♪ host: the colorado supreme court ruled the former president is disqualified from appearing on the state's 2024 primary ballot.

your reactions to the news. republicans dial-in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. join the conversation in a text at (202) 748-8003. that is the same line for colorado residents. we want to hear from you, your reaction to your supreme court. you can join us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan, or on x at @cspanwj. " bars from public office anyone who took an oath as an officer of the united states to support the constitution of the united states and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless congress

removes such disability by a two thirds vote." that is what section three of the 14th amendment says. here is what the justices on the colorado supreme court said in the ruling. it was a 4-3 decision. president trump did not merely incite insurrection when the seeds on the capitol was underway, he repeatedly demanded vice president mike pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. these actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection. president trump's expressed efforts over several months exhorting his supporters to march to the capitol to prevent what he alleged was a fraud where indisputably overt and voluntary.

from the supreme court justices yesterday who said the former president cannot appear on the primary ballot. it does not address the general election ballot. we went your reaction to this news this morning. on the front pages of the national newspapers, the former president was in iowa yesterday campaigning for 2024. he did not directly address this ruling. here's a little bit of what he had to say. [video] >> it is no wonder crooked joe biden and the lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. they are willing to violate the constitution at levels never seen before to win this election. joe biden is a threat to democracy. he's a threat. they are weaponizing law enforcement for high-level election interference because we are beating them so badly in the polls. the new cbs poll -- i always used to talk about polls but

only if they were good. i did not mention of them if they were bad. i did not talk about them. a little bit like the fake news would do so i feel embarrassed by it. the new cbs poll just out house asset 50% in this -- 58%. 40 points behind us. the new morning consul poll has us at 66% nationwide. the santos at 11% and haley at 11%. they said haley is surging because she went from 9% to 11%. i went up seven points. she went up two points. it's hard to go up seven when you're almost at the top. not that many points left. she went up two and the headline is haley is surging.

we are trouncing the primary field at 69% with desantis at 13% and haley at 9%. t did interview -- he didn't interview. ladies and 11, it's a great audit to have governor ron desantis with us. no,, no it is desantis. that's good branding. do you agree? he is sanctimonious. . are dominating by 10, 11, 12, even 14 points. the washington post had us up 11. this must be an outlier. they spent 1.5 million dollars on a pole, the washington post, and they panicked. they said this must be an outlier. they said we think our poll must be wrong. we have even better numbers than that. they are going crazy. none of this matters if you don't show up to support us on january 15 and again in

november. you have to show up. even if you think we are going to win by a lot, you have to show up. winning by a lot lot is very meaningful. as countries watch from afar, because we would never have any of these problems if i were president. when they see the support we have -- we have incredible support. we have more support than we did in big 20 or 2016 -- 2020 or 2016. we did better by a lot, by millions and millions of votes in 2020. it was a rigged election. the radical left democrats rigged the election of 2020. we are not going to allow them to rig the presidential election of 2024. we are not going to allow it. host: former president trump in iowa yesterday at a campaign rally. not directly addressing the ruling by the colorado supreme court. 4-3 decision that said he's

disqualified from appearing on the primary ballot in 2024. you heard him talk about polls. the new york times. many see criminality but support the former president anyway. overall, 58 percent of voters nationwide believe mr. trump committed serious federal crimes according to the survey, including 66% of independent voters. yet mr. trump continues to clobber his closest competitors in the primary by more than 50 percentage points. pulling in the support of 64% of republican primary voters nationwide. the poll was conducted before a court ruling on tuesday which injected more legal uncertainty into the presidential race. the colorado supreme court ruled he is disqualified from holding office again. he engaged in insurrection leading up to the january 6 storming of the capitol, a decision the former president plans to appeal to the supreme court. his primary lead has swelled since the summer even though the

share of republicans and republican leaning independents who believe he engaged in criminality rose to 27% from 17% in july. gary in connecticut, you are a first. your reaction to the colorado supreme court's decision? caller: good morning. i want to say i'm complete the opposed the donald trump. always have been. the state of colorado branding him as an insurrectionist and keeping it from being on the ballot somehow to me violate his fourth amendment due process right. it would seem to me he would need to be convicted of committing insurrection against the united states before they can ban him. i don't think it's enough. i think the fourth amendment -- the supreme court may find he has a right to be on the ballot. thank you. host: that is where the former

president's campaign will take this. a statement from the spokesperson. the colorado supreme court issued a flood decision and we will swiftly file an appeal. the united states supreme court and a concurrent request for a stay of this undemocratic decision. we have full confidence the supreme court will rule in our favor and put an end to these un-american lawsuits. walter ndc, democratic caller. -- in d.c., democratic caller. caller: i'm not a fan of donald trump of this ruling from colorado is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and illegal. they complete edited context of section three of the 14th amendment makes it abundantly clear if the president is excluded. it lists senators and every other group except the president. the president is the executive

of the country. this is the civil war. the insurrectionists were democrat confederates. that is part of our history. they wanted us to raise up against the country. second point about this, trump was not charged with insurrection. colorado cannot user the federal government -- usurp the federal government. trump did say peacefully make your voices heard and he sent tweets telling his followers at 2:41 and 3:30 p.m. not to do violence. the insurrection claim which the junior six committee left out because -- january 6 committee left out. these democrats should beat

trump at the ballot box. don't cheat. this crap, our party is being the dictators. we say we are trying to stop a dictatorship but we are acting like dictators by trying to violate his fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment rights. let's not do that. let us do it fair and stop trying to go and do all this -- section one of the 14th of them it contradicts section three but you cannot use a flawed one. it cannot be used on the president. period. the republicans who wrote the 14th amendment, they did not put president in there. host: that was the question posed to this court and a lower court before that, etc.

we will take a look at that. kurt, mount union, pennsylvania. your thoughts? caller: good morning, greta. i think it is a scary day in the united states when you start to interfere with elections. basically, the colorado supreme court is interfering in an election. it's scary. the fascism that the other side, the democrats, profess, they are beginning to show. when you start to take away people's choices, take away their freedom to vote, it is scary. it is really scary. host: colin in maryland. caller: thank you for giving me a chance. the opinion of the colorado court was their political opinion by a political

judiciary, political judges. i was not born in this country but i love this country. it's unfortunate i was here during the 2020 election. i have never cast a vote in my life for any presidential election. i saw the election stolen on tv. i saw ballots being shredded. i saw them change the laws. i saw -- it was so obvious. the judges and people look at evidence in the states got together and said there was something wrong here. it was a stolen election. i will stand by that. host: what news outlets do you watch that you saw this? caller: tv.

i keep up with what is going on. i watched the election. i don't belong to any party. i saw what happened. i think the best thing will be for the election to -- there should be no vote -- getting illegals to register and giving the millions of ballots. we have to correct what happened last time otherwise it will not turn out right for us in the future. i love this country. host: we will dig into this decision by the supreme court justice. the political investigative reporter with the guardian

joining us on the phone this morning to talk about it. it was a 4-3 decision. who are these -- we just lost peter. we will go to him when we can. let's go back to the calls. caroline in alexandria, virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. please give me a chance to say what i've got to say. i believe in democracy. i can't believe we send young men and women, children, fathers, brothers over to different countries to fight for democracy. then we get it in our own country. we don't understand people done died for democracy. how can we do this? a man in an office -- was in office. never been in the service.

should have never been in the service. father never been in the service. he stepped on our democracy so bad. stepped on people's heads. they want him to be in office. they are going to send our men and women overseas to get killed for him to live like they do. i just don't understand how these people don't understand what is going on. host: all right. mike in wilmington, delaware. independent. your reaction to this colorado supreme court decision? caller: i'm surprised of all the kerfuffle and the bigness of this. i think you are the only person i have heard say this correct. i was watching a lot of news yesterday. the rule was that trump was not allowed now to be on the gop primary ballot.

to me this not a big thing. he could win the primary. he could win the candidate of the republican party without the colorado vote. i don't know why it's a big thing. you said i believe correctly that this did not necessarily affect the journal election. host: the ruling did not address the general election. caller: ok. is it assumed that the ruling for the gop primary is taking effect and it will affect also the general election? is that why people are all excited/ ? host: we last set of hugo lowell. front page of the wall street journey.

they say colorado is not central to trump's electoral prospects. a number of similar challenges have been filed in other states. they note that. colorado not central to his election. your question about what happens on the general -- and the general election is a good one. hugo lowell is with the guardian, a political investigation's reporter joining us on the phone. before we get to that question, break down the decision here. four justices says he's disqualified from the primary ballot, three disagreed. guest: i think it's important to remember we have a stay on this ruling pending trump's appeal. trump made clear he will appeal to the supreme court. as things stand trump will

probably be on the primary ballot in colorado, which is the practical indication in all of this -- implication in all of this. the supreme court will certainly hear the case. the question in which order with respect to the other cases before it and how quickly it is going to rule. with the 14th amendment issue this has direct implications with trump's other appeal before the d.c. circuit judge in the 2020 election case. the same case jack smith tried to take to the supreme court directly. these two cases are important. there is a question of whether one cancels out the other in some respect, because if the supreme court wants to find trump engaged in insurrection or

in some way incited insurrection than that would knock out a presidential immunity defense trump is claiming to have. i think there are a lot of moving parts here and the supreme court has to decide and be consistent on how he wants to proceed. host: the colorado supreme court justices put a stay on this thinking -- knowing the trump campaign would appeal. there is this january 4 date. why? guest: in colorado, the state has to decide which candidates will be on the ballot by january 5. they have this date in there that have sensibly says we want to give the supreme court time to weigh in. for the put a stay on the ruling pending an appeal from trump. i think that is the operative line for now. so longest trump appeals he will get a stay.

there is no with the supreme court will take this case prior to january 5. we are already at december 20. the idea they will take us up within two weeks is not feasible. they have to have a briefing scheduled and set oral arguments. i guess it is possible. we were here at bush v gore, i guess. the idea we will get a briefing schedule and a decision before january 5 is not feasible. what you will see happen is the supreme court takes the case and for the moment trump remains on the ballot. if the primaries happen and trump wins and after the supreme court decides trump should be off the ballot, that's a decision individual states will have to address. host: when is the colorado primary? could the supreme court naked decision before that happens --

make a decision for that happens? guest: it's possible. the colorado primary is super tuesday, march 5. if the supreme court hustled there is the potential for us to have a ruling on the 14th and emmett issue by march -- 14th amendment issue by march. it comes back to the question of what happens with respect to the other states where there are similar challenges to trump and trump being on the ballot. one of the challenges is a new hampshire. the new hampshire primary is january 23. if the supreme court was to rule down the road that trump is ineligible from holding office because he did engage in insurrection, that decision would bind all 50 states. then we are not just looking at colorado. we are looking at every state where there is a ballot

challenge. then you would have issues with not only colorado but new hampshire. that primary will be january 23. issues in minnesota, michigan, the state with h -- those states with early primaries. host: we had a viewer say this morning that the section three of the 14th amendment does not list the presidency in the offices that can be accused of insurrection and disqualified for running for office. did this colorado supreme court pick up that question? -- take up that question? guest: in essence yes. what they found was the lower court erred in its determination that the presidency was not included in the office -- an

office that insurrection is could not hold. they affirmed the lower court decision that trump engaged in insurrection and reversed on the decision of whether the presidency was included in section three of the 14th amendment. it will be a tricky thing for trump's lawyers to argue that the presidency is not included, because section three is not necessarily meant to be exhau -- exhaustive of a list. it does not talk about every single office. it talks of it having previously taken an oath. trump did take an oath. i think that is not so much the designation they want to challenge. in conversations with people close to trump, the thing they will challenge more is in

respect to the insurrection element. section three talks about did the defendant engage in insurrection. engagement is a broad term but it does have case law behind it. generally it refers to if someone has an active role and how does the supreme court -- the colorado supreme court get active role? they say trump inside it and some part. the fact he has not been charged or convicted i think with the dampener on that and i feel like that is where the supreme court, if they want to rule for trump would find an opening to do that. host: it has been mentioned he was not impeached for this in the senate. he has not been convicted of insurrection. how do they rule he is disqualified when those things have not happened? guest: i think there are two separate issues. with the impeachment, that's an

argument trump made separately. his double jeopardy claim on his immunity appeal to dismiss the indictment in federal district court. he is saying i was not convicted but i was tried by the senate. that precludes criminal charges against me. that argument does not fly in federal district court and unlikely based on the caselaw law in the federal appeals court. in general that seems to be the weakest of all the arguments trump has. i think there is a stronger point with respect to the fact that he has not been charged. because there is case law for that. if you are not -- if there is no evidence that has been presented in trial or in a trial that you

have engaged in insurrection or incited insurrection, incitement of the charge, it is a higher test than what the colorado district court used when it came to the determination that trump engaged in insurrection. in federal court it is normally reasonable doubt. it will be interesting to see what the interplay is between these things moving together at the same time and how the supreme court applies these terms. host: how do president trump do in colorado and 2020? -- in 2020? what is his strategy in the western state in 2020 4? guest: i don't think this is a state where he has the luxury of

-- just taking colorado alone, this is not a state trump will just let go or can afford to let go. i think for him it is crucial and he sees it as crucial. i think in general they go to the supreme court because her all the legal reasons we have seen that this is not a federal issue, it's a case of first impression. they see their chances in a good light. there is another thing to focus on. there is the remedy for congress to reinstate him if trump is ever removed from a ballot. there is that provision for congress to grant amnesty, like they did after the civil war. there is some discussion in the last 24 hours in trump world

about contingencies if they have to get the house republican congress and senate republicans to consider putting him back on the ballot if the supreme court does take them off. host: hugo lowell. you can follow his reporting if you go to theguardian.com, on x. thank you for the information this morning. guest: thank you. host: let's go back to your reactions to this news. as you heard from him, the colorado supreme court ruled that the former president is disqualified from appearing on the primary ballot. they put a stay on their decision until the supreme court can rule. as hugo lowell was saying, he is effectively on the ballot until the supreme court decision. it could impact all 50 states. democratic caller. let's hear from you. caller: i'm not democratic. i'm independent.

i watch fox and i watch msnbc and cnn. i would like to know the truth about whether or not republicans brought this case in colorado. because judge -- says, and he's a top republican, that donald trump don't have to be convicted. that is not what the statute says. i would like a little clarity. if you can help me with that. i would like to know about the justices that did the opinion. from what i have watched on tv this morning, the dissents matter. host: the dissents matter.

there is in the papers this morning the three that dissented did not dissent on merit. they dissented for other reasons. if you are listening to hugo lowell, he talked about some of the questions you brought up. why did the supreme court justices -- i'm sorry, why did the colorado supreme court justices rule when there has been a conviction? he was talking about how they dismissed that claim. that is the argument that the president's lawyers will make when this goes before the supreme court. i just want to read some of the questions from the new york times that the case hinged on. several questions. was it in insurrection when trump supporters stormed the capitol to stop the

certification of the 2020 election? did mr. trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to support us beforehand in the speech that morning and his twitter posts during the attack? the courts have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th amendment without congressional action. does section three apply to the presidency? in the lower court decision, judge sarah wallace who made the district court ruling in colorado said yes to all but the last question, because section three enumerates several offices but not the presidency. and because the presidenti -- presidential oath is different than the other officers, the judge concluded the broad phrase "officers of the united states" did not include the presidency. the colorado supreme court disagreed. caly in -- clay, republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this is all my opinion but i think with the woke crowd and banning speakers of the universities, trying to be an elon musk -- ban elon musk on his x, to the colorado supreme court, it is becoming a fascist state. free speech is being eroded. now the colorado residents are not able to vote in a presidential election about whom they would like. i think it's a disgrace. host: ron in michigan, independent. your reaction to the colorado supreme court? caller: i like the guardian. i read it carefully. what i'm looking at is the supreme court is picked by legislators to make decisions

regarding the constitution. the constitution is the foundation of our country. for people to take their constitution and dilute it to the extent that we are hearing from the republicans is absolutely nonsense. the supreme court made a decision based on their knowledge and i believe it is a foundation for the indictment going forward for trump. trump laid the foundation for his program a year ago. his mouth, his arrogance, his ignorance and sometimes very, very polite speeches are absolutely ridiculous. i would never vote for this man matter what. i am independent and i will take the facts going forward. right now the facts tell me that trump should be removed. if the rest of the states follow the same program, it is telling

the people you don't want this man for office. i agree with that. thank you for your time. that is my comment. host: associated press on this news from yesterday. a divided colorado supreme court declared the former president ineligible for the white house under the u.s. constitution's insurrection clause. the decision, whose justices were appointed by the democratic governors marks the first time in history section three of the 14th amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. mike johnson, speaker the house, republican of louisiana reacting , saying today's ruling to disqualify former president trump from the colorado ballot is nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack, regardless of political affiliation, every

citizen registered to vote should not be denied the right to vote for our former president. aaron in colorado, springs. your line is (202) 748-8003. your reaction? caller: good morning, greta. have not talked to you in a month. it is hard to be first. i'm proud to be a colorado resident today. hopefully other states will follow suit. after missing to mr. lowell, he might be an uphill battle a little bit but -- it might be an uphill battle a little bit but the claim -- when i was in the military he was the commander-in-chief. i believe that is an office. one question. i don't know if anybody can answer it. in light of what happened to rudy giuliani in the defamation

case, with all the rhetoric that trump directed towards those two innocent ladies, if they will be repercussions for that. thanks. host: bruce in colorado, what do you say this morning about your colorado supreme court? caller: my opinion is i'm not one of those know it all know nothings. sorry to insult anybody. i'm not a constitutional scholar like everybody who's -- if they look it up they are going online. a caller knew about section three that donald trump was not supposed to be removed. i did not vote for trump. i don't plan on voting for him. that sort of thing. i am waiting to see what decision will be made by the people who actually do study law.

not sure if it is right that he should be pulled off the ballot when you have people within the state he would like to vote for trump. at this point in time i will wait to see what the people who actually, you know, who actually study law are going to do. i have been for years, the last three or four years, listening to nothing but these conservatives talk about this about the election. let me put it to you this way. when i opened up my ballot in 2020 and there was donald trump-mike pence and then, harris and joe biden, if my vote for biden did not count when they talk about the 81 million and it was rigged, that means these conservative people, your vote did not count. when they try to say people who voted for biden cheated -- what about connecticut? ok. we've had republicans get caught committing fraud.

if you're sitting there trying to say my vote did not count then your vote did not count. let the process go through. bless the people who understand the law and study the constitution, not like these know it all know nothings. if you don't understand what's going on, don't call in with your conspiracy theories. when i was 12 there was a conspiracy theory that john f. kennedy and bruce lee were living on the same island. thank you for letting me talk and everybody have a good day. host: matt is a democratic caller. caller: how are you doing today? i want to say i wonder about a lot of these trumpsters calling in and how they feel -- it seems like a lot of them were excited about the fact that certain states were considering not having republican primaries at all. that did not seem to bother them.

they thought that was fantastic. i want to point that out. i'm glad to see that colorado has risen to the occasion. thank you. host: john in california, republican. caller: good morning, greta. i would like to say that it makes me nervous that the court is doing this. what goes around will come around. this is the first time they have ever done anything like this. i guess from now on we will see democratic candidates be taken off the ballot as well as republican candidates. i think it is a whole bad road to go down. let me give you a story. i worked on an initiative in california. we gathered a bunch of signatures. we submitted. it he went to the superior court and it was rejected because it had a flaw in it. then we appealed it. he went to appeals court. -- it went to appeals court.

the appeals court said pretty much everything that goes through has a flaw in it. the voters would be the ultimate decision. the opponents of the voters, like the democratic collars that have called then can say i don't like trump. that is their opinion. then the republican callers say they like trump, they will not be represented. you let it go through with the flaws, then you debate the flaws. to take it off the ballot is a denial of free speech for the republicans. i am glad they -- i think the supreme court will order -- there is nobody without flaws. every president has had a flaw. the voter is the ultimate judge. it is up to the different parties to point out the flaws

and then the voters decide whether that floor rises to the occasion. -- flaw rises to the occasion. it just sets a precedent that now we will use lawyers and courts to decide elections. i think the whole thing -- i respect the democrats' opinion. i can see why a lot of people hate trump. thing go to the ballot and vote against him. there's a lot of people that like trump and will go vote for him. you cannot deny free speech with a couple of lawyers. i think the whole thing will fail. host: as we heard from hugo lowell earlier and it is written in the new york times, similar lawsuits in minnesota and new hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. a judge in michigan ruled last month the issue was political and not for him to decide. an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify mr. trump there. the plaintiffs have appealed to the michigan supreme court.

deborah in lakewood, colorado. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: i am a liquid native -- lakewood native of colorado. i had wanted to clarify something. the people that brought this case were all republicans. it is only for the republican primary ballot. it is not the national election. a lot of people think that that is what it is. the other point i want to bring up. the reason why trump went after obama's birth certificate was to disqualify him for running for president. this is an eligibility question. it is not were you born in america, in the united states? how old are you? did you lead an insurrection? it is nothing about your

political point of view except you ran an insurrection. those of the points i would like to make. host: on the dissenters, and the washington post, the three sided different reasons for disagreeing with the majority. one would have dismissed the case because trump has not been charged with insurrection. one would have dismissed because trump has not been convicted of a crime and the third did not believe the court had the authority to decide the issue under the state's election code. john in california, republican. your reaction to this news from the colorado supreme court? caller: the colorado supreme court is an open joke. a first-year law student can tell you why they should not have done this. yet they did. these are learned people. these are experienced people who

are actual supreme court judges. they did an open political thing to donald trump. take his name out of it. look what they did to a citizen of the united states. this is so sad. i have to ask this question. when you democrats, one of your big taglines is nobody is above the law. i will ask you, what law are you talking about? the law that the supreme court of colorado says because we can do it and we are timing it close to the time when they are going to print the ballots and hope the supreme court does not settle it quick enough for them to print the ballots, because that is what they did. host: hugo lowell told us earlier this morning that there is a stay on this decision. the practical outcome is that

the former president will be on the ballot until the supreme court rules. the secretary of state and colorado needs to print the names by january 5. it is unlikely the court makes a decision before then. colorado's primary is super tuesday in early march. we will have to see how quickly the supreme court takes up this case and the others and how quickly they decide. frank in aberdeen, maryland. democratic color. -- caller. caller: to those people who say he needs to be indicted or convicted before anything is done, that is not what the amendment says. it says if you engaged or gave material support to the insurrectionists. that was shown during the trial. it was uncontested by trump.

as for the oath, their claim -- i listened to the two and half hour argument. the biggest claim the trump lawyer had was that the president is not an officer of the united states because he stands above all the officers. ridiculous. the oath stated in the 14th amendment is not the actual oath the president takes. his oath is more encompassing, a greater oath taken by those by military officers. he has to preserve, protect and defend. the constitution of the night states. the first principle is that we have peaceful transfer of power. i listened on january 6 to the

speech on c-span. i'm yelling at the radio, wait a second. he's inciting a riot. the next thing is somebody is being killed as they stormed the capitol. that hasn't happened since 1814. we need to wake up. have a blessed day. host: that is frank talking there. we are showing the video from january 6 speech the former president gave that day. he says he listened. you can go back and listen to it in its entirety. go to our website, c-span.org. go to the archives. put in that day, put in the speech and listen to the entire thing. ron in north carolina, independent. caller: yes. i would like to say there have been a lot of questions whether there was even an insurrection.

they keep referring to this as a riot. the fellow that called and use the word riot. this has been called a riot continually. it seems like the people change the wording to insurrection. i would like to mention these justices were appointed -- they may want to do a background check on them. we don't know who appointed them. we don't know what kind of education they have had. they are probably not qualified to be doing this. host: the associated press noted democratic governors appointed all seven. the decision was 4-3. did you hear that, ron? caller: yes, i heard it. host: you brought up the question of was it an insurrection. do these other cases around the country involving those that were inside the capitol on

january 6, those cases, do they make a difference in this argument when you have the headline from pbs, x proud way leaders sentenced to prison for the capitol insurrection plot? caller: the first word you used, most people don't care for it. the word pbs. that is disgusting . host: this is an associated press story on the pbs website. the former leader of the far right proud boys was sentenced on tuesday to more than three years behind bars for joining a plot to attack the u.s. capitol nearly three years ago. he was the second proud boy to plead guilty to conspiring with other group members to obstruct the january 6 joint session of congress for certifying president joe biden's electoral victory. the sentence will be a bellwether for other proud boys,

conspirators who cooperated with federal prosecutors. let's go to marion in massachusetts. mary, your turn in this conversation. caller: yeah. i was calling to just say i am nonvoting the way i was going to. i think what they are doing to donald trump is really bad. they are making people like me that are independent -- they say he was the man they wanted to run against. they can beat him hands down. my question would be is why are they doing everything in their power to not run against him? to take him off the ballot. i am going from an independent for this election to voting republican. only for that reason.

because that is what i think. i have been watching this for a few months. i see every which way but loose that they are trying to take him off the ballot and take our choice away from us. let the people vote. let the people make the choice. not the courts. the people. that is what the constitution is about. we the people. not the courts. and all the politicians and the media. i see donald trump breaking into the building. i did not see donald trump saying go and destroy washington, like they let everybody else destroy all over the country. host: understood. reuters has this about who brought this case.

the case was brought by a group of colorado voters aided by the advocacy group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington who argued the former president should be disqualified for inciting his supporters to attack the capitol. the court's decision is not only historically justified but necessary to protect the future of democracy and our country. the courts have rejected several lawsuits to keep trump off the primary ballot in other states. the top court rebuffed an effort to disqualify trump from the republican primary and did not rule on an overall eligibility to serve as president. let's hear from jerry in florida. jerry is a republican. you are next. jerry, you have got to mute your television. i will move on. james from orange park, florida. caller: yes. we really have a lot of experts

that seem to know the constitution better than the people that actually wrote it. i find that to be really interesting. anyone involved in insurrection does not have to be actually going to court and be found guilty of insurrection. jefferson davis, the president of the confederacy was barred from public office. he never went to trial. the colorado supreme court, based on their interpretation of the constitution. we know the constitution can actually be interpreted by people to mean what they want it to mean. the judges have already said the constitution means what we say

it means. the judges in colorado basically did that. they interpreted it the way they saw it. i don't -- just because his name does not appear on the ballot i would think the people in colorado could use write in if they wanted to. i don't know if that would bar them from writing in trump on the ballot. thanks very much and merry christmas to all. host: other quick headlines for you. the senate to work on border policy bargain through the holiday. a bipartisan group of senators were trying to break -- cut a deal on a the ukraine and tying it to immigration policies before the senate left for their holiday break. they were not able to reach an agreement. the work continues according to the washington post. yesterday the ukrainian

president held a news conference for two hours. the headline from the washington post's he says his military needs 500,000 more troops. happening in washington yesterday, this is usa today's front-page coverage. the nation honors the legacy of sandra day o'connor. president biden giving remarks at her funeral. you can find out coverage on our website, c-span.org. in the opinion pages of the wall street journal, phil gramm and mike solon. mr. solon is an advisor to u.s. policy metrics. social security was doomed from the start. you may be interested in reading that. back to the conversation about the colorado supreme court's decision that said the former president is disqualified from

the gop primary ballot. andy in fairfax, virginia. independent. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span for this wonderful service and happy holidays to everyone. i worry about parties using instruments of justice and power against each other. republicans have done it too but the democrats now. i encourage leftist friends calling into think about texas throwing by enough of over swing state. i wish neither man was running for president. we have great governors that can make a case. i agree with earlier callers. this will be a bunch of what goes around comes around. it will be tit-for-tat and we have bigger issues to worry about. happy holidays to all. host: mary in virginia, republican. caller: i find all this kind of confusing but i also know if we

want to support our constitution then we need to get everybody on board. we do have a choice to vote for the president. that is our number one choice. thank you. host: mary, what you say in maryland? caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i'm almost in my 70's. i watched the president being sworn in using the words i swear to the constitution to protect the united states. if donald trump says he did not swear into the constitution, is he legally our president? host: all right. caller: do you understand what i'm saying? host: susan and georgia, republican. -- in georgia, republican. caller: can't people write in

trump's name on the ballot? there is a place where you can write in who you want. if his name is not printed on the ballot, why couldn't they just write it in? host: right now he will remain on the ballot. there is a stay on this decision from the colorado supreme court until the supreme court in washington possibly will decide to take this decision up. then how quickly they can decide it and what they decide will impact ballots not only in colorado but across the country as well. elise stefanik, republican leader in the house tweeting her reaction. partisan democratic operatives think they can decipher all coloradans and americans the next presidential election. it is un-american and democrats are so afraid president trump will win that they are illegally

trying to get him off the ballot. joyce in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: hi. my comment is this. the president has a decision -- the person who wins or loses the election has a decision to concede to the winter. if mr. trump wanted to run again for president come all he had to do was concede. one time, i heard him on one of the stations say that he lost the election. and just let it go and then go on.

when the next presidential election comes along, then run. and he has caused so much hate and grief in this country by just not being able to stand up for what is right. host: joyce in pennsylvania, democratic caller. we will take a break. when we come back, the latest on the israel and hamas warrior. and later, joe mcreynolds claiming that chinese hackers are attacking critical u.s. infrastructure. it will be right back. -- we will be right back. >> weeknights at 9:00 eastern. an encore presentation of our 10

part series, books that shaped america. exploring key pieces of literature that have had a profound impact on our country. tonight, we will feature the journals of lewis and clark. from 1804 to 1806. the guests is the author of several books. watch the encore presentation of books that shaped america on c-span, or go to c-span.org/books that shaped america to view the series and learn more about the future. -- feature. >> american history tv, saturday on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. from this year's george washington symposium, a discussion about the u.s. constitution and how it has evolved over more than two

centuries. a tour of the smithsonian portrait galleries with portraits of the major players in the spanish-american war. at 8 p.m. -- 8:00 p.m. eastern, the life and presidency of jimmy carter. and at 9:30, those who serve back back terms in the white house hosted by the gerald ford foundation. exploiting the american story. watch american history tv.

>> watch the best of c-span's q&a. gospel scholar talks about her memoir, everything happens for a reason for reflecting on being diagnosed with colon cancer at the age of 30 five. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span app. host: inform policy directory with the brookings institution is here again to talk to us about israel and hamas conflict. we have seen headlines in recent days that tensions are rising. describe what is happening. guest: as you know, there are iran based rebels.

to the extent that the u.s. has been involved with it on the others, helping the government, although there is not much government left. 10 years worth of bad blood. they have decided at this particular moment to start shooting missiles and drones and a retaliation or escalation, or a spreading of the conflict. the u.s. has organized a coalition, mostly nato and middle eastern partners to escort ships along shipping lines that have decided to avoid the red sea as a result of this threat. it is not the end of the world, but it does add time and cost. u.s. has organized this escort, in effect. i'm not sure how many ships will be involved.

they are not known for having super sophisticated weaponry. they have already caused damage, but that is before the coalition and task force was organized by secretary austin. i think we will probably do pretty well to protect commercial shipping and restore some sense of calm and normalcy. even the occasional drone -- even in that event, you probably have limited damage, as opposed to a catastrophe. my hope and expectation is that this task force will be successful in restoring some degree of confidence. host: any concern of having a beefed up presence in the area? guest: not yet. they do not like to say anything

except that the world might end tomorrow. it is a little bit naive if bad things happen, but in this case, this kind of scenario plays to our relative strengths. they are figuring out where they have the missile launching bases . they still have to finish several miles, at least. we are out at sea. admittedly, these are close quarters, in maritime terms, but we are not facing a major maritime power. we had to dock our ships. if we really had to hug the coast with commercial ships, they had to be close. that would be difficult. my expectation is that we do pretty well.

host: what are the prospects for a paz in the war? and hopes of hostages being returned. guest: i think there are some prospects, especially if it is framed after the pause. people are saying this must be the end of the fighting, permanently. israel saw the cause for a p ause, i think it would be even more opposed. they would expect that it would create more pressure on them to stop before they have eliminated the hamas leadership. on the other hand, the hostages present another reason to do a pause for a few days and get an exchange. in that regard, i would not be

surprised. we know that israel has gone to extreme lengths to get one visitor or one hostage home. so that does create -- this one, i will not make any predictions. i'm more confident that the task force will succeed that i am about a potential paz in -- pause in gaza. host: here is a portion of remarks and how she reacted. [video clip] >> democracies are stronger and more secure when we uphold the law of war. protecting palestinian citizens is a moral duty and a strategic

imperative. we will continue to stand up for the right to defend themselves. we will continue to urge the protection of civilians during conflict and to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into gaza. that is important as israel fights to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in gaza. it will be crucial for our work and for our partners, after the fighting stops. it's -- guest: the secretary has done a great job in the pentagon. that was one of his louder and more emphatic moments. second, we usually talk about the challenge and potential difficulty of becoming secretary of defense. i have to say that they have

both done great job. in this case, secretary austin actually benefits from having been general austin previously. no one on the face of the earth has had more experience in command, dealing with this than lloyd austin. he became the deputy commander in iraq during the surge and then he became the overall commander. there was a lot of fighting going on throughout iraq. and then he was the head of central command where the u.s. role was more air force oriented. but we helped rebuild the iraqi army after it was decimated by isis. other people had key roles in that fight as well. his record was not perfectly

successful. it was a tough fight, but he has learned from experience the difficulty of carrying out these kinds of urban campaigns in modern times, given the weaponry. i think the basic point that there is no military silver bullet -- it is about how fast u.n. decisively. i like to hope that his quiet style, combined with his firm but resolute demeanor is getting the message through to the israelis. urban fights are -- nothing about modern technology has made them any easier. titles pose a particular problem. there is dissenting difficulty of locating and these are enormous challenges that there are not answers for. not quite down the path of sophisticated robotics, letting

robots do the work for us or for the israelis. therefore, austin is right. it will be difficult, step-by-step. it will not have a clear ending point. potentially creating more enemies with a hard fisted approach. the israelis seem to acknowledge some of this. they did not have a battle plan for how to flesh out before october 7. they are feeling their way. they used way too much in my judgment. certainly in secretary austin's judgment. what i think they are beginning to understand at the way they continue this fight has to be more targeted and limited. host: refugees are crowding the borders. you say israel is learning.

many palestinians have been killed. around 60,000 wounded. the u.n. estimates 85% of .2 million people have been displaced. guest: i have no reason to doubt any of those numbers. they have been pretty fair-minded and accurate at estimating casualties of their own people. historically, we have not seen them do that. those numbers do not strike me as unbelievable in any way, shape or form. huge numbers have been displaced. most of the population, most of those who live in gaza and have been internally displaced just underscores the humanitarian tragedy.

wintry conditions, even if not as extreme as other countries to the north are still serious for people who do not have shelter, enough food or medicine. we need to find a way to dramatically keep it ending the humanitarian aid for the palestinians in gaza. we need a pause in the fight and for the nature of the fighting. it might go into the winter, even into the new year. the israelis are going to have to find a way to allow augmentation for humanitarian relief as they limit military operations. host: this is a picture from the front page of the washington post. food is scarce. issues with committee a water have been reported.

this is under the headline of pressure. historically talking about egypt and israel's relationship and why they would not accept refugees. guest: their relationship is pragmatic, if not warm. when president carter helped with this reconciliation. even though egypt has gone through different leadership and now has a strong presence and power, who just won an election this week, nonetheless, there is disability to do business and a common concern in cairo and jerusalem is the desire to not see hamas empowered, not to support extremist violence,

bearing in mind that those kinds of groups have sometimes interfered in egypt's politics and that the president of egypt was assassinated by extremists in his own country. egypt is not what any part of the extremist violence but they do not necessarily want refugees coming out of gaza. people have an interest in solving problems locally but do not yet have an answer for how to do that yet. host: you can join the conversation. your question and comments are welcome. republicans can call at (202) 748-8001. democrats can call at (202) 748-8000. independent can call and (202)

748-8002. we will also respond on social media. spring valley, new york on the republican line. caller: the jewish people -- the jewish people over 3000. it is a fact of history. the second thing, the jewish people -- host: any reaction to those comments? guest: there are a couple of things you can say. one is about how powerfully historic narrative is and how both sides feel very strongly.

yes, jewish presence goes back millennia, before the time of christ. moreover, the last couple of centuries, european power was backed by the u.s. and plays politics and has built empires at the expense of the arabs, and they were expected to solve a problem that europeans had created, making jewish people feel unwelcome. i'm not trying to dock either of these narratives. they compete and they have strong elements of reality or history behind them, even though opponents twist then for their own. but both have deep roots in this region.

the palestinian people and the jewish people essentially share the land, divided up and share the land that modern-day israel either owns, claims or controls. the other point is that i understand c-span divides their lines. i'm not sure where this issue tends to divide people. it tends to be more about age. people my age are more sympathetic towards israel and younger people are more synthetic towards the palestinian cause. as we have seen, this is an issue that has generational distinction split. that is just my own thought. host: no, we appreciate the five, absolutely. but what about the progressive part of the party that says that

protesters of all ages is talking about genocide and president biting -- president biden being part of it? guest: it is more of the pro-palestinian protesters. they are deeply concerned and correct to be worried about the palestinian population in gaza. but the split, to me is even more striking. secondly, i think that where genocide gets used inappropriately in a lot of contexts. i do not view israelis -- i do not think critics should use that term. israel is not trying to kill the people, they are trying to overthrow hamas. they are using the wrong kind of

force in ways that raise concerns about the rules of war and you could even argue that it sometimes approaches the level of specific war crime, but it is not genocide. genocide is the disconnect killing of people simply because of their identity. that is not what is going on. even those of us that criticize israel avoid the use of that term. host: democratic collar. caller: how are you? i am 61 years old and proud to be an american. you take my dna and i think it would trace me back to africa. if you trace the majority of -- what we have to understand is that judaism is a religion.

it is not a race of people. it is not a race of people. i could be jewish. this is not genocide. if you look back at my that happened -- when did it happen, october 7? let's be real. accusing the country, it is obvious what is going on over there. wrong is wrong and right is right. we have to stop it. doing what we are doing. the majority of african-americans, we are livid at any congressperson who allows this. maybe they forgot what is going on. all these people are dying.

look at the people. guest: he makes a powerful point. when you look at bombed out apartment buildings, it is hard to say that the use of force has been specifically selected. still, there has to be a clear distinction, the way that western militaries use force, between what we do and what those in syria do, going after the resistance. so i fundamentally -- it is not quite the same argument to get there, but with the same bottom-line that the israeli use of force be more selective. 20,000 people dead, it is not genocide, but it is a terrible tragedy. israel lost 1200 people in one day and hamas will try again to

kill even more than that, if possible because they reject the israeli state altogether. they have a right to defeat hamas and overthrow it and certainly flesh out its leadership. i agree with all of that, but i think -- you see apartment buildings that are leveled, something is not right. host: lewisburg, ohio, independent. caller: hello. i wanted to talk a little bit about -- even if it is not genocide, it looks like it is collective punishment, which is a war crime on israel's part. the coverage on the ground -- i find it lacking in most corporate news. i definitely watch free-speech tv. their news program is called democracy now with amy goodman

on direct tv, channel 343. host: ok. we will have michael react to this term, collective punishment. the statistics in the papers say of the nearly 20,000 that have been killed, there have been many children. guest: i do not think israel is deliberately carrying this out, but the line is a little bit too blurry for most of us to feel comfortable with. what israel is doing in its own view, and i'm not justifying the tactic is that they are willing to cause damage to the population and innocent people and children. that is in pursuit of a group that they think has become so fundamentally barbaric that it

is unacceptable to them and dangerous to the very existence of their country, that it must be defeated. the language that they used initially -- that is the way that we talked after 9/11. if you are al qaeda, you must be destroyed. it is understandable that is not realistic, but their insistence on making sure that hamas leadership is taken off the battlefield one way or another and that the hamas infrastructure is being weekend. the palestinian people realize that there is no self interest in having a group like hamas and power, in charge of their government because that group will inflict damage on israel that leads to inevitable retaliation for the palestinian people becoming the primary victims, even if they are not the target.

i do not know if israel will be successful with their argument. i sympathize with your question, even though i would not find this, myself to be collective punishment. host: what are the factions and which ones could lead? guest: great question. i saw that article as well. based over in the middle east, a nice -- there is palestinian authority based on the west bank, separate from gaza by a few dozen miles. it is seen as more reasonable although somewhat corrupt group, but in the scheme of things, much better than hamas.

so, sees me. a political being based in delhi and the palestinian authority based on the west bank that israel currently controls is seen as a crucial element. those are the groups that are talking the most, apparently and wondering if they should figure out a way to create an umbrella organization that presumably excludes hamas's military and winds up being acceptable to the international community and maybe even someday israel. host: ohio, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for this program. two -- to the point in terms of -- host: we are listening.

caller: the point being -- this is my, the six confrontation between israel and the arab states. in 1948, they decided to eliminate and did not take kindly to the human resolution that created israel. and they attacked them immediately. the arab states attacked israel. the minute the advantage was lost in the surprise attack, all of a sudden, he must have a cease fire. to save the arab states from

their own destruction. we go from there, we go to yom kippur and this one. every time that the arabs attack israel, after two to three days, the world starts clambering. how is that fair to israel? guest: thank you. i agree with most of it except for the way that you describe this war as another war between the arab states and israel. most of the arab states are against what hamas did on october 7, publicly and privately. and it is iran that has armed hamas.

not any of the arab states. iran is persian, not arab. much of the previous rejection of israel has come from the bloodline arab states but the point being, the arab states did not cause this war. other states are accepting israel's acceptance. saudi arabia and israel were on a path to relations, building on bipartisan achievements by previous american president. i'm not a fan of donald trump, but he was successful in trying to help under the abraham accords with smaller states into that are terms with israel. there was a general movement among most arab states, israel

and the u.s. to improve israel's standing and work towards a viable peace that could be sustainable. iran, hamas, and to some extent, israel. it is not their fault for what happened in any direct sense, but they contributed to a political environment in which the palestinian people felt less and less hope for their future. that gave hamas a certain ability to keep itself in power and feel justified in carrying out these attacks, but the perpetrators are hamas and iran. host: for viewers, reporting that a proposal has been offered

for a pause, a weeklong cause, in exchange for 40 hostages. no deal yet, but we just wanted to update you on that. stories in the new york times about the financial network, known by the busy -- israeli and u.s. intelligence. it was not stopped. that is how they were able to fund their network and have access to this weaponry. guest: this is an important historical backdrop because it helps explain what was going on in the israeli my prior to that time. the benjamin netanyahu government did not really have any enthusiasm for a solution. they still do not have any real enthusiasm. they occupied gaza the den left in 2006, i believe.

hamas essentially took over as the israelis left and violated previous understandings to turn it into an autocracy or dictatorship. through that, as the years went by, they felt they could live with the situation. they allow hamas, which was the government of gaza to provide services. because, did not have a lot of its own sources of revenue to tolerate those like catarrh and others, they are providing money to hamas in exchange for this understanding that hamas would be allowed to keep governing in

gaza and would refrain from massive violence against israel. that was the motive. it was a tacit understanding that maybe this is ok. maybe this is the best that we can get. it takes the pressure off of a two state solution, something that the benjamin netanyahu government did not want to face. keeping gaza on health support or a gradually improving the well-being of its people without having to face this dilemma of its long-term political status. that was obviously swept aside and will never be established, as far as i can tell. the israelis would never tolerate that kind of understanding, but there was a hope that hamas could succeed, not as a terrorist organization.

host: new jersey, democratic caller. caller: thank you. i have a peace plan. definitely 18 to be a state solution. make every west bank settlement part of palestine. have the israelis from the west bank settlements be part of palestine. there are 1.5 palestinians in israel. let there be israelis in palestine. that is number one. number two, have every kindergarten class and israel taught by a palestinian from palestine. every kindergarten class and palestine should be taught by someone from israel. have them come all the arab

states support israel. make jerusalem and international city. give dignity to the palestinians and 80% of both sides want peace, select -- make it part of israel. just like in the 50's and 1960's where the government had to protect the children and did a pretty good job of it initially, let that be the goals of the palestinian government and the israeli government to integrate the west bank settlements into the state of palestine. let them understand what peace is. host: michael? guest: i like the emphasis on teaching history from the other

people's perspective. i can go along with the spirit of that comment. whether kindergarten is the place to do that or not, to be determined. i'm not sure palestinians want them as citizens. i would have no problem with your proposal, if that was agreed to by parties, but the government is expanding their presence and vision to make sure that the west bank stays part of israel. i do not really think your plan could have traction with either side on that particular point, but if they could negotiate that , dues and palestine -- there are palestinians in israel. you are right about that latter point. there are a lot of palestinians in israel. that is a good thing, as far as it goes. thank you for your comments. host: we appreciate the

conversation, as always. thank you. we are going to take a break. when we come back, joe mcreynolds discusses the claim that chinese hackers are infiltrating u.s. infrastructure. we will go to open forum. any political issue on your mind. start dialing in. >> all this month, watch the best of c-span's cumin day. a gospel scholar talks about her memoirs, everything happens for a reason prosperity gospel scholar sunday night at 8:00

p.m. eastern on c-span's cumin day. if you can listen to all of our podcasts on the c-span now at. it's >> traveling over the holidays? make c-span's feed part of your plans. listen to all of your books in one place. what will episodes with authors discussing history and culture from our signature program about books. listen to c-span -- vs podcast feed this holiday season. you can find it and all of our podcasts on the free video mobile app. and on our website c-span.org/podcast.

watch c-span's 2024 trail. online wire download as a c-span request. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it online . video of key hearings, debates and other events future markers to get you to highlights. this timeline may sit easy to get an idea of what was decided

in washington. >> book tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight. with talks from more than 22,000 authors. more than 16,000 events. providing viewers with 92,000 hours of the latest. you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or online apple tv.org. book tv, 25 years of serious television for serious readers. >> documentary competition is

back, celebrating 20 years with this year's theme, looking forward. we are asking students to create a five to six minute io addressing these questions. what is the most important change he would like to see in america? or over the past 20 years, what is the most important change in america? we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. and every teacher who as students participate in the competition has the opportunity to share. the deadline is friday, january 19, 2024. visit our website at studentcam.org. host: we are back on open forum's's -- open forum.

we just finished up a conversation about the israel hamas war. give us your thoughts on that. negotiators said they have not reached a deal with the white house to approve ukraine aid, along with changes to the immigration policy. here is the senate majority leader, chuck schumer on those discussions. [video clip] >> democrats have been willing to negotiate on border security. we agree that the border must be fixed. finding common ground is difficult, one of the most

difficult issues congress has faced. this has been an intractable issue. it occurred when senator mccain and i led a debate. i know how hard it is, but the details on this matter immensely because this is not a conflict that we have tackled in many years. we know that. we know that this will not be easy to do. we must get it down -- done. everyone agrees that it takes more time. i think he said something about that. it is not going to be easy, as i said. we must succeed.

host: majority leader chuck schumer. mcconnell also speaking about the negotiations. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i think it is pretty safe to say that we have made the victim progress. that needs to be part of this overall request from the administration, which remains. i think this is the most dangerous since the fall of the berlin wall. the first land war in europe since world war ii. we still have terrorist threats not only in israel but with some of the kinds of people getting into the u.s. we want to help taiwan as well.

no question that this package is extremely important and the most complicated part of it is the border. i think we have passed a significant immigration bill since a second term. this is not easy. but we are working hard to get an outcome. we need it sooner. host: mitch mcconnell talking about change to immigration. he has also been an advocate for more aid to ukraine. you can discuss those topics as well this morning, in addition, here, president zelenskyy in a news conference yesterday that lasted two hours. 500,000. lauren, you are up first.

good morning. caller: good morning. my concern this morning's is that -- is israel being held accountable for its war crimes against the palestinian people? i find it to be outrageous. and the ideology is -- is that one that has committed crimes against humanity. we have -- in our country, and our democratic politicians, they are out causing so much harm. host: what you mean by that, that there are hamas leaders in our country leading democrats?

what evidence? caller: because they have assembled a group of the terrorists in the u.s.. they send them out in new york city and prayed them around all the time. host: again, what evidence you have of that? caller: you can look anywhere. they go and parade in new york city. host: ok. we will go to kin in michigan. caller: i kind of agree with your prior caller. but it is a lot simpler than everybody makes it out to be. the complicated part is when everybody is -- release the

hostages. the cease-fire will happen and then you can negotiate. i have not heard anybody talk about releasing the hostages being the first step to stopping the gunfire. just earlier coming against was promoting the fact that he wants to talk about history. start with releasing the hostages. that is what people care about. do not kill our people. release them. if you are going to put a bill together, the only reason it is complicated is because he wants to attach things to our border security. deal with one topic at a time. everybody can focus. if you have to put issues on top of our border security, we get nowhere.

host: georgia, independent. caller: kind of crazy. i want to make a few points. your previous guest -- the contention that this -- it is absurd. when they turn off the water, turn off electricity and stop coming in, bombing the hospitals. we did not even do that to iraq. now it is benjamin netanyahu making sure that hamas got their money because he was striving to -- trying to drive a wedge between them. ok. the thing about trump being taken off the ballot in

colorado, pay attention to what happened. it is just a reading of the constitution in its original way. that is what the supreme court of the u.s. claims that they do. thank you. host: you that. the ruling by the supreme court. the third time that they have kept a presidential candidate off the ballot. a provision of the constitution that prevents insurrectionist from holding office. they will consider similar cases in other states. there was a stay. they put a stay on it until the trump campaign can appeal this.

the supreme court is likely to take this up. the supreme court, when they pick it up will see how quickly you can decide where question the decision impacting the states. florida, republican. caller: hello, c-span. thank you very much. happy holidays and merry christmas to everybody. you know, i was listening to mr. trump's speech and i think we have to close some of our military bases and that other countries take care of their sovereignty. i feel that they are setting fires. we have -- the next thing is that congress is coming together

and they know that trump was right. you need to have better security at the border. you know, they need more troops. i do not know. we have troops at the polish border. i mean, it is a meatgrinder. we want more peace. that is what we have to strive for. people need to start talking to each other. thank you very much. i'm grateful to talk. host: certainly. in arkansas. caller: i just wanted to speak on sumer, talking about these

border rights for asylum-seekers. it seems like the democratic party is set on losing every possible group. latino could be voting for them, but calling for a cease-fire, and now schumer and everybody really wanting to act like the border is somehow overflowing with people people. and it is not. it is the people fleeing the cop -- problems that we have caused in latin america. thank you. host: north carolina on the independent line, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, c-span. when i see israel -- they

thought -- these people had white flags and they still killed them. they are committing genocide. they are killing palestinians. the other point i want to make is that people, especially republicans, they cannot even find our own government, but they are rushing and if you look at that war that caused a huge deficit, they are making the same mistakes. these missives, it is multi million dollars. every time they shoot down, we are prepared for it, but it is not a problem. they cannot fund our own government. young people see this and young

people want change. they will get change. it just comes slow but it will happen. it will happen once we get these all people out of office that are terrible. netanyahu let us happen. he wanted this to happen. he funded hamas to make this happen so that they can have a reason. everybody sees what is going on and c-span, i will tell you, i like you because you let people call in and voice their opinion, the people were trying to call into c-span and every time they say something about israel -- now the -- now you are forced. i'm not talking about you per se, but the people in the front office of c-span. but you know, these things that we are doing right here is

terrible. it is going to come back to haunt us. am i still on? is going to come back to haunt us. and joe biden, all of the people -- those people from the middle east and those key states. he did not have to deal with benjamin netanyahu. our president is the most powerful man in the world. each other president that told israel to stop them right away. joe biden will not do it. host: next line, republican. caller: thank you, c-span for everything that you do. i wanted to call and suggest my support for the bill that is being discussed. i think it should definitely be

supported in ukraine. -- caller: hey, there. thank you, c-span for everything you do and happy holidays to everyone. i just want to call and suggest my support for the bill being discussed. i think we should be supporting ukraine and stopping russia. i think funding the ukrainian military, they are willing to fight and do the hard work we just need to put forth support and allow them to keep fighting. i think it is a no-brainer. i think when people think about it, they should think through putin, what he stands for, what he has done to his own country, his own people, in syria in terms of supporting assad, and his attempt to meddle in our election. i am not suggesting collusion but he did attempt to meddle. when you keep that in mind, it is very clear, we should be

supporting them. i think the idea on top of that, there is some amount of bipartisan immigration reform that will not be completely comprehensive but it will be a step in the right direction. i think it is almost a no-brainer. i did want to respond to something i heard two callers ago, democrat caller, if democrats support this, they will lose support from the hispanic vote. i think hispanic people in this country generally, legally, with potential illegal immigration, is incorrect, and i think it is almost a borderline racist assertion. i think there are two types of immigration, legal and illegal. if someone has zero tolerance for illegal immigration, that suggests nothing in their policy for legal immigration. i am pro-legal immigration. u.s. has 70% foreign-born in the country, the vast majority here

legally and they are an asset to the country. i don't think that means you should letting whoever you want in terms of the border. if you look at who is coming across, yes, there are people from latin america, but you have people, ukrainian refugees who flew to tijuana and then walked in. you have people from east asia, china, india, and i bring this up because the secret is out. any foreign actor who want to do harm to the u.s. -- host: talk about immigration, poisoning the blood of our country? caller: i think donald trump, we need to keep him all the way from office as much as possible. i very much want him to be able to run and go to the primary. i think the republican party needs to take back its soul and spirit and resound the reject donald trump and everything he has done.

illegal immigration is wrong, and the people pushing back suggesting it sounds like mussolini or hitler, i think those comparisons have been overblown, but he is starting to sound like it. i think all republicans and non-republican seem to stand up and articulate the differentiation here that legal immigration is an asset to this country and illegal immigration is generally an unknown or potential liability, so i would disagree with trump on that and most other things, honestly. host: he talks about the comparison people have made. yesterday, when he was in iowa at another rally, he did not discuss the colorado supreme court decision but this is what he had to say. [end video clip] -- [video clip] >> yesterday we had a single

highest a record of illegal border crossings ever recorded, 12,600, one day. we have no idea who any of them are. they come from africa, asia, south america, not just south america, they are all over the world, they dump them on the border and pour into our country, no one is here to check them, and the border patrol is incredible. it is crazy what is going on. they are ruining our country and it is true. you destroying the blood of our country. that is what they are doing. they are destroying our country. and i never read "mein kampf," and they said, oh, hitler said that in a much different way. [end video clip] host: that was the president in iowa yesterday. democratic caller, sharon, open forum. but is on your mind? caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. holy buckets, that man is scary. and he is lying, he said he never read "mein kampf," but his ex-wife said he used to keep it on his bedside. i am calling in with the first topic about the whole colorado thing. i just want to give you a quick list, rape, murder, and tax evasion, causing an insurrection, trying to keep him in power, conspired to stop congress from doing their job. he stole top-secret classified documents, he tried to flush documents down the toilet, violated finance law, pocketed $8 million from this scam of "the apprentice." and now he wants to be a dictator on the first day. i know i am going to say something that will upset my democrat friends and make my

republican friends very happy. i do not believe at all that donald trump's supreme court will do anything against him, they are for him 100%. they are just a big as of a scam as he is, and god help united states of america. . host: ben in connecticut, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. that last lady, you need to shut the television off and read some books. anyway, thomas was started by the united states. people do not know that. and zielinski, -- president zelenskyy, he is in switzerland, why don't you bring that up, why don't you try to push money there? the reason they are trying to push money there, and then they

send it all back, democrats, republicans, it is all the same. you have one bird and two ways. this is the unity party, and when everything is found out, and it will be found out, you will be shocked at what has happened to the american people. you think you voted for an election in 2020. you have not voted the president in. all this money, that is all in bermuda. it is the pentagon papers. i mean, there are so much here. you people are going to be shocked at who is who. host: lloyd is in virginia. republican. caller: i would like to make a

clarification. how are you doing today? host: you called on the republican line. caller: hold on please. i am trying to comment. you know how black people are, let me calm down. i am going through stuff right now, and president donald trump is playing chess, not takers. i don't know what the hell is on with you all, excuse me. whatever you have got to say, if you keep on going on and on and on, immigration, ok, [indiscernible] you have a black trump and white trump, deal with this.

it is called balance, pyongyang. being yanked -- it is called ying, yang. check it out. [indiscernible] host: lloyd, can you get to your point? caller: pardon? host: can you get your point? caller: the bible says plain, go and do what you have got to do and we are going to get people together and make sure they get it done. host: let me go to bernadette in florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. i am really excited you have taken my call. bear with me, i am so proud of

colorado because james spent worse, he was an ex-slave and became a famous tracker and enthusiast, and during that time, he founded denver, colorado, the mile high city. listen to this, later on, he became a pro-chief because of all the help you gave to americans in declaring land, so the mile high city, denver, colorado, was founded by a black man, so thank you, colorado. and on the way out, i would like you to know this, a lot of people call in and out like your site, i do. i have a little history around that, too, gentlemen by the name of benjamin banneker, he was a medical genius, he was an

astronomer, he did a lot of things, but what great thing i want to tell you about the math on your desk, benjamin banneker surveyed washington, d.c., so that map has a lot to do with the black man. intimate banneker, helping to -- benjamin banneker, helping to make washington, d.c., look the way it was, and he was also publisher of the almanac in 71. thank you for taking the time to listen to me, and i wish everybody a merry christmas and happy new year. host: thank you. ted, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to bring up the fact that whether you are a republican or democrat, i think everyone should be so much more informed. there are books out there, written by david cay, and that

tells you the history of what is going on with donald trump. same with a book called the art of the deal, written and co-authored by tony schwartz, and if you would like to hear the real story on donald trump, read the book or go to youtube and ask under tony schwartz' name for some of the interviews he has done and oxford university. host: annie in texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am calling to ask that the women, we women need to start to stick together to bring this country back into good standings. we women need to pull together. we have just been pacing and the

min pin s women against each other, and they have taken away the right that we had for 50 years, and then two months ago, paxton was acquitted for cheating and stealing, and he voted, then then stood up behind ken paxton and the women stood up behind and if we women would stick together with each other and joined the ones helping us and not stand up behind women like them and stand up behind the women -- the men, to keep them in power, and they take away our rights, paxton voted to have for our health care. we women do not stand behind

women. if we stand up behind women, like men stand up behind donald trump, donald trump, donald trump gets the most benefit enough c-span. i don't care if we end up in it or what, sometimes, we are going to have to lose to win. host: annie, just so you are aware, and one to make sure we are clear, c-span is offered to you by your cable provider, not a government funded network. caller: but let me tell you, if donald trump get in, that will not matter. host: ok, annie in texas, democratic caller. front page of "washington times," president biden allegedly profited from his brother's fraudulent deals, according to a new witness in the house impeachment inquiry. james biden leveraged his older

brother, and promise of access to a future biden administration to cash in on lucrative and sometimes shady business deals. investigators have followed the money trail into the president's bank account. according to new witness testimony, the source of a $200,000 check that james biden paid to his brother in march of 2018 could have come only from predatory loans of senior citizens money fraudulently invested by jane biden' his business partner, michael lewis. you can read more if you go to open for the washington times." allen in wisconsin, independent. caller: good morning, greta. merry christmas. i appreciate the previous woma'' is called, i -- woman's call. i want to say that student loan borrowers need to band together. once you have been turned offered 3.5 weeks now, $30 billion in profit as credit to the department of education,

these loans have been weaponized, and 85%, even before the pandemic, 85 percent of loan borrowers were not pain, not able to pay, and despite what you have read in "the new york times" yesterday, 60% of loan borrowers are not pain today. sorry. 62% of student loan borrowers are not pain, that is correct. in fact, my best estimate is that only 20% of student loan borrowers are able to make their payments today, so the student loan program is done, finished, a catastrophic failure by all rational metrics, and this will keep going under biden or trump, and people need to get smart about it, if they care about their student loans, we need to start thinking about coming together. host: mickey in tennessee, we are in open forum, you are a republican caller, go ahead.

caller: thank you. i would like to talk about two or three subjects. first, congress trying to regulate artificial intelligence. i think congress should leave all of that alone. they have no authority under the constitution to regulate computer programming. as far as artificial intelligence, i think they could change the copyright law and say that to obtain a copyright, the author has to be defined as a human, so they can change the author to be defined as a human, and, ok, on the borders, i think you will remember, reagan was one of the first presidents to give amnesty to all these illegal aliens, and clinton and some democrat presidents identity, and that is probably what we will end up

compromising. i think speaker johnson has failed on us. he said he is going to have all the separate bills, and he has not done it yet, and i do not see it happening. they should not have all these bills mixed together, many for all these wars is based on the border being secured well. biden is never going to secure the border, so he will just say, yeah, and give money for all these illegal wars that we support, so i think we need to recall johnson. those are my thoughts. host: front page of "the wall street journal," you may be interested. u.s. closes more border crossings as the surgeon grows, immigrants wait at a transit center near the border in eagle pass, texas, on tuesday, u.s. authorities closed several bridges and ports along the border with mexico citing the surge in legal immigration.

kurt in florida, independent. caller: hi. good morning. how are you doing? first, let me be clear about something. i do believe that israel is practicing on the side of the palestinians. as the caller stated before, israel is indeed an agent in genocide to the palestinian people using hamas, who they created as an excuse to do so. one other point that i would like to make, to those people who are so indignant on israel dropping bombs on gaza, you might want to remember that the united states dropped two atom bombs on japan, not on military targets, but on civilian populations, killing millions of

innocent japanese noncombatants. you might want to think about that before you get indignant about what israel is doing. that is all i have to say, thank you. host: rick, publican, colorado. -- republican. colorado. hi, rick, your turn. caller: yeah. my thing is i am calling in from colorado and before the supreme court did what they did, if you are republican in colorado, your vote never counts in the general election. my thought is, if donald trump goes ahead and wins anyway, what will happen to colorado? last time he won, all the democratic states went nuts, people protested and they tour the cities up for the whole time he was in the white house. host: rick in colorado.

following his state's supreme court, citing in a state ruling that the former president was disqualified from appearing on the republican primary ballot. that doesn't for open forum. we will take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention next to chinese hackers attacking u.s. critical infrastructure and talk to the chinese security fellow joe mcreynolds. stay with us. ♪ >> weeknights at 9:00 eastern, c-span's encore presentation of books that shaped america, c-span partnered with the library of congress was explored key pieces of literature with a profound impact on our country. tonight, we will feature the journals of lewis and clark, detailing their expedition to explore further west, all the way to the pacific ocean from

1804 to 18 oh six. our guest is stephanie ambrose, author of several books on lewis and clark expedition's. watching c-span's encore presentation of books that shaped america, weeknights at 9:00 eastern on c-span, or go to c-span.org/books to view the series. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2. he shares his recent novel, killing grace, a vietnam war mystery. and then at the neckline p.m. eastern on afterwards, ruth simmons shares her journey from poverty to academia, serving as president of smith college,

brown university, and prairie view a&m university in her book, interviewed by author freeman grabowski. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two and find schedule on your program guide or watch online, anytime at book tv.org. ♪ >> c-span's studentcam competition goes forward. we are asking students to address one of these questions. in the next 20 years, what is the most important change would like to see in america? or over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america? we are getting away hundred thousand dollars in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher the opportunity to

share a portion of an additional $50,000. the deadline is friday, january 19, 2024. for information, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage continues with the presidential primary. watch live on the c-span network as the first votes are cast in the upcoming presidential election, along with candidate speeches and results, beginning with the iowa caucus, and the new hampshire primary on january 23. campaign 2024 on c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning, joe mcreynolds, a chinese security studies fellow with the

jamestown foundation, here to talk about security attacks on critical u.s. infrastructure, let's begin with what is the jamestown foundation? guest: it is a national security think tank here in d.c. that deals with a lot of the largest challenges facing the united states of america, whether that is china's rising power or russia's power projection around the world, terrorism, counterterrorism, so at the jamestown foundation, it is a national secured a think tank. host: describe the threat, the cyber threat for our u.s. infrastructure. guest: so the threat -- the best way to describe the threat is these days, unitary power, national security power or civilian critical infrastructure are deeply linked in ways that

they might not have been going back half a century. as a result, if you are a nationstate imposed in the u.s. and the potential military conflict, and you are trying to prevent us from prevailing in that conflict, you are targeting are critical input structure, including critical of the structure used primarily partly by civilians and that is just the modern reality of national power.. the threat in event of a conflict, are critical infrastructure is targeted, and it is not just a contest of military. even in peacetime, you have them tried to collect information that will lead to conflict or

other acts of espionage, and you have ransomware attacks, that has been a driving critical infrastructure the past years, and for those who may not have heard the term ransomware, basically, they break into your systems and they say that until you pay a certain amount of money with cryptocurrency and things like that, then you are not getting access to your data and that is something that protecting against it is a little different than protecting against previous forms of infrastructure intrusion and is now often used by clinical networks around the world as a way to target hospitals or schools or things like that that even have no real relevance to the military and national security, but if you can get

them to pay up, that is a serious payday and bitcoin goes a lot farther than it does in america. host: what types of infrastructure are you talking about? guest: the u.s. government has a defamation of critical infrastructure that is very broad, everything from schools to hospitals, logistics, facilities and all of the facilities that under our daily life, we may not necessarily think about how critical they are, to our lifestyle until it was disrupted, there is actually a hospital earlier this year, i believe in texas because of a ransomware attack, they had to divert ambulances from their emergency rooms these are

outlining every aspect. these attacks can potentially disrupt daily life for civilians and not just for military or other national security. host: we are talking with joe mcreynolds. he will take your questions or comments about cyber threats to critical u.s. infrastructure. you can join the conversation. republicans, (202)-748-8001. (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. text us with your question or comment, include first name, city and state, at (202)-748-8003. or on facebook.com/c-span and on x at @cspanwj. joe mcreynolds, i would like to show our viewers recently at the

national press club, the national security director had to say, head of cyber command, had to say about protecting the u.s. infrastructure. [video clip] >> how would industries that would not necessarily have the same level of cybersecurity's are not connected to defense, but as periphery, there might be a backdoor there somehow, what did they need to do to defend themselves, their own companies, to be able to not create vulnerability? >> i think the sector that we are responsible for, broadly, outside of the other 13 sectors, when there are companies like this, being able to work with the department of homeland security to get their advice is really important. i think this is an important piece, cybersecurity collaboration, nsa, 2020, 3

years ago, one of the things we said was we want to be able to work with the defense industrial base, but we found out that initially, the way we have to work is to working there medium, there medium is not classified, so being able to talk with them on a series of channels and in classified matters is what we are doing. why don't we provide a series of products that ensure a higher degree of cybersecurity? so being able to provide scanning to the defense industrial base to see what vulnerabilities they have are some of the ways we are looking at this equation of it differently. [end video clip] host: what did you hear that? guest: that is actually a critical piece, when you are working with the defense industrial base, if you are the u.s. government, cyber threat information, often times that may be -- that sort of information may be sensitive or restrictive, and there has been

a push the past several years to take the categories of information and be more easily able to push out industry. industry can react rapidly if they are given information rapidly, but this is something that the government accountability office has actually been appreciating -- pushing the government on for a matter of years now, and the biden administration has been responsive on this, the idea that government was not moving fast enough to get cyber threat information to industry and that government ossification roles, which are, of course, very important for protecting our nation secrets, are not necessarily -- were not designed with this kind of cyber threat information sharing in mind, so organizations like the nsa, he also mentioned cyber security infrastructure, and these

organizations are working hard now to create more optimized information sharing mechanisms with industry, and especially it is an issue also when you are dealing with regional critical infrastructure around america, where realistically, these small infrastructure management agencies or utility companies, things like that, they will never be as invested in their own cybersecurity at their local level as a nationstate that sees them as critical for some national security objective penetrating them, and nation will also have more resources and more focus to bring to bear then some local utility company,

so that is where it is really important to bring the resources of the federal government to their, and back in the early 2000's, going back to the bush administration, he saw an emphasis on well, that is the private sector's fault, and we are going to talk a big game about the private sector in their infinite dynamism will be taken care of this, but the incentives are just unaligned to make this something we say, oh, the private sectors can handle and they can take care of everything, we don't have to worry about it. no, we have to have ongoing partnership on this, and that is something that you see resected heavily in the biden administration's national cybersecurity strategy from earlier this year. host: we will get to calls, brand and arizona, -- in arizona, independent. question or comment? caller: yes, if i have my own

power generator and solar generator and there is a cyberattack along the internet, is the government going to have a backup communication system that i can connect you to get information? on what is going on? guest: that is a great question that i do not know the answer to. the national emergency preparedness is not my forte, but that is an excellent question, and i would assume that if you go on fema's website, they would probably have some kind of information, like it used to be back in the day going up watching tv, that there would be the test of the emergency broadcast system. i assume people who have devoted their entire careers to this

have been looking at what a system like that for the modern digital age looks like, but that is just not my field. thank you for calling. appreciate it. host: tom, baltimore, democrat. caller: good morning. my name is tom, i am looking at an article from 2015 that says that some clown decided to shoot at a substation with a gun, he knocked the substation out, and consequently, and in addition, power was lost. after that, the emergency generator shut off and after 11 seconds, they got it back on, but the pumps did not start, and my question is, sir, if you can

knock out a substation, can cyberattack to the same thing? guest: if there is one thing that i hope everybody, everyone watching today takes away from the segment, please, do not shoot at your local power substation. everyone would prefer you did not. i would say the potential for cyber attacks to shut down or interfere with power stations is a huge potential correct factor -- threats factor as power stations become network and industrial control systems become network, but thankfully, there are an entire subfield of information security professionals and informationals working to prevent, but the

reality of critical infrastructure resilience and then on the other hand attack from nationstate actors, from criminal groups looking to get a payday through ransomware, things like that, is that this will forever be an ongoing push and there will always be groups looking to find vectors into our critical infrastructure, and there will always be professionals looking to find new ways of making our critical infrastructure resilience, whether that is through network resilience -- resiliency through segmentation of access controls and things like that, making it harder to penetrate, and now in the new era of generative ai, both attackers and defenders have new tools for testing

network intrusion and network defense factors, so that is something that we are going to continue to see in the future with i think not just an easy resolution of, oh, that was vulnerability and we don't have to worry about it anymore. host: in florida, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing c-span to allow regular citizens to comment. as an expert on china, if there is a new book called the end of the world is just the beginning, peter zeihan, profoundly predicting the future of china, especially their one shop policy for 30 years means their population is going to diminish by half in the near future, so is our guest aware of this book?

and even in the economist magazine they say that the chinese army is not able to recruit enough people now because of the decline in the population of that one child policy. is the guest aware of this book, and what does he think about the coming decline of the population by half in china and how that will affect china's relations with the rest of the world? guest: that is a great question. i just had a guy talk my ear off about that book at a holiday party. i am hearing a lot about the book from folks out in the world. i have not read it myself. i will say that my overall sense is there are some things they have been saying for two decades now, which is that japan and south korea got rich before they got old, and that china is going

to get old before it gets rich because of the different demographic milestones getting hit in the measures of wealth china is hitting at each demographic milestone. when it comes to china posthumous military strength, one of the biggest things to consider is not just demographics and how many people there are hypothetically, but as militaries become more specialized and more reliant on highly trained labor rather than just that era of the draft where they draft you, train you, it really becomes a question, especially in china of what are you offering to specialist

talent, especially in the realm of cybersecurity information warfare? that is something i have looked at in some of my conference papers, academic conference papers, things like that, the things that china is doing to recruit more specialist talent in areas like cyber warfare into the people's liberation army. they actually overhauled their whole system for talent recruitment because if you have serious information security skill set in china, you have relatively solid opportunities in the private sector, at least compared to a lot of other relatively high-paying, range of opportunities and for china, the labor market right now, in china for young people, is actually quite posh, and that is something that is kind of surprising to me, if i was coming from a demographic angle and saying, oh, if you are young

-- fewer young people, there will be intense competition for talent to fill jobs, but right now, there are so many young people out of work, that it is a sociological trend in china of how young people who have been very focused on test taking and educational success in setting themselves up for a professional workforce and now finding there's really not a lot of great jobs out there, how they are kind of reorienting their expectations from work and life, sank i will say that demography is certainly partially there, i would say, but there are a lot of other factors to consider, so i would say, yeah, i never actually read anything by peter zeihan, but more generally, it

is important for a country as complex as china to take a range of voices in and ideally be looking for voices who not spending all their time marking themselves with i am the china expert. i have been working on china at 15 years at this point, and i would break out in a cold sweat if i had to describe myself as a china expert because it is just such a fascinating and complex and multifaceted country, so, again, i don't know him particularly well, but i would say seeking out niche subject matter experts, if you have the time and include nation, can often be more rewarding than seeking out one guy who proclaims i and the expert, my book will tell you exactly what china is going to be 20 years from now. host: "the washington post"

headline, china cyber army is admitting critical u.s. services, and it goes on to say that utility in hawaii, and a pipeline are among the victims in the past year read what is happening? cash year. what is happening? -- year. what is happening? guest: that is an advanced threat, essentially a cyber threat actor that has advanced capabilities and nationstate capabilities, and has patience and persistence in trying to get into even hard targets, so the advanced persistent threat actor known as both typhoon is the codename, that the u.s. government has publicly assessed earlier this year, along with the intelligence agencies of many of our allies and partners, they really state public press release saying that it is

connected to china and that it seems pretty obvious looking at it that it is targeting critical infrastructures, it has a national, a national, potential national security relevance, especially in the event of conflict in the asia pacific, for example, hawaii, obviously, so, yeah, what is happening here is one data point in an ongoing stream of data points over decades in the past and presumably in the future, where a country that has a competitive and challenging relationship with the u.s., like china, that sees as as a potential threat, and, of course, we see them in

plenty of ways as a potential threat, will continue to try and build accessories into our critical -- access into our critical infrastructure so if something happens between the u.s. and china, if they were a conflict that they could be able to disrupt our critical infrastructure, perhaps disrupt our ability to respond militarily or even influence the political negotiation around resolution of a crisis. it is easy to imagine from the chinese perspective that that is an area where american blood has not been spilled yet, and if they were able to successfully penetrate large swallows of american critical infrastructure and -- swallow this of american

global infrastructure and impact the lives of daily americans, it is easy to see from a chinese government strategist perspective how that could potentially be useful in creating political pressure in america or in our partner nations for a non-military resolution as a conflict in a way that was on china's terms, for example, whether it is over the sovereignty to taiwan, the south china sea something else. it is important to understand that they are going to be trying to break into our network. by that, i mean chinese military intelligence services. this has nothing to do with average or ordinary chinese citizens are people, but chinese military intelligence services will be trying to break into our critical infrastructure for likely as long as i will be

working on these topics, and we will be doing our best to kick them out, as time goes on. we have made critical progress on moving away from, example, while way -- huwei in critical networks that surely over time help us defend it. host: scott in massachusetts, republican. caller: hi. i have got a couple of things. i will give you background. i owned the computer business for a while, went into the private sector, became mis for a bank and then vice president of the credit union after that. during that time, i found that the chinese, not just the chinese, but we had the russians, just about everybody trying to hack into our service all the time, and when i was -- my company, ransomware, it was huge, even just regular

businesses, and there were multiple businesses that we had a ransomware, we had to go in try to resolve so would they do not have to pay the money. all the people don't realize, a lot of times, comes in email, looking like you are some of the organization you would deal with, and you think it is. you go out locked in, and they have a backdoor into your system, they are knocking you down, you cannot get out of it, but, they are huge, and china is one of the biggest ones i found on a daily basis that we were blocking them from getting entire banking system. host:. joe mcreynolds. guest: that is absolutely correct. while it is worth keeping in mind that attackers can opt each state of origin, they can

redirect through intermediary notes to try to try and appear as if they're coming from a different country than they actually are. let the caller is saying is absolutely my sense of it, as well. i would say that the average human being who has enough to worry about elsewhere in their job and is not focused on cybersecurity as the number one thing, the human being is really the weak point often times in this, and that is where cybersecurity organizations and cybersecurity focused groups within companies are now starting to test employees by sending these kinds of official looking but actually fake females themselves and finding out which employees clicked on

it -- fake emails themselves and finding out which employees clicked on it, and then saying, if this was a real attack, you would have lost is in a credible amount money. at certain is becoming more common. it is a real appreciation at the end of the day it always seems secondary to our jobs, until you clicked the wrong link, and then it is central to everyone. host: joe mcreynolds is the chinese security fellow at the jamestown foundation and cofounder of the china cyber and intelligent studies institute and wrote a book called china a posthumous evolving military strategy. we have a little bit less than 10 minutes left with our guest. how much information did the chinese balloon over the u.s. for a week potentially affect u.s. cybersecurity? guest: that is a question that i

have no way of answering. other than to say i would guess that not really, simply because that balloon -- balloons are not the hardest thing in the world to track. clearly, if you read all of the u.s. government public pronouncement from the balloon floating into our airspace, the government was very aware and sponsored to it. my sense from the outside looking in is that it seem like we responded appropriately and i don't have any particular concerns. the timing was a little odd. with the chinese government's overtures to the u.s. government

that time, which makes me wonder on the chinese side did the left hand know what the right hand was doing? so i have no particular knowledge or insight other than to say to viewers that it has been handled directly. host: james, new hampshire, independent. caller: good morning, everyone. i am really horrified to find out that when people say critical infrastructure, we think roads, bridges, ports, but also included in that is perception management of national myths and narratives that need to be supported by controlling what we think and what information we have access to. in other words, the covert response that was terrific. it is just being slaughtered. that is being supported as

critical infrastructure. thank you very much and happy holidays. host: we will go to eric in dayton, ohio, independent. caller: yes, thank you for this opportunity. my biggest concern is apparent collapse of the border and chinese coming across of bad actors, not necessarily infrastructure attacks but in general, how do you perceive that? guest: i am happy to talk about that actually. there is often a mistaken perception that if physical, in person espionage is being committed against the united states on behalf of china, that it would be a person of chinese origin or chinese ethnicity committing that espionage, but when you look at the cases and i

have testified as expert witness in a trial of a chinese espionage case last year, so i have done some homework on this when you look at the cases, it is every bit as likely, if not more, to be a random, middle-aged, non-chinese guy who just cannot believe his luck that a woman half his age thinks he is charming, attractive, funny, annexing you know, he is handing over our critical, sensitive information, so i would say, however you feel about border security, that is its own real separate topic. if what you are worried about his espionage on behalf of the chinese government against

america, whether in a key crisis scenario, i would not be looking at that as more likely to come from people of chinese origin, whether that is chinese nationals or ethnicity. it really is not something you can predict in that regard. host: let's take this text from our viewer, does mr. mcreynolds think china would attack america's critical of the structure prior to invasion of taiwan? guest: that is a fascinating question. i teach sometimes at georgetown and my final exam for some of my students, my china military course, was having them examine that question and see what they thought. and when you get into open force writing by chinese military

officers on this question, whether they don't explicitly say whether we would invade taiwan, but they talk about how would you integrate information warfare and kinetic warfare in an island invasion scenario or something like that, when chinese military theorists are writing publicly about this, they often talk about intertwining information warfare and conventional military operations. and on the one hand, that makes total sense, but on the other hand, as we see with russia's invasion of ukraine, that is often easier said than done because just as a practical question, let's say china successfully attacked medicals

critical infrastructure with the help of moving out military assets into the taiwan strait or theater of conflict. does that infrastructure stay off-line for a minute, one hour, a day, week? howdy predict the impact of even a successful attack? it is hard to predict even if it will be successful, but even if it is, how long does that affect last? the answer to that question would completely change how you are carrying out your conventional invasion through assault of taiwan and multiply that question in taiwan, or whichever country

was involved in the hypothetical future conflict. our u.s. allies and partners that would support us. there are so many layers of uncertainty that i think it is very easy for military theorist writing and people's liberation daily to say, we refuse all of the above. but actually turning that into a strategic advantage could be hard. host: joe mcreynolds at washington examiner. -- jamestown foundation. and happy holidays to all of you.

♪ here's a look at our live coverage today on c-span at 11:00 a.m. secretary of state antony blinken holds an end press conference. 11:45 president biden talks about his economic agenda that wisconsin's black chamber of congress. you can watch these events live on this c-span now video app.

i am bill brett the director of educator at the lewis and clark boathouse in museum and state charles, missouri. we are standing on the full-sized replica of the boat that lewis and clark used more than 200 years ago. the boat is based on drawings that clark left in his journals. there is information about that in this boat was based on those measurements. the boat is 55 feet long and our 's 8 feet wide. in lewis and clark stay when they had their boat filled completely with supplies it weighed more than 20 times and you want to keep in mind as they

left st. charles they were heading up the river against the current. they had several ways of moving the boat and one of the ways was to row the boat. clark described the boat as a vote of 22 orders and needed 22 men to row it. they could also use the wind. the boat did have a mast on the pivot they could put up when the wind was on the right direction. another way to move the boat was to pull it. the lockers we see that run the length of the boat serve couple of purposes. first of all, they were storage and the men could get up on top of the lockers, have a poll in their hands and push it into the river bottom. they all walked towards the back

of the boat and it pushes the boat in the other direction. another way to move the boat was with ropes. the men would tie ropes to the front and depending on where they were in relation to the riverbank they could be on the riverbank dragging the boat up the river and at other times they could be in the shallow river and mud trying to tug this 20 ton boat. most of the time it was manual labor just to move the boat and they were able to average 10 miles per day on good conditions , going against the current as they take the outbound trip. the keelboat went as far as the

villages of central north dakota. as the villages of central north dakota. it was winter time by the time they got there and they knew they would have to send the boat back because they had god of far enough along the river. c-span's encore presentation of our 10 part series books that shaped america. they will explore key pieces of literature that had profound impacts on our culture. tonight our focus is on