Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 05022022  CSPAN  May 2, 2022 6:59am-10:04am EDT

6:59 am
the covid pandemic and later, a look at key congressional primaries that are happening this month host: good morning, it is monday, may 2. the house is on a district time, the senate is in session today. this morning, we will begin by focusing on red lines for russia when it comes to ukraine. republican congressman adam kinzinger said if they use nuclear or chemical weapons, that should be the tipping points for u.s. armed forces. this morning, we want to know what redline you would set. give us a call.
7:00 am
democrats, (202) 748-8000. the publicans -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. otherwise, you can catch up with us on social media. a very good monday morning to you. we went to show you first a headline from newsweek from yesterday afternoon. adam kinzinger pushes redline resolution for u.s. forces of russia employs wmd's. this was adam kinzinger on face the nation yesterday talking about that effort. >> i don't think we need to be using forcing ukraine right now. i introduced an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president congressional leverage or permission to use it if wmd's, nuclear or chemical weapons are
7:01 am
used in ukraine. it just says if it is used, he has that leverage. it gives him a better flexibility. it's a deterrent to vladimir putin. if vladimir putin wants to escalate, he will. it's easy for them to do it. right now, what we are doing with supplying and financing is right. there may be a point that we have to recognize, prior to world war ii the were moments nobody ever wanted to get involved and came to realize they had to. i hope we don't get to that point here. we should be ready if we do. host: that was adam kinzinger yesterday. the wording of that resolution that he introduced, this is what it says.
7:02 am
host: adam kinzinger is a member of the foreign affairs committee in the house with that a.m. uf. we want to hear what redline you would set in ukraine, should the u.s. besetting redlines in ukraine? are you worried about escalation? democrats, (202) 748-8000 is a number. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. earlier, it was tim kaine, the democrat from virginia speaking on this idea of redlines and what russia should and should
7:03 am
not cross. this is what he had to say. >> do you think there needs to be a discussion of authorization of use of force? >> i think that would be premature. there is a shared sense that if russia were to take action against any nato ally, article five would mandate a military response. >> if president biden has already said he won't send troops? >> he is also said that use of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons could alter the equation. the status quo is we are providing massive amounts of aid to ukraine, both the u.s. and nato allies and others. if there were to be an invasion of a nato country, or a cyberattack or the use of chemical or nuclear weapons in ukraine, that would change the equation. for now, the right strategy is to flood the zone with aid. host: that with senator tim
7:04 am
kaine yesterday. we want to hear from you this morning, asking what redline you would set. bob is up first out of michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: as far as i'm concerned, the redline was already gotten to, as soon as russia invaded ukraine. don't forget how many years ago we said this would never happen again. the world needs to get together and stop this guy. he is nothing but another heckler. host: you are ready to send -- you are ready to send u.s. troops now? caller: i think the world ought to get together and go now. they should have done that is soon as they invaded ukraine. they should have done it back when trump was president. host: that was back in 2014.
7:05 am
to take your point on redlines, that's what we are asking. when do you think the u.s. should set them or what should that line be? debbie is in georgia. it morning. -- good morning. caller: my opinion is we've gone too far to be involved in the first place. i think the eu and the nato nations surrounding ukraine should be more involved. i wouldn't want to live in alaska right now. if we get so involved that -- in the conflict, what's to say russia won't go after alaska? alaska used to belong to russia. for me, i think we are too involved. we've got to step back and let the other nations surrounding
7:06 am
ukraine get more involved. let them protect themselves. host: some of them are members of nato. if russia were to invade a nato country, our commitment -- caller: why are we -- why is united states so on top of the list of defenders of ukraine, which i do sympathize with. i don't see -- the netherlands, poland, hungary, moldova, these other neighbors, they should be more active than we are. we have to really consider what russia might do considering
7:07 am
alaska is so close to russia. host: that was debbie in georgia. this is gregory in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i feel one thing that was highlighted with your clip on adam kinzinger, he is a part of congress. in general, i think congress has given up its power of war and authority. regrettably, what's going on right now is our many presidents are able to fight a war. i think it should be left to the people and the congress. i think it is sad that we rely on executive branch members to
7:08 am
start wars. host: you are going back to some history. it was last year that one house panel voted to repeal those 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force, a lot of discussion about outdated policy and congress retaking its role. there are continue discussions of whether congress needs to step in and declare war or authorized military actions. adam kinzinger with this new authorization of military force would kick in if it was determined that russia used chemical or nuclear weapons. that's what he wants congress to debate and pass. we are asking you what redline you would set in ukraine. megan in texas. good morning. caller: good morning.
7:09 am
how are you today? the question is basically what redline i would set. i am not in agree and's -- agreement with the current administration. i feel like he has put himself into a pickle. he withdrew from afghanistan. i feel like setting the redline is a good thing. it could actually minimize or may be deterred or let a mere something. i think it's great that we're doing that. the question i have, when they call the bluff. that's what worries me, when they call our bluff. i don't feel our current administration is as gung ho as we need to be. that is my only worry. i agree with the redline. i think it should've been done
7:10 am
sooner. i'm worried when it comes to calling the bluff. host: where would you set the redline? is it the idea of chemical or nuclear weapons? should it be continuing to honor the article five of nato? is there some other place you would set it? caller: i think me, i would've set that line sooner. i think it would've been drawn sooner. right when it started, right when they started bombing the entire country. i think the line should've been drawn sooner. also, i do agree with the article five. i agree with what he's doing. the redline should've been done sooner. host: thanks for the call.
7:11 am
a couple of comments from people on twitter. this is -- this is mlb on twitter. that's what we are asking, where would you put that? at what point if any do you think u.s. troops should be directly engaged in ukraine? is that a redline? is there any redline you would set. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. a lot of discussion around ukraine in general on the sunday shows, including congressman
7:12 am
mike mccall from the foreign relations committee. he was on abc's this week. this is a bit of what he had to say. >> the -- initially, it would be over in four days. they would have a puppet government. vladimir putin went for everything and he miscalculated. we saw the ukrainians when. -- win. now the narrative is they could actually win this war. that should be the goal. i was pleased to hear secretary austin and blinken echo that thought, that they could win. they should go on the offensive with this artillery we are giving them, the howitzers and these lethal drones. push them out. we are trying to bomb odessa.
7:13 am
this is an attempt to seal off the black sea, all the weight from the donbass into odessa and choke ukraine. we have to stop that. the u.k. has done a great job with antiship weapons in odessa. they downed a russian warship. that's really phenomenal. it's been very inspirational. i think the fighting spirit of ukrainians is far superior to the morale of the russian soldiers right now. >> how about the concerns that these attacks on russia could lead to a wider war, even retaliation with nuclear weapons? >> that's always a concern. the short range nuke -- we discussed that with nato. they brought the butcher of syria into fight the second phase of this war. he is a very frightening man.
7:14 am
he dropped barrel busting bombs on civilians in syria, and chemical weapons with assad in syria to kill civilians. what would happen if a chemical weapon was dropped in ukraine, or a short range tactical nuke? would the world sit back and watch that happen without doing anything? >> what should we do? >> i find it hard to believe when i talk to the secretary-general of nato, their job is to defend nato. in my judgment, that is beyond the pale. that crosses a redline. if that happens, we would have to respond in kind. host: that was congressman mike mccall, the topper publican on the foreign relations committee in the house. some of the top democrats were
7:15 am
not available for sunday shows because several of them were in ukraine yesterday, a surprise visit led by nancy pelosi. we played you that clip yesterday of her with president zelenskyy. there she is shaking his hand and that actor. several democrats who were with her posted their own pictures. you see a similarity in this next series of pictures. that is jim mcgovern, jason crow from colorado, adam schiff from california. it was a democratic delegation, nancy pelosi took questions from reporters during that trip. there was some pushback from some publicans about it being a fully emma craddick led trip -- fully democratic led trip to
7:16 am
ukraine. while i'm glad speaker pelosi went to kyiv and with other committee chairs, the should've been a bipartisan delegation as i've been requesting. it was a missed opportunity to show the breadth of support for ukraine. back to your phone calls. we want to hear from you about redlines. what redline would you set when it comes to this conflict? the idea of whether we should be setting any is the discussion on your twitter responses as well. steve says we don't need the threat to respond. the movement of their forces in and out of ukraine is much easier than our ability. this could turn into another vietnam. american joe is saying:
7:17 am
gwen is in virginia. thanks for waiting. good morning. caller: first of all, i want to say that joe biden has shown leadership in this situation. he deserves credit for that. as far as redlines, my thing is all of those bombs dropping on buildings of innocent people. i'm not a military minded person. i don't know how that could be stopped in the sky. i wonder if the planes that were requested, if that would've helped. i believe that president zelenskyy has shown such great leadership.
7:18 am
i believe that as fast as they could get the military equipment and supplies to the east or the pompous area, -- bombass area, vladimir putin has extended himself so much. hopefully, without any supplies because of the sanctions, coming together with other nations to make it such a powerful thing that it will affect all of that. there is a time when you have to put politics aside and think about people's lives and how you can best affect their lives and help them. i believe that biden, including blinken or austin or pelosi or
7:19 am
whomever, that is leadership. leadership comes from the top down. there must be helped from the bottom up. host: this is mark in scottsdale, arizona. good morning. caller: hello there. yes. i think a lot of this stuff, there is two sides to it. it's all great. former countries of the warsaw pact, which were invaded. poland, slovenia. host: take me to your redline. caller: hungary was invaded by the soviets. host: ok.
7:20 am
that was mark in arizona. pedro, morning. -- good morning. caller: as far as i am concerned, the redline should be back here in the united states. i think we need to stop these ridiculous foreign adventures that don't mean anything to us. this is invented. zelenskyy is not a real president. he was installed by the state department in 2014. there is recordings of it on the internet. host: is there anything russia could do here that would warrant you to get the united states to be involved? caller: that's a good question. thank you for engaging. is there anything russia could do that would make it so that i would want us to get involved in this war?
7:21 am
are you asking that so that you can help the warmongers learn how to get me engaged? why is this even happening. the russians have been provoked by the west and nato for years. we keep encroaching. do you know how many new nato states there are since the fall of the soviet union? why is nato growing when there is no threat from the soviet union. host: that is how russia is casting this fight, as a threat from the west. here is the story from the wall street journal about it. moscow tree casting its fight as a war between russia and the west as state propaganda outlets worn that the conflict with its
7:22 am
neighbor could spillover -- w arn the conflict could spillover. that was vladimir putin in one of his recent statements on the conflict in ukraine. this is royal town, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. from the political side, the russians would use chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, that would have an impact on
7:23 am
nato. that would be an indirect attack. those weapons as far as i know can't be localized, the spread can't be controlled. that would be the redline. it would be against article five from the humanitarian aspect. thanks. host: this is chris in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i think everybody is losing their mind talking about redlines. if we stop loving talking about chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons, we are going to retaliate. it's over.
7:24 am
this is not about human rights or democracy or sovereign nations. we went to panama and put a president of a country in jail. we supported saudi arabia against yemen and 14 million people are starving in yemen and we don't care. we have wall-to-wall coverage of ukraine. why is that? let's negotiate. i am a joe biden supporter. foreign policy, he always loved war. we invaded 5000 miles away in iraq. iraqis never killed one american. now we are talking about ukraine.
7:25 am
ukraine is a sacrificial lamb for nato. we are going to win against russia on their borders? we stopped war in cuba because the cuban missiles -- cuban took russian missiles. what are we talking about getting involved? let's solve this diplomatically. why are we still dealing with mohammad bin salman. he killed an american journalist? talking about redlines and going to fight. host: that was chris in virginia. this is jose, we need to spearhead peace talks.
7:26 am
taking your phone calls, it is coming up on 7:30 a.m. on the east coast. our question in this first hour is about redlines. should the u.s. be setting redlines for russia. ? what should that redline be? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. we are having this conversation because adam kinzinger from the foreign relations committee introduced new authorization of military force yesterday, setting a redline when it comes to when u.s. troops should be directly involved. this is the wording of that authorization. it says:
7:27 am
that would be the wording of that authorization of force, giving president biden the ability to use u.s. troops there, setting a redline if vladimir putin were to use weapons of mass destruction. we want to know what you think. that's what we are talking about this morning. keep calling in. a note on it what is happening later in the show and throughout the month of may, a dozen midterm primaries are coming up
7:28 am
in may. we are going to be talking lube it later about them. make primaries test trumps sway in the gop, that talks about the key primary races taking place in pennsylvania, ohio, primaries across the country. 12 of them are common this month. we will go over some of the more high-profile ones. stick around, and about one hour and 15 minutes. back to your phone calls. lloyd is in west virginia. we are talking about redlines this morning. what would you set? caller: i don't understand this thing between ukraine and russia has been going on for a long time. ukraine couldn't or wouldn't join nato. if they couldn't or wouldn't, if
7:29 am
they knew how russia was and what they might do, why didn't they build up their own military? i understand ukraine had a good economy, they could have done it. things like that are hard to understand. host: would you be ok accepting ukraine into nato? should they be a part of nato? caller: i think they should have been part of nato. host: others calling about concerns about the expansion of nato, closer to russia. that is what caused what is happening here. russian concerns about their own territorial integrity. putting ukraine into nato would put nato right on russia's border.
7:30 am
would you be ok with that. caller: well sure. host: ok. that was west virginia. this is bradley, a democrat. caller: my redline, i would say russia has already crossed it. they have shot down civilian airliners. they have conspired with political parties across europe and in america as well. they poison people with radioactive material. vladimir putin is a clear and present danger and he must be taken out. we are in a situation where -- in 1939, of czechoslovakia stops pit lurk, imagine the world we live in today. this is what we are going through right now. anyone who works with him, they
7:31 am
are kleptocratic. they have to be taken out. host: this authorization we are talking about is allowing the president to use u.s. forces to restore the territorial integrity of ukraine. you are talking about something further. you were talking about regime change when it comes to russia, expanding the war beyond ukraine. is that what you want to do? caller: absolute. i do not want to do it. this is something we are being forced to do. they have already started the war. it's been going on for years. china is a competitor, russia is out to destroy us. they are different than everyone else. the russian people, they are basically brainwashed.
7:32 am
vladimir putin and his oligarchs , people talk about the expansion of nato. why are they trying to join nato? they don't want to be attacked i russia. it's amazing that these republicans are spouting exactly the kremlin talking points. the republican party, they need to get their stuff together or they are traders. -- traitors. host: good morning. caller: bradley, i'm sorry. that's a victim of propaganda. the idea that vladimir putin is hitler's, we precipitated the conflict. they view that as a redline. the only solution to this, to prevent nuclear holocaust that will destroy the human race is not an escalation based on one of the russians going to do
7:33 am
next? we need to not be thinking about escalating. we need to de-escalate. that should be our focus of concentration. we have escalated by funding neo-nazis on russia's order. russians don't like russians. host: how do we de-escalate? caller: we have a diplomatic solution that will stop the killing. as long as we keep looking for reasons to escalate, we are flirting with nuclear annihilation. that's what people don't understand. the democrats have doubled down on insane. they are looking at what the republicans done and its more extreme in terms of foreign policy. we need diplomacy, not more war. not more killing. regime change in russia? this is suicidal. host: one more quick question
7:34 am
for you. his additional funding for ukraine escalation in your mind? another $33 billion is being debated. caller: i know with the president has requested. unless we are promoting a diplomatic solution, all we are going to do is get ukraine destroyed. ukraine cannot compete militarily. we are going to get them killed. it's a proxy war because people in control of our government would prefer conflict rather than conflict revolution. -- resolution. that will stop this from escalating. host: you talk about what the money is going for, $33.4 billion is requested. $20 billion of that is for security assistance, military aid.
7:35 am
a .5 billion dollars would be economic assistance. another $3 billion would be for humanitarian assistance. both parties are pushing for a speedy approval. democratic leaders have yet to settle on whether the aid would be combined with other spending priorities such as aid for pandemic relief and a bill -- as the bill inches to congress, others said the upcoming weeks would be pivotable -- pivotal and essential. this is read in washington. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with what the last caller just mentioned. it should be about diplomacy, not about war. in 2014, mr. magoo when he was
7:36 am
vice president was put in charge of ukraine. our state department combined with the cia helped support the orange revolution. when it happened, they ousted a duly elected president and put in our puppet that they have right now. they supported bringing ukraine into nato. vladimir putin, prior to taking crimea, warned that he will not permit nato to be on his border. you can't blame him for that. he's protecting his own country. america didn't listen. america did what it does best, which is get their nose into other nations business. it's insanity. that's all the u.s. wants to do
7:37 am
is tickets nose into other country business. are you kidding me? the answer is not escalating war, although i do agree with tenzing or -- kinsinger. giving the president the authority to use troops in the context of chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. that's good, to take it out of the executive branch and bring it into congress. let's also remember, nuclear war is off the table. no country is going to pull triggers on nuclear weapons. it's just suicide. any nation in this world that has nuclear weapons is not going to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons. that's a lot of propaganda. they are not going to pull the chemical weapons trigger.
7:38 am
what needs to happen is plum plumber c. we need to tell ukraine to meet with russia and agree that they will not join nato. we need nato to say we will not take ukraine into nato. under article five, if vladimir putin were to attack one of the existing nato nations, i support the u.s. keeping its obligations. host: this is baltimore, maryland. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this war is not good for the american brand name. russia started the war. we put stuff in place when russia started it. in regards to the redline issue, i believe this is a scam. russia is winning the war. they have conventional weapons.
7:39 am
they don't need to use a drop of nuclear weapons. and that tells you russia is using nuclear weapons is preparing you for a false flag attack. one example is during the syria crisis, out of nowhere, you've got us talking about nuclear weapons. days later, there is an attack. you accused assad of using those weapons. we find out later, the bbc did an investigation. if you go on youtube, there are investigations of how it was a caa trained -- cia trained group. host: this is kenny in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning.
7:40 am
i'm glad to have c-span, even though i don't always agree with the callers, like the last two. i'm glad we have it. our news agencies are either corporations or propaganda. i am old enough to remember when khrushchev told kennedy we will take over america without firing a shot. we will use your own laws against you from within. it doesn't matter if it takes 50 years to do it. they are right on schedule except for the gorbachev years. there is a third of the republicans that back trump and vladimir putin. they believe the election was stolen. the democrats ought to take that
7:41 am
as no republican who espouses this narrative of biden didn't want, nothing on the floor is in good faith. their whole strategy is to dismantle, delay, obstruct at every level from dogcatcher to president. they private eyes the -- privatize and publicize the debt. host: bring us back to the russian invasion of ukraine. caller: ok. i think he has already said it. i don't think he has set it enough. not one inch of nato. host: this is john in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you very much.
7:42 am
am i on? ok. people that are saying about a redlined have never been in a war. -- redline have never been in the war. the nato countries have seen devastation. they don't want any redline. are they going to be forced into it? where is our congress? are they too busy watching the stock market? host: you talk about the nato countries. article five is one of the founding principles of nato. caller: who have the russians attacked in nato? host: they -- caller: the only thing is get us out of ukraine. we've killed enough people over
7:43 am
there. these people over there want to plant their gardens. they want to send their kids to school. they don't want this war business. i am 95. i remember the second world war. i served on a destroyer. i enlisted. i saw pearl harbor. i saw manila. i've seen some of these places that were devastated. all of these people calling in about a redline, they don't have to go. haven't we killed enough of our young men? why is the united states sending troops in? host: talk about the devastation you've seen in the past. what the you think when you see the pictures of devastation in ukraine? caller: we should have stayed
7:44 am
out of that altogether. this war would've been over. now our congress and our country could get in there and say ok, you are going to go into ukraine and you're going to build their apartments back up. you are going to do this or that. if you ever start another war, nobody will trade with you. money money money money is behind everything. host: that was john in pennsylvania. more from the sunday shows yesterday. we've got about 15 minutes left to talk about this topic. it was meet the press and it was the chairman of the foreign relations committee. he was talking about the u.s. posture and how it could change if russia's attack expanded beyond ukraine. >> i think the ukrainians care about what's going to happen.
7:45 am
it's another attack point against ukraine. i don't think that's going to change our direct engagement. we need to keep our eye on the ball. that is about helping ukraine ultimately be able to defend -- defeat the butcher of moscow. if we do that, the world will be safer. the international order will be preserved, and others who are looking at what's happening in ukraine will have to think twice. this international response that president biden has led and this new effort by europe to have an oil embargo against russia is going to be one of the most strategic blunders vladimir putin will have made an shows the resolve of the west, something we have not seen. >> $50 billion is what the president has asked for.
7:46 am
this appears to be the most money we've ever spent on a war that we've not fired a shot in. is there a limit and how much support we are going to give ukraine? -- in how much support we are going to give ukraine? >> i think we will do what it takes to see ukraine when. -- win. if ukraine does not win, if putin does not succeed, if he strikes a country under nato, under treaty obligations with nato, we would be directly engaged. stopping russia from getting to that point is critically of interest to us as well as the world. we don't have to send our sons and daughters into battle. that ability is priceless.
7:47 am
host: that was senator mendez yesterday. -- menendez. caller: good morning. how are you today? that made me laugh. talk about throwing as much money as it takes to win the war. ukraine cannot win the war without the united states. you guys are asking if there is a redline? why do we care about ukraine? we don't care about yemen. we care about ukraine. the american people need to ask themselves why do we care about ukraine. gas is over five dollars per gallon. everybody is just barely making ends meet.
7:48 am
let's not forget that in afghanistan we got 13 service members killed on the way out the door. these people -- don't forget we left a billion-dollar base with $80 billion of arms and afghanistan. these people are corrupt. the redline is how much longer are we going to put up with this? host: this is jason in san diego. good morning. caller: it is astounding to hear all of these gop candidates calling in. it's remarkable. i remember when they were hounding the president, when the president said vladimir putin needs to go.
7:49 am
now they walk it back. biden said, i said what i meant. he doesn't need to walk himself back. tipping around prudent. -- vladimir putin. i feel sorry for these people. host: this is peter in vermont. good morning. caller: thank you. i would like to remind people that before the end of the second world war in 1945, president truman removed george patton from the battlefield. general patton's famous words were let's go after those esso bees. -- sob's.
7:50 am
this is similar to these political strategies. thank you. host: john in illinois. good morning. caller: the redline has been crossed not necessarily with the american people but with the ukrainian people. those people not going to forgive anytime soon. russia has a war that's going to last as long as they want it to last. the ukrainian people will fight her generations to come. the best thing they can do is give the ukrainians the military might they need to stop the war and that would stop the killing. host: john in illinois. we have less than 10 minutes in the segment. should the u.s. set a redline for russia when it comes to incurring -- ukraine.
7:51 am
(202) 748-8000 four democrats. r democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. the senate is in at 3:00 p.m. also today, ahead of a very busy primary month, a dozen primaries taking place across the country over the next 30 days, we will be covering all of it, including this afternoon -- this morning, the georgia republican secretary of state debate will be taken place at the atlanta press club. you can watch that on . republicans are participating in that debate. later today, you can watch the georgia republican senate debate. six republicans are competing
7:52 am
for the nomination. that is also at the atlanta press club. you can watch live at 7:00 on c-span. the georgia debate taking place, ohio is the fork us -- focus tomorrow. in about an hour, the hill newspaper will be joining us. stick around for that conversation. up next, stat news is going to join us about covert relief spending, her investigation into that. there is plenty to talk about today. we've got just a few minutes left, should the u.s. set a redline for russia when it comes to ukraine. greg has been waiting in massachusetts. good morning. are you with us? caller: i am.
7:53 am
good morning. this war started -- there is so much information and confusion. nobody can believe why this war started. biden already said the war started from his liberal foundation. he ran as a martyr. this war is based on lies, all lies. as soon as they raise that flag over there, that gay pride flag or whatever it is. host: let's stick to the war in ukraine. this is cincinnati. good morning. caller: my contribution might be to draw your attention to the fact that you have had no women dollars. that on the international scene we see a lot of women.
7:54 am
host: we have had some women collars. caller: the predominant number of collars have been men. the voices that have been heard is men. i think this is true internationally. i point this out because i am a psychologist. what we know about human nature, there is a balance of the kind of energies that are generated from the sexual orientation. that does not mean having sex or anything of that sort. it means the way human beings are constructed. host: our weight getting back to the -- the invasion of ukraine? caller: in this country, we have done our job internationally when we've been successful by primarily realizing that we have a management situation on our hands. we have the power, the weaponry, the power in all different
7:55 am
categories that are needed for human behavior. we need to use them very judiciously. we need to know what we're doing. in this case, we need to get past the excitement that is generated by all of this dueling and think more about international good. we have to quit stemming -- swimming in the sea of energy and look at what we're are doing more clearly. host: this is kathy, also in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i think vladimir putin needs to be stopped right now. if he is allowed to continue on, he will go farther then ukraine and we will all be in danger. thank you. host: bonnie is in florida. caller: thank you for c-span.
7:56 am
can you tell us when trump got rid of fiona hill? the ukrainian diplomat? host: i don't have exact dates for you. caller: i think this started a long time ago. all of a sudden, republicans are talking diplomacy. where was the uproar when he did that? thank you. host: that was bonnie in florida. we have time for one more call. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. one thing you can do is imply that ukraine is in nato. you say it without say it. host: ukraine is not in nato. caller: you keep implying that
7:57 am
by bringing up nato countries. one thing that is disturbing is are you a moderator or a pundit? you keep spreading this propaganda that we have to defend ukraine. why are you doing that? why aren't you just objective and answer calls? you keep defending this propaganda. it is super disturbing. host: i don't think i've said that at all. the way we ask the question is should the u.s. set a redline. is that something we should do? that's the conversation we've been having. a member of congress presented use of force authorization. they want congress to debate it. we will see if that happens. that is going to do it for this
7:58 am
first hour of washington journal. up next, we will discuss uncovering the details of federal covid-19 response spending. later, inside elections will join us to discuss key congressional primaries taking place in the month of may. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house is not in session but the senate is meeting. senators are respected to vote on several administration nominees. tuesday live on c-span, transportation secretary pete buttigieg testifies before the senate commerce, science and
7:59 am
transportation committee on his department's budget request. on wednesday, live on c-span, homeland security secretary of hundred mayorkas will appear before the home and security -- a hundred mayorkas -- alejandro mayorkas will appear before the homeland security committee. also head over to for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now available at the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments and also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at cspan
8:00 am every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the unit of nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, this c-span now mobile app and, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a focus now on the federal covid-19 response. our guest, rachel cohrs of stat news, thank you for being here.
8:01 am
your recent story on this topic, born from a specific moment at the april 6 white house press briefing. i want to start by playing that moment. caller: >> one note -- [video clip] >> one note on the covid funding bill. every step of the way, we have provided details that republicans have asked for, even when they asked for -- what they have asked for has changed in real time. i have a prop here. this is 385 pages of information we have given to capitol hill and briefed them on how covid funding has been spent, what we need, what the needs are. these are the details we have provided and constantly briefed members on the hill, to make clear what the impact will be if we do not get this funding. you can have access to this if you would like it as well. we will make copies for you.
8:02 am
host: rachel cohrs, 385 pages of detail. pick up the story from their. guest: as soon as i saw this clip, i really wanted to get a hold of this binder because i've been working on getting some documentation about covid-19 budget issues from the white house for more than a year. i was excited to see these documents. i shot any mail right away and the response was not very enthusiastic but eventually white house officials did arrange a meeting for me to see the documents. it wasn't, we will make copies for you. it was pretty limited. there were very detailed budget tables. i can only absorb so much information in the hours i had to look. i was supervised as i was reviewing the document, but it was very detailed and i'm glad i
8:03 am
was able to review some of it but obviously i would have preferred to be able to fully digest that information in a longer format and have a photocopy of all that. host: how many other reporters joined you in getting access? guest: i was the only one who requested to see the documents. they all worked very hard and it is helpful to focus on daily news but because i cover health care, i knew to ask and i knew what to look for. host: so what was in here that was not something you had seen before in this binder? guest: the binder contains correspondence between the white house and members of congress, specifically republican members of congress. it reflected what members of congress were asking for and what kind of information the white house had provided for them and when because none of this information was public before and there were some budget tables that the white
8:04 am
house provided to lawmakers. some of those had leaked out but the tables in the binder went further. host: the white house has asked congress for additional covid-19 response money. that debate has played out over the past several weeks and we don't know the end result just yet, but what did you learn about when the white house new that they were going to need additional covid-19 response spending through these documents? guest: the documents showed when they briefed lawmakers, they were telling lawmakers they would need more money, in mid-to-late january. committees of jurisdiction, that sort of thing, there were broader disclosures to members of congress toward the end of february when they were raising the alarm, but in public, their
8:05 am
rhetoric did not necessarily imply there was some urgent need for funding. they were just at the height of the omicron surge and they were trying to make sure they weren't alarming people, that they would not have money to respond to the immediate threat that at the same time, that led to them not making a big public push for more funding. host: the white house press ticket terry offered a binder of covid spending details, taking a p get that was a process. rachel cohrs is a reporter on that story for stat news. you can also join the conversation. phone lines in the eastern or central time zones, it is (202)-748-8000. in the mountain or pacific time zones, it is (202)-748-8001. additional money requested but you note in looking through that 385 pages, the documents that would have explained how white house officials chose to move
8:06 am
money around between their accounts, which they have done repeatedly when it comes to this covid-19 money, is that allowed when it comes to how congress has appropriated all of this covid-19 response money and why aren't those documents there? guest: it isn't illegal for the executive branch to move money around, as long as they give lawmakers proper notice. obviously for the public or reporters, it is helpful to understand where this money was spent and when the wind or was first held up, i hoped we would have more insight into the amount and timing of some of these transfers, in particular, money for testing was spent on housing undocumented migrants at the border and we know that nih research funding was transferred , significant money for hospital relief was spent on purchasing vaccines and therapeutics, so some of these transfers that we
8:07 am
don't know exactly when they happen, we don't know exactly how much and this information was not included in the binder and was pretty limited to above and beyond correspondence with republican lawmakers. host: help me out in trying to understand exactly how much money has been appropriated and how much money has been spent when it comes to covid-19 relief spending. there is usa spending --, set up to track this money. they note the total for all obligations had been made when it comes to covid relief, about $2.36 trillion, but there are other covid-19 money tracking websites out there and they have different numbers, so there is a project on government oversight. covid tracker notes the total number is in the $3 trillion range for overall spending for covid-19.
8:08 am
another one we've talked about is the committee for responsible federal budget. if you look at their covid money tracker, the total number of legislative actions, the total amount of money available through the slate of actions for covid-19 response is $5.9 trillion. why are those numbers so different? guest: it is helpful to understand that the federal government works differently than your checking account. if you are just looking at your account, there is one number and it is clear what you have left. the federal government does not work that way. the budget tables i have looked at shows four different numbers for each line item, kind of different technical budget terms for how much money was left. if you are using different numbers, your grand total will be different and one example of why these numbers are so different and one that i have tracked very closely for hospital funding, and the
8:09 am
department of health and human services releases a lot of data about where that money went. there are a bunch of spreadsheets you can download, but there is this spending on vaccines and therapeutics through operation warp speed that the biden administration has chosen to use in the trump administration chose to use. that was $17 billion that was not included in those data tables. even though you are pulling complex data, there are big expenditures you could be missing. compound that amongst other programs and it is mind boggling how the scale of the response and spending. that can lead to significant variations. host: trying to put this in terms for folks to understand, if you go to the cvs and try to buy a test, it is $24 to get a test. the federal government has paid for a lot of covid tests in the past few years. do we know how much the federal government paid per covid test? guest: that is a really
8:10 am
interesting question that is a point of contention with some lawmakers. it has not been clear how much the administration has paid over all, but they have been reluctant to share how much they have spent per contract and per test because they say that is proprietary information. i think there are some lawmakers who have questioned whether the u.s. is negotiating to get a good deal. there are some questions about those dynamics and i think that will play out over time depending on what they would be legally required to disclose. host: what about per vaccine? guest: that is a similar issue where lawmakers are having trouble getting access to unredacted contracts and there is certainly the issue of the price but there are other provisions that i think lawmakers would like to see. host: taking your phone calls, rachel cohrs is our guest with stat news, talking about federal covid-19 response spending.
8:11 am
in the eastern and central time zones, (202)-748-8000. mountain or pacific time zones, (202)-748-8001. hometown, illinois, this is bob. caller: good morning. i love c-span and i love the emails we get. as far as the covid spending, friday night, bill marr did a segment, i don't know if the producers can pull it up. he did a short expose about the spending and it is atrocious. i will not give anybody another nickel until they spend all the money that they still have in the pipeline that they have not spent. these democrats are so insane and we've been bankrupt for many years but we've got to turn this thing around and get trump back right away. host: that is bob in illinois on money that we still have that has not been spent.
8:12 am
guest: there is some money that has not gone out of the bank account yet but it has been planned for certain projects. i think the white house has been pretty clear that especially for the covid-19 response, there is not money available for them to accomplish these contracts. there is some money in the pipeline that is working to go out, some contracts over a number of years that this money might be dispersed. i think it is possible that there is still some money that is planned for certain projects that has not gone out and they could also be true at the same time that the white house doesn't have the money it needs to buy vaccines and therapeutics right now. host: coming back to what you found in that 385 page binder of covid money, senator susan collins from maine requested information on how much testing funding -- how much funding had
8:13 am
been spent when it comes to migrants at the southern border for testing or other aid. what did you find? guest: susan collins had asked questions about how much money had been transferred. she was not public about that letter before hand, she just wanted the information and from what i've seen which obviously is kind of piecemeal, about $2 billion was moved from the testing fund to spend on mitigation efforts at the southern border and the administration's position is that we would not have spent this money at the southern border if covid-19 hadn't happened. testing, social distancing measures, complicated efforts to house migrants at the southern border. that is the administration's position they reflected in a letter. host: you mentioned the susan
8:14 am
collins exchange. what are some other interesting exchanges you were able to view from these documents, and how would you say how involved members of congress are on these issues? how often are they asking for this information? guest: it is important to point out the binder only had responses from the white house. one thing that i was able to see was that senator richard burr, making member on the health committee -- ranking member on the health committee did request and received responses to three different -- of documents, questions he had about how money was being spent from different funds, and so he had different detailed budget information from the white house before republican lawmakers came out with their criticism of the white house for a lack of transparency.
8:15 am
obviously senator susan collins had asked for information before that letter came out as well. i did not find a record of a whole bunch of republican lawmakers asking for information behind the scenes before they leveraged that public criticism. host: this is jenny in north carolina. caller: good morning. host: you still with us? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: yes, what is your question or comment? caller: my comment is how many states have left over money, is what i want to know because north carolina is saying they have extra money for covid and they are going to use it for low-cost housing, so they're going to spend that money, figuring they will get more from the government if they need it. how much money are we talking about in all the states? guest: that is an excellent question and i think the kind of
8:16 am
aid for state and local governments is -- getting more and -- getting more transparency on. i can't list all 50 states off the top of my head, but i think there is significant interest over time, and some oversight of those funds and making sure that money was spent appropriately, and there certainly are cases of state and local governments where not all that money has been spent yet and there has also been some money that caused a big political kerfuffle over this money in the first place, where the federal government has not given states all the money that they have been promised yet. host: this question from twitter. wouldn't it be more efficient to request spending statements from the governor of each state? guest: i can't speak to that. the efficiency of the process, i think that is a real issue that
8:17 am
is a relationship between each state and the relationship there government -- governor might have with the federal government. different states operate very differently and i think that is a good question and the state and local money is certainly a focus of some political conflict here in d.c. host: this question from shelby on a different topic. biden announced several weeks ago that a long covid task force would be formed. how is that coming along? guest: i have not seen any updates on a long covid task force. sometimes that takes a little while to come up. -- task force like this, before and long covid is certainly a very important issue that so many americans will be dealing with.
8:18 am
not just themselves but employers as well and there are so many downstream impacts from long covid over the next few years as we learn more. host: is it the research side for long covid, a funding focus question what do we know how much money is being spent to study long covid? guest: we have some insight. congress in december decided to give the national institutes of health one point -- $1.5 billion to study long covid. right now, it is unclear exactly as of today how much money has been spent that is not necessarily readily available, but they spent over half of that money on awards to get research up and going at different sites across the country. the enrollment has been pretty slow and there are some questions about where that remaining money will go and whether it will be to broad research or clinical trials to
8:19 am
test some therapeutics and treatments to see if researchers can find some answers as to what could actually help these patients recover. host: i point our viewers to the headline is slow moving glaciers are. efforts to study long covid draw expert and patient fire. -- ire. who are the experts that have some concerns about how slow this is going? guest: there is a long covid roadmap document that was released earlier this year, where more than two dozen prominent covid-19 experts laid out their evaluation of several different aspects of the federal government covid-19 response and long covid was one of those issues that they examined and their evaluation was that the progress was very slow and there
8:20 am
wasn't a great sense of urgency actually get answers, and i think the nih program that got so much funding, it is observational which means that they are just kind of watching patients and how they develop over time, there is not necessarily an intervention to try and make them feel better, so i think it was a pretty scathing report and as i talk to experts, some of them were reluctant to speak to the media because the nih is such an important source of funding for researchers, their research depends on being able to get these projects funded, so i think some of them were nervous to speak publicly about that. host: aaron in silver spring, maryland. we are talking about the covid-19 federal response spending. caller: thank you for having me. a quick question. has the white house explained why the american rescue plan act money for vaccination and testing is inadequate?
8:21 am
have they talked about why that amount of appropriation was not enough? guest: yes, there was some detailed information that has come out now, about where that money went and certainly, i think there has been a little bit of movement between the vaccine and testing funds, lawmakers have some questions about where all of that money went because there was such a squeeze for testing at the beginning of this year. they have made clear that those funds are exhausted and they have stopped -- they had planned to renew some contracts for covid-19 therapeutics that they have stopped and put the brakes on until more funding comes in. it is clear that money has been exhausted for those issues you mentioned. host: will taxpayers have to pay for subsequent covid boosters out of pocket? if so, when? guest: that is an excellent
8:22 am
question and i think right now, the purchasing structure for vaccines is best suited for the federal government to buy those vaccines because they are competing against other countries. it is possible that the ceo of moderna has indicated that they are preparing at some point for the purchasing of vaccines to move to more of a private market, like how you get other medicines or vaccines. that is something drugmakers are thinking about right now, but that transition has not happened and there is a lot of uncertainty about whether the federal government will be in a position to buy those vaccines and private industry ends up having to take on that burden, then they will be competing against the federal governments of other countries for those doses. i think that is an interesting dynamic that we will eventually see play out. host: montreal, canada, this is richard. caller: good morning.
8:23 am
several months ago, reuters reported that the fda went to federal court to try and delay the release of documents on the safety profile of the pfizer vaccine until the year 2096. 75 years. obviously most people will be dead. thankfully a brave judge rejected that request. since then, documents have been released and doctors are looking over the documents and they are shocked that things are being revealed like for example, like one week after the clinical trial, 35 teenagers have heart attacks. how can reporters like yourself -- how come reporters like yourself have not reported on that court case and the documents, specifically what is being said in those documents? guest: my specialty is the covid-19 response funding. it is certainly an ongoing conversation, and i think it is
8:24 am
frustrating for reporters trying to get public documents sometimes, and those requests can be delayed for months. i have placed a freedom of information act request for this binder of covid-19 funding and certainly, there are reporters who are filing similar requests for all sorts of troves of documents across the federal government. certainly it would be nice to have more disclosure on exit edit timelines, before certain contracts. everything was done quickly, there were special processes that were used the department of defense contracting and i think this is a more challenging environment than usual for learning more about federal contracts. host: for people who want to learn about the foia request process, you put in your request for this binder so that you would know except he what you're
8:25 am
looking for. how long do you expect it will take to get that response back or what is the quickest you have ever gotten a response back? guest: i have gotten responses from smaller agencies, which i think helps. i know it helps resources and services administration. i have gotten responses from them between four to six months, which is pretty quick, but there are many requests that i have filed that i have never seen documents for, and that is a pretty common exterior. i don't know that i've ever gotten substantive document disclosure from the white house. office of management and budget is where these requests are directed. we will just have to wait and see. host: you will occasionally hear the stories of people getting foia requests back years or several years later. what is the longest it has taken you to get a foia request back?
8:26 am
guest: i've been working in d.c. for four years and i lost hope for stat requests from the previous administration. it can take years and they may not substantively address a request for years. we are doing our best and some outlets have the resources to pursue the requests more aggressively but it is just kind of a cost-benefit analysis on those requests. host: to follow up on that topic, what challenges are there from gathering the numbers that you are looking for, spending from the current administration versus the past administration? guest: i don't know that it was any easier under the prior administration and the calculations were just different, and i did some reporting around the trump administration and obviously they had some very intentioned
8:27 am
negotiations around covid-19 releases as well, and there was a case where some of the top white house leadership decided to ask the lawyer of the health department to give them permission to spend hospital funds on operation warp speed because they were running out of money and they didn't want to lose leverage in negotiations and that authority is still being used by the biden administration. as i talked to former white house budget officials, in general there is a reluctance to be really transparent with the public about these issues, and i think they view their audience as more lawmakers in congress who are authorizing that funding. it certainly wasn't easier under the trump administration and it is a difficulty we have to work through. host: this is just in new york -- jess in new york.
8:28 am
caller: i have a comment to make about this discussion on the accountability of the funding. i would like to point out that the congressional budget process is completely unsuited for the job of funding public health. that is because it is so liquid of sized and we saw how horrible the response was in how uncoordinated the response was to covid-19 and we weren't prepared. we had not funded the enterprise of preparedness and response. south korea for example had it. as a result, we are paying for the aftermath of a disaster, when we could have been investing in prevention. if you take a look at the amount of money and the amount of mortality in south korea
8:29 am
compared to the united states, on a protracted basis, we've lost 18 american lives to each south korean life. the economic consequences downstream from that are just as scalable. what this tells you is we can't continue to fund public health infrastructure in preparing for the next pandemic the way we are because we will simply waste money and waste lives. although -- we could do it by instituting what we had done in 1913 when we set up the federal reserve system that independently funds itself. the accountability is still there. congress reviews the funding
8:30 am
that the federal reserve uses for its own operations and we could do the same for public health. host: rachel cohrs? guest: there certainly is a conversation going on in congress right now, but long-term funding for public health and making sure that local health agencies are able to keep on, with new staff they might've hired with this relief funding, after that expires and i know patty murray has been leading the charge on making sure there is some long-term funding for public health agencies and there are conversations about preparing for the next pandemic which you mentioned senators aren't really interested in making formal, some of the processes that may be worked and we were rethinking, creating new initiatives and new formal processes for some permanent
8:31 am
infrastructure to respond to pandemics, to have that data collection, to understand where threats are coming from. people can be ready so there is not this big ramp up period. there are definitely conversations about that and public health advocates have told me sometimes that it might be helpful for to know how much money is left because sometimes they are out of the loop and they would like to be advocating for more funding but they just don't have much transparency. it is certainly a very important conversation going forward host: -- going forward. host: do you think that the additional covert response money that the administration has asked for will be tied to the money that the administration has requested for additional spending on ukraine, for military weaponry and other aid assistance? guest: it certainly seems like a possibility. to my knowledge, concrete
8:32 am
decisions has not been made but i think republicans are warning democrats against that because in order to advance the covid-19 package that was negotiated with the republicans at the table, they want some votes on some public health policy that affects the border situation, and i think that they have indicated that even if the covid funding or tied to ukraine funding, they will still insist on that boat which i think is going to be a difficult one for the biden administration as the cuts some concerns about that public health policy that affects immigration and migration at the border. i think that a difficult situation for democratic leaders . host: stockton, california, mike, good morning. caller: good morning john and
8:33 am
miss cohrs. you started out this conversation saying that you got excited when miss psaki grabbed her folder with the 385 pages, and i understood what you said, ashley got a chance to look at what was inside the folder -- not for a long time, only about an hour or so -- but when you did get to review that, whatever was in there, one of the big problems it seems with the government when they started their so-called response was they didn't do much according to the harvard study, beefing up the reporting through there. it seems to me that if that is -- number one, i wanted to know if you had seen anything in that 385 pages that said we screwed
8:34 am
up and are reporting, even though -- but we really blew it and what if anything did they do to correct those errors because presumably that is the basis for them coming up with a budget. you have to have accurate reporting and accurate information to start with, and they totally blew it. in those pages, did you happen to run across anything that said this is what we are going to do to make sure people report rather than shining on. host: thank you for the question. guest: i think there are some programs that there is some disclosure about how budget funds are spent and that is how i first heard about this long covid program and so there is an ability to track some of that
8:35 am
spending, however and in the binder, i did not see much about that just because the binder mostly contains responses from members of congress. it was focused on the questions that they were asking and they weren't necessarily asking about that specific program. i know senator romney and some republican concrete -- colleagues asked about updates on disclosures about how much money was spent. i don't recall the responses i briefly skimmed. host: just a few minutes left. this is michelle in michigan. good morning. caller: here is my question. we have these reporters who got to look at a folder. i have a daughter in law that is
8:36 am
a cpa, and she would tell you looking at a binder of that magnitude with that many figures, unless you have a degree in accounting or forensic accounting, i would like to know if miss cohrs has any background in any of that that would give her extra knowledge besides just looking at pages of figures. guest: i did not have a degree in accounting. i have training for my news organization to kind of help me understand corporate financial disclosures and that kind of thing, but a lot of times you learn things on the job and thankfully i have been covering these kinds of things for quite some time. obviously reporters also rely on the expertise, people who are
8:37 am
experts in this field are willing to volunteer their time. host: you said you were the one reporter to speak up and take the press secretary up on that offer and get access to it and an interesting story at that you can read, we've been talking about it for the past 40 minutes and we have time for maybe one more call. caller: good morning. host: yes sir. caller: i don't think they need more money for covid. what they need is more money for these illegal immigrants. if they are not using the money for all those 3 million illegal immigrants, why are they getting the monger? -- getting the money? host: i will give you the final minute or so. guest: certainly there has been some spending of covid night --
8:38 am
covid-19 really funding at the southern border. the department of health and human services is responsible. there has been some spending and it is all kind of legal and obviously it will be nice to have disclosures about when that is going to happen but that is certainly something the white house has given information to lawmakers about and that spending on those three initiatives. host: as you take a look ahead, what are you going to be working on this week? guest: lawmakers are back, some confrontations about covid-19 relief are going to be happening. i also cover prescription drug pricing. there will be discussions about insulin and a busy few weeks during the reconciliation process as well. host: on twitter, it is easy enough to find. up next, we will take a look at
8:39 am
some of the key primaries taking place in the month of may. we will be joined by jacob rubashkin of inside elections. we will get to that right after the break. ♪ >> for the past 20 years, dr. thomas fisher has worked in the emergency department at the university of chicago medical center, serving the same southside community in which he was raised. during the past two years of covid-19, he decided to write about his experience in a
8:40 am
chicago emergency room. he says he was haunted by the confusion in the eyes of his patients. he asked a couple questions they are probably thinking. who is this man treating them from behind a mask? why did they have to wait so many hours to be treated? dr. fisher attempt to answer these and many other questions in his book, about a year of healing and heartbreak inside a chicago er. >> dr. thomas fisher with his book, the emergency, on this episode of book notes plus. it is available on the c-span now free mobile app. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up to this -- sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington.
8:41 am
subscribe today using the qr code or visit >> this mother's day, give mom the gift of c-span during our annual mother's day sale, going on right now at c-spansh there is every -- there was something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right to start shopping. >> there are a lot of places to get political news. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network.
8:42 am
unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome back to our desk, jacob rubashkin from inside elections, joining us at the start of a very busy month when it comes to midterm primaries. 12 states holding primaries over the next 30 days or so. is that calendar -- has that been impacted by the redistricting process? i was seeing more primaries this month than we usually do? guest: every state determines its own scheduling over the course of the election season when they hold their primaries,
8:43 am
when their filing dates are, and in certain instances, the state scheduled to have the earliest primaries like north carolina, was originally supposed to hold their primary about two months earlier, but because of ongoing litigation about the redistricting process, they got pushed back. it is a more concentrated schedule than we are used to because of a whole cascading set of issues. host: and it begins tomorrow in the buckeye state and the hoosier state. in ohio, who is the expected candidate who is going to try to hold that republican senate seat that rob portman is giving up? guest: it is looking like a two-man race for the top spot, potentially a three-man race. jd vance, the venture capitalist
8:44 am
securing that trump endorsement. that was a big boost to his campaign. he has been pulling first for the first time throughout the entire campaign. josh mandel, the former state treasurer who has run before, a well-known figure in the state and continues to be one of the top pulling candidates in that race. the most interesting develop it over the last week or so is matt dolan, a current state senator, part owner of the cleveland guardians baseball team, the only candidate running as a post-trump candidate rather than a pro-trump candidate, who has spent many millions of his own dollars on campaign ads. he has started to see a bump in the polls as well as we close out this race. host: the wall street journal today with the same idea we had been talking about, a month of primaries. they test trump's sway in the gop is the headline. you see jd vance, the first candidate in that list of pictures.
8:45 am
an interesting develop it in that race as well when it comes to donald trump and these are in canada it's was a club for growth at that came out and seemed to dean donald trump for his support of jd vance. i want to play that add. [video clip] >> the elites were right about donald trump. i may never trump guy. >> has trump seen this? >> president trump tweeting a surprise endorsement of mitt romney. >> how did that turn out? >> i love trump but he is going to be wrong with jd vance too. >> a vote for trump is a vote for racist reasons. >> where does he get off saying things like that? >> jd vance is a fraud. host: jacob rubashkin, the conservative, the antitax club for growth with that add. guest: the club for growth and donald trump has had this very fractious relationship over the course of the last half decade. originally the club wasn't of
8:46 am
the most prominent anti-trump groups in the 2016 republican primary. they butted heads quite a few times in that race. after trump won, like the rest of the establishment, the club came around and became one of his most -- supporters. however, the club does still adhere to a greater degree of ideological rigor than president trump, when selecting candidates and the club has been on board for josh mandel since the beginning of this race. they were clear that no matter who the president endorsed, they would be sticking by josh mandel. this has become one of the few races on the map where the club and trump have to verged and they are very much going at it in a public way, like we are not used to since 2016. host: georgia republican senate state -- debate is being hosted
8:47 am
by the atlanta press club. you can watch it on c-span, and the free c-span now video app. what will you be looking for in that debate? guest: in the georgia senate race, we have herschel walker, the former heisman trophy winner, endorsed by former president donald trump. he is not going to be there. he has adopted a strategy of avoiding debates, doing very few public appearances, very few news interviews and none outside a friend he media outlets. -- outside of friendly media outlets. he currently looks poised to win the primary without a runoff, exceeding that 50% threshold. that is because he is not the most experienced candidate. he's never run for office and he does have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth at certain points. there campaign is trying to keep him under wraps as much as they can, and in managed environments
8:48 am
until the absolute have to bring him out in the general. host: the peach state primaries take place may 24, the same day as alabama and arkansas. that is the bookend of a month of primaries from indiana and ohio races taking place tomorrow. we are talking about all of them in this 45 minutes with jacob rubashkin of inside elections. let me invite viewers to join the conversation. democrats, it is (202)-748-8000. republicans, it is (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. let us know what races you want to focus on and what you are watching, especially in some of these key states holding primaries this month. we mentioned ohio, we mentioned georgia. pennsylvania having its primaries this month as well. that will be may 17. what are you watching for in that senate race? guest: pennsylvania is one of the few states on the map where
8:49 am
we have competitive primaries on both the democrat and republican side. democrats have done a good job of avoiding competitive primaries but wisconsin and pennsylvania, they do have competitive primaries they are sorting through. in addition to the republican race which has seen a surge in celebrities with dr. oz and david mccormick, each spending millions of dollars of their own personal funds on nasty campaigns for the republican nomination. trump has endorsed dr. oz, who had not been the pulling leader in that race but now looks tied up, but there is a lot of money flowing into that state and mccormick has a very real shot of winning that race. whoever wins it, whoever wins the democratic primary, which looks like john federman, they will be in for one of the if not the most competitive general election race come this fall. host: the republican senate
8:50 am
primary, one of the ads from dr. oz, the trump endorsed candidate. [video clip] >> you've seen ads lying about me. yes i worked in tv which taught me how to fight the woke media. you know who else learned in hollywood? the two grated -- greatest presidents in modern history. like me they were conservative outsiders who fought the establishment. this scares people from the wall street and washington revolving door like david mccormick. people who don't share our values. don't be scared by the swamp. i'm dr. oz and i approve this message. host: pennsylvania state residents seeing that add. it looks at a two man race with dave mccormick. here is a recent ad from dave mccormick. [video clip] >> i approve this message. >> the real dr. oz. >> sever clinton is one of the smartest women i've ever met. dr. fauci is a wonderful scientist. we need to work with china.
8:51 am
challenging your beliefs about what it means to be male or female. how do we keep guns out of the wrong person's hands? the greatest national security threat we have is obesity. we haven't had any act -- interaction with president trump at all. >> a complete and total fraud. host: jacob rubashkin on those ads and the amount of ad spending as well. guest: if ohio didn't exist, this would be the most expensive republican primary contest in history. it is certainly one of the most expensive. what we are seeing here is a real tension between the more conservative policy oriented wing of the republican party, perhaps are presented by dave mccormick and the trump wing of the republican party which is still very much in the driver seat. what we are seeing from dr. oz is he has had to counter these
8:52 am
perceptions he is a liberal, a hollywood guy, not from pennsylvania, and he has a lot of positions he has taken over his ok'd -- over his two decade long run on tv, every day, talking about issues that are not traditional conservative or even moderate conservative stances to be taking on all those issues we saw. things like transgender rights and gun rights, things of that nature. he's been trying very hard to combat those perceptions. he's been using the trump endorsement as a shield to deflect this criticisms, where dave mccormick has been trying to informed voters he is not just the friendly celebrity surgeon you've been seeing. he is not just trump's body but in fact a liberal out-of-stater trying to come in and buy a senate seat. host: talking in the area of $40 million spent.
8:53 am
this is just the primaries. you mentioned ohio taking the top spot when it comes to total spending. the ohio republican primary, somewhere in the area of $60 million. what races do you want to talk about? (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, -- independents, (202)-748-8002. we will head to ohio. anna on our line for democrats. caller: i would ask your guest to speak about the redistricting issue in ohio in regard to the decisions by the ohio supreme court calling the redistricting unfair and get it still stands. as a very concerned voter, i would dig deep into the candidates and in the primary, i
8:54 am
will be voting for john cranley. i went to hear the debate at central state between him and whaley. cranley to me just stands above in regards to his work in cincinnati with the big solar farm, the innocence project, which i think his group has gotten 34 people out of prison. he is really steadfast, and what i know about whaley is standing in the way of -- and not helping a 75% black district in dayton, where a 93-year-old hospital was being torn down. she did not do anything about that. as well as the fbi has described the dayton officials as a culture of corruption. my research, i'm going with john cranley and i encourage ohio voters to do the same because i think he can beat the wine and he has an incredibly steadfast
8:55 am
and very compassionate record. if you could talk about that redistricting issue, i would appreciate it. host: happy to focus on governor races as well. guest: ohio is one of these states that has had a very tortured redistricting processing. in 2018 voters approved a new redistricting set up that involved both the state legislature and the backup commission and in certain cases the state supreme court. voters wanted to see bipartisan majorities pass these maps, so the included provisions that had tripwires for additional steps if these maps weren't bipartisan, additional requirements would have to be met. given the current political climate, there was never any likelihood there was going to be a bipartisan map. so republicans took the process to the extreme, did not make
8:56 am
good faith efforts with democrats to drawl maps with democrats -- to draw maps. as a result, the state supreme court stepped in and tossed all of the maps. however, on the congressional district side, the state came back with another set of maps and while the supreme court has not approved those maps, they have scheduled hearings on them for after tomorrow's primary. in effect, they have ceded the maps will be in place for at least one election cycle before they hear those challenges and then they could overturn them and send estate back to the drawing board ahead of 2024. the unique thing about ohio's maps is given the way that they were passed with only republican votes, these maps were already going to expire after 2024 and have to be redrawn. it is a very messy process. ohio is one of the emblem attic states of how redistricting can
8:57 am
be a complex -- and will medic states -- emblematic states of how redistricting can be a complex issue. host: one question from twitter about ohio. how are the chances in cleveland to unseat corporate democrat chantel brown? guest: this is a rematch in ohio's 11th district which is cleveland. a special election we saw happened last year, to replace representative fudge who joined biden's cabinet. at that time, it was an open seat and tina turner, a very prominent bernie sanders surrogate was the favorite heading into that race. she raised upwards of $6 million and had support from the entire national progressive movement, from bernie sanders on down.
8:58 am
shontel brown was an unknown ohio city councilwoman. she was able to orchestrate a come from behind victory, erased turner's polling lead by about nine points on election day. she is now congresswoman for that district. as the incumbent, she is bringing a few advantages she did not have last time, like an endorsement from president joe biden and the congressional progressive caucus which had to turner last time. perhaps the most -- which had backed turner last time. her colleagues seem less likely to try and unseat her so the congressional support from people like alexandria because io cortez -- alexandria because io cortez -- when this was an open seat. she is in an unfamiliar position
8:59 am
of being the underdog. now it really is nina turner who is fighting the uphill battle to unseat the incumbent host: as you said, members don't usually try to get involved to defeat others until redistricting put that in other districts. talk about that. guest: the big story i am watching in redistricting is happening in west virginia. it is a republican state and lost a seat in the congressional reapportionment the cycle because it was one of the few states in the country that lost population. so it was bumped down from three districts to two districts. as a result, to congressman were drawn into the same district which encompasses the northern half of the state. they are both running against each other in the republican
9:00 am
primary and there are so many different stories that have gone into that race. it is a generational contest and a regional contest. mckinley is from the northern panhandle and mooney is from maryland by way of the eastern panhandle. it is a temperament contrast between the more reserved, and the more boisterous. like everything in the republican party, it is also a debate about donald trump because donald trump has endorsed mooney, and mooney -- and trump is against mckinley and he did not vote to overturn the election and he voted for the bipartisan infrastructure
9:01 am
bill. i will be watching that to see a test of former president trump's power within such a republican state and eight primary electorate. host: i these two members who liked each other before they got pitted against each other? guest: no, this has been -- this was not unforeseen. everybody knew west virginia was in dire states when it came to redistricting. early estimates of popular from the survey and west virginia very clearly was going to lose that third seat. it was widely expected that it would be mckinley and mooney who are bumped together whether then the third, carol miller, in the southern part of the state. both guys were gearing up for this right for a while.
9:02 am
mooney hess's ion the 2024 senate race and they seem to be cordial but at the same time these are not two best friends who are now tragically pitted together by circumstance. host: to california, wanda, republican. what do you want to talk about? caller: talking about the debate last night in the georgia gubernatorial debate. every candidate on stage acknowledged that the georgia 2020 presidential election was rigged for biden and that the governor certified a rigged election. every candidate on stage verified that the 2020 presidential vote in georgia was rigged and they all confronted camp and he never denied it. -- kemp and he never denied
9:03 am
it. that election happened all over the country. host: that is wanda in california. jacob rubashkin . guest: we have david produce challenging him in that primary. brian kemp is number one on his enemy list because he certified the 2020 election, which again this was the most scrutinized election in american history, specifically in georgia. it was recount after recount and all pointed in the direction that biden narrowly but clearly when the state of georgia
9:04 am
despite donald trump's best efforts otherwise, both before the race and after the race to try to control the secretary of state defining the extra votes that trump needed to win. that has earned brian kemp the enduring enmity of president trump. david put it has not been able to establish any sort of commanding position in that race and latest pulling out of georgia would indicate that kemp might even avoid a primary runoff against purdue when that race sets up for a re-mass against stacey abrams in the fall erie data purdue has been a disappointing candidate and has not been able to run the kind of race that i think a lot of people in trump universe were expecting and hoping him to be able to do during -- to do. host: viewers cannot to spend.
9:05 am
rocawear we mention the senate debate taking place tonight. 11:00 a.m. eastern this morning, the former republicans who will be participating in the state race in georgia will be debating as well, hosted by the atlanta press club. that is happening at 11:00 a.m. eastern this morning and the senate debate is going on. a lot is going on in georgia and we are carrying as many as possible throughout the midterm election season. luke out of portland, oregon, good morning. caller: i am calling in, i use to work in macon, georgia and now i am in oregon. my, and questions are about the races in oregon.
9:06 am
there are three house races that a progressive candidate endorsed by elizabeth worn his running in an important race. doyle canning, and environmental lawyer endorsed by jane fonda is running for the open seat. the other one is interesting, andrea salinas's house majority leader and is running against seven or eight other people including a candidate named kirk fleming who is apparently supported by bitcoin money. it may be that your guest may not be following oregon what i thought if you had any comment about those house races. host: i'm going to bet that
9:07 am
jacob rubashkin has some thoughts. guest: frederick kempe oregon -- guest: oregon gained seat in the pacific lost. it was already a crowded primary and all of the sudden a new candidate joined. he had never run for office before but he is being supported by several million dollars put into a super pac that has been running more tv ads and put in much the rest of the fields combined. he is also receiving support and this is the sticking point from the house majority pack, which is the democratic leadership super pac based out of washington, d.c. that is charged with defending the house majority. they very rarely involve
9:08 am
themselves in the democratic primaries, particularly open seat primaries weather is no incumbent but they have began advertising for flynn. where is the money coming from? we have seen from the limited disclosures that the super pac's have to make that the money is coming from sam bateman free, a 30-year-old billionaire who founded a cryptocurrency market, which is one of the largest exchanges. he has established himself as a major donor on the democratic seen and places all across the country and he is certainly ruffling feathers as he does so in races like this one and elsewhere where he is putting in millions and millions of dollars in races like oregon. the other one is the jamie macleod skinner race this is another example of how tough it is to unseat an incumbent.
9:09 am
she is an accomplished politician and perform very well. i interviewed her a couple of months ago, and she has a compelling case to make about kurt schrader and the votes he has taken in washington, d.c., she is up against the democratic establishment indie seat which is supporting schrader and she is given with one of the primary arguments against schrader and his position in the moderate nine, his position on some of the prescription drug bills are no longer in news and while they were the dominant story in the fall back when she launched her campaign, there are simply other things on voters minds so she
9:10 am
has to work hard to reintroduce those issues. it is always an uphill battle to oust an incumbent in congress. host: if you want to test jacob rubashkin 's knowledge, i dare you to find when he doesn't know much about. republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents, (202) 748-8002 democrats, (202) 748-8000. next caller. caller: this is a terrific segment and your guest is full of knowledge. i have to ask a follow-up. oregon 2006, the big-money campaign. -- has spent almost none of his
9:11 am
own money. it has mostly come from the pack and what is the chances of his winning? host: give me the pencil venue -- the pennsylvania question. caller: pennsylvania is big-money on both sides and in the primaries and there will be big-money in general. i am wondering how that favors on each side, which candidate benefits from the fact that there is in? i am curious to know which candidate on each side will be more likely to defeat the candidate on the other side?
9:12 am
which republican would have the best chance? host: oregon six and pa senate. guest: in oregon six, given how the district that he may be the next congressman from the district, money does matter to having more money than your opponents and in this case it is not his money but money coming in to support him from this different entity that the super pac and it is beneficial for him to have millions of dollars in campaign ads being run in support of him in this district. whether it is enough to get a first-time candidate who isn't known by the political team across the finish line in such a crowded field remains to be seen. but we certainly shouldn't discount the possibility. in pennsylvania, the candidate
9:13 am
that benefits the most from the many streaming and is the candidate for whom the money is supporting. in the case of the republican senate primary, dr. oz and dave mccormick are going for dollar against each other. both filed personal financial disclosures and each has at least hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in assets that they have been able to deploy thus far. the real effect is it has crowded out the other candidates running in that race. there are three or four other candidates that have been in the race for the better part of a year who simply have not been able to gain traction now that the airwaves are flooded with ads from dr. oz and david mccormick. on the democratic side, the leader looks well positioned win that primary.
9:14 am
congressman conor lamb is a credible candidate but has not been able to put together the financial operation to really make a late play ahead of this primary peer when it comes to the general, this will be a highly competitive race so it is a republican leaning year so the republican will have the advantage, even in venue, but there are plenty of opportunities for whoever the democratic nominee is to make a lot of issues of the same things we are seeing in the republican primary, the attacks that we will see in the general election. host: the unlimited funding that you refer to that is more important in a primary than a general. whatever democrat comes to, will they have enough money to go toe to to with whoever the republican nominee is? guest: senate races are so expensive and even a guy like
9:15 am
dr. oz who have reported 400 or $500 million in assets, he will be able to dip into that money, but a dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. senate races can cost up to $200 million selves. saw democratic candidates in the last election race hard money, 100 $20 million to $130 million. -- $120 million to $130 million. when you get to the general, republicans are still pretty aware that the democratic fundraising apparatus outstrips theirs, especially with the candidate who has a donor network grassroots in be the fundraising leader in the primary. he will have the money he needs to compete and whether or not dr. oz or david mccormick decide
9:16 am
to cut themselves a check for it figures, potentially -- for eight figures, potentially nine figures. host: joe on the line for democrats. caller: i was wondering why the electoral college overrules the popular vote. can't the republican candidates that trump has endorsed run on their own merits? guest: the electoral college, it seems like every four years we have this. it is how we've always done elections. there are debates on whether it is the best way to do presidential elections, but it is the weight we've got an short of a really substantial change in the politics -- is the way we
9:17 am
got. and unless it is a really substantial change in the politics, -- host: the other thing the caller brought up was trump endorsements. the republican candidate and whoever emerges will likely be the favorite in the general election. i want to show some of the ad campaigns going on in that republican primary. [video clip] since 2010, mo brooks is been one of the most conservative guys in washington. weak, big spending, open border, but there is a cost to being a true conservative and the swamp hates mo brooks. that is why mitch mcconnell spent $15 million attacking him.
9:18 am
alabama conservatives want mo brooks. >> i'm mo brooks and you better believe i approve this message. host: congressman mo brooks with that ad. he is facing eight former top staffer to richard shelby. here is one of the recent ads. [video clip] illegal boarding crossing at highs. human traffickers aren't making millions a day selling women into prostitution. i am katie britt and the fact that joe biden still hasn't been to this order is a disgrace. as alabama senator i will fight to finish president trump's wall and deport illegal criminal aliens. we must figure this order now. host: those are some of the ads people are stealing. guest: this is one that if you had told me we will be looking at the current situation, six
9:19 am
month ago i would have thought you were crazy. six months ago donald trump had endorsed mo brooks was one of his fiercest defenders. he spoke and -- spoke at the january 6 rally very passionately. katie seemed to be on his list and he was trying to get mo brooks and now he has on endorsed -- and now he has taken away the endorsement from mo brooks. anyone who knows mo brooks finds this stunning. mo brooks made a comment a couple months ago about how we needed to move on from 2020, which if you walk downtown over
9:20 am
to the shiny dome over there, most republicans will probably say the same thing but most republicans are relying on trump's endorsement to win a primary and atlanta. so another candidate named mike durrant who never ran before, got into the race and spent money on well done campaign ads. he was part of the military operation that was later dramatized as black hawk down he was one of the only survivors of that event in mogadishu and has established himself as the front runner as mo brooks has faded without trump's endorsement. and katie britt who came as the more establishment, she has now that her endorsement with trump is back up.
9:21 am
she is no think she is going to continue trump's fight in washington, d.c. trump's decision to have really scrambled the race for all three of these candidates, none of whom now have his endorsement and two of whom are still looking. host: and that primary date is may 24, the same as george and arkansas, indiana, and ohio. 12 happening over the next early days. ken in goose creek, alabama. caller: district one in south carolina -- goose creek, south carolina. caller: i want to talk about district one in south carolina and also the incumbent tim scott. south carolina is pretty much would be read. every now then democrat slides in that is the exception not the
9:22 am
rule. tim scott, i don't hear anything about that race. i am assuming the lack of publicity, do you know about the democratic challenges running in that seat and -- host: we have your question. let me let jacob rubashkin jump in. guest: tim scott is well-positioned for reelection. kristin matthews is running. tim scott has amassed a warchest of approaching $20 million. a lot of that money i would wager is more likely to be is for perhaps a campaign in 2024 and not necessarily for senate that it will be in a race and 22. south carolina is a republican
9:23 am
state and we sat democrats to take a big swing at lindsey graham in 2020. jamie harrison raised upwards of $20 million to go at once a but was unable to really even come close to winning, lost by about 10 went. democrats cannot looking at south carolina as an opportunity, especially given the unfavorable political environment and the republican lien of the state. in district one, that is a more interesting republican primary. we have the incumbent congresswoman who has tried to walk a tightrope between being a trump critic and a top supporter. she is having some difficulty doing that and trump came and endorsed one of her challengers, katie harrington, who ran for the seat and lost in an amazing upset to a democrat and a republican leaning district. she is back trying again and has already defeated one incumbent
9:24 am
congressman and a primary and 20. should be congressman mark sanford who was viewed as pro-trump. in 2022 she is trying to do the same thing and we will see how successful she is. danny andrews, but redistricting made this more republican so in a year like 2022, it is unlikely that any democratic candidate will be able to get over the finish line. host: a few minutes left if you want to get your questions in about the race you are watching. there are 12 primaries this month. you were just talking about south carolina. head across to north carolina and the senate race there. guest: the north carolina senate race, with a crowded republican primary. we have the former governor pat mccoury.
9:25 am
host: richard burr is retiring. guest: richard burr is hanging it up after a couple of terms in the united states senate. north carolina is a more competitive state so there will be a competitive general election as well grab the open seat attracted a lot of challengers initially. on the democratic side, the field has cleared for sherry beasley. two most strong challengers dropped out so she will be the democratic nominee. on the republic side we have former governor pat cory who lost reelection in 2016. congressman ted budd was the trump endorsed candidate and mark walker was the tea party congressman redistrict out of his seat and now back trying to run for the senate. this is one of the races where what we were talking about earlier today has come into
9:26 am
effect, the delays from redistricting and litigation. patrick and corey lead with a pulling and fundraising -- patrick mccoury led with a po lling lead. ted budd got an additional two months. his allies have spent upwards of $14 million in support of him and they have had an additional two months to get that trump endorsement in front of more voters and introduce ted budd to more voters and we have seen he has taken a lead in the primary polling and looks to be in strong position heading into election day. host: one of the things inside election does is race ratings showing where they think each race stands when it comes to north carolina open seat that richard burr is leaning, and
9:27 am
that tossup, what more do you need to see from democrats to make this a closer race? guest: the reason why we have north carolina in a little different position than some of the other states is that this is a slightly more republican leaning state. democrats can win elections of the current incumbent governor is a democrat, roy cooper, one of the only to win in 2020. donald trump carried the state. senator thom tillis defeated cal cunningham and a race that was also highly competitive. sherry beasley, the democratic nominee, lost her reelection race in 2020 by a margin of only a couple hundred votes, but she still did lose and that underscores how difficult it is for democrats to get over the finish line in that state. it can happen but it is less
9:28 am
common than a state like pennsylvania or certainly in the democratic held states. this is going to be a good year for publicans. all the indicators from the generic ballot to president joe biden's approval rating .2 voters being unhappy with democrats and being -- binds approval rating meeting voters being unhappy with democrats. -- biden's approval rating meeting voters being unhappy with democrats. host: is there any seat that and incumbent holds that are giving favor to another party? guest: we currently do not have any seats with an income of either party that we see as more
9:29 am
likely to flip. at this point in time we don't have any seats on the map held by one party that we see as more likely than not to flip. we've got three democrats in the tossup category, those are highly vulnerable seats. democrats could lose any of them or all of them or none of them. republicans, even the more marginal seats they are defending in pennsylvania and wisconsin, we see those beginning with it ever so slight republican tilt given the national environment heading into those. host: beget to karen who has been waiting on the democrat line from nebraska. -- next we go to karen who has been waiting of the democrat line from nebraska. caller: what are his thoughts on the race in nebraska? guest: this is another gubernatorial race, race in
9:30 am
general where we will see a test of former's enduring influence in the republican party. we have a trump endorsed candidate who was involved in the trump campaign in 2016. we have a guy named jim pill and who comes from the universe -- p illen who is close to the outgoing governor, rickets. we have a candidate named lindstrom running and that race and has seen his polling numbers rise. the district was rocked by recent his asians of unwanted -- recent accusations of unwanted groping by the trump endorsed candidate. he was accused of inappropriate touching and seven other women spoke to the paper as well, making similar accusations.
9:31 am
he has denied them but that has become the topic of conversation in that race in the final stretch. polling would indicate all three are tied up in any of them could potentially emerge from this primary. trump was just in nebraska rallying and it remains to be seen if that will be enough to save him from not just this particular scandal but also long-standing stories about his failure to pay taxes over 600 times over the course of his business career. he will have to defend forcefully in the media. host: jacob rubashkin , always appreciate the time. guest: absolutely. host: and our final 25 minutes or so, it will be open form. any public policy issue you want to talk about, political, state
9:32 am
issue. the phone lines, democrats (202) 748-8000, publicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. start dialing in and we will get to your calls after the break. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, house is not in session but the senate is meeting senators expected to vote on several nominees. tuesday at 10:00 and eastern, live on c-span, transportation secretary pete buttigieg testifies on his department of ozzfest budget request. on wednesday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, live on c-span,
9:33 am
homeland security secretary appears before the senate homeland security committee on what resources are needed to protect and secure the u.s. southern border. watch this week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also head over to for scheduling information. order video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now available on the -- in the c-span shop, the congressional directory. order a copy of this directory. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments and contact information for state governors and biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at
9:34 am
every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to the russian invasion of ukraine. we have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile up -- free mobile app, and our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to >> "washington journal" continues. host: our program will end at 10:00 a.m. eastern and in the final 25 minutes, it is our been warm, any public, political issue you want to talk about. this where we turn the reins of
9:35 am
the program over to you. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents, (202) 748-8002. we will also keep an eye on your tweets on social media. the house is not in but activity on capitol hill, the senate is in at 3:00 p.m. eastern. we are also expecting president biden from the white house, press briefing today, not president biden but the usual reporter briefing expected at 2:30 p.m. eastern today. on the political front, you can watch a couple events here. at 11:00 it is the republican secretary of state debate in the state of georgia. four republicans running for the nomination as georgia's secretary of state.
9:36 am
and then this evening, six republicans in the peach state competing for the nomination for georgia's u.s. senate race. at 7 p.m. eastern, on c-span, c-span. org and the free c-span radio app. let us know what public policy issues you want to talk about. jerry out of martin, north dakota, independent, you are of first. caller: my concern is, isn't there something in the constitution that says anybody that is involved in an insurrection, they can't run for office? is that true? host: what do you want to see happen? caller: i want to see the ones that were in the insurrection and i don't think they should be able to run.
9:37 am
we don't need any more corruption than what we've got. how do we know they are not going to continue? host: this is marian out of grove town, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. am i on? host: yes ma'am. caller: i'm sorry i didn't know. i have a suggestion. for years i have listened to "washington journal" and loved it. i love the opinions i agree with and i think about the opinions that i don't agree with. one thing i thought about, especially since the last segment, is that republicans, democrats, and independents agree on one thing, the employer's should be jailed if they hire undocumented workers. that is the only way we are going to get something done.
9:38 am
what i suggest is every single caller regardless of what line you are on, before your comments, start with seeing jail employers who hire undocumented workers. if we all do that, we know the politicians are listing to this and if we all do it, then maybe they will actually do some legislation that will go after the employer's hiring them. all they get is a fine now and they can pay that. they are making a lot more money on using cheap labor. let's legally put pressure on all politicians to jail these employers. that is my comment. thanks a lot. host: fayetteville, ray, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. good morning, c-span.
9:39 am
every year around election time, republicans found immigration -- pound immigration. every day somebody calls, and look at the polls, republicans, democrats are leading. with this insurrection coming out, pound them on it. there were many of these senators and congressmen involved in that. have a great day. host: it is our open form, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents it is (202) 748-8002. in the paper this morning, a
9:40 am
large story in terms of a size and column space in the new york times starting on the front page of the new york times, tucker carlsen reshapes fox news and became trump' air nationalists, focusing on tucker carlsen and his role on fox news. we can show you the front page story and then it jumps to two inside pages as well. that is the double truck, as it is called, that we can show you. the story continuing for a second page as well and another two pages on tucker carlsen and fox news. a story out of the new york times if you want to read it, american nationalists remaking fox in becoming trump's heir. this is john in ohio,
9:41 am
independent. good morning. caller: what i want to talk about is the lies that have come out of washington. biden is blaming the oil companies for extended profits. what happens is with the people on the unemployment line that didn't have to go back to work, now all of these different companies over the nation have to pay overtime to get stuff out and that raises the price of the food or whatever it is coming to the store. what the people want to know is why it with all of these jobs out here, why are people still on the unemployment line when there are supposed to be only 26 weeks. explain to us how are they is still not having to go back to work and we are playing -- paying unemployment? host: we will head to brooklyn.
9:42 am
this is felicia, democrat. caller: good morning. i just have one question. the republicans are hypocrites. that is what happened during this whole trauma of january 6 and all of the policies that if they were so much for the people and freedom of speech, wyatt are they -- why are they restricting abortion and making elections harder. there was nothing stolen. republicans were scared of number 45. for what reason i don't know. it was the democrats that did the same exact thing, what would they do? host: the phone lines (202) 748-8000 democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002.
9:43 am
from 1600 pennsylvania, the associated press, joe biden traveling for mother's day to meet with those who fled ukraine. joe biden will also meet with u.s. aid workers and educators there that is out of the white house this morning. one other story this morning, back up on capitol hill, i will pull it up, fox news tweeting that private security officers are beginning today on capitol hill to supplement the capitol police force who have been understaffed. roll call newspaper with that story from a few days ago on the background on this. those contract security offers -- officers are part of a new problem to alleviate staffing shortages. the new capital security officers will be unarmed and
9:44 am
have a uniform of gray dress pants and a navy blue blazer and will be positioned inside secured buildings and patrol areas. the move will "free up capitol police officers to focus on the critical mission of protecting the capital complex" and those three offices making up the police board that oversees the capitol police. the story goes on to note that since january 6, offices leaving and forced overtime have been a constant strain on the capitol police force. the capitol police department lost between 140 and 100 50 officers from january 6 20 21 to january 6, 2022, the rate that double that of other peers according to the capitol police chief. there are 100 800 -- they are short 300 officers they need for
9:45 am
the capital complex. 15 minutes left in our program it is our open form. tim in arkansas, independent, good morning. caller: good morning c-span. there was no insurrection. it is about the language that you use. when you go to capitol hill to vote on the electoral college, it is up to the senators to understand the political process and the political process was corrupted when swing states provided slates of electors that were provided unconstitutionally. when the swing states changed a lot in the middle of elections, they violated the constitution and when the vote came down january 6, people who depend the
9:46 am
constitution were obligated to reject those slates of electors. host: do you plan on voting this cycle? caller: yes, of course. host: do you trust the electoral process in this country? caller: i trust the process, i don't trust people running the process. during the 2020 election you had mark suck right invest 400 million -- you had mark zuckerberg invest $409 in order to get democrats elected. they took over the process in these swing states. host: this is randy, millington, michigan, democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to thank you and all the other men and women it takes to make this program. you are doing a good service for the nation. host: thank you. caller: my comment was on your
9:47 am
first segment on the red line in ukraine. it is no doubt -- put it this way, we spent 20 years trying to bring democracy to a nation that 80% of them couldn't read or write. you didn't have running water, a rare commodity in that country, but we are sitting back watching a functional democracy get blown to bits because one guy threatens nuclear war. we have all had nukes for my entire life. if that is all it is going to take is someone threatening it, the north korea is going to be the next one and who will be after that? we have to stop this guy because he is not going to stop. the ukrainians are fighting with the american spirit we used to have. we have got to support that, in my opinion.
9:48 am
i don't like war anymore than anybody else, but if we don't stop him over there, we will be fighting, i believe, in our country. host: are you ready to put u.s. troops on the ground are ready to set a redline for that? the reason we had that conversation today was the congressman adam kinzinger introduce a new authorization of use military force that would allow the president to use u.s. troops and restore the territorial integrity of ukraine if it was shown that russia launched a chemical or biological or nuclear attack in this ongoing invasion. caller: i hate to put anybody else's kids in harm's way, but this one is so important i think it has to be done. i am glad i am not the president who has to make that call, but if you look at the facts on the ground, that is going to be one will have to be. i have to agree with mr.
9:49 am
kinsinger on this one. you have to have the option on the table and be ready to use it to put an end to this. thank you for letting me put in my two cents worth and i appreciate the time. host: adam kinzinger releasing that revolution for authorization of use of force. this is what he said yesterday. [video clip] i don't think we need to be using force in ukraine right now. i just released the use of military force given the president congressional leverage or permission to use it if wmd or chemical weapons are used in ukraine. it doesn't compel him but if they are used he has that leverage. it gives him a better flexibility but it is a deterrent for vladimir putin. if vladimir putin wants to elevate in the west, he will do it. we are supplying and when the
9:50 am
financing is right, there may be a point we have to recognize that prior to world war ii there were moments nobody ever wanted to get involved and eventually came to realize they had to. i hope we don't get to that point here but we should be ready if we have to. host: kinsinger yesterday on face the nation. 10 minutes left in our program. it is our open forum. gary in abilene, texas, republican, good morning. caller: form. -- good morning. i called in to make a suggestion about our congress, both the senate and representatives, i think those folks need to eliminate those aisles up there and seek those people in amongst
9:51 am
themselves and they need to get together and talk about things and they are not doing it, and the are not listening. we are a nation that is together and for those folks to get up there and do what they are doing in taking us down the wrong path a lot of times, we really don't know what is going on and there is no way for us to find out. another thing is, the thing over in ukraine. i have yet to hear why putin is going into the ukraine. i think it is a sad situation, but there is a reason why the sky is doing it.
9:52 am
i've heard he doesn't want nato -- why this guy is doing it. i have heard he doesn't want nato over there. i think we need to concentrate on that and start listening to the guy. i think biden is doing ok but he is kind of like tim conway on the on the carol burnett show. that is all i have to say. host: it is our open forum. joe, tallahassee, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say something on the open forum.
9:53 am
i want to know if the moderators from "washington journal could sit down and have an open forum where they could discuss the news. i think it would be informative and helpful to many people because you will do such a very good job. this is in regards to my open form question. it is very simple -- people don't like donald trump for a number of reasons and people don't like joe biden for a number of reasons. donald trump is not a politician, he is a businessman. it takes a man to really understand business to be able to take care of the largest exclusive business in the world. the rest of the world looks to us, and it is not that easy. so i don't know who should be president, because the fact of the matter is, nobody knows how indy candidate -- how any candidate will be as a president, governor, mayor, or any other political position.
9:54 am
it is a question of weight and support the leadership that is there the best you can. as far as the nuclear war, we had used to nuclear devices to bring japan to their knees, and that was the first nuclear war. people say we should have never had hiroshima and nagasaki, well , if we didn't have a pearl harbor that wouldn't have happened. host: you sent a president should have business spirits or that would help. some callers have called in suggesting because the president is also the commander of the military, that anyone elected president should have military experiments -- experience, something that should be a requirement before you become president. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i was in the air force, all of the army, navy, marines,
9:55 am
fulfilling a military obligation. nobody between the age of 18 and 22 or 25 can really be guaranteed they will be a good leader. it is hard enough for them to make sure the area where they live in clean order and everything else. being in the military is important, but i had three stripes and no general ever called me in and asked me my opinion about what we should be doing about this, that, or something else the main thing is the person who was running for president, did they support the military? what if he did not serve and does that mean he wouldn't be a good military man? no. having military experience, a man could be in the reserves, the national guard. he goes to the meetings and
9:56 am
understands the rank and file orders to be passed down from one to the other, but that does not mean he would be the best commander-in-chief. if a company needs to pick a ceo, they are not going to pick someone who just sweeps the floor and everyone goes home as a janitor there they have have someone with knowledge behind. host: how brew in the military? caller: i was -- how long were you in the military? caller: i was in for four years and the head of retention said to me, i will play truth, they are going to be cutting back and promotions may not be that good. but it worked out ok for me because i was able to find a job that i was very happy with. i still got -- i still believe
9:57 am
in supporting it and i believe in the veterans groups. i know you are going to get a lot of guys that will say, when i was back in borneo in 1938, 11 talk. but the issue is they are young men and women if we are going to go into the free world, we need to go back to the selective service and no special treatments. everybody pulls two years from age 19 to 21 and then when you get out you are ready to go to college and go onto your career or decide to stay in. host: a couple minutes left. we will head to scott in bountiful, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. these republicans keep hanging onto these deals about stealing the election and other conspiracy theories, do they
9:58 am
realize there is an even greater problem that the government has been systematically removing boots and replacing them with drones. you can see them recharging on the electrical lines when they sit up there and they are surveilling everybody. everybody knows about it. host: we will go to rick in gulf breeze, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have one question -- what happened to the $500 billion that donald trump and steven mnuchin took back in may 2020 during the first round of cobit relief checks -- covid relief checks go? you can get an invasion of ukraine for a lot less than $500 billion. host: david in virginia,
9:59 am
republican, good morning. caller: form. i -- good morning. caller: i watch the real anthony fauci book and i watched the five hour hearing. i doctors. i am really disgusted by what i learned. in india, there is a province, 230 million people have gotten rid of covid by taking ivermectin. it is a poor country. that is all they can afford. there a doctor in southern california, brian tyson, has treated 10,000 patients, not one of them has died. host: brad, independent, ohio. one minute left. caller: on the enhanced
10:00 am
unemployment benefits -- [indiscernible] onto my general point, we are in debt. we cannot afford sending $33 billion to ukraine. you have to pay for that many times over when you compound interest. world war i, world war ii, the cold war -- [indiscernible] after world war ii. that is a european issue. we have enough problems in the u.s. host: we will be back tomorrow, as always 7:00 eastern, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,
10:01 am
which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] ♪ >> this week on the c-span network, the house is not in session but the senate is meeting. senators are expected to vote on several nominees. tuesday, chemical eastern, pete buttigieg testifies before the senate commerce, science and transportation committee. wednesday, 2:30 p.m. eastern, live on c-span, hunter mayorkas will appear before the homeland security committee. watch this week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app.
10:02 am
head to for scheduling information, live or on-demand video anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies, including comcast. >> this is way more. >> we are partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the skills they need to be ready for anything. announcer: comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning and one hour, republicans take part in a debate to be georgia secretary of state.
10:03 am
you can see this live at 11:00 eastern on c-span, also available online at or watch coverage on c-span now, our free video app. the debate between republican candidates running for governor in the state of georgia now. the primary election is may 24 and will require the leading candidate to receive more than 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff election, potentially. this debate courtesy of georgia public broadcasting. ms. lowry:


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on