>> coming up on c-span's "washington journal," your calls and comments. then politico reporter anthony and agnet previews the week ahead in congress. later, the rise of nikki haley's numbers in national polls. and george mason university's jamil jaffer on the reauthorization of the section 702 surveillance act2 "washington journal." starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, december 4. the senate returns at 3:00 p.m. eastern today. the house is back at noon.

speaker mike johnson says he believes he has the votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry into resident joe biden. it was former speaker kevin mccarthy who opened impeachment proceedings without a vote. should the house hold a vote authorizing its impeachment? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. on x, it's @cspanwj, on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. you can call in now. this is the headlines from the washington times area speaker johnson moves ahead with impeachment inquiry vote.

this was speaker johnson speaking on fox and friends over the weekend it has -- [video clip] >> has become a necessary vote. we were -- we decried that use of it. this is different. we are the rule of law team. we have to do it methodically. our three committees of jurisdiction have been doing an extraordinary job following the evidence where it leads. now we are being stonewalled by the white house, because they are preventing at least two to three doj witnesses coming forward. the national archives, the white house has withheld thousands of pages of evidence. a formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow us to take it to the next step. host: speaker mike don's and get that is from fox and friends saturday. on sunday, the chairman of one of the committees leading the probe into joe biden and the biden family so far is james

comer, the kentucky republican. he was speaking on fox news, also asked about a formal impeachment vote. [video clip] >> i do not understand why you have had to take so long to actually that a vote to impeach, get this impeachment inquiry going. do you feel you have the votes in the house right now to get a formal impeachment inquiry? >> i do. i had a reporter asked what has changed? because the press has been writing that we did not have the votes forever. one thing that changed as we were in washington, d.c. for 10 weeks and there were about 15 moderates who worried about what cnn writes, and they were getting in their head. but a great thing happened during thanksgiving. the members went home, many of them for the first time, circulated for the first time in over 10 weeks. they met people in walmart and on main street, and they were like, what in the world have the

bidens done to receive millions of dollars from our enemies around the world, and they did not pay taxes on it? they heard from their constituents. we want to know the truth, and we expect the bidens to be held accountable for public corruption. we are unified at a time when our conference is broken in a number of ways. the members heard from constituents back home. they have confidence in the credibility of our investigation and the mountain of evidence we have accumulated. host: congressman james comer, the chairman of the oversight committee, yesterday on fox news. also yesterday, robert garcia, also a member of the oversight committee, a democrat from california, asking why republicans want to do this. [video clip] >> there is no evidence. we have made that clear over and over.

all the evidence republicans tried to bring forward are essentially discredited rudy giuliani conspiracy theories. this is a tinfoil hat committee with zero evidence. host: asking you this morning on "washington journal," should the household a formal impeachment inquiry vote on the house floor? it is a tight margin between democrats and republicans right now, but speaker mike johnson says he has of the votes to formally authorize impeachment. these inquiries have been going on since some timbre here this would be a formal authorization, adding some legal have to behind some of these inquiries. (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, it is (202) 748-8002. a few of your comments from social media already. this is a martin, iting in that the house did impeach the

guy everyone -- th isteve saying absolutely. we have a corrupt, dishonest president. he has been living off political kickbacks for years. time to send himnd his this function family packing good one more from tom saying it would probably fail, though who cares? they keep embarrassing themselves on this issue anyway. if you have your comments in our facebook conversation already. you can also look for us on x and sent us a text as well, (202) 748-8003. or call, like jim did out of florida, republican. caller: are you ready for a scoop? host: go ahead. caller: i think the republicans are going to do the democrats a favor. regardless of how many votes it takes in the congress to get this impeachment going, if democrats have to throw in extra

votes, they will get it going, because they will want to have that and the leaders of the democratic party are going to go to the president and say, you should think about retiring, because your health and all of that. and really, you're becoming a drag on the party, and you need to retire. and if you don't, we are probably going to get enough votes for the impeachment from our side, from the democratic side, to impeach you, and i do not think you want to go out that way. i think they will use it as leverage against the president. the democrats are going to use as leverage against the president to get him to not run for another term. i believe the republicans are going to help them in that matter. host: and you think another democratic candidate could beat the likely republican nominee? caller: i think it is pretty

obvious that the democrats do not want biden to run for another term. this is their avenue to tell him, you know, we do not want to do this, but we have to. we are going to get enough votes, the 60 votes to impeach you. you don't want to be impeached, just retire, tell them you will not run again, and a lot of this will go away for you. they have a lot of things against you. it will melt like snow on a hot summer day. i believe that is what is going to happen. in a way, the republicans are doing the democrats a favor by impeaching him. and then the democrats are going to pick up on it, and they will go to him and say just retire. and that way, there will not be any scandal on you, anything like that. because if you do not, i think for the betterment of the party, we will get the 60 votes to impeach you, so we can get

another candidate. host: got your point here that is jim in florida. this is john out of florida, independent. good morning, you are up. caller: yeah, i think they should go on with the impeachment of biden. he has committed treason, in my eyes. being a vietnam combat that --vet -- being a vietnam combat vet and knowing his background, who he is listening to, obama -- key needs to go to prison. his son, his brother. anyone who receives money from foreign countries needs to go to prison, on both sides of the aisle. this congress, on both sides, is destroying this country. gavin newsom buys chinese flags in san francisco.

host: this is horace out of philadelphia, democrat. what are your thoughts about a formal vote on the house floor for impeachment? horace, are you with us? caller: yes, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. what do you think? caller: i think it is a doggone shame that the republicans ain't got nothing better to do then mess with a president who is doing his very best to take care of all kinds of situations, especially with the hamas and israeli war and stuff. and going off on this man who is doing his best to take care of this country and foreign policy, and he has to worry about some foolish probably kids trying to impeachment -- impeach him

because of donald trump, who was impeached twice. i think it is a waste of time, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. you have a good day, my friend. host: that is horace. again, these impeachment probes by multiple house committees, the most high-profile one being the oversight committee, have been going on for months now. this would be a formal vote on the house floor to authorize these investigations. the wall street journal today with an explanation of what that would mean, why that would matter. they write impeachment infestations improve the likelihood that a court would authorize access to grand jury materials and boost the chances of overcoming assertions of executive privilege, according to a 2019 report by the congressional research service. there is disagreement about whether a formal house vote is needed to authorize an

impeachment probe. such a move helps remove legal ambiguity. the exultation from the wall street journal. from the white house from late last week, as this was being discussed, a memo on how much of the biden administration has cooperated with these impeachment inquiries. they call these inquiries a fishing expedition and illegitimate. they note how should republicans have thousands of pages of witness testimony. axios writing about what was in this memo, noting republicans had access to more than 35,000 pages of private financial records, more than 2000 pages of financial reports from the treasury department, at least 36 hours of witness interviews and testimony, and documents, including highly sensitive materials, and witnesses from the fbi and the national archives. republicans saying it is not enough, and they believe this

impeachment inquiry would shake loose, perhaps, more documents and perhaps more witnesses as well. getting your thoughts. should the household formal impeachment inquiry vote? mary jo out of maryland, what you think? caller: i think they are well warranted. biden has been corrupt his whole time in the government and in politics. lied, plagiarized, and he just gets away with it, so he keeps doing it. they can always find something and a way to prosecute donald trump, why is it so hard to do with biden, with all he has done? host: this is gordon out of michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm on? host: yes, sir. what do you think? caller: this is a big circus,

how this keeps going on, it is incredible. -- i listen to the man. once he said, you know, that was enough. the tapes on the bus, whatever -- what do i tell my daughter? when i told that two people, what do i tell my daughter after that incident -- this just goes on, it is a big circus. how can they have any credibility going forward if this is the evidence they are going to impeach someone? thank you very much. you guys do a great service. america, wake up. host: dave out of maryland, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. this ignorant republican party, last time they tried to do this impeachment inquiry, their own speaker, kevin mccarthy, got

fired. so now they're going to go back to waste some more time, and they do not realize that they are going to lose the house of representatives pretty soon. and even though they are in power, really, the democrats run the show. there is no reason to really go after the president. he is doing a good job, considering the circumstances. biden has publicly said he has come out to do his testimony. host: you think the reason that kevin mccarthy is no longer speaker is because of the impeachment inquiries? because some of those who are most critical of him and leading the push to oust him from the speakership were saying he was not moving fast enough on impeachment. caller: you know, 24 hours before a shut down, he did not

have the key leadership skills to say no, i will not do this and focus on avoiding the shutdown. yes. these ignorant republicans, that is what they are doing. again, wasting their time, instead of pushing the israel funding through, they -- we have serious issues that need to be dealt with. they will do this foolish circus, and they are not going to succeed. it is a mockery of politics. it is how ignorant and foolish they are. host: more discussion on impeachment from yesterday's "meet the press." florida governor ron desantis being asked about it yesterday. [video clip] >> speaker mike johnson says he believes he has the votes to open an impeachment inquiry into president biden and that he has a duty to hold such a vote.

do you think republicans run the risk of having that move potentially backfire and emboldening president biden as he heads into a reelection year, if they moved to impeach him? >> here's what i think. i think the biden family, the amount of money that has flowed into that family, to me, is corrupt. it has not been explained in ways that make any sense, so opening an inquiry based on the fact that we have i think would be justifiable. however, they run the risk of doing an inquiry that does not necessarily lead anywhere while they have been ignoring a lot of the problems that our voters are talking about. when i am going through iowa, republican voters obviously are not fond about joe biden. yes, they are concerned about hunter and all this money. but they are more concerned about what is happening on our border. they are more concerned about what is happening with the economy. they are more concerned about federal agencies overstepping

their bounds. if you are doing the inquiry, which, again, i think is justifiable, you also have to address all these other issues. there is a feeling out here they are not focused on the key issues they wanted to see addressed. clearly, on the budget, there has been no progress on that. make sure you're not ignoring all these other issues, and do not use that inquiry as kind of a trojan horse to not meet your responsibilities on all these other things. host: senator ron desantis on "meet the press" yesterday. back to your calls, asking should the household and impeachment inquiry vote on the house floor? this is betty, a republican in south carolina. good morning. caller: yes, they should have him. look at all he has done. i do not see why all these people does not see -- like that man from pennsylvania. i do not understand him.

they need to clean that whole -- he is supposed to be doing what we say, and he gets by with everything. i mean everything. i've never seen the like in my life. and just keep on letting him stay in there, and he will do more, and this world will come to an end, if he stays in there. host: this is leslie in north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. to that woman in south carolina, i would say the same thing about trump. trump -- if trump is allowed to get back in there, he will take over. they keep going after joe biden, go after hunter biden.

hunter said i will testify. with trump, he did not want to come testify. what you want from the democrats? joe biden has done a real good job. he has done a great job. inflation is down, the economy is doing well. as far as the border, both republicans and democrats have to come together on the border. i am a democrat, and i still have problems with immigration and how it is a mess. i just do not like i could ever vote republican because of donald trump. i would vote -- host: does it say some thing about our politics today that the caller before you was talking end times if joe biden stays in office, and you are talking it is the end times for the world if donald trump comes

back into office? caller: yes. yes, that is true. host: what does it say about the state of our politics, that it is and m times one way or the other? caller: the politics of america right now is in great peril, either democrats or republicans. because, like i say, if donald trump gets in, it is all about authoritarianism. he wants to be the one true leader of america. he has a whole family he has lined up, so when donald trump dies, his son will be his successor. we do not need a napoleon or hitler type of leader. we do not need that in america. america was based on we will go four years and we will vote. if he gets back in there, it will go another four years, and that is the end of your term. then we will vote for another president. we should not go back to kings and queens, because america was

not founded on that. host: leslie mentioned hunter biden and the dispute over his testimony and how he would testify before the house oversight committee. this is the story from the washington times -- hunter biden's bid for public testimony about his deals are rejected. comer says he must do so at a private deposition first to explain that and the difference between how that process would happen before the cameras and behind closed doors. congresswoman elise stefanik was asked about it on saturday. [video clip] >> help me understand something about the impeachment process and the proposal to depose hunter biden. i think it is something the american people would love to see happen and love to see take place. that is what hunter biden says he wants as well, for it to be open and in the public, but

there is the desire among summer republicans to start behind closed doors. why? >> it is important to get a deposition. an open hearing is five minutes on the democrats side, five minutes on the republican side. it becomes a very public press opportunity for the democrats to politicize. we want to go at this from a legal and factual perspective, and the only way to do this is through a deposition. this is what democrats said when they refused and open hearing. now they want to make a counter argument, but they are on record saying it when it should have a deposition. it is on a cup double that hunter biden's attorney said he just wants an open hearing. the only correct response to a subpoena is a deposition. host: talking to you this monday morning on the washington journal about a formal impeachment vote on the house floor. do you think that should take place when it comes to impeachment inquiries into president joe biden?

this is john in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: they do not need to do it, because they did not do the same thing when rep -- when democrats did. and the ignorant democrat who came up, you just -- during covid, a big one was they impeached trump twice. explain all the whistleblowers. they are cooperating? sure. they are stonewalling at every turn. six appropriation bills have been passed by the congress, so i do not understand why there are saying there is nothing getting done there. and there were no wars and a good economy under president trump. the democrats that call in today are very ignorant. they say all the christians --

as soon as they have right activity, that is when we decide people are dead. nobody wants to believe the polls about president biden, but they want to believe the polls about people liking abortion and all that stuff. get serious and stop being so partial. thank you for correcting the ignorant democrats that call in. host: here, the new york times with a story back from september, when then speaker kevin mccarthy authorized the committees to move forward but did not hold a forma vote on the house floor. as justification, he pointed to the actions of former speaker nancy pelosi, who announced a formal impeachment inquiry into then president donald trump in 2019 five weeks before the house voted to authorize a formal impeachment probe, to have that vote on the house floor. he said that set a precedent

that he was following. there is no binding rules about what the house should do for an impeachment inquiry. the house committee began an impeachment inquiry into president nixon in october of 1973 but did not ratify a formal inquiry until february of 1974. in 19 88, the house voted -- in 20.1, the house impeached mr. trump a second time with no inquiry at all. so no set rules on this, but there has been a push to hold a formal vote on the house for -- for, republicans -- floor, republicans saying that would shake loose more witnesses and more documents to give legal have to. dave is in texas, republican. what do you think? what do you think, david? caller: hello? host: go ahead.

caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: they absolutely should formalize it. they spent months on top of months documenting and compiling tons of evidence of what has been going on. yesterday, desantis' interview on "meet the press" -- i am a big santos supporter, but that was the most political statement he has made, and i would not vote for him if he is the last man on earth right now. he is just trying to prevent more evidence coming out that would show why donald trump is acting the way he is acting. evidence revealed that rendon revealed in a meeting in 2017 that the dossier was the most likely result of hillary clinton's efforts to devote the attention from her email problems, and they knew about it. there were all kind of reports

have shown clearly that they knew the whole thing was a hoax before they even got started with it. iran, for example, 3.5 million barrels of oil. i think he is doing what he is doing, not responding to the iranian, china press because he is compromised. iran was pumping 200,000 barrels of oil a day when trump was in office. now it is 3.5 million. biden needs the oil on the market to keep the price of gas down. there is so much -- people keep saying it will be the end of the world if trump comes back into office. well, he was in office for four years -- host: are you still with us? i think we lost the call. brenda in baton rouge, louisiana. go ahead. caller: i definitely do not

think the republicans should try to impeach president biden. i am so happy that biden is in office now with what is going on in the world. he is very respect it other leaders and knows what he should be doing, whereas trump is so scary -- the reason i call this morning is it seems to be most republicans calling, and i feel like some democrats should call. that is my opinion for sure. host: thanks for the call from louisiana. the caller from texas was talking about the various points of republican probes into the biden administration, the biden family. the wall street journal story today on this potential impeachment vote takes a look at another focal point for republicans involving two transactions involving james and joe biden in the years immediately following joe biden's vice presidency, which

the house oversight committee chairman has pointed to as evidence that joe biden laundered money through china through his brother. he wrote a check to james biden for "loan repayment." a year later, his sister wrote a check with a similar -- as evidence joe biden lent his brother money and was then being paid back. but those transactions a focal point of their probes. this is mike in arizona, independent. go ahead. caller: hi. i just wanted to say it is entirely unsurprising how this is the topic of conversation right now while, right at this moment, there is a genocide

happening that the white house and the entire state department apparatus is attempting to do everything they can to shield themselves from liability for the ongoing genocide in gaza by the israeli government right now. why? please tell me why this is the topic of conversation right now and why this is what is so important in congress. host: why do you think it is important enough for the speaker of the house to talk about it happening sometime in the next week or so, saying he has the votes for this? and he is not a memory of the biden administration, he is the republican speaker. caller: i do not think it is important. this is entirely a way to distract everybody from what is actually happening around the world. this is what the state department apparatus is designed to do. this is not a conspiracy theory,

this is literally what they are designed to do. host: and you think were republicans on capitol hill want to do that as well? caller: they want to opt to skate -- coffee skate -- o bfuscate as much as they can. i am saying this is not the topic of conversation that you, as "washington journal" should cover right now. host: stick around. we will talk more about that in our next segment, talking about those eight packages working their way through capitol hill, eight packages to israel and ukraine. if you do not like this segment, stick around. there is plenty more to talk about today. this is john in ohio, republican. good morning. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i used to be a republican. i cannot believe that the people are doing this right now.

the republicans are crazy. host: is that all you wanted to say? caller: i just cannot believe this situation we are in. it is just terrible. host: this is kathy in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is kathy from the stupid s tate. i just wanted to say that i think they should let it rip. let's put it all out there in the open, see what they have got. they have been wasting everybody's time so far with these hearings, but they do not show anything. they just stand and say whatever they feel like. some of it -- if they could sue, i am sure they would for slander. but i think putting ron desantis on -- it ruined my morning right off the bat. all these people say they want ron desantis, well, come on down to florida and find out.

he does not do his job, but he sure has a lot to say about how everybody should do their job. he is busy putting his nose in everybody else's business, and he does not take care of the insurance problem here. he creates an educational problem here. he is banning books. he wants to -- host: are you done, kathy? i think we lost kathy there -- caller: hello? host: finished your statement. caller: i do not know how much you hurt. but anyway, putting ron desantis on first thing in the morning, for me, ruins my day so far -- host: got your point. maybe you would prefer ted lieu, who expresses some of your same concerns. this is wednesday, the democrat from california speaking to reporters. here's what he had to say about republicans' impeachment inquiry. [video clip] >> i know i am out of date myself. but remember that wendy's commercial "where's the beef?

" they show the sandwich, and the customer keeps saying, "where's ehe beef?" where's the evidence? republicans cannot show a shred of evidence. that is why there is no start. there should be no start at all, because there is no evidence. >> the house democratic caucus chair is not endorsed wendy's or any chain restaurant. [laughter] host: ted lieu from last week on capitol hill. taking your phone calls. should the house hold a formal vote to open an impeachment inquiry? those inquiries have already been open, but this would be the formal vote on impeachment. speaker johnson saying he has the votes to do so ok getting your calls. on phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents. vee in new jersey, democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is where i am a little concerned.

when nixon was impeached, it was because of watergate, which happened while he was in office. then, bill clinton was impeached, which happened while he was in office with monica. then, trump was impeached, because a phonecall while he was in office. he was also impeached for insurrection while he was in office. where i am having a problem is that they are going back to things that joe biden did not do while he was president. please explain to me how all the other presidents did thing in -- did things in office. joe biden did not do anything as president that they have shown

me so far. i do not understand. host: so you are in the same camp as ted lieu, where's the beef? caller: yes. host: howard in north carolina, independent. good morning. caller: top of the morning to you, c-span. this is a topic that should be in the janitor's closet. the republicans are pulling straws to find anything on biden before this year is up. we already know that joe biden, his family, do not compare anything to donald trump -- you could see kushner received $2 billion. but not one republican -- and ivanka in china with a business

-- you don't hear none of that. but right now, georgia bank is looking at -- showing they did not have anything to do with donald trump? so look, republicans. you can do anything you want you think will hurt biden in the election. i will still vote for biden, because the biden and obama administration was uncorrupt. you doul -- you couldn't find nothing on them. but trump? people, get over hunter biden and $1 million. hunter biden and $1 million, and you all are crying. host: got your point. this is the headline from today's washington times. it is how we began our program today. it was speaker johnson who said on saturday he is set to move ahead with an impeachment

inquiry vote, saying it could come sometime in the next week or so before members of congress leave capitol hill for the holidays and the end of the year, that story noting passing an impeachment inquiry on the house floor could be even more difficult now for speaker johnson following the expulsion of congressman george santos, the new york republican, last week. it shrank the gop's majority to just four votes, making it tougher for house republicans to unite their fractured conference. taking your phone calls, asking you if there should be a formal vote on impeachment on the inquiry into impeachment on the house floor. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, it's (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. also looking for your texts and tweets. here is a few of those texts. this is bob in missouri, saying,

no, this is just like real and replace. it will never happen. it is a nothing burger once again. frank in oregon saying the full investigation of corruption should take place on a number of democrats. this from texas -- i would not recommd peaching and convicting biden. yes,e's a crook andoron, brooks says, but vote him out and trump-ramaswamy is who he is supporting. these are a few of your texts. lines for democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. this is joanne in connecticut, go ahead. caller: yes, they should go with the impeachment inquiry. joe biden never thought he would be president, and he has how many shall companies? those are fictitious.

they have bank records. thank -- bank records did not live. money went to his house, and his family got millions of dollars. why would the chinese government give a crackhead like hunter biden any money? we are talking millions of dollars. because of influence. joe biden set up this scheme with the shell companies so no one would find out about it. the irs should be looking into them, because they do not pay taxes on that money they received when his son was getting money from our adversaries -- host: do you watch the impeachment hearings? caller: yes, i have. and they had the records. the money ran right through his house. his sister-in-law cut him a check for 10%.

10% for the big guy. who the hell is the bug guy? you have banks, auditors who looked through it, flagged his account, and did nothing because it was a biden. host: this is giovanni in missouri. good morning. caller: sir, i made a mistake. i meant to call for republicans because i am a republican. host: all right. go ahead. try to keep to the lines that test describe you. but go ahead. caller: again, i apologize for that. for the people out there, i want them to understand something. what businesses, what product, what was joe biden and his family selling to receive all that money? if it was trump receiving all this money from all these other countries, and trump had no hotels, no products, he did not

create anything, his family did not make clothes -- yes, his family has patents in china. they produce things in china. what does joe biden produce in china for receiving all that money? and let me ask you this real quick. do you remember the contact that joe biden got in iraq to rebuild iraq? whatever happened with that money? why would dick cheney ever gave james biden a contract to help rebuild iraq? that is still, to my head, fuzzy. why would he do that? but my big question again is this -- what product? what was he selling? what was he doing to get money from 5, 6 countries that hate our guts. host: giovanni, a republican this morning. this is regis in pittsburgh.

good morning. caller: good morning. what i am hearing from a lot of your callers is sort of like "everybody knows" rather than any solid evidence. there is absolutely nothing so far that connects joe biden with his son's activities. his son's activities do not have anything to do with government. this is mostly an attempt to smear biden in the media. even the republican impeachment inquiries is not presenting anything solid. none of this would stand up in court. i do not understand why people are so ready to believe it, except for their own political prejudices. the stuff that trump is accused of is actual crime while in office. there is no such thing existing with biden. host: that is regis in pittsburgh.

this is bob in minnesota, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a big farce. what you're dealing with is a lot of lawyers making money doing inquiries into something that is not exist. as long as they keep on searching for something, they will keep on paying for it. that is where all the money is going, to the lawyers. host: that is bob in minnesota. this is wendell in louisiana, good morning. republican. caller: yes. i am a 92-year-old voter. i think that biden is the most corrupt president we have ever had in this world. that is all i have to say. host: this is zachary, maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. i just want to question c-span

along the lines of the -- one of the previous caller's. why is this topic so important? why are you not discussing the genocide? host: the speaker of the house was talking about it over the weekend. members of congress -- caller: that is a distraction. you always tried to distract us. you distract us by touching not a single problem that touches our lives. for example -- host: what are the problems affect our lives right now that you want congress to talk about? caller: let me just tell you. if you're old, elder care is a very important thing. if you are young and you have children, day care is a very important thing. if you are paying taxes, and you do not have any relief, housing is a very important thing. why are you not discussing these

things? why are you discussing stupid things about things that will not happen. host: i promise you, we will discuss that -- caller: no, you have not -- host: and stick around, because we will be talking about a lot of these things. even in today's show as well, a look at the week ahead on capitol hill. we always set time aside, almost every day on this program, for open phones to let you call in and let you lead the discussion. that is what that segment is four. tell us what you think is important. that is why we try to put in open phones nearly every day on this program. caller: yeah, but this is not an important topic. this is certainly not an important topic. host: at some point, you will probably find it an important topic down the road. it is a topic important enough that the speaker of the house is talking about it. but that is why we are talking about it. to your point on washington accomplishing -- solving

problems, a compass and things, that was the point of the wall street journal today in their lead editorial on the op-ed pages of the wall street journal. can washington still do anything is the question they are specifically focusing here on border security and a ukraine-israel eight deal, calling it too important to fail. this is the lead of the editorial board of the wall street journal. can the united states government still act to solve problems and eight allies in our national interest? it is hard to believe it has come to this, but that is the underlying question as biden and congress struggled to pass an aid bill. meanwhile, president biden asked congress for $106 billion in supplemental spending but needs republican votes to do it. republicans want to do something to stem the flood of migrants crossing the border, but they need democrats to pass it.

the necessity for compromise is obvious, but americans polarized congress, and biden's political weakness made take the effort. again, their headline, can washington still do anything? marvin in tennessee, republican. you are next. caller: good morning to you. host: good morning. caller: i appreciate you allowing americans to speak on this topic. should biden be impeached? i think the question should be that, if the application of this decision to impeach a president for infractions depends upon them committing crimes or things that are worthy of impeachment, such as if a former president, as someone mentioned earlier, were impeached for a particular fault based upon an investigation conducted, then i believe that whatever applies to

warrant and impeachment should be followed -- to warrant an impeachment should be followed. if donald trump, the former president, was impeached several times face on evidence that, mind you, most of the evidence that was presented regarding against trump was found to be unfounded and fabricated, but nothing was addressed regarding that, especially when it comes to hillary clinton and the dossier against donald trump, but nothing also followed up with that. however, with joe biden, the american public should allow whatever evidence that is supposed to be gathered to show that biden is guilty of these infractions. instead of saying he is not guilty, allow the evidence to be presented. if he is found realty of these infractions, he should be

impeached. donald trump was saying, ok, the -- if the person is guilty, let the law applied to everybody the same way. i just think that americans are -- have blinded themselves or allowed themselves to be blinded by the media. let the evidence be presented. host: this is lee in portland, maine, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to set the record straight. they keep saying about where joe biden gets all this money. this is what they are trying to impeach him on come all this money. joe biden has written 64 books. donald trump has written no books. no publishing firm will accept him. they won't write a book for him -- host: there is a publishing firm

that they trump family has been involved in, and the former president has written books, including some very well-known books. i do not know the number on joe biden's books, i will look it up. but for the money issue -- caller: i looked it up. 64 books he has written. and they wonder where he gets his money. people make big money writing books. hillary clinton, bill clinton -- donald trump, though, a reputable publishing firm will not accept him. i read that. because he will not tell the truth. host: did you ever read "the art of the deal"? caller: no, because i know it is lies. host: what is your favorite book that joe biden has written? caller: i have not read any of joe biden's books. i read hillary clinton and bill clinton's. i am just -- what i am trying to

say is they wonder where people make their money. they make millions of dollars writing books. host: since we have you on the topic, who do you think has written the best book as a public official? somebody who has been in office? if you could recommend one of those books? caller: colin powell. host: colin powell's book? (202) 748-8002 -- caller: yes, probably colin powell's. host: what was the name of the book? caller: i do not remember. i read that a while ago. i am 82, by the way, so my memory is not rate going back. host: was it the secret to leadership by colin powell? or was it it works for me? caller: his picture was on the cover of the book. i am not sure what the name of it was.

i remember it was huge. a lot of pages in it. host: that could be a question for us down the road, what is the best political look out there. thanks for the idea. this is bill. good morning. caller: good morning. as far as this impeachment vote -- everybody keeps saying no one is above the law. that goes on both sides of the political aisle. no one is above the law. you guys need to follow the facts as well. you guys used to be very biased. now you're just moderately biased. but please, open your eyes and see what is truly going on. and please start to understand what the millions of voters see in some of our -- host: this is truly in colorado.

just about five minutes left in this first segment of "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: it is not that i am for or against impeaching the president. what i am against his them throwing the process of impeachment around like a ragdoll. marjorie taylor greene introduced articles of impeachment before biden was even inaugurated. i feel they are doing trump's bidding, that he wants this because he was impeached. if there is viable, credible evidence, impeach him, by all means. but what they have shown so far is nothing. host: on marjorie taylor greene, ian sams, a spoke person for the administration and kind of a point person responding to these impeachment questions when it comes from congress, he tweeted

just last night about marjorie taylor greene and impeachment, saying is, as a speaker johnson suggests, they are preparing a vote to ratify this imacent inquiry, every house republican the record to do marjorie taylor greene'sidng. in sam's 8:21 p.m. last night on twitter. this is eva in mississippi, good morning. caller: good morning. joe biden has screamed equality, equality, equality. now he is getting a taste of it. though it may be bitter, one day you will have to drink from it yourself. the chickens come home to roost. let him face things and explain everything in his family likely trumps have done. hold him accountable and let him explain.

i want to hear him mumble his explanation. host: this is monique here in washington, d.c., democrat. time for just a couple more calls. caller: good morning. i just want to say, i am 48 years old, and all i hear calling and are like baby boomers. it is time for you guys to just stop. you have already messed the country up for the next generation coming up. and i hear so much differences and so much anger and -- i am tired of it. the republican party, they are not doing any work in the house for the people. we have different states where gas prices are $4 a gallon for regular gas. and a majority of those states

are red states. i heard the other day that where the crime rate is high and the murder capital is high, in the top states with the highest murder per capita were red states, louisiana, mississippi. and when i hear all these callers coming in from west virginia, do these people actually read a newspaper, not f ox or msn? do they actually read the paper, do their research, or are they just spewing garbage? i'm sick of it. i'm 48 years old. we are the gen x citizens of the united states. something has got to change. it is like nothing will really change until they die off -- host: got your point. on gas prices, just to show where prices are over four dollars a gallon, one of the

issues you brought up, it is the state in yellow and bright orange on this map where gas prices are over $4 a gallon, so mostly california and the west coast. the darker purple on this map are states are in the low $2 range, the doctors purple there. gasbuddy.com is the place to go to to see that gas price map. it changes daily as gas prices change throughout the country. this is monty, last call in this segment come out of arizona, independent. go ahead. caller: well, they are still working on hunter biden to see if they can get some information on president biden. so this is just a fishing expedition. to me, it is all about revenge,

is what they are trying to do now. they do not really have anything to go on, but they figure if they fish long enough, they can find something. if they really have something, by all means, proceed. if you do not really have anything, then get your act together. if you're investing hunter biden. then see if you have to go after president biden. this whole thing is just about revenge. it is ridiculous. host: that is monte, last caller in this first segment of "washington journal." stick around. a lot more to talk about, including this final few days of the year when it comes to congressional calendars and congressional business. we will talk about later, george university jack well join us about a proposed

program that allows electronic surveillance of non-americans. we will talk about it later this morning on the washington journal. >> this week on the c-span networks, congress returns. the senate will continue work on executive nominations. christopher wray testifies before the senate judiciary hearing. tuesday, university president on confnting anti-semitism on coege campuses. witnesses include the president of harvard univeity and dr. sally kornblum. on wednesday, ceo's from bank of

america, chase and goldman sachs will be among the leaders testifying, focusing on industry oversight. watch, live on the c-span tworks or on c-span now. in to word for scheduling information or to stream information any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> americans can see democracy at work. citizens are truly informed. get informed straight at the sources. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. get the opinion that matter -- the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like.

>> listening to programs on c-span or c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to c-span radio. catch washington today for a fast-paced reporting story of the day. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. traveling over the holidays? make us part of your playlist. feature nonfiction books in one place. ultimate with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, current events and culture. afterwards, book notes plus and human day. listen to the bookshelf program.

you can find it and all of our podcasts on the free mobile video app or wherever you get your podcast. >> washington journal continues. host: we like to take a look at the week ahead. joining us for that conversation , anthony from politico. let's start with these emergency aid packages, the latest on funding for israel and ukraine. >> it is a make or break time. basically saying that the u.s. is out of money. the underscoring the need for action. there has been talk about getting together a package for border security.

it is not going well at this point. right now, going into the week, the outlook looks pretty grim. things can change. host: who moves first here, when it comes to these aid packages? guest: it was indicated that they would look to vote on a package this week. a lot of republican senators said they were prepared to filibuster. they had been insistent on it, but that is to be seen. there is a different conversation about whether they can get through the narrowly divided house. republicans will be more insistent on the bulk of their

security package as part of the supplemental. i think part of the complexity of the nuance is that immigration has been approaching something like a white whale. very insistent about trying to claw back and restrict as part of immigration talks. there has been a push from house publicans about the wall. that is the crux of it, but negotiations are really complex. a lot of moving part. host: is it more likely that we will see separately packages? guest: it is tough to say. they are supposed to be leaving

town at the end. i would be really surprised to see separate packages moving. i think it would be all or nothing. there has to be some sort of border security language in their. host: things move slowly, until they do not. take us to a house impeachment inquiry the, a formal the on these impeachment probes. when are we likely to see that? it seems like they are set. guest: they are indicating that they want to move as quickly as they can. that would be a formal the to authorize. it would not be a vote on the impeachment of president biden.

that is important to underscore here. many are still not on board with impeaching joe biden. there has not been any smoking gun found or any wrongdoing. they have not gotten access to the information they would like. i think that is what has been motivating them to be open. host: a formal vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry would give more legal heft to the increase and shake loose more witnesses or documents, right? guest: that is the argument. host: we are talking about the end of the congressional calendar. how many days do we have left? what else is on the calendar? guest: a lot of things. there is the bill that has to get done before the end of the year. a debate over the controversial

surveillance program and obviously, i think we are expecting some resolution. hundreds of promotions have been held up. exactly what the escape route looks like, i think we are waiting to find out. we are going to be moving as quickly as next week. host: how can they get around it? guest: the most compelling one is to look to the courts. travel policy for maintaining the holds. i think they have indicated being open to a legal course of action to weigh in. maybe that gives enough comfort. host: the next government

spending deadline is not until the 19th, but is there much work going on in the next week or two? or is the clock ticking down? guest: people often say that they are able to watch and to the same time. i would be surprised if we see a lot of movement there. many are not used to having the government shutdown. host: talking about the week ahead on capitol hill. a good time to get your calls in, if you have questions about all these different topics as we wind down. publicans can call in. independent, (202) 748-8002.

this is vivian from tennessee. good morning. caller: i have had surgery and my speech is impaired. i have been calling ever since i got out of the hospital to talk to you all about the way this congress is doing. they are up there talking about israel and gaza. i want to know, what about here in america? america is dying every day here. and not anything about this. i live in tennessee where the murder rate is terrible. i'm sick and tired. they are talking about joe biden, his family and everything. let me tell you something, trump did all this stuff and we got it on tape what this man has said, but congress is standing by him.

just look at what trump said to america. mcgrath, you do not have to say a word. doing debates when he was up there, it is stupid. now how can you let somebody get away with that? host: we got your point. vivienne was talking about things that are killing americans and congress is doing to fight back. what on capitol hill addresses those issues? guest: we heard a lot of frustration from people. polling has shown that americans are pretty split about that. there is this view that the mystic parties are often time set to decide whether that is crime or other areas.

there have been other efforts to address those. congress has been unproductive in terms of action. i think they are capturing a lot of the frustration that many in america have right now. host: gina is in hoover, alabama, independent. good morning. caller: i appreciate your time. let's go over this whole thing about biden. i want to know where he got $2 million in cash for his beach house. hunter did not have to file because he was dealing with area any means why is it ok for him as a senator to take classified documents that he did not have the authority to take?

host: bringing up some of the -- can you drill in on that and whether we are going to hear from him on capitol hill or not? guest: there was an offer from the legal team for testimony. that point has been rebuffed. i think that will be ongoing. i think a key part of the rationale that is being articulated is the view that it will beef up testimony and things of that sort. i think certainly, they view that as formalizing those powers strengthening their hand. host: is this an unusual move?

why are we starting behind closed doors? is this a play that others have made in these types of investigations? guest: part of the concern of going behind closed doors is that it allows for those who are participating behind closed doors to selectively leak parts of the deposition. even if they are released later, you tend to get more information upfront. this is the idea that it would not allow the leaking of aspects. you can have the back and forth for the american people. we actually had republicans voice some support for that. we will see if that changes, but that is where we stand right now. host: he is with politico. we are taking your phone calls.

jeremy, madison -- jeremy from madison, wisconsin is next. caller: hello. i was surprised that the tub or veil thing was brought up. in the first segment, i was extremely disappointed. i'm wondering why is one senator getting blamed when the senate, generally speaking -- just do three a day. three military leaders are picked? i do not understand. host: your response? guest: it is the crux of the issue. these are promotions that go through without having these votes called. the senate tends to the few

times a day. it would take them literally days to process them. that is something that could be done. democrats and some republicans would say that these are promotions that are not controversial. they go through without much debate. you are forcing it -- you are forcing votes. host: can you explain the funding for israel, ukraine and border security that the senate does not reject? guest: that is a great question. i think speaker johnson is encountering a lot of the same dynamic -- dynamic that speaker mccarthy was dealing with.

it is a hard balancing act. there is an amped up right flank of the conference and you have those that president biden carried. it is going to be challenging for anybody and i think speaker johnson, competing priorities versus the rank and file member as to how you structure a package that can get through and hold off the concerns. i spoke with him in committees quite a bit, but i have not spoken to him that much. host: what was his relationship like with the press? guest: speaker pelosi had regular press conferences, something we have seen a couple times from speaker johnson. reporters -- she had really wide

access, something that was definitely appreciated, but i think speaker johnson is still navigating what persona he is wanting to project. he has given press conferences for a number of things. he has not been gaveling too much, not at length, so we will see. it is a difference in style. host: taking your calls as we look ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling about the border crisis. nobody is spinning so once except this. overall the languages, letting

people know that. there has to be some kind of solution as to how it can work. women and children can be the supply units, to support. what is wrong with that? guest: i think that captures a lot of the thorny issues at play here. congress has not been able to successfully weigh in for multiple decades, despite there being legislative efforts, trying to find a compromise. they are really dug into the issues among republicans and democrats, on every one of these issues. there are many of them. host: gary is calling on the independent line. caller: with all these migrants

coming across, what dates are allowing them to vote? -- states are allowing them to vote? host: states that are allowing immigrants to vote. guest: i am not aware of any federal states that are allowing any migrants to vote. host: willie from jackson, mississippi on the independent line. caller: i want to start with a public service announcement. doing what like i did years ago when c-span first started, watch c-span. watch congress taking a vote, legislate laws and all of this. you should do this. it is not just for calling in.

all presidents that got impeached, with the exception of clinton. most presidents got impeached with something they have done in office. donald trump -- those presidents often had two terms in office. donald trump did something impossible. he got investigated twice. he actually did something twice to get investigated twice to get impeached twice. within four years. that is scary. you want him back in office. i wasted my time. listen to what i just said.

it's investigated twice and impeached twice. host: back to the issue of impeachment. guest: this has become highly politicized. many members of congress do this -- view this as a tool that has been used and overview. that is part of the frustration that you're hearing from the collar and others. host: let's do back to noncitizen voting. a lot of this election information is in there. there are federal laws prohibiting immigrants from voting in certain elections.

seven states specified that noncitizens may not the state and local elections. the district of columbia has municipalities in three states that a round noncitizens to vote in local elections. that is the info. john is in georgia, republican. good morning. caller: yes, thank you. in reference to senator tupper bill, he said if they voted up or down, he would abide by that the. he has been stonewalling all along. what was the house doing when they did not have a speaker? could they not have voted be promotions in? thank you.

guest: it is not something that has been done historically. he can relax his holds. perhaps what they are alluding to is that there was a resolution passed that allowed them to be considered all at once and blocked. that has not been put to a vote on the floor. some would support that. but it is another option. think if there is not movement, there could be a vote on that. host: why, as legislators, rv being stonewalled as members demand more transparent on issues? guest: i did not know to much

about it, but this is where as members, exposure is really important. there is going to be this be in final the on the national policy bill that we are expecting before the end of the year. they want to require the most disclosure about what we know. that is part of that legislation. including that language. host: depict -- do they say that they see evidence of extraterrestrial life? guest: obviously, we tend to be classified. they are not able to answer completely, but i think it would be really interesting.

host: we are expecting a vote in the next two weeks. a call from the democrat mine. good morning. caller: i encourage everyone to listen tonight. liz cheney is discussing information in her book. i would like for everybody to just pay attention to what she is saying. do not be stonewalled about what you hear without knowing the facts. as far as the impeachment of president biden? if they want to embarrass themselves, let them do it. a public hearing said they know of nothing wrong that president biden has done. if they want to put that out in

the public again, i think we are entitled to know, if you did do something wrong, i prefer to know, but if he did not, stop wasting taxpayer dollars and just get the job done. we have much more important issues out there than worrying about what joe biden did before he became president. if he was in office and he did these things, just like president trump, i would be on the bandwagon of getting bit of him, but until you found that he has done something wrong, leave it alone. host: we got your point. amen why and a warning comes out tomorrow. that is the cover of the book there.

anything on what has come out about the book so far that has caught your eye? guest: i think it will be an interesting read. she played a crucial role in the last congress, so they will get some insights to how everything plays out. host: a viewer from the previous segment was talking about the most interesting political books recently. what is the last political book that you remember that caused a big stir, that affected the people in the halls of congress? guest: great question. i'm trying to think of the last one and i'm drawing a blank right now. i think there are so many of them that come out that it is hard to figure out which ones to prioritize. part of the process -- whether

or not you are actually going to follow through, our capacity is sometimes challenged. host: we are with anthony this morning. thank you for waiting in oregon. go ahead. caller: i have a question. one idea -- i want to know why congress is so hesitant to close the border. i want to preface that. do you think it could possibly be that republicans look the other way because they are getting a lot of inexpensive labor? and democrats want votes? what you think. -- what do you think? guest: i think that republicans come in the way they are handling negotiations are being very active.

democrats -- these folks do not have the ability to vote. i think they are trying and it is not supported by that. part of the challenge is that they are entitled to -- congress has not acted to change the laws. it is not a matter of flipping the switch and saying the border is closed. host: another of your stories i wanted to ask you about. starting to wind down officially. what is next for george santos? the headline today about book deals or reality tv. what do you know at this point? guest: apparently, there is already a movie under development for the former congressman.

he was teasing the fact that she was going to file ethics complaints against members in new york voted to expel him, so certainly, one of his former aides is essentially running for congress. i think the george santos show will probably continue on in some form. host: santos will not just disappear, but what comes next. i guess we will all find out together. guest: he does face quite a few charges. host: next caller is republican. good morning. caller: this may be better suited for the previous conversation, but the gentleman -- what i am noticing is from the callers, there is a definite

change in tone over the last week or so. i can tell that they have similar ideas together, that they think that a lot of the stuff about biden is baloney. there is no proof. look at what our people are doing, but behind that come in their voice, they are worried, and i think they are seeing what i see, that the snowball is going downhill and it does not matter much if there is any actual evidence presented. nixon resigned. even though they had taken a vote, he resigned because his goose was cooked. they understood that and it was not about them. that is what we are looking at now with the democrats. the people that run the party,

they understand that we have to go forward somehow. unless something changes, donald trump will be the next president, and we have to maintain something to fight against that and whatever comes next. we cannot just give up. we have to hold onto something. that means joe biden has to go. the only question is under what circumstances and when? they are preparing to find a way to get rid of him. host: back to impeachment and then a follow-up for you. guest: lily getting a sense of the passion and anxiety behind this. the impeachment inquiry looks like it will happen. as soon as that passes, you will see even more attempts to get

information. there has been no smoking gun found yet, no smokes, no fire hearing. there should not be a problem with authorizing the inquiry. i suspect we are headed down that path. host: come back to that vote that would take place. the margins in the house are even tighter now with george santos gone. what was holding them back in september and why are they so confident about having the vote here in a very tight margin? guest: i think there is a ton of discomfort and i think the argument that you have heard from them in the last week or so -- they feel like they have not gotten access to information and they feel like the white house

is not been cooperative. that has given a lot of them more comfort. that is not to indicate that they are going to support impeaching the president in the end, but they think that going ahead and authorizing a formal increase might give them a better chance. host: if and when that happens, the place to go for information is politico. we always appreciate your time. coming up in about 40 minutes, we will be joined by jamil to discuss section -- to discuss, but until then, it is open forum. the phone lines are yours. ready to call in now.

♪ >> c-span campaign 2024 coverage continues with the presidential primary. watch live as the first votes are cast. along with candidate speeches and results, beginning with the iowa caucus and new hampshire primary on january 23. campaign 2024 on c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the george washington presidential library celebrated its 10th anniversary with a symposium titled the great experiment, democracy from the founding to the future. it included the university of

texas. joanne freeman from yale and in from howard university. the point of discussion was the mount vernon pole offended two thirds -- found two thirds of americans are pessimistic about the din andissatisfied with the political climate. >> historians on this episode of book nots. book notes plus is available on the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. since 1979, and partnership with the district, c-span has provided complete coverage from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row

seat on how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruption and completely unfiltered. your unfiltered view of government. >> this year, the tv marks 25 years on leading nonfiction authors. 900 cities and festivals visited and 16,000 events. the tv provided beers with 92,000 hours of programming on the latest discussions on history, politics and biography. you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, or online at book tv.org. book tv, 25 years of television for serious meters. >> washington journal continues.

host: it is time for our open forum. any issue that you want to talk about. we will put the number on the screen. this is when we let you lead the discussion. out of washington, line for democrats. what is on your mind? caller: i am from washington, northeast of washington state. i am definitely a rural democrat . i have been a democrat since i realized that the party needed to be changed. the one big change i see today is that there is a new talking point coming out that biden should resign, retired or something, to try to get around. anyways, we have a lot more

important to talk about in our country besides that we need business in the country. we need food coming from our country. we need -- there was a talking point that he needs to retire. let's get off of the president and what is happening in our local areas, and in our local district, where it is paid for. we need money out of politics. we have to overturn with citizens united ruling, which we needed to do, i think it is 12 years now. it has been a long time. obviously, the supreme court is not functioning as it should those are things that i think are important.

host: in texas, republican. the morning. caller: i am a republican and i am proud to be a republican, but i'm not proud that donald trump is probably going to be the candidate. i have talked to other republicans who feel the same way. we would really like somebody like nikki haley to be our candidate. i do not know how i can help. i can give her money, i suppose, but i do not believe that when he is the answer. people have to listen to what she has to say. she is a good person. host: nikki haley -- what is nikki haley sailing that you agree with, that speaks to you? caller: our foreign politics, among other things.

everything she says locally as well about what needs to be done for the country. it is all good. i do not know why people want to bash her family. she is a woman and not a man, and apparently that is a problem. i think a woman can lead just as well as a man can. i do not know what people want to hear. i do not think any other candidates on their, especially new jersey. he is just a politician. he is not going to make a good president. host: be sure to stick around for a few more minutes. people continues to call in on open forum. let me go to jazmine ulloa, who

has been covering nikki haley ashley is my. jazmine ulloa, good morning to you. cook network endorses nikki haley. explain what has happened in the past couple of days. guest: we had this major endorsement from americans requesting action. they endorse nikki haley. they pointed to the steady client that she is the best candidate to take on donald j. trump. he pointed to surveys that showed that not only could she beat trump, but she also beats biden i the widest margin of any candidate in the republican field right now, including

donald trump. they framed her as the most electable candidate, saying she does not have the baggage that donald trump does. candidates up and down. it is widely debated what this endorsement means. there has been all sorts of analysis. the affluent donor class does not have the influence it once did, on a primary base that is really loyal to donald trump.

host: on the financial side, did she need the money? guest: she has lagged behind her competitors, far behind santos and trump. even though -- this is a huge boon to her the last week, door hangers. you are already seeing a lot of this action that will elevate her ground game.

but her fundraising has actually been a strength for her. she has run a very lean operation she has been very effective at letting her outside groups handle the advertising. you're really seeing it culminate in this rise. host: one more on the cook network specifically. can you discuss their relationship with ron desantis and what this means? guest: ron desantis has been slipping in the polls. he was once the favored candidate for the anti-trump alternative of this money to class. since former vice president mike pence have dropped out in south

carolina. she has stepped up to consolidate the vote that the donor class -- you are seeing a lot of donors who used to back dissent is either warm up to her or say, we are going to support nikki haley. desantis has had a lot of rocky ups and downs this entire campaign. you have nikki haley on the others, who is slowly and steadily climbing i had -- ahead . they are seeing her as the alternative, going into january. host: what do you see from her

and pulling momentum? what is your reaction between her and a voter on the campaign trail? guest: she has been sharp in her argument about how spaces and senate races. throughout the whole campaign, she has been truthful about calibrating her message on donald trump. she is hitting hard right now and drying out that stark contrast, especially when it comes to foreign policy. she has been really good about spreading her message and that is something i hear from voters a lot. she has the foreign policy credentials for this

particularly turbulent moment. the only candidate in the race that can really neutralize the abortion argument. i have seen 70 interesting reactions. one thing she is able to do well is connect with people on the trail. there was a nine-year-old asking her. she was wearing a nikki haley hat and they had a back and forth at one of the rallies. she said something like, i like your hat and the little girl said, one of your guys gave it to me. she was quick on her feet and said, let me know that is because we do not get out things for free, but later on, that little girl came back and asked her why she is running for president, or why she should vote for her over someone like desantis or ramaswamy.

and again, she did not skip a beat. she listed her executive experience and whether that message breaks through remains to be seen. host: final question for you, what happens in terms of what nikki haley has to do in this next primary debate taking place in a few days? guest: the stage is going to be much smaller. they are on the verge of qualifying, i believe. i think she has to continue to look at her donors and supporters. she has had three strong debate performances. those are among the reasons why people are either drawn to her

or coming to check her out at rallies, saying, i saw her at the debate. she really took ramaswamy to task. i think they want to see more of that from her. i think she is going to have a target on her back. her and desantis have been lobbying on china, on energy and all sorts of issues. that is what i will be watching for. host: if you want to read about it, jazmine ulloa writes about the nikki haley campaign. you can see her work. thank you for taking the time this morning. back to your calls. any public policy issue or other issues you want to talk about?

this is marianne in grovetown, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about the palestinians and conflicts there. years ago, i watched romney and obama talking to a lobby group. i remember years ago going that is weird. that is -- why are they groveling to this lobby group? aren't they supposed to grovel to our politicians? i thought it was weird. now to the present, i started watching, because i have cable news because so i watch all the mainstream channels, and everything was pro israel. it did not matter. we do not care what they do, we just love israel. i heard their side, their way of thinking about it. hamas is just the worst thing in

the world. they are a terrorist group and i said, there has to be more into all of this, so i started -- thank god for the internet. i went to podcasts and i will tell you that piers morgan had some of the best debates on both sides. he brought in the palestinian side and the israeli side. they had a good back and forth. it is not just that hamas is terrible and get rid of them. there was a lot more going on for years, and there is a lot of misinformation, probably from both sides, but i am very concerned that -- elon musk with styling, now we cannot get information that is going on in palestine except what israel is telling us.

when they were releasing the hostages, they were also releasing prisoners that were women and children from the israeli prisons and israel said, no, we are not going to let you. there is a lot more to this. i suggest to all listeners to get on the internet, go to piers morgan and their debates. you learn a lot more that way. right now, i will not even watch joe scarborough. he used to be one that i watched every morning. host: the front page of the new york times this morning. the lead story about the war there. israel is urging those in gaza. civilians are directed to areas already overrun. one point 8 million palestinians have been forced to flee their homes. that is all from the front page

of new york times. this is gilbert in birmingham, alabama. independent. caller: they stole all my thunder. i think what is happening in gaza is a drive on for the humanity of man. a.k.a., the same we were with adolf hitler. benjamin netanyahu is con the shots. he said he does not want anymore talks. they are even using artificial intelligence over there. within the first 24 hours after the cease-fire 70 people were killed. what i am saying is with the world being short of resources, i think benjamin netanyahu is set up for a dry run.

can he desensitize the world? otherwise, he might try to do the same thing. host: this is joyce in georgia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. you have this lady on about how nikki haley is coming up and everything. trump is going to be the republican front runner. i know everybody thinks he is horrible and terrible, but there was never any evidence of any of the accusations. we already know that russia was a hoax. they have tried from the very beginning to take him out. people are wondering why the establishment keeps trying to take trump down. they forget the world order. that is why people need to wake up. america is being destroyed from the inside. host: would you like to see

donald trump at one of these debates or does it not matter? caller: he does not need to debate. we know what trump stands for. why would he go to debate? that would be like a major league ballplayer going to a little league game. it is ridiculous, so no, he does not need to debate. host: this is joanne pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i was wondering. if a person is convicted of a crime, could he become president? could he still had clearance? if you have clearance, you should not be able to become president. thank you. host: call from texas. good morning. caller: i just put it in the calculator. i did not make it d 106.

i just did $106. it turns into 1200. i'm thinking about the multipliers. 106 billion is going to turn into $1 trillion. host: are you talking about the emergency aid request? caller: yes. it is supplemental. these people are totally out of control. i want to suggest to them an alternative. why don't we make russia pay for the ukraine war by taxing their exports? china buys most of the oil. tell them that russia gets $.70 on the dollar and ukraine gets $.30 on the dollar. russia would have a choice. do not sell any more oil.

they run out of money and more in, or refund the host: do you think china and india would do that if we asked them to do that? caller: they can stand up and say, no, they will not. it does not hurt them in the, does it? they still get the oil or arabia -- saudi arabia will give it to them. they will always get oil. then, they can either be a party of the solution or a part of the problem. if they want to be part of the problem, well, it does not hurt masha -- hurt russia as much. we collect money from money we owe from china. if we go through the banking system, have money to china, we just divert it because china did not pony up the money in the first place.

i know that world war iii, world war iii as a trade war is better than world war iii as a nuclear war. i'm thinking we ought to, one, we can't afford to keep paying an astronomical amount of money. host: that is mike in brady, texas. it is just after 9:00 a.m. eastern. it is our open forum. phone lines are yours. one more story from the front page of the new york times today, exiting the corridors of power, parties with stars focused once again on the late henry kissinger died last week. politics and celebrity mingled for henry kissinger. that is the front-page story by jacob bernstein. also on the topic of henry kissinger, this column in the

wall street journal by former democratic senator fever men. this is what lieberman wrote about henry kissinger. getting to know henry kissinger was a bonus of serving in the united states senate. some of the most memorable times i had with him was traveling with him in maine. the opening with china, ending the vietnam war and reducing tensions with the soviet union. he said henry had a good sense of humor, which was at best, jokes about his ego. at a conference i attended long ago in washington where he was the keynote speaker, the events chairman says if there is no one the world who needs y know introduction, it is henry kissinger. henry walked to the podium and said, it is true i do not need an introduction but i like a

good introduction. henry kissinger. this is marshville in florida, republican, good morning. caller: my question is, we are spending all this money to go after biden and go after trump. who is splitting the bill for this, which is the taxpayers. i think this whole situation has gotten down to the money part of it, instead of taking care of america. we have people in this country that are homeless. we have people that need help with mental health. we do not have that. we have people that can't afford to buy food. they have to give up their medicine in order to buy food,

or vice versa. this country is going communist the way china wants it to go. it is all because of this administration, the way they are doing things. i am not saying everybody is perfect. but, as of right now, i think this president and this administration is running this country into the ground. the democrats or the republicans can't see this. it is a shame. it is really a shame, because the people, my grandchildren and your grandchildren and your children, are going to pay for this in the long run. we will not be around, but our grandchildren is going to be around. it is a shame they are going to have to contend with this. this country is going bankrupt.

thanks to this administration, has caused this. so, that is my view. people probably will not like it, but that is me. you have a good day, sir. host: this is tyrone out of new york city, line four emma gratz. good morning. caller: i am voting for joe biden. i do not care if they rolling him in on a wheelchair. that man got moral and ethical boundaries. they going after donald trump, jr. the way they going after hunter biden -- he did not care about the laws and the constitution or what he should or should not do. if they ever able to impeach joe biden, get him out of office, kamala harris is waiting in the wings. they think they mad about joe

biden. kamala harris, they would be out of their minds if they put her in charge. these people will never be satisfied with anything pertaining to any democratic legislator or president. they want things their way, period. that is how they want it. so, because we need to understand that people are willing to do whatever they can, whenever they can, to make things go their way only, we can't be too worried about pleasing them. joe biden for president. i hope that he run again and he win again and i hope that you continue to lower the price of gas, continue to lower the unemployment rate, continue to lower the interest rates and we continue to have a financial growth in this country that we having today. they do not even realize how wonderful this man has been for

jobs and everything in this country. but, go ahead, try to crash this country because we are going to keep them forward, people. host: this is david in virginia, independent. good morning. caller: i just want to make sure. recently, just now, the support for hamas -- they have no idea what is hamas. israel has the right to exist under the protection which includes getting rid of all the terrorism of gaza sympathizers of hamas. i think they should do it. america should fully support it. thank you. host: bradley, northport, michigan, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to encourage all liberals, independents, thinking people across the country to give a listen to am talk radio. it is a daily bullhorn to rural

america. that is where that message is coming from. the broadcast is how everyone in this society is failing on their own actions and behaviors. it is nihilism. that is how they operate. they want to suck the country into that. am talk radio, that is where rural america is getting their ideas. sad to say, on a daily basis. host: that is bradley in michigan. this is jan in morton, illinois, independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention something about, like everyone, i have watched the israel-oma's war. i have found that i have found a good historical piece on the history of jews in egypt, lebanon and other parts of the middle east. before the state of israel was created, they interviewed people who had families that spent

years in these countries. once the country of israel was established in 1948, all of a sudden, these jewish people in egypt and other countries of the middle east were forced to leave those countries. in some ways, although i do not dispute there should have been a state of israel created in 1948, by creating that state, we created so much of a conflict that we see now. i think hamas was a terrorist organization. i think israel has the right to eliminate them. i do not like to see so many palestinians being killed. i think the two state solution would be a good one. i found it very revealing to see how jewish families from the middle east countries, how they were assimilated just fine, prior to israel being established. once it was established, egypt

and other countries forced jewish people to migrate out of their country. host: do you think we will ever see a two state solution? it comes up, seems to go away for a while. caller: i hope so. i believe that israel had an outline of what his country was supposed to be like. they keep pushing westward. i do not know what will happen in gaza. i'll was felt, at least in the years i have been here, when they talked about a two state solution, i feel like somehow, somewhere, down the road, that has to happen where palestinians can have their own country but being ruled by their own people, not by a terrorist group. i still have hope that will happen one day. host: this is ed, virginia -- georgia, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to comment, respond to

joyce from stockbridge, georgia. i am from stockbridge, georgia. she was mentioning donald trump does not need to debate. i think all her information is stonewalled. it is the american way, is to talk. the reason donald trump has not debated, he has never had a platform. donald -- i would have voted for him in 2016 if i could have. i could not vote at that time. i was a democrat. host: were you not old enough to vote? caller: no, i was incarcerated. host: gotcha. caller: yeah. of course, instead of taking a plea bargain i said, f u. i did my time and took it to the

michigan supreme court. anyway, getting back. the scary thing i think with donald trump, he had a private meeting that no one knows what he talked about with putin. you never do that. you always have someone recording, so we are transparent. he wanted to dismantle nato. think where the rest of the world would be right now, and democracy around the world. where would that be if trump dismantled the nato organization? ridiculous. i hope we can get over hating each other. i hope republicans can stop using everything as a political thing. that is what i see. i am a retired teacher. we have to stop fighting. civil war is so prevalent.

the gun control problems and all the guns people have access with, there is americans stockpiling guns just for the sake, i would think, and getting ready. host: you are a retired teacher. can we stay on your story a bit more, if you do not mind? you took the case that got you incarcerated all the way to the michigan supreme court. do you mind briefly telling that story? caller: sure, sure, sure. [laughter] you know, i am writing a book. but, it is really long and hard to talk about. just my struggle to get a teaching job because i graduated in 1978, during a big recession. when they said, are you looking for a principal education position? they just laughed. jim teachers do not retire, they die in the gym, probably in a wheelchair. host: when did you end up going to prison?

caller: i did not go to prison. i was upset from family drama. i got on and it'll chat room, which i did -- an adult chat room, which i did as a divorced man. it was an adult chat room, a yahoo! chat room. the thing i did was, i had been smoking a couple joints and doing a pint of tequila. someone named kenya golf girl popped up, i had five windows open on my screen. this other one, i did not recognize. i did not think anything of it. i was talking to all of them. two weeks later, here comes three patrol cars in my 300 foot driveway. they said there is someone in

michigan, and she is worried you are going to kidnap her daughter. they are trying to get me on solicitation of a minor. they were four hours away from where i was located. it was no sexting, no schedules, no nothing. i have never been in trouble with the law before. host: i am running short on time. you had to take this to the michigan supreme court. caller: well, they gave me a plea bargain. no jail time if i took the plea. it was only a six month jail time. i told the man, f u, i am not a sex offender. i did time. while i was in county jail, i had to cut my vacation leave on

probation. i did the time. my great sister found me a great public lawyer. with the support of my parents, we took it at each level. they gave me a new trial. the appellate court only loses at the michigan supreme court level. i spent $95,000 in legal fees. god has blessed me. i have never been able to get the story out to all my colleagues and friends. this will help. they will understand. i am on the sex offender registry. my probation expired in 2013. usually, you do not get off that. i got off that and still have a felony on my record. i am going to work on that.

i am dealing with medical problems. host: that is ed in stockbridge, georgia. our last caller in this open forum. about 45 minutes left. in that time, we will discuss a government surveillance program known as section 702 that needs to be reauthorized by the end of the year. we will be joined by jamil jaffer, the founder of the national security institute at george mason university's law school. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political

reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and came in ads -- campaign ads. watch friday nights at seven clock eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download the podcast on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and cited in washington. scroll through a spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ ♪ >> at the beginning of november, the george washington presidential library at hound vernon celebrated its 10th anniversary with a symposium titled, the great experiment, democracy from the founding to the future. guests on this panel included historians h w brands of the university of texas, dov brinkley of rice, freeman of el and -- of howard university. one point of discussion was the mount vernon poll that founded two thirds of americans are pessimistic about the country's

direction and is satisfied with the political climate. >> historian brands, douglas brinkley, joannereeman and edna green medford on this isode of footnotes plus. footnotes plus is avai on the c-span now free mobile app or reverie get your podcasts. >> book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span has a number of podcasts for you. on the afterward podcast, and on q and a, care wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book notes plus episodes are weekly, our long conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and bestsellers list. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or

wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ >> a healthy democracy to not look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the conversation i want government surveillance, our guest is jamil jaffer who founded the national security institute at george mason university law school. explain what section 702 is and why congress is talking about it now. guest: we conducted and will

target foreigners, spies, terrorists of the like and will target them by surveillance on their email, phone and the like. the way that is effectuated is by working with telecommunications providers, phone companies in the united states who have access. the reason congress can talk about it today, it was enacted in 2007, 2008. every five years or so, congress has to reauthorize it.

come december 31 of this year, if congress does not, that authority will go away and the bulk of the u.s. government's capability to collect on foreign intelligence targets disappear. host: has that ever happened? has there been a gap in their ability to do this? what is the intelligence community saying? guest: there was a brief period where we had a predecessor legislation expired in 2008 before this law was enacted for six months. during that time, there were orders of existence already out there. we continued to be able to collect them. the problem was that a lot of providers that we worked with reduced their surveillance, reduced cooperation of the government and right at a time where you have heightened threat of that ability to, the congress acted to provide authority and that worked out. in that period, there was a challenge where we were not getting new, additional surveillance on terrorist and

spy suspects. host: what is the likelihood this gets reauthorized? what are members of congress saying about this? guest: there is controversy because a lot of times section 702 gets confused with other parts of the foreign intelligence act to conduct surveillance against americans. the problem is, there has been challenge in that space in particular. i a lot of people are saying, should we reauthorize section 702? it is a different such a situation. the other challenges, there has been some inadvertent mistakes and additional queries that go beyond what is authorized. corrective action has been taken. congress wants to conduct reforms and there is debate how far to go in those reforms. it has stalled in congress and the problem is, there is less than a month left before it expires. they have to take action, or we will be in a significantly challenging situation when it

comes to our ability to protect the nation. host: do americans get caught up in these searches when they go too far? guest: they may call it american, in those cases, you get that surveillance. if you want to collect on a non-american because you are concerned they are talking to a spy or the like, you have to get a court order to survey that american. you will go in and search for it based on a foreign intelligence need and identify -- if you conduct searches too broadly, you have it on a list of databases that can be searched. if they do not know they are searching that database, the problem is we have to have better rules in place. stronger punishments in place when mistakes and when it is an intentional error. congress wants to put those reforms in place. that makes sense, protect americans privacy and civil liberties. you do not want to let it expire

or put in place restrictions that would hamper the ability of the government to conduct surveillance that protects americans and at home. host: what would hamper it? what is going too far in your mind in terms of some of these reforms? guest: one of the biggest changes we have made in the post september 11 era was to permit the government to share information between the criminal side of the government, the fbi and the like and the intelligence community. we tore down the wall between criminal intelligence and surveillance. there are some folks in congress who think the better -- to better protect privacies, we should enact more requirements. if you want to search in this database, you have to get a warrant from a separate court order. all information is lawfully collected. to get a court order to search a file cabinet will make it harder and not protect americans

privacy that much better. that is a new wall or. can make it harder -- a new wall that can make it harder. just this weekend, the attack of commercial shipping in the red sea by rebels. host: talking about government surveillance. talking to jamil jaffer, if you want to join the conversation you can do so. phone lines are open. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. in a world of government surveillance and intelligence collecting, how much of our information comes from section 702 type of program versus the information we get from human intelligence sources, spies

overseas? explain where this fits into the world of our intelligence that we gather. guest: this is one of the most important intelligence programs we have because it collects information, it gets terrorist and spy targets about 200,000 a year are the number of people. that is not that many people were anything about 7.5 billion people worldwide. 350 million americans. those are the high-value targets. host: we get access to all of their phone records, everyone they have been talking to in transcript of calls? how far does this go? guest: it is the content of their communications. these are foreigners looking outside the united states. you have to translate that, process that, create intelligence reporting. this capability is so important, it contributes about 60% of the present, most important stuff

the president reads every day. about 70% of the articles in the president's book he gets, a huge chunk of information the president of the united states gets everyday, highest priority could be gone. host: four section 702, what are the successes? will the intelligence community say this program stop this attack? have they been doing that to advocate this program? guest: one of the challenges is they will not declassify as much as you or i would like about what they are collecting. they will talk about it at the level of, helped us disrupt an attack in a foreign country or a major drug operation involving fentanyl. they will not give these details, it was in the city, because you do not want them to know they are on surveillance or them were their friends. we can see what has been

declassified across the board. it is not just terrorism or terrorist attacks in potentially the u.s. and abroad, a threat to american soldiers. it is fentanyl coming from china to the united states. it is a broad scope of intelligence collection that protects americans not just from spies and terrorists but drug smugglers, chinese hackers, russian hackers and the like. host: what are the telecommunications companies saying about this? do they like section 702? how much of a hassle is it for them to turn over the information when the government asks 200,000 times a year? guest: i think the companies, the providers, the folks the government goes to are used to getting requests for information because this has been going on now for 15 plus years. they are in the mode of operation, they can handle the queries. the question is, are we getting enough and are we able to use

it? if authority goes away, you are not going to get it. if authority stays in place but the government puts up barriers that make it hard to share information, if you remember, there were two terrorists that flew the plane into the pentagon. they lived in san diego and their true names. he have found them. the cia had taken pictures of them a year earlier at a meeting . because there was concern, can we share information with the eighth ei -- with the fbi? that information was not shared. we looked at them at the last minute and they flew planes into the pentagon. i am not saying we could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. the reason we decided to take down this wall between criminal surveillance and criminal efforts is precisely this reason. rebuilding it now would be a mistake. host: not to give away the playbook, but if one is a

terrorist in 2023, shouldn't they assume if they connect to a u.s. network with their cell phone that u.s. government will have access to that? guest: absolutely. the beauty of the capability is that oftentimes, it is not just communication where using a u.s. cell phone number or u.s. email address. you may be able to gather information about phone calls overseas by going to u.s. providers because the way the telecommunications system works. the authorities it gives us allows us to collect on a lot of information that might not be obvious. if you are a terrorist or spy, you should assume we are surveilling you and on to you. we may not be, but the reality is, you should operate that way. people have to work and communicate, they have to share information. if we can get it and use it to protect americans in the united states and abroad, we are safe as a result. host: your opinion is this should be reauthorized as is

without new restrictions. guest: in an ideal world., that would bethe case there have been challenges. .some reforms are necessary you need more oversight by congress. it is helpful to have -- the one thing you should not do in terms of reforms, there are some reforms would be helpful, to put this barrier up. create a new requirement, that would be like literally taking a file drawer of important information, lock it up and have to go to a judge to go into that drawer to get information i already have. this is a barrier we created pre-9/11. host: we would like to chat with a few callers. jamil jaffer is with george mason university law school's national security institute. c-span viewers have seen him in the past. this is sean in colorado,

republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. jamil, the crisis is -- our constitution is at risk with renewal of this bill. tucker carlson was spied on. mainly right wing people were spied on by the brownshirts at the fbi and the doj. they are now prosecuting political opponents. you have got to be kidding me. this bills speaker needs to be killed. this administration is out of control and it shows how they can abuse these warrants. they need to get a warrant to go after any american. thank you. i hope our country survives this administration. guest: sean raises an important point. there are concerns amongst liberals and conservatives about government surveillance. sean makes a point about surveillance upon political opponents. it is a challenge. the thing about section 702, it does not authorize -- it

authorizes surveillance against all americans. they would've had to go to a federal court and get a court order. i think which is talking about is the carter page surveillance system. he worked for the trump campaign. the government was surveilling him under title i. that is not section 702. they had gone and gotten a court order from the judge. the problem was, the lawyer working that court order modified a fact he knew that carter was working for the u.s. government. he was not. that lawyer was prosecuted. i would have stripped him of his bar licenses. i would have put him in jail. he pledged to a deal. that is the kind of problem that the law is designed to catch. it was caught. the guy was prosecuted. ultimately, it was about this authority.

this authority does not permit the surveillance of any american. it is important to her number this authority was obtained in a republican administration, the bush administration. it was reauthorized under president obama, and president trump. post -- president trump and his team understood section 702, not about this particular issue. the biden administration is seeking surveillance, but this is about foreign spies and terrorists overseas, not american political opponents at home. host: maybe it would be good to expand what you did before founding the institute at george mason? guest: i served in the bush administration at the justice department in the office of legal policy and the national security division, which is responsible for obtaining this surveillance. i worked as an associate counsel under president bush. i would back to the government at the house intelligence

committee. i worked for mike rogers and for the republican chairman of the ranking senate floor relations committee. we are out there to make sure america is well protected. we put together a bipartisan group of experts from across the political aisle, talk about intimate issues of american national security, both technology, the wars going on today and we advocate for a lien forward approach for america. we believe the world a safer when america acts and supports its allies and deposits -- and opposes its adversaries. we are an academic center. we educate a group of students at torch masons law school. we have a introductory degree of law. we have graduate degrees of law,

a master degree for cyber intelligence of national security. host: what is the most important thing the united states can do today to act in the security in the world were talking about? guest: we do not want to be the world's policeman. we are facing threats in various parts of our globe. our partners in ukraine are being attacked by a brutal dictator in vladimir putin. we have seen the terrorist attack in israel against hamas. we see china threatening our allies, taiwan, japan, now it is getting into fights in the philippines and ramming ships. we saw a commercial shipping attacked by iranian backed rebels in the red sea, the u.s. destroyer provided a and was potentially threatened as a result. 53 attacks against american soldiers in iraq and syria in the middle east in the last month alone. it is not just that we have to defend our allies and friends,

we are attacking direct threats to americans at home and abroad. it is critical that we respond to those attacks, support our allies and push back against adversaries coming at us. the less we act, the more they will come harder at us. host: the naval attack over the weekend, remind folks who these are and the significance of this attack. guest: the rebels are a group in yemen. they have been fighting with the government of yemen for a while and have gained ground. they have control over significant parts of yemen. the saudi government has backed the yemeni government, and the iranian government has backed the rebels. they are attacking commercial shipping in the red sea saying there trying to defend hamas and based on what is happening in gaza. this is a u.s. -- hamas has been on the terrorist group since --

host: what does attacking commercial shipping before hamas? guest: they are trying to demonstrate they are supporting them. these are israeli ships. the truth of the matter is, these ships attacked have relations with 14 countries. they are run by yuki companies -- u.k. companies. american captains, that is part of the challenge, part of why the -- these are international waters, why the u.s. is protecting those ships and responding to distress calls and potentially coming under attack themselves. host: is it short range missiles? guest: we heard it was missiles. they often use drones, iran supplies them. we know at least one drone and one missile was shot down by the u.s. destroyer in the region. there have been prior missiles and drones launched from yemen. we believe harming israel, those have been shot down by u.s.

warships in the region. host: this is franklin in d.c., independent. you are on with jamil jaffer. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have always been a proponent of appealing this provision out of concerns for domestic surveillance. that was up until 15 minutes ago when john let that pedophile go on his monologue. i am concerned that people like him are slipping through the cracks. i think we need to do everything we can to sweep up those kinds of collars that are prominent on "washington journal." i wanted to thank you for letting him change my mind on this. host: domestic surveillance, the process for surveilling somebody domestically. guest: if you want to get any surveillance against americans, anyone in the world, you have to go to a broad -- you have to go to a court. if it is a typical criminal

case, you will go to a federal judge. you have to meet with the judge, present them probable cause -- in the case of a warrant, believe a case has been committed, in the case of a foreign court order, probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. when going after an american, you have to get a court order. that is existing law. section 702 made that the law for americans overseas. it used to be if you want to go over and american overseas, you have to get attorney general authorization. if section 702 goes away, retention overseas goes back to attorney general authorization. you want section 702 and it's perfected provisions to be reauthorized. if you are looking -- that is not off the table. you do not want to create more

requirement once we have it. host: james and matthews, north carolina, line for democrats. good morning. caller: i noticed you were smiling at the guy on the right when he made a few statements about this law. i am on the left. i see a problem. you guys are right through the middle with your so-called think tanks. you have got these think tanks and meet up. it does not protect american people. i do not care who you are, you have got to have a warrant and some kind of document to enter anyone's home or listen to anyone. you guys give us this false sense of security. i am a minority. if you send a house to my cop, they wood down the door. i do not know if this is a state matter or local matter, but they can't just bust in your door with or without a warrant.

they might get a couple weeks of paid vacation. you guys are the problem. host: let me give jamil jaffer a chance to respond. guest: a lot of americans are skeptical of government activities, government surveillance and the like. this is not surprising. we should be suspicious of government activity. we were born as a nation of deeply suspicious british soldiers coming to our homes, ordering troops into our houses, doing things we believe were unlawful. that is why we have the constitution we have. that is why we have those first 10 amendment that protect our right. that is why we have the fourth amendment. it does not authorize any americans. you are required -- these people living outside of the united states who have no rights in our constitution, these are not american citizens we are talking about. these are foreigners located overseas. they do not get the rights and

the fourth amendment. we provide protections. we have reporting back to congress. these foreign individuals located overseas, americans regardless of where you are in the world, section 702 and the law and the statutes we have in place require you to go to a federal judge and get that warrant. that is the law today. i understand skepticism and desire to protect americans privacies. that is what these laws are designed to do. host: what did you think about the patriot act?/ guest: it had a lot of provisions that were important. most have been made permanent by congress. for the last 20 plus years, we have been protected at home in this nation from mass casualty

terrorist attacks in part from changes in the law we made, this collaboration between intelligence officials and criminal officials to protect the nation. terrorists overseas, keeping them on the run has kept us safe. host: are there any elements that have gone too far? guest: congress has made modifications and added additional oversight reporting. those were valuable things to do. there are reforms that are valuable. we should put those reforms in place to move forward. host: about 15 minutes left in our program today. jamil jaffer at george mason university's law school. this is kia out of las vegas, republican. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: a few months, they were having congressional hearings where they were talking about 702 abuses because the law was

being circumvented. the courts were being circumvented. they were using their power to spy on americans. i think it is too much of a government overreach. i think they should repel it. also, if biden was stronger as a president, we would not have threats to terrorism and if we shut our border, that would be the first line of defense for anything. with our border wide open, terrorists are walking right through. just yesterday, or friday, the court in texas, they said to take the buoys down. things like that should be our first line of defense. that is my thoughts on that. have a good morning. guest: we need to better protect our border, defend our border from people crossing it illegally. congress is working on that effort. i do not disagree about that. i agree that if we had a stronger role and our

adversaries were afraid of us, that would prevent people conducting attacks on the united states. that being said, if we know what the threats to the border are and prevent them from crossing that far southern border, we are going to do that by surveillance of foreign intelligence targets and those coming against americans all around the world. it is critical we have this capability. it is part of a larger thing that involves being stronger and being more aggressive against our adversaries. it is having this intelligence information. kia makes a point about abuses that took lace and problems. often times, about a handful of times -- there were people who went in and looked at the database with a love interest.

those people were prosecuted. those abuses have been addressed. the other situations where there were over collections or broadly, 99% to 100% of those were people making unintentional mistakes. those were reported and a measure was put in place to stop this from happening. those were put in place to prevent them from happening again. we are not talking about widescale abuse. that is not going on in this program. host: staying on the border, a question from x. what surveillance is used at the border with mexico? guest: we have all kinds of surveillance at the border. we have cameras to watch as people try to come across. we are not doing a good enough job at people -- at stopping people from coming in. we have electronic surveillance using section 702 and other

authorities understanding smugglers, the tracks they are using, what is the government doing to get fentanyl into the united states? they agreed to stop the flow of fentanyl. i'm not sure why it takes an agreement between two leaders of countries to stop a drug killing hundreds of thousands of americans a year in this country. it is unconscionable we allow fentanyl across the border. section 702 helps stop that drug trade from coming across the border. host: this is stacy, independent. caller: thanks for having me on. i have a couple comments. first of all, america has funded every one of our enemies before they were our foes, they were our friends. i do not care if it was osama bin laden, saddam hussein, the taliban. you name it, we have supported and funded them. correct?

as far as the border crisis is concerned, if we wanted to solve that, you stop it tomorrow. as far as surveillance, maybe we should start surveilling our government officials because they make $74,000 a year and they walk out of office multimillionaires. most have dual citizenship's and other countries and their loyalties are not to the united states of america, they are to the countries they have dual citizenship two. they should not be allowed to vote on legislation that has to do with any country they have dual citizenship and. host: is there any member of congress you think is doing a good job? caller: after what is going on in israel and to see the genocide, it is a genocide with what netanyahu is doing to the palestinians, hitler did to the jews.

i see no difference to what they are doing. for them to cosign and pretend to be the moral compass of the world and let this tragedy happen, and talk about, we are going to save the world? you can't save your own people. host: got your point. let me let jamil jaffer jump in. guest: with israel and hamas, it is worth remembering the terrorist attacks that happened on october 7 conducted by hamas were the equivalent of about a dozen 9/11 attacks. a dozen 9/11 attacks that day. the largest lots of jewish life since the holocaust on a single day.

a city of 2 million people, and think about what the incentives are for every palestinian civilian killed in this work, it makes it harder for israel to prosecute this war. on the other hand, if a palestinian woman or child dies, civilian dies, hamas benefits. the world response, as it should. the incentive for israel is not to kill civilians. that is what you have seen. you have seen israel tell palestinians, go south. move out of the way of the ground incursions coming in. hamas tells the palestinians, stay here, oftentimes forcing them to stay. because things worked that way, the loss of life is tragic. palestinian people still says

hamas needs to be destroyed and find a way to prosecute in a way that follows you minute terrien law -- that follows humanitarian law. hamas inside -- hiding inside those hospitals, inside those tunnels, inside the schools. host: do you think they have done enough to allow the international world to see what they are trying to do in gaza to avoid what you were just talking about? concerns from callers about communications being shut down in gaza, not been able to see the result of what they are doing. guest: they could do more if they wanted to. often times when the u.s. military goes in, they will have more reporters go in with them. i think if they were to provide more insight, what you would see is in operation cognizant of civilian deaths. the incentives for israel is not to kill civilians, it is to

avoid civilian deaths at all costs. it makes it harder for them is civilians are dying. they know hamas benefits from civilian dying. if you were sitting inside an israeli command center and watching decisions be made about what strikes to take, i can bet you are doing everything you can because you know it only benefits the adversary. in this scenario where the eyes of the war are focused on gaza and what is happening, palestinians are painfully aware. could journalists provide more information? that could be a smart move. host: this is mark, cloverdale, indiana, independent. caller: good morning. i appreciate the stand your present guest is taking on the war against hamas.

i do want to make one comment. basically, the authorization act is what was used to spy on president trump. also, to attack his administration across so much trouble for our government the first four years. i am wondering if this thing is still in effect, whether it can be used to check out biden and all his shenanigans and check out his connections with china and all the friendships his son has made with all of these people who are giving him money. of course, he is probably getting a lot filtered. you can get checks on that. host: got your questions. jamil jaffer. guest: as we talked about earlier, this law cannot be used

to surveilled americans anywhere ,. . if there was surveillance of president trump and his campaign, it was conducted under a warrant, not this law. not section 702, only permits surveillance of foreigners located outside of the united states. that should not be a concern because it is not what this law is about. to the question of what we should do to better protect americans privacy, that is why we have federal judges between surveillance of americans and the government. that is why we have people appointed, nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate and have life appointments. those judges are the ones that are protected. if a lawyer lies to the court, that lawyer is the one prosecuted. could he have been stripped of all his licenses? absolutely. i think we need to do more. some reforms are necessary. the last thing i will say for

mark in particular, president trump and his administration sought reauthorization and obtained reauthorization of this law because he and his administration understood this law is not about americans or the trump campaign or political operatives or enemies. it is about foreigners located overseas threatening americans around the globe and abroad. host: out of hazelwood, missouri, republican. caller: i would like to thank the speaker who has been talking. the only problem i see is he does not mention the fact that lawyer that was prosecuted was basically let on three. the reason why that was was the law does not protect us. anybody that knows anything about government surveillance knows that the united states uses other governments to avoid any responsibility or surveilling americans. can you speak on that for a minute? guest: section 702 prohibits --

so you can't use authority to surveilled americans. when working with allies, we do not use them to surveilled americans. that would be illegal. if we want to, we get a court order. it is a legitimate thing to raise. when we want to surveilled and megan, we go to a federal judge -- surveilled an american, we go to a federal judge. host: jamil jaffer, always helpful to explain these national security issues. a good follow on twitter at jamil__jaffer. thanks so much. guest: thanks, john. host: that is going to do it for our program today. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific.

in the meantime, have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >>. bill to support the researcof synthetic opioids. the senate returns today at 3 p.m. eastern for a vote on the confirmation of irma ramirez, president biden' nominee to be a fifth circuit court of appeals judge and she supported by her home state senator wah ve coverage of the house on-span, see the senate on c-span2 and reminder you can

tch all of our congressional coverage with their free video out, c-span out or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television comedies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. we will lay 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, vermont demoat senator peter welch discusses authitarianism in central and south america, the russia -ukrne war and conflict in the middle east. live coverage from the u.s. institute of peace and washington, d.c. begins live at

m.