c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on "washington journal" this morning, your calls and cments life. then bloomberg law supreme court supporter -- reporter previews e supreme court case today. and cook political report's vid wasserman discusses the political environment, key issues, and races to watch heading into the fall election. also, the wall street journal's nick tomorrow's -- nick timiraos talks about the continuing rise of inflation and its impact on the economy. "washington journal" is next. host: this is the "washington journal" for april 16. a second round of jury selection

for donald trump's hush money trial. several jurors were let go yesterday, saying they could not be impartial. house speaker mike johnson is set to reveal a package of bills for aid, a move already meeting resistance from some republicans. here's how you can comment on either or both of those topics. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to give your thoughts on either the former president's trial or efforts to find ukraine and israel and want to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. or you can post on x, @cspanwj. from the bbc, kind of a round up of yesterday's events in new york considering the former

president and his hush money trial. they report dozens of potential jurors have been ruled out of donald trump's unprecedented trial on impartiality grounds. -- just ahead of the 2016 election, which he won. 60 of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they couldn't be impartial after the proceedings began monday. jury selection begins today. the dismissals on day one are an indication of how challenging it could be to find a group of 12 impartial jurors for such a unique case. it concerns a high profile sex scandal who involves a former president who is running again for the white house. reporting on that front yesterday, it was after those proceedings on the first day that the former president went before cameras and gave his thoughts and impressions. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> we had some amazing things happen today. looks like the judge will not

let me go through -- looking forward to have graduation with the mother and father there. looks like the judge will not allow me to escape this scam trial. if you read all the legal pundits or scholars today, there's not one i see that said this is a case that should go up for trial. it is a scam, a political witchhunt. it continues and continues forever. we are not going to be given a fair trial. in addition, next thursday, the united states supreme court on immunity. it is something we have been waiting for for a long time, and the judge is not going to allow us. it is a very conflicted judge. he will not allow us to go to that.

and i have to go to d.c. before the united states supreme court, because you think c is superior to the supreme court. we have a real problem with this judge, with a lot of things happening with this trial, including the da. he is sitting here all day with about 10 or 12 prosecutors over nothing. over what people say should not be a trial, so i want to thank you very much, but i cannot go to my son's graduation or i cannot go to the united states supreme court or i cannot go to georgia or florida or north carolina campaigning as i should be. it is perfect for the radical democrats. that is exactly what they want. this is about election interference. host: some of the comments from

the former president yesterday after that first day of jury selection for his hush money trial. you can comment on that if you wish. (202) 748-8001 for republicans,. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. on capitol hill, more on that plane from house speaker mike johnson for funding for ukraine and israel and other matters. here's what to expect, via punchbowl, saying the broader republican conference -- plan to pass three separate bills to unlock aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan. that also includes the house-past tiktok ban bill -- house-passed tiktok ban bill. punchbowl adding speaker johnson hopes to bring these bills to the floor under a single rule. johnson will probably need

democratic support to get the rule onto the floor, and democrats seem likely to give johnson the help he needs. that is from punch bowl. yesterday at the white house, the white house security spokesperson john kirby talked about this effort by the house the past funding. here are some of his comments. [video clip] >> the president spoke to congressional leaders. did he receive any sort of commitment from speaker mike johnson to bring the supplemental bill to the house floor this week? >> the speaker, whatever his plans might be, certainly we heard from leader mcconnell and from leader jeffries about the importance of passing the supplemental and getting it on its way. as i said in my opening statement, the fastest way -- you have got two good friends here, israel and ukraine -- a very different fights, to be sure, but active fights for

their sovereignty and security. time is not on anyone's side, in either case. they need to move quickly on this. the best way to get that aid into the hands of the idf and the ukrainian soldiers is to pass that bipartisan bill the senate passed. >> i understand that is your preference, the bipartisan bill, but is the white -- >> a stand-alone bill that would just work on israel, as we have seen proposed, we would oppose a stand-alone bill. host: those are the comments from john kirby on this effort for ukraine and israel funding. expect those to play out on the house floor this week. you can comment on that or the former president's trial in new york as jury proceedings take place. let's hear from alan in brooklyn, new york, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would argue that, even though the supreme court rules that

14.3 cannot keep the former president off the ballot under the insurrection clause, we should still have him be able to cap off the ballot based on his current conduct, in violation of his oath of office, and oath to preserve, text, and defend the constitution until not only keeping to the language of statutes but also respecting legal facts created by court rulings. in the president has consistently violated that part of his obligation by openly doubting the outcome of 60 court cases to determine the election in 2020 was valid and determining that hundreds of people who stormed the capitol were rioters and criminals, not hostages. by violating that aspect of his obligation as resident, he has, in the concept of lawyer language, been in anticipatory

reach of his opposition to take a further oath. in other words, he really cannot take the next oath if he has already promised to do things that contradict its terms. host: how do you think the hush money trial falls in comparison to the other charges facing the former president? caller: i think it is much more serious most people would believe. on the surface, it is about personal moral impropriety. it really is about his admission , on emails and other communications, that because of the billy bush tapes, without awful quotation that came onto air, it looked like he was toast at that point and had no chances of winning the presidency -- we cannot let anything else to get into the public eye. only then did he begin to negotiate seriously about a payment to stormy daniels and the other woman to keep their stories out of the air, because they thought that would be the nail in the coffin of his candidacy. host: let's hear from glenn in texas, republican line.

you can discuss the trial yesterday or the efforts the past funding. caller: i would like to talk both of them, if i may. host: go ahead. caller: the trump trial, that is a sham. the prosecuting attorney, when you go to have a jury pool -- i've been on juries many times. the prosecuting attorney come and talk to the jurors before they are brought into court for seating in the jury box. the whole thing is a sham. the judge is a democrat, joe biden sponsor. the prosecuting attorney, they donate money to joe biden's campaign. and also, the daughter of this judge, she wants to make money off of this trial. the republicans cannot get any kind of decent trial verdicts in

democrat new york. i can't understand that. trump is the only man -- ok, now i am going to talk about the iraq situation. trump will never get a decent trial in new york -- host: by iraq, you mean the funding for israel or ukraine on capitol hill? caller: yeah, i will talk about that now. host: go ahead, make your point. caller: our country has stooped so low in our government. we have nobody in our government that has taken any kind of responsibility for anything. so the marches we had yesterday, and i had never heard this before in my life -- i was a military veteran. and the palestinians in our own country are saying death to americans, and our government does nothing about it --

host: when it comes to the effort for more funding for israel and ukraine, do you support that or not, when it comes to the house? caller: right now, i support money for israel. later on, we can support money for ukraine in a separate bill. host: ok. washington state democrat line. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to get back to this -- the first trump trial in new york. my thing is i want to direct everything right now and how he is being treated -- i know that everybody in the united states, we are all given that alien citizen right of due process of the law. i am viewing all this stuff, and as i am looking at this, in my lifetime -- i am almost 60 years

old. i've never seen all the inordinary special treatment and the extraordinary special treatment that donald j. trump is receiving, not just in new york that is happening right now, going to trial, but in all the other cases that he is looking at right now, in other states. he gets so much special treatment. he is being treated -- host: such as what? caller: ok, all these different motions come all these different processes -- time extensions. extensions by motions. he is over exhausting all these cases with a friend motions. he is going right down the line and delaying, delaying, delaying. if it was any other judge, another u.s. citizen of the

united states, if it was a you, me, or any other citizen, we would be given our due process of the law, but no judge, in all of these other cases and the one that is in trial right now, they are giving him -- like i just said, inordinary an extraordinary treatment - and extraordinary treatment. we would not be able to allow our lawyers to get all these different motions that are delaying, delaying, delaying. he has the money to do that. but any judge, if it was you, me, or any other citizen, they would say, you know what, we are not going to do any more delays. host: the washington post picks up from yesterday's events, saying when it comes to the judge himself in the courtroom saying that mr. trump's courtroom behavior has been the subject of intense speculation, particularly because he was so outspoken earlier this year in federal court when he was sued for sexual assault, the judge gave mr. trump a standard

warning that if he disrupted court or did not appear for trial, he could be punished and possibly sent to jail. mr. trump indicated he understood the judge's warning. those are some of the events yesterday. you can talk about the events or if you want to put your attention on capitol hill and its efforts to pass funding for ukraine and israel, if you want to comment on both, you can do both. you can reach out to us on the lines or on facebook and x, or text us at (202) 748-8003. in florida nick, republican line. caller: good morning. i finally stopped laughing -- that was a bit of a question you asked. such as what? if you want to trip up a liberal dummycrat, ask simple, concise question. "such as what?" and you turned him into a stuttering fool. good job there. second point they let me bring a dose of reality to c-span, which is something i know c-span does

not really like. let me explain how judges and courtrooms and witnesses and jury members, how it actually works. when i was in college, in the late 1980's, i was called jury duty. a buddy of mine from college, his older sister happened to work as a stenographer in the county courthouse that i was called to. she said to me, if you're there, look me up, maybe we will have lunch. so i happened to be brought into a jury room where guess who the stenographer is? her. i'm on the jury, all of a sudden, her, both attorneys, and the judge are having a conference, and they are looking at me. i was told, you do not communicate with her, you do not speak to her, no contact throughout this trial. she was the stenographer -- host: how does that relate to

yesterday? caller: that judge is so corrupt. the fact that he has not recused himself and the fact that he has not been removed -- he has a daughter who has a financial stake in donald trump being prevented from running and being prevented from being the president of the united states. i was a guy in college who had a buddy in college -- i had nothing to do with that trial other than being a witness. he had nothing to do with that trial other than taking down what was said in the courtroom. and when she passed me in the hall -- later on in that day, she passed me in the hallway. she cannot even say hello to me. not that i care, i did not know her that well. host: got the point. washington, d.c., democrat line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am well.

go ahead. caller: looking at this case -- i am not a fan of donald trump and donald trump should be charged with crimes that he did. but looking at this case in new york, this is all political. when he first announced he was going to run for president again on november 15, 2022, days prior to that, joe biden said, he will have to demonstrate he should not take power if he runs. i am making sure that, by legitimate efforts, he does not become the next resident again. when we look at all the characters involved -- matthew, who worked for biden's doj, and is now working with alvin bragg, and the judge and the daughter, both of them have conflict of interest. you can donate to biden, nothing wrong with that, but the

daughter, everything against her -- alvin bragg -- this is a federal charges. you are merging state and federal charges. you cannot do that. this is a nondisclosure agreement. trump used his own money, not campaign money. then we look at hillary clinton actually used campaign money to -- host: again, specifically, how does this relate to yesterday? caller: what i am looking at is this is a bogus case. i am not defending trump, but there is too much conflict of interest. there is no real charge. he is not authorized to charge, alvin bragg, and the only reason they are doing this is because he is running for president. just beat trump at the ballot box like a normal president. this stuff the biden administration is doing -- it is a form of cheating. i do not agree with that. host: independent line, john in

dearborn, michigan. caller: good morning. the ukraine and israel has me floored. it says to me we are truly an evil country, that we are doing this. let's start here. we do not have the money. we have great needs in this country. they say it helps our "defense industrial base," which i guess is the new term for the military-industrial complex. that is not a good argument. that's an amoral economic model. we make things off of killing people? that is not a good model -- host: so you're saying no funding for either ukraine or israel? caller: no. because it is not helping ukraine. there is no way they can win this war. they have already lost about half a million people. and all of our politicians are unregistered foreign agents for israel, as far as i am concerned.

our ally ship with israel is not in our interests. neither of these countries are democracies. host: israel and the middle east was part of mitch mcconnell's comments yesterday. here is a portion. [video clip] >> unfortunately, the second thing we saw was the commander-in-chief sticking to the same playbook, second-guessing the will of the israeli people and trying to tie the hands of an ally under attack. president biden insisted, ahead of iran's attack, that america's commitment to israel was ironclad. but after three years of appeasement and weakness and six months of quivering over israel's right to self-defense, i am not really sure who he

expects to believe that assertion. just saying so, saying our commitment is ironclad, does not make it so. words do not paper over the glaring rift between the biden administration and the national unity government in jerusalem. the public criticism of iran and israel by senior administration officials undoubtedly influences the decisions of israel's adversaries. it's the -- if the president's commitment to a vital ally were "ironclad," his response to this attack would not be to lecture our leaders against responding in self-defense. would an american commander-in-chief failed to

respond if an adversary launched 300 missiles at american soil? the fact that our collective defenses worked in this case does not obviate the threat. it does not make the need to compel iran to change its behavior any less urgent. host: france 24 reporting there was responses from the ukrainian president yesterday, saying in a post on telegram, zelenskyy saying to allies who had responded to ukraine's call for more air defenses saying the intensity of russian attacks -- by defending israel, the world has demonstrated such unity is possible but also the same as possible in defending ukraine, which, like israel, is not a nato member, from terror. you can talk about what is expected in the house this week, four separate bills, portions of

those bills dealing with ukraine and israel funding. if you want to talk about that and that effort or the armor president's hush money case yesterday, with jury selection currently underway, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. katie joins us on our republican line from michigan. hello. caller: hello. host: hi, you're on. caller: yes, am i on? host: yes, go ahead. caller: ok. what i have to say is trump has not done near as much as the kennedys did -- they had a woman killed. trump didn't. what does it hurt to pay

somebody hush money? it doesn't hurt a thing. and this here, the democrats have been against trump from the day he opened his mouth. and i think it is a shame that they are trying him for this hush money when the past presidents have done much worse than trump even thought of doing. look at biden. he hid papers, he hid boxes. they had that on tv, but he didn't get anything. just because the man's name is "trump," they're after him. they even wen in --

they even went in his home, when he wasn't there, and took those papers -- which is fine, he didn't care. host: ok. let's hear from robert in virginia, independent line. hi. caller: yes, good morning, everyone. all these people -- i am an independent. one thing that these people cannot see, they keep taking up for donald trump. you even had twentysomething generals write a letter to the court and tell them, do not elect this man. everybody keeps taking up for this man, they will -- host: let's stick to the specific hush money trial yesterday. what do you think about those proceedings? caller:i think the because if you cany're fab, try him, then

let everyone else out of prison and let them run for president. thank you for taking my calls. host: speaking of prison and charges and people in relation to january 6, that is one of those topics that are going to be taken up by the supreme court yesterday, with implications depending on the decision, not only for those involved or some of those involved in january 6 perhaps the former president himself. joining us to discuss that case before this up in court and its implications, kimberly robinson with bloomberg law. she covers the supreme court. thanks for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: can you set up who this case is being brought by and those locations regarding january 6? guest: this case was brought by a former who breached the capitol on january 6, 2021, or at least is alleged to have done that. he is one of many january 6

defendants who are challenging a specific charge that prosecutors brought against about 1 in 4 defendants. this particle or charge is one of the more serious charges the doj has used and carries a pretty hefty sentence of 20 years in jail. many of the january 6 defendants who have this charge brought against them are saying that prosecutors overreached when they brought it, and that is the issue. host: they center on the topic of federal obstruction and the statute being used to prosecute some of those. can you describe what that is and how it is usually applied? guest: so this was a broad law passed in the wake of the 2007 financial scandals. it was really passed in order to have it evidenced instruction by companies -- prohibit evidence destruction by companies. the broad point of the law was

to stop evidence destruction. but prosecutors have used these here, because it does prohibit impeding an official investigation. host: has the statute ever been applied in a similar way to other cases, as far as past law, and coded the applied -- is that something the justices will consider? guest: it is one of the tools prosecutors have in their toolbox. this law has come before the justices before, at least a different provision of it, when this up in court considered prosecution brought against a fisherman who had been charged under this law because he threw back fish. the government theory of the case was he destroyed fish that was evidence. it's a law prosecutors will use but has not been used in these particular circumstances. of course, january 6 was an

unusual circumstance itself, so it is not surprised -- a surprise prosecutors have gotten a little creative. host: talk about the sites that will be before the court today and what are the arguments either side will make. guest: we really see this case pulling the justices in two very different directions, particular from the conservative justices. the roberts court in article has been very concerned with prosecutors discretion, and prosecutors using these broad laws to bring creative prosecutions. famously, that fish case i mentioned, they reined in prosecutorial discretion. on the flipside, this is a really broadly written law, so it is a hard case for a conservative justice to have fidelity to the words of the statute, because it is written so broadly, and congress seemed to want to gather so much of the

activity here, that it really seems like this actually would fit within the law, at least the words of them. host: the court hearing this today, the decision aid later. talk about what it could mean not only for those prosecuted for the act of generally six itself but for the former president. guest: this is one of the charges brought against former president trump, and like many other defendants, it is not the only charge being brought against him, so it is not as if anybody will be getting out of jail if these charges are dismissed by the supreme court. but it does make the situation a bit harder for the doj. one interesting thing is special counsel jack smith seems to have already anticipated this. he dropped a footnote in a brief related to former president trump's immunity case that says, even if the court were to pull

back on the statute, they think they do have the kind of evidence that would be necessary to bring a chart under this particular statute, and they have others as well. host: that court case being heard today. other supreme court news, kimberly robinson -- news being made yesterday because of clarence thomas. can you describe what happened and is there an explanation yet? guest: sometimes it happens that all -- not all 9 justices are at oral arguments. it is pretty rare. typically what happens, particularly post-pandemic, justice will feed into the oral arguments through an audio stream. that did not happen yesterday with clarence thomas. shortly before oral argument, he we heard -- we heard he was not going to be sitting here there was no explanation, as we usually get, as to whether he was ill or suffered from travel plans. we do not know.

this up in court is not always the epitome of transparency, but it has told us in the past why a justice would not be in oral arguments, and that did not happen yesterday. we will watch if he is in the courtroom today. host: does that impact any coursework being done because of his absence? guest: not really. justices can participate based on the briefs and the transcript of oral arguments. as always, with the 9, we are closely watching everything they do and looking for any indication that they may not be feeling well or that something is awry. host: our guest, you can find her work at news.bloomberglaw.com. kimberly robinson, she covers the supreme court am here to talk about that case and related matters. thank you so much. guest: thanks so much. host: those oral arguments, if you are interested in listening to them as we get them from the supreme court, we take them and present them to you. you can go to our website at c-span.org, a special website

there dedicated to the supreme court and oral arguments made. you can find that at the website at c-span. you can talk about the trial against the former president in new york, you can talk about funding efforts on capitol hill. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 fors democrat. (202) 748-8002 for independents. let's hear from james, democrat line. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for giving me the time to speak my mind here. this started all the way back when former president trump asked a foreign country to open up an investigation on joe biden. he even said there was no wrongdoing. to create a problem for joe biden. of course, that was cleared. it's not proper to ask a former

-- for a former president to ask a foreign country to open an investigation when there is nothing there. of course, the whistleblower turned out to be a western spy that saw the transfer of money -- host: as far as relating to the hush money case yesterday, what do you think of those proceedings, and do you think a fair trial is possible there? caller: mr. trump sing this is a rack and all that, i hope the judge is firm about him being there every day, as he is supposed to. his outrageous conduct of going out and saying whatever his peace of mind -- unfortunately, he is protected by their freedom of speech, because he is campaigning across the country. even if it were not the truth, he can say all the lies he

wants, and the people are going to fall for it. i hope the procedure goes accordingly and the evidence will be submitted, and they will find out the truth. host: that is james in florida. andy in kentucky, republican line. caller: good morning ted i want to thank you for giving me the privilege of voicing my opinion and everything. this hush money and everything, i think it is disgusting. in this judge doing this, he needs -- i would give anything if the supreme court would take all this and drop it and clear mr. trump, because mr. trump has done nothing wrong. your previous caller, he needs to get his head out of the sand, because we have higher inflation, all due to mr. biden. the biden administration is so

corrupt -- it is pathetic. mr. trump, the four years he was in, we had a strong military defense. we, as christians, need to be praying for mr. trump. biden's the one who needs to be going home. we need to be praying mr. trump will prevail. that judge needs to be gone. and with the money with israel, we need to be supporting israel 100%. ukraine, we need to deal with them later. right now, we need to be standing with israel. it should not be a two state solution. that country has been settled, and the bible, with abraham, isaac, and jacob. host: you can look for the effort we told you about earlier, those four separate bills dealing with funding issues for ukraine and israel. taiwan in there, too.

we will watch for that to play out on the house side. on the senate side, later on today, the house is expected to deliver to the senate side of those articles of impeachment for the homeland security secretary, alejandra mayorkas. depending what the senate does with it, that is yet to be seen, but if you are interested in following along, stay tuned to c-span for that. when it comes to our senate impeachment coverage, after those articles are received -- this is the first step in that impeachment trial. the secretary accused of breach of trust and a the law on the southern border. whatever plays outdays ahead, on c-span 2. you can follow along on c-span.org and on the app, c-span now. let's hear from josephine in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: regarding the case in new york, there is a book out,

which i just became aware of, by berman, a former head of the southern district of new york, appointed by trump, who was fired by bar. what was the book about? exactly this case, where he was going to go out and indict from. it is ironic, but you all think he's innocent with stormy daniels -- it has nothing to do with that. the book is out there, the whole entire case. as far as the judge is concerned, when your wife and daughter are threatened by the former president, that's not freedom of speech. tahnk you. host: newsweek --actually come from another site, but it talks about lauren merchan -- loren merchan. this outing it is true that loren merchan served as president of authentic

campaigns, a firm that does digital campaign work, like online fundraising, mobile messaging, and web design. the firm has described connections to her on its site. the firm has disparaged drunk, including him being charged with crime -- the firm has disparaged trump, including him being charged with crime. we will hear from brad, next. caller: thank you. thank you for your independent coverage. i wanted to speak on the hush money case. i just want to let my fellow democrats know, and republicans no, that each state does have its own financial laws when it comes to keeping stuff on the books. can jurors be impartial? i believe they can.

i believe there are individuals who really care about this country and care about how things are settled in court, because everybody has their time to prove their case if they are innocent or guilty. host: thank you, brad. the washington post when it comes to the jurors themselves, has this fact in a story this morning, saying the former president will be able to be present during sidebar questioning of jurors, saying the jury selection process could get extra interesting as mr. trump's lawyers says he intends to be present for sidebar questioning of those possible jurors. that is complicated as where trump goes, the suga service does. the new york state has -- a criminal defendant in new york has the right to be present at all stages of questioning of potential jurors, including a

sidebar of jurors, so they can see jurors facial reactions to questions. therefore, trump could be deeply involved with the selection process. more on that washington post story. this morning, darlene louisiana, independent line. caller: ok, yes. trump's a liar. mcconnell's a liar. i think they should get out of israel, because this is a very prejudiced situation. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i hate to say it like this, but i think they've taken up for the jewish people. it's prejudiced. i do not like when they come in and talk about the swap, because that is degrading to my people. they should know better, because they have laws against this, and you should not be talking about any ethnic group like that, and

it is degrading. what i see up there is they think they are professional. people in suits and crooks. that program -- american greed. i think it is all legalized american greed going on. my kind of people, like dick durbin, blumenthal, the white house, because they are trying to set things straight. as far as the other ones, they should get rid of the republican party, because they are into money, and this country will never get straightened out. host: cammy is next in houston, democrat line. hi. caller: good morning. i hope you're doing well. please do not cut me off. i will make a couple of quick points, ok? i know that you are asking about

what we thought about what happened yesterday with the former president, donald trump. what i think is he is getting what he deserves. he broke the law. he has to go to court. he has to serve before the judge. when you break the law, you have to go, and you have to do due process. that is what happens. that is what happens to anybody who breaks the law -- host: well, he has been accused of breaking the law, to clarify the court process. but go ahead. caller: right, he has been accused of breaking the law, so he is going to court, just as people who are accused of wrecking the law do. and i notice you like to lean towards the republican side -- that is all i've been hearing calling in this morning. the people calling in to defend him, they know that donald trump has a reputation for being a liar, ok? that's all he's ever done, even when he held the presidency.

he cannot be trusted, ok? that is how i feel. he cannot be trusted. host: that's cammy in houston. republicans, democrats, independents, everyone is invited to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. express your thoughts on our social media sites on facebook and x. if you want to send texts, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. we ask you to put your name and city and state on that. elvin in massachusetts, independent line. hi. caller: how is it going today, man? host: go ahead, sir, you're on. caller: ok. my problem with all of this is we are talking about the law. we are not talking about anyone's presidency. we are talking about the law. if the people are breaking the

-- a law is a law. that's what they say. if the law is the law, our president needs to stand in court and face it. if not, if it's not, what's the sense of the law? that's all i've got to say. trump should be proud to stand there and defend himself. host: ok. that's elvin. elvin, thanks for calling. just a reminder to turn down your televisions, so the background is clean and we can have this conversation. one of the people talking about the events in the middle east yesterday was the iraqi prime minister, speaking with president biden, addressing those recent iranian airstrikes in israel. you can see the full event from the white house yesterday, but here is a portion. [video clip] >> before i begin, i want to

discuss some of the events that took place in the middle east the past weekend. >> [speaking another language] >> as you know, iran made an aerial attack against israel, and we mounted an unprecedented effort to defend israel. together, with our partners, we defeated that attack. >> [speaking another language] >> the united states is committed to israel's security. >> [speaking another language] >> we are committed to a cease-fire that will bring the hostages home and prevent conflict from spreading beyond what it already has. >> [speaking another language]

>> we are also committed to the security of our personnel and partners in the region, including iraq. >> [speaking another language] >> the partnership between iraq and the united states is critical. >> [speaking another language] >> we have seen come over the last decade, as our troops have served side-by-side to defeat isis. >> [speaking another language] host: again, president biden from yesterday, talking about those events in the middle east, particularly when it comes to israel. that full event, featuring the

iraqi prime minister, you can see it on our website, c-span.org and on our app. in texas, independent line. . vernon is next. caller: hi, how are you doing today? host: go ahead. caller: i am an independent. the way i see things, i just see it straightforward. what i see as we are not doing anything the american way. right now, we are in two different wars. we are doing all this different stuff, but we are not doing anything for americans. i live in a border state, which we have a big problem with, with illegal people, here. i think the democratic party is not doing anything for anyone in america that they should be doing stuff for. sorry, i am a bit nervous talking on this phone. by just want to say we need to go back to american values, american christian values. we are taking the christianity

out of america, that is the problem -- host: there is a debate going on in capitol hill when it comes to more funding for ukraine and israel. where do you stand on that? caller: i think we should just put our money into america. ukraine -- why should we put more money to ukraine or israel? we need to put money here, to america. host: ok. robert next up in indiana, republican line. hello. caller: good morning. i'm a reagan republican. i am not part of the kremlin part of the republican party. but i hear so-called patriots that really don't believe in the constitution, evidently, because trump being tried in new york is part of the constitution. we have an amendment, the sixth amendment, that is 230 years old, that says that the jury is to be chosen from the state and

the district where the crime is committed. so, you know, the republican has got to get back to obeying the law. we got to get back to the basics of the constitutions. -- the basics of the constitution. the sooner we put trump to the history pages, the sooner we get our party turned around and get back to conservative republican party. the reagan part of this party still believes that russia is our enemy. and, you know, if you've got someone putting it to your enemy, you want to give them all the tools they need to do it. russia just sent a ship toward the middle east. that ship has to go through the black sea. they desperately need the black sea.

that is why all the land they occupy in ukraine borders the black sea. the sooner we get them out of ukraine to control the black sea, the better off we will be in the future if we ever get into a conflict with russia -- host: does that mean you support additional funding for ukraine? caller: absolutely. we should have done the six months ago. why would you not? if we get in a world war, it is going to be with russia, china, iran. why would -- i mean, defense is not just guns. it's strategy for future conflicts -- host: where do you fall when it comes to funding for israel? caller: absolutely. now, israel are in a position where they can take care of themselves. but ukraine is not in that position. yeah, israel are just as important, but they are not in as desperate a need as ukraine.

and for the six of our sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters, for their safety and security, we need to be looking ahead, not just today. if we get in a worldwide conflict, we need to be in a position of strength -- host: ok. that is robert in indiana. let's here from dawnny in missouri, democrat line. caller: good morning. i was calling about the hearing yesterday with trump. my opinion is that trump is getting what he deserves. he is getting to go to court, plead his case. now, he had no problems with degrading hillary clinton about her husband's affair. but now he is at trial because of -- it is not hush money.

it is because he tried to do a cover-up to hide his dirty laundry. and now he has to answer for that. he paid off those women. if he hadn't done that, maybe we would have had a better opportunity to decide for ourselves if we really wanted him for president. especially after how he did hillary clinton with bill clinton's dirty laundry. as far as israel and ukraine, trump had a play with ukraine. if he hadn't held out that money, trying to get whatever he was trying to get from ukraine, maybe we might not have been in this situation. ukraine is a democrat state, along with israel. i think we should support them. i do not agree with the killing of the people in gaza, but we are supporting the democratic

states. i think we should do that -- host: ok. let's hear from joe in maine, independent line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. they were talking back and forth whether democrat, republican -- the funniest line i ever heard on c-span. i will talk about the subject, if you do not mind -- cut me off. cut me off -- host: i have not said anything before and i will not say anything now. as far as the trial or the israel case, go ahead, make your point. caller: i would like to say what i would like to say. the funniest line i ever heard in my life on this line was the fact they asked you if you went to trump university. i can understand why you do not want that -- host: caller, this has no relevance to the discussion on hand. i will give you one more chance to comment on either the hush

money trial yesterday or the money -- caller: trump full them not to come and they took it off a year and a half ago. a year and half ago. the republicans voted to support ukraine. that is what happened. you can deny it, you can do whatever you want, but the republicans voted to support it. donald trump told them, i got to get biden around going to go to jail for hundred years, he is in new york -- the guy who screams witch hunt. everyone is against me, trying to keep me from being president again, when he is running to be pardoned from 400 years of felony crimes -- host: ok. let's hear from ted in hawaii, democrat line. caller: good afternoon. it is still the day before. -- host: got you, sorry about that. [laughter] caller: anyway, before i get to

the trial thing, you are the most fair moderator that they got in that office. you do a great job, and i want to thank you for that. you are not biased at all, republican or democrat. you cut down the middle and do a good job. host: thank you for the comment. my colleagues, by extension, have the same role here. but go ahead. caller: you are right. you're absolutely right. i think what is going on in new york should be going on. i have been holding my breath for six or seven years, waiting for this to go on, so i am a very happy camper, as they say. i think things are going along fairly. we all just need to see what goes down in new york and abide with it, and in the end result of all this, we have a thing in the united states extremely fair. it is called voting. it kind of bypasses what we are going through right now and speaking one side or the other -- everybody has to vote, bottom

line. it will work out. host: enjoy the afternoon in hawaii there, calling and talking about either of those situations, either the case out of new york or the efforts on capitol hill when it comes to ukraine and israel. let's turn to jerry in virginia, you are next up. caller: good morning. first, on the israel funding, the house of delegates passed and israel funding bill more than a month ago. chuck schumer is sitting on his heels. he should put it on the floor for debate in the senate, just like the border security bill that they passed over a year ago. chuck schumer is sitting on it. you want someone to blame for this stuff, chuck schumer is your man. and as far as the trump trial, what trump date is his business. that is between him and his wife.

supposedly, this trial is about election interference. i never saw anyone charged with interference from the fbi, cia. joe biden and the main media said the laptop was -- host: one more call. independent line. caller: trump was a failure as the president, mainly because he tried to divide this country and , probably typical in his personal life as well, he really only cares about himself. it is just a shame that so many people believed him hook, line, and sinker. it is amazing he has the support he has. no funding for israel. they are not a democracy.

supporting them unconditionally is not in the best interest of the united states. our senate and house members, it is almost like they are connected themselves. they need to remember who they represent. that is the united states. we already find israel at billion dollars a year. ukraine, i think, needs our support. thank you. host: robert, last call from nashville, tennessee on this question this morning, the topics. thank you for all who participated. coming up, two guests joining us of the course of the morning. we will hear from cook political report senior editor david wasserman about the political environment and races to watch heading into the fall elections. later on, the wall street journal's chief correspondent

nick timiraos on >> watching c-span coverage of the annual white house correspondent dinner april 27 with saturday night live weekend update cohost as a featured entertainer as well as president biden expected to give remarks. coverage at 6:00 p.m. eastern. journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. sights and sounds from inside the ballroom for the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner live saturday, april 27 on the c-span networks. >> since 1979, in partnership

with the cable industry, c-span has invited complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings . c-span gives you a front row to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's store. browse products, apparel, home to core and accessories. something for every c-span fan and every purchase support our nonprofit organizations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.

>> the house will be in order. >> celebrate 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, taking you to where the policies are debated and supported by the american cable company. at c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the first guest of the morning is david wasserman with the cook political report, senior editor to talk about campaign 2024 and issues at hand. good morning. guest: good morning. host: as to who controls the house and senate after november, but what are we seeing? guest: a fascinating race. democrats only need four seats

to pick up the house majority. right now the outlook is shaky for president biden and democrats. the outlook in the senate is fairly bleak with democrats playing defense. in the house, there is a ray of hope for democrats and right now the count is 220 one republican and 214 democrats effectively. there are a few vacancies. for seeds would get the democrats to 218. there are republicans in the house that have areas that voted for president biden. two states where democrats underperformed in the 2022 midterms, new york and california. the question of the split ticket voting dynamic. how many voters will vote strategically to balance their tickets. we saw this dynamic in 2016 and

2020 with the polls heading into election day. those cycles showed democrats with a healthy need and a number of independent voters in swing districts decided that if democrats are going to hold the white house, maybe it is worth investing in a more conventional republican then donald trump down ballot to make sure democrats don't go too far left. republicans had a decent year in 2016 holding the house and picked up a dozen house seats in 2020. the question this year is, are voters who are uncomfortable with the prospect of donald trump returning to the presidency, are they going to invest in a democrat down ballot as a means of trying to restrain trump from going too far in his direction. host: if i read the brake town from your organization, lesson -- 11 tossup's, what are the

races to watch in those states you describe? guest: if you add up all of the races in the cook political report ratings that lean toward the democrats, there are 200 three seats. if you do add up the ones that lead toward republicans, there are 210 seats and then we have tossup's in the middle that could go either way. democrats would need to win two thirds of them for the majority but in 2022, they did and waited -- did win reporters. we are looking at a very narrow battlefield where 5% of americans are going to be voting in those tossup districts. some of the races we are watching are in new york's 17th a district where a republican freshman, michael lawler come up

against a democrat who used to represent a good chunk of the seat. lawler has been trying to carve out the anti-marjorie taylor greene lane of the house public conference. he stood up for kevin mccarthy during the speakership fight and has also tried to secure a lot of funding for local projects that the district has a number of infrastructure needs in the hudson valley. this will be a fascinating race. we are watching in california a number of races both in the l.a. area and central valley. one of the key races is in the riverside county where republican ken calvert who has held the seat since 1992 is in a race against a democrat who came within six points of it beating him in the midterms. he is raising a lot of money in the palm springs area that has

been trending toward it democrat. it is going to be one of the highest dollar fights in the state. host: a new speaker who has to fund raise. how does that factor into dividing the money into defending seats? guest: one of the reasons why democrats are moral or bullish on the house is that republicans have had a mess. it took 15 votes to elect a speaker and only 3% to overthrow kevin mccarthy. and now mike johnson is not only short on experience but also short on republican. kevin mccarthy resigned. both democrats and republicans teamed up to expel george santos. at the current juncture, republicans can only afford to lose one vote on any piece of legislation. to get to the finish line along

party lines. the key question in the coming weeks is will mike johnson be able to keep his job if a ukraine aid package comes to the floor. marjorie taylor greene is obviously holding the vote -- motion to vacate over his head. although it is difficult for democratic strategists to make republican dysfunction in the house a campaign issue in and of itself, what democrats tell me is they hope this chaos gives the extreme message that they hope to run against republicans in districts and trying to tie it to abortion man's and -- ban and former president trump's rhetoric. host: we are told from people as particularly women in suburban districts when it comes to those

issues important to them that may factor into how they vote this coming november, abortion on the top of that list. 39% expecting that sentiment and immigration and the economy following that. you talked about abortion but immigration and the economy as how people will pull levers, how does that factor in? guest: there is no doubt the president is underwater on immigration and the economy. the nbc news poll that came out showed that by more than 30% voters felt that donald trump would do a better job than joe biden when it came to securing the border. on the economy, donald trump had a 22 point lead. abortion was the only issue where biden held a double-digit lead at 44-32. democrats are fearful of what this means down ballot. there is a blueprint for democrats to be able to outrun joe biden's approval rating in pulling numbers.

it was new york's third district where there was a special election in february where the democrat thomas whatley was able to confront democrats greatest weakness head on in the race against the republican. he decided he was going to show up at events criticizing the biden administration on immigration and that he would not only say his own party had fallen short but to blast republicans, particularly donald trump, for killing a senate immigration compromise bill. what we have not seen the president do on a daily basis is adopt that same strategy. great sports players know how to turn defense into offense and right now the president and his campaign by trying to make

abortion the centerpiece of his reelection campaign are kind of risking glossing over voters concerns about affordability, high interest rates and the situation at the border. there are potential dividends if democrats were to point the finger for killing that as a package to get done right away. host: david wasserman is the guest. if you want to ask him about the races, you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. these are the seats to watch,

the center tour out of montana, nevada, io and arizona has an open seat. work through those as far as what to watch for. guest: democrats have no edge but one seat is already gone which is west virginia where jim justice is a strong front runner to replace joe manchin. if republicans win the white house, then they will also win the senate because a 50-50 senate and the tie is broken by the vice president. democrats not only have to hold the white house but run the table on their own seats and there are a lot of vulnerable democratic seats varied at the top is ohio and montana. sherrod brown and the montana is the only one who can hold the seat. they will run populist campaigns

against wealthy republican businesspeople in ohio. these are going to be very personal negative at races and we will see if they can outrun joe biden because they might need to buy 10 points or more to be able to win reelection. the other two races in the southwest that we have in the tossup column are arizona and nevada. i think democrats did get some good news in arizona. she announced she will not run and this makes it a two way race. republicans in d.c. are more resigned than excited.

we have a better opportunity to win those voters that were present in a three-way contest. in nevada, the senate editor wrote a great ratings article moving the race to a tossup and republicans are bullish on their candidate sam brown who is likely to win the primary to face jacky rosen. nevada is a very trendy state. a lot of the electorate is new. jacky rosen is not a well-established brand in nevada. the harry reid machine got one across the line but pulling shows -- pulled out -- polling

-- casey is and an open seat in michigan where republicans like their front runner candidate mike rogers a lot. there are many possible routes to a senate majority. the main question is, what is the republican margin because if it goes from 51-41, the swing votes go from kyrsten sinema to joe manchin to perhaps susan collins who are functionally more like independence. if republicans win a majority, then donald trump if elected would have much more leeway to confirm cabinet appointees and pass an agenda. host: this is mike in indiana, independent line. caller: i couldn't vote for a democrat or republican right now.

they blame stuff on people and it is not true. the person when they talked about trump and election interference and this trial about him having these documents and biden having them, the one that is responsible for it is the people that take care of it, the cia, fbi, and they should be a reason when they do something like that, they should be the ones who go to jail. host: to the degree the former president's legal issues deep into the congressional race,

what do you think? guest: it is not clear that they will or be front of mine with voters while casting ballots. when we look at the polling surrounding donald trump's problems, it 53% of voters believe trump has committed crimes. but 18% of those voters are planning on looking for donald trump anyway. i think this election is going to come down to what i would call the add-on electorate, the people who did not show up in 20 or 2020 for primaries but are going to show up this fall. there are 112 million who showed -- 112,000 -- 100 and 12 millions who showed up and more will cast ballots. who are the 40 million to 50 million additional voters.

they are younger and more diverse and are more blue-collar and less college educated but they identify as independents or unaffiliated and they are disillusioned with both candidates and the two system as a whole. you have a major flirtation with third-party candidates who are essentially vehicles for protest by these voters against -- between trump and biden. rfk junior in many polls is getting younger voters. although rfk junior appears to be perhaps even with perhaps trump and biden, we notice other

third-party candidates pulling more from biden because they are in the anti-protest lane. that could lower trump's threshold for victory as much as 44% to 45%. the question is how did they vote down ballot? they are up for grabs. host: richard joins us from georgia, and democrats line. caller: reference the young folks not voting, i believe the gen z folks have spoken up like they did with demonstrations throughout the city like they did in san francisco and others. on inflation, the corporate american greed is killing america. i saw a story last year where the ceo of kellogg was on a conference call saying they will intentionally raise prices to keep inflation going.

the president listening to the young folks referencing the war in iraq, he has to get a handle on that. as a whole -- poll worker and i know that they are good and safe and secure. the president needs to look at the congressman for the seat in long island recently because, the democrats need to learn to go on offense and stop playing defense and listen to the gen z folks. guest: the caller touched on the conflict in the middle east and this is one that is preventing joe biden to getting back to the

2020 level of support among young voters. no question he needs to replicate his margin among young and nonwhite voters to have a good chance of being reelected. he won non-white voters 70 percent to 23% and 18 to 29, with a 22 point margin. now the new york poll that came out, joe biden was only leading nonwhite voters 62% to 30%. he was only leading 18 to 29 by two points, which wouldn't cut it. it would probably preclude his path to winning reelection. i think a lot of it does have to do with the thermometer reading

for biden right now among young voters on college campuses and dissatisfaction with his policies toward israel and gaza and also disillusionment with the political system as a whole and the candidates considering their age. host: james is in illinois, independent line. caller: i was just wondering. i don't understand the blind following of israel that the united states put themselves in the position of and why are we getting involved in this when they clearly attacked iran and everyone knows it. i don't know why the media is putting on the spin that israel should retaliate when they were the aggressors. when are we going to stop blindly following this country?

it is an apartheid state and that is totally obvious. if you say something about it, you are anti-semitic. when is it going to stop? host: speaker johnson attempts to get funding for israel and on other fronts this week. guest: it is a thorny issue for him to handle. israel is an issue that unites republicans and has increasingly divided democrats. that is why the president and democrats hope it is not the focus of the november campaign. host: in the usa today, another related topic with redistricting taking a look at the state of alabama. it says voter turnout for the democratic primary in the second congressional area was high since the district allowed the party to pick a key seat according to the national redistricting foundation, 57,129

ballots cast on super tuesday. that is one state that has to deal with the issue. what other states are dealing with redistricting coming into november? guest: five states have redone but -- redrawn boundaries. usually most states are done with the process in the year following the census. although we have had redistricting in the past but higher this time. north carolina has always been house republicans insurance policy because they flipped control of the north carolina supreme court to gop control in the midterms. that essentially green lit the republican legislature re-gerrymandering the boundaries to wipe to four democratic seats off the map. democrats got news when the u.s. supreme court interpreted the

voting to mean that there should be an additional block majority seat in alabama -- black majority seat in alabama. a new second district in alabama that stretches from montgomery to mobile and the seat is a democratic pickup. the same with louisiana's newly reconfigured fifth district from shreveport to baton rouge. tonight there is going to be a runoff to determine which democrat will be the nominee in alabama's second district and also new york has redrawn its congressional map as well resulting from a democrat push to win a more favorable map than the current. the changes in the empire state

were mild. democrats have better opportunities in syracuse held by a republican and the map shores up the special election on long island. out of all of these states, the most competitive district will be in the north carolina first congressional district. republicans redrew to be more of a swing seat although historically it has been a black majority that has elected a democrat consistently since 1992. the freshman incumbent is a former small town mayor, presbyterian minister, air force veteran, a great profile for the seat. the republican nominee is a retired army colonel and this will be a close race all the way through to election day. host: david wasserman from cook

political report joining us. joseph, new jersey, republican line. caller: i want to make a comment and then ask a question. i just want to say, you talk about kari lake and conspiracy theories. in 2016, hillary clinton spied on trump, the fbi use the information illegally to undermine him. that was the campaign contribution and she never used it. trump with the statute of limitations it should be dismissed. this guy in new york is eight district attorney and don't know if he knows that. you are telling me i am supposed to believe everything the government tells me about the elections when this is right in

front of my face? they are going to put trump in jail for this? tell me, why should i trust my government? host: ok. guest: the more operative question is, why should anyone believe the conspiracies that one side is putting forward about election administration, particularly when there are many layers of safeguards in place to ensure votes are counted fairly and accurately. our errors sometimes committed? absolutely. are they caught? absolutely. in the case of kari lake, she was found liable for defamation in a suit brought forward by the american recorder that administers elections there and is currently in the damages

phase of that entry is currently any damages phase of that case to determine what she is liable for. if she hadn't embraced theories that were blatantly false, you would be in a much stronger position for her senate bid. these theories brought forward about ballot printing are so preposterous. the losers of these elections did not like the election results. it is worth keeping in mind the same state by state, county by county authority that affirms donald trump's victory in 2016 affirmed joe biden victory at 2020. i have faith in our administrators at the local level to conduct a fair and

accurate election. that is really all any of us have in a democracy. host: it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to ask questions of david wasserman of cook political report. from ohio, this is william, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, good morning, pedro, mr. wasserman. i am 88 years old. i don't know how to turn a computer on. i know a little bit about money, which is going to be eliminated with the bitcoin, but it is the shame that our government is not a government, everything is a givernment, who's got the most money? and the republicans blame the democrats, the democrats blame

the republicans, but they both have their back pockets aligned with money. and the poor, dumb people like me don't stand a chance. host: that is william from ohio. you brought this up earlier, but this is mlb saying, i guess seeing jon tester or sherrod brown losing their senate seat. mr. wasserman, go ahead. guest: yeah. the polls in both contests show the democratic combines with very strong approval ratings. keep in mind that donald trump won montana by healthy double-digit margins by both times, he won ohio by eight points each times. yet sherrod brown, jon tester, their approvals are at least in the 50's. when they are matched up against their likely republican opponent in the case of montana

indefinite republican opponent in ohio, they are in the high 40's most of the time, leaving by single digits against the republican opponent. i'm referring meddling to the republican polling that has been released but also the trident polling that takes stock of where these races stand to each other. moreno is a little less well-known than the democratic incumbent. by the time we get closer to november, be expect these races to tighten up considerably. there's increasingly high-level of -- voting, and in 2020, there was only one senate see that went the opposite wake of a

presidential race that with names. i don't believe anyone went opposite in 2022, so it will be a real test to see whether they can appeal to enough crossover voters, particularly blue-collar voters who dislike the direction of the democratic party. host: just to give the folks at home a flavor of how that is passing out, attacking bernie moreno,. his. [video clip] >> bernie moreno, here it is. >> i don't know if we can trust you. >> bernie would overrule ohio voters to pass an absolute abortion ban. >> no exceptions. >> he does not believe the minimum wage should exist. he would repeal the affordable care act.

two build to seville -- the bill to support the border, he called it -- >> complete garbage. >> and he was sued by employees because he did not pay them overtime they earned. >> you shredded those documents because it helped to bernie moreno, not employees. >> this is a matter of trust. >> republicans don't trust bernie moreno, why should you? host: again, that was from the senate democrats. to show you the other side, the folks at home, this is from americans for prosperity action, an ad for supporting there -- bernie moreno. [video clip] >> the cost of living, still skyrocketing. our border, dangerously open. . typical politicians have failed us. bernie moreno is no politician, a self-made man fighting for the american dream, because he has lived it. moreno will fight to bring down costs, secure jobs, and secure

the border to protect our children. ohio, we deserve results, and bernie moreno is responsible for getting that done. host: mr. wasserman, those are probably not new to you as far as the ads are concerned, but what do you make of those messagings? guest: democrats have ads going on because they have been able to stockpile for reelections, as republicans have new candidates in the mix. that gives them the opportunity to be able to define moreno and another before they can introduce them and define themselves into voters. in ohio, the abortion has been a flashpoint, and we have seen ohio vote by a large margin, double-digit, to enshrine access

to abortion into the state constitution. democrats know that biden is unlikely to win the state. they can try to reframe the senate race around the abortion issue, because moreno had to get past the primary by taking a pretty conservative stance on the issue. in arizona, democrats are also very bullish about making that senate contest and the presidential contest there a referendum on the state supreme court's anticipate -- interpretation that an 1854 abortion law should be the law of the state for now, which is highly unpopular with voters. and so, you know, although nationally, democrats may struggle to frame the presidential race around the issues, those are two states where it really stands out. host: let's hear from jim in

florida, republican line for david wasserman. caller: good morning. have two quick questions. one is a theory of why trump has a good chance. trump will get all the same or more of those he got in 2020. but by then i don't think will get the same amount of votes that he got in 2020, because of his record in the past four years. so that, i think, would lean toward trump. one other quick question, how in the world does tester continue to win in montana, where it is such a strong republican state?

that is my question. thank you. guest: your second question first, you know, there is a stronger track record of small states reelecting popular incumbents, regardless of party. this trend, you know, has not been as robust in recent years, as everything has become nationalized, but, you know, you still have a republican senator in maine. you have democratic senators, at the moment, in west virginia and montana, and that is a legacy of these incumbents engaging in retail politics and knowing their state at a real grassroots level. jon tester, even though he is not exactly a conservative democrat, as far as his voting record, in fact he has been rather progressive, he has a brand of progressive populism that plays well, taking on large

corporate interests and reminding voters that he is a dirt farmer from big sandy montana. he's got the flat haircut, he's lost his fingers in an accident. the jury is really out on tim sheehy, who is a first-time candidate. republicans knew they needed to avoid nominating republican matt rosendale, who was tester's challenger in 2018. democrats called him maryland matt. democrats will attack tim sheehy out-of-state, but sheehy will put forward his military record as widely spent so much time living out of state. we will see what voters believe.

host: this is anthony, independent line. caller: i used to be a lifelong democrat, and i do know about voter fraud and election fraud. . a story out of arizona, where you criticize someone for embracing election conspiracies, this just happened. a representative named milling hernandez in arizona dropped out of the race in legislative district number eight when david , a republican, who ran a successful campaign in 2020, challenge the validity of the signatures or candidacy for the ballot, and she dropped out ahead of the hearing on thursday, admitting that the signatures were fake, and i think our moderator straight down the middle, and if our

country ever wants to get to the truth about the elections, i would like to see our moderator pull-up an article come about melanie hernandez in arizona dropping out of the race because she had fake signatures. host: ok, anthony in las vegas. mr. wasserman, if you want to respond. guest: yeah. i think we need to separate the case that hand here. there are cases where candidates have turned in signatures to qualify for the ballot that had been found to be in that invalid. this has happened with candidates in either party. in many cases, candidates hire contractors to collect petition signatures to get them to qualify for ballots. most of the time, candidates

make sure to collect far more petition signatures than are necessary to get on a ballot. that is not the same as casting aspersions on the validity of votes cast. we need to be careful about conflating the two. host: mr. wasserman, before we let you go on, there is a twitter feed, a posting about the accuracy of the rating you do and how that is tracked over the years. what was found? guest: one of the exciting projects we embarked on is 40 years worth of our cook political report archives. we looked back at our ratings of elections over the years and found that, you know, races that we had in our lean r or lean d, they do go the way that

they were leaning. there are only two that went the other way, both under very unique circumstances. but i goes to show that perhaps we are a little bit conservative about the races, with a small c, we put at the top of column. we try and make clear which party is the favorite in every district and state, but we also don't, you know, throw ourselves under the bus when we do see a surprise on election night, because that is what keeps this job interesting. host: cook political.com is the website. david wasserman is senior editor and elections analyst. always a pleasure. mr. wasserman, thank you. guest: thank you, pedro. host: coming up in about a

half-hour, we will talk with all street journal's" nick timiraos come of first, it is open forum. if you want to contribute, (202) 748-8001 for republican, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls in open forum when "washington journal" continues. >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> saturday, watch american history tv, congress major investigations in our country's history by the u.s. house and senate. each, authors and historians will tell the stories, we will see historic footage from the period, and we will study legacies. the mccarthy area hearing, the

first televised hearing. the senate committee had explored whether communists had infiltrated the state department, the army, and elsewhere. it ended up in the senate censure of senator joseph mccarthy for his actions. watch congress investigates saturday on c-span2. ♪ c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here are some highlights from key moments. >> racial profiling has to stop, mr. speaker. just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum. the bible teaches us, mr. speaker -- >> the member will -- >> these words -- >> the member will -- >> these words --

>> the chair must -- >> but to do justly, to love mercy, and to love humbly with your god. and with the new testament, these words, the spirit of the lord is upon me because he has anointed me -- >> the gentleman will suspend -- >> to proclaim freedom -- >> c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. host: again, the phone lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and (202) 748-8002 for independents. one thing to watch out for on the set aside this week is how they will treat impeachment proceedings and the house.

the associated press saying how speaker mike johnson is sending the impeachment charges against ella hydro mayorkas -- alejandro mayorkas to the senate today, take a look at allegations that the secretary refused to enforce immigration laws. the proceedings may not last long, and howeverthey onhe set-aside on c-span2,y out oday, as those impeachment articles are brought over. you can follow along at the website on c-span.org. or, if you want, you can watch those proceedings play out at c-span now. let's hear from john in minnesota, independent line on this open forum. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: it seems like you have been in a good mood lately, so i just want to say i'm happy for you. i want to put out a psa to all the viewers.

that person with the fire alarm, that means your battery is low, and you've got to change that. it is really important, so you don't die in a house fire. you have a good day, pedro. host: let's hear from peter in east st. louis, illinois. hello. hanged up, hung up. again, if you want to call incoming you can do that. you can send us texts if you wish, as you can follow up on the phone lines if you want to come on this open forum. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. the "wall street journal" takes a look at the drone strikes in israel this weekend. the efforts to build an integrated airstrike system gains momentum. after the abraham accords,

brokered by the trump administration, which established formal ties between israel and the united arab emirates and bahrain, two years later, it shifted from european command to central command, a move that enabled greater military cooperation with era governments under u.s. auspices. and in march of 2022, marine general frank mckenzie, the top u.s. commander in the region, convened a secret meeting between leaders of israel and arab countries to coordinate against iran's growing missile capabilities. again, that is in the "wall street journal," if you want to read it there. glenda is on our line for democrats. caller: i used to be called a rockefeller republican in the northeast. it has gone the way of the dinosaurs, but nonetheless, we are people who were socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

they went the way of the yellow dog democrats. but my point is this, those of us who call every day and who watch the show every day are very much into the politics right now. but most of the country isn't, a nd the polls that mr. wasserman is speaking of and the races that have yet to really develop are still centered around two key issues, and it is, of course, the abortion issue and voting rights. and i really feel as though, he was just speaking of the senate races and different ones, i think they are going to come down to voter turnout, and i think if we don't get turnout, on both sides of the aisle, then we are just -- everything is up for grabs. host: do you think there's going to be an intense increase in

voter turnout, and apathy in voter turnout this time around? what do you think? caller: i think we are going to see women turnout, and i think that our youth and our hispanic voting block, we are in danger of having them sit on their hands and just stay home and see what happens, because there's so much discouraging, you know, the israeli conflict, the ukrainian conflicts, the palestinians -- it is almost too much for people who don't watch this closely to actually pull a lever. so i think we are going to see a mixed bag. host: go ahead, i'm sorry. caller: women will turnout, and the youth and hispanic voting blocks commit up for grabs. host: let's hear from rosalyn or

russell in arizona, democrat. caller: have you seen reports about how progress and other major food companies are making record profits this year? have you compared to inflation? if it is just inflation that has you paying so much at the grocery store, how are they reporting such record profits, i guess, and how does that play in? host: i don't know if a specific answer is forthcoming, but if you stick around for our next guest coming up at 9:15 this morning, nick timiraos from the "wall street journal" talks about inflation, has reported on it for many years paid i will try to ask that question for that angle and see how he answers pete i invite you to stick around and listen for that. damien in california, republican line. hello. caller: thanks, pedro, thanks, c-span. what is going on at the border's

demographic change. letting all -- all these illegals come in, they will vote democrat. the turkish incursion in syria, this happened in israel, the former settlements, international outrage. where is the international outrage on the u.s. border? we cannot allow the demographics to change. thank you. host: to the degrees you listen to polls and what they get out, anyone from the "new york times ," siena college, here's the headline, and some voters minds, trump presidency now looks rosier. many voters remember trump as a divisive and polarizing figure, giving low ratings on race relations, get a larger share of voters see mr. trump's term is better for the country than the the current administration, compared with

25% to say about the same for mr. biden, nearly half say that the biden years have been mostly bad for this country. again, the "new york times," siena college with that pole, if you want to find it online. diane is next, knoxville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to know why is the house taking orders from an ex-president? soon to be charged with felony charges. and the reasons for all of the disruption that is going on in this country is because of trump and his antics. he has brought forth racism out in the open and made it "proper." and those people that are afraid

, other people coming in, if you would treat everybody the way you want to be treated, you would not be afraid. and i want to say thank you. host: bernard is next, california, independent line, hello. caller: pedro, wonderful show, again. yes, about the top, i want to speak about judge collins recusing himself on all of the january 6 stuff. he's saying that he's missing in action, i don't know, he might be pitching a fit because many of his colleagues won him to recuse himself, and he don't want to do it. but you got a judge admitting that he is on a tape and that, you know, he's saying that that

is what they taught him, that when he came to the supreme court -- i'm like, who taught you that? say their name, i mean, you know, so he's getting money from people, these guys got that guy. so he's in a pickle. the best thing for him to do is to go into the witness protection program and let him know what is going on, because this guy is not no gangster. but them people got audio, video, fingerprints on everything they did with him. so i don't know what he's going to do. host: ok, that is bernard in california. again, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002.

plenty of comments on the senate floor yesterday regarding those attacks toward israel from iran over the weekend. one of the people making those, some of the senate majority leader chuck schumer. [video clip] sen. schumer: iran's reprehensible attack against israel has made things very clear for first, israel is surrounded by adversaries who seek its destruction. we saw that october 7. we see that again this weekend could we dare not waver in our commitment to help israel defend itself from those threats. second, that so many nations came to israel's aid, including arab nations, show iran is becoming more and more isolated. iran should be swiftly and quickly condemned. they are provoking a wider conflict in the middle east, and we cannot have that. i am pleased that many nations banded together and held the line against the iranian regime.

third, israel's attack, says the best way is for the house to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental. the house must rush to israel's aid as quickly as humanly possible, and the only way to do that is passing the supplemental asap. there's no reason for the house not to move on the senate supplemental as soon as today, yesterday, i got on the phone with the president, with speaker johnson, leader mcconnell, and leader jeffries, and made it clear that the uncertainty and delay over the supplemental has to end. if house republicans put the senate supplemental on the floor i believe it would pass today, reach the president's desk tonight and israel would get the aid it needs. if house republicans put the supplemental on the floor i believe it would pass on the

floor and reach the president's desk by tonight. if they could finish the task by the end of the day, why wait? host: speaker johnson planning to release bills federally funding the efforts of ukraine and israel. you can follow along on c-span1, you can go to c-span.org or our app. up next we hear from shonda. caller: i just want to make a connection between defense. i will try not to cry. one of our citizens was shot and killed last week watching a basketball game and he was one of the 14 teens shot and killed.

i have lost four siblings in the past years to gun violence and i am so tired. the other day i was pretty upset. if i am breathing this hard over losing a handful of kids, i can imagine how people feel in palestine and around the world. over 12,000 children have died that we know of. the same things happen over here but on a smaller scale. this world is exceptionally cruel right now. it is hard to live knowing that these many rights go out because people want to wage war instead of what our children reach adulthood.

five kids between 14-17 are dead to god because we can't get rid of guns and we arsenic more weapons to israel. i don't see how people are saying this. that's all i have to say. host: we will hear from mike and prescott on the independent-minded. caller: another good morning for america. how many more worse is he going to start? why don't democrats and biden say something about the protest blocking bridges? biden is bringing these people in they come in from across the world murder on american soil and taking our rights away.

the protesting is wrong. it's like the riots in 2020 when they burned down america. it is wrong. the vice president goes into an abortion center. host: mike in nebraska with the april 15 deadline for filing taxes tax information about the president and first lady they earned 600 $19,000 for adjusted gross income in 2023 and they filed jointly and paid 146,000 and federal income tax for federal rate of 26%. the first lady paid in virginia.

dr. biden earned from northern virginia community college where she teaches english and writing. gail in tallahassee, florida. caller: yes. i wanted to bring attention to a great documentary i found online. it is on youtube. if you type in hidden reality and click the circle and press all videos and search down to the bottom and look for the video that says jfk-911.

everything is a rich man's trick. it will tell you how we have been lied to by the media. it is three hours long but it tells you everything you need to know about our government. it's a great documentary for everyone to watch. host: heather in west virginia on the democrats line. host: rachel in minnesota on the independent-minded. caller: these are the kings that joshua conquered. joshua gave to the tribes of israel. in their mountain country and the low of the jordan playing.

that's all i have to say. host: how does that relate? caller: i'm running for president. host: rufus from illinois. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and i note israel has the right to defend themselves. you know, somebody needs to investigate war crimes. when this many kids and innocent civilians get killed. israel has a right to defend themselves but all of these kids, is terrible. i am a veteran. host: rufus calling in on this open forum.

the numbers are (202) 748-8001 for republicans, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. you heard from senator schumer on the floor in yesterday's senator tom cotton and his perspective on it. [video clip] >> imagine america getting missile shot at our homeland and telling us not to respond. it is up to netanyahu about how and when they respond. it's hard that this will steal the resolve. more than 100,000 missiles and rockets on their own and tolerate iran with a nuclear

weapon. the question for us in america is not so much what israel would do but what president biden would do? he said he wants a diplomatic solution and i have a few recommendations. he keeps giving 10 billion and sanctions to iran and he should resend those. he should work with our european partners and get the snapback sanctions and fully enforce sanctions against iran's shipments of oil. this would put iran on the back foot without him to take a step anywhere and use the american military to defend american mentors. host: one of the discussion

taking place on the house side when it comes to passing funding legislation but the reaction of the senate as well. for more information as a place out. you can watch it on c-span.org. caller: you have your hands full today and i do appreciate you and i appreciate all of you. you guys put up with kooks like me. they should give the money to ukraine. i know, i don't know how to say this.

not just give the money. i know a lot of it goes to different parts and they always say things like the pentagon gets too much money. our country is under threat right now and we don't know about it. if we let putin going your. israel is our -- israel is near jerusalem. the other thing about the president, i have a concussion from trying to make this work.

i think what they should do is let either president, trump or biden. give them respect and president trump he committed a felony by lying in court. i looked that up on msnbc. i think they should both not be able to run and maybe we can get someone in there who doesn't have millions and millions of dollars and attract people who want to overthrow. i won't say overthrow the government.

we need to get somebody in there and people in their and we have to get it together or we are going to lose our -- i don't personally want to go back to be subservient. i am a woman. i am an american. i'm not a republican or a democrat. host: bella in indianapolis. caller: i just wanted to say i really appreciate what president biden is doing with canceling student loan debt. i think that's a great thing for students across the country. as a future teacher i want to see it continue to more generations of students of my students not have to worry about

incurring loan said never be able to own a home. that is a huge problem and i frankly don't understand why people on the right are against student loan cancellation. its opening doors for millions of college students. host: on the republican mind, you are up next. caller: just want to let you know i commend you for the level of her straight you show every day. it is truly a thing to behold. just wanted to say and it will ruffle a lot of feathers but as a republican in the state of florida i won't be voting for trout due to the fact that i really don't want to deal with the headache of the day-to-day that was the previous administration and defending him at every turn to the people i talked to.

i have the blessing of liking politics too much but i don't want it in the front forward where they are in front of cameras. host: if not the former president who is your choice? caller: i want to vote it's gonna be biden. especially when his wife is trying to stop him when he tries to do too much work but that shows me something. at that age i will not be expecting you to catch every single thing in the 300 or 1000 word lecture or speech. you are going to fumble you are at that age.

i'm not like everybody else who was quick to, he has dementia. i am just a guy right now who has really come to understand levelheaded people back at my house. host: that's the last call in this open forum. thank you to those who participated. our last segment of the day we look at the current state of inflation and joining us on how it impacts people from the wall street journal who write specifically on the topic. that is when "washington journal," continues. >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our studentcam documentary. this year we asked students to

look forward while considering the past. they were given the option to look 20 years into the future or past and in response we received inspiring documentaries from over 3200 students on top of a reward for 5000 prize. their compelling documentary innocence help hostage. it is evident in the next 20 years the u.s. needs to put policy on all americans traveling to iran. the united states will no longer have to participate in negotiations with iran. to watch top documentaries on c-span or any time online at studentcam.org.

friday nights watch c-span 2024 campaign trail a week really round up of campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to find out what candidates are saying to voters. first 10 accounts from political reporters. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or download as a podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast "about books" with a nonfiction book releases. you can find about books on

c-span now our free mobile up or wherever you get your podcasts. "washington journal," continues. host: joining me to talk about the state of the economy as it has to do with inflation is nick timiraos. the consumer price index came out last week what is that it would've the numbers as it relates to inflation? guest: is one measure of inflation that government statisticians use. that measure has been running around 3%, it was 3.5% most recently. it's been between 3%-3.5% since

last summer but the big story is that was expected to come down more than it has an economist look at the core inflation which is everything except food and energy. not because it's not important but because those are volatile items but core inflation is a better read on where overall inflation is setting. it was in the high 3% range last week and the reason there was a big reaction in financial markets is that everyone has been hoping and expecting that this would come down more because it was coming down quite a lot by the end of last year. it seems our process has slowed if not stalled in the federal reserve with interest rate cuts

on continued progress on inflation. the readings from january and february and march were higher than expected and caused everyone to hit the brakes. host: when you say slow installed can you look at reasons why? guest: if you look at the cpi most of the strength has been in a couple of categories. the first is housing and there are peculiarities with how we measure housing. but the rent when lives have been charging has been slowing but that doesn't filter through right away. there has been expectation that new lease roads were coming down at the end of 2022 and by now you would see slower inflation.

the other area has been in auto insurance. that was up 20% last week in march and a report that came out. the reason for that is car prices went up at thanh in 2020, 2021. people wanted to buy cars, they had money and production was stuck and they were unable to produce carson's quickly as people wanted to buy them largely because of a short of semiconductor chips. if you don't have computer trips it's harder to make cars. car prices went up 50% for used cars. what does that mean for car insurance? if i wrecked my car and i went

to get a reimbursed they took a bath. so they have been increasing premiums so they can catch up. that is specifically what was driving the higher-than-expected prices in the most recent cpi. when inflation comes as stronger-than-expected iis always something else and that's a concern for policymakers. wait a minute? is pricing power changing? companies think they have more pricing power because consumers have money to spend. will it be harder to get inflation down without a slow down in the job market. at the end of last year there was optimism for a soft landing we are able to bring inflation down without a big downturn or

increase in unemployment. there was optimism around this because there was strong growth with inflation coming down and people began to see maybe it's different this time and they will be able to bring it down without an increase in an unemployment rate. which would be a remarkable happenstance. you see in financial markets people wondering about that. if the economy is growing at a 2% rate you will not get inflation down to where the fed wants it to be. host: inflation and the u.s. economy is our topic. if you have a question about it here so you could call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

when it comes to the phone what tools is the habitus disposal to bring inflation down at this point? guest: they have a blunt tool which is short-term interest rates. you can think about it like pressing on the break in a car. there is not a whole lot more they can do to slow down the economy. you could raise taxes or cut spending. they are trying to slow down demand when mortgage rates were 3%, 4% 5% everyone was out buying homes. it makes it easier to purchase a house when interest rates are low. when they rise above six, 7% you see a slowdown in housing sales.

that is the tool the fed has. they raised interest rates a lot in 2022 and a little more in 2023. they raised interest rates in july and 2023 which was the highest they've been in a quarter-century. and interest rates were low after the financial crisis in 2008. we haven't been in an economy with a cap rate this high in some time. they are very likely to hold interest rates at their meeting in two weeks. the hope here is that will gradually slow down growth and prevent inflation from rising further and keep inflation heading lower. in the post for jamaica economy,

if you have gone back two years and said the mud is going to raise its benchmark policy rate in the unemployment rate will stay below 4% in the economy will grow 2.5-3 percent economists would say you were crazy but that is what happened. host: from the wall street journal nick timiraos our first call is from david in washington state. you are online with the guest. caller: good morning. your analysis was right in line with what i was thinking about. in 2008, the housing crisis barack obama when he came into office he lowered the interest rate.

he did that for eight years. then you have trump come in and he kept you we going his entire four years. if he would have stabilized the interest rates and brought them back up from zero, we would've had a better chance of dealing with a crisis like covid. the reason we were even hit so hard and why the biden administration had to go to 5% is because there was no break, there was nothing they could do if they ran into a crisis. i wanted to ask you, what are your thoughts about if the trump administration would've prepared us for a crisis like they should've done instead of running the market, the economy

is so hot and when a crisis happened, inflation went through the roof? host: david, thank you. guest: there is a lot to unpack there. it is true that the fed used a similar tool, quantitative easing where once interest rates are cut to zero the federal reserve tries to provide stimulus by purchasing treasury securities. that can bring down long-term interest rates like mortgage rates, corporate borrowing costs, auto loans that tend to price off longer-term interest rates. the federal reserve did several rounds of thought between

2008-2012 and ended them around 2014 and began to raise interest rates from low levels from 16, 17 and 18 they continued to raise interest rates and not doing qe but the fed stopped raising interest rates because it was difficult to see inflation going to the fed's target. at this time, other countries in europe and in japan were struggling and japan, were struggling, they had negative interest rates, growth is weak, inflation was very low, so there was a fear going into the pandemic in 2020 was that the united states, at least, we were one shock away from being in the slow growth, low inflation, low interest rate rut that had afflicted these other

advanced economies in europe and japan. so when the crisis hit, the fed went all in, cutting interest rates to zero, purchasing large quantities of security, and encouraging congress to spend money so that we could get through the pandemic and really protect the productive capacity of the economy. we did not want to see a bunch of bankruptcies because of the pandemic, permanent job loss. and we really do that, i mean if you get through to 2021, you could see things were nearly as bad as they could have been. now the biden administration came in in 2021, and spent a lot of money. there were some economists on the democratic side who had warned that would add to inflation at the time. almost right away we did see that inflation, very high rates of inflation, and the cause really, like we were talking about with cars, you just had a constrained supply chain and very strong demand, and so, you know, how do you fix that?

when there are more people who want to get into the restaurant, you could raise the prices. so that is what happened. now inflation have been much higher. it is coming down. and depending on the measure you use, if you use the feds measure, which was 7% in 2022, again, their target is 2%, and we are just below 3%. what economists are focused on right now is this so-called last mile. we got inflation down from 7% to just under 3%. how are you going to get it all the way back to 2%? over what period of time? that is what we saw in the 1970's. that is where the focus is right now. host: viewers, if you are interested in more, he wrote a book about it, "trillion dollar triage." let's hear from arizona come to

mind, stephen, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for being on. it is good to have an expert there. my point is, the last four years, just the prices on everything has gone up, and we are being told that inflation is down, and i guess technically, you know, some people say inflation is down, others don't, but every time i buy anything, the prices keep going up. every time we shop once a month -- i have been retired seventh and eight years, so every penny is important to me. and then when gas came down for a little bit, the jedi mind trick that i feel that the democrats do, they say gas is down, look what i did. now it is almost up 50% from when they said it was down again.

and the last time i went shopping, it was a lot higher than it was 5, 6 month ago. so 7% in 2022, and then you add 3% to that, i mean, people can't afford where this country is going. is there a solution to it? will the new regime make a difference, and your opinion? host: stephen and arizona points to the "star wars" reference. guest: it is a great point stephen raises. right now, the president has been out talking about how inflation is coming down, and people like me on tv saying inflation has gone down from 7% to 2.8%, but it is true. the inflation rate that we talk about, usually as a 12-month measure, it is a change in prices from march of 2023 to march of 2024, usually the inflation rate is measured over some discrete period of time, like a year.

it is measuring a change in the price level, and the price level, which is the point stephen is making, has gone up a lot is 2020. it has gone up 7%. if you look at the four-year period before that, it went up 8%, 10%, so it is difficult, i think, for the president to get credit for things coming down, because the things we purchase every day, getting something at 7-eleven, gas, produce at the grocery store, those are things you purchase every week, and for stephen the prices may, not have come down very much, or they are higher than they were four years ago. it is hard to say things have been better over the last 12 month when we are probably not going to see the price level come back to where it was in 2020. that would be negative prizes or deflation, and economists tends

to regard deflation as a very scary set of affairs, because if prices are falling, why would you purchase? you can get into some vicious cycles there. so, you know, the goal here for policymakers, particularly at the federal reserve, which tries to be apolitical, is that he would have 2% inflation every year for several years, and is not going to undo all the price increases we have, but over time, people might just and say ok, inflation, we know it was high in the early 2020's, but has come by down. what you would want to avoid is a period where inflation hit that bump, and now, as we saw in the 1970's, and the way the fed ultimately fix that, which was a very painful recession in the early 1980's, unemployment going to almost 11% in 1982, and unemployment right now, of course, is at 3.8%, much lower. so the goal here would be for

the fed to just continue to bring inflation down bit by bit, and if they can do it without a downturn, that would be quite a remarkable achievement. host: mr. timiraos, politically, republicans, after the release of the report, put a lot of things on x, including representative nancy mace of south carolina. she says we cannot handle another four years of biden. she targets what she calls bidenomics. is there inflationary results? guest: there could be, but this is like nothing we have seen perhaps since the second world war, when it comes to a pandemic, we had a full shutdown of the economy. we reopened it, you know, businesses, revenues went to zero, they were furloughing or laying off employees, and that they had to hire everybody back. you can imagine a scenario where if firms have gone bankrupt and there have been more permanent scars to the economy during the

pandemic, the inflation might have been worse, because it would have been that much harder to supply the goods and services to people when they want to buy them, once we reopened the economy. if you look around the world, inflation has been high almost everywhere, some countries that did not spend a lot of money and countries that did spend a lot of money. countries that it hard markdowns, countries that didn't. we see a global element to the inflation, and that makes it, you know, may be harder to control, but that, you know, the question going forward about the fiscal policy is an important one, because right now the u.s. is running large deficits, around 5%, 6%, peak time deficit, low unemployment. that is not something we've seen before, and you have to worry if the economy were to go into recession or something else were to come along, like pandemic or a war, and we need to spend more money, there would be concerned

in the bond market particularly around, how are you going to manage the $30 trillion of debt you incurred, interest rates are higher now than when you incurred that debt, so you are paying more on interest costs. federal interest cost to go up a lot when interest rates go up. that is an issue. it certainly will be an issue for whoever is elected president later this year. it is not something you really hear either of the two major party candidates, donald trump or joe biden, talking about. biden is talking about bringing deficit down by raising taxes on businesses or on individuals who make more than $400,000 a year. donald trump is talking about extending the tax cuts that he was able to secure in 2017, and cutting spending in some parts of the government but not cutting the large sources of spending in the health care and social security areas. so, you know, it feels as if even though we no longer have a

very low interest rates that enabled the fiscal policy of the 2010's, the political system really has not adjusted yet to the reality of, gee, stay above 3%, 4%, 5% here? host: on the independent line, we will hear from chuck. caller: good morning. host: good morning. you are on, sir. go ahead. caller: during the last election, you know, i heard a lot about the big lie and all that. i don't understand. i'm not a political group, but i think that the republicans ought to focus on the big lie that biden told about, you know, not raising tax on anybody under $400,000. inflation is probably the worst tax that there is, and i have a lot of friends that are middle class and lower middle class that are just desperate right now. i mean, it is crazy, when you look to the grocery store.

and the numbers that the government put out as far as the inflation goes, i don't think they are actually real. if they went out and actually measured things that people use, i think that inflation would be much higher than what they claim it to be. what is your, done that? host: that is chuck in alabama. thank you. guest: yeah. the process for measuring the, you know, changes in prices is sophisticated, but it can be challenging, right? what is the quality of something improves but the price goes up? think about the tv set that you can purchase in a store today versus the 120 years ago. it actually higher quality committed and should, positionally -- quality, in addition, potentially, to being more expensive. how do you account for statisticians who have to measure inflation? the numbers are calculated rather rigorously, so i think

that is less of a concern, to me, but, again, i think you speak to the big issue here, which is that people have experienced a large increase in the price of daily life, and that is different from, you know, the government's response to the pandemic was really animated by what happened after the global crisis in 2008, and what happened after the crisis was we had near unemployment. i took a very long time for the unemployment rate, which got close to 10%, to come down to 5%. it took years to get there. so the fear in 2020, when trump was president, and in 2021 went biden became president, was, gee, we don't want to have another long slog of a slack market where it is hard to find jobs and wage growth is weak. instead, you have a completely different problem, and people are as unhappy about high inflation, if not more, than

they were about higher unemployment in 2008. so i think it really demonstrates both a different, how different this economic cycle has been from like a before and also to remind us about inflation that we have not really seen in this country in 20, 25 years is politically very unpopular. so that is why the federal reserve has been raising interest rates. host: "wall street journal's" nick timiraos with the spirit we will hear from tom in maine. caller: thanks, pedro. thanks for c-span. longtime watcher, first time caller. the growth in the economy, is that 2% inflation basically the bottom line given the growth in the economy that basically we are going to have a 2% inflation? so anything above 2% would be an

increase from the baseline inflation? also, i want to make one comment is that the economy is cyclic, and no matter who is in the white house, there are upturns and downturns in the economy, and so, i just wanted to ask that one question about the inflation rate. thank you. guest: thank you. the inflation rate, you know, the target that the fed set of 2%, that is something they set about 12 years ago. they basically decided if we tell everybody what we are trying to do, then that will actually help us achieve our goal. and the reason for that is that the fed tries to manage what they refer to as inflation expectations. we will behave in a way that will make it much more likely for inflation to beehive here we

will go ask our bosses for a raise. if we rent an apartment to somebody, we might raise the rent now, because we are anticipating inflation to be higher in a year. so what the federal reserve does, they try to make sure that people's expectations of inflation are low and stable. they refer to this as anchoring expectations, and the whole reason for having a 2% target if they want republicans really financial markets that can help them with an array of interest rates and not just the interest rates they set, they want those expectations to become a no matter what happens in the economy -- and you are right, we got hit with different shocks and different cycles, but no matter what, this is what the fed is aiming for. the thinking behind inflation targeting, which has really only developed over the last 20, 30 years, that if you tell people what you are trying to do, you will make it more likely that you can achieve it, because people will understand what you are trying to.

that is how they look at 2%. if it is about 2%, all it means they are missing that goal, and they will likely try to slow down the economy. i think the point about cycles is important, too, and one of the big questions, i think, for the fed coming up here is, what is the policy environment going to look like in 2025? it is very difficult to tell right now, of course, because we don't know who is going to be president. last time that donald trump was president, you know, he wanted to have tougher controls on immigration, higher tariffs. he talked about both of those things going forward. we did have higher deficits under donald trump, but we ha low-inflation. the question right now is, if trump is reelected as president of the will those policies, which were not necessarily inflationary in his first term, will they create more inflation risk in his second term, and how financial markets react to that?

investors in bond markets, if inflation is going to be high, they want to get paid for that, because that will affect the value of their investments. so you can actually see interest rates rise and anticipation, either the fed raising interest rates or interpretation of inflation becoming a problem. that is something to watch later this year as it becomes clear who the next president will be. host: as we heard about about concerns about high heard prices, yet retail sales they tell us rose 3.7% in march. how does that factor into all of these economic concerns and the things that the fed has to look at? guest: well, the retail sales report yesterday, it just shows that consumer spending has been strong. if you go back a few months, the fed had been talking more, until quite recently, the fed had been

talking about possibly cutting interest rates around the middle of this year. as they are meeting in march, the officials who participate in that meeting, they put down their economic directions and where they think interest rates will go as the economy unfolds, and line with those projections. a narrow majority of them thought they would cut interest rates three times this year. most of them thought they would cut rates two or three times this year. and if you see strong growth, strong retail sales, and inflation that is not going back to 2%, the speed that they had anticipated, it means that you may not see those interest rate cuts. in fact, investors and bond markets are now expecting fewer interest-rate cuts than they were just a week ago. at the beginning of the year, investors were looking for maybe six or seven because this year, partly because of the expectation that we might have a recession or very slow growth, and that the fed would want to, you know, back off a little bit.

now if you look at futures market pricing, you can see that investors expect maybe one, maybe two cuts this year, maybe zero cuts. so that outlook for interest rates has change. d. what does that mean for everyday workers and sabers? it means mortgage rates, which have been heading lower, they are now going back up. if you are looking to buy a house and you are hoping maybe mortgage rates were going to come down to, say, 6.5% on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage, well, we are now closer to 7.5%. so the financial market kind of obsessed over every inflation report. . most of us have the luxury of not paying back close attention, but we can see it in terms of, well, if we are looking to buy a car, buy a house, interest rates are going to be higher if it takes longer to get inflation down. host: let's hear from our republican line. this is david in florida.

go ahead, please. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i'm just surprised, nick, that you mentioned very little about the earth metals, ev market, all of that, because the government has push it on us. we don't like it. what is your response to that? you did not mention anything about the ev's, for very little, and the whole market as the rare-earth, chips, all the chips, you have not mentioned anything! and that is inflation, the big push for the ev market, the rare earth metals that we are going to end the buy-in from china, and the "washington post" does not even report that, or the "washington journal" does not push it. why? host: all right, caller, we

should let our guest responded in your paper this morning, mr. timiraos, there's a story about hybrid and the increased sales they are, maybe not so much for the viewer's question, go ahead. guest: the caller is right in that all of a sudden when there is intense demand for something, it could be lithium that goes into the batteries to power the cars, data centers that are used more for these artificial intelligence programs, that is true. you can see prices rise for these commodities, but inflation is much broader, generally, than, you know, w th price of one service. you seen automakers get into this, tesla reported, they are cutting 10% of their global workforce.

that is not quite macro economically significant right now when it comes to the broader discussion around inflation of some of the dynamics there. the car market was really imported in 2021 when used car prices were going up so much, and now it is a big contributor to higher inflation. you don't see that so much anymore. car prices have really leveled out. host: another floridian, this is ted, independent line. caller: greetings, mr. pedro and mr. nick. i would like to find a historical perspective on all of this. in my lifetime, there have been three economic earthquakes. one was the oil crisis and the inflation of 1980, when my first mortgage was 12.5%, and some were even as high as 16%. then, of course, there was the 2008 financial crisis, and what

is going on now after the pandemic. i would like to mention one thing is a caller before said that interest rates before the plandemic were 0% -- pandemic was 0%, and that president trump was keeping it down that way. in reality, the fed as an independent agency increased interest rates to about 2% in 2019. so what is going on now? i mean, it is so unpredictable. it is just an earthquake that is different than anything else, so we have no idea what is going to happen, no matter what the fed tries to do. thanks. guest: yeah. i agree with that. that is one component of the economic earthquakes, and a lot of the commentators missed the inflation in 2021, but not everybody did. likewise, economists have been expecting a recession because of how the fed raise interest rates

so aggressively, robustly in 2022. every six months, there has been a production that we will have a recession six months from now, and eventually they may be right, but they have not been so far. i think one of the big questions right now is, why did we learn? have we learned anything about the inflation process? that is, how is it, you know, why is this happening? there is one view that sort of says you should look at the bottom of, that you had large price increases in goods in 2021. we talked earlier about car insurance. so if the price of cars went up a bunch, now the price of auto insurance is going to go up. but so long as the price of cars has come back down, or at least it has stopped going up, which it has, you might have confidence that in the future, the car insurance increases will also run their course.

this is a more benign outlook for inflation, because it basically says the fed should be more comfortable. this is, you know, all going to play out. you think of ripples in a lake, but eventually, you know, the folder that fell in a lake, the river is going to die down. that is sort of the bottom of view and it is a more optimistic view. there is a top-down view that economists have, too, which basically says look, so long as incomes are growing, people have more money to spend, businesses are going to feel more comfortable raising prices. businesses have learned in the last couple of years that they can use price as a lever, when really they could not before. when inflation was low in the 2010's, if you are selling something, you know, wholesale, you are trying to get home depot or walmart to carry your good, they would say, you have to keep the price down. as prices have gone up, baby companies have gotten more

comfortable raising prices, and merchandisers have become more willing to pass those on to consumers. so the top-down view of inflation basically says until you slow down the growth rate of incomes, the growth rate of economic output pretty substantially, you are not going to see businesses back off in terms of pushing along these prices. prices are going up because people will pay for those more expensive things. that will be maybe a more sober outlook, and the fed will need to engineer some kind of weakness in the labor market, and that is very difficult to do. once the unemployment rate starts to go up by a little bit, it tends to go up by a lot. but i think those are two scenarios that economists are grappling with right now, in terms of figuring out, well, how is the story going to play out from here? host: fed vice chair jefferson saying inflation and that proves

more stubborn will go on to a longer period of interest rates at their current setting. he does not refer to the base case, they are already giving clues to what they expect. guest: that's right. fed chair jay powell speaks in washington today. last week was important to be fed, even though inflation has been higher than anticipated in january, little bit higher than anticipated in february, there was some reason to think maybe that was a fluke around the beginning of the year, businesses can change their prices is. a new year, new menu price, things like that. it is referred to as seasonality. there's a view that may be the larger than expected price readings in january, february could be chalked up to seasonality. well, march sort of shatter that

thesis and said maybe you have to take seriously, as powell said in his last press conference in march, these are bumps in the road to we always thought it was going to be a bumpy. but are they more than bumps? the inflation report made people wonder if there are more bumps in the road. you mentioned the fed vice chair, who is speaking this morning in washington. the last time we spoke coming said the base case for the economy is that it would come down and that would make interest rate cuts appropriate. he did not say that in his prepared remarks this morning, and i think that is important, because it shows that the fed might be backing away from the idea that we are going to cut interest rates. certainly they are not going to cut interest rates at their next meeting or two if the economy does not show more signs of weakness. the last point i would make there is the fed does not cut interest rates for free. there needs to be a reason for them to lower interest rates, and the two reasons you would

see right now would either be weakness in the economy, the unemployment rate going up, signs of the economy slowing down quite a bit, and you would not need a more restrictive interest rates if the economy was slowing down, because you would be able to forecast the slowdown in the economy, would ultimately bring price growth down. the second reason to cut interest rates is, you know, you raised interest rates a lot over the last two years because you saw a real risk that inflation was going to get stuck about 3% or even higher, and if you took out insurance for that happening, and if that did not happen, that is not happening, and we are seeing inflation drifting back down to 2.5 percent, 2.25%, 2%, will then you no longer need such restrictive interest rate setting. and that was the case, that they have been slowly building over the last few weeks. even if the economy is doing

well, we can dial back the level of interest rates so long as we are confident that inflation is coming back to 2%,, which they are projecting we will get back to 2.5% by the end of this year, even with a couple of interest rate cuts. if you are no longer confident that inflation is going to come back to 2%, you are worried maybe about some of these bumps more than you were, it causes you to maybe say all right, we will keep interest rates where they are. we'll need to cut interest rates. you're not hearing a lot of talk from fed officials about raising interest rates again. i thank for that to happen, you would need to see signs that inflation was actually going back up, the economy was reading seller in, or there was some supply shock somewhere in the world, you know, oil prices went up a lot, and you would say, well, this is going to be deflationary, so we need to raise interest rates. i don't think that's where they are right now, but there is certainly more thoughts about the policy pass because what has been happening with inflation.

host: wsj.com is the website for the "wall street journal" nick timiraos serves as the economics correspondent. thank you for your time. remember, on the house side today, aside from the efforts to fund ukraine and israel and other matters that you will see play out this week, expect also the house to deliver its impeachment articles over to the senate side considering the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. follow that on c-span. when it gets to the senate side, be sure to stay close to c-span2, to see how the senate receives them, what they will do as far as the trial is concerned, and other matters related to that. as always, you can file along -- follow along on c-span.org and on our app, at c-span now, always available to you anytime you want to reference those things. the house of representatives is now coming into your we will take you to them.