tv Washington Journal 07222022 CSPAN July 22, 2022 7:00am-9:01am EDT
whele and also discussed the 2022 midterms. watch "washington journal" live next on c-span or c-span now. join the conversation with your phone calls, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning. we begin this morning with your reaction to the latest and the last for the summer hearing by the committee investigating the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. here is how you can dial in with your reaction. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us.
(202) 748-8003. post your thoughts on facebook.com/c-span or send them in a tweet, include the handle @cspanwj. we will get to all of your reaction in a minute but let's begin with the chair of the committee, bennie thompson, democrat from mississippi. he was remote because he tested positive for covid-19. the focus of the hearing was when did the former president know about the violence at the capital and what did he do during those hours? here is the chair, bennie thompson. [video clip] >> the select committee has heard the story of a president who has done everything in his power to overturn the election. he betrayed his oath and tried
to destroy our democratic institutions. he summoned him up to washington. on january 6 -- he summoned a mob to washington and when he knew the mob was a great he commanded the mob to go to the capital and commanded the heavily armed mob to "fight like hell." in the weeks between the november election in january 6, donald trump was a force to be reckoned with. he threw off the sober advice of his sensible advisors. instead he recklessly blazed the path of lawlessness and corruption, democracy be dammed, and then he stopped. for 187 minutes, this man with unbridled destructive energy could not be moved, not by his
aides, not by his allies, not by the chants of riders or the please of those facing down the rioters. or tellingly, donald trump ignored and disregarded the desperate pleas of his own family, including ivanka and don, jr. even though he was the only person in the world who could call off the mob he sent to the capital, he cannot be moved to rise from his dining room table and walk a few steps down the white house hallway into the press briefing room, where cameras were desperately waiting to carry his message to the armed and violent mob beating and killing law enforcement officers who are entering the capital and hunting down the vice president and various
members of congress. he cannot be moved. host: the chair of the january 6 committee, bennie thompson, democrat of mississippi. here is how the hearing is being framed on the front page of some the national newspapers. new york times. witnesses detail trump's refusal to stop the january 6 mob. testimony on hours of inaction and pouring gasoline on the fire. then you have the wall street journal, panel spells out trump's right inaction. -- trumps riot inaction. the washington post with the headline trump ignored many pleas to act. he broke his oath, the january 6 panel argues, and he refused to say the election is over on january 7 when his staff was urging him to record a video and he refused to say those words.
your reaction to all of that this morning. let's go to robert in arkansas. democratic caller. caller: i've been watching all of the hearings. for people who still stand behind trump, something has to be wrong with them. i hear a lot of people talking about his policies. what policy has he done that has benefited ordinary people? if republicans get back in charge, rick scott told you, the republican party is going after social security and medicare. host: on the hearing, what has stuck out to you so far? what has made the most impact? caller: how the ex-president can stand by and deliberately lied to the american people about the election was stolen and people are stupid enough to believe that. host: danny in farmington,
missouri. independent. caller: good morning. it was two hearings ago that the mark meadows staffer testified and what stuck cap to me right off the bat is when did the secret service gain respectability enough to say anything, to announce anybody else's -- didn't they just have a drunken romp with obama in central america? as far as 45 goes, i think all he was was a very successful primetime game show host. that whole time that show was on , i would hear it on howard stern, i would hear it on entertainment tonight, all i
could stand to watch was 15 minutes of the three or four or five years. host: you are saying you do not trust the secret service. what are you referring to about the january 6 attack? caller: what was the high up staffer? host: she testified recently. caller: two hearings ago. caller: are you talking about -- host: are you talking about the direction the secret service had with the president? caller: she said trump grabbed the wheel and the secret service came back and announced that statement of hers. i do not know when the secret service actually gain respectability to have anything
to say. they do not have a very good track record, i don't think. host: you don't trust the denouncing of her testimony? caller: correct. when she explained why she testified, that was totally credible, the way she explained herself and why she testified, totally believable. host: the vice chair of the committee, liz cheney yesterday posed the question of should people trust former president trump given what they allege if he should win again in 2024. did you vote for president trump?
caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. the polls were so full, i cannot vote for either person, ok? i cannot. i did not get in the polls in time. it did not happen for me. i did not have a positive attitude, especially for trump. absolutely not. he is a tv personality and i think being on the tv and having all of them ratings, that is how we learn to manipulate and figure out how to run his campaign through that television show. host: understood. i will hear from vicki in orlando, florida. give us your thoughts on the hearing. caller: ok. i do not believe nothing they
say. they are up there lying. the election was stolen and they do not want nobody to find out. you have all of these politicians up there, each one of them has said something about running us out of the restaurants, not letting us go to gas stations. where is anybody on there saying president trump asked for the national guard when they knew this crowd was coming in? you do not see nancy pelosi up there. he did not seem real bowser up there -- you do not see mayor bowser up there. if you are blind you will see they are so scared of trump, you would think he was a devil. that is the only reason this
trial is going on like it is. they are not trying to get to what really happened. if they were there would be more talk -- host: can you react to this from the new york times. on thursday the committee detailed how the entire apparatus of government, the top white house lawyer and other senior west wing advisors, low-level aids, pentagon officials, republicans in congress, and even his own daughter mobilized to respond to the deadliest attack on the capital in two centuries as it unfolded and implored the president to do the same but he willfully declined. here is a quote. "you are the commander in chief, you have an assault going on at the capital and there is nothing?" mark milley told the panel no call, no nothing, zero. he says there was no call by the
president. caller: the president -- it should not have, to what it come to, i am trying to say. where is nancy pelosi? why weren't the national guard put up there? you can go back, that cassidy girl, she is the richest 26-year-old girl in washington. host: pam in dixson, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i watched every minute of every hearing and it was pretty much eye-opening, pretty riveting. his action or inaction on the night of the attack was a perfect definition of passive aggressive, that was absolutely clear.
this is a deep-rooted movement. it looks like it is still going on. there's a lot going on that is a danger to our country. i do not know why they keep looking for a smoking gun as evidence that will hold up in court when it is cleared none of this would've happened without him, without 45, it is all on his behalf, it is all members of his cult we have -- members of his cult he has formed. i would call it cult 45 for short. it is made up of innocent people who have followed him and trust him and believe him despite all evidence, there are the heat groups -- the hate groups and they are trying to come out from their local state militias they formed to band behind him, and the worst of all is the craven
elected officials who only want to get the votes of the cult and they will say and do anything. i think all of the people are traitors and some do not realize it. we need to recognize the end game is to be a dictator. we are beyond fascism. gas companies make billions every three months. that is passage of -- that is fascism. we are in a war against a dictatorship that is clearly 45's end game. host: i will show our viewers the closing statement by liz cheney of wyoming. she touched on the supporters of the former president. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >>. the worst part.
-- here is the worst part. donald trump knows millions of americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation if it was threatened, they would put their lives in three to met state to protect her. he is praying on their patriotism. he is praying on their sense of justice. on january 6, donald trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our capital and our constitution. he has purposely created the false impression that america is threatened by a foreign force controlling voting machines or that a wave of tens of millions of false ballots were secretly injected into our election system or that ballot workers have secret bum drives and are stealing elections with them, all complete nonsense. we must remember we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation. host: liz cheney, closing
statement yesterday. we are getting your reaction to what you heard from the primetime hearing's on capitol hill yesterday. the former president put out a statement on truth social, his platform, that reads "this was a major event because everybody ganged up and said mike pence had no choice. he cannot send the slates back to the states, which is all i suggested he do for possible re-tabulation and correction based on large-scale voter fraud and delay garrity's. -- and delay clarity. -- and illegularity. this may prove to be an election changing event so we would have no war, have left afghanistan with dignity, and we would have kept the airbase, not had dead soldiers, taken out all american hostages."
your reaction to last night's hearing. vicki in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? host: find, go ahead, share your thoughts with us. caller: i think this undertaking is humongous and they are doing a wonderful job, but i would like to reiterate that the main purpose was to investigate and make recommendations so that this does not occur again. yet i know people do not like to hear this, but i think the media also takes advantage of this for their purposes. people have to remember the main purpose is to investigate and to make recommendations. the offshoot is to seek
culpability, but that is not their main focus. i think as americans we have to focus on that, what we can do to repair this and our relations with each other, and that begins with reducing the name-calling, opening up your mind and your heart, and just listening. you can hardly disagree with someone but open your mind and try to understand where they are coming from. i think that would help a lot if we become more dependent on our thinking and less dependent on what the television news throws at us or the media because they have an agenda also. i think our agenda is to reunite america, and you can totally disagree with somebody but still try to understand where they are coming from and realize every human being thinks and does what they are taught is right and
what they teach themselves is right. host: to give you an update, senator susan collins of maine and joe manchin of west virginia have come together with bipartisan legislation that would fix the election law act, the process by which congress certifies the election. google that and look it up if you are talking about not being able to exploit that law that is what this legislation would do. as many of you know, president biden tested positive for covid-19 yesterday. he canceled his travels. he did give the americans an update on how he is feeling in a video he sent out via twitter yesterday. take a look. [video clip]
host: all right, no audio there. we will try to fix that and shave that again in just a minute. pete in new jersey, republican. caller: hi. i thought liz cheney's summation was fantastic last night. the woman, pam, pre-much said what i would have said. host: which is what? caller: that was our fascist moment, or maybe our nazi moment, four years of it. at the risk of name-calling, i
think we are in real trouble if he ever gets anywhere near any elected position again. host: take two, president biden with an update on his health. [video clip] >> i guess you heard this morning i tested positive for covid. i have been double vaccinated and double boosted. symptoms are mild. we are getting a lot of work done. we will continue to get it done. thanks for your concern and keep the faith. we will be ok. host: president biden in a twitter video yesterday updating us on his health after a covid-19 diagnosis. anne in new york, democratic caller. did you watch last night and have you watched all of the hearings? caller: yes i did. i think trump needs to be in jail with an orange jumpsuit.
the man is a total crook. this is ridiculous what this country has allowed him to do, and i do not know if he is going to be able to get away with it, but he really needs to be in jail and all of the people around him who covered up this stuff with him, they all need to be in jail with him. he is a crook. he is an awful human being. host: in our next hour at 8:00 we will talk with a legal scholar about what sort of laws were allegedly broken in any sort of prosecution coming out of this january 6 committee on capitol hill, also what is the justice department looking at this point? karen in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to make a comment.
let me start with my city. my city is just outside of philadelphia. we have been seeing trump and his lemmings for a very long time between new york and atlantic city. nothing he has done is a surprise. however, i do believe the public is having a misconception of what is going on in these hearings. these hearings are equivalent to a grand jury. when they figure out what the charges should be they turn it over to the justice department. they prosecute and then there will be a defense allowed. there is no defense in a grand jury. the defense team is not allowed in the grand jury. this is all going to work itself out. host: if republicans had agreed to sit on the committee and if
speaker pelosi had agreed to let the republicans that the party wanted to sit on the committee, you think this would be different, these hearings? caller: i don't know. it is very hard to think that because the stuff they come up with is pretty indisputable. i know because i've been watching for a long time. he is larger-than-life. i've been looking at him since atlantic city allowed casinos to be built. he is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. we have been watching it for too many years. host: karen's opinion. carol in illinois. independent. caller: good morning. i am from illinois so our little rep on that panel is adam kinzinger. isn't it a wonder why he is not running again, and i hope he is
never elected for office in any part of our land. this whole trial has been a joke. they are just preventing the one side that fits their agenda. january 6 always will be a day where they are supposed to look at every individual state and see if there was any voter fraud where they can verify those votes on that day for each state. leading up to this, if they just taken one moment to look and see is there any voter fraud or any situation problem going on, but no. we had to dismiss all of the facts. host: did you hear the testimony before the committee by the former attorney general bill barr who said the justice department looked to see if there was any evidence of voter fraud or irregularities and he
said there was nothing there, if there was small amounts of it it was not enough to overturn the election? caller: they recount the votes they have presented to them. host: they did a recount in georgia. caller: they are recounting votes that they have, which some of them could have been underage voters that were registered or dead people. no person on this earth can definitively say there was not any voter fraud. if there is voter fraud it is illegal election. host: what evidence do you have that there was voter fraud and enough to overturn the election? caller: there could be one vote. that is all it takes. and there's more security that goes to follow joe biden around to delaware than there was that
day on capitol hill. host: here is lamar in a text to us. "they are still kicking a dead dog. how many times have they tried accusing trump of something and came up empty-handed?' " here is bill in pennsylvania. "how's that possible people of not been locked up for rigging the presidential election or for conspiring to overturn a valid election?" here is the chair bennie thompson talking yesterday about holding former president trump accountable. [video clip] >> as we made clear throughout these hearings, our investigation goes forward. we continue to receive new information every day, we continue to hear from witnesses. we will reconvene in september to continue laying out our findings to the american people. as that work goes forward, number of facts are clear.
there can be no doubt there was a coordinated, multistep effort to overturn an election overseen and directed by donald trump. there can be no doubt he commanded a mob, a mob he knew was heavily armed, violent, and angry to march on the capital to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power. he made targets out of his own vice president and the lawmakers gathered to do the people's work. these facts have gone undisputed and so there needs to be accountability. accountability under the law. accountability to the american people. accountability at every level, from the local precincts in many states where donald trump's and his allies attacked election workers for just doing their jobs, all the weight up to the oval office, where donald trump
embraced the legal advice of insurrectionists that a federal judge has already said was a coup in searchable legal theory. our democracy withstood the attack on january 6. if there is no accountability for january 6 for every part of this team, i feel we will not overcome the ongoing threat to our democracy. host: chair bennie thompson of the january 6 committee. they held their last and a summer series of hearings last night. the chair said they will continue their investigation over august and they will return in september for more hearings. we are getting your reaction to what you heard last night, what you heard so far in these hearings this morning. if you missed any of last
night's hearing, you can catch up by going to c-span.org, and there you can see gold stars that highlight the key moments from over the two hours of hearing last night. you can quickly go through that and see what took place. sonja is reacting on twitter, saying "45 betrayed the constitution and attempted to assassinate his week vp. he is a traitor to our country and must be prosecuted." harry mcgee says indict or drop. there is no new evidence. we all know they are stretching this out until november. tim in rock hills, south carolina. what do you say? caller: i hope and pray republicans take back the congress in november into january when they get in office i hope they have a big enough
set to put the other side of the story out there. i am concerned about the integrity of the congress and the government because we ain't even got the swamp trained yet and all the money is controlling it. this is been going on for decades. this is nothing new. host: mary in martinsville, virginia. what do you have to say. caller: i am not a democrat. i called in on the republican line. i am a republican. there are several things that have not been shown and told throughout this process. usually in his rallies they check for guns and i understood they did confiscate guns, but they did not give them back when they marched to the capital. .2, i live in virginia. -- point 2, i live in virginia.
host: some people who had weapons did not go into the rally because they would've had to give up those weapons. what is the point you are driving at? caller: technically they did not show that. my big point is two days before all of this happened, just ask pelosi, who has natural caught -- national guard there, they have not brought that up again. they mentioned at different times. he did ask for help. i do not think he wanted violence. i also need to say i do live in virginia. we got ballots that were not legitimate and i put them in my woodstove. i wish i'd kept them for evidence. i have family in pennsylvania that got as many as 10 ballots in the mail to be used. that is wrong.
i am a christian and i believe in one ballot for a presidential election or any election. i work at the polls. i know what honesty is and i know that mr. trump has done a lot of good for this country that joe biden has undone. host: let me go to this claim you made and another caller about the role of the national guard that day and the speaker of the house. this is from the associated press. the claim how nancy pelosi blocked the national guard from coming to the capital during the january 6 insurrection. speaker pelosi did not direct the national guard further, she and the majority leader called for military assistance including the national guard. on tuesday a false claim about the right resurfaced suggesting nancy pelosi blocked the national guard coming to lawmakers defense. you are saying this was before
january 6? caller: yes. trump did ask her to have national guard there for his rally because he felt like they have always had protection for the people, and we the people need our protection. that is what the national guard is for. she told him no. they would not be available. host: where did you learn that. caller: i learned it on c-span, i learned it on cnn, i learned it on fox news, msnbc also put this information out. host: here is political fact. donald trump authorized up to 20,000 national guard troops to protect the capital before january 6 but was rejected by nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. this is from political fact.
there is no evidence nancy pelosi rejected trump's authorization. there is no record of president trump authorizing 20,000 national guard troops ahead of the capital before the january 6 attack. there is no evidence nancy pelosi denied such an authorization. she does not have the authority to do so in the first place. vanity fair reports trump made a passing remark to his defense secretary about potentially needing 10,000 national guard troops, not 20,000, but there's no evidence the comment was treated as formal authorization. it would've had to been written down. caller: i understand what you are saying. i know what you have read. i appreciate what c-span is doing. i know when blows he met with trump and chuck schumer two days before he asked for help and it was refused. i do not understand when we the
people are out here and we ask for help, if the president is there representing us, because he was representing the public and there was a lot of fraud. there was some in pennsylvania, there was some in virginia. i know this did happen. being a poll worker you see a lot of things and you hear a lot of things. if you listen to certain programs on tv, there's nobody ever saying anything happened when we know it did. host: wendy in roseville, michigan. independent. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: i watched last night and to see our president turn a deaf ear and not do anything -- when is he going to be called to testify? that will be must-see tv to find
out what he did. i cannot believe -- i admire liz cheney, bennie thompson. they have done a beautiful job and have done their work wonderfully. for trump to ignore his family, his aides, his cronies, he has to be called for it. he has to be put in jail. the day he is put on that stand and has to testify to what he did and why he did it will be riveting television. host: we heard your point. you're breaking up a little bit so i will let you go. i want to show you another moment from the hearing. this is from the committee member from virginia,
representative elaine luria. she led the hearing discussing president trump's rose garden message where he call for peace. take a look. [video clip] >> it is no coincidence president trump finally gave in and went down to the rose garden at 4:03. his staff prepared a script for him to read but he refused to use it. as you can see on the screen, you can see the script stamped president. the script said "i am asking you to leave the capital region now and go home in a peaceful way." the president was urged to stick to the script but he spoke off-the-cuff. eric hirschman and nick luna went with the president to film the message. let's hear what they had to say and see the never before seen raw footage of the president recording this video message. >> ultimately these remarks we are looking at were not the remarks the president delivered
in the rose garden. >> you know why the president decided not to use these? >> i don't know. i do not know why. >> did the president use any written remarks or did he just go off-the-cuff? >> to my knowledge it was off-the-cuff. >> when you are ready. >> when you are ready. >> tell me when? >> when you are ready. >> who is behind me? >> we are all clear now. >> i know your pain, i know you're hurt. we had an election -- let me say.
i know your pain, i know you're hurt. we had an election stolen from us. it was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. you have to go home. we have to have peace. we have to have law and order. we have to respect our people in law and order. we do not want anybody hurt. it is a tough period of time. there is never been a time where such a thing happened, where they can take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. this was a fraudulent election but we cannot play into the hands of these people. we have to have peace. go home. we love you. you are very special. you see what happens. you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so people. i know how you feel. go home and go home in peace. >> when i got there the
president had just finished filming the video. i think he was basically retiring for the day. >> was or any discussion about the president releasing a second video that day? >> not that i recall. >> when he finished his video i think everyone was like -- the day is over. people are pretty drained. >> when we say day over, there were still people in the capital that point, weren't there? >> there were people at the capital, but i believe by this stage law enforcement was there or moving in are going to take charge. i say people were emotionally drained. host: from last night's hearing. you can watch the entire hearing or the points of interest, the key moments if you go to our website, c-span.org.
diane in jacksonville, florida, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because i am so impressed with liz cheney and bennie thompson, especially liz cheney. here she is, a female, going against her party, not really against her party, but standing up for the country, and i love the fact she is representing what it is to be a republican, a true republican. greta, as for you trying to explain to these people calling in what the facts are, people are going to believe what they want to believe. it took trump almost four hours to come out and speak to his people.
that is all i needed to know. it took him four hours. the truth was what was said. these people defending trump, why are you defending a man everybody is going to jail that was at the january 6 riot, they are all going to jail and he is still walking free. i am so angry i do not want to say anymore. i hope liz cheney runs for president because i will be there to fight for her from the beginning to the end. thank you. host: dorothy in maryland. democratic caller. caller: you did try to tell them about the national guard. nancy pelosi and mayor bowser do not have any control over the national guard. that is the most foolish thing. mike pence called and he is the one who got help.
he called all security agency. trump never did, he never called them. they keep talking about fraud and paul's. -- fraud and polls. i worked as an election judge. you are never in a precinct with only democrats or republicans. you have an equal amount of republicans and democrats working. if one of them get sick, the republican party were democratic party sends a replacement immediately and they choose their own people to work there. it is impossible for you to be doing any kind of crazy stuff because you are already being watched. also when they did the recap in arizona, they found more votes for joe biden. maybe it was trump's people that was committing fraud?
maybe the count was wrong for joe biden because he had more and trump did not have as many. if you have as much fraud as they said, you have to have bodies to accuse. if you have 4 million, there is no case because they did not have any. they never had fraud. trump and his people got up and giuliani and made it all up. host: the front page of the washington times, there is not a headline about the january 6 committee. there is this above the fold. prosecutors consider charges against biden's son before elections, republicans promise a house probe, a federal investigation into president biden son is reaching a critical stage. the department of justice is discussing the case with delaware based prosecutors and
consulting guidelines around politically sensitive cases according to cnn, which cited people familiar with the tops. charges have centered around potential tax violations and making a false statement regarding hunter biden's purchase of a firearm when he would've been prevented from doing so because of his struggles with drug addiction. the probe is being led by david weiss, the u.s. attorney in delaware who was appointed by president trump. a spokesman for david weiss and the lawyer representing hunter biden did not respond to the probe. another headache, president biden faces republican investigation into his family ties if they win control of the house. back to our calls. princess in orlando, florida. your inter -- your turn. caller: i am a first time caller. the other folks that just called it while ago had a very relevant
point. i do not understand what is the problem with individuals that they cannot see for themselves. if you do not see the problem, at least educate yourself. we need to go back to civics for them to learn how government is run. they need to do the history properly so everybody knows who is responsible for what. as someone who was in the military, commander-in-chief is in order and you cannot step over and do something. thank god they had somebody there that was not a wimp -- somebody there to go behind him and do what he is supposed to do. with regards to voter fraud, i worked in a polling station, i have done canvassing, phone banks.
everything is run in a way it is supposed to be. there is no anybody tried to figure out who is doing what, you have two separate people doing the jobs so they cannot be two of the same party at the same table, you have to work like that. with regards to republicans, i was a former republican, but they have a way of doing things which people need to take a look at. they have a lot of tit for tat in their motto for me was do is i say, not as i do. they get away with everything. how long it will take, if you see a house burning to call the fire department and get help, they will sit there and watch the whole thing go up in flames and say what did you do? they need to stop blaming
everybody for everything and when they get in power they do not have any way of putting things together. it is just talk. host: i want to show another moment from the hearing last night. many of you mentioned this in tweets and text messages to us that the president's rhetoric against mike pence. here is committee member elaine luria showing video of radio chatter from the vice president secret service detail on that day. [video clip] >> the president's national security council staff was listening to these developments and attracting them in real time. on the screen you can see excerpts from the chat logs among the president's national security council staff. at 2:13 the staff learned the
riders were kicking in the windows at the capital. three minutes later the staff said the vice president was being pulled, which meant agency evacuated him from the senate floor. at 2:24 the staff noted the secret service agents at the capital do not sound good right now. earlier you heard from a security professional working in the white house complex on january 6 with access to relevant information and responsibility to report to national security officials. we asked this person what was meant by the comment the secret service agent did not "sound good right now?" in the following clip of the testimony, the professional discusses what they heard from listening to the incoming radio traffic that day. >> the capital does not sound good right now. >> correct.
what does that mean? >> members of the vp detail were starting to fear for their own lives. there was a lot of yelling, a lot of very personal calls over the radio. there were calls to say goodbye to family members. for whatever the reason was on the ground, the v-belt detail -- the vp detail thought this was going to get ugly. >> did you hear that over the radio? what was the response by the secret service agency? >> everybody kept saying, at that point it was just reassurances. i think there were discussions of reinforcements coming, but it was chaos. >> obviously it was disturbing.
what prompted you to put it into an entry? >> running out of options and getting nervous, it sounds like we came very close to either service having to use lethal options or worse. at that point i don't know, is the vp compromised? i don't know. we do not have visibility, but if people are screaming and saying things like say goodbye to family, you know this is going to another level. host: last night's january 6 tearing in prime time. if you missed it you can find it on our website, c-span.org. we have a little less than seven minutes to get your thoughts on what you heard from the hearing and what you've heard so far from this january 6 committee. john, republican in florida. we go to you.
caller: good morning. i have to see opinions on the fraud. personally, one thing i think is you have to look at the discounted balance. in the last 10 elections the percentage of discounted ballots is 2% and if you look at every state, in a year where in a lot of states without getting into the fact there is a way you vote and the way it is legal it has to be set up through the legislature, i understand that in a lot of these states they do not have mail-in ballots or they were not supposed to have mail-in ballots but they did it anyway without doing the legislature. i think that means it is fraud. it was ran in a fraudulent way.
beyond that, when they look at the percentages and the fact they counted all the balance as opposed to not, there is usually a 2% discounted and i think it was .2%. that means in an election where they send out more mail-in ballots than they ever have, they discounted fewer than there has ever been discounted. host: where did you find that information, the .2%? caller: i believe it has been on this show over the past year or so. through some of the articles. i think 2% number, based on voter id and matching signature. it is my understanding they did
not have to use voter id and a matching signature in a lot of these states. how can you say it was a fair election when they just mailed out all these ballots and accepted every ballot and did not discount the ones they usually do over again? host: is 2% enough to overturn election? caller: i think it is. they say 150 million people voted that year, that would be 30 million people. the difference is like 18,000 in some states. if there are 2 million votes, that is 40,000 votes. there you have it. it is numbers and this election was not ran fairly.
period. host: parlay in akron, ohio. democratic caller. caller: there is so much to touch. the thing with nancy pelosi. people in certain other parties, no matter how much you present the facts, you will get the gap, but, like you just hit. the national guard did not need to be called at all. with a single tweet from trump he could have stopped the violence before they broke into the capital. years ago i was able to have debates with friends who were republicans and we would go back and forth and at the end of the day we were still friends. if you argue with a republican now, they break up families, they broke up relationships. trumps damage to this country
goes far past january 6. host: jackie in trenton, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? the problem i have with this whole situation is when you look at the committee conducting this hearing, most of them are the same ones that were on the impeachment trial. another problem i have, you keep hearing integrity used a lot. where is the integrity when you have nancy pelosi, maxine waters and others calling on people to take to the streets?
why aren't they brought before committees? the american people are not stupid. trump is done. he is over with. they should get over it and get on with what is going on in our country and fix it for the american people. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: the associated press did a review of the 2020 election and they found far too little vote fraud to tip the election to trump. the associated press review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by the former president found fewer than 475, number that would've made no difference in the 2020 election. joe biden one arizona, georgia
-- by a combined 311,257 votes out of 25.5 million ballots cast for the president. the disputed balance represent just .15% of his victory margin in those states. they write the ap review, a process that took months and encompassed 300 local election offices is one of the most comprehensive examinations of suspected voter fraud in the presidential election and relies on information collected at the local level where officials must reconcile their ballots and account for discrepancies and it includes a handful of cases cited by secretary of state and state attorneys general. contacted for comment, trump repeated a litany of unverified claims of fraud but offered no evidence that contradicted the ap reporting. host: fernie, louisville,
kentucky. caller: i have been watching the hearings. i have watched them all. the more i watch these, the more i start feeling bad for the people who are up there testifying who were in his administration. i believe when they took on these jobs, they thought they were doing something that was bigger than themselves and something that was great for the country. eventually, everyone is going to start looking out for their best interest. we don't see him doing gel time. --jail time. i think people who worked under his administration thought there would be life after trump because they are going to have to get jobs and continue to live their life and what kind of stink is this going to put on their careers? the hearings have been very informative paired i watched january 6 live with pedro the day it happened.
i did want to say that. that is really where my concerns are right now. host: we will take a break. when we come back we will talk about legal questions of this committees investigation and by the justice department with kimberly wehle. she will be with us here in just a minute and later we will focus on the political fallout from the hearings and president biden's physical help with the new covid diagnosis. that with jim antle. ♪
>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the january 6 committee hearings go to c-span.org/january 6 to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigations. we've also have reaction for members of congress and the white house, journalists and authors talking about the investigation go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their nonfiction books at 9:00 p.m. eastern.
he recounts how and why western democratic societies prospered. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, former nasa deputy administrator provides a first-hand account of the efforts to modernize nasa and expand space exploration with her memoir book "escaping gravity," she is interviewed by chris davenport. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at but tv.org -- book tv.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but 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. 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. host: joining us this morning is kimberly whaleywehle thank you for being here. we had a lot of callers bring up throughout these hearings what can come of this? guest:two important things going on here. on one hand we have the hearings which is in congress and congress has said they will produce a report but more important is will this produce new legislation that will shore up some of the holes in the scheme of legislation that a january 6 possible peer after
watergate, when president nixon presided there was a flurry of legislation that was put in place for example put a lot on inspector general's could they were appointed after watergate so congress can do some things. we talk about separately there is the department of justice which is under the president. it is not a part of the united states congress and of course the department of justice would have to bring a criminal charge if there were a basis for that against the former president or some of his close associates like rudy giuliani and some of these, mark meadows that were so embroiled in the crimes that were committed on january 6. host: a viewer described these hearings as a grand jury. they are trying to set the stage for the justice department to then take it over. would you agree? guest: yes and no.
i like to think about the hearings as an education for the american people in light of the possibility of a grand jury indictment. that is, we have never seen a president or former president indicted. a lot of people say that is hard to imagine, that that with -- would create a ping-pong effect. i think the point of these hearings is to wake people up to the severity of this. i like to think of them as a play in four acts, planning, execution, cover up, and then i think the fourth one which is the most important could this happen again? i think the answer is 100% yes. everyone in america needs to, regardless of political party, join hands and say we don't want that. we actually want to control our own government going forward. host: the cost of not indicting
trump's presidency without guardrails. guest: i did this thought experiment with my students were we went through under the constitution all the ways that presidents can be held accountable. if we know there is no ticket we picked through them all and they have all blown through the last administration. impeachment is supposed to be the biggie and that is pretty much dead now for think about incentives paired that is why we have a three-pronged system. everyone was worried about their papers being graded by someone else. if you think about incentives, there really are not any's incentives to not use the massive powers of the office to commit crimes other than their own conscience. we have seen conscience doesn't do enough. we also happened on january 6.
the justice department needs to bring high-level indictments to send a message to future presidents that, listen, this isn't going to fly. the argument that you are special, you are president you are above the law, there will be accountability. it is vital if we are to retain a presidency with guardrails that are not abused regularly for self-promotion and power. host: liz cheney, the vice chair used word premeditated. guest: that jumped out at me as well. it tends to be used in connection with murder, the idea of reader meditation, you are planning, you are thinking about appeared the idea that you planned it makes you more criminally liable then if you are just negligent driving a car for example and someone ends up killed. she used that very specifically because there has been so much
discussion, is there enough evidence donald trump's criminal intent. showing intent is the difference between civil liability and criminal liability. criminal liability you go to jail. civil liability you pay fees. was cheney's implication is has knowledge of intent of what he was doing great i think he -- she used that to get out of this debate around knowledge of intent under the criminal code. she is saying he planned this. he was aware of it. and as recently as a phone call to wisconsin general assembly member recently he still is peddling this massive lie that almost took down the entire united states government. host: what laws did he break, allegedly? guest: we don't know because we have not seen any indictment. i think the range of laws would be some that we have already
seen, people of the capital. obstruction of an official proceeding, the idea of counting electoral votes you cannot interfere with that. conspiracy to defraud the united states through these lies. then there are also criminal laws preventing incitement of an insurrection and incitement of a riot. there is a talk of potential witness tampering, liz cheney has singled out there have been witnesses who were contacted by either the president or others appeared we are in a system where it is illegal on many levels to interfere fraudulently with an election that is why it is illegal to vote fraudulently with someone else's id. it is illegal across the range of various procedures to interfere with government, to interfere with a grand jury, to bribe a judge, to stop congress from doing its duty on january 6. that's illegal.
i think we would cease art -- charges along those lines interfering with congress and also the violence as well. i think the committee made a pretty good case for donald trump's tweets inciting people to come and at 2:24 message were he went after the vice president for lacking courage allegedly. things risk that's really escalated. he was really the command center of those tens of thousands of people and people died. host: i want to read an opinion piece, if you believe that an indictment of the most likely candidate to run against joe biden in 2024 by the president's on justice department would be considered anything but a politicized travesty by about half of the country you have not been paying attention. institutions are not in robust health and are ill-equipped to withstand the turbulence that would result from prosecuting the political champion of
millions of people. the case would presumably drive on for years. perhaps, all people appeals reaching to the supreme court. it would ensure a political and legal melodrama that would keep trump front and center even if he decides to retire to a quiet life of golfing at mar-a-lago. guest: he is a political pundit, he is a republican. if the tables were turned i'm not sure that is what would happen if it was under the leadership of a democrat. when it comes to the constitution and preserving that system, i think politics really takes a second seat. we are seeing this with the january 6 with both liz cheney and adam kinzinger and democrats working together. i like to think of the january 6 committee as the truth committee. it is really putting the truth out there through the mouths of
primarily republicans, oil lists to donald trump --loyalists to donald trump. if he is adjusting you do nothing, you just hope things fall into place again, the proud boys, the oath keepers that showed up on that day that really want to have a police state reportedly that is not going to go away on its own. i am not comfortable with the idea of our kids and grandkids that will hold our breath and hope that we do nothing people will just decide that we -- wasn't a good idea. host: i want to invite our viewers to join the conversation. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us with your question or comment at (202) 748-8003. this includes -- please include your first and, city and state.
i want to show you and our viewers merrick garland was asked about the january sixth investigation at the justice department here he is. [video clip] >> there is a lot of speculation, lots of -- about what the justice department is doing, what the duties are and there will continue to be that speculation. that is the way the department of justice investigates. we do not do our investigations in public. this is the most wide-ranging investigation and the most important investigation of the justice department. we have done so because this represents the effort to upend a legitimate election, transfer of power from one administration to another.
we have to get this right. for people who are concerned, as i think every american should be about protecting democracy, we have to do two things. we have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election. we must do it in a way with integrity and professionalism the way the justice department conducts investigations. both of these are necessary in order to achieve justice and to protect our democracy. >> do you think you have the resources to do that? >> do you feel you need additional resources? >> the what almost like additional resources and would be happy to take them. but we are going to accomplish our mission here. the people of the justice department are committed to this. they are working 24/7.
host: a former federal prosecutor, what did you hear there? guest: i heard he is doing a job that he was put in that seat to do. that is a neutral, thorough, fact investigation. he said this has to be done correctly. we have to get this right. he also said, listen, everyone is going to be held criminally accountable if they are criminally accountable. i think we lose sight of how important it is that it's not just republican, democrat whatever your party is in particular positions of government but people with integrity, people who care about the rule of, people who follow their own guideposts even under political pressure. what i saw, former federal judge, order -- former supreme court on many lead the oklahoma city bombing investigation, you know, he's not feeling pressured
one way or the other. i do believe him. i do think we will see syria's indictment on the time schedule that is consistent with the facts and the law. host: he called it wide-ranging. how long do you think it will take? guest: that's really impossible, there has never been something that's -- this huge but there are 800 plus people that have already been arrested, indicted and/or tried and it has not been 18 months since the insurrection. i think they are going at a rapid pace. he is under a tremendous amount of pressure and also we just need to exhale and wait. let them do their work and that is how we should expect the justice department to work. we don't want a massive power of investigations, indictments, present time to be used as a political weapon. that is exactly what i think january 6 is about.
it's to get that kind of self interest, corrupt energy out of american politics. i believe merrick garland is not of that flavor of public official. i am quite comfortable waiting to see what he does. host: palm beach florida, democratic color. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. how are you? host: doing well. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. my question is just basically, i did like merrick garland said we need to do it honestly and ethically. i agree with that. my question is, how can we still get the answers on how trump incited the riot, how should set
i say the people storming the capital how can we still get former president trump on him being responsible? and him people protecting him? what can we do to still get answers? guest: we will see a report from the january 6 committee. i assume it will be ready massive. there will be a lot of coverage of that. they had over 1000 witnesses, tens of thousands of documents. we are only seeing a tiny piece of it. if the justice department takes steps, the grand jury is secret. we will not see any information unless there are actually trials and witnesses and testimony and the documents but to a jury. it could be months, if not years away. i did a piece probably a year or so ago in politico on the 14th
amendment. the 14th amendment specifically talks about keeping people out of office if they participated in an insurrection. that is in there specifically because after the civil war, there are two counts of thinking the north and the south, the union and the confederacy. there was a concern confederates would populate the government and try to corrupted because they were not on board with three unifying and reconstruction. that is in the 14th amendment. it would require the united states congress to pass legislation to make that something you can go to court and implement. but it is not just merrick garland who in this moment could take steps to protect against donald trump personally as a threat to democracy. host: so the congress could pass legislation naming the former president? pass a piece of legislation
saying if you x, y,z. guest: anybody can file a lawsuit to institute, to see if you are in a position where you unconstitutionally would be holding future office. it would be against the constitution to pass legislation specific to him, but they could take steps to implement, kick into gear that 14th amendment provision which there is a statute but it is very old. it has never been old. they can give it a facelift and say, it's not just donald trump here there are hundreds of people across the country, 400 on the ballot in the next election who adhere to the big lie. the other thing that has happened is this cancer that has spread throughout our electoral system. people still believe that the last election was stolen and are
willing to potentially violate the rule of law, ignore actual votes, cancel elections, do all kinds of shenanigans in the name of this fake big lie. it is donald trump and it is much more systemic. i think people miss that. we are at this moment where elections themselves could become a joke. could be not actually producing what the american people want. if that happens, if the election system is so infected that we can't trust it anymore, that is when democracy ends in america. host: sean in maryland, republican. caller: good morning. i guess chuck schumer and the rest of the crew should be going under the same they're putting trump under. i would challenge you to answer this question this way, would you adhere to being in a court of law going through the same roles that this --rules this
committee is going under and putting it out to the public as truth? would you go and do the same thing question mark and your answer, please? give me your answer, no i think and know, just give me a professional answer on that. pretty much, everybody believes what you believe not everybody else. host: let's get a response. guest: i would be honored to testify before the united states congress in a way people like bill barr and the way people of the trump administration have done because we do have both. adam kinzinger said oath's matter and integrity matters. i couldn't agree with him or. the big difference, i think sean identifies, those between a court of law that could take your liberty away and put you in jail. that is where you have the high
due process protections of cross-examination. this is about educating the public and deciding whether to pass new legislation. the implications of what is happening in our dress is very different from a court of law. that is not an apt critique of what is happening. host: melissa in las vegas, independent. caller: i believe [indiscernible] . host: why though? ok. brian in quincy, michigan. caller: hello, good morning. trump cult numbers are not watching the january 6 hearings. they could care less about truth or facts. there truth is whatever comes out of term's mouth. -- trump's mouth.
they are watching fox news which is not covering the hearings and fox news is focusing on joe biden's tocco comments and whether or not kamala harris can make a basket and the fact that joe biden keeps falling off of his bicycle. their inability, and mainly about the price of gas and they say trump wasn't perfect but the country was better under trump. because inflation is bidens fall, the price of gas is bidens fault, so it's all water off a ducks back as far as the trump lovers are concerned. host: let's hear from daniel in cincinnati, ohio. caller: very interesting.
you know, a dog and pony show. the legal process is corrupted by these congressional hearings which uphold things we know are real. we should know them in a court repaired we should not know them in a democratic propaganda operation. this is what bothers me most, we had two presidents both of which approved below with the job takes. just being nonpartisan, not everyone is eroding the basic standards but for totally political reasons. host: is there any concern there that they are, with these hearings, they are possibly that they could be accused of bias in
a jury? if there is any type of court proceedings? guest: we have all kinds of high-profile trials these days and jurors are seated because they take an oath as well. they promised to tell the truth and the judge and the lawyers interview them in a process called voir dire and they go on and on so they can seat jurors. so they can make a decision based on facts and law. i encourage people watching this to take these people as human beings. do they have bias or motivation? that is what a jury would do. we need to power ourselves to make our own judgments and not look on cnn or fox news. it is very difficult because one thing that is really different from now and say, watergate, is the digital age. not just the media but the fact
that the media doesn't have the same standards of independence and accuracy that applied in the 1970's. we get information fed into our phones by computer algorithms that reinforce our biases. so for republicans, democrats, independents we have to become our own sherlock holmes'and make sure that what we are getting is not garbage. if it is coming from a witness under oath that is a pretty good source. this is something i think we need to learn for ourselves. we need to teach our children, we need to see change and know how to sort information not so much how to gather it which was the challenge when i was a kid. host: and a potential court proceeding against the former president, would you ask a potential juror did they watch the hearing? guest: absolutely. host: would you roll them out if
they did? guest: it would depend on how they answer that question. i think there is as big of a risk as someone who is a true trump loyalist if he or she got on the jury. so i think that goes both ways and in either case we have a jury system and our friends and neighbors and colleagues that make that very to medic roddick process -- democratic process. host: michigan, independent. caller: i would like to refer back to the guest that mentioned shenanigans. biden one --won by 7 million votes.
3.5 million would have to be given to fight --biden. that is what the combination would require. if we have democrats who are so zealot that they would commit a crime to get the votes necessary , 1000 zealot democrats, they would each have to flip 30,500 votes. such a possibility is still absurd. it boggles the mind and only a man who is self-centered, egotistical, would come up with the idea that the election was stolen. host: great point is that we should feel really good about the fact that the last election
that it actually worked in a pandemic under all of this pressure to have it thwarted. guest: elections are administered by regular people. they are your neighbors, teachers, friends, doctors. people at your church. thousands of americans came out in a pandemic to produce one of the most secure elections in american history. that is something i think we can all feel good about and of course i agree with the caller. this idea this was a stolen election, this is it blinks reality and rational thinking. it's just not helpful for the future of this country and for our kids and grandchildren. host: crystal, pennsylvania, democratic color. caller: in an of the premise that even if the truth goes against me, to follow the truth.
i have never in my lifetime listened -- with think that in american president would try to assassinate his own best president -- vice president. it just boggles my mind that people would stand on the side of a man who tried to kill his own vice president. trump has to go. he should really be locked up under the jail. and i mean that, under the jail. this man has no moral compass whatsoever. in so much. host: is there an expiration date on when the former president could be indicted for any possible or alleged crime? guest: there is a five year statute of limitation. it could be different and parts of the code but the question is when that starts is this conspiracy? it could be any act of the conspiracy potentially.
but the five years as number one and number two is a change of administration where there would no longer be merrick garland or someone under joe biden who is hopefully, even if it were a republican the next round, that person in the white house would hire a neutral fact based, law based enforcement official that would perceive whatever was on the table. but essentially we are talking five years from 2021. host: also oklahoma, republican. caller: good morning. article one, section four of the constitution says that a state can't change its election laws, times, or my third -- methods except. change the times and methods and how they do the ballots around their legislatures. now the definition of insurrection, if people go to
the capitol and insurrection is when they say we don't care about the constitution we want to take over. patriotic people would go to the capitol and say you went around the constitution and certified unconstitutionally and we don't accept that, that would be patriotic at so i leave it to the public to decide about the word insurrection. did and insurrection happen? or were there people that were being patriotic? there are people who acted wrongly and i do not support that. host: what is the definition of insurrection? guest: to arguments he had, it is a pretty radical argument that has never been accepted by a court which is why when it was raised in many cases in november of 20 20 this idea that only state legislatures can change election laws, can't beat secretaries of state, judges, or
people within the governor's office. what we call executive branch agency people. that was rejected because it's never been established. but he might be happy to know the supreme court has taken up and agreed to accept certification on that very issue. if the court agrees with craig the problem will be it will be ability to be nimble to make elections work. if there is another pandemic we are stuck with what can't faction that is the counterargument. the statute speaks for itself. i tweeted i think yesterday of the list of all the statutes including the ones that apply to donald trump. i just don't think when we sell bloodshed, people slipping in blood, defecation in the united states capitol, that is not patriotic.
liz cheney made an excellent summary. it seemed like they were patriotic, they were worried about their country, they cared about country. they were duped and manipulated by lies. and by a man who wants power. the framers understood this is about human nature. human nature is abuse power not just donald trump. that is why these accountability systems are in place. pushback the worst instincts of man. host: what do you think about the bipartisan legislation put forth by susan collins and joe manchin to deal with the 1887 electoral contract. guest: i have been saying this for a long time it's from 1887. it has a couple holes in it. this legislation would fix. it is fantastic for the constitution. what it would say is, listen,
vice president's are oni -- only ceremonial. they don't have actual votes and for deciding what to do with the lectors. number two, it would increase the number of people in congress that would have to object to throw an election into chaos and it has a standard. they could not object for political reasons they has -- there has to be evidentiary reasons. people said of this is the real slate when it wasn't, this kind of stuff happens. this legislation would make clear it is the governor of the state, governor of the state or a designee has to be the one to say this is the official slate. so a lot of that stuff would get cleaned up. i think it is excellent and i really hope people can get through partisan politics and fix that big hole for the american people. host: this is from the portland press herald.
it says the bipartisan legislation has 14 cosponsors from senators including nine republicans just shy of the 10 needed to overcome the filibuster. guest: so we need one more. filibuster is this procedure that takes 50% majority in the senate and makes it 60. that is why congress is not functioning anymore. that is good news and i assume this bipartisan vote is going to get it over the finishing line. that is one of the things -- one of the best things i have heard in a long time. host: steve in columbia, and dependent. we will credit you -- we will go to you next. caller: or any state election laws changed before the election of 2020? guest: as far as i know, in order to address covid, yes. but they were under the existing law.
they were changed legally. when the supreme court picks up a brand-new issue, the law in place at the time that the court take that up is the law. there is no law that reads lang which of the constitution as it saying only state legislatures can do that for it that does not exist. it is not the law of the land at this moment. it is ambiguous and the court can now fill in the blanks, explain the ambiguity, that is what the court does. if it's a good point on something, this court has unbelievable power paired for you and me to change the constitution we need super agile readies, both houses of congress. elective people can footnote the constitution and change our lives unless there is a new majority or an amendment to the constitution paired that is why, and we can do a whole show on it, i think the supreme court is probably the biggest threat to the rule of law and democracy
because it is too much power to fast, too radical changes and it is not just abortion. that is not the law, nothing was done illegally in 2020 with respect to voting rules. host: states have responded to address these concerns is that where the it belongs? at the state level? guest: i do think if the court was to find just to be clear, what they are saying is only members of the legislature, the equivalent of the congress. there are lots of other people that do stuff, not just the folks that meet once in a while. there are experts, lawyers, administrators, you know public servants that are not elected with the court would be saying is none of those people, judges can weigh in on that. that is a really big deal. that is the criticism.
you know, if it is the same legislators, the constitution in for voting at large the states to decide how they do that not the supreme court deciding that is the argument. we will just have to see. voting rights are also under assault in america for a lot of reasons. host: is there anything the congress can do on that point? guest: while, the congress can always pass legislation. under the constitution, congress can make voting laws for federal elections. when congress does that, it trickles down pragmatically to the states. congress could put in place ballots requirements, everybody gets the same ballot for example. so it is not different from precinct to present or everybody gets to vote by mail or here is the auditing process.
they can do it for federal elections and there is nothing the supreme court can do about that because that is in the constitution. the states will sake we follow the federal law or, we have one for the federal part and then we have a different ballot for the state because we want state legislatures to dictate everything. i think it should be common sense and easy for everybody. and should not be so difficult but we can bank online. we to our health online why is it so difficult to vote, this underscores how valuable it is. host: marcia, democratic color --caller. good morning to you. caller: kimberly talked about if there is a republican president replacing merrick garland which to me screams there is a time limit. this means done, trump needs to be put on trial but my next question is what is the makeup of this january 6 committee after an election cycle as new
information keeps pouring in? we just uncovered a new scandal with the secret service deleting text messages. this could go on a long time. guest: very concerning. this will go on the rest of joe's term. so until joe biden, if he does not get a second term, the criminal side could continue and there wouldn't be a concern that a new president would stop that. but absolutely, january 6, the january 6 committee the clock is ticking. it would be until the following january of 2023 if it were popular -- republicans to win the house of representatives. and to pass legislation and they have to be on board p people want to know what to do about it? vote for people, you know, with integrity. that is my recommendation. host: mike in california,
republican. caller: good morning, i would like to touch on when trump was impeached or they tried to impeach trump, they didn't have the votes so the paperwork was invalid. it takes two thirds votes to impeach the president, they didn't have it. so look at the new hearings they have going on. trumpet himself in a position to part of an insurrection when he knows if he is he can't run for president again. or are likely, the democrats, not all democrats but the top democrats running this game they are running right now if it was then that did the insurrection and were trying to trump -- make trump guilty they should be the ones he investigated right now. host: have you watched any of the january 6 hearings? caller: no i have not watched
any of it. host: you have not heard testimony from white house officials who were part of the former president's administration? you have not heard their testimony about what happened leading up to it? caller: i can't judge on hearsay. it is hearsay. everything going on in that trial is hearsay. it's just a one-sided kangaroo court. wife what i sit and watch that -- why would i sit and watch that? host: when someone talks about their own experience that is not hearsay. guest: legal clarification, trump was impeached. that is the charge. he was not convicted. number three is i really don't think the 14th amendment and a ban on people running for office, that does not have any teeth in this moment. it is like what are you going to do? are you going to stop me? it is what are the consequences
for violating the law? the law becomes irrelevant with no consequences. that is the constitution in this moment. we need sandbags, stop the water from flooding the basement. host: thank you so much for the conversation this morning and talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me. caller: we will talk about the political fallout of these hearings as well as concerns about president biden political and physical health. that conversation with washington examiner jim antle. after this break, we will return to the conversation about last night's january 6 hearing and we will continue to get your reaction to what you heard and saw. we will be right back. ♪
>> live, sunday, august 7. larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness, the left, and racial politics. he is the author of several books including " 10 things you can't say in america" and" a lot like me." join with your phone calls, texts and tweets. live, sunday august at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> now available in the c-span shop 2020 congressional directory go there to order a copy of the directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and
assignments. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: will come back we will continue with the conversation about last night january 6 hearing. it is the last in the series for the committee. they will continue their investigation into the month of august and then they will return with more hearings in september. we want to know what you heard, what stuck out in your mind from last night's committee hearing. what you saw and how it impacted you. we will continue with that conversation until about 9:15 a.m. eastern time and then we will turn to the pit of -- political fallout. let me show you the vice chair liz cheney republican of
wyoming. [video clip] >> in our initial hearing the chairman and i described what ultimately became donald trump's seven part plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election. a plan stretching from before election day to january 6. at the close of today's hearing, we will have addressed each element of that plan. in the course of these hearings, we have received new evidence and new witnesses have bravely stepped forward. efforts to litigate and overcome immunity and executive privilege came have been successful. those continue. doors have opened, new subpoenas have been issued, and the dam has begun to break. now, even as we conduct our ninth hearing, we have considerably more to do. we have far more evidence to share with the american people and more together. our committee will pursue
information on multiple fronts before convening further hearings in september. today, we know far more about the plan and actions to overturn the election and almost all members of congress did when president trump when -- impeached. or when he was tried by the senate in february of that year. if t7 of 100 voted to convict president trump at that time and more than 20 others said they were voting against conviction because the president's term had already expired. at the time, the republican leader of the united states senate said this about donald trump. >> assaulting the capitol in his name. these criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flag,
and screaming their loyalty to him. it was obvious. only president trump could end this. he was the only one. >> leader mcconnell reached those conclusions based on what he knew that without any of the much more detailed evidence you will see today. host: we are getting your reaction this morning to the january 6 hearing last night. and dependent, that's go to you, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i didn't watch last night's episode, i usually watch it today and get it on youtube or, i was calling because of your lawyer that you had on earlier that was talking about whether
to prosecute this former president. i don't understand, you know, no one is above the law then that's a non-issue. if the men committed a crime, then he should be prosecuted. there is a lot of talk about biden's, if there are crimes committed they should be prosecuted whether they are the president or whether not the president. dead to me is the basis of our legal system that nobody is above the law. i watched this stuff and that stuff that i have seen out of it, to me, i don't understand why there are not charges as we speak. to me it seems like there is a preponderance of evidence that charges should be brought up. host: dan in pioneer, republican. what do you think? caller: i think this is a dog
and pony show like everybody is saying. they are the ones that promoted this whole thing. i am ready for them to come out and start doing the dance kicking their legs up. but i want to tell you something, when that bennie thompson is in charge of this it is ridiculous. he wouldn't even come to trump's inauguration. he said he wasn't the true president. he should not be allowed to be the president and he should be impeached along with most of those people that are on that panel. they voted to impeach trump. they have been on every panel there is. why couldn't we have, real republicans that wanted to go on about this? we didn't have them. nancy pelosi said no. but it is ok if bennie thompson. i am telling you, you guys have
become woke we have seen this millions of times but you never see the other people talking and there have been other people talking. how would you like to be contingent of all one side that couldn't stand you? this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen. here we are, it's ok that our country is ready to be taken over. we are spending $100 million on this. $100 million on these people. my god, -- host: what does woke mean? caller: you always hang up on republicans. president trump for jobs for he and his wife it is pathetic. and you have that girl that said she was in the car. then we find out she really wasn't in the car. it's hearsay. i hope you guys -- and then the
shimmer guy that lady said we need to change how things are done. the steps, she was trying to say if you don't have that i can't remember what it is if you don't have it it will never be justice in this country again. now he's on their, change it, change appeared that's what they want to do. now the supreme court isn't right? did you have somebody on from abc? give me a break. host: this is obviously upsetting for you, why? caller: because i don't like one side. a brilliant man said this should not have been there. they shouldn't be holding this. if you want to go to a special counsel or something, like
hillary, nobody would convince -- convict her. her campaign manager said she was guilty. she tried to change it that nobody could go back and check on it. do you like that america? host: them in rochester, new york. your reaction to last night hearing. caller: yes, how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: mitch mcconnell voted for no special counsel. it's confusing to me. republicans don't comprehend anything. he voted no. they would have had that. so you cannot blame nancy pelosi or chuck schumer or whoever. and a trunk he was yelling fraud since like 18 because he knew he was going to lose. it's mind blowing to me that republicans do not understand what is going on here.
it's not like they want to go back to go to the 1800s. they want putin or somebody in office. and one more thing, -- host: did you watch last night? caller: yeah. host: what stuck out to you from the testimony, videos they should? caller: the testimony. this is people that were in his office. there is no democrats going up there to capitol hill testifying. it is all republicans. but they want to call them sellouts or whatever. to me, i am confused. i just hope, i don't know if he's going to get convicted. i hope he does run so he can lose again. but he will do the same thing, cry fraud and if he do get convicted what are republicans going to do? are they going to go back to washington and start another riot? if they do it again it's going to be a different circumstance.
host: we will go to allen in new york, and dependent. caller: the whole thing about this country is the fact you have a two-party system that has been going on before they changed it from the whig and federalist and then the democratic party and the republican party. this country is built on slavery. and this country was taken over by the pilgrims coming and pushing the indians and indigenous people that lived in this country, they took it over. so now we are talking about politics as it was back in those days. in those days, they would probably take a van like -- a man like trump and hang him. his grandfather was from germany.
he had both houses. he was a drug pusher. and they don't talk about that. they show these kids that got killed in that school down in mexico. those policemen did not go there and save them kids lives because they were people from out of the country. and automatically, the kids doing all these killings, they got exonerated. you didn't hear anything about that boy, the boy who killed 19. host: the house is coming in for a quick session. if you have called in, hang on the line. if you want to call and please do so. we will be back in just a few minutes.