♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, april 14.

i ran launched an attack on israel last night. although israel reports it intercepted the majority of the attempted strikes, the entire region and israel's allies are on alert for further escalation. we will keep you updated on the story as it continues to develop and we want to hear your reactions to the attack and with the united states should do about it. our phone lines are republicans, (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents can reach us at (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, that number is (202) 748-8003. please be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. on social media, we are at facebook.com/cspan and on x at @cspanwj. there has been quite a bit of global reaction to these attacks.

looking at the washington post, iran launches aerial attacks at israel. strikes threaten to further inflame a volatile mideast. iran launched an attack of more than 200 missiles and drones, and assault the put the israeli military on high alert and threatens to unleash more violence in an already turbulent region. moving to to the new york times, rod air attack launched by iran -- broad air attack launched by iran. images those 200 drones and ballistic missiles israel on saturday evening. the israeli military said in retaliation for a deadly israeli airstrike on the syrian capital this month. the attack, believed to be the first direct iranian assault inside israel, threatened open a

volatile chapter in the long-running shadow war between the two nations. we also had reaction last night from the white house with president biden issuing a statement saying, i condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms. the u.s. military moved aircraft and ballistic missile defense destroyers to the region over the course of the past week. thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our service members, we helped israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles. i have just spoken with prime minister netanyahu to reaffirm america's commitment to the security of israel. i told him israel demonstrated remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks, sending a clear message to his foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of israel. tomorrow, i will convene my fellow g7 leaders to coordinate a diplomatic response to iran's

attacks. my team will engage with their counterparts across the region and stay in touch with israel's leaders. what we have not seen attacks on our forces to date, we will remain vigilant to all threats and not hesitate to take all necessary actions to protect our people. there was also reaction yesterday from former president donald trump at a campaign rally in pennsylvania, where he addressed the attacks on israel. >> i wanted to say god bless the people of israel. they are under attack right now because we showed great weakness . the weakness we have shown is unbelievable. you know that. we know that. everybody knows that. we send our support to everyone in harm's way. this is an attack that would not happen -- to think about what we

have to go through and what we put up with with the border, with no energy independence -- with everybody buying electric cars -- but we will return the world to strength and revive american history and restore american strength at home. we will respect it all over the world. today, we are considered a joke. it is not when to be for long. it is not going to be for long. host: for updates from the associated press this morning, with the latest on that story. israel hills success in blocking iran's unprecedented attack. biden seeks a diplomatic response. israel sunday hailed successful air defenses in the face of an unprecedented attack by iran as eight and its allies thwarted

99% of the more than 300 drones launched toward his territory. regional tensions remain high amid fears of further escalation in the event of a possible israeli counterstrike. president joe biden said he would convene a meeting of the group of seven on sunday to coordinate a united diplomatic response. the language indicated the biden administration does not want iran's assault to spiral into a broader military conflict. let's go to your calls with your reaction to this news. we will start with daniel in washington, d.c. caller: i would hope people go to listen to democracy now on tv and radio and youtube so that they hear more rounded view of what has been going on in the middle east. america's laws restrict our

military aid from being used against civilians, so the military aid that has been destroying gaza is illegal in our country. tonight i heard michael cohen's show on youtube with a congressman and he said he is the biggest supporter of israel and i am a supportive israel too, but we need to make sure this horrible atrocity in gaza is the last one. all those children who have been horribly injured and killed are not the enemy. and it is clear racism that allows people to go on from day-to-day and continue sending bombs to israel.

i also want to recommend that we -- what is going on in this country is off the wall. the republican party makes up delusions and platitudes and expect that to pass for political campaigns. the presidential election is a disaster. because -- host: let's talk to kal in manhattan on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i am a fan of democracy now and i listen to them all the time. what is depressing is that you listen to the brightest minds, people actually there on the ground, and the universal reaction is hopelessness, powerlessness. no one, even the smartest minds, the most powerful politicians, have any way out of this.

i am an overnight guard. i work at an apartment building. all i have been doing tonight is listening to the world fall apart and this situation's is beyond anyone's control now. this stroke that biden or even netanyahu or the u.n. or the european powers or iran -- everybody's following this principle of machiavelli, of the reflexes of international powers when things reach this level of chaos. people start firing guns and nobody can control it now. it is out of anyone's hands and i do not know about -- i talked to a great number people who live in fear as to what could happen next, the idea that our hope and our savior is joe biden is incredibly depressing to us,

demoralizing to our allies, and encouraging to anybody who thinks they can disrupt the world order of international power these days. host: next we have lydia in maryland. >> i think it is time we think out of the box and the previous caller spoke about hopelessness. this is going to be weird, but hang with me. i think that joe biden should appoint donald trump as a special presidential assistant and allow trump to solve the problem. i do not know that trump will solve the problem, but host: which problem specifically? caller: the iran-israel problem. trump says he can do this thing in a matter of days, so let's just in effect call his bluff, put him out there. if he solves the problem,

hallelujah. if he does not, we know he is not the person we want for president. so i just as people, think about -- think out of the box. host: steve is in san jose, california on our line for republicans. caller: thanks for taking my call. i lay the blame for not only this but what we saw last night in regards to iran and israel, but also the ukraine war, and i will tell you how i came to this conclusion. trump had the oil from iran shut off. he said to the world, if you buy iranian oil you are not doing business with us, and the oil dried up coming from iran. in regards to ukraine, long before russia invaded ukraine,

newspeople asked biden what he would do if russia invaded ukraine and his answer was -- host: looks like we lost you. caller: on how much land they took. that is an open invitation. if we do not have world war iii hunter biden, we are going to be destroyed by inflation and terrorist attacks from our southern border. host: next up, jess is in indianapolis. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. it is ridiculous that anyone believes these incidents would never have happened if donald trump was president. i don't think none of those leaders over there have any fear of him, so any for supporters who believe that, total

stupidity. they need to quit listening to all the stupid things coming out of his mouth. i do not understand why people believe anything he says. no one fears him. people need to quit believing that people fear him. for the israeli-iran situation, this has been going on for decades you are never going to get people to accept israel as being a country because they believe it was stolen land, so you are always going to have conflict back and forth between the muslims over there and the israelis, but this stuff that trump keeps putting out there that it would not happen if he was president and all that, it is really stupid that people actually believe this. thank you. have a nice day. host: jerry is in massachusetts.

>> on the eve of world war i, you had the treaty with the british and french and southwest asia and you had the agreement where they decided they would create a state of israel and it is like colonialism. they are going to take property and give it to someone else. israel was created like a hand grenade. it is going to be destroyed as it continues to fight. the more it fights, the worse it will get. you need peace through economic development, like the oasis plan . people from all over the world want development. colonialism is over. in west africa, they are throwing the french out. they want development. they want peace through economic develop meant. the oasis plan over 50 years

ago. in ukraine, biden was vice president he helped pull a coup in ukraine 10 years ago, when this war started in ukraine. and they started outlawing speaking russian in eastern ukraine and started killing 14,000 people. we spent about $14 trillion since 9/11. host: let's go to alice in new york on our line for republicans. good morning. >> good morning. i sat here watching c-span and i agree with the lady that called a while ago. get donald trump in. donald trump is going to fix that. we never had any kind of threat -- our economy, everything, our country was safe and you do not

even dare to go outside. earlier this morning, i know this is going away from israel and iran -- host: can you turn down the volume on your tv and continue? are you still there? caller: i am. i was watching c-span earlier this morning before -- right after i got up. they were doing hearings on biden's school loan debts, canceling them. i do not feel that we should -- us taxpayers should have to pay for that. host: we are going to try to keep today on iran and israel. let's go to crystal in philadelphia on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: please, republicans,

stop following that pied piper. trump is getting ready to go to the first trial of many tomorrow. he cannot solve his own problems. we have to wake up, america. host: what are your thoughts on the attack launched against israel last night? caller: they had to do that as a response. any country has to say, why are you bombing my embassy? so they did this, 300 missiles. it could have been worse. they need to calm the waters and donald trump is absolutely not combing any waters. he is here at home making all kinds of delusional talk here in pennsylvania last night. he could solve it in a day -- sure. he will sell out anybody to get

his way, good or bad or anybody else, so he can lay claim. please stop following the pied piper. lord help us all. host: a bit more of the news coming out of this ongoing situation from reuters. israel vows victory and iran once against retaliation -- warns against retaliation after attack. says iran warned israel and the united states sunday of a much larger response if there is any retaliation for its mass drone and missile attack on israeli territory overnight as israel says the campaign is not over yet. the threat of open warfare erupting between the arch foes and dragging in the united states has put the region on edge as washington set america did not seek, like with iran but would not hesitate to protect its forces in israel.

we also had reaction from the israeli military that we will share with you here. a spokesman made statement yesterday on involvement in the war, calling iran the world's biggest state sponsor of terror. >> iran's terror proxies across the middle east and beyond. iran backed hamas and backed militias in iraq and syria and houthis in yemen, expanding this into a global conflict. iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terror. his network of terror does not just her and the people of israel. the regime fuels the war in ukraine and beyond. iran will bear the consequences for choosing to ask like the

situation any further. israel is on high alert. we have increased our readiness to protect from through the -- from further aggression. we are also prepared to respond. the defense forces are prepared for all scenarios and we will take the necessary steps together with our allies to protect the people of israel. host: kim is in sacramento, california on our line for independents. caller: first, it is not that great of a morning commit to wake up to this situation going on, but what i want to say is two things. first, you cannot look at this in a bubble because it did not just happen. israel has been targeting certain places in iran since

october 7. would happened in israel on october 7 was horrible, devastating, and people have a right to defend themselves. i do not believe that it happened on october 7. i believe that israel had been committing occupation for years, but this is -- could stop today. if america stopped funding it. i mean, we have to decide, is this happening on our dime or not? how many of us really want to continue a war throughout the middle east when we already have seen and we get involved it never stops the wars? afghanistan, iraq. what is going to happen is this is also taking the real crime that is happening -- there is genocide happening in palestine.

there is a famine going on and we are talking about -- that is happening maybe from both sides to take the eye off of what is really happening. if we do not get back to getting aid in soon, the famine is going to kill millions of children and women and men that have nothing to do but just want to survive. and i want to say something. biden is definitely going to lose because i am letting you know i am a brown woman. i do not believe brown people and black people are going to continue to vote for this kind of war that is happening in our name with our tax dollars. we are not going to do it. we have the power to stop it.

host: let's go to richard on our line for republicans. caller: god bless all americans, but this situation is not going to fix itself. the delusional democrats need to realize a senile person cannot fix problems in this world. first, biden sponsored this by giving $600 billion to iran, so now we are fighting both sides of the war here. we are paying to fight both sides. how do you win in a situation like this? is it possible? someone like biden should be in a nursing home. i have watched several people in my life go through what he is doing and they don't need to be trying to run anything other than being in a nursing home. until the democrats keep -- if the democrats keep voting for fools like this, we will never have peace in this world. there's nobody to stand up to

it, nobody in his administration that has the ability to fix anything, only make things worse. i am sorry, but that is what it is. thank you. host: next we have dave on our line for democrats. go on. caller: calling in and using up my 30 day allowance to respond to the individuals who call in and happen to be supporters of the most mercurial buffoon this country has ever witnessed. as far as giving money to iran or stopping -- letter member our history. even if trump stopped the flow down, the production in regard

to oil -- then we started getting oil from russia. you've opened the floodgates for russia and then now all that money went to russia we later see that money was used to attack ukraine and one more thing. since you're talking about all this that this buffoon happens to have done, this administration, korea was off the train with launching missiles. i have not heard anything recently that north korea is launching all these missiles and the last thing, since he is such a great individual and he has done everything he says -- i don't remember that mexico builds the wall and paid for it. host: let's look at reaction for members of congress to this ongoing story.

here we have mike bosco who said, in response to iran's dangerous response on israel, the house majority leader announced a major change to the legislative agenda for next week. there have been reports that there may be some sort of motion to file legislation in support of israel. the house will medially begin consideration of an emergency israeli aid package that will leave iran with no doubt about whether we will stand with israel in their time of need. i expect it to pass with bipartisan support and for senate democrats to have no choice but to advance it. enough games. it is time to act. a representative says, the retaliatory strike by iran on israel was mostly intercepted. these actions following the israeli attack in syria worries me. a broader conflict bringing in the u.s. -- everyone must stop aggressions, including a mac

gaza, with a priority on human life, not war. former house speaker nancy pelosi says, american support for israel security is resolute as we condemn iran's horrible attacks. our commitment to the israeli people and support of their defense remains unwavering and we must pass the national security supplemental. now back to your calls. let's hear again from you. andrew is in alexandria, virginia on our line for independents. caller: good morning and happy sunday. there needs to be a diplomatic solution to this immediately. there needs to be a wider, peaceful, and economic plan for the middle east also. if this escalates, i am afraid that the wider middle east will be brought into it here in the

western countries and nato, europe, and this will be detrimental and a disaster for the middle east, the west, and everyone involved. they really need to get heads together and a diplomatic solution to this and to start working on a wider peace and economic plan for the middle east, because this cannot get out of control anymore than it already is now. this will be detrimental for the whole world, i am afraid. host: jack is in texas on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: how are you? i am listening to your program and the problem in the middle east is iran is the financier of

all these problems now. they have the oil and we need to put them out of business. it is simple. with nato, i ain't saying this, but we are going to remove their armory with the air force and navy, shut them down, find their oil reserves went wherever they are producing oil, and they are working on a nuclear bomb right now. we are going to destroy their research centers. simple. they cannot threaten anybody else they do not have them. they need resources to do it. then any satellite countries they have used to attack any country cannot tell them they are next and a good example of

that is what we should do with iran. host: let's hear from zach on our line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am 65 years old. i have watch these guys operate all through my life. netanyahu, when he was part of what we call the cia, and putin of the kgb. the same guys have been credence havoc in this world forever. trump took money from a billionaire, something most of our presidents knew not to do what which was move that embassy. they were working on a two state solution. a two state solution went out the window when netanyahu got in

with his corruption. like trumka he had to do something drastic to stay in power and this is what it is. let's not forget that gaza has been living under apartheid for 20 years. we know what that feels like, to be constantly harassed and accused and forced to live below what we know we are capable of living. host: you mentioned the israeli prime minister, who dressed people of israel. he said that israel is ready for a direct attack from iran and would respond in kind. that was on -- that was last night. he says, israel is ready for a direct attack from iran and will respond in kind and highlights the fact that whoever hurts us

we will hurt them. we will defend ourselves from any threat and do so with determination. the statements were before the attack, but we do have a portion of those clips. [video clip] >> israeli citizens, in recent years and weeks, israel has been preparing for the possibility of a direct attack from iran. our defense systems are deployed. we are prepared for any scenario in defense at attack. the state of israel is strong. the public is strong. we appreciate the u.s. standing by our side. whoever hurts us, we hurt them. we will protect ourselves from any threat with coolness and determination. i know you are keeping your cool. i urge you to listen to the directives of the homefront

command. together, we will stand and overcome all our enemies. host: back to your calls. good morning. caller: good morning. israel launched weapons at the embassy of iran not long ago. host: let me correct myself. iran accuses israel of being responsible for that attack. these really government has not officially acknowledged responsibility for that. excuse my error. caller: ok. how can you launch a missile at somebody else and not expect a missile at you? and another thing. back in 1948 -- it was the

european war. the only people over there were white. back 2000 years ago in the desert of egypt and africa, there wasn't no white people. they are not the real jews. lord have mercy on me. lord have mercy on me. there is too much confusion about who because god don't have any favorites. god does not have any favorites. everybody is god's children. if you mess up, god is going to punish you, any religion, any denomination. everybody has been brainwashed over the years to think that one race is god's chosen people. everybody is god's chosen people. host: let me give our audience more detail on the exact strike

you referenced that is what iran is using as the excuse for this attack. here's a story from reuters talking about that attack on april 1 on the embassy in damascus. israel did not claim response ability for the airstrike on april 1. a senior commander in the iranian revolutionary guard and six other officers attended a meeting in the damascus embassy compound, but iran's supreme leader said israel must be punished and shall be for an operation he said was equivalent to an attack on iranian soil. at the time, they said, it is going to be very difficult for iran not to retaliate, said a senior researcher at israel's center for national security studies as people were preparing

for the strike that eventually did come. now let's go to john in arlington, virginia on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. this has gotten out of control. i think the iranians would have looked better if they would have gone and said, let's have a conversation about the attack on the embassy. i do not know if we would have done the same necessarily, but i think it would have helped a little bit. the israelis have been attacking syria for years. it had nothing to do with october 7 except that the israelis were trying to intercept missiles even though there was peace on the border for years. host: if i can posse for one moment can't you mentioned iran potentially going to the united nations to ask for condemnation and it appears they did.

here's a story from reuters. on april 3, the u.n. security council fails to condemn the attack in syria. the united states and great britain opposed a russian drafted statement that would have condemned an attack on iran's embassy compound in syria, which tehran has blamed on israel. press statements have to be agreed by consensus. diplomats said the u.s. told council colleagues many of the facts of what happened on monday, april first in damascus remain unclear and there was no consensus among councilmembers during a meeting tuesday and it does appear that iran attempted to get that condemnation, but go ahead. caller: i am sorry.

it was a security council meeting. the israelis have gone into iran and assassinated scientists and other people and other stuff has happened that israelis were probably responsible for, but now we have a situation. we have nine countries involved, which is nuts. if you look at how the iranians attacked, it wasn't necessarily a serious attack, although it looks like that. they could have been more damaging but they did not do it, so hopefully people will be smart and the israelis will maybe stop taking provocative actions and blocking attacks on the embassy. host: next up, jay is on our

line for democrats. caller: thanks to c-span. i do not think people gave chuck schumer enough credit when he came out and said -- and he called for elections in israel. if you watch democracy now, there is a groundswell of opposition to what netanyahu is doing. if any person can put an immediate end to the genocide going on in gaza now, it is netanyahu as well as to de-escalate. with these nuclear weapons out there, there's interest in keeping that from happening. what zach said is something to think about. democracy now as well.

not too much on mainstream media here, sorry to abc, etc. that is being that netanyahu is facing criminal charges, like trump. it is hard to believe that somebody could be doing all of this in society based on trying to stay out of prison. that is something that is a big groundswell of opposition and i give chuck schumer a lot of credit. he spoke out a month ago and said israel probably needs to change power. netanyahu could put an end to it right now today. host: he referenced the exercise in democracy that is c-span's "washington journal." i want to knowledge that c-span has joined several other major news organizations in urging the

presumptive presidential nominee to publicly commit to participate in general elections based prior to november's election, including talking about issues like foreign policy. here is some of that statement, a joint statement by news organizations including c-span, the associated press, cnn, nbc, fox news media, news nation, and br -- npr, cbs news, and others. it says, with the contours of the 2020 four election coming into clear focus, we, the undersigned national news organizations, urge the present of presidential nominees to commit to participating in general election debates before november's election. general election debates have a rich tradition in our nation's democracy and has played a role in every presidential election for the past 50 years meant

dating to 1976. in each of those elections, tens of millions have tuned in to watch the candidates debating side-by-side in a competition of ideas for the votes of american citizens. the statement is on x at this very moment if you would like to go have a look. let's go back to your calls on the iran strike on israel. joe is on our line for independents. can you turn down the volume on your tv? caller: sure. good morning. the conflict existing between israel and palestine goes back to the end of the 19th century. when you talk about peace and the conflict that existed and wars and iran comes in because they are the ones that funnel the money and resources into hamas.

any solution has to somehow be sort of across-the-board. you have to be able to penetrate iran and work out some sort of deal. it sounds impossible, but unless a deal is worked out hamas will be able to build tunnels, 500 miles of tunnels, with israel taking offense to it or even providing money through qatar and you mix it with politics here in united states between the democrats and republicans and wanting to support israel and others looking for a more viable solution of protecting the palestinians, of course they are going to go with hamas. otherwise, they will be killed. the resolution in the gaza strip

almost becomes impossible. if you look at the track records where dates back to in the wars and the conflict and bombings, the -- there are several other countries involved including jordan and syria and lebanon. the whole issue is a multi--- more than one entity involved coming to a viable solution here. unfortunately, my take is there is no solution that is going to be viable for any real time. it will take one intervention to get all the parties on the table to lead this conflict to stability and i pray and think prayer is very powerful that the

people of gaza and israel that are suffering because of losses in these wars and the ones that exist today are children, families, loving people on both sides of the equation. host: i want to bring in more reaction for members of congress, this one from a speaker of the house mike johnson, who said last night, as israel faces this attack, obviously this was before the attack, he said america must show our full resolve and stand with our critical ally. the world must be assured israel is not alone. i will continue to engage with the white house to insist upon a proper response. the undermining of israel and appeasement of iran have contributed to these terrible developments. next we have kim in ohio on our

line for democrats. >> why does it seem like all the countries can just go into other countries and bomb them into what they want and they were -- when they retaliate, it seems like it is always a big problem? and i watch us -- i remember when donald trump said there will be bombing over there and flew a mountains of people in them. i remember when syria was killing people over and syria. we pulled our troops out with the syrians that helped us all the time and let turkey go in and kill them. why is it just us and how can you have four or five people maybe letting 2 million people starve and die? how is that possible? then they act like we are the great country. we are not. we are not.

i don't want to send no more of my tax money over there to help israel. no more. they don't want to pay for abortion. i don't want to pay for no more wars. i am sick of them. host: brock is on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say let's make america great again. if i may make my point, i hope that you and all the democrat callers would consider that iran is bombing or just bombed israel and every democratic caller i have heard mentioned the prior president by name. it seems delusional and that is my point. thank you. host: rob is in new york on our line for independents.

caller: good morning. i am a little out of breath. i had to walk up the side of a mountain. i love c-span and it is a true test of democracy and what you do is good. i wanted to bring it back to september 11 for both sides. israel was no friend of ours during september 11. there were five dancing israelis who later said they were sent to document the events. the other thing about the palestinians on that day, they were jumping up and down celebrating in the streets and handing out candy, so they are no friend of ours either. like that last woman said, i am pretty sick of war. let's fix the plant, not destroy it. -- planet, not destroy it. host: thank you for your call

and i hope you enjoyed your hike up the hill. next we have nydia from staten island, new york on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i am glad i get the chance to speak. i trust you will find fault with the response that mr. biden -- i am a democrat. i have been a supporter of him. he said that we won this time. in other words, what he says to netanyahu is that they have won this time. how does that -- how could that be true? these people did bomb the embassy and they killed leaders.

that was an attack, and unprovoked attack on iran and when iran gave them they warning that they will attack in response, mr. biden said, don't. if you were really a person who wants peace, the israelis also deserve to live peacefully. that is not the way. if he really wants peace, he would tell israel to knock it off and tell them, don't. because israel did it wrong. i don't see how you can go on supporting netanyahu and saying

that you want to send by israel and yet converting this whole situation into a multi-country war. host: teresa is an washington, d.c. on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. this debacle is a response and distraction because america and the world is sick and tired of the netanyahu regime in israel and the slaughter of the palestinian people. it is amazing how biden has been so weak. he cannot tell netanyahu we are not want to send you money or weapons, so -- until you stop the slaughter.

so he is under pressure from his people and the whole world. he had been saying he was going to make america have a war with iran and then it is not us, america is fighting iran. it is the christians versus the muslims and we are not involved. host: next we have virginia in south carolina. caller: i am definitely against what united states is doing for israel as far as sending money and weapons to israel. israel has never had any notion of the two state agreement and i compare netanyahu to donald trump. they are two of a kind, birds of a feather. my husband is deceased because

he was a military person and fought in vietnam. i have two grandchildren now in the military. and i resent that that yahoo! -- netanyahu because of what he believes and wants to do is going to start a war in this country and the first thing monday morning i will be down in front of the statehouse along with some of my other friends protesting what is going on. we are not in favor of a war. i don't even think the miller -- the american military is prepared for a war. none of the services met their recruitment quota in 2023, and they are not going to meet it in 2024, so all these war hounds who are so interested in going to war, they are the ones who

talk but they are not in the military. their children are not in the military. and i don't want to hear a thing out of donald trump about this, nor 90% of the republicans. 's i live within a stone's throw of the army's largest training installation. i worked as an analyst on that installation. i know what goes on with the military. biden needs to tell netanyahu if he wants to fight a war confided on his own. don't include us. guest: another update from the associated press this morning where iran once the u.s. against cooperation with israel in any new attack, saying iran has sent a message to the u.s. warning

washington against cooperation with israel in any military operation against tehran following its unprecedented attack on israel. the state-run news agency quoted the chief of staff of the iranian armed forces can saying that tehran communicated his message to the u.s. through the swiss embassy cut which handles u.s. interests in iran in the absence of diplomatic relations. david is in georgia on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. what i can't understand is they want to be a state or whatever they are called but they cannot provide water. they cannot provide electricity for themselves. how can you be anything when you cannot provide for yourselves? it is all spending money on weapons. it does not make no sense. thank you.

host: we have a message from some one who calls themselves a professor. one of my sons is in tel aviv for work. he watched the missiles in the sky last night and he is working now. i'm cheering for israel. i see no reason why iran attacking israel means the usa needs to spend more money -- send more money to ukraine immediately. it looks like we lost that tweet. this is from cindy, who wrote us on facebook. trump wisely cut off iran's oil sales and rendered them poor. biden gave iran hundreds of millions in oil sales and opened a pipeline that trump enclosed. these wars are funded and are courtesy of joe biden. this one also on facebook, iran made a big mistake. israel is not indecisive.

they are going to go medieval on iran. you are also welcome to send us any kind of social media message you like on the topic. it is iran -- it is facebook.com/cspan or on x at @ cspanwj. caller: i find incredible the amount of anti-semites that blame israel for everything. it is never the iranians. it is never hezbollah or hamas. it is always israel and netanyahu. we have a country of spineless weasels led by a spineless weasel president who cannot put two words together who is completely senile, a joke to begin with. the only thing he can make a decision about is whether to

have chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream and this is a guy who was supposed to be leading the free world. it is a disgrace. i hope someone will come out there and destroy their nuclear stuff. host: last call for now will be ed on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. hamas attacked israeli. one of our allies. russia attacked ukraine, one of our allies. mike johnson only wants to fund one and what is wrong with him? look, these people ramble on

like they are preaching sunday morning. can you put a time limit on these people and let other people talk? >> we like to let people have their say. that is the point of the show. we are going to take a closer look at the debate over reauthorizing a key government surveillance program that was set to expire this coming friday. that conversation and the associate counsel to president george w. bush. a journalist and author will join us to talk but his new book , the architect of toxic politics in america. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week he spent networks,

the house and senate will be in session following -- on the c-span networks, the house and senate will be in session. it now heads over to the senate, which is expected to receive the articles of impeachment for the homeland security secretary tuesday. also tuesday secretary mayorkas is scheduled to appear before the house homeland security committee to testify on his budget request for fiscal year 2025 and the senate finance committee would hear testimony from the irs commissioner on the current tax filing season along with budget request for his department. wednesday, the senate commingled a hearing on potential threats -- committee will hold a hearing on potential threats to the 2024 elections. executive assistant director of the fbi's national security bridge. watch this week live on the c-span network or on c-span now, our free mobile video app.

also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live and on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. tonight on q&a, "the lives of the land" which argues the lives of rural america is vastly different than the way it is often portrayed by politics and the. >> i discovered much to my own surprise a great deal of american automobile manufacturing takes place and what we would call rural areas, especially toyota and honda who built these plants starting in the 70's and 80's not inside urban areas but out in the corn fields. so rural people are not farmers, statistically eking, much at

all, they are factory workers. long-haul truck drivers. they are doing all of these things that are connected to our industrial society. post: tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on air free c-span now radio app. host: we are joined now by the founder of the national security institute at the george mason university school of law and also served as the former senior counsel on the house intelligence committee. welcome to the program. we are here to talk about -- but i want to take the opportunity of having you here to get your reaction on this breaking news overnight, the strikes in israel. guest: an unprecedented attack in the first time iran directly struck israel from its own territory. they've been doing it for two

decades using proxies, so obviously a surprising thing coming and response in part to the earlier israeli strike against the consulate that took out a senior leader of the iran revolutionary guard. so the question really now is obviously, the israelis were able to take down with u.s. support and a lot of the drones, so what is going to happen next? will the israelis feel the need to respond? it was a significant strike and had it not been stopped, it could have been very deadly. so the question is will the israelis feel the need to push back and if so, does that create a larger confrontation it does the u.s. get involve? host: it seems pretty clear that biden administration is trying to de-escalate the situation, looking for a diplomatic solution today.

what do you think if the likelihood that there is a diplomatic next step as opposed to a military one? guest: the biden administration has sought repeatedly solutions to these challenges, and they seem to actually make things worse, to get things to the place where things are more tense because the other side, the iranians don't know where they need to stop. that is one of the challenges be found here. the real question is what the israelis feel? what the biden administration wants to be doesn't matter here. at the end the day, the israelis will decide whether to respond or not. we provide them a lot of weaponry so they feel the need to pay attention. at the same time, 200 missiles and drones over your territory, that is the kind of thing that gets you frustrated. that is the kind of thing that can cause real unhappiness, as we seen.

so the question becomes how effective can the administration be? prime minister netanyahu has been saying for weeks they wanted to move in. some may be effective if they pass forward, but a lot of this is on the iranians. they started this fight and now 200 missiles and drones over israel territory. host: the latest numbers i saw they were more than 300, actually. this attack was quite well-telegraphed by the biden administration saying it was coming a couple of days ago. obviously fueled by our intelligence network which is very related to the vote on friday with a house reauthorized foreign intelligence surveillance act. it was set to expire this coming friday unless congress finishes the vote to extend it.

can you remind us about this program and why it was put in place? guest: it generally was put in place in the late 70's, early 80's to protect americans against government surveillance in the aftermath of -- in congress. congress passed a law to protect that and regulate that under u.s. law. after 9/11 there was a realization that that law needed to be updated to provide authorities surveillance orders. about 2007, congress passed a new law that allowed the u.s. government to surveilled foreigners located overseas.

if you are an american overseas, you also get the right as if you were in the united states. the question before congress, will they reauthorize before the deadline. i just heard about this in december, and the reason why congress hasn't been able to come to a consensus is that is a short-term extension. will congress reauthorized this law now? if they do, what kind of additional protections do they want in place, because there have been some debates about this new section. host: let's talk a bit more about section 702. it allows intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance of noncitizens based outside the

u.s. some u.s. to be occasions can appear in collections of americans are talking the non-us citizens overseas can the data collected is stored for years as part of other investigations. how effective has this been come in your opinion? guest: probably the most important document, full stop. it provides information every single day. so what we collect our phone calls, emails and the like. we were with telling indication providers under the oversight of the court. foreigners looking out of the united states don't have a right

to a warrant, and you couldn't even get a warrant, there is no warrant authority outside the united states. so as a result, we conduct surveillance. the controversy as well, that is true of any surveillance. that is how the system works. so the question becomes how do you protect that, how do you minimize that? americans have a right to a court order, how do you do that? the government is required to go get a court order to conduct that surveillance. the concern everyone has, you are still getting their voice, still getting there emails, you search this database for email addresses, that is that they fight on capitol hill right now. host: and that fight failed in the house when they attempted to add an amendment to that effect

in the new york times reported the house and the passing a two-year extension instead of that normal five year extension. and i wonder your reaction to that and how what the house passed squares with what the senate has passed as you mentioned earlier. there is a struggle to reach a consensus. guest: it's kinda surprising because normally in these situations, both houses are trying to move legislation and there may differences in the bill. that hasn't happened yet so they got to take up this house bill and passed it. if they amended and send it back there is a very possibility the problem expiration is that even if the u.s. government may have or be going on for another year, they've made clear they will not cooperate with the request for surveillance even if the government has authorities in place, so that is a huge gap particularly as we see these

wars that are happening in europe between russia and ukraine, the war in the middle east, increased terrorist threats. we just saw isis bomb a theater in moscow. this is a real scary situation the world is in. if we forget about china and taiwan, we need these authorities and the idea that the senate might let us expire, that vote on warrants was tight. it was one vote apart and the biden administration is very clear about this. that could have tanked the bill altogether so what the senate needs to do now, they need to act fast and they need to defeat that as well because that would make it very difficult for the u.s. government to do what it needs. right when you would want to do that, the government would be told no, even though that file

you have, that information was lawfully collected. host: so there really was controversial in the house. republican thomas matthey actually ended up voting no on the final passage of the bill and with the main component of that warrant requirement. he is on the house floor earlier this week. >> today we are voting on a resolution that will bring forward reauthorization of a program that has been used for decades. before we vote on that program, this resolution that we are voting on now, we will bring forward an amendment to require warrants. if you want to spy on americans, if you want to use this database as a backdoor to look at the private information of americans, you would need a warrant if this amendment passes. some people would say getting a warrant is too hard. you will slow us down, you will

put americans in danger. i've been in the classified area with their supposed to tell of the problems with requiring a warrant, and they never have told us an example of where getting a war it would be a problem to national security. in fact, we got a provision that says you can skip that step. you will hear today that everything is fine, we don't need the warrant amendment. we've got 53 reforms in this package. here is the problem with those. we rely on the same people that abuse the system to enforce those reforms, and they still don't go to the constitutional level that is required in this country. who doesn't trust those 53 reforms? congress doesn't trust those 53 reforms. the authors of this bill. you know how i know? because they put two exemptions for themselves in this bill. that's right.

the fbi is going to use this to spy on congressman, they have to tell congress. they even have to get permission from the congressman they are spying on if they say it is for their own good. why do we have a provision in there that exempts congressman but not all of america? americans deserve the protections that are enshrined in the constitution. nothing less should pass this house. >> pretty strong advocacy for that warrant amendment which essentially -- eventually did fail. guest: he knows better. he claims that there is no need, that you have to have a warrant that is required by the constitution. every court has said you don't need a warrant to search that database. this is a database of lawfully collected information collected under the constitution statutes, under the oversight of a court that grants every year to four

located outside the united states. the idea that you would need award to go search for an americans identifier the database, and if you find it, can you read that email? if you want to surveillance american, you've got to go to court to get that order. can you read that email back and forth between those two people? you can look at it, how would you know there's circumstances of all you do is search the database to know? that is all you know, you can't open the email. you don't know if he is talking about the weather, his dry cleaning, or a terrorist attack that is just not true, you would never know or be if to prove in court. they say you can just go get a warrant. all you know if there is communication. you don't know what is about.

you don't know if he is the fast food diet with a terrorist. this idea that that is what you need come it is just not true. before 9/11, we had other provisions like this very said you are a law enforcement agent and you want to talk to an intelligence officer about surveillance, you've got to go and get authority from the attorney general. the 9/11 commission made clear that it was that all were misperceptions about it that led to making it possible for us to identify the fact that there were two al qaeda terrorists living in sandy hook under their true names. those two hijackers were seen in malaysia a few months earlier by the cia and they have a photograph of them. they knew they were terrorists. let's not re-create a new wall. we have information in a lawfully collected database. this is people who never talk to

one another saying what we really need year is a warrant. but the truth is that is not what is required by law, by the constitution. if congress wants to do it, that is fine, but it will make it much harder for us to know when an american is talking to a terrorist and what they are talking about. host: we would take your calls and questions on this topic. the line for republicans is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. i want to watch also about what exact type of information this is that is in this database and can you give a bit more detail about who has access to it and some of these potential abuses? guest: a lot of people want to know what is it you collect? we are collecting phone calls, emails, other communications between these foreigners located

overseas, terrorist, spies and their compatriots as well as potentially communications into and out of the u.s. we want to know about as well. as a person talking to a foreign spy in russia, a terrorist in afghanistan, you want to know that, you want to be able to collect that sort of information. you are talking to an american, you need to get a court order. we are talking about 200,000-300,000 people under coverage. that is in a world of 8 billion people worldwide. we are talking about a tiny portion of the globe, all foreigners located overseas being surveilled. that entire database, only 3.2% go to the fbi for searches that he was talking about. we're talking about a very rare case, and then only 3% of that entire database that might be

searched under the assertions that he turned out. so it is a tiny group we are talking about and do you really want to fill that barrier? even the you got that information lawfully. host: children at the brennan center for justice talked about some of the searches within this database, saying officials from the fbi, cia performed more than 200,000 warrantless searches every year to find and review american on the phone calls, text messages and emails. lax rules adopted by agencies allow backdoor searches whenever they have reason to believe a queries will return foreign intelligence or for the fbi, evidence of a crime, and this low bar should be easy to clear but officials have repeatedly

stumbled over it. government reports indicate that in 2022, the fbi performed close to 4000 backdoor searches that violated even its own rules. another reason one year period, the fbi violated the rules governing the searches of databases 278,000 times. that sounds like a lot. guest: first of all, we use terms like backdoor. there is nothing backdoor about this. every time it has been reauthorized we cap this exact debate. congress has known about a, congress understand they are collecting information about foreigners located overseas that sometimes talk to americans. some time talks to his wife, sometimes to the drycleaner, and sometimes that pizza place is actually the mafia associate and their talking about bad stuff. that is how you figure it out. they are using codes, foreign

language us. you need to collect that information to look at it. it is not a backdoor search, it is a frontal research. everyone knows what is happening. you can't get a warrant on a foreigner located overseas, they don't have any rights in the constitution and of course you will be able to look at it, if this person another compatriot or are they just somebody that they happened to the emailing? host: what kind of safeguards are there for american citizens under this system? guest: first of all, they only get 3.2% of its entire collection second, there are only a handful of people under 20 authorized to actually approve those queries. jonathan correctly talks about their been a lot of errors, a lot of mistakes. there have been searches that have been conducted. how do we know that? get the fbi found they made a

mistake, they reported to the court in the courts told congress. these aren't i decided to go in intentionally and threaten. the rare cases where that happens, those people go to jail, they are prosecuted, they lose security clearance. i laughed, this is a serious matter because we are talking about americans privacy, but the kind of mistake they made was they had a thing where you would check a box to search the databases and instead it selected all. those 298,000, that is because when they were doing queries, they hit the select all button instead of the three databases. that is not good because it is a violation, but how do we find out about it? they thought it was a mistake, a train them better now, laws are now in place to make clear you have to report that, and it is fixed.

i love the buzzwords, let's be real. host: james is in atlanta on the line for independents. caller: yes, i have two issues i would like to bring up with you. the first issue is you were on tv talking, you started the policymakers were they were doing warrantless wiretapping on american citizens who are part of the policy, now you are tv talking about you had nothing to do with it. in the next issue is this. joe biden and the americans who are conspiring with them, losing their own election. israel -- host: we will let him just respond to that first part. guest: i did serve in the bush administration at the national security department of justice,

which the part of the justice department responsible for obtaining these court orders. so the caller is exactly right, i was exalt -- involved in the politics. but the bush administration did run a program between 2001 and 2007 with a collective intelligence in the united states without words. but again, focused on foreigners located overseas primarily and that was a time for we got the law. the reason we got along was because the bush administration decided to shut that program down, it got a little challenging, there was one judge that approve the order that we needed in the next judge was like well, i want a little more information to slow the process down. ultimately we went to congress. i was there in 2007 we got that authority. that is why these are searches authorized by congress instantiates. we got a law, congress that you can do these without a warrant and you can put whatever females, addresses and phone numbers as long as they are

outside the united states. and then the only question we are talking about, to the caller's point, what do you do if you want to look in that data that you now have, 3.2% of that database and say ok, is an american talking to a terrorist or a spy? then you can go to court with that information. can we get a court order for him? you have to get a court order for him or her if they are talking to a person by targeting them to. host: we have a question we received via text message. dan in pennsylvania asks "how does dual citizenship, look at surveillance laws?" guest: that is a great question and the answer is if you are a dual citizen, a u.s. citizen and some other citizen of another country, you get the protections allowable for u.s. citizens not just u.s. citizens, it is also u.s. green card holders. if you are a green card holder or u.s. citizen, no matter where

you are in the world, you get the right to a court order from a federal judge before you can be surveilled. and by the way, that is a protection that is in section 702. if that expires, that protection for americans overseas, on. -- gone. host: steve in tampa, ford asks what restrictions are in place to prevents aversions of the coming election? green and company -- i'm guessing that is a reference to marjorie taylor greene -- say they plan to obstruct normal electoral college votes, hold all traders accountable. guest: the law doesn't allow surveillance in the united states, so we are not going be talking about what happens in the u.s. elections. to the extent that foreigners, the chinese, the iranian 10 that the north koreans, all of which we know have sought to influence our elections and we know they

plan to do it in a 20 24, we might get that information. this authority goes away, it will be very hard to know what they are doing to try to undermine our elections. faith doing it for years. their goal is to undermine our intelligence agencies, to make them be viewed as corrupt and incapable. it is that corrosive effect that they want to have on our democracy and by the way, it is working. that is informed by misinformation that is leading us here. we are getting into the very kind of pressure that your message or there is talking about. host: roberto is in houston on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for

having this gentleman on. giving this question over to quanta representatives for next week's discussion, here's a question. how about the american spy case involving a foreign government, israel during the reagan administration have been prevented if this had been in effect, and you mentioned the dual citizenship. perhaps he once had dual citizenship, but also i never found out how this caller finally caught. when he was released and went straight israel, there is something we need to remember. >> cliff let him respond to the question. guest: this is an interesting one, it was an american who shared it with israel, he went

to jail for a long, long time and then ultimately was repatriated to israel based on his age and his information. the real problem, he wouldn't be able to surveilled him in the states of america and the u.s. using section 702. that is where you need to go. get a court order, and then obtains information. they asked how the caller was caught, i don't know. i don't know if we were surveilling israel or we had a human source inside of israel that told us or we made a mistake or got caught here. i'm actually not sure. i've read the story, i just don't recall. but what i will say is once we were onto him, one of the most important tools he probably had, i don't know for sure but i bet money that we did surveillance with the judge's oversight with a traditional title i by the court order, not section 702,

and that we probably knew a lot about what he was doing and saying in the u.s. while we were working up the case. i bet you that information was probably pretty important in the case against him and ultimately why he went to jail for many, many years. host: minnesota on the line for independents. caller: yes, i kind of like to know where jamaal stands -- where he stands on 702 as it relates the gop passing the amendment about data collection a few years ago. that is spying on americans itself. i would like to see what he has to say. guest: jim is talking about this metadata collection program. we learned about this after the snowden leaks, and we learned that with the u.s. government had been doing for many years,

we were collecting virtually all of the phone calls back and forth in the united states and abroad, the phone numbers. the dialed number from, 10, the length, time and duration of the call. who are they calling with, who are the emailing from date and time of the email. and you are able to identify networks of who was talking to who. the reason this was controversial after edward snowden revealed a quest because it wasn't just foreigners located overseas, it was all phone calls and emails in the united states, being carried by these providers. a lot of data about americans had no content, not what the email said, just the dialed number or the email addressed to and from and the date, time and duration. but still, very important. it was an early warning system

and when the government obtained that authority, congress was briefed on it many, many times. i remember being with a house representatives when we organize this program. every member of the house had the opportunity to come down, would greet people individually myself and explain how widescale it was, why we thought that was important. ultimately congress decided to reauthorize it with significant restrictions in the aftermath of the snowden debates and disclosures and then ultimately the government decided to stop collecting in that manner, stop using that authority because the new laws made it difficult to do what they needed to do. but the important debate that we have back in 2007 was concerning to me. i believe we need to do these things. at the same time we need to explain to the american people why we are collecting all this information.

ultimately congress decided in place. host: did you have a follow-up question? caller: yes. with the collection as it is done presently and with the former administration freely using that stuff, apparently, with the border information being shared in the campaign, where do you stand on that? are you ok with that kind of stuff? guest: this is a great question. as far as i'm aware, none of that was used for anything other than national security. voter information is very widely available. information about where you and i are registered to vote, how often we vote, whether we take a republican or democrat ballot it

in your state that is relevant. all that information is in databases held by each individual state and you can walk down to the local voting register's office, ask for it and get a list. host: you can access it online. guest: online, a database. if you wonder how people note to mail you information about republicans or democrats, how do they know to knock on my door, you have an app on your phone that just takes the voter database, puts it right at your fingertips. this is john smith, a registered republican. jane smith is a registered democrat. that information is all available, has nothing to do with surveillance or government authorities, it is just available to the average voter. so you might say i don't like that being out there, and each state handles it differently. host: dan is in rochester, new york on the line for republicans. caller: good morning.

i basically have two questions. i'd like to know is justice john roberts overseas the court, and the other question is about as the dossier had any repercussions happened? guest: they are actually just regular federal district court judges from around the country. they get appointed to the court by the chief justice of the united states. they get appointed a set number of years to be on that court. they do their normal job around the country and then once a month or two, they come to d.c., spend a week here and serve on the court in that role.

these are regular federal judges. they are appointed by the chief justice and they are overseen by an appellate court and ultimately the supreme court has review authority over those decisions. in addition, all the decisions by the government and the other parties that come before the court, and then congress is able to get copies of those decisions subcommittees like the house intelligence committee, the senate intelligence committee, the house judiciary committee and senate judiciary committee all read these decisions and then bring in the core of the justice department or the other various agencies for oversight. we used to do that all the time. and the new bill, the section 702 bill that was passed by the house for youth even more transparency, more opportunities. but again, these are regular federal judges who are overseeing an appointment by the chief justice and overseen by the appellate court in the

supreme court. host: and what about his question on the steel dossier? guest: hard to know what is going on with that right now. everyone understands what it was now. carter page without to be somebody was potentially working for the russians and americans. the government went to court, got a traditional order, it was not sex and -- section 702 surveillance. used again this past week writing untruth social. host: specifically said kill fisa, it was illegal use against me and many others, they spied on my campaign. that is what he said. guest: president trump just dead wrong about that. by the way, he put out a similar tweet on twitter back in the day when he was in office. his white house was seeking to reauthorize a law, tell the

president you are just wrong about this and he is back at it again a few years later, same mistake, same error, two different authorities. but the president's right to be concerned on one thing. there was a lawyer who had found out on the reauthorization of the authority, is he working for us? and he was told yes, he is actually working for the cia. but he put the opposite in the renewal. that lawyer was prosecuted, fired from the justice department. he didn't go to jail, he got probation. that is exactly the kind of thing that undermines confidence, that kind of intentional violation almost never happens. when it does happens, you've got to throw the book at these people. let's say we could kill section 702.

if he means to kill the thing that was used to surveilled carter page, that would get rid of all the protections that would put in place for americans. in any event president trump is just confused about the authorities, on the merits. i think people around him will come in and say after that one tweet earlier this week it pretty much went silent. in normal mode is put out a ton of tweets, but if it is totally quiet somebody told him you're feeding people that information, you are not right about this. host: a couple more pieces of reaction, in response to your question of do you really want to build a barrier between the departments in the story you told about 9/11, michael thorton says you mean complying with the constitution? yes. go ahead.

guest:guest: to be clear, that wall that we created before 9/11, hired by the constitution. every court was looking at it including the foreign intelligence board of review. there is no requirement to create a barrier between law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. if you want to make that barrier, you can, congress can do it if they want to. not required by the constitution. same thing here. lawful information against foreigners who have no constitutional right by our constitution, no right to a warrant. lawfully collected under statute. we can do that, but that is a choice, not protected under the constitution. every court has held that it is not required. there is one court suggesting in certain circumstances that be a need for a warrant.

no constitutional requirement. host: bill and connecticut asks how many people are engaged in any way with the various security systems employed by the u.s. government agencies including the military? guest: if we are talking about fisa, this hundreds of thousands of people who have security clearances. it is a much smaller number. it is fbi agent's were doing surveillance and conducting investigations in these cases. and then probably tens of thousands of both authorizing searches like this, well under 100. 10 or 15 in every agency. in fact, this bill puts even more restrictions on who can do it to approve a clear into the database at 3.2% of the overall database being collected.

approval, very small numbers. actual ability to look at it after approve and collected, probably a higher number. three depends on what we are talking about. these are the people that defend our nation against terrorists, spies, identify information. then it is are members of the military intelligence service overseas protecting this country every day that we are watching our allies as well. host: david is in texas on the line for independents. go ahead, david. caller: yes you got to ask about -- you got asked about the steel dossier and you seemed to just talk about fisa what about the credibility and the intelligence work on the steel dossier? wasn't it pretty much proven to be fallacious? guest: yeah. i think today the steel dossier has lost credibly altogether. and the reason i was stumbling there a little bit was because i

haven't thought about the steel dossier in such a long time. it is last election cycle. just wasn't up to speed on it. the steel dossier i think has lost all credit ability. it doesn't mean that what was in there might happen right or wrong, we don't know, but the dossier itself and the way it was collected and the like, i don't think anybody think that has got real credibility to it today. host: jack is in georgia on the line for democrats. caller: hello, how are you doing? i have a big idea and you might think it is a little crazy, but our problems with the attorney general being appointed by the president. i think it was called the saturday night massacre, back then watergate when they tried to get for the attorney general and then the same thing happened with donald's attorney general. what about an idea that the supreme court appoints the attorney general and that is

confirmed by congress, by the senate the usual way, and so that that removes the president? it always seems like the attorney general, they are supposed to be independent, but trump gets back in and it is going to be again the same thing where he's going to have the attorney general be loyal to him like he tried to do time. i know this is a hard, big idea, but the folks over there who are in the senate could start talking about a change to the way we do things where the attorney general, makes it much more independent from the executive branch. it is all justice department problems that they are dependent on the president. guest: i like big ideas. this country is founded on big ideas, the idea of equal rights and the idea of freedom of speech, freedom of religion. these are big ideas, i don't have a problem with big ideas. here is the practical challenge to what the caller just described.

it isn't that the supreme court appointed attorney general without confirmation. that would require fundamentally a constitutional amendment. we that efforts to try to have independent prosecutors like that. there's an entire statute passed by congress, it would need an attorney general, they would not report to be a cheap work report to the president, to operate on their own and ultimate there were legal issues in the supreme court they question whether that was constitutional. congress decided to let that statute expire. but you probably could not do it by law, you would have to do it by constitutional amendment that would wire either a constitutional convention or passage of several states, ratification by several states. but i can, big ideas matter. we have had nearly two dozen constitutional amendments. you could have another one, not impossible, but if we think that

is important, there is a process of starting that process and states could consider it and move out on it, if that makes sense. host:host: thank you so much, founder of the national security institute of the george mason university school of law. really appreciate your time this morning. in about 15 minutes, we will be joined by ken walsh who will be on to talk about his new book the architects of toxic politics in america. but first, it is open for them. your chance to weigh in on any political or public policy topics on your mind this morning. you can start calling and now, the numbers are on your screen and we will be right back. ♪ >> they say i'm over the hill.

that is a man in his prime. >> watch c-span's coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner live, april 27 with saturday night live we can update coast: joseph as the featured entertainer as well as president biden who is expected to give remarks. our coverage begins six eclectic and eastern on c-span.org and c-span now. as journalist and celebrity's walk the red carpet. then 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch live on the c-span network. >> weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. craig surely discusses his book the search for reagan which looked at ronald reagan's conservatism and how he dealt

with challenges during his presidency and his personal life. the book second class where she spoke with working-class americans about their lives and the policies they believe could help them get to the middle class. watch every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. friday name watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of c-span campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated whole numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m.

eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download the podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. washington journal continues. host: welcome back, we are in open for them. you're welcome to call in with your thoughts on any political or public policy thoughts on your mind this morning. many folks are following the news coming out of israel overnight by the attack by iran. iran launched hundreds of drones and missile strikes at israel overnight, the vast majority of which were intercepted. here's the latest on that story from the associated press, pointing out that iran's foreign minister reiterates the operation is over. iran's foreign minister said his country has no intention of continuing the military operation against israel.

at this juncture the islamic republic of iran has no intention of continuing defensive operations he posted on x and added it is necessary -- if necessary it will not hesitate to protect its legitimate interest against any new aggressions. he called the attacks exercising the right of legitimate defense and said he chose iran is responsible for regional and international peace and security. mike is in illinois on the line for republicans. caller: here's another indication of why hamas and the whole deal about putting israel and the -- on the wrong side of this and claiming israel is the one at fault, this is several times in a row where israel gets attacked for no reason and then they turn around and say but why is israel so aggressive and why are they killing people?

we've got to get the press to quit backing hamas in iran by saying israel is such a bad country by defending itself. host: next up we have greg in illinois on the line for democrats. go ahead, greg. caller: good morning. i think it is high time that the citizens of the united states, this is one way i would start funding. i would put a health surcharge on our support of oil that we are exporting 4.2 million barrels per day in the united states. and if you put a five dollars health surcharge on that, if i got my statistics right, around $21 million per week.

and then i would start funding carefirst and do that gradually. and that is the information i have, if i've done my calculations right. i think we would have a good start. but oil actually belongs to every citizen of the united states, and it is being sold on the market, exported mostly by foreign oil companies, and i don't really see where we are getting any of the benefits from it. and that is what i think should be looked at. host: thanks for your call, greg. north carolina, line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. just a couple comments on the israel-hamas deal. i sat around and looked at those and clearly israel was attacked first and they responded.

i guess it takes me back to when we as americans were attacked and how we responded on 9/11. it is a complicated situation, but i really wish everyone would look at who was the aggressor in this action to begin with. now israel is just doing what do to protect itself. it's clear that hamas is against israel and the united states. for the united states citizens to even think about supporting them, you are not supporting americans, your supporting hamas. host: next up we have joe in ohio on the line for independents. caller: high. a story that didn't get enough coverage i think was that in ukraine, the nuclear power plant got attacked by drones and there

were three direct hits on the containment dome. luckily they didn't preach it this time, but one thing we know is that no amount of concrete 10 withstand enough --. it is just a policy that the biden administration is going all in on. a corrupt company with a history of bribery in order to restart a nuclear power plant. we just need to remember every time to give your enemies a nuclear weapon, that is what i wanted to say. thank you. host: alberta in texas on the line for democrats. can you turn then the volume on your tv please? caller: yes. i heard what you said. do i need to wait until this man

is already talking? host: it's your turn to go, but just turn down the volume on your tv and then you can make your comments. caller: can you hear my tv? host: we can, so just turn it down a bit. caller: i'll do that. i just wanted to say that this country has never had a -- this country has never had -- because when the president might come up, this country has never had a dictator and what does it mean that who is running for president is running to be a dictator? and to me it is not the mayor,

the governors. the judges, the supreme court judges, no one is supposed to run your home and no one is supposed to run your life. there is a god in heaven, and we are supposed to obey god. whether you obey him or not, you may not believe in him, you may not be like i am, there is a god in heaven. host: we were talking about the presidential election, i am going to remind our audience about something we mentioned earlier in the show is that c-span has joined several other news organizations in calling for both presidential candidates to agree to debate prior to the november election. the full statement with that

call for a presidential debate prior to the general election is on x if you would like to go to read that statement. next up mike is in rockford, illinois on the line for independents. caller: morning. i'd like to bring a little light upon something i noticed the last few days, a manufactured food shortage. i've noticed a bunch of states, they stopped planting corn of 27%. also, the agricultural organizations stopped taking the kennel report. they also closed the sugar mill in texas due to mexico blocking water rights. many things in their food.

china buying farmland for china. i think there should be more alarm for the farmers to plant this spring and more emphasis being we lost one million acres in texas that barely made the news. but i want to bring a light upon the manufactured food shortage i think we are witnessing, along with the military in charge of fixing the bridge that was taken down. i think that is part of their food shortage, two. that feeds all the great lakes. and for the military to be in charge of that i think is very alarming, but i believe that there. thank you. host: devon is in orlando, florida on the line for republican good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wish i was able to speak with the gentleman beforehand.

he had a smile on his face about -- and abroad. what president trump had to go through, the fbi, cia, the whole intelligence, they tried to take this man down. for him to say he had fbi tales on himself, -- spying on a presidential campaign and the president of the united states. donald trump is a great man who did great things for this country in the way he is being treated now, it's insane. about abortion, those who are for abortion, you didn't get aborted, so stop in for abortion. january 6, truthfully and

honestly, we should overthrow the government. people need to start waking up and realizing what is going on in america because we will fight. thank you. host: next is mark in illinois on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: it is always a pleasure to speak with you. host: thank you. caller: we worry about people like brother trump. what we should worry about is a vacillating, inconclusive, hesitant government that will not do what needs to be done. i'm not going to suggest what needs to be done. host: ok.

thank you very much, mark. after the break, we are going to be joined by journalist and author ken walsh who will talk about his new book "the architect of toxic politics in america." we will be right back. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate will be in session following the house passage of the pfizer reform bill ahead of the deadline. it now goes to the senate on tuesday. also tuesday, the secretary is scheduled to appear before the house homeland security committee to testify on the budget for fiscal year 2025 and the senate finance committee will hear testimony on the current tax filing season along

with the budget for his department. and they will hold a hearing on potential threats to the 2024 election. witnesses include the director of national intelligence, agency director, and assistant director of the fbi national security branch. also, go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live and on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government with the

support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our competition, c-span asks middle and high school students to it forward while considering the past. it we received inspiring and thought-provoking documentaries from over 32,00 students. the grand prize goes to nathan and jonah for "innocence held hostage." >> it is evident the united states must make more policy that places more restrictions on all americans traveling to iran.

the united states will no longer have to participate in such considerable negotiations with iran. >> be sure to watch the winning documentaries this month and online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by ken walsh, the author of the book "the architects of toxic politics in america." a bit of a dark title. what inspired you to write the book? guest: i covered the white house for 35 years for u.s. world news a report -- and reports. it covered me how the notion of toxic politics has been with us a long time in our country. we tend not to realize that. i think it is one reason people

are surprised at it now. it goes back almost to the very beginning. george washington sort of escaped toxic politics. but the first administration after washington was one of the most toxic elections we have ever had. emphasis on hostility, negativity, tearing the other side down. not so much positive ideas but what is wrong with the other side. that is very common in our politics but i think a lot of americans are worried about it today and it is getting worth. host: an excerpt from the book, presidents set the tone for public discourse and unfortunately many have played a key role in intensifying a toxic environment. also instrument to shaping the toxic culture are influencers

who have become combatants in the culture wars. who are these people? guest: when you look at history, you can see the antecedents. i can come back to that in a moment. today, you have the presidents in recent times. richard nixon was known for his approach to the opposition in a toxic way. you have had democratic presidents also. lyndon johnson had the most negative and effective negative ads we have ever had before or since, the famous daisy add portraying berry goldwater 1960's for as a warmonger. -- barry goldwater in 1964 as a warmonger. we have had influencers all throughout history.

it goes back to a fellow named james callender who was the first character assassin in our politics. he broke the story about thomas jefferson having an affair and fathering children with a slave on his plantation. it turns out he was right. he was pilloried by jefferson's supporters for promoting this salacious story. as i said, dna evidence and other things have shown he was correct all of those years ago. host: you make specific reference to donald trump. on his critics, especially the washington establishment and the mainstream media he created a cult of personality built upon allegiance to him and his brand of destructive politics.

he was the ultimate contrarian and created the most negative u.s. presidency in history. that is quite the claim, that it is the most negative. guest: it is. if you look at things he said, i want to make it clear i am not a partisan journalist or historian , many people would think it is appropriate for him to do what he is doing being fairly negative. he said we have a unitary system based on democrats and republicans being in cahoots with each other. and it is important to tear down pretty he will do that, and that is what he is trying to do with one issue after another. you can see it playing out in his meeting with the speaker of the house and trying to work on issues trump has a like aid to ukraine that a lot of republicans want to provide.

trump feels he is fighting the establishment in washington and makes no bones about that. that is still essential part of his approach to public life. host: what about president biden? does heat contribute to this toxic culture? guest: when joe biden ran and won the last time, he said he would bring civility back and criticized trump. he has tried to do that but he bought into the atmosphere of hostility. it is not on the same scale trump does against biden but biden will have a challenge. is he going to try to stick to the old-time civil politician who works with others or

will he jump into the pool of combat? i think a lot of that will determine what his campaign looks like in november. host: a lot of your book focuses on richard nixon. what extinction -- distinction does he hold in your book? guest: nixon was the only president to resign. he was probably going to be impeached. it is interesting the distinction now between impeachment and resignation. nixon felt impeachment was the worst image she could have rather than resignation. he said it would be better for his historic image. now we have had trump impeached twice rather than resign. they felt they could portray impeachment as a partisan maneuver against them, part of the hostile world we are in.

it used to be impeachment was like the worst thing that can happen to a president. no longer. there are movements to impeach biden even now that have stalled. basically, it has become a political weapon. host: on nixon, you wrote political negativity was on the rise propelled by fearmongering, distrust of government, and resistance to change after ebbs and flows for many years. at times, it seemed as if the united states was coming loose from its moorings and many were abandoning fundamental american values such as tolerance and equality. nixon capitalized on all of this and accelerated trend. up until the last sentence, you could have been talking about today. guest: absolutely. nixon became so isolated he did not understand how much trouble he was in, and congress. a delegation of republicans had

to go and tell him that you are losing support and we cannot guarantee we will protect you from impeachment. and then of course, he resigned. he did obstruct justice. the famous interviews with david frost where he says if a president does something, it is not illegal, the president can do anything he wants. he got -- president trump tested the idea of immunity. this is exactly what nixon was saying, that he was immune from prosecution because whatever he does is say from the courts. that is going to the supreme court now. everywhere you turn, you see more evidence of the hostility and weaponization of politics. having covered this for so long, one reason i wrote the book is

it has gone so far it is unhealthy for the country. we can talk about how we pull back from it. basically, it is worse than it has been in my lifetime. i think it is getting worse. host: are there examples of president or political leaders who took the high ground to move things in another direction? guest: there are examples of this. he was vilified by his critics in many ways during the civil war. the civil war is when we were most divided. we were killing each other in the civil war. if you at some of the criticism of lincoln, even in the north, he was berated as a time rent, as looking like a gorilla, and all kinds of horrible things -- as a tyrant, as looking like a gorilla, and all kinds of horrible things. he responded with humor. that is something presidents

have lost. and how impressive is to voters if a president does that. i would say franklin roosevelt, there were attempts to vilify him, for being a socialist, going too far, villainize and his wife are being too active in politics, civil rights and other things. he responded with humor mostly. he said the american people know me and they are not going to buy into this criticism about me. he was elected four times. he was proven to be correct in that. host: how influential were folks behind the scenes with the presidents in shaping which direction the culture would go in the white house? guest: very good point. lots of times, presidents are moved in certain directions by their staffs and so on. i have also written a book about this.

the idea of presidential isolation and how presidents avoid isolation. one way they try to do it is to have people on their staff connected to everyday life more than they are because it is so difficult for presidents to do that and they lose touch easily. one example of a president who used staff was george herbert walker bush and lee atwater. bush was a wealthy man. he was not particularly connected to the middle class. he knew he had a gap in his understanding of the country, so lee atwater, a political operative from south carolina, became his eyes and ears. he listened to lee atwater. he was a tough politician himself. he got a reputation in the republican party as, this is the

future, attack, tear down the other side. he was in many ways practicing politics of hostility and toxicity. in some ways, lee atwater did the dirty work for president bush. another who was influential was roger ailes, the media advisor. he and the atwater came to be the message. roger ailes went on to become even more influential on the national scale with founding fox news. roger ailes has passed away as has lee atwater. they are seen in politics as the architects of this negative politics i am talking about in recent times. particularly, atwater was widely admired by a lot of young people in the republican party. roger stone who advises trump was an acolyte of lee atwater. he had many young people all

over the country. he popularized get it in politics that the answer is to tear down the other side and make that person more unpopular than your candidate. that is a fundamental strategy a lot of politicians use today. it feeds into the toxic nature of things. host: atwater expanded his influence within the bush family by bonding with presidential son george w. bush, as you mentioned. both of them were brash and ruthless in advancing george h.w. bush. lee atwater taught george w. bush's negative tactics and strategies. his influence on the younger bush was profound. atwater's influence manifested in another way.

w. would hire karl rove to be the chief strategist in the 2000 campaign and later made him chief of staff. there are multiple generations of impact. guest: absolutely. it goes on and on. i knew atwater very well. when i realized george herbert walker bush was heading for the republican nomination, i made it a point to get to know him and bush increasingly well. one of the interesting things about this is one reason the conservatives are so influential in attack politics as public commentators and the rush limbaughs of the world and so on is because they are entertaining. lee atwater was a fascinating guy.

he could be very charming. he liked the idea of being this young rogue who had a sort of mistake and still does to this day among many republican strategists. i do not want to minimize that. that is one reason why i think so many conservative commentators today are more popular and influential than the democrats, because they entertain better and people want to watch the more -- them more. they have a talent for that. host: we are going to get to our callers in a bit. i imagine we are going to hear from folks that you are putting a lot of the venom and vitriol in the camp of republicans. is that fair? guest: in recent times, it is something i think they have to be held to account for. but the democrats cannot be let off the hook either.

in history, we have had democratic provocateurs as well. i do not want to minimize that. during franklin roosevelt's period, there was a catholic priest was very popular in the country. started out on the radio supporting franklin roosevelt's new deal and then he felt roosevelt was going too far and started to support the nazis and fascism in europe and japan. he felt the united states should be opposing communism in the soviet union more than fascism. in the end, he had millions of listeners, a forerunner of radio commentators today. he started out as a democrat. he we long -- huey long was a governor and later a senator and also had a fascist approach. he was assassinated.

he had a marked effect. roosevelt said the two most dangerous people in the united states were douglas macarthur and hugh we long -- huey long. more recently, the democrats have been very tough on republicans, too. i do not want to minimize that. if you look at what went on with bill clinton's impeachment and the accusations women were making against clinton, there was a lot of savage criticism on those women by clinton's entourage. there was the politics of personal destruction they used to claim the women were making this stuff off about him. he did tell a lie and committed perjury denying his improper relationship with monica lewinsky. the democrats have been on the toxic side of things as well.

it is more recently since trump has been this huge figure in our country and is today, one of his trials is about to start. you see this day in and day out with the toxic politics. talk about republicans versus the democrats, this is central to his appeal, that he is taking on the establishment. that is what he says he is doing , and he is doing it in an aggressive and caustic way. host: you also write about the rise of these groups. you say another factor intensify negativity was the role of political organizations named after the section of the internal revenue code specifying their legal status. the code allows people to organize groups to collect money , often from the super rich and

spend it on independent political advertising and campaigns. the ads run by these groups were mostly negative according to an academic study in 2004. one of the classic examples was the ad run against john kerry. we have that adhere. [video clip] >> if you have any question about what john kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him. >> i served with john kerry. >> john kerry has not been honest about what happened in vietnam. >> he is lying about his record. >> i know john kerry is lying about his first purple heart because i treated him for that injury. >> john kerry lied for his bronze star. i was there, i saw what happened. >> his account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day. >> john kerry has not been honest. he lacks the capacity to lead. >> when the chips were down, you

could not count on john kerry. >> john kerry is no war hero. >> john kerry betrayed the men and women he served within vietnam. >> he dishonored his country. >> i served with john kerry. john kerry cannot be trusted. >> swift veterans for truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement. guest: that was a very important had in that campaign because john kerry portrayed himself as a vietnam war hero. he had served in vietnam and on swift boats. his opponents, supporters of bush, found all of these people who criticized his service. it took a long time before he realized much damage this was doing to him. when he finally addressed it, it was too late. you can see it was very effective. those people seemed to be very sincere in what they were talking about criticizing john

kerry. he argued this was all made up, that he did have honorable service and so on and the reason these people were against him is because he turned against the war and criticized the behavior of american soldiers in vietnam who he said were committing atrocities and so on. that argument still goes on. this is the classic example of negative advertising that was very effective and has become part of our toxic politics. wanted to come back to the idea of democrats versus republicans. the president who set this in stone, the effectiveness of negative television ads, was lyndon johnson, the democrat who came up with the ad criticizing barry goldwater in 1964 for being a warmonger. that was the most effective negative ad we have ever had. the daisy ad, showing a little girl in a field taking petals

off of a daisy. host: some of the ads people will be seeing this presidential campaign, especially the negative ads, will not be from the campaigns themselves. guest: that has become a common thing. that is what happened with the john kerry ad. these committees are allowed to come up with their own advertising as long as they do not directly coordinate with the actual campaigns. it is pretty easy to figure out what direction the campaigns want the ads to go. a lot of these people feel they can go farther than that and if there is blowback the campaign will not be blamed. the independent committees will be. sometimes that happens, sometimes it does not. i think americans have to be careful about this. the accountability is a couple of steps removed. how much do you blame a campaign for being negative when it is an independent group? the campaign disowned them.

that really happened. host: let's get to some calls. david is in birmingham, alabama, on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. let me say this to the director. you have a good personality to be the host of the show of this magnitude, and the face to go along with it. host: thank you. caller: the question i have is i want to ask, is it possible that when you become a registered voter at the age of 18 that you can be a registered voter until death unless there is some kind of felony against your record? in alabama, if you commit felonies, your name is automatically purred from the

voting list. we had 80,000 names purged from the voting list. host: let's let ken respond. guest: it depends on the states. in maryland where i live, if you vote, you qualify for the next time. if you stop voting, you have to register the next time. as long as you keep goading -- voting, you can vote in the next election. that is something each state decides for themselves. host: jeff is in nebraska on the line for republicans. caller: mr. walsh, out of curiosity, it is hard to imagine that you are not including the press in on this. i have not heard you mention them hardly at all. they have the responsibility to give us the truth, and no longer is that the truth. npr just got busted out by one

of their 25-year veterans. he come out and said they had 87 hard-core lefties on there now. every network you go to, it does not matter. we have one conservative network. i am telling you. the lies they told on trump when he come down the elevator, from that point on, we all know that was lies now! host: you did right about the media quite a bit. guest: i write about it quite extensively in the book. there are two points i want to make about this. one is the mainstream media, you have to distinguish from the legacy media. i worked professional career at u.s. news and world reports. we were seen as

middle-of-the-road, slightly conservative. newsweek was more left. there is the mainstream media and then there is the social media. i think our caller is talking about the mainstream media. the point i wanted to make about the mainstream media is we are drawn to conflict. that is why we have to take responsibility for some of this toxicity. the word in journalism for many years i am sure you are familiar with as well is, if it bleeds, it leads, the idea you want clashes and fights. newt gingrich made a big point of this. he is one of these provocateurs i talk about in the book. in order to get the attention of the mainstream media, you have to fight somebody an attack. he was right in that way. i do blame the mainstream media

in many ways, my own profession, for being drawn to this. not because it is partisan what they are doing but because at tacks draw attention. a lot of people feel fox is a conservative network and msnbc is liberal, cnn has gone more to the left, and so on. think you could make the case for that. there are other things at play than partisanship. it is basically how we are drawn to the conflicts. most americans do not live in a negative world. there is a positive side to their lives, and i do not think we reflect that enough. as far as social media, x, twitter, to some extent, facebook, and other places, have become swamps of conspiracy theories and unverified, unfiltered information. if you spend any time on social

media, you will see things that are absolutely stunning that people would believe them, but people believe them. as an example of how far this has gone, there are rumors on social media for weeks that taylor's, this famous singer who is dating travis kelce of the kansas city chiefs who won the super bowl, that she was going to parachute in at halftime at the super bowl and endorse joe biden. it was never going to happen. it did not happen, but it was all over social media. it seems a far field from politics, but it is not. it shows how everything is under this umbrella of attacks and making things up to make your point. we are seeing that on social media all the time. host: speaking of social and media criticism, on x, let's

stop, republicans tried to take the country by force. this criticism within media when it comes to the toxicity in the dynamic, how does that play into the overall negative? guest: i am glad you brought that up. am i too criticism of the republicans and trump? the other side of that is the both siderish. one side is more toxic than the other. that may change. it has been different in the past. in some cases, the democrats were more toxic and caustic. but , the republicans are. the republicans by large have

adopted donald trump's notion of taking on the establishment. they feel this is a political war that they are waging and they are entitled to be as harsh as they can be. some would argue the riot at the capital was part of this whole thing of taking on what they call the unitary government. host: someone on x included a photo of this saying, how did we get to the point of sedition? are both sides treasonous? guest: that is the argument made. there are many court cases now prosecuting some of those rioters. some of them are in jail. the courts have agreed with that notion to some extent. now, there will be a test as to whether this really was an attempt to overthrow the government. that is another topic. i come from the old school journalism where we did believe in both sides getting their say. but there is something to be

said for the idea that we have to look more into searching for the truth and who is responsible rather than a knee-jerk reaction of always having a sense that there is an equal responsibility here. the mainstream media is going away from that idea on both sides. host: trump's is in dayton, ohio -- charles is in dayton, ohio. go ahead. caller: i love your program. i wanted to ask what he thought of our country that so many love donald trump you did he dodge the draft in vietnam? -- so many love donald trump. did he dodge the draft in vietnam? guest: he said he had bone spurs and got out of service. caller: heated tours of duty on

the golf course and epstein's island -- he did tours of duty on the golf course and epstein's island. guest: he went to a military academy for school did not go into the military. he said he legitimately had bone spurs. take it for what it is, that is what he said. host: what was your question? caller: that is just it. it boggles my mind that so many people support this man and he sent another man to do his duty to the country. host: let's hear from joyce on the line for republicans. caller: first of all, the last guy, i guess he did not realize president biden deferred five times because of asthma from going to vietnam, so there is that.

obama called us cleaners, clinton called us deplorables. media calls us racist. how can you say trump is all of the problem? guest: i'm not saying he is all of the problem. he is, if you are talking about name-calling, trump is a master name caller, he is a great showman. he is very good at it and gets great attention for it. you are right. a lot of people in the media and on different size criticized donald trump supporters just the way you say. that is part of the toxic environment we are in. i am not saying that is justified. i am saying everybody is doing it now. president trump does it a great deal. he is doing it all the time. as i sense from your discussion just now, you are resentful of

this. i understand that. president trump comes back to it again and again. he is not backing off from the toxic politics himself relook at the names he calls his opponents, including his own republican party. people in his party, people he has run against. it is a very common thing now. we have to recognize donald trump is a master at doing this. that is part of why he is so effective. he has people to believe what he says. he did admit this in a famous interview with lesley stahl, the well-known television commentator, he said the reason he constantly criticizes the mainstream media is he wants people to believe only him. he wants his followers to believe only home and not believe anyone else no matter what he says. toward large extent, he succeeded in that -- to a large

extent, he succeeded in that. host: how much money is made and spent on negative tactics? guest: it has never been studied that way that i am aware of to see the totality of negative tactics. a lot of academics have studied this in different ways in a different campaign. for instance, how much money was spent on negative campaigning in the john kerry issue and how much the outside committee spent. it has been analyzed that way. it is difficult for anybody to do the overall analysis because if you look at it state-by-state, that is an enormous project to look at 50 states and assess who is doing the negative advertising, how much it costs, and there are not a lot of resources in journalism to do that now or even in academia. you get at it from individual

campaigns in different ways. individual state campaigns. for instance, look at arizona. that will be a very hot story and that senate campaign down there, and so on. that is where you get a sense of how pervasive it is, state-by-state. host: lots more folks with questions for you. richard is in st. thomas, virgin islands, on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning. nice discussion. i am old enough and have been around long enough to remember when the news channels on tv, they were not expected to make money. and then, one day, c-span -- not c-span but cnn came out. all of a sudden, these news

channels, different places, they are all expected to make money. you cannot make money out of monday news. you can only make money out of combative news and sensationalism. that is why i think we are where we are now. i believe that is how we got there. unfortunately, that is the state we are in. not everybody tells the whole truth. not everybody tells all the lies. they just pick and choose enough . guest: i tried to address that a little while ago in the idea that we are drawn to conflict and hostility. i think the caller is very perceptive in looking at that. one thing i would add is that the the news business has changed. it used to be that the entire operation of a news organization would pay for the news division. a newspaper, all of the money

would be put into a pot and that would go for the news division and the newsroom, the reporters covering the news. that means ads for grocery stores and obituaries. host: classifieds. guest: classified advertising and department stores, all of that would pay for the news division. increasingly in tv and printed media, radio, and elsewhere, the news division has to pay for itself. that means more of an emphasis on what draws revenue, advertising, viewers and listeners, and that means conflict. that is a big problem with the mainstream. host: i did a little research to see if i could get another answer to the question about how much is spent on negative advertising. "open secrets" has a story from 2022 that found in that election

negative outside spending accounts for 69% of the $2.1 billion spent in the federal 2022 midterms. that was towards attacking federal candidates in particular according to open secrets analysis. negative outside spending has helped add fuel to hotly contested races and an increasingly violent political environment. the volume of negative outside spending since the citizens united ruling in 2002, 20 years earlier, 23.6% of the $53 million outside groups spent in that election cycle were negative. that jumped up to 68.2%. guest: that is only the tip of the iceberg. that is federal candidates, not state, and just the outside spending. there is a huge amount of spending that goes on in the

campaigns themselves and in the state races, the governor's races, the attorney general races, legislative races. that is a small portion of what we are dealing with. but you can see how negative things are. host: in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. the latest issue of "mother jones" has an article about someone who worked on the john kerry campaign. a lot of those fellows might have been swiftboat operators who did not work under john kerry but were lying about his service record. this chris is now working for the trump campaign. this guy is a real, you know, i don't know what to call him but he is, they said he is a guy

that gets in there and does a lot of making a lot of things of. we need to keep aware of that in this up-and-coming campaign because this guy is something else. i did not think you mentioned his name. chris lasibida. host: did you have a comment on that? guest: this caller pays close attention, but there are a lot of those folks on both sides. host: rate in tennessee on the line for republicans, go ahead. caller: it's, good morning -- yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: these people flooding money into the propaganda from the liberal media, you are wasting your money. these people out here now

realize this country is going in the wrong direction. host: did you have a question for ken? caller: yeah. he is worried about all the money. us as americans are not going to vote for this idiot biden. host: ok. did you have any response? guest: it shows how right under the surface, there is this hostility. it used to be that kind of dismissive language was not used very much. it is used against trump too, absolutely. we have just had different anniversaries of different things in our country. the cuban missile crisis, for instance, with kennedy. would the country rally around the president in a situation like that now or are we too dug into our positions?

with the person that just called in rally around biden if we had a conflict like that today? i doubt it. host: we have an example of that with the pandemic. guest: exactly. the pandemic was an example. you will have another example in june when a bunch of republicans are going to go for the 80th anniversary of d-day. that is where ronald reagan made the famous speech calling attention to the support given to the allies by the united states to fight the nazis in europe that led to the d-day invasion. it must be an awkward situation for them because a lot of republicans oppose the aid to ukraine that rating would have supported in fighting off the invasion of russia. host: many are challenging funding for nato. guest: exactly. i wonder how, given the level of discourse, are we incapable of

rallying around the president anymore? i think we are going to be tested on that in a number of ways. host: joe is in maryland on the line for independents. caller: thank you for your work. do you know about the $500 billion slush fund trump was given to where he would agree to sign the corona packages and stuff? guest: the covid packages? host: $500 billion slush fund. i do not know what you mean. caller: trump was given $500 billion that he was allowed to do whatever he wanted with as long as he went along with signing all of the packages. host: i understand. you are talking about the bailout fund in 2020. it was for the pandemic packets.

it was for distressed businesses. there was supposed to be oversight for that program. and then, there was some oversight although there have been quite a few reports of abuse of that program. i believe that is the program you are referencing. guest: yes, i think so. host: what was the question related to it, joe? caller: i wondered if you heard about that. that being said, this is something i have been told in politics. i have been in d.c. my whole life. i am 54. i have helped with several elections of high-profile candidates, right now. and i want to say, in my opinion, at 54 years old, all roads lead to rome. have y'all ever heard that statement? host: you said you have worked with several high-profile candidates. how do you talk to the clients you have about negativity in your campaign?

caller: you got me right now because i have always tried to lean towards being nice. making harsh statements draws attention. their opinion is to attack someone and you will draw attention to yourself pretty i do not like that. we are never going to heal our world doing that. mitch mcconnell made $500 million last cycle. how do you compete with that? host: your comments? guest: he is a brilliant fundraiser. he will not be in office after this term. he will retire. he is a master at raising money. a lot of these people that reach the height of power in congress from both parties are master fundraisers. that is the way it works. a lot of people will vote for them because they know they will

raise money for them, these incumbents. that is part of the way the system works today. if we look at the amount of money raised, i think it will be a new record this cycle if you look at all of the campaigns because they are willing to give money. host: greg is in texas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i kind of understand what you were talking about. politics plays in commercials and advertisements. i want to say something real quick. when rush limbaugh was out there , he was putting all this negativity on people of color in this country. while there williams and armstrong williams to verify what he say -- walter williams and armstrong williams to verify

what he say. they go hide in the closet with a microphone and type up a lot of negativity about people of color. now they can go out there where they can say if they say something racist about people of color, they get fired, then they bring up the race issue. when black people bring up the race issue, they keep it on file. if something happened, oh, he race bait hating. host: i want to follow up on the point you are making. you have a chapter entitled operatives of attack. i believe rush limbaugh was in that mix. guest: rush limbaugh is one of these masters of the media where he could be entertaining and he could be funny. in the book, i include some of

the things he said which are on their face almost shocking how harsh he was. he could be clever and lighthearted even though his point was serious about dismissing groups of people or types of people. it is interesting. rush limbaugh is in that chapter, as others are. i think the whole idea, this idea of what is the kind of speech we do not want people to do anymore, it is hard to define that because people can say anything. i used to think people who had anger and fear, it was best for them to find a way to express it and maybe it would subside somewhat and go to another step besides violence. i wonder about that now. are they just amplified and

energized seeing their views supported in different places and taken seriously in many places? but is another thing i talk about in the book. -- that is another thing i talk about in the book. host: david is on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: you seem to leave out a lot of the establishment media cartel influence establishing negativity over the last 60 years. host: he left out who? establishment media cartel. that was a new one for me. caller: the mainstream media, in other words. they have been slandering people like the gun rights movement for 60 years which made a lot of people mad, me included.

that may be why we support people who talk back and get angry and hit back. host: david, defined the messages that are more negative and harsh resonate more deeply with you than ones phrased more nicely? caller: yes, because what goes around comes around. people get angry and hit back. host: ok. ken? guest: that fits in with what i am saying. people are more fearful, angry, resentful, they want to hit back. the question we have to ask ourselves is, how far does that go? when we say hit back, does that mean physically doing something? that is what we are talking about here in some ways. i sense that the caller is a very angry person, and he talks

about the gun rights issue. i understand that. where does it end though? that is a big question we have to face as americans. are we getting to the point where we not only distrust or disagree with each other but we hate each other? is that where we are going? is that where we want to go? that is part of what i am getting out in the book. host: in massachusetts on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i want to ask the question of why in 40 minutes you have not mentioned hillary clinton called every white person homophobes, islamaphobia's, white supremacists, and everything and wrote nine books on denying the election. i do not understand why she has not been mentioned. possibly because bill looks better in a blue dress than she

does. guest: ok. there is a lot packed in there. managed to get a monica lewinsky reference in. in 40 minutes, we have not gotten to a lot of things and hillary clinton is one of them. another thing we did not talk about is how hillary clinton handled the accusations of women against her husband. she was part of the group of people who denied them and was part of the character attacks against the women making charges against her husband. not only monica lewinsky but monica jones and these other women. i wonder if the meat too movement existed then if bill clinton would have survived.

hillary clinton was not taking them seriously in those times. she was part of that negative messaging at the time as well. host: joe is in tampa on the line for republicans. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to ask mr. walsh's opinion, and i apologize because i came in later, might have answered this already. my opinion, the media is such a huge part in stoking the animosities we see today. let me give you an example. it is almost like having a classroom of kids where the bad kids are well treated by the teacher, the teacher being the overall peer rock receipt of the united states -- bureaucracy of the united states. the rest of the students are put down regardless of their

individual opinions. this stokes a lot of animosity and creates a lot of division just like it would in a classroom. guest: we did talk about this earlier. in the book, i am very critical of the mainstream media and the so-called legacy media, in addition to the social media. i am basically calling attention to exactly the kinds of things the caller is talking about. the other thing is part of this is blaming the messenger. we have to be fair about this. the media calling attention to critiques of republicans or whatever, sometimes the messenger is blamed rather than the people carrying the critiques. we also have this debate in the media of seeking the truth versus just repeating what people say one side versus the

other. we talked about that earlier, too, both sides-ism. everybody is reassessing this whole idea. do you owe allegiance to the truth or attacking the other side? that is something we are arguing about in newsrooms all the time. host: let's wrap up with a little optimism. guest: before this book, i was more optimistic than i am now. that is one thing i wanted to leave your viewers with an people who read my book is that if you look at the context of our history, this toxic politics, this toxin in our system has existed almost from the beginning. it is part of our dna. we are drawn to conflict. we want to hear the other side

attack and so on. it fades. it has faded. it always has faded, but then it comes back. now, it has come back with a vengeance, literally. i think the only way this subsides is if people exhaust themselves, if one side wins over the other and it is not worth it to be fighting all the time. i have a number of statistics i brought in case we got to this about how distrustful and cynical americans are growing, not only of our major institutions like congress, major parties, banks, law enforcement, media, everything. we are becoming cynical about each other. that is what bothers me the most. americans do not want to deal with the opponents. the things that bind us together are less prominent than they used to be.

i unfortunately do not think that is changing. i hope it does. one thing i talked about in the book is maybe for the 250th anniversary of our country, we can have some national renaissance of looking at what we have in common and not deriding each other all the time. maybe that is the answer. host: we have to leave it there and hope for the best for the future. ken walsh, author of "the architects of toxic politics in america." thank you so much for coming in and answering our questions. that is it for "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern when we will take more of your calls and thoughts. everybody, have a great day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

whh