host: good morning it is friday, april 19. a vote is scheduled for the house to take out a foreign aid

package tomorrow. it would be 26 billion to israel and 8 billion to taiwan. we are discussing the bill with the reporter and here are the phone lines to wait in. for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002 you can send a text at (202) 748-8003 include your first name, city, state and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan and x cspanwj. before we get started i wanted to update you on a news item because israel has retaliated against iran in retaliation for

drones launched last weekend it is not clear the damage the limited strike caused but it was intended to signal that israel had the ability to strike inside the country. a second person said the strike was carefully calibrated. we will update you us more information comes in throughout the program. getting back to the foreign aid packages i wanted answer -- introduce joe perticone we will put on the screen the four packages and top line numbers. give us an idea of what is in the packages. guest: of the foreign aid pockets there are three ukraine,

israel, and pacific ukraine 50 .1 billion israel 26 billion and and pacific 8 billion and the sticking point has been the ukraine funding in the house and this mimics what was passed in the senate but the different mechanisms they are taking to pass it now is more palatable for house members. host: because they are separate and gives them the opportunity to vote against ukraine and for israel? guest: there are members of the freedom caucus trying to drag out the ukraine part. host: this is your article

saying mike johnson finds a way the odds. talk about the odds. guest: mike johnson and kevin mccarthy it is been hard to get anything done because they have such a heavy factional lies conference. mike johnson is behaving like a coalition speaker tackling things with democrats. that's how they have managed to get this far. host: let's talk about the rules committee and what happened last night. guest: typically members are working at the behest of the conference. host: the senate leadership. guest: chip roy and matthews

voted against these packages. there will be a lot of republicans voting against it on the floor. they will need democrats to get it over the finish line. that is not normal these are usually along party lines put their freedom caucus is voting for themselves and not the conference so mike johnson needs help from the democrats. part of how he has maneuvered in the space. if you were at a himself that would be negative to be seen working with democrats this way. there were several members of had to be proactive and back him up in the committee. host: let's take a look at speaker johnson speaking to

reporters at the capital yesterday about this motion to vacate we will talk about after this. [video clip] >> my philosophy as you do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. if i off of fear of motion to vacate. history judges us for we do. i could make a selfish decision and do something that is different but i am doing here what i believed to be the right thing. providing ukraine is critically important. i believe the until and the briefings we got and i believe xi, putin and iran and evil. i think putin would go to the balkans next.

i would rather send bullets to ukraine that american boys. my son is beginning the naval academy. this is not a game, we can't play politics with this and do the right thing i will allow every single member of the house to vote their conscience on this and i'm willing to take a personal risk and history will judge us. host: that was speaker johnson on wednesday. now take a look at what happened yesterday. matt gaetz was asked about his opposition to the forename package. [video clip] >> what did you hear from the speaker what was that conversation like? >> tense. the only win we have is blocking the supplemental. what are we doing here?

he views the the ukraine issue he's worried about ukraine's border we are worried about the american border. host: talk about marjorie taylor greene's call to vacate. [video clip] >> after tense conversation on the house floor. we were huddled looking at them and it was a whisper as a group when they don't want to be heard. and they wanted to call the bluff and saying bring the motion to vacate now. weeks ago marjorie taylor greene issued it and then the house took the week off so if she makes it privileged it will be a week plus two days of whenever

she makes a privilege. i don't think she has momentum to actually remove johnson. it is not as personal as it was against kevin mccarthy. thomas matthew said he would cosponsor the motion to vacate but i haven't seen republicans say they pack up the motion to vacate and even matt gaetz was coy about where he stands. host: there were talks about raising the threshold from one number on filing a motion to vacate. that did not end up going through. i will just show, maybe i won't. mike johnson said no, we are not going to do that. there wasn't enough support for it.

guest: the johnson position was bad this one person motion to vacate has made things very difficult. 118 was one of the least effective congress'in history. but the votes are not there to change the world they don't have a majority that would backed out because the majority is so slim. there are democrats who will come to his aid on a motion to table of motion to vacate. i think he seems in the clear right now. host: a posting on ex from speaker mike johnson. the 118th congress has a motion

to vacate from a single member has harmed our conference. new members have encouraged to endorse a new role to raise the threshold. why i understand the importance it would require a majority which we don't have. we are taking your calls for the guests joe perticone for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, iran (202) 748-8002 we take our first call from anthony in arizona on the line for democrats. caller: a quote for you. great national and political power see their influence and independence when they refuse to recognize change.

more importantly, wars never rest only warriors and all wars are not kinetic there are political wars. if we think we can be in isolationist nation we won't be out front. host: your thoughts on those bills would you be guests on all of those? caller: i would vote yes. why? we are a political power and we are a national and international power and if we cannot understand all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, lying in rest and arlington are just a fraction who is lying in rest

and cemeteries and talents in states across this great nation and world. host: any comments? guest: he makes a point about isolationism. we have seen this isolationist strain and the gop but it is selective. those opposed to action and ukraine have been supportive of israel and easing powers against cartels. it is more pick and choose where we sent military power. host: where do you think that comes from? speaker johnson said i would rather send bullets to ukraine for soldiers he has voted against support to ukraine. guest: he made a comment in a separate interview where he said

he was a child of the 80's and a lot of these members than understand the fears of the cold war have his back you see a lot of these younger members who were reagan conservatives in the 80's who have become republican in this to wage feel the same way. therefore the policy view is more nationalistic hence more passion against mexican cartels versus ukraine far away. host: how much of a role does information -- misinformation from russia played? guest: significantly. you have seen mike mccall and mike turner acknowledged republican propaganda has

infiltrated the republican base and understand that some members like to parent a lot of the same talking points that come out of russia. the condition that we should not be aligned with ukraine is in line with what russia wants. caller: how are you guys doing? i will mimic what we just heard from the previous caller. i am confused by this populism bent of the republican party and i worry why these people think it would be a good idea to relinquish our leadership role, something most of us would never

want to relinquish our role as mentor and leader. why would we after having been role models for decades and decades suddenly want to fall in line with authoritarian regimes or relinquish that role that we pretty much let the world and so long. why would we just wanted to be another similar group as we are seeing being demonstrated across the world now? i don't like being one of the crowd. i liked the guy he was different than most americans due to.

we are welcoming hair. we espouse great feelings for democracy why would we want to suddenly hold ourselves back and be another run-of-the-mill country? it's as though the republicans are looking for a populist nirvana. guest: this populism strained is snoop brought on by trump and it's a minority view in the republican party but it is powerful in the house. in the republican primaries, donald trump's support is small but more powerful and populism

has taken a toll because a small but mighty group has pushed far. host: sean in new york, and independent. caller: good morning how are you? what is the guests first name? host: joe. caller: i'm just curious what are your credentials in your education, did you serve in the military? guest: i went to arizona state university. caller: side of my brother. guest: i and the son of a military man so i respect the military and love reporting on these issues. i've been reporting on the capitol hill for 10 years now.

those are my qualifications. caller: do you have family? host: let's get to the topic. caller: ok. i am a father and grandfather and i am wondering which you send your children to be slaughtered in ukraine? guest: no one is advocating for sending troops to ukraine and that is a big thing mike johnson has be clear. it is about sending aid, money and munitions ukrainian speed to fight the war. that has been the most bipartisan thing. this is not iraq where americans want to get involved. what hasn't been made clear is the timeline for how long this will be.

thus what something conservatives have talked about. host: we want a little more talk about the ukraine aid package. here is how some of the discus divided out. 15 billion to repnish stockpiles. 7 billion for operations in the region. the 13 billion goes to american companies to replenish what they have sent over, 7 billion for current operations. is such as training? they are not fighting and not in ukraine. guest: it is pretty broad. the u.s. has lots of bases around the globe and so it goes in various support roles. in terms of replenishing in the

u.s. does one thing mitch mcconnell has been vocal about that sending this say to ukraine is like a win-win because it hits the russians and helps a democracy he was managing a fight against a powerful invader and cindy money to american companies who build and manufacture this equipment. host: what will critics point out that we don't know how that money is being spent and the impact that it is sad. we don't know the end game. is there anything that addresses those concerns? guest: there are several one million for oversight capabilities. republicans want to go further than what is outlined.

they wanted an inspector general to oversee a much greater detail how this is going but there is a significant chunk of money dedicated to oversight. host: alex from mountain view, california. caller: i wanted to make two points about taiwan and israel. both nations are wealthy and they should pay the full cost of those weapons. they have the money to buy them. in the case of the ukraine they are poor and can't afford them. the nations who want to spend ukraine should spend the money to buy american weapons. especially if you take into account all of the money they did not spend to meet the nato

threshold. perhaps joe can tell me of my reasoning is right or wrong. guest: european countries are supportive of the train the biggest sticking point in this is something republicans and democrats of said if the u.s. fails other countries will not follow. host: meaning they will not want to? guest: if america decides we are giving up on this were offer most european countries will follow suit. america has the deepest pockets and we get involved in the other countries take their cues. host: what about israel and taiwan being wealthy countries? guest: they generate a lot of

income but taiwan's main adversary is significantly wealthier in china. israel there military is funded by the u.s. already which is a criticism which democrats had on this package and that is one of the big hurdles. you can get democrats support that a lot will be uneasy about israel. host: let's talk to stephen and virginia. caller: i thought we were in debt. if you want to give to ukraine you should have a bake sale to steer my ukraine and give it to ukraine. the federal government has one job to protect america and our

border is failing. you want to give our money away? i encourage every taxpayer to stop paying federal taxes. do not pay federal taxes and they will fix it real quick. guest: tax day has already passed so you might have to get started on that next year. host: do you see his point that we are supposed to be protecting america. what have lawmakers been saying about how this protects america? guest: countering russia is good for america. they have been hostile to american interests and if they are able to take ukraine there

is nothing stopping them from going further. there are nato countries and site of russia and that's a significantly bigger escalation but it's about countering an adversarial country. at the same time giving all this money away that's not true either. is funding american companies here. there are many aspects. it's more than just a blank check. host: david is next in texas. caller: you seem like a thoughtful follow. we provided nuclear umbrella

that protects china and russia are navy is responsible for protecting the sea route all over the world and we're the ones who will have to pay and help taiwan and stay in help israel. we have a global responsibility. most of what is going on in your protects from russia we provide 50% of funding to the nato and more than that in terms of military and missile protection and surveillance. i support you pray i resist your use of populist and nationalist.

they are used by the left out of context. take a look at the figures for the next 10 years and that doesn't include what they plan on doing because it doesn't take into account the trump tax bill. we have a 2-3,000,000,000,000 deficit. after world war i we became the biggest banking power in world war ii biggest everything. we can want to help everyone in the world but the percentage of debt to gpt is higher than world war ii. these things matter and as some point we will have no option. as we stare at the likelihood

that interest rates may go up and not down. host: how would you vote on the three? are you would know on all of them. caller: i truly believe they ought to do something about the border. biden has the power. trump already went through all of the courts stuff. the national debt i can't imagine how much we are spending they are not telling us about. they let 300,000 immigrants is a florida and keep in mind the trick here, all of these people are flying in. they give them a particular work status which gives them legal

status in the country. host: what is put up on the screen the foreign policy and border policy act and i will have joe react. it forces the biden to reconstruct the border wall and implements were in mexico. what is your comment to david and the parts of that, is this going to pass? guest: we already saw this in a compromise on the border go down in flames and if it had become law would have been the most conservative border security in a generation. these are in line with

republican wants and democrats will be supportive as well. something like this is probably good politically for biden but word is still out on whether they want to see it get over the finish line. host: we have a republican out of texas. caller: that bill you just referenced was turning more border agents into travel agents. there is no way we will do anything to stop the flow. they were going to be travel travel agent said they didn't have to spend a nickel. joe biden has the ability to do so without a nickel.

everything he touches spends money. the caller also said we spent 3 trillion in debt alone. as some point, that 800 mph spending has to be addressed. how about a loan instead of free money. host: has it become a loan instead of a? id? guest: loan repayment can be forgiven at the discretion of the president so that are two tranches the idea of being that a reelected joe biden could

forgive those loans. host: good morning brian. caller: i was wondering if you could, on the following. it's like we have reverse psychology in every current affair. putin calls ukrainian nazis and you see logos with russians that have german world war ii logos. if you could comment on trump's to last actions and white house. i understand that he signed a bill to give to ukraine and signed sanctions against russia.

did trump in his conversation with the mexican president saying that he would pay for the wall did it americans pay up the whole bill? was any mexican money applied to the cost of the wall? guest: mexico has not paid for the wall. there is an amendment by matt gaetz to take russian seized assets to pay for the wall so they are trying to figure out ways to do that. they want to begin the construction of the border wall. there is this understanding it will not be a deterrent but still a financial asked. host: is there funding put against that requirement?

there hasn't been anything allocated? guest: not yet. host: do you know anything about giving aid to ukraine, president trump doing that? guest: there have been sanctions across several presidents against russia that has been the foreign policy line sanctions, sanctions, sanctions and he still went forward with his invasion of ukraine which is why republicans and democrats have taken and aggressive stance sending military aid to push back because the sanctions have not fully deterred him from this march through europe. host: nancy a republican from

ohio. caller: i was going to talk about ukraine but i have changed and want to talk about the border. i understand quite a few terrorists have come across. they don't vet people so thousands have entered through texas, new mexico and california and a lot are terrorist and they will wait until biden is reelected because he is weak. after he is reelected they are trying to put trump and sale. if he is not the republican candidate and he is in jail probably will be biden and the

terrorist will do whatever they want to do to our country. what about that? guest: the terrorists coming over the border that's a huge concern. there has been a lot of apprehension. there is a constant effort to be countering those. host: carol in ohio, a democrat. caller: mine is back to the subject which is the foreign aid pills. -- bills. i thought this new one was different from the old one that

is in the senate because this new one was calling it alone. am i correct about that? guest: not entirely. there are some things categorized as a loan but however, there is the ability to forgive that loan making it the normal foreign aid that we have seen. i appreciate the return to subject. caller: thank you. host: can from lancaster, south carolina. a republican. caller: i would like to start off was saying america, you can't see it? look at all of the money that they spend abroad?

ukrainian politicians are buying yachts and land. ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. that's why they were not allowed in nato and the first place. all of this is a bigger plan that eisenhower said beware of the military industrial complex. osama bin laden was in pakistan after spending billions on the war on terror. the average american citizens are struggling to survive but we have money to send abroad? what about american citizens.

how can you let hamas take out a thousand israelis and bring them across the border? they have some of the best intelligence of the world. if israel wanted to take over palestine we are 37 trillion in debt when does this madness end? guest: the october 7 attack was a massive intelligence failure. the u.s. has intelligent vent failures -- intelligence failures as well.

but none the severe. host: chris from alabama on the independent-minded. caller: good morning. we are talking about what it takes to work together and all of the things going to foreign policy. two years in taiwan my uncle was drafted into the u.s. army and shot down over italy and spent a year and a german pow camp and my father was drafted on the howitzer for four years. they should give us two years in israel and two years in the south pacific open.

we have the port of tel aviv open and out of respect they should give us two years in the south china sea to keep it open. guest: israelis are very isolated in the area they had made a lot of progress with arab countries but they are very isolated. they don't have the population or resources to be a global player. hence the need for constant aid. host: and that was joe perticone from the bulwark. we will going to open form but

before we do i want to show you antony blinken respond to reporters questions on israel's strike on iran overnight. [video clip] >> israel strike in iran was the u.s. alerted in advance and did it raise objections? are the strikes now over and do you have any messaging that iran will respond and are there changes in the nuclear program? >> the reports you've have seen i'm not going to speak to that except to say the united states if not been involved in offensive operations. what we are focused on in the g7 is focused on is our work to

de-escalate tensions and de-escalate from any potential conflict. you saw israel on the receiving end but our focus has been on israel protecting itself and de-escalating tensions, avoiding conflict and that remains our focus. i'm not going to speak on anything to say we are not involved in offensive operations. host: that would be secretary of state antony blinken discussing that retaliatory strike on iran we are now an open forum the numbers are for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, independents

(202) 748-8002. caller: good morning mimi. i think there are a lot of things americans still remember. number one, over 200,000 ukrainians were slaughtered by putin with missiles. number two, we had ukrainian military serving side-by-side with our troops in iraq and afghanistan. we have three democracies being tortured. ukraine, israel, and taiwan.

and i think the republicans are doing a disfavor by disenfranchising three, 4 million ukrainians that are going to vote mostly democratic because the republicans are dropping the ball on support for ukraine, israel and taiwan. and i want to end this by saying, i have been a 57 year republican voter ever since i got out of the service. and i will be thinking twice on whether to vote period the selection. host: in cocoa, florida, on the

line for democrats. caller: i am getting very upset. i am a vietnam marine. i can't believe ukrainians want to sell about ukraine. we ought to be nice about it. let their sons and daughters die while the democrats say get them boys. as far as the lady that said biden is weak but we surely know that trump is a coward. even a coward knows they are lying. host: from pennsylvania, gordon. caller: thank you for taking my

call. a quick comment or two. the gentleman from south carolina when you had the guest on gave a good summary of how things work in the government. my comment today a lot of people talk about you grain but they don't do history work on ukraine and back to world war ii how they were sympathizer with the nazi regime and the atrocity against jewish russians. they had one of the worst world war ii atrocities and also have a military group that is a nazi

sympathizer that still honors nazi-ism. i would like to know what this border thing is. all of the money that the united states gives to south american countries from mexico, venezuela. who was the watchdog? where's the money going. who was watching where the money is going? all of the people leaving these countries are poor people. no rich people are coming. i could not put a button on that. why is it not going to the infrastructure, education, medical.

while you're constantly giving money to them? someone needs to own up and not give them as much money where is the benefit? host: let's go to the republican line in spokane, washington. caller: hi, good morning. i was curious about the breakdown of the current aid to ukraine so i went online to look and i ended up on the keel institute. most of the age european nations, 90% appears to go

towards humanitarian concern only 10% from european nations is military assistant. 98% of aid is military aid as opposed to 10% of humanitarian aid. this place into putin seeing isn't u.s. institute award? host: you don't think the u.s. started the war? caller: this place into putin saying because the u.s. is paying the military that the u.s. is interfering with russia. i would like to see european

nations giving their planes and their support that they need and flipping it around so we are giving 10% of military aid in 90% of financial aid thus with the need. -- if that is what they need. host: what do you think that would do if you were to flip that. is the same amount of money but what would it do? with that in the ward. would it stop his aggression? caller: then it would be european nations, 90% of their military against russia not 10% of their military going against russia.

and that breakdown it shows tensions were part of the 90% humanitarian aid given by european aid. i wondered about that slow the wages ukrainian workers rather than be a burden on the economy. they are keeping wages of ukrainian workers going so they are not a financial burden to countries that they are escaping to. host: lucian in maryland, and independent. caller: the world is on fire

from ukraine, israel there is more of the population engaging in war and we can stand to retreat in the face of hypocrisy. host: james in maryland, and independent. caller: how are you doing? host: doing all right. caller: if people stop fighting, stop killing and stop giving away everything away. you should clean your own backyard before you clean someone else's.

you should always take care of yourself. my dad passed on in his last words to me? look out for number one in the hell with everybody else. host: today starts the fourth day of the trump criminal trial. this is what former president trump to reporters after spending the day in court. [video clip] >> i'm supposed to be in north carolina, south carolina. campaigning that i've been here all day. a trial that's an unfair trial. from legal experts at the wall

street journal. legal experts saying this is not a case. the case is ridiculous. all of the cases are ridiculous. there was no fraud. all of these stories are stories done by the experts bragging about my business record. take a look at all of these. crossing of the rubicon indicting trump.

it is an outrage, everyone is outraged by this. host: also yesterday cary kennedy who is rfk junior's daughter spoke for the family at an event in philadelphia. [video clip] >> i want to make crystal clear our family wants the best way forward for america to reelect joe biden and kamala harris to four more years. [applause] >> four more years. president biden has been a champion for the rights and freedoms that my father and

uncle stood for that is why every nearly single grandchild of joe and rose kennedy supports joe biden. that is right the kennedy family endorses joe biden for president. host: that was the daughter of robert kennedy and that was from yesterday. we will take a call on the line for democrats, richard from california. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't even know where to begin. people are ignorant. these terrorists are coming from south of the border. the majority of people south of

the border are looking for asylum. i would like to make something clear if i am a middle eastern terrorist i would fly to canada and across the border that way. people think terrorists coming south of the border. we have a problem with drug cartels but a wall isn't going to stop them. the cartel is so entrenched they have tunnels under the wall anyway. host: what do you say to the concept that there were 300 people on the timber watchlist that crossed the southern border? caller: they are on a watchlist

and come across the border? where they apprehended and are they being watched? what kind of terrorist are we talking about? host: we will go to patricia in the bronx in new york. caller: i am a first time caller. i am of the end of c-span and listening to people calling in. what is america doing in these other countries? who is sleeping at night in their cupboards. a lot of kids work. we don't find them over here so they don't come over here, that

is why they're doing that. they are protecting while you walked up the streets -- while you walk down your street safely and don't worry about bombs dropping on your head. that is why. host: that is it for the second put up next we have the brookings institute's ryan hass. he will discuss joe biden's call for higher trips on steel and aluminum products and the policy differences between him and his predecessor on china. with jury selection on the trump manhattan trial wrapping up, we will be joined by professor ronald sullivan to break down the process and the challenges in finding impartial jurors. ♪

>> since 1979 in partnership with the able industry come c-span has provided 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 seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no commentary no , interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> today, watched c-span 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of providing a one-stop shop to discover where the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday

-- today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. american history tv, saturdays on c-span2 explain people and events that tell the american story. at 5:10 p.m. eastern, marne he thursday -- martin luther king iii commemorates his father's passing. the historic investigation that led to changes in -- this weekend we will look at the 19 days mccarthy hearings which explored whether communists had infiltrated the state department and other federal agencies.

on lectures on history, north carolina central university history professor jazmine howard discusses student activism of the civil rights movement that historically black colleges and universities. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 andina full schedule under program guide oratch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> the house will be in order. >> to spend some of its five years of current congress let whether this year. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policies are decided and debated c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." we are joined by ryan hass of the brookings institution. he is a former national security council director of and mongolia during the obama administration and critically the china-centric director. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: if you could explain to us how do china's policies harm the u.s. economy? guest: as china's economy was rising, they decided to subsidize them so they would be cost competitive. many factories shifted for costs, purposes to china and to jobs with them and lead to this halloween out of manufacturing across the u.s. -- hallowing out of manufacturing across the u.s.. -- about to be invited click

jobs back from china to u.s.. host: is attacked about truck policies and joe biden policies, let's talk about chinese steel and aluminum. what is the big deal with those two? guest: president biden announced he is considering raising trips on still and aluminum three times he did so in pittsburgh talking to united still were which is probably not it's -- united steelworkers which is probably not a coincidence. on his mind is to reach the number of electoral college votes. he is going to be focused on issues that affect voters in those states and try to address their concerns and needs. one concern that steelworkers

have the cost of steel from china is simply cheaper than what they are able to produce themselves. they want protection to be able to develop their industry. host: you agree with biden's call on more tariffs? guest: i think there is a logic to it. host: economically, does it make sense? guest: it would be hard for me to make a solid economic case. in order for u.s. still appears to -- we need to increase tariffs and increase the cost of china's imported steel into the u.s.. there is a logic, a theory to this case. host: could it actually work? guest: we will see. host: haven't we had churros on chinese imports? guest: the challenge is that a number of people who work in industries that use steel is about 75 times greater than the

number of steelworkers in the u.s.. by raising the cost of steel coming into the u.s., it will have a large impact on those who work with steel then on those who actually produce it. host: beijing has said it will "take action to protect the country's interests." what kind of action. they take -- could they take? guest: beijing's approach has not been to take a captor punch. i do think china was to be a prominent headline future of the presidential debate. i think whatever actually take will be symbolic in nature. and mentor to limit -- they may try to limit american's ability to procure from china but it will not have a macro impact. host: they also said washington's actions would undermine the global supply chain. is that true? guest: the portion of steel from

china in the u.s. still is less than 2%. that sounds like hyperbole. guest: -- host: if you have a question or comment on u.s. trade policy with china, you can start calling now. the lines are republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. let's talk about the difference between biden policies and truck policies. how would these terrorists be different from former president trump's tariffs on china and would they be in addition to current tariffs? host: these are the -- guest: these tariffs in china would be in addition to existing tariffs. this is part of the broader

story. president biden was critical of president trump's insistence on tariffs. there is a lot of evidence that supports that. as president, president biden has maintained those tariffs and build on top of them to demonstrate his willingness to take on fair practices. host: let's look at a portion of what president biden in pittsburgh on wednesday. [video clip] pres. biden: together these are strategic and targeted actions that protect, can workers and ensure fair competition. my predecessor and maga republicans went across the board tariffs from all countries. it is estimated it would cost dimmick and family an average of $1500 a year if they succeeded in doing that. trump doesn't get it. i have heard many of my

democratic fans -- france say china is on the rise in america's phone kind. i have been the only one disagreed with that. i have believed we have got it wrong, merck is rising. we have the best economy in the world. our gdp is up, after deficit is down. we are standing up against china's government on economic is. host: he says that his actions were targeted but his predecessors were across the board. guest: this taps into a big argument president biden will make when talking about china which is he has taken a very focused strategic approach and president trump took a broadbrush approach to dealing with the competition from china. the distinction president china is going to try to make is that he represents confidence and

trump represents chaos. by taking a very focused approach, the u.s. will be able to form a better outcome. there is evidence to support the argument the president might -- president biden is making. if you look at the performance of the u.s. and chinese stock market, the chinese stock market has lost $6 trillion and the u.s. has gained $3 trillion. we look at the size of the u.s. and chinese economy, the u.s., is growing at a faster rate than china is so the gap between u.s. and china's economic size is growing in america's favor. there is evidence to what president biden is trying to prosecute. host: what is the trade deficit with china? guest: it is at the lowest today

than any other time since 2010. host: there is an announcement that u.s. trade representative would launch a review of china's ship tilting industry -- building industry. what is expected to come of that? guest: we will have to see. the concept is that the u.s. needs to rebuild its capacity to produce ships and in order to do so, it needs to protect its industry so it is sitting on a level playing field with china, korea, and others. unless there were to stop their subsidies, it would be difficult for the u.s. to compete on a cost basis with china. given the fact that china is unwilling to -- subsidies, the alternative is to increase tariffs to level the playing field. host: let's talk to callers and stop on the line a democrat in wichita, kansas. jessica, good morning.

caller: i am worried china will take the initiative to join the war in israel. what are your thoughts? if that were to happen, would the u.s. have to step in? host: -- guest: license is the chinese have been content to stand back and try to claim the moral high ground, advocate for certain principles, encourage dissolution in vons and a two state solution. the chinese are content to sit back and let members of the developing world and the global south criticize the u.s. at the moment, the chinese are taking a step back approach, letting the usb front and center and put pressure on the cubist to deliver a solution. host: los angeles, california.

independents. good morning. caller: i am a 90-year-old veteran. i had the opportunity to touch base at the end of korea and a front side of not. -- the front side of vietnam. i have been over in hong kong and in bangkok after we left korea. i have seen singapore and thailand and korea wendy -- were still there before they felt. -- they fell. i have seen the situation in the far east and anything we do to benefit china further than we already have by building of their navy to be bigger than ours and now we are helping them to build up their air force. we are doing wonderful by

sending money over there to build up supposedly our electric cars where the batteries are being in china which is further going to help building up their mission even further. i think we should spend more time finding people or situations in south america or at least friendly nations that have the minerals or the electricity to power the batteries. where is the power coming from to charge these batteries? we are tearing down our power plants led and right -- left and right. the colorado river is a trickle compared to what it was when i was a kid. host: let's get a response.

guest: thank you for your service. i think what you are describing is a debate that exists about how to best deal with competition from china. on the side trump advocates, there is a desire to make it costly and try to encourage companies to leave the chinese market, either to reassure to the u.s. or develop manufacturing outside of china. the side of the biden administration review the best way to deal with this competition is to do it by investing at home and working closely with allies. those are two different visions of dealing with the same challenge and that debate is going to unfold over the coming months. host: when former president trump won the election in 2016, you were working in the obama administration. you were set to breathe his team -china relations -- his team on

u.s.-china relations. what did you tell them? was there any change in rhetoric? did they signal a change in policy? guest: you are right, we were sent to trump tower to handoff the china portfolio to the incoming team, not to influence or sell them on any approach, but to help them understand their inheritance, how we got to we were, what decisions informed choices we made. we got five or 10 minutes to do this breathing before the people on the other side of the table said we got it. enough. we know what we need to know. the problem you have, pointing to me, is you don't understand we are in a struggle between the u.s. and china. one comfortable win, one country will lose, we must win. i left baffled. the idea that the u.s. would be able to oppose its will on a $17 trillion economy with nuclear

capabilities seemed fanciful to me. that was the mindset. to fast forward to last week, that similar viewpoint has been expressed by conner smith gallagher and a former senior administration official who have continued this argument. it is less clear where president trump is because the vessel is between flattery and anger in his to china. people around president trump feel passionately about the existential nature of the competition between the u.s. and china. host: when you say flattery anger, piston trump is called -- president bynum has called xi jinping -- president biden -- sorry, i'm getting confused.

former president praised xi jinping and president biden has called him a thug and a dictator. can you talk about xi jinping and how china views those leaders? guest: president trump believes an intimate relationship between him and the chinese leader will help facilitate progress on his priorities. president biden believes in the power of personal relationships but is less certain that public praise of xi jinping will deliver progress on american priorities. president biden is outspoken and direct and candid in his articulation of oppression she should be -- president xi jinping's system. president xi jinping is absent being called a thug, but he is a cold-blooded calculator and i

doubt that he has a clear preference between one candidate or the other in the upcoming election. host: let's look at what former president trump said in a fox news interview in for very putting the idea of increasing tariffs on chinese exports. [video clip] >> your critics are saying you are going to start another trade war. >> look, china came in and they were going to destroy our still industry. >> you're talking about 60% tariffs on chinese terrace. >> i would say it would maybe be more than that. i want china to do great. i like president jinping. he was a very good friend of mine. >> [indiscernible] >> sure, i got along with him great. host: what you think of that? guest: the record is there work

foreclosures as a result of the trade war. 300,000 people in the u.s. lost their jobs as a result of president trump's trade war and $1.7 trillion of stock market value was wiped out. the trade war ended with a phase one trade agreement between the u.s. and china which was premised on a promise china would increase purchases on american products of the span of two years. it's never happened. president trump from a political standpoint has made inroads from the heartland by showing he will take up the cause, he is willing to -- with china in defense of american workers. record performance does not lend confidence that the approach he pursued will have results. host: richard, the line for democrats. massachusetts. caller: i am glad to be on the show. in congress, i would like to see them use a mirror against all of

the trade policies from china, blocking the u.s. companies from doing business. if i was president and i was to send a delegation against the chinese, i would get a mirror and have them hold it up and show them exactly what they are trying to do to us. congress should use a mirror against trade policies against us. also the chinese influence on congress in the electing process. the chinese have infiltrated through money and funding congress elections. what are thoughts on that?

guest: i think there is a degree of -- to what you're saying. they have been subsidizing industries to compete on the world stage. -- spending to support american industries, infrastructure, clean energy mussununga and appears. it is part of any effort to take a bit of china's playbook and put it in play in the u.s.. we will see how effective that is. there is any effort underway to build a wreck national champions and industries to compete on the world stage against china. host: where are you on the forcing the sale of tiktok? he did mention the chinese influence in congress and there is wording about the chinese government trying to lobby congressman. guest: i have a 16-year-old

daughter so this is not an abstraction to. my sense is that congress is going to move in the coming days on a decision about tiktok and is not biden has indicated he will sign it. i think this will be resolved in the courts. it will be a debate between whether tiktok poses a series national security threat to the u.s. to justify curtailing some free-speech liberties americans enjoy. host: let's go to little river, south carolina. roy. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to know how the country thinks the president that took millions of dollars from china as kickback is compromised at all, that he is

looking back for america's best interest. we have 24,000 so far this year chinese come into our country like china doesn't know 24,000 people come over here. how he thinks that our country is in trouble, i don't understand that. host: go ahead. guest: on the first question about whether the president has taken kickbacks from china and is compromised, we'll will have to see the evidence to reach that conclusion so far it is not been made available. the second question about chinese people crossing the southern border, this is a serious issue. several years ago there were around 300 chinese crossing the southern border.

that is taking upwards. it has been a dramatic increase in short period of time. this has a lot of residence for people in the u.s., as does chinese purchases of american farmland and chinese efforts to establish a police station in the u.s.. this is something we have to treat chris -- tree seriously. host: in south: good morning. caller: you say we are taking a leaf out of china's playbook. actually, the theory of building up your every character outlined by alexander hamilton and a term of his bedtime in the u.s. and germany. no country builds itself up with free-trade. free-trade is a way for the rich to dismantle society and he

debate cut of doing it. the problem of maintaining a powerful society, nobody has ever solved that. i think biden made some progress with his computer chip initiative. the taiwanese company built them in phoenix, arizona. phoenix, arizona has a water problem and these are message users. -- massive users. guest: thank you for your comments. i'm not sure there was a question in there i think what you're pointing to is a real ongoing debate about whether or not free-trade is beneficial to the uas or whether the u.s. needs to pursue more protections in order to create space for ministry to grow.

host: homer in shreveport, louisiana. caller: i am an 82-year-old vet. we suffer from collective amnesia. --unions in america. thank you. host: final comment. guest: i am not sure i am following. fighting unions in order to protect the u.s.? i would say president but it has made clear he was to be the strongest pro-union in the history of the u.s. and his actions, including several days ago with his announcement about

steel and aluminum are validation of that argument. host: ryan hass at the brookings institution, think you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: 12 euros have been selected to decide, president trump's criminal trial. we are joined by ronald sullivan to break down jury selection process and the challenges in finding impartial jurors. we will be right back. >> today, watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of providing a one-stop shop to discover where the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday -- today at 7:30 em eastern on

c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. sunday on q&a, zachary and should hansen discuss their netflix docuseries, "american conspiracy or -- conspiracy." it's running the events -- about the events surrounding -- in 1991. >> he was called the octopus because you start looking into one scandal and that takes him over into the contra scandal and the october surprise and bcci, new savings and loan, and the nefarious players.

their names are popping up here and there. >> the complexity of the story makes it difficult. the names and access makes it hard. there were a lot of obstacles towards what happened at big but to tell what happened. >> sunday night medical p.m. eastern on c-span -- sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.com -- on c-span's q&a. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies.

c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by ronald sullivan, a criminal professor of law at harvard university -- a professor of law at harvard university. guest: thank you for having me. host: how difficult is it to find partial given that the defendant is a former president. guest: in normal circumstances it is difficult to find an impartial juror come even more difficult in high-profile cases and even more difficult when the defendant is a former president. we have seen the process work in the way it should. the board methodically and slowly went through the process

and so far we have 12. we still have to get the alternates. in all likelihood, in very short order, we will have a jury. host: can you explain what does it mean for the jury to be impartial or at least for them to look up impartial jurors? in this case and it cannot be that you don't know who the defendant is. guest: that is right. i will start by explaining what it is not. an impartial juror does not mean injured or who does not know about the case. it does not mean the juror who has no opinions about the case. click any impartial jury means is a juror who notwithstanding any biases, any predispositions, and prior judgments about the case can put aside those judgments and render a fair and

impartial verdict. that is any impartial juror -- an impartial juror. i had taken 100 or so cases to jury, trial, verdict. if i came across a trooper who did not hear anything about that case, i would be suspicious but juror immediately -- suspicious about that jerome immediately. they do know about the case, they have opinions, but the key is if they can put the opinions aside and render a fair and appropriate. host: talk about the process itself of finding that jury and seating that jury. is there anything unique to new york? guest: every state is different. they each have different customs and court rules and laws with respect to peddling injury --

paneling a jury. new york is an independent state but it falls within one of the dominant models of jury selection. on one end of the spectrum, gives states that have one juror in a box. the court gets cleared and the lawyers get to question each jibber -- each juror for an unlimited time period. that takes a long time. i tried the and hernandez case, former new england patriot, it took us a month to try that juror -- that jury. you get a really robust questioning section. there are courts where the judge maintains all questions. lawyers may begin to ask a question or two that is about

it. that is the federal system. new york is a hybrid. in new york, while it is not judged dominated, the lawyers get to ask oceans. -- ask questions. they don't get the one-on-one each and every juror. because of that, they're able to pick injury -- take a -- take a read and not go into much longer period -- take a jury -- pick a jury and not take a much longer period. host: cargo -- there are two different causes, one is -- guest: it means the juror is unable to either serve will

provide a fair and impartial verdict. maybe someone has a job that does not pay when you're sitting on the jury and that person simply cannot afford to spend two months on a jury. that person will lose their house for not being able to pay mortgage or rent or utility bills, that is called a hardship. that is a for cause termination a church -- for which a judge will release a juror. maybe somebody has a significant back element and they cannot sit for five straight hours throughout the day or some other infirmary that prevents them from paying close attention. maybe they cannot hear very well and hearing aids don't work. that is another form of hardship . the other category of for cause

is a person uses i am unable to mentor a fair and impartial verdict. maybe someone says i have such deep and abiding views about mr. trump were deep and dividing -- or deep and abiding views about the state of new york where the prosecutor's office that i simply cannot follow the instructions of the judge, i am predisposed to vote one way or another and i am going to do that anyway. that person is excused as well. in that category, you have people with religious objections. some people based on religious training, in and say i cannot do this because my biblical or other traditional teachings are that i cannot judge and you tell

me to sit and judge another person. the violets might bash that violates my religion -- that violates my religion. perfunctory -- you are eligible, you can provide a fair and impartial verdict, but there's a big about you that one of the lawyers says i don't like that person. perfunctory challenges are at the discretion of the lawyers. they can be for almost any reason. it cannot be for a person's race, ethnicity, or gender. there is a supreme court case that says you cannot do that. for almost any other reason, that person looks funny, he gave me a sign i glanced, he looks dishonest.

a lawyer can exercise a strike and kick that juror off of the panel. here is the key. there are a limited number of challenges. if not, that could go on forever. they have 10 each. once that number is reached, if a juror is qualified, that traverses. this is why as you get to the end of the process, goes quickly because there are not any challenges left and for cause is difficult sometimes to make out. guest: we will start taking your calls. you can start calling in now if you have russian about jury selection in the manhattan case with professor ronald sullivan. the numbers for republicans are 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002.

i wanted to ask you about the jurors that have been seated. two our attorneys -- two are attorneys. they don't work in the criminal field. does that surprise you? what do you think about that? guest: it does surprise me. the will of fong is that you don't want lawyers in your jury. -- the beloved, that you don't want lawyers in your jury. white? -- why? the other jurors might differ to them because they have legal knowledge. sometimes lawyers may not listen to the instructions of the court because they think they already know what the rules are. they think they understand what is behind and the objection and for sort of information enable your -- and the sort of information a lawyer -- a judge

says to consider. legal of thumb -- the rule of the is no lawyers. they are subject to exception. sometimes you think able you might be helpful. you might have a case that has certain technical aspects that you think able your can guide the jewelry in the direction of your client. other times it is a gut feeling. just to give you an example, this was years ago. before i became a professor, i was a public defender. i got a homicide and i learned like most lawyers, no lawyers on the jury. there was this one lawyer who seemed to say the right things and that for your was a recent graduate of berkeley law school

and she worked birkenstocks to court. i thought, i think i can deal with this person. this person will give my client a fair shot. sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. this is the example of fox's use to make determinations about how a juror might vote. there is think about those lawyers that both sides thought the people your could be advantageous to them. host: we have a land set aside for anybody who has had experience as a juror. you can call us 202-748-8003. you can also use the same line for texting us. we will go to calls now. republican in greenfield, indiana. caller: your post -- host proved

my point about jurors. when jurors get disqualified because of some statement they make that they cannot or appear to have some bias toward the defendant, they should be recused. i think the same thing would apply to the judge with some of the statements and past dealings with the trump charges that he has overseen. i think it appears from what we see on tv and some of the statements the judge has made and given his past financial donations to the biden election campaign, the involvement with his daughter, based on his

promise about disqualified a juror -- disqualifying a juror, the judge should be disqualified as well. host: let's get a response. guest: always good to hear from a fellow hoosier. i was born and raised in gary, indiana. the rules with respect to the crucial are different for different judges. and dismissal for cause for a juror. the rules every different. president trump and his tm filed were crucial motions for a judge that was denied. the caller makes a very good point about the notion of recusal that exists on two registers for a judge. whether a judge has an actual

conflict such that she should be recused whether a judge has the appearance of a conflict such that a reasonable is an unaided public doesn't have faith in the integrity of the system. these are things the judge considered when making his ruling. the law says you cannot control what you little children do so that is not a factor in his analysis. judges are part of the applicable system so they can make nations. they are not required to be independent politically but the law presumes judges are going to put aside for dispositions based on political affiliations. otherwise, we could not have judges or we would have to redesign the system where we

have amended the judges remain apolitical. you can see the problem. trump -- you cannot say just because you were appointed by trump, you cannot sit on this case. it would cause chaos in the system. we have a system designed to take that into account and presumes judges can behave appropriately unless or until the level of conflict rises to a particular level that it is not in this case. host: supplement, main. -- south portland, maine. guest: -- caller: i am a fan of your work and doing a bit more research of you and your clients over the years. he recalled up to represent -- and the only reason you did that

is because you were the dorm provider. how do you feel about that one? guest: a little outside of the topic but i represented mr. weinstein. i believe in the right to counsel. i started my career as a public defender and i believe everybody deserves a right to a lawyer and a right to a competent and effective lawyer. it is up to lawyers like me to represent clients who many deem unpopular. that is our duty as lookers in order to make the system work -- as lawyers in order to make the system work. if we failed to do this, we will see the protections that you and me enjoyed irrigated. because lawyers are not fighting for the rights of the low and the least among us.

these are very important. we have rights like the miranda warnings because someone decided to represent mr. ernesto miranda who by all accounts was not the greatest guy in the world. a lawyer stood up and revisited him nonetheless in his case. because of that, we have protections that protect us from the overreach of the state. host: michael has been a juror in plainfield, illinois. caller: good morning to you and your guest. i have been on two judah was here -- i have been on two juries. i have been informed each time. where i would like your guest to

comment is this system in a lot of respects is fraud because when they do this, ask questions. -- they ask questions. they are under pressure to get this through and panel injury. -- panel jury. i don't think they take a particular the long time to do this. the system is fraud. people are going to be under pressure. they are going to have other things to do. it doesn't pay much money. they are expected to sit in judgment of someone. this is a very technical case, as was the civil case i set on. it was involving in the group lessons and it was incredibly

complicated as to the criteria for transferring things. i think that is what this is going to be, another highly technical case. there are going to be a lot of problems for the juror -- the jury and coming to a fair conclusion. host: what do you think? guest: is the jury system in perfect? -- imperfect? yes. there continues to be a tension -- between expediency and choosing a fair and partial jury. most judges are interested in quickly battling a jury -- quickly paneling a jury. defense counsel is interested in slowing the bus is done to ensure there is a fair jury. it is an imperfect system.

there is any old saying that our criminal legal system is the worst system in the world, except for all of the others. it does a good job relative to systems around the world. there are ways we can improve it and i agree with her, not -- agree with your caller on that. the fact that he was a four-person for a jury twice shows that he is the exact person both sides would want to, someone fair. notwithstanding some of the issues inherent in our jury selection process, i have a lot of faith in the jury system. i think they are smart, they are fair. most important thing, i think they try to do the right thing.

there was something about walking into that courtroom and the setting and the granger that people come in and they are in some way transported back to the 19 fixture -- the 19th century and feel as though they are part of a very long and important system. they come in and their mindset shifts because of this setting. someone stands up and says all ye having business before the court, draw nigh and be heard. no one talks like that. they are transported through time, space, and history and become part of this somewhat ancient system of dispensing justice. my point is traversed -- jurors

come to take this very seriously. in my experience, with the most part, jurors -- for the most part, jurors take it seriously and try to be fair. is it perfect? no. is there room for improvement? yes but we have a lot to respect. host: the caller mentioned jurors not being paid very much. do you have an example? guest: each state pays differently. it is not a lot. it is not a livable wage. you cannot pay your bills with what you get. you can probably pay for election parking. it is the minimal. -- it is really minimal.

i hated to venture a number, but it is low. you cannot pay your rent with it. it is not a replacement for your job, whatever you are earning. because of that, this is one of the problems we have so. because of that. a lot working-class people cannot afford to be on a jury. many black and brown people who do not have significant means cannot afford to be on a jury. that is one of the areas we have to work with. juries tend to be professional full crew can afford it and whose jobs will pay them regardless of whether they are sitting on a jury, and government workers. teachers and bus drivers because the state to pay your salary while you are on the jury. host: let's try to get another

call in. stephen in new york, independent. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. guest: i am a trial lawyer in new york and i have a comment and for the professor -- and a question for the -- professor. for the caller who questioned if our system is the this, i think there is no other way. when you compare it to other countries in the world where they have no jurors but in fact the government or partial judge is making decisions, that is worse. you mentioned depict a -- you picked a juror who is a lawyer in a case in washington, d.c. who were birkenstocks, presuming as a public defender, you thought that person would be liberal but you did not get a response as to whether you and

the other lawyer were satisfied and i wonder if that juror defied your expectations that he or she would be liberal in favor of your client. can you comment on that? guest: great question. as the caller knows who is a fellow trial lawyer, we only tell stories about cases we win. yes, that juror was very good. the juror ended up being the four-person and we got a good result there. what i will say, as the caller knows, this is tricky calculus when you're making these sorts of influential beeps based on small cues about the jury. oftentimes we are dead wrong and that juror turns out to be worse possible juror for you. or you spin this beautiful

theory throughout the case and you win case and you talk to the jury after the trial and they found for some other reason you didn't think they would. you never know. it is an atmosphere of imperfect information and lawyers do their best to try to manage this information in a limited time and make judgments that are beneficial for their client. host: really quick we will get suzanne. independent. caller: thank you for having me. my question is, i was wondering, is the judge in the case being biased because he said there is a gag order on mr. trump. i was just wondering, is that a concern is that normal to do that? host: professor, very quickly.

guest: normal if one party begins to speak in a way that is inappropriate and contrary to the court. the court can issue a gag order. if the prosecutor starts doing it, the judge will issue a gag for the prosecutor. host: professor ronald sullivan of harvard university, think you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: that is it for us today. we are going to take you straight to the house of representatives. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. april 19, 2024. i hereby appoint the honorable mike bost to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. sign, mike johnson, ea