rise of groups like the national african-american association which is of course focused on african-american brickwork with hear from patty in wisconsin. democrats line. >> yes steven and c-span or "washington journal" for taking my call. i am a retired nurse i have taken care of patients who were shot, it is not pretty. my recommendation is when these
7:30 pm
shootings happen the people that are very pro- military style weapons should have to put on cloth covers over their shoes and be given a tour of the site. and at the very least were these last children were shot in texas before they tear the building down they need to walk through and see all of the interior building. secondly my daughter and son-in-law are temporarily working in germany in the healthcare system. they are pro-gun people. but they are guns have to be locked up in armories. check out your gun and you sign it back in. you are able to take it hunting or competitive shooting but it has to be turned in. and if it is not they will come knocking on your door because they had a situation there and that is how they eliminated all of these tragic murders. so thank you but you need to see
7:31 pm
it to believe it. thank you for taking my call, bye. yes obviously certainly firearms are deadly weapons. they can produce a lot of damage. it is horrible when their use against innocent people. think all gun owners realize that and recognize that and do not want innocent people to be killed in anyway whether whether it's with a firearm or otherwise. certainly i don't think there is a lack of understanding of that from the gun community. it is just lawful gun owners do not feel as though they are responsible for thehe criminal actions of other people especially people like the shooter in uvalde. they do not feel any connection or affinity to that i think often times people feel rather offended when they are compared or implicitly connected to mass killers in that way just because they own firearms brickwork of
7:32 pm
ask about legal liability issues of gun manufacturers. headline says uvalde demand answers the rifle made by the shooter, they say the attorneys representing the father of a 10-year-old student killed in the mass shooting at the elementary school in uvalde texas left 21 people dead filed a letter that controversial marketing techniques and any communications had with the government. legally, is that company of those types of companies subject to any litigation in that regard? >> there is a federal law which protects gun companies from lawsuits that stem from the chemical use of the product by third party. they did not have any involvement in the crime they did not know about it beforehand, they cannot be held
7:33 pm
responsible. similar to if somebody runs you over with a ford truck you cannot sue for it. this is the concept for this is something that is obviously onep of the president's biggest priorities according to him he's talking to the public to try to kill this law there's no effort to do that in congress. although there have been continuous attempts to circumvent these protections. i shouldyo note you can still se gun manufacturers just like you consume manufactures of a car or any other product of their is defective in some way. they canan cause harm and that's happened a number of times remington has been sued for defective. >> focusing on the marketing techniques advertising campaign paid. >> yes this is the tactic to try to circumvent the protection of lawful arms act. use on the sandy hook settlement with the remington and that was
7:34 pm
the biggest success they have had since the passage of this law. now it was not a court settlement it was not a court ordered settlement he was something done out-of-court between effectively the insurers of remington because remington went bankrupt during this lawsuit. so it was the insurers left with the liability and then they settled with the families of sandy hook. the idea there was the marketing of the bushmaster rifle used in a company has violated a state law they could not use that legal liability protection provided by the federal law. if they violated advertising laws of the state they are being sued in, then they can be held liable for the underlying crime.
7:35 pm
>> is a case with remington and connecticut? >> that was the argument. never got to the point of court decided remington or the families but the insurers ultimately decided to settle instead of taking it further down the legal. >> met reporting from ford on daniels defense do you expect the same sort of process to move forward? >> i would caps on expect the lawsuit to happen yes. whether or not they are successful bit as the sandy hook parents were as much bigger question. you've seen a lot of similar types of lawsuits thrown out as well brickwork but different rick on the gun owners line west of north dakota go ahead. >> good morning guys i hope you have a good tuesday. just a real brief comment on the uvalde shootings and the police to react to the criticism of police to react, those court cases thehe police actually have
7:36 pm
no duty and versus the districtu of columbia, castle rock versus gonzalez was a failure for a restraining order. and versus winnebago county also decided i don't think people with these findings. they just read what happened in the district of columbia think most people would be shocked. >> yes that is a good point. i don't think most people are aware of the legal situation surrounding policing. please do not have a legal liability if they don't do anything. it is not aou lega responsibility. they have a commitment to do that they've taken an oath to protect people. but they aren't going to be held
7:37 pm
liable if they failed to do that pacing this in school shootings in the parkland tubing there were lawsuits during the inaction of police in that incident. and i am sure there will be lawsuits in this incident. especially given the scene that we know at this point. given what happened were police failed to intervene for over ant hour with that shooter in that classroomth while parents were being restrained outside from going into hell. but the reality is the police do not have the sort of legal liability connected with an action to defend someone outside of very specific circumstance like if they are in police custody or they have been committed something along that line through the state has involuntarily taken control of their safety. and i think it is something a
7:38 pm
lot of gun owners point to as to why they own guns or carry guns. that is one of the takeaways you are going to see in the aftermath of the shooting. people saying the police did not protect even these children. i have a urgent response was not needed. it is ultimately up to you to defend yourself. i think that's one of the takeaways for a lot of gun owners. >> you are the founder and it is a subscription -based, how may subscribers you have? >> we have near 1000 subscribers now but most of our content is free. live just under 7000 free newsletter subscribers including people from the senate and the house in the white house. >> how to get the newsletter would have to do to get the newsletter? >> got a site for the weekly newsletter to once a week newsletter gives shoe and
7:39 pm
overview off what happened that we can guns. >> was hear from ryden in bradenton, florida democrats line. >> caller: hello? c1 hey you're on the air. >> caller: i would first like to get my perspective. thanks for taking my call. i'm a lifelong democrat. i've always wanted to be a a pat of marksmanship and always wanted a gun. i went i was 18 i had no firearms training or experience. so when i bought my first ak i made sure not to buy rounds wauntil i was completely family with the mechanism. and i think not a lot of people do that. i wanted to know if there's going be some sort of recourse from 18 year old to 21 year old to solve a pathway to owning a firearm and respecting their
7:40 pm
rights as an adult. being right out of high school. and last thing, strong room in every classroom for all kids to build a pack into and be able to have a lockbox and that strong room makes a lot of sense to me. the reason why i ammo an democrt is a free college equals more professionals in the world and more healthcare approaches happy people in the world including medical help. >> host: any thoughts? switch to the collar is a democrat in about an ak-47 when is 18 years old. this stereotype about gun owners is very much overplayed especially in media it is only specific of person who ownss guns. that color demonstrates that's not necessary the case. as far as his question on 18 -- 21 still being able to own guns i think under these proposals
7:41 pm
are mainly doing what florida did for instance is to raise the age of buying semi automatic rifles which would leave other kinds of rifles o and shotguns still available for purchase in that case although obviously it would effectively restrict the most popular rifle in the country which is the ar-15 and limit their ability to own them but in theory wouldim still be some ability there. and then of course school pardoning some of the main responses you seen especially from republicans in response to uvalde they want better doors with a single entrance point solution for school security. that has been the main policy proposal you have seen from republicans in response to the shooting rather than the other side is seen gun restrictions as the main response.
7:42 pm
>> host: it's almost surprising the ar-15 is the common choice for home defense in this regard it's obviously ait bigger fiream than a pistol. it seems a pistol would be easier to access and easier to store and have available for home defense needs in a pinch like that. what makes the ar-15 so popular in that regard? >> notes that handguns are still the most popular overall because there's more of them loosing more handguns than long guns over the last decade or so. i would not be surprised if any handguns or more popular overall. read the main purpose. the main reason you do that it is more accurate than a handgun. it has a higher capacity it usually for ammunition that a handgun does. it is still relatively light ani maneuverable and recoil impulses very little. so when a couple more calls jury in georgia republican line goodr morning. >> good morning.
7:43 pm
>> host: gerry you are on the air go ahead with your comments. >> caller: okay thanks. on this gun. [inaudible] i will never give up for anything concerning the second amendment. and very, very simple reason. you cannot trust a politician. if you could trust a politician addressing gun control would be no problem. none whatsoever. in one of the best examples i know right here in georgia when they passed the seatbelt law it was very lenient.ul the only way they could give you a ticket as if they stopped you from doing something else. every year since it has got tighter and stricter. tighter and stricter.
7:44 pm
that is where your gun law will be. if we ever give it up to change it or do anything to the second amendment they will never stop. >> are right gerry, steven a thoughts on that? >> yes i think this connectsco little to the earlier collar talked about gun laws in germany. in america we are very different from the rest of the world. i think of a lot of that stems not just my armed revolution being the birth for our country but also general distrust of government and politicians is higher here than in a lot of other countries. there is a tendency to favor individualism and self sufficiency. i think that plays a lot into our gun politics request, steven its founder and editor rethinks a ring with this or this morning. >> thanks for having me. quick's treasury secretary janet yellen testified on the administration 2023 budget.
7:45 pm
the economy and inflation. watch the senate finance committee hearing tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now are free mobile video app or any time online at >> c-span's washington journal every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we discussed the policy issues that impact you. but coming up wednesday morning, wall street journal sadie garment with the latest on the department of justice january 6 investigation. then election law expert rebecca greene verma william and mary at law talks about efforts to reform the electoral count act and its relevance in the upcoming january 6 hearings. watch "washington journal" live at seven eastern once a morning on c-span or c-span now our free
7:46 pm
mobile app. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. [background noises] [background noises] after months of closer investigation the house generates six committee is set to go public. tune in as committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now are free mobile video app or any time c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> welcome back to "washington journal" washington bureau chief for mother jones msnbc analyst as well but here tohi talk about several issues happening on capitol hill. we will start first with


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on