+ coming up this morning on "washington journal," as the federal government begins to accept applications from borrowers, we discussed president biden's student loan forgiveness plan with danielle douglas-gabriel. and emily jashinsky talks about her podcast. and as always, we look forward to joining the conversation with your calls, text and tweets. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning, it is saturday, october 22. yesterday, the house committee issued a subpoena for testimony and documents from former president donald trump. the subpoena requires the former president to produce the

documents by november 4 and appear for testimony on or about november 14. this morning, we are asking you, should president trump cooperate with the committee? give us a call if you say yes. if you say no, he should not cooperate, another number. you can also send us a text. be sure to send is your first name and city state. we are on social media, facebook.com/cspan and twitter and instagram @cspanwj. i want to show you some headlines. here is the front page of the new york times. "this trump is subpoenaed likely setting up his role on january 6." it says the house committee issued a subpoena on friday

paving the way for a potentially historic court fight over whether congress can compel testimony from a former president. the subpoena was the most aggressive step taken so far in what was already one of the most consequential congressional investigations in decades. weeks before the congressional elections, as the justice department conducts a separate criminal inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and was likely to thrust mr. trump and the january 6 committee into a legal battle that could ultimately decided by the supreme court. here's what the washington post is showing this morning. "november deadline set for january 6 subpoena." it says the committee requested trump testify under oath on or about november 14 as well as turn over any documents by november 4 related to the former

president's sweeping effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power. i want to show you this tweet from the january 6 committee that came out yesterday. it says, pursuant to a unanimous vote, the select committee issued a subpoena to former president donald trump for testimony and records relevant to the thoughts and committees investigations on the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and its causes. first, we have with as part janssen -- bart jansen, usa today correspondent. what does the subpoena mean legally and how is it enforced? guest: it means that they would like to get both documents, they have asked for phone records,

other documents, texts, anything to do basically with who trump was talking to basically from the election of 2020 through the riot at the capitol on january 6, and also testimony from the former president about again, who all he was talking to, what they were talking about on subjects such as alternate slates of electors and trying to overturn some of the results in several of those contested states that might have change the course of the election. host: how is a subpoena enforced? guest: ultimately, it would be enforced by the courts. in a previous case, they subpoenaed records from the trump administration, the national archives and records administration, district court

and appeals court level courts ruled basically the committee is a legitimate committee. they deserve access to the records and the supreme court in january chose not to review the case, so that got access to those records. that was basically a fight over executive privilege, whether he could keep the records confidential because of receiving advice from aides, and the idea that if everything was released, they would no longer be candid with him. in this case, i think the expectation was he could again fight the case if districts and circuit courts ago the same direction and potentially reached the supreme court again and we could have potentially the most consequential decision involving legislative versus executive branch authority in history. host: and could this also be

turned over to the justice department and go that direction? guest: that's right. if there is defiance of subpoena, as we have seen with his former political strategist steve bannon and former trade advisor peter navarro, the justice department has filed charges ofontempt of congress against each of those. mr. bannon was just convicted, just sentenced this week to months in jail. he is appealing that decision. peter navarro's case comes to trial i believe in november. that would be the potential criminal enforcement if the justice department chose to take up charges over this issue. host: the midterms are coming up, so if control of the house were to go to the republicans, what happens then? guest: the committee was always

envisioned till lasted just through the end of the year. so, we are expecting some time until the end of the year and i think even if the democrats were to retain control of the house, i guess they could potentially restart a committee, but at least three of these nine members will not be back. representative liz cheney of wyoming lost her bid for reelection, her primary and so she will no longer be returning. two others chose not to run for reelection, adam kinzinger and stephanie murphy. it would be a new panel, a different panel even if the house were to remain a democratic -- in democratic hands. if it dips to republican hands, republicans said they would not have a similar committee.

the committee will probably really be done at the end of this year. a legal fight could go on i could think potentially for years. it would be testing the house's authority for general government oversight over the executive branch. in the case of don mcgahn, refused to testify initially in the house investigation of dealings with ukraine and became the first impeachment case against president trump. mcgahn fought his subpoena for years until it was eventually resolved to avoid an ultimate class at the supreme court. he'd agreed to testify behind closed doors and transcribed testimony so we eventually got to see what he said to them. they sort of diffuse the situation.

in this case, we might get a decision all the way to the supreme court. host: what are the options here -- could the president just kind of send a statement? would he have to appear in person? are there any options? guest: at the very least, i would anticipate that he would fight even turning over the documents. he has argued from the beginning and is arguing right now in federal court in a slightly different case involving the seizure of documents at mar-a-lago, that some of the documents that were seized involve attorney-client privilege, some involve executive privilege and some are personal. so a number of them should be returned to him, he argues. they are trying to get that resolved. he could continue fighting that. i suspect he will fight just the

request for documents from this house panel in a similar way. that document deadline comes up november 4, so we could get a signal about how he will respond to this. if he did want to provide documents and testify, the committee, in the subpoena, did offer the opportunity to testify via video conference so it is not like he would have to walk into canon office building and set before the panel. i don't think anybody really expects it to be live testimony. it will be testimony the committee collects and then potentially reveals as a transcript or videotape as we saw during the hearings over the summer. host: lastly, put this in historical perspective. is there precedents for either a sitting president our president to be subpoenaed by congress? guest: sitting presidents have testified.

we saw president jerry ford testifying about his part of richard nixon back in the 1970's in the watergate era. that was a case that set some of the guidelines we are using now for executive privilege and how much congress gets to test or oversee the executive branch. in that case, ford, a former member of the house, was willing to testify before the house. i think in all the examples that are cited through history, and the cases when presidents and vice presidents testified, that in each case -- i better not go too far out on a limb, but i don't believe they were forced by the courts. i believe they agreed, there was a negotiation and they agreed to testify. in this case, we expect him to fight in court potentially all the way to the supreme court and it will be the first time in history to see whether the

legislative branch has this kind of authority to subpoena a former president. host: bart jansen, usa today justice department correspondent. thanks for joining us. we are asking you, should the former president cooperate with the january 6 committee. he has been subpoenaed formally, yesterday. if you say yes, the number is -- if you say no, the number is i want to show you a couple of tweets that came in yesterday. here's marjorie taylor greene. "when are you going to subpoena nancy pelosi by purposely refusing president trump's request for the national guard to protect the capital? nancy pelosi knew the intelligence reports and whatnot bring in the national guard." this is from paul in kansas city.

"of course he should, given what has been made public, but he won't. the man has spent millions of dollars are not being held accountable in his personal, business and political life. no one spends like that in order to not tell the truth." david from annapolis, "the former president should ignore any requests from a bunch of democrats. this is supposed to be an october surprise. republicans will shut it down shortly." here is joan in minnesota, "if this was a true bipartisan committee, with cross-examination, and all pertinent witnesses questioned, then maybe yes. but the timing of this adds to the proof this is a commission not looking for all the true facts." let's go now to the phone lines. we are taking your calls now this morning on "washington journal."

the first one is edith in pasadena. you say yes. good morning. go ahead. caller: yes. he should. he should have been testifyin g. i am praying to god that this man, president trump, will go in and testify and turnover -- he had no business and no right to take anything from the white house that did not belong to him. so i am praying that god will forgive him for all the things that he has already done, and people have lost their lives, lost their lives. he called people to be killed. host: house so? it -- how so? explain that. caller: and that insurrection

act the white house, when all those people broke in, went into nancy pelosi's office, laid back with their feet on the desk, that was not right. i believe in the right thing. nobody else could get away with that. so let him come forward, tell the truth and nothing but the truth. host: alright. let's talk to tommy next in arkansas who says no. caller: i would not even acknowledge what they are doing until the department of justice strikes it down. art of the problem with the way i look at it, you should not hire police officers and then let them override it. host: so you are saying he

should ignore the subpoena -- what was your point about -- caller: it was like eric holder and a bunch from the other narrations. i would ignore it. host: what was your point about the police officers? caller: part of the problem in my opinion is that police departments hire people that are cowards. they will not put their lives on the line. those people that protect that capitol should not have let not one person in there. it was set up like a gestapo film from world war ii the way it is all narrated on tv. host: let's hear next from danny in paradise valley, arizona. you say yes. caller: i say yes for sure. any citizen that does something that needs to be held accountable for, should be done,

especially a former sitting president. i just watch our president biden give one of the best speeches about what is going on, to look forward to, and taking care of a lot of good business. it is positive energy. he means well for our people, and this previous guy has been nothing but a 4 -- has spent nothing but a fortune on keeping himself deflected away from the justice he deserves one way or the other. why doesn't he do stand up like a man and take it? host: let's hear from kurt in browns mills, new jersey. you say no. caller: good morning, everybody. this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. i think he should refuse. i think it should go through the courts and should establish a precedence so that maybe pelosi and biden can end out their life

terms in the courts if this is allowed. you have to defend yourself against the truth or deny -- i just think it should be brought up and the republicans don't have any spine and won't pursue this after trump. host: let's take a look -- i wanted to show you what the actual letter looks like. here is what was sent to the former president yesterday. it starts with a letter, "dear president trump." it talks about a couple of things, it says this multipart effort was not limited to and has multiple bullets. at the very end is the actual subpoena.

so that is what that looks like. this is now the response from last week, october 13, from former president donald trump to the committee. and it starts with "dear chairman thompson, the presidential election of 2020 was reagan stolen." this was 14 pages. let's talk next to nancy who is calling from bowling green, kentucky who says yes. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: i'm good, how are you? host: i'm good. caller: i think he should testify because there are a lot of questions. anything to clear his name. yes, he should definitely testify and just clear up a lot of what is going on in our country. host: and what do you want to hear from him? what are you curious about? caller: what i am curious about

is, i know anyone can make accusations, but you can also defend yourself. explain and maybe this could clear up a lot of the chaos that we are living in today. i have family members, i cannot even speak to about this. we get in arguments, so we just don't talk about it. he could just clear up a lot of things. a lot of misunderstandings. he could just give answers. he could just clear it all up. and then we can try to find some kind of normal. host: next in graham, north carolina. caller: yes ma'am. i just don't think so because they basically have drug him through the mud over and over.

i don't see what they are going to accomplish by it other than they are just trying to keep him from running again. i think they should be concentrating on biden's corruption with his son. that is my opinion. host: is there anything you would want to hear from the president about the subject of the january 6 attack? caller: i think we have heard it all. it is all the same thing over and over and over. if you listen to the committee. host: alright jeff. let's talk to larry next in illinois who says yes. caller: i tried the no 10 or 12 times and got on the yes line. no, i don't believe he should have to as he was transparent throughout his whole presidency. you all paid attention to him

every time he went to the bathroom. what i see here is he did no different than what the democrats did when he was first in office. if you remember nancy pelosi and all of them would hide out for all the democrats to go out and hit people or hurt people in the streets. that is no different, but he did not say that. he just said go protect your rights. protest. he did not say no more than that. that was it. he did not say to go in the building. he denied insight no riots or anything. which the whole country did for the four years that he was in presidency. i'm sorry, but i say you should not mess with the guy. host: let's take a look at some tweets. here is one from adam kinzinger who says this, donald trump, you

have been served. adam schiff says, our committee has heard from hundreds of witnesses and gathered overwhelming evidence that donald trump directed multiple lines of effort to overturn the 2020 election. americans deserve to hear the truth from trump himself under oath and under penalty of perjury. here is senator chris van hollen who says trump was at the center of the attack on january 6, so he should be at the center of our efforts to get to the truth. he might think he is above the law like his pal steve bannon, but the subpoena makes it clear he is not. here is an article from newsmax. "giuliani to newsmax, trump subpoena should not matter without settled law." it says the former new york city mayor and one-time legal counsel to former president donald trump sets the house committee investigating that january 6

unrest at the capital has no business ordering a subpoena for trump given how the federal courts have yet to rule on how executive privilege applies to contempt of congress proceedings. let's hear next from robert in lynchburg, virginia who says yes. hi. caller: yes ma'am. i think he should testify. if you doubt testify for a subpoena, why would any civilian that is charged with any kind of crime onerous subpoena. also, marjorie greene is talking about nancy pelosi should have got the national guard to protect the capital. donald trump is the commanding chief. he could call the national guard anytime he wanted to. i did 20 years or more in the military and he is the commanding chief to protect the constitution.

so the old people that are calling talking about nancy pelosi should have got the guard , there are no such things. he is the commanding chief of the military, of the whole united states military. so don't fall for those okie dok things marjorie greene and all those republicans are talking about that it should be nancy pelosi's responsibility. it's not, it is his responsibility as a commanding chief. anybody that did a subpoena and don't honor it, then you are going to have a lawless country out here in this world because i am not going to honor one if he don't honor one. host: got it. let's talk to charles next to says no in arlington, texas. hello. caller: hello. i say he should if it were a

fair and impartial hearing. that is not the intent of the democrats have a fair and impartial hearing. the intent is to embarrass, get him before the cameras and not hear his side and not hear his claims about this matter. it is only to get him there to embarrass and belittle and run him down. so no, he should not go before this because it is a set up. they are not changing their minds. they are there to ridicule, belittle and make him look bad in the eyes of the public. host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: i just had a question for you. about the documents the committee is looking for, do you think the former president should hand over documents? caller: should he handle them? the documents?

what do you mean by the word handle? host: no, hand over. in other words, submit the documents to the committee that they are looking for. caller: i do not know what the documents are. no one out here knows what they are. so i do not believe he should if they are false or if they are questionable. we don't know what they consist of. so therefore, i cannot honestly say whether he should or should not. host: so if you take a look here on the letter from a january 6 subpoena itself, it does list what they are looking for as far as what they would like the president to hand over. you can see her, they would like to see records of any telephone calls, text messages or

communication sent through signal or any other means placed or received by you or at your direction on january 6 including records of any calls you joined as an active or passive participant. records of phone calls, messages, communications, etc. with any member of congress between december 18, 2020 and january 6 relating or referring in any way to the presidential election. photographs and video recordings taking on january 6. records of phone calls, including calls you joined from november 3 to january 5 relating to the presidential election or the joint section of congress on january 6, and the list goes on. we do know what they are looking for and the dates that it is covering and the topics they are covering. here, there is also a list of

people that they are interested in knowing, it says, to the extent not already called for it by other paragraphs of the schedule, any communications sent or received for the period between november 3 to january 20, including but not limited to memorandum provided to you involving any of the following individuals. we are asking you, shut the former president cooperate with the january 6 committee? yes, 202-748-8000, no, 202-748-80001. let's go to jerry in long island. caller: it is tearing, and thank you. i appreciate you taking my phone call. what is completely unbelievable is that after all of the evidence that has so far been uncovered with text messages,

some of the witnesses, if we cannot believe the attorney general is saying that what he believes is bs about having won, why are we even thinking about this? as a normal citizen, if you get a subpoena and you don't show up, you get into much legal trouble. the other thing is that trump himself is not paying for any of this legal stuff. he is using donations from the public to defend himself, ultimately, no one in this country is above the law and it really upsets me to think that there are low information voters who believe everything he says and will not take a look at what is really going on with the evidence. disproved by the prior caller who had no idea what documents were being asked for. vicki very much. host: randy is next from greensboro, north carolina who says no. caller: i don't think he showed.

i just don't think it is and impartial process. it is just really disturbing that no one is really looking at security issues from the day. and it's embarrassing to our country that our capital is able to be attacked by plunderers, bicycle racks. that is what we should be looking at is how we should have protected represent as that day. host: that is what they are looking at. how did the president react. do you want to hear that from him? caller: what we need to be looking out is what everyone was requesting or not requesting on that day and really break it down. there is really not good coverage on who is responsible for that protection on that day. host: alright. jan is next to says yes. she is in west chester, pennsylvania. good morning.

caller: good morning. yes, he should, cooperate, but even if he shows up for this hearing, he is not going to really cooperate. he is not going to. this is a man who does not follow the law, the rules even of the office. he knew better. look how he took all those documents down there. he knew better and let's say if it was a mistake and he realized someone packed them and he did not know, then he would right away have returned all of the documents. he does not know a lot of the rules and the laws. he does not want to. all he wants to do is do what he wants to do. he does not care. he knew he lost the election when they told him he was losing. but prior to that, he put something in place in case the

numbers and he lost. and he always does that, attacked someone or attacked something and it is not my fault, someone did something over here. when did everybody in america decide they were going to do whatever the heck they wanted to and not going to follow the laws or the rules. can you imagine? but he had all of these people and this stuff in place by way of roger stone and others to go up there in those groups to attack the capital. and as far as nancy pelosi, i think she probably was misled. she did all she could to secure the capital. she did not know those people were coming but trump and his circle of people did know they were coming. host: let's hear from janet next in pennsylvania who says no. caller: good morning and thank

you for your question. my answer is no. i'm a former trump supporter, however, i really believe that objectively, that this entire investigation is not about how we were prepared or not prepared on that day to protect our country. but i believe the time president trump was elected, that there has been an all-out movement to try to dismantle him and i believe anyone who threatens a certain core amount of democrats is going to come under fire. i don't know that this is all about trump himself but just trying to prevent what could be someone who has real winning potential in 2024 and i'm not necessarily a huge fan of trump, but i'm certainly against the current democratic movement and thank you for allowing me to speak. host: i have a question for you.

are you still there? caller: yes. host: are you interested, you said he's not cooperate but are you interested to hear what he would have to say in response to their questions? caller: no because i do not believe that anything he says could be fairly -- i don't believe it would be fairly entertained. i said president trump could find a cure for cancer and some which group denies it. i just don't believe there is a fair audience to hear what he has to say. host: we are taking a look at truth social, former president trump's social media platform. we are taking a look to see if he makes any reaction to the actual issuance of the subpoena and we have not seen anything yet. if we do, we will definitely

show that to you. illinois, yes. caller: good morning. jan needs a reality check. i have been studying trump and reading a lot of things about trump. he has failed at so many things from his university to atlantic city. he did not even write the book the art of the deal which i just read about that. this man is truly a con artist and he has conned so many people and i'm just so sick of all of these people who are up in age and it sounds like they're in their 40's and 50's and 60's who know that this man has never ever told the truth. i just wish they would get together and understand that this country is under siege from democracy. especially women. i don't understand how they are not understanding they are trying to take the rights of women and minorities and anyone who is nonwhite and trying to

dismantle this country. this country is a nice country and great country but if we don't stick to the truth like the bible said, we are going to be doomed in this country. host: so when somebody says the democrats have never treated trump fairly, what is your response to that. caller: trump has never treated anybody fairly. he has allowed this pandemic and i am an essential worker. when i walk into that hospital and i have seen so much chaos and death, you just don't know how we feel as essential workers. this man has really destroyed this country. he has destroyed this economy, people's lives and people really don't care and if you put these republicans and trump back in office, you guys are really going to see what is going to happen to this country. we are not going to survive. host: let's take a look at a couple of tweets from members of congress.

here's one that says there is precedence. a former president testifying before congress on their actions therefore, donald trump must testify. if he refuses to comply with a subpoena, it will be abundantly clear he has no defense of the actions he took. this one says -- we got a tweet that says at some point, reality needs to set in. nobody is above the law. i personally don't think he is going to testify but saying it is ok for him to not comply with a subpoena is wrong. and also, another tweet that says i think he should cooperate, let him lie and put on a show for his followers, then arrest him for perjury and treason because he lies. he does not know how to do anything else but lie. this is represented at who says i served as an impeachment manager and no, they are not a

threat to a republic for which it stands that is why january 6 is critical. no american is above the law. almost answer for undermining our democracy. speaking of steve bannon, here is the news on that from axios. it says steve bannon sentenced to four months in prison. he is a former trump advisor. yesterday, he was sentenced to four months and a fine for defying a subpoena. the justice department has argued the former trump advisor should get six months in prison. the harshest sentence available under federal guidelines. mr. bannon will appeal that conviction. let's hear from robin from old forge pennsylvania who says no, the former president should not cooperate with the january 6 committee.

hi. caller: i just want to say donald trump would be a full. what he should do is rip up the subpoena just like nancy pallone wrapped up his speech and they are just railroading him and have been since the day he got elected. the democrats are evil. adam schiff is a liar and joe biden lies every day. he lied yesterday when he said i have 20 more democrats i'm going to go out to the november 8 election. a reckoning is coming. that is all i got to say to you democrats. goodbye. host: stella is calling us from victoria, texas who says yes. caller: hi. good morning. i am just disgusted on his behavior because he really needs to be a law-abiding citizen just like everybody else.

everybody else is saying the same thing other than the republicans. it is just absurd that he knows he could get away with anything they put in front of him. it is a sad situation that we see our country in. host: let's hear from paul next in rockville center, new york. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. my vote would be for no. i think it is an illegitimate committee. i don't trust it whatsoever. nancy pelosi informing that committee refused to put real republicans on it. instead, she put on a couple of rhinos. what's his name, the fellow and the woman. they are ridiculous. the earlier call her, i have to agree with her. a woman who i think -- she was

spewing racist and ageist comments about the situation and was not called upon. i don't know why he did not call her out for that. host: you go ahead. caller: no i am saying, why didn't you call her out for those ages and racist comments about the said she was an essential worker and the things that she has seen. if someone were to make those comments about minority, you would be quick to call them out but when they say it someone who is white -- host: what specifically did she say that bothered you? caller: she said the calls that were coming in, she was interpreting them as people who were in their later years, 40, 50, 60, which i don't interpret as later years, but then he made

something about the whites and white people trying to get rid of the minority. you should have taken her to task. the other day, i watched pedro who had a couple of women on talking about they wrote a book about the impeachments. i thought i was watching the view. c-span has really become very disappointing. host: alright. let's talk to tito next in the bronx. good morning. caller: good morning. inks for taking my call. yes, he should appear in front of the panel. host: ok, why? caller: because he -- thank you for taking my call. he should appear in front of the panel. i think the american people

deserve to know the truth because it is very interesting that he has documents pertaining to iran and also china and all of a sudden, putin is speaking to china and iran. i think he needs to speak up and tell the truth. what is america afraid of. why didn't the republicans get on the panel? because they did not want to be a part of. host: let's take a look. we mentioned steve bannon being sentenced yesterday. here's a portion of what he said after the sentencing. [video clip] >> by the way, i respect the judge, the sentence he came down with today, it is his decision and totally respectful of this entire process on the legal side. also want to make one of the statement before -- more than

any other president in the trump administration, i testified before the mueller commission for more hours, i testified in front of chair shift and the house intelligence committee more than any other person in the trump administration. i testified in front of the senate intelligence all about the issues related to russia-ga te, to all of that. the same process all of that. and lawyers that were engaged in work through the issues of privilege. this thing about i am above the law is an absolute and total lie. more importantly, today was my judgment day by the judge and he stated before the appeal and we will have a very vigorous appeal process. but at that sign says right

there, can we have the boat sign? -- vote sign. on november 8, they are going to have judgment on the illegitimate biden regime. and quite frankly, nancy pelosi and the entire committee. host: and that was steve bannon after sentencing yesterday for contempt of congress. we are asking you a former president trump should cooperate with the january 6 committee. and we are going to hear next from tom who is in portland, oregon who says no. caller: hi. i have heard a couple of callers and there was one earlier who says why is no one talking about nancy pelosi, she does not have anything to do -- one of her duties as speaker of the house -- donald trump can only delegate on forces so he

called up nancy pelosi on january -- i think it was third and fourth, two days, and offered 10000 and she said no, we don't need any. he called again on the fourth and offered 20,000 and she said no. after all this is over, all of these people out there are going to go right to jail because she is the one along with dowser or whoever it is that is with nancy pelosi, also just as guilty -- host: you are talking about the mayor of washington, d.c.? muriel bowser, a woman? caller: yes. all donald trump can do is call up and say hey, i have these people available for you. host: you know, one of our

callers said that he is the commander-in-chief. he can command troops. caller: no. one of her duties as part of speaker of the house, she undertakes the responsibilities of being security officer. so donald trump calls her up and says i have this ready and she can say yes or no but that is all he can do but it has to do with the white house. host: but what about once the capitol was under attack and the attack was underway? should the president has ordered national guard troops in? caller: he did his duty. he told nancy pelosi twice. all of these other people -- they all just absolutely god-awful clueless. anyway, steve bannon is one sweet dude.

navarro, tom cotton, all of these people. these democrats are going to go right to jail. schiff, nadler, all these people. host: i got it. let's take a look at the january 6 committee chair bennie thompson. this is last week on the importance of getting testimony from the former president. [video clip] >> during this committee's first hearing in july of last year, our witnesses were for police officers who helped repel the riots of january 6. we asked them what they hope to see the committee accomplish over the course of the investigation. one officer wanted to know why the rioters were made to believe that the election process was rigged. one officer asked us to look

into the actions and activities that resulted in the days events. one officer was concerned about whether anyone in power had a role. one put it simply, get to the bottom of what happened. we worked for more than a year to get those answers. we have conducted more than 1000 interviews and depositions. we reviewed and received hundreds of thousands of documents thanks to the tireless work of our investigators. we have left no doubt that donald trump led an effort to abandon american democracy that directly resulted in the violence of january 6. he tried to take away the voice of the american people in choosing their president and replace the will of the voters with his will to remain in power.

he is the one person at the center of the story of what happened on january 6. so we want to hear from him. the committee needs to do everything in our power to tell the most complete story possible and provide recommendations to help ensure nothing like january 6 ever happens again. we need to be fair and thorough and gain a full context for the evidence we have obtained. but the need for this committee to hear from donald trump goes beyond our fact-finding. this is a question about accountability to the american people. he must be accountable. he is required to answer for his actions. he is required to answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy. he is required to answer to those millions of americans

whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power. host: the former president has been issued a subpoena to appear and we are asking you this morning, should the former president cooperate with the january 6 committee, yes or no. you can give us a call. if you say yes, it is 202-748-8000. if you say no, it is 202-748-8001. what's talk next to david in west virginia who says yes. caller: i think president trump needs to appear and set the standard so when congress has taken over by the republicans and they have their hearings, and a subpoena obama with what he knew about the corruption of the biden family and they

investigate into that, you think garland will enforce the subpoenas that the new committee will have and talk about the corruption of the biden administration? you made a comment well why didn't president trump call out the national guard? they had already been denied by pelosi and the mayor of d.c. could you imagine if he called the national guard out, what they would be calling him and they would be charging him with insurrection? host: you said that he should cooperate just because it sets the precedent that anybody should cooperate with a subpoena. my understanding that correctly? caller: right, and you know they are going to have investigations and you know they are going to subpoena pelosi and some of these committee people -- host: and you would want them to also cooperate with those subpoenas and appear? caller: -- the standards, which

they currently have double standards. that is my comment and mark my words, nobody will be prosecuted or will not be enforced under garland and biden and when they have their hearings after they take charge. host: ok. here's a tweet from somebody called party of fear. "bill clinton complied with his investigation. hillary clinton complied. if there were such an inquiry into obama, he would comply. the real question should be, when donald trump does not comply, what's of the consequences be?" let's talk next to michael in stamford, connecticut who says no. caller: hey, how you doing? good morning. no, because in the end, it will just put him back on the big stage where right now, only these podunk stations are

showing him and all of his rallies and whatnot. the information they already have would put every one of us into jail about what he has done and what is going on. it is astounding that people are talking about biden and the biden family corruption when all of the corruption of the trump family is right there in front of you. right there for all of you people to see. this whole country collectively is going stupid. it is insane what these people are coming up with. we just talked about bill clinton, the republicans spent two years going after him about monica lewinsky. what is going to happen, are they going to spend the next two years going after the biden? and what is going to happen? what are they going to try to get, what are they going to try to say. it is obvious trump is a crook.

he lost at everything. he bankrupt a casino. you could not bankrupt a casino and you probably don't know anything about running a casino. host: i actually don't. don is next in henderson, nevada who says yes. caller: hi. yes, i think he shook cooperate and follow hillary clinton's example. i don't remember, i don't recall and he should take a hammer and smash all the cell phones, bleach his email address, emails, everything. the socialists and the marxists are running scared in this country. they don't even know what the word democracy is.

they are dis-man willing -- dismantling the pillars of democracy one by one. host: you say he should testify but not cooperate? caller: yeah, he should testify and cooperate, i don't recall, i did not do that, just like hillary and bill clinton. they set the example, he should follow it. host: let's talk to edward next in cedar rapids, iowa who says no. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i don't think you should text if -- testify at least in front of this committee. they could drag this out, it could drag out until february. if a new committee is selected and then he has a shot at

honesty in front of the committee. host: do you think there will be a committee if it is a republican lighthouse? on january 6? caller: i'm not exactly sure. it should follow up. let other questions be asked. other people be called to testify. how many of the capitol police just stood by, waived people in? host: you saw police -- edward, you saw police waving people in? caller: yeah. host: you did not see the images of the capitol hill police trying to hold the crowd back? caller: i also saw images about a female guard out there opening up the barrier, waving people to come on in. you see people walking inside the lines like it was a tour guide. and you had capitol police waving, smiling, chatting.

you saw some people fighting off people. you saw some waving them in, allowing it to occur. host: that is all the time we have got for this segment of "washington journal." thank you much for everybody that called in. coming up, a federal of hills court temporarily blocked president biden's plan to cael billions of dollars in federal student loans. danielle douglas-gabriel joins us to discuss the latest developments. and later, emily jashinsky, culture editor for "the federalist," discusses her podcast. we will be right back. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only get c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or stand on the issues, c-span is

america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> election day. november 8. watch c-span's live coverage to see which party will control congress. hear results as they happen from around the country. hear victory and concession speeches on c-span, the c-span now free mobile app, and at c-span.org/campaign2022. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you're invited to this year's studentcam documentary competition. picture yourself with a newly elected member of congress.

why ask competitors, what is your top priority and why? make a video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks. be bold. amongst the cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit studentcam.org for competition rules, tips, resources, and a step-by-step guide. ♪ >> and brett snyder's book, the cover notes report the conventional wisdom about felix frankfurter, former harvard law professor and supreme court justice, is that he struggled to filled the seat held by oliver wendell holmes. his biography notes that

scholars have portrayed frank further as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the war in court's principal villains. georgetown professor rod sde uses 700 pages to examine justice fnkrter's life. >> brad snyder and his book on this episode of book notes plus, lable on the c-span now free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> listening to programs through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and public affairs events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime.

just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. my guest is danielle douglas-gabriel. washington post national higher education reporter. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: we heard late yesterday a federal appeals court temporarily blocked president biden's student loan relief program. what is going on? guest: this is the eighth circuit appeals court that decides issues, which means that the department of education cannot discharge debt of the folks who apply for the program thus far until the court is able to hear both arguments from the department of education, the biden administration, and the six states that have filed suit to block the case. this stems from six states

that filed a case in late september asking the court to throughout the program, essentially saying the president had overstepped his authority, did not have the power to issue a policy of this magnitude without congress getting involved. the states allege the department of education will be robbing state entities like arkansas's student loan authority revenue they make off a certain type of federal student loan that was federally backed both commercially held, meaning private entities like the investment arm of the state of nebraska only securities. if those loans are forgiven, those folks will not be able to collect revenue off the securities. that is the crux of the case. i think it was thursday they

dismissed the case, claiming none of the state can prove they will suffer any harm through the program. naturally, the states appealed and the appellate court put a hold on the program while it is able to hear the arguments from both sides. host: daniellel, i want to remind viewers if you like to call and ask questions or comments on the student loan forgiveness that president biden announced, you can do so if you support student loan forgiveness, (202) 748-8000. if you are against it, (202) 748-8001. if you currently have student loans, the number to call is (202) 748-8002. you alluded that they were two legal battles.

wins for the biden administration this week. one was about the supreme court. guest: i think seven cases filed to try to block the policy for coming out of wisconsin. that case was dismissed for lack of standing. the plaintiffs appealed. they were also dismissed. there was an emergency request to the supreme court to try to impose a preliminary injunction. u.s. justice barrett dismissed the request without comment, which was a win for the department of education and the president. there has been concerned about whether it would be a conservative court taking the case that would side with the conservative entities and the states trying to block it. as i mentioned, the lower courts in the coalition of six states

dismissed their case, but there was a lot of expectation among higher education experts and legal experts that the eighth circuit would issue a state in this case. there is a great amount of concern they will rule in the favor of the states and issue a more long-standing injunction of this program. host: this just happened after president biden announced the opening of the online portal for people to apply for debt relief. i want to show people what that looks like. it is student a.gov -- studentaid.gov. you start the application like that. your name, social security number, state of birth -- data birth and contact information. what happens to the people who

already applied now that the courts decided to put a hold on it? guest: the white house says they are holding information and are confident the courts will cite in their favor. -- side in their favor. they will process the applications as soon as they are given authority to do so. they are encouraging people to continue to apply. nearly 22 million have applied in the week it has been opened. the department of education has income information for about 8 million other borrowers for whom they will be eligible for automatic relief. the administration says they are waiting for clearance and ready to process those files to discharge the loans. host: let's talk about the process. what is the cutoff date to apply? guest: eligible borrowers have until the end of next year, december of 2023.

they can opt out if you're among the 8 million people who are eligible for automatic forgiveness, you can opt out at any time. they encourage you to do so before november 14 or they will be automatically processed and they will have to try to opt out after the fact. there are four questions on the application. that was a big focus of the administration, to try to avoid the to mulch it was rollout of the aca. the president mentioned that yesterday when he was speaking at delaware state university touting the benefits of the program. they wanted to test the application, make sure the website did not crash. it did crash when the announcement first came down in august. they were trying to learn from those lessons. so far, we reached out to get a sense of where this application is and how easy it is to apply,

and people have been pleased with the seamless nest and simplicity -- seamlessnesss and simplicity. some people overseas have had trouble but the white house says they are working on a workaround solution for them. host: what are the income cutoffs for the people that would qualify? guest: for individuals, anyone making under $125,000 adjusted gross income, and for couples making under $250,000 a year adjusted gross income. host: you mentioned automatically qualify. how do you know if you automatically qualify or you have to put in an application? guest: the department of education people that were eligible. these are people for whom the department has income information based on recent submissions of the federal financial aid form, or if you're

enrolled in an income-based repayment plan. these are plans that take your monthly payments for a percentage of discretionary income. for those folks they know whether or not they need th -- meet the cutoff. that is how they can tell if it is automatic. if you are a part of that cohort, you will receive an email from the department. not a phone call. a lot of people have been getting robo calls this week. that is not the department of education. that is a scam. be cautious about who you give your information to. a lot of people are trying to take advantage of folks. be on the lookout. host: before we start taking calls, how much will this cost the federal government? guest: estimates are about $300 billion over 10 years. that is money not being booked, is lost out of the federal student aid program.

this reduction in debt means the federal government will be getting this money back. that is going to lead to an increase of the deficit. the administration says it is marginal at best. there are concerns about increasing inflation. the administration is saying on that front it will be marginal at best and they are hoping people coming out of this national crisis that is the pandemic can see the economic benefit of this and have stronger footing as we try to keep the economy going. host: one of the criticisms of debt relief is it is only benefiting the elite few. the people who already have college degrees that already have the ability to earn good money. what is the response to that? guest: nearly 40% of people with federal student loans never got their degree. there are a lot of people who

started but did not finish. they dropped out. often times they cannot afford to keep going and they were worried about taking on debt from a lot of the borrowers i've spoken to and data bears that out. i think that is why you are seeing a lot of people who have less than $20,000 in debt. oftentimes it is because they dropped out and could not complete. there are people who have debt it will also have other government assistance programs. all college is a great gateway to upward mobility, the middle class and a more sound financial future, it does not prove that for everyone, this special he if they do not complete. there are a lot of people in that 40 million borrowers who are eligible for this that would fall in that category of not reaping all the benefits of higher education. host: let's start talking to some viewers. dominic from virginia. he opposes debt forgiveness. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question.

what makes this administration think they can give away tax dollars without congress's approval? in light of the six states, you made the point they were republican-but states. -- republican-led states. why does the president think he can just erase debt for 40 million people? the comment is this. we are broke. this is going to increase inflation. the people that spend this money and already borrowed it, get the transfer, like other people have said. the talking heads. what do you say about that? thank you. host: go ahead, daniellel. guest: the white house said it does have the authority under a 2003 known as the heroes act.

it gives the secretary of education power to deal with student loans in the face of a national emergency. that is the crux of the lawsuit we are seeing here. that statutory law does not really apply here. that is the question in part. the department of education and justice department and the biden administration is saying yes, it gives us the authority to do this. this is one of the best ways in their mind to help lift people out of this fall out of the pandemic. certainly that is debatable. that is why we see all these lawsuits. that is the grounds for this particular policy. host: his comets about increasing inflation? -- comments about increasing inflation? guest: the white house anticipates a marginal increase.

oftentimes the white house will point to deficit reduction, including what we saw yesterday with the numbers coming down to say this will just be marginal and it will not contribute to the deficit the way some of the folks who are opponents of the policy are claiming it will. host: let's talk to caine in palmdale, california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment the state of the financial america would live in is so chaotic for young people. they have had to learn how to earn wages in so many different ways with their culture of fossil -- hustle because you have to earn from different ways to make it happen. people who are grown, who are

used to the way things work -- i'm 47 years old. it has changed. we need a few adults in the room to get out of their emotional feelings and their tribal thought process and let these kids have a little air to breathe. the future is theirs. if we take it away from them and impede their progress, where is this country going to go? we are already having a rough time. let's drop the gloves and stop fighting and help each other. that is all i got to say. host: daniellel? guest: i think it's important what the caller mentioned about this generation and their burden of debt. i would note there are a lot of borrowers who are over 50. many in their 60's and some of their 70's that are still dealing with these student loans. some took on additional debt and a career change during the great recession of 2008. he saw an influx of people going

back to college -- you saw an influx of people going back to college. summer parents who took on debt for their children's educations because it did not have financial resources to pay out-of-pocket. they are also contending with this stress of having this burden of loans. especially closer to retirement when you should think about how to wind down your working years. that's an important thing to note. we are seeing in this policy a vast majority of the federal loans held by the department of education will qualify for this relief if it is successful in beating back legal challenges. host: i wanted to show a new york times article. it says the total of student debt in the u.s. the amount of student debt held in america is roughly equal to the size of the economy of brazil or australia.

more than 45 million people collectively owe $1.6 trillion. that's according to u.s. government data. that's a lot of debt, daniellel that's a lot of debt., -- that's a lot of debt, daniellel. guest: going back to the great recession of 2008, we saw an influx of people going to college at that time. many people did not have the resources to pay out-of-pocket. we saw policy changes coming a little before that in terms of lifting the cap on loans, allowing people with graduate degrees to borrow. that increased the debt. about 40% of the loans made by the federal government are for graduate degree programs these days. the borrowing at the undergrad level declined in the last five or 10 years. what we are seeing the most in terms of borrowing is at the

graduate degree level. host: john from st. louis, missouri. he has to student loans. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. yeah, i wanted to chime in on the conversation. i have had student loans since the early 1990's. i have not always been able to make payments on those loans. they were federal loans but i managed to work with the government and not going to default. i'm able to pay these loans off. i brought them down a certain amount. through the years i just had to skimp and save. i'm not a was had a good paying job. -- i have not always had a good paying job. the question i have is when i got my degree, associate's degree, which has served me well through the years -- in 1991.

back then it was said student loans are good for the economy. it helps the economy. that is really all i had to say. i think the student loan program itself is a good program. people get upset about tax dollars paying for these loans, which there may be some truth that that. student loans, are they actually good for the economy? host: what do you think, danielle? guest: it depends on how you look at it. people investing in themselves, which is often times how student loans are billed to increase their education, in order to be more productive and make more money. put my money back into the economy. homes, families.

all the spendings it helps to float our economy. in that respect i can see an argument. i guess the issue is for the longest there was a perception the federal student loan program was making money for the government. perhaps maybe it was in the margins at one point, but not anymore. a lot of the repayment pogroms -- programs allow borrowers to lower their monthly payments. they are not providing as much in terms of repayments as the standard plan. that is making a difference there. as we see people going into income-based repayment plans, the amount of money the government is getting back is a lot lower. plus, there are a lot of people in default. before the pandemic induced the student loan payment pause for the last 2.5 years, they were about 8 million people in default on their loans. that's not including those that are delinquent.

a lot are struggling to pay the loans will meeting basic needs. if you think about the amount of money the government has to spend to go after those folks to collect on the debt, a lot of that money was never coming back into the federal coffers. it is a knock to the federal government. on the other side, you see the argument for the privatization of the loan market. having the federal government get out of this program. i'm sure there would be benefits in terms of the costs and the economics of getting the money back as private lenders have lower default rates. at the same time you have to think about the access. the reason the government is in this is to offer people who may not have the financial resources to be able to access money to pay for their education. an education would be beneficial to society written large. -- writ large.

host: a tweet says, what's in the program to relieve those that did not graduate more targeted to help true victims? what do you think of that? guest: that was what the arguments that came up before the administration announced the plan. a lot of moderate democrats, a lot of were conservative folks who paid attention to this program, the federal student loan aid program said there should be a far more targeted approach to doing this. focusing on folks who did not graduate. focusing on folks who are delink it or insolvent. that is not what we saw. in the introduction of the income threshold the admin station tried to lessen chances people doing exception well, and they say this all the time, no

high earners will be participating from this program. that is kind of subjective. depending on where you are, $125,000 looks like a lot of money. $250,000 looks like a lot of money. there is criticism the threshold is too high. some say there should be no threshold at all. the student loan burden affect people at various income streams in different ways. again, as not a great proxy to get at whether or not people are having a hard time with their debt. host: let's talk to diana from montebello, california. she opposes forgiveness. caller: yes. i would like to address the cost for college. after i get off, please address that. the cost of college. like the other caller i got alone loan in the 1990's -- a loan in the 1990's.

i went to a small college. started doing renovations of mealy. -- immediately. this is when bill clinton set every student could go to college with a loan. he came to my campus and he declared that. everyone was happy about that. the college started to make renovations. the costs started going up every semester. on 60 minutes, there was a show about the extreme amount the presidents are getting now. they are sometimes in the millions they are getting. please address the cost of college. i'm not against low income students having some relief. but just in general i think we need to get to the root of the problem. host: ok, diana. what do you think the cost of

college going up, danielle? guest: there are a myriad of factors why goes up. as a public state level lack of state appropriations that harken back a generation ago are not where they work. they have increased but not to preach you thousand eight levels -- pre-2008 levels. a lot of schools raised tuition. certainly the cost of instruction. the biggest cost for most universities is paying administrators, faculty, adjuncts, and they don't pay them very well. all the health benefits, the pension plans for some folks. also all the wraparound services. universities are a different beast than they were a generation ago in terms of support services they offer that

to some families seem excessive but for others it is crucial for students, like mental health services. it costs money to hire and train and license psychiatrist and therapist to be on your campus is to take care of your children. that's an expense borne by the families and through whatever institutional dollars the school is able to have in their coffers. debt revenue for most schools is tuition-dependent. we are also seeing a competition for students. schools are trying to make themselves more attractive by having better facilities. that also costs money. there is a serious conversation to be had about what people would like american higher education to look like. if you want a stripped, bare-bones focus on the education, not on facilities, not on sports programs, you can have them. perhaps that will lower the cost. i don't know if as many families

are ready to make that decision or if we will see more students in schools that are like that. many families are going after the more selective schools that have a lot of these amenities. as a result, cost without the same level with state support if they are public without the granted research money perhaps would also help attract some of the donations that could keep it affordable for low income students. host: i want to show you a visual of that. the average cost of college has risen faster than inflation. you can see here on your screen this chart. this is taking it from the 1980's here to today. 2020-2021 school year. you can see the rise. the dotted line is not adjusted for inflation. that is the average cost of public higher education.

let's talk to greg from san francisco on our line for supporting. caller: good morning. i want to say i did go to college. i don't understand why they don't have colors for everybody. take the money equation out of it. we have to find a way to educate our people. they hope to get good returns. i can picture what a bad return would be, a nation of uneducated citizens. i don't care if you are poor or rich. you go to college, get educated. the payback to the nation would be astronomical. we mentioned covid.

i would like to mention the republican party on the war on democracy. finally got our former president -- -- finding got our former president -- host: we are getting off the topic. what about universal college? guest: we are seeing states moving towards that idea with these promise programs. i think they are in about 30 states at the community college level. the state will cover the cost of tuition for folks who meet criteria based on gpa or a high school diploma or other criteria. sometimes income as well. this is a grassroots movement that has been happening for maybe 15 or so years without a lot of fanfare. certainly the biden administration and other administrations, initially the obama administration tried to make it a federal program with a

federal-state partnership to address some of the costs. it did not quite pan out. could not get enough support. but in lieu of a federal program you are seeing more states trying to move towards this model of having college be a way to bring more revenue into their economy, to educate more the workforce. what is interesting is you are seeing in a lot of republican states, in part because there is a realization that while higher education is often thought of as a residential experience, post education is inclusive of tr des -- trades. a lot of it is done at community colleges and companies. that is a continuum of post secondary higher education. it would be beneficial to local economies.

they are recognizing that. that is why you are seeing this proliferation of tuition-free promise programs across the country. host: david in los angeles and has student debt. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i never met a person that did not want to eliminate their debt. this is just a bad idea. both democrats and republicans have come out against this idea to forgive student loan debt. i think a better idea would be to reduce or limit the interest rate on the debt. most of these people who utilize student loans are educated, have the ability to get jobs. i think using those funds to assist poor, uneducated kids makes a lot more sense. it would be more beneficial to society as a whole. host: you have student debt. kai asked how much student debt

you are currently holding? caller: i only had $5,000 in debt. unfortunately i was able to pay -- fortunately i was able to pay it back in a reasonable amount of time. i wanted to further my education, to get my bachelors degree. i could not afford it. i did not have the time nor the fortitude to pay off that type of debt. like i said, i understand how borrowing money is. i think people should be responsible. they should be able to pay back that debt. that being said, if i had a 0% interest on that debt, it would be a lot easier for me to pay back the loan. i think that makes more sense. host: let's get a response, david. guest: with interest rates, you need congress to move something -- to move on something of that

level. at one point there was zero interest on those loans, in the 1970's. it was exceedingly expensive for the government. they backed off that idea of making it so accessible in that way. i note this administration is trying to address some of the ways in which you can see the loans with interest capitalization. a deferment or changing from one plan to the next and the interest on your loans that is accruing gets tacked onto the principal and then you are paying interest on interest. there is rulemaking that is supposed to take effect next year to try to reduce instances of where that can occur for a borrower. not quite what the caller was asking for. that would take congressional action. there is a workaround to try to get at the exorbitant interest

rate. while undergraduate loans are the threes and forms interest of interest -- in terms of interest, grads is over 6% interest in addition to origination fees imposed on the loans. that is something never say congress are paying -- members of congress are paying attention to. host: let's talk to andy in lexington, kentucky who opposes student loan forgiveness. caller: good morning. just two or three things. the lady on there, she seems to be pretty good. i appreciate her. guest: thank you. caller: you are someone i can vote for. you are honest and straightforward. when you get government involved

and you put more and more people -- and more and more people get these loans, just like germany or other countries, you will have the government dictating who goes to what schools by your iq. so many things of that manner. once you get into that, the government takes it over if you take their money. that is how it always is with everything. you have to do what they say. also, we need to start a program for people that have to work. the young people that had to work by the other young people went to college -- while the other young people went to college and pay taxes for society and build themselves up while others went to college. pay those people back the taxes they paid during that period of time. host: let's get a response.

guest: certainly, one of the things that is fascinating about the higher education system is a diversity and the level of the sheer number of colleges in this country. how the average person can go to college in a way that is not necessarily the same in other countries, industrialized countries, without some kind of tracking to see what kind of aptitude they have to get into this place or that place. also, without the cost being a complete barrier. while our student loan system is unlike anything elsewhere in terms of the fees and the overall abundance of it, it does afford a level of access that is unparalleled to other industrialized countries. i think is important to note. when the government gets involved they can set terms of who can borrow and for how

much but our federal student aid system is pretty liberal in terms of the level of access it provides american families. without a lot of strings attached, except for when you repay the loans. if you fall into default, they can garnish your wages and such. there are trade-offs and expenses and flaws in the system. they are myriad. that is probably the biggest coda schism of the president's policy -- biggest criticism of the president's policy. it does nothing to fix up broken the system is. another rule -- there are so many. this one adding another income-based repayment plan into the system that would cap the amount of money people repay per month at a lower percentage than they currently do and for of us amount of time that they currently do. that is one way of addressing some of the flaws in the system. care are still many others.

-- there are still many others. host: wade from south carolina, who has student debt. caller: i think like david in california that low income people with no interest loans would be great. as far as paying loans offer folks is not what i would think. as far as the price, she said $300 billion. i've heard on all the news networks we are looking at $500 billion to $600 billion. i'm paying my son's debt. the deal was with him as long as you keep a 90 average or above, the daddy college fund keeps paying. if you don't, daddy college fund

quits paying. he was successful in going to college so daddy pays for it. i think the government ought to run along the same lines. the government wants -- i'm at the end of a mortgage. host: sorry. i cut him off by accident. danielle, if you can respond to that. guest: for $300 billion figure is coming from the department of education. there are estimates that show the program could cost more than that. certainly at the end we will be think attention to what the ultimate costs are. what the caller was saying, the daddy fund, i love that term. with a lot of institutional scholarships and such and some federal scholarships and grants based upon gpa, based upon

matriculation. the lending program is supposed to be something entirely different. it was supposed to be a supplement the parents being able to afford to pay out-of-pocket and additional grants and scholarships. i don't know if it was envisioned to be at the scale it currently is. at a think anyone envisioned college would cost as much as it does. it is not may be living up to its initial ideals in some respects. in others it is in terms of affording access to people who otherwise don't have resources to afford higher education in one form or another. host: patrick in minnesota and has student debt. caller: thanks for everybody talking about the subject matter. is a generalization. i'm opposed to the idea. we are investing in someone's

future, disadvantaged, advantaged or somewhere in between. they have to mitigate and understand there is risk. this is how they invest in themselves. it is kind of -- we are going into higher education but we don't understand we are teaching them how to default on debt. the game is played that you incrementally take on risk, invest in yourselves, and the cost of education as part of that equation. there is opportunity to go to community college. i did transfer, finish, and contribute to the economy which i do with some of the biggest intellectual-property teams in the country. host: you are calling on the line that you have student debt. you currently have the debt? caller: no. i paid it off.

i incrementally took it on. i bit off one chunk at a time instead of jumping into a big expensive school and i transferred in incrementally moved through the system so i can mitigate the risk i had to take. but there is no outs of the program in regard to the interest rates. we are down to the wire. many times throughout my career and life. this is what we have to teach them, everyone. host: let's get our guest to respond. guest: certainly you can still acquire debt going to the community college to transfer to a less excessive public institution. people i have spoke with have done it that way and still have a hard time paying back their loans depending on where they are in life.

depending on what kind of job opportunities they have and not had necessarily been privy to. it is interesting. the idea of what a student borrower looks like. there is so much diversity in these experiences, in reasons why people are having a hard time. there is a lot of nuance that perhaps is not always captured. i don't think the people i have spoke with is that they want to be irresponsible about their obligations. many are paying and paying on time every month and still having a hard and difficult time. not necessarily just because of what they owe, for the challenges they have had with their payment system and the complexities of it. i don't know this policy does enough to address any of that. it is worth looking at how

challenging it can be for many people who thought they were doing the right thing, went to a lower-cost school, went to a public school, worked their way through school while also taking on loans. it is a very different system than it was a generation ago in terms of the expense and costs per folks still working towards paying for their education and trying to do what they're being told was the right thing to do. not just invest in themselves but in their society. higher education is supposed to be about creating a better educated, more well-rounded citizenry. that is what a lot of people did and it did not pan out quite the same way that they thought it would. host: i wonder what current high school seniors should be thinking about. now is the season for them to think about what they want to do after they graduate.

if they will be applying to colleges and what they can afford. is there any indication this loan forgiveness might happen again in the future? what should they be thinking about? guest: the president said this is one time. i don't think there is any political will in congress to make this happen again. perhaps among democrats but not amount enough. i think this is it. danny senior should be -- any senior should be strategic selecting a school that has a stellar graduation rate that can provide the resources they need in terms of not just the academics but institutional aid. any support services they may need. it can be a difficult transition for a lot of students coming from high school and college. the level of work, the expectations. asking those questions when you're on those tours or making

initial calls. i would make sure they fill out the federal financial aid form. there are lots of people that don't fill out that form thinking they would not be eligible. he would be surprised. the form is the gateway for not only federal aid but a lot of state scholarships as well. it makes sense to pay attention to that. it opened at the beginning of this month. it is far simpler than when i was applying many decades ago with the paper forms. it is easier to get through. the department of education is working to further simplify it. hopefully that will be ready for the 2023 cycle coming next year. be strategic in where you go. make sure it is affordable for your family. make sure if you're borrowing, because there is nothing wrong needing to borrow, but can you

pay it back any reasonable amount of time? often times i have been told by financial advisors try not to borrow anymore than you think you would make your first year in whatever chosen profession. if you're not making more than $30,000, stick to that as your complete threshold. tried to borrow under that a possible. -- try to borrow under that a possible. host: max in new baltimore, michigan. caller: i would like to ask two questions. a lot of people calling in that have student loans, they meet somebody, they go out with them and plan on getting married. one of the spouses find out the person has a $40,000 debt so they break up or might live together and the other question is, if you are married and he married a person that has

student loan debt and you get a divorce, are they both responsible to pay that back or straight be the person that initiated the loan? thank you. host: do you know? guest: if the loan is in your name, no, you are fine. there was a brief time a program called the spousal consolidation loan where they encouraged people to combine their loans and extent for a lower interest rate, lower monthly payment. that program ended but a lot of people were stuck in it because they cannot separate out their loans and divorce. in in -- in divorce. but they will be able to get out that program. the debt you come in with, unless you have a cosigner, and they are prevalent in the private market, that is your debt.

it is with you until you die. when you die it is discharged. if you're unable to pay it off, that is with you but not your spouse. i checked before i got married. host: danielle douglas-gabriel, thank you so much for being on the program. washington post national higher education reported. guest: thank you for having me. thanks to everybody that called in. up next, more calls and comments on open forum. later, emily jashinsky is the culture editor for the federalist. she discusses her podcast, the federalist radio hour. we will be right back. ♪ >> be up-to-date with the latest in publishing with "about books." bestseller lists and industry

news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, over every you get your podcasts. -- or wherever you get your podcasts. >> sunday nights on q&a, writer and film maker william doyle, author of "titan of the senate," talks about orrin hatch of utah. he served in the u.s. senate from 1977 the 2019 and died in april of 2022. he insists based on his legislative achievements, orrin hatch was the greatest u.s. senator of modern times. >> senator gordon smith, who worked with orrin hatch a great deal is a fellow mormon. he told me he thought the secret to hatch's effectiveness of passing laws both liberals and

democrats and conservatives and republicans was that orrin hatch saw in everybody a child of god. he saw the nobility in his opponent. he saw his opponents as noble. >> william doyle with his book, "titan of the senate," sunday night on q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcast on the free c-span now app. >> this election day, november 8, the control of congress is at stake. will republicans retake the house? can democrats retain control of the senate? follow c-span's coverage of the house and senate races for the coverage of debates, rallies and candidate events. events as they happened on tv and the c-span now app. on demand on the website and

find our data rich election page at c-span.org/campaign2022. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. them better where you are from or where you stand on issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back now with washington journal and it's open forum until 9:15 eastern time. we will take your calls and any think you want to talk about regarding public affairs, politics, things happening in washington. yesterday, president trump was

subpoenaed by the january 6 committee of the house. he's not inspected to cooperate. you can call about that. we talked about it in the morning. if you could not share your thoughts, you can. also, this is the front page of the washington post this morning. papers at trump estate held secrets about iran and china. some of the classified documents recovered by the fbi from donald trump's mar-a-lago home included highly sensitive intelligence regarding iran and china, according to people familiar with the matter. if shared with others, such information could expose intelligence gathering methods that the united states wants to keep hidden from the world. at least one of the documents seized by the fbi describes iran's missile program, according to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity. other documents described highly

sensitive intelligence work aimed at china. news from overseas. the washington post. it says u.s.-russian defense chiefs hold first talk since may. putin suggest he may use nuclear weapons. secretary lloyd austin on friday spoke with his russian counterpart for the first time since may as ukrainian forces seek advances ahead of winter. russian drone and missile attacks have terrorized civilians. details of the call were closely guarded by both sides. the pentagon emphasized -- set austin initiated the call and emphasized to russia's defense chief the importance of maintaining lines of key indication amid the ongoing war

-- lines of communication amid the ongoing work. they said only they discussed relevant aspects of international security, including the situation in ukraine. that are a couple of things going on. we would love to hear from you on what you think. while you are calling, he was president biden yesterday. he made remarks on his handling of the economy and the midterm elections. [video] >> i know and i don't blame you. you want to ask about midterms. here is what i think. the back-and-forth, as a head, back and forth. the polls have been all over the place. i think we will see when were shipped back to our side in the closing days. let me tell you why i think that. we are seeing some of the good news on the economy. gas prices are down sharply. in 46 of the 50 states because of what i have been doing.

we are moving in the right direction and there is more to come. the state unemployment today with all-time lows in 11 states. 17 have employment rates -- on a planet rates under 3% -- unemployment rates under 3%. deficit, there is a record decrease. it is a choice. republicans can criticize my economic record but look at what i inherited and what i've done. look at what they are offering. they want to double dent on the trump tax cuts for the wealthy, make them permanent because they will expire. they want to send jobs overseas where big corporations can in fact pay lower wages and increase their profits. these are tax cuts that give most benefits to billionaires and wealthy corporations. let's get specific. they want to abolish the 15% -- what a terrible thing to ask a

corporation to pay. 15% tax. i insisted those 55 corporations who made $40 billion and did not pay a red cent now, my god, they have to pay 15%. host: that was the president making remarks yesterday. we are interested to hear what you have to say about a wide variety of topics. let's start with michael who is in new york, independent line. caller: thank you. first of all, all these people who call in and say c-span is biased, is ridiculous. you are reporting the news. the fact is that donald trump has been the first president who's actually overtly broken the law. these people -- the fact is that c-span's reporting it. they don't like the reports. they don't like the truth.

the january 6 committee has been all republicans who have testified. they are not democrats testifying. they are republicans. they get attacked for telling the truth. it's amazing. people think that donald trump is a victim, he's not a victim. he's a criminal. you engage in criminal conduct, you get investigated. host: when you say he broke the law, be more specific. caller: say broke the law be more specific. caller: meaning if you and i remove those documents we would not be here right now. i am a lawyer and you would be calling me to represent you to get you out of jail. host: i would probably not want to take those documents. let us talk to bob in richmond, maine. republican line. caller: you had a caller last segment that mentioned the police waving the crowd into the

capital bank and you -- capitol, and you acted surprised, is this the first time you've seen videos like that? host: i would like to ask you what are your thoughts on that, did you fully -- did you feel like the police did not try to hold back the crowds. do you feel that the people who went into the capitol, tell me what you thought that they were not violent? caller: i am telling you that there are both, there are police holding the crowd back in those waving them in, but you never show that, that is what i want to know, not just one side, you are only showing one side, don't you get that? host: what does that indicate to

you is my question? caller: that indicates that you are biased. i am actually asking what does it indicate to you that you are saying some the people into the capitol and try -- trying to hold him back and some were peaceful and not peaceful, what does that indicate? caller: it indicates that they are only showing one side, you are not showing that the police were letting people in. so how can you charge people when some broken and somewhere waved in. and then you do not show that. that is the ultimate bias, don't you get it? host: ok, michael in new york, democrat -- democrat line. hello. caller: how are you doing there?

i am listening to this gentleman who just berated you about being biased, they put stuff on both sides. these folks who are following trump are delusional and believing his lies to -- lies to this day. i was watching cnn for instance, and trump's lawyer got on there, and said donald trump, you lost the election, look me in the eye on the screen and you lost. guys who are supporting trump, you lost, get over it, let us make this country great again by electing democrats to office because the republicans are looking for ways to get around abortion issues and everything out -- everything else under the

sun that republicans have attacked. let us get together and put sensible people in office. let us look at the big picture and move forward in this country. host: daniel in gettysburg, pennsylvania. republican line. hello. caller: how are you? host: i am ok. caller: look, hillary clinton lost, ok. let us get sensible. she lost, and they pulled all of this bs and it is unbelievable, i cannot believe that i just heard that last guy. they lost, and that was that. and trump actually squared this country away. until china released the covid. and you have got to be kidding

me. the one thing that the guy brought up was abortion. abortion is not even important. it is everything that biden has done. he could screw up a glass of water, let us put it that way. the guy has done everything wrong. look at the people we lost in afghanistan. look at all of the ordinance that we lost in afghanistan. it is unbelievable, just unbelievable. look at gas prices, inflation, everything. it is terrible. host: goodbye. let us look at some texts. this is sue from new jersey who says "i would like to see congress go after predatory lenders, hold lenders

accountable instead of looking the other way. a loan is exactly that, buyer beware, lots of work for congress to do." mary says "it is so old -- it is so hard to watch biden. president biden comes across as weekend bubbling. the choices american people have so far for voting is so pathetic. help." james from tulsa, oklahoma and the democrat line? caller: i am in clarksville, indiana. host: i am sorry. caller: it is a mistake. you are forgiven. host: go ahead. what would you like to talk about? caller: well, trump is through, do not me -- do not waste anymore of your time and i will

not waste any of my time debating trump. when they subpoenaed him on thursday night, they said you will have to come and sit and answer questions. my phone rang off of the hook at my place. it is over, he has done. the funny thing is i do not think he has any money. do not trouble yourself with this not , he is -- nut he has done. host: what if he runs again? caller: he cannot. host: why not? caller: who will nominate him? the green party? will he run as an independent? he will never run again as a president. host: let us talk to nancy who is in tulsa, oklahoma on the independent line. caller: hello, on january 6, it

is not about trump but the people who were there to sincerely protest peacefully and were waved in by police and are now going to prison and that is not fair. host: ok. ray in pleasant view, tennessee on the republican line. caller: hello, listen this guy who said that we need to put democrats in office because they know what to do and they are the smarts -- just look at the people who they have and now. i am telling you that biden all the way down has screwed this country up. and if that nut cannot see that, someone needs to take him somewhere and educate him.

biden has done so much damage to this country and in november we will take it back and you get over it. thank you. host: let us look at a segment of an interview with msnbc airing with president biden saying he will not make a formal decision about running for reelection in 2024 but saying " it is his intention to do so." [video clip] >> the only reason to be involved in public life is can you make life better for other people? and depending on who the opponent is, if they have a view that is such the antithesis of what i believe in democracy and i believe in what is good for average americans, then the argument was dad, you have an arm -- you have an obligation to do something.

the reason i am not making a judgment about formally running, once i make it a whole series of regulations kick in and i have to treat myself as a candidate. i have not made that formal decision, but it is my intention to run again, and we have time to make that decision. >> dr. biden is for it? >> dr. biden thinks that -- my wife thinks that i -- that we are doing something very important, and that i should not walk away from it. [end video clip] host: that was a president speaking yesterday. it is open forum and looking forward to taking your calls. there is something that i want to show you in the "washington post" style section saying that everyone who has won the seat in congress have gotten divorced afterward. "two candidates are vying for

the divert -- the divorce curse -- the divorce curse eat. they are happily married for now. one marriage ended after the congressman took up with his chief of staff and another broke up when the house member could not persuade his wife to stay and then there was a spouse who cheered on his wife's campaign only to walk out when she won the election." john is calling from the u.s. virgin islands. democrat line. hello. caller: good morning and thank you for the opportunity. i really feel that we cannot let republicans back in because they will put a quash on social security and the reason is because of the payroll tax. the 1%-ers want to make sure that they stop all taxation not just corporate tax, they want payroll tax to be removed

because that is a cut in their profits. if we let them and, there goes your social security and medicare. i feel that we really need to get out there and vote, and make sure that you do not lose social security. thank you. host: peggy on the republican line from piedmont, south carolina. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: es. we are republicans, me and my husband, and biden has given us a hard time because we are both disabled and on social security. he has made our lives hard these past two years. and we will vote republican next time. we are republican but we will vote in favor of the

republicans. host: go ahead. caller: we have seen three buses of illegals coming up the interstate yesterday and an immigration officer followed them coming into greenville, south carolina. host: kelly is next in wisconsin. independent line. caller: hello and good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: well, i think that there are so many issues being brought up but i think many people are forgetting last year biden brought up the issues of nicotine in cigarettes and helping solve the cancer issue which is cigarettes and cancer are a huge issue. he had never followed through and there are companies producing cigarettes with lower

nicotine that could help save lives and i wish he would keep his promise about helping save these lives and cancer is a big killer and we need to look at the big issue. yes covid was big but if we can lower nicotine in cigarettes and help push that, i think things would get so much better, and i think a lot of us are tired of paying higher prices for gasoline. and i just wish, follow what you say, help save lives and make people happier. host: that is all the time we have for open forum, thank you to everybody who called in. coming up next is an -- emily jashinsky who discusses her podcast “federalist radio hour." we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile

app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings, white house events, court, campaigns and the world of politics at your fingertips and stay current with the latest episodes of " washington journal" and scheduling information plus a variety of compelling podcasts. it is available on the apple store and google play. downloaded it for free today. c-span now, your front-row seat to washington. >> election day, november 8 starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch c-span's live electrician -- election coverage. see victory and concession speeches from the candidates on c-span, the c-span now mobile

app and at c-span.org/ campaign2022. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with booktv's podcast "about books," with current nonfiction book releases plus industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, our free mobile app or where ever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine, you are invited to participate in the studentcam documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election feature yourself as a newly elected number of congress. what is your top priority and why? make a five to six minute video

showing your issues with opposing and for views. amongst the cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit studentcam.org for tools, kits, resources, and a step-by-step guide. >> sunday night on q and a, william doyle author of "titan of the senate" talks about the longest-serving republican senator of history. senator hatch served from 1977 until 2019 and died in april of 2022. he says that based on his legislative achievements he was the greatest u.s. senator of modern times. >> senator gordon smith worked with orrin hatch a great deal

and is a fellow mormon. he told me that he thought that the secret to his effectiveness passing all of these laws with liberal, democrats, conservatives, and republicans is that he saw everybody as a child of god coming from his deep religious faith, and he saw a nobility in his opponents. he saw his opponents as noble. >> william doyle with his book " titan of the senate" sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to that and all of our podcasts on our free c-span app. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. it is our weekly spotlight on podcasts segment and my guest is emily jashinsky host of “federalist radio hour" welcome.

it is nice to have you. for our viewers if you would like to call and talk to our guest you can do so on our lines from party affiliation. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. let us talk about the federalist , what is the point of view? caller: we are conservative but we take an antiestablishment conservative place, which is a sort of rowing and increasingly vast, but we are mostly not located in d.c.. a lot of what we publish is from everyday americans who have an opinion. we like to be the vote lease -- the voice of conservatives not based out of washington and new york but your everyday people. most of our staff is not in d.c. which is where we see ourselves.

it is populist sometimes and we try to publish the different voices in conservatism and conservative space that can disagree with each other and hash out what the projects are. host: you are the culture editor, what does that mean? guest: it is a fun title and i get asked about that because on the right there has not been a big focus on what is happening in the culture. this is a publication like "the new criterion" and others analyzing high culture from a conservative perspective. when i was brought on it was because i could write about "the real housewives" and " kardashians." this is a space to understand and criticizing the kardashians but understanding why people love them and then your

criticism is more constructive if you understand what you are talking about. what i do is help be sure that we are covering the culture bases that need to be covered. one of the most interesting things is when we have a piece on something that happened on one of those episodes or a new taylor swift song. taylor swift's album came out and we published an article about how in the music video she is holding her pen and the craziest way possible, and that stuff people like coming from a conservative perspective because the entertainment media is very approving of celebrities and also -- often endorses the perspectives of celebrities and where we say this is journalism and we will challenge celebrities and not just treat them with kid gloves so we feel that this is important and that is part of the culture editor, bringing a conservative voice to those conversations. host: tell us about the podcast,

“federalist radio hour" what are the topics that you cover, what is the format, do you bring guests and? guest: all credit to ben who started this podcast years ago and was in that space before a lot of people were focused on that space which has allowed our show to build up a big and faithful audience that comes in every weekday. we publish a podcast every single week day monday through friday with a guest. it is an interview format and we go between 40 minutes to an hour and sometimes a little more or less but with a new guest. sometimes it is staff that a lot of times and most often it is other writers and authors with new books out, people from the left and right, we are conservative so we tend to have more people from the rights. but we do have people from the left. we go for an hour and we talked

through the issues of the day and it is a rewarding opportunity to pick people's brains and work through those things. it is a fun show and has been around for a while and in that space a long time before people did podcasts. and we have a great audience and we appreciate everyone tuning in. host: it is daily which is pretty intense. what impact does that have? are you able to respond to the daily news? guest: absolutely. and sometimes we do so many episodes with authors but it is good that we are out of the new cycle because it keeps us at 30,000 feet and from this broader aperture where we are talking about things from a bigger perspective and not bogged down by the news of the day but when there is huge breaking news we do everything we can to break -- to get out a show on that.

we are constantly interrupting our schedule of what episodes that are going to air to bring in episodes that touch on the news of the day. we try not to do it from the beltway chatter perspective where it is speculation because we do not have to because we have a lot of authors and all of that good stuff. but when there is massive breaking news we mix it up as well. host: let us talk about politics, the midterm elections are coming out and it is possible the republicans could win the control of the house and senate in the white house will be controlled by a democrat for the remainder of the two years. how do you think republican leadership will handle that balance of power? guest: that is a good question and i just published a profile of kevin mccarthy because i had the opportunity to interview him last month and talk about exactly this question. he told me that he expects if he is speaker and he expects to be

speaker and said if you are in the position to be elected speaker you do not change the coach. if he is elected speaker he says he will take a few people off of their committee seats in the same way that nancy pelosi take -- took others of their committee seats, marjorie taylor greene during pelosi's tenure, that would be schiff and ellen omar. he is trying to have a republican base that really wants him to fight fire with fire saying that nancy pelosi allowed this committee which is giving steve bannon four months in prison because he refused to comply with a subpoena. that uses subpoena powers in ways that most people to be considered unprecedented. the mainstream coverage acknowledged it as much. the republican base really wants the next speaker of the house to fight fire with fire, but at the same time republican leadership

knows that they have a bigger conference than just the freedom caucus so to say, but it is a tough balancing act. if they do not have -- if they do not control the senate and they obviously do not control the presidency to get any bipartisan legislation done which would be antitrust and there are things in on -- that could be on the table for bipartisan legislation. if they want to do that, escort -- scortched earth back would not be productive. host: i want to ask you about the battle over ukraine aid and what could be going on between mccarthy and mcconnell? guest: such a good question because mccarthy told "fungible news" that people are in a recession and come january if there is a bunch of more money

to ukraine on the table they might not want to see "a blank check" to ukraine. mitch mcconnell is more hawkish but it is interesting because there is a willingness to be responsive to the republican base. mitch mcconnell, we see it, he does not like the populist candidates, like blake masters and j.d. vance and has pulled money out of the masters race, so mitch mcconnell is not responsive to populism and sees himself enable work against populism -- himself as a bulwark against populism and mccarthy says for the stake -- sake of moving the party forward we have to give-and-take. ukraine aid will be on the table and i can think you can get kevin mccarthy and a house republican conference to spend money and keep spending money --

sending money to ukraine because there are important reasons to do that, whether it is in the link check and at the same level that it has been, i think that is a question that mitch mcconnell will have to deal with. host: are you ready to talk to the callers? peter in new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. i see you on newsmax and i am impressed with your views. i like your comment on president trump, it seems to me that president trump is a victim of his own success. he came in with the slowest growth in the economy since world war ii. when he left office the economy was at five .5% growth. the tax rates, the average family's income was $6,000 then

it was previously. the abraham accords, all of these things and successes, yes we were energy into current energy independent, low gas prices and jobs were doing well. the president had tremendous successes and it seems like the media was concentrating because of this on how he presented himself in tweets. now that we have the results from the molar probe andm all of that --ueller probe and they found out that the russian collusion thing was a hoax and they were out to get the president and they impeached him because he asked the president of ukraine to look into corruption because hunter biden was on the board. and president biden was denying $1 billion in aid to fire the prosecutor. it seems that the american

people are understanding that lies were better and they are getting hit in the pocketbook. host: i think we have your point. guest: and it is interesting because the economy if you look at the relationship between joe biden's poll numbers and gas prices there is something to it and voters are complicated people. they have all kinds of different priorities when they go to the ballot box. butthe inflationary aspect of al of this is so critical to just the average. on the campaign trail she called her 3:00 a.m. agenda, she wanted to help folks with things that keep them up that 3:00 a.m. just that basic idea that under a trump you didn't have these

economic worries as a voter has to be playing into the mindsets of people going into the polls this november. host: michael, an independent from tampa, florida. caller: how do you do, emily? guest: hey, there. caller: i live in tampa but grew up on capitol hill in washington and used to go to some of the lobbyist groups in the past. i like what you're talking about. it seems like you are the voice of reason, being reasonable, a populist. i feel kind of a sympathy for the underdog. when you mentioned these keywords of beltway tat or, i have been around the beltway many times. the real beltway but also the beltway around washington myself, because my family, my stepmother worked at the pentagon. my mother worked at the library of congress. we didn't have someone over my

mother side of the family on the supreme court of virginia. all that's true. i like what you're doing and the populist movement because the sympathy for the underdog, when you talk about the ukraine, the border, all these things, the economy, all these things are problem. it seems like they don't want to be reasonable. they don't want to listen to reason. your program seems to be kind of like a voice of reason. a voice of truth. so, i approve of what you're doing, emily. guest: thank you. that's so kind. i think it is a very interesting -- it's also an interesting point, because we do agree with the left a lot. i think increasingly so in the populist right. the federalist is willing to very much approve. i have written why people are right to be joining local unions

at their amazon warehouses. we have those conversations with a left on ukraine funding, on the military-industrial complex in general. we are more than willing to have those conversations. we are willing to find room for agreement because we are not a very washington-focused organization. the more that you are sort of outside of the beltway the more -- the less you are sort of tied to the special interests, the permanent washington establishments that are entrenched and have an interest in protecting the republican party, the democratic party in your ear every day when you are writing. or you are thinking about the cocktail party list. when you're liberated from that you can find common ground and you are much more comfortable pushing back on where the establishment might want you to go. that is a very important part of what we do.

i'm from wisconsin, so it's good to have experience outside the beltway. the number one book that i assign students is called coming apart by charles murray. it's the best book about journalism that has nothing to do with journalism. it talks about how people in positions of power in new york and dcr increasingly sorted by education and income. -- d.c. are increasingly sorted by education and income. it is the class divide. if they live together and clustered together you have a bigger problem they left or right. you have people who genuinely don't understand the plight of others outside the country, the way they live, the way they think, because they don't talk to them or empathize with them. that is one of the biggest problems in our politics now, and it's one that we hope to

address at the federalist. we are not super tied to washington and new york, but really all over the country. host: in oklahoma on the democrat line. this is not the first time that i've seen this city, and i still can't get it. thanks, bob. go ahead. caller: it means two is enough. it is the cherokee capital. a fairly large tribe. i think kindness has its play. as far as all of this newsmax propaganda goes, thinking people don't have much time for that anymore. we are trying to have a candid discussion. we can be civil. but on the other hand, all this propaganda drivel.

host: be specific. caller: what i just heard coming out of this young lady's mouth. people can be civil and kind and there is a place for that, but at the same time we are after the truth of what is going on. guest: the federalist in the federalist society are in different organizations that have nothing to do with each other. there is absolutely no relationship between the two. caller: i think there is. guest: there is not. i promise you. they are nonprofit we are a news organization. the names are similar. caller: i want to try to remained kind -- remained kind and civil and i don't want to talk over you but there is a huge connection. with the likes of bill barr and folks like this, it has gotten away with bloody murder. host: you're talking about a

connection in terms of similarity in opinion? caller: yes, that's what we're talking about here. guest: we are both conservative. yes. caller: you can be coy and clever and smart, but what we are after is the truth, after intelligence -- host: about what? give me specifics. caller: specific? what's going on with the issues in our society today in an honest way. to be able to discuss these things without such a propaganda of pap -- propaganda patriotism that is an even real. host: what do you think? guest: i understand why people are viscerally upset about propaganda and anger in our media. i think it's a very real problem. it's not just, certainly not just in the legacy media, just on the left. the right, of course, there are people who verge into that

territory. i completely understand the frustration. there's no question. part of why the federalist exists is there were publications back in conservative media that were cheerleaders for wars that we thought were fundamentally unjust. we don't deny that there are problems at all. we hope to be part of the solution. what we and definitely myself understand is the frustration of people who feel there is not enough kindness in politics and not enough honesty in politics. i totally empathize and share the frustration and can honestly say that we are really trying to be part of that solution. and i wish there were others in the space that were doing the same. i think increasingly there are. independent media is booming because of people exactly like the last caller who are so sick of and frustrated by what they see in legacy media.

i think a lot of people share that perspective and that is where you are seeing growth in independent media. host: robert on the republican line from boca raton, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. emily, it is nice to have you on the show here. i just want to express a different republican view that i and a lot of people i know are having. that is what we perceive as the threat to the republican party by extremists who seem to monopolize the media coverage. extremism seems to be more exciting for news coverage. i don't know that i've seen too many of your publications and whether you follow that, but i want to comment on some of the things we are concerned with. that is preservation of our

democracy, not democrat but democracy, and the integrity of our constitutional system for elections. i am so concerned about the number of republicans who either are apprehensive about conflicting with election deniers, because obviously trump's supporters still maintain approximately 30% of the republican party, without whom no republican can get elected to office. we look in arizona, we can look across the country, michigan, wisconsin, and we get concerned that we have a balance to make. do we support our party regardless of the candidate? or do we look deeper to say, is this the direction we want republicans to lead the country

in? my concern is electing a slate of election deniers are essentially electing people who are conflicting with the constitution. if there weren't so many judges, including trump-appointed judges, who have carefully reviewed the facts and we trust their integrity to say if there was a basis for justification, criticism of the election results then it would have come forward. there are too many people who investigated. look what happened in arizona. host: i think we got your point. let's get a response. guest: i shared some of those concerns myself. i think a lot of it stems from -- we are looking out over the capitol. i covered the morning of january 6 when the former president gave his speech by the white house.

i physically cringed when i heard some of the ways that he was talking about the election. i think it was reckless. this is a ben sasse quote. he said he was playing with fire the way he talked about the election. it sold a lot of distrust -- sowed a lot of distrust in the process in a way that is disturbing. a lot of the legacy coverage and what comes out of the democratic coverage -- old-school democrats would have been very concerned about, you can read my boss's book, it talks about how special interests like mark zuckerberg poured tons of money into ways that were designed to help democrats. that was a huge, huge influx of money going into the system in ways that the media should be

much more curious about instead of -- basically, there was one major report on it in time magazine openly reported on how the plan was to have a "well-funded cabal." people have special interests influenced, the election laws, and the way votes were cast in 2020 elections to help democrats. a lot of the concerns get mixed up together. but the concerns about the special interests and money are very valid. i totally understand. i think there was a lot of negative stuff downstream of what the former president was talking about, but at the same time there are very serious concerns was not democrats in

the media lack curiosity about these things in ways that are harming us deeply. host: you had an episode in your podcast called why conservatives must rise to the moment instead of clinging to the republican party's political past. guest: there is this libertarian strain of conservatism that is very, very -- i will try to use the right word. has always been protected and revered. the idea that it is always appropriate to pull state power back as opposed to saying maybe we do need to do something to protect minors from particular surgeries, medical treatments. maybe there is room for a law there. maybe there is room for some of what ron desantis has done, which is to use the power of elected government

representatives to say this is a consensus position or this is the right thing to do and so it makes sense not to just leave this space to private actors. we are in a different time period. there is what we see as a destructive reverence for republican dogma that has led us into unjust conflict, that has led us to for example things like nasa, like wto which has hollowed out that has hurt people that are not just republicans or democrats but americans across the board. that comes from the orthodoxy that formed the hugeness consensus of the conservative movement during the cold war. you have the free marketeers with the defense hawks, you have the three legged stool of feudalism. what we're talking about in that episode is it's a different time. we are not in the cold war period anymore and that demands

a different kind of conservative movement and republican party and one that is probably more willing to do what has typically been associated with the left. that is to say actually there is room for the government to have a say in what is just and what is unjust in different situations. that is what we were talking about, basically. host: edward on the independent line, new jersey. caller: i want to know how your publication deals with right-wing populist alternative reality conspiracies, and do you find it dangerous amplifying any of these conspiracies? if you want credibility for your publication i would like you if you would like to call out things like qanon being ridiculous, that the january 6 was the fbi, and the people calling talking about the cops

let them in. so, if you want credibility for your publication, you want people to read it as something more than a right wing mouthpiece, called out these things for what they are. the big lie, qanon. how do you deal with these? do you publi -- do you publish or amplify any of these? thank you. guest: there is no room for qanon, certainly, or any conspiracies. french conspiracy theories -- fringe conspiracy theories. there is not a lot of conservative reputation in the legacy media. certainly not cultural conservative

representation. there is this game that gets played which is to announce qanon, denounce x, y, z. the first thing i did after being in the crowd as a reporter on january 6 was go and get on a live stream and say this is not antifa. these were trump supporters. that is literally the first thing that i did. it is frustrating to be asked time and time again to denounce things as a reporter and a journalist. in some ways you denounce and stick your neck out to say this is wrong. it feels like a lot of people on the right that it is a game to discredit us constantly. it doesn't happen as much to people on the left. they don't constantly get asked to answer for, for instance, legitimate anti-semitism that creeps into some of the activist movement left. on the right we are constantly asked to answer for things that of course we denounce all the

time. again, i totally understand concerns about that. i think there are conspiracy theories on the left and the right that eat away at our ability to function as a society. there is no question. i think social media and the internet plays a role. i think there's more we could do to prevent that, but i am also irritated to have to play that game. it's not one a lot of other people have to play. of course, of course those things are wrong. people who are covering these issues on a daily basis and doing so with good sourcing and good journalistic ethics know that. people who pay closer attention to our publications know that as well. host: nina in chicago, illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment. i feel the united states is in

big, big trouble. you know, it is just sad, sad, sad. emily, you have been deflecting, deflecting, like most of you people do. it is the same on both sides when it is obvious it is not the same. you have people on this side that do nothing but talk about hate and division. and this reason to put that in office? what's going on? there are good people on the republican side, right? it is about character, which a lot of republicans now don't have. to say it is the same on the democrat side -- it is totally different. guest: nina is correct. it is totally different. the differences here, it is often both sides, but in my

perspective it is often the left that is significantly more radical. the mainstream of the democratic party has become so radical that you can't have a supreme court justice defining woman at a confirmation trial. i agree it's not the same on both sides. we are very much in new territory with the contemporary american left and its sway on the party. that's not to say there are not problems with the republican party. there are and i've addressed many of those, wherever they come from. the reason that people gravitate towards populists, like donald trump, is frankly because they live in a world that has changed so quickly, and in some ways absolutely for the better, but in other ways where you have the fact that -- the effect that big tech has on our society, the effect that a lot of economic

policies that were supported by the left and right but now very much supported by the left have on our economy and on people's everyday lives, but particularly on the cultural issues. this a that the threat from the left and right is the same would be wrong. i would never want to be interpreted as saying that, because i think it is significantly worse from the left. that is why you have parents like in dearborn michigan, the muslim community and christian community coming together to protest books in library that are explicit but accessible to 14-year-olds. i can't even repeat what is in the. that is something -- that is in them. that is something the american federation of teachers is supporting in dearborn in the last month. i don't think that there is a moral equivalency between the left and the right. i think reasonable people can disagree on that. to address that question come absolutely. i don't think they are the same. i don't think why it is both sides. i understand why the both sides

think it's frustrating, because in my perspective the left is radicalized in a way that the media won't tell the story of. it catches people off guard when they see what is happening in these libraries, in these curriculums, where they are teaching about race, or gender, or sexuality, or whatever it is. it caught people off guard because the media wasn't telling the story of what was happening in the democratic party. host: terry, democratic line. caller: you know, i was listening to so much. i was going to ask you one question, but this is crazy. i do believe the election was stolen. if you don't want to look at all the evidence look at one part of it. they went against the united states constitution and state's constitution changing the laws. the secretary of state, the

mayors, the judges. my question is to you, our law enforcement and justice department is helping bring our country down. host: i'm sorry, i thought you were done. go ahead. guest: yes, that is a great point and it is what we were talking about with the last caller with a sense of moral equivalency. there are great journalists on the left to have been following what is happening in our intelligence community. in ways that i think that the right missed during the bush era and a lot of people are willing to admit that. that the excesses of power that have been given to the fbi come into the justice department in the aftermath of 911 and as the war on terrorism raged on are of serious, serious concerns. when you have them saying look

at what merrick garland and the department of justice is doing, look what happened with the crossfire hurricane investigation into donald trump, which was not predicated. it was predicated intentionally in ways that skirted the law to attack a candidate for president of the united states because they believed they needed to have an insurance policy. they needed to do something to prevent. it was their moral duty to be extrajudicial in this approach so they could protect the american people from donald trump, even though the american people voted for donald trump. all those excess powers i think are being used and wielded by democrats. it's not just democrats, actually. it is establishment republicans. it is the beltway uniparty that use the trump era to go into hyper drive in ways that

are deeply unconstitutional and should be scary to everyone, because it is something we haven't seen often in american history. when we have, for instance, we look back at the tenure of j edgar hoover. overwhelmingly as a society we look back at a lot of what hoover did as bad and immoral. we are seeing some of the same stuff out of our contemporary doj and fbi. it is a theme that is well worth paying attention to, but it's one that the media overwhelmingly doesn't want to touch or cover. it leaves a lot of americans in the dark. then they hear, for instance after we were told robert moeller day after day had the thing that was going to break trump, he had the smoking gun. it was coming day after day. he was a drumbeat for years. it turned out robert moeller didn't have what the media wanted him to have, what the democratic party wanted him to have. a lot of people were left wondering what is going on,

because the media didn't cover what was leading up to that moment. i think that is worth paying attention to. host: josephine in livingston, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. my concerns are bread-and-butter issues. my concern is about the election that is coming up. you are pointing out that mccarthy probably will become speaker of the house. mccarthy has already said, as you have said, that he plans to use ukraine as a budgeting tool in negotiations. i'm not going to give the ukraine money unless you vote my way. that's not democracy. the other one that gets me is they are saying notions about social security and medicare. they put it out there in writing -- their way of getting rid of social security and medicare is to put it on the budget.

in other words, it is discussed in the budget. do we give them issue are not? that is successfully destroying social security and medicare. there is so much that is going on that is going to affect seniors. i easily think they are going to be texted by the republicans. they are going to slit your throat and you are going to say afterwards i didn't think they would do it. believe it because they are telling you they're going to do it. you can't put social security as a budget issue, like scott from florida. it is the demise of social security. guest: i am probably one of the few conservatives that is willing to say i think we desperately need to reform the entitlement system. i think some of the inflation we are experiencing now is because we have such an incredibly high debt, and a lot of it stems from

our entitlement programs. i am very much pessimistic about the appetite for anyone in the republican party, mccarthy or whoever it is, to do what we need to responsibly reform entitlement programs. they talk about it constantly and they never do it. actually understand why people who rely on those programs might be nervous about that, because republicans will sometimes -- there are certain republicans who will talk about it, but, again, there is never -- exactly for the reason that it is a touchy subject because people rely on that and they need to have with a worked for and have expected our government to provide. there's no question about it. any conversation about reform to that is terrifying because you can't trust anyone in washington to do what's right for you. i get it. i think one thing that is right is reforming those programs to make them sustainable and what

we all need and things that we can all rely on. i am even 30. i don't know what the programs -- i don't know that i will get what i worked for, or expected, or with the government told me i will get at that point in time. a lot of folks my age probably feel the same way. i actually wouldn't worry about republicans touching those programs, because it is a long-standing frustration that the republican party doesn't have the will to take on difficult issues that are politically very hard to approach and talk about. because people really do need to trust washington to do that stuff responsibly, but they don't feel like they can trust washington, and for good reason. host: emily jashinsky, culturalist editor of the federalist. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is all the time we have. thank you to everyone who called in and tweeted.