host: good morning it is friday, february 9. the supreme court heard oral arguments on whether president

trump should be removed from the primary ballot under the 14th amendment and the special counsel said he will not charge president biden in the classified document case. we are getting your reactions on those topics. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002 you can send us a text including your name, city and state (202) 748-8003 or on facebook facebook.com/cspan or on x at cspanwj. here is trumpet speaking outside of mar-a-lago. [video clip] >> this is election interference

and it is very sad. i thought the presentation was a very good one and well received. you have billions of people wanting to vote and they happen to want to vote for me for the republican party. i am the one running and we are leaving in every poll, and local polls, staples, swing state polls and in the national polls. it is a very great honor. i think the reason we have such big leads is they loved the four years they have with us. nobody has seen crime like this and much of it is being committed by the migrants.

host: that was from yesterday here is president biden who spoke during a primetime news conference about the documents case. [video clip] >> i was pleased to see that no charges should be brought against me in this case. this was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years into the 1970's. special counsel acknowledged i cooperated completely, i sought no delays. i was so determined to give him what he needed i went for a five hour in person interview last year.

i was in the middle of an international crisis. i was happy they made the distinction between this case and the trump case. and i quote, after given multiple chances to return classified documents to avoid prosecution mr. trump did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents, he obstructed justice by directing others to destroy evidence. in contrast, biden turned in the documents to the national park, consented to searches and set for voluntary interviews and cooperated with the investigation. i have seen headlines about my willful retention of documents which is misleading and wrong.

host: that was the president yesterday and we are getting your reaction to the supreme court's hearing in president trump being kept off the ballot and the classified document pro. here is the front page of the washington post. the supreme court likely to keep trump on the ballot, these seem to want to allowed to keep trump on the ballot. justices from across the spectrum warned of troubling political ramifications if they do not reverse the ruling ordering trump off of the ballot.

this is the other headline, biotin will not face charges for classified files. he carelessly cap the documents and books at home. the evidence was not strong enough to charge the president with a crime. he was an elderly man with the poor memory. the 345 special report as someone who haphazardly kept notes and struggled to remember key dates. republicans attacked him as unfit for office. biden could not remember the year his son bo died of cancer. how dare he raise that said the

president. it wasn't any of t business i don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away. we are getting your reaction to that let's hear from chris in california. caller: thank you for taking my call. donald trump needs to admit he is guilty. he took an oath under office which puts him in the position of being an officer under oath and puts them in the position of being an officer of the united states government regardless of the point he could not commission himself to be an officer. i think he needs to admit guilt on that and i think he needs to

admit guilt to being an insurrectionist. host: did you vote for him in 2020? caller: i did. host: and why do you say he is an insurrectionist? he denies it. caller: he organizes the movement that took place at the capital we beforehand. mike pence was confronted by donald trump which led him to consult with dan quayle, is this constitutional what he wants me to do? to not certified these results? and dan quayle said it was unconstitutional. that is the president of the senate to declare president

trump as president for another four years. host: let's talk to bill next in florida. caller: i think all of this will be straightened out by the supreme court. they have to shut down these judges that are rogue and by 2024, this is all going to be fixed. there will be charges against jack smith and all of these judges. host: let's go to beverly hills, california. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: it has been a few weeks since i have been reading on this. the constitution does say the

states have the right to enact their own election laws. it's interesting to see whether or not the supreme court will revert to what the states choose to do with administrating their own policies. i think the law matters the most. host: doug, in ohio, and independent. caller: i would like to talk about trump and his stupidity about the january 6 insurrection. you know what maga stands for more aunts against great america. he wants to be a dictator.

thank you very much. host: dennis in pennsylvania. caller: this shows how corrupt our justice department is. joe biden cap documents from when he was a u.s. senator. he needs to go to prison. if they insist on locking up donald trump the need to lock up barack hussein obama. for two dusts overseas. --deaths overseas.

caller: what does the military do with people when they are dishonorably discharged? they're not allowed to vote. so why does folk get to vote? host: are you saying he should not be allowed to vote? caller: not to run for office, in the office. the military has a rule, military people who are in prison, convicted cannot vote. host: what he would say is that he has not been convicted dead. even in the senate he was impeached by the house and not the senate. caller: they talk about this.

and to my understanding. host: let's hear from a former trump lawyer making his argument. >> the colorado supreme said he is constitutionally prohibited from running for president. that decision wrong and should be reversed. the first reason is that president trump is not covered by section three because the president inot an officer of the united states. officer of e united states refers to pointed officials and does not encompass elected officials. this is clear and the commiion clause, the impeachment clause

and appointments clausehich uses officer of the united states referring only to appointed and not elected officials. it cannot be used to excuse a presidential candidate even if that candidate is disqualified under secti three because congressan lift that disability after the candidate is elected. a state cannot exclude any candidate from the ballot under section three and any state who does so is violating the constitution's federal laws. this is no difference from a state residency law that requires members of coress to inhabit the stock when the constitution only inhabit the

state when elect. in this situation, it would not only violate term limits. but the desire millions of americans. host: you can see that hearing on our website at c-span. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have to wonder why in this report from special counsel he doesn't recommend prosecution for biden but he does for trump. they are saying he did not cooperate.

host: let's take a look at the differences in those two cases. how did the classified document cases compared? classified document cases compared? the trump investigation started earlier and reached the indictment stage by june 8. threshold similarities exist they both had classified

markings on their documents while private citizens. beyond that, the trump case has a high bar of seriousness that the biden case lacks particularly for failure to return documents once discovered. trump is charged with 32 counts of woeful detention of national security information, unknowing retention in dereliction of duty. when they pursued prosecution there was evidence of obstruction. at the moment there is no evidence of biden having

participated in obstruction. a lack of cooperation with authorities and the quantity of documents. you can read that in full. but let's go to the rob in michigan, and independent. caller: i love the constitution colorado has determined that trump is ineligible because he committed insurrection. although i did not attend the event, his actions rose to that level. can you offer a comparative analysis of trump's actions against those who did attend the capital?

in people who were convicted of insurrection. can you show us the difference between those who were convicted of insurrection and the president. you talked about the doj refusal to prosecute biden. it would be a fruitless attempt because the position that president biden was elderly. and if i was a republican i would run that in an ad. host: this is axios about that. special counsel reports, the question biden's memory, he wrote in a report that his

actions showed risks for national security. they concluded that biden will fully retain classified materials as a private citizen. he did not remember when his son beau died. he presented as a sympathetic well-meaning old man with a poor memory. let's take a look at what president biden had to say at the white house. [video clip] >> something the federal council said is one of the reasons you

were not charged that you were a well-meaning elderly man with the poor memory. >> i am the president who brought this country back on its feet. i do not have a poor memory. my memory is fine. [inaudible] we have the full speech on our website if you would like to

hear the whole thing. we have built next from berkeley, california. caller: i just want to say, i base my judgment by their deeds and intentions and behavior of the ex-president, everything is so mixed up. as far as classified documents. if he had done what he was supposed to do. caller: i just want to say that

as far as the ballot goes trump will be on all of the ballots. as far as the report from joe biden. why he went out to the stage that his staff brought all of these documents. he lied. host: you believe that it was not his staff that packed his boxes? caller: you think they put it in his garage? he stole stuff. at least president trump working with them. joe biden should be ashamed. joe biden should not let her

husband go out with as bad as he is. he is in big trouble, he can't remember. i work in a nursing home for 35 years and he has to go. the democrats better wake up because the world is on fire and we have to do something. host: the independent line in california. caller: the question was mental capacity. the state of the union address. normally it happens in january and for the first time in history has it taken in the month of march. it's scheduled to be on march 7.

we know it is scheduled for march 7 witness last time you've seen that happen? in addition to the state of the union address, and now it is scheduled for the month of march? host: elizabeth in california. caller: i want to weigh in on the classified documents issue. donald trump is an elderly man with mall intent. i just listen to your presentation. half of what he says is nonsensical. that is the problem with gop

voters. they believe this is misinformation. joe biden came out on top. he interviewed for five hours. the guy probably asked him when his son died and he probably looked at him like why are you even asking me this? is absurd. joe biden's documents were classified, trump held onto top-secret documents. it is implied that he shared those top-secret documents with others. some australian guy who was a billionaire. he is showing these documents about nuclear submarines.

not only did he hide those documents, after a subpoena was submitted he still hid them. he tried to talk his employees into hiding them. and he is trying to get people to live for him. trump is just like a used car salesman. host: let's hear from vince, a republican. caller: i do pay attention to all the news going on. there was a point in the report where joe biden did not feel he needed to give that information. they were his notebooks and records.

president trump is the only one who was a president and had the authority to have them. if he was selling secrets he could have taken pictures and nobody would have known the difference. they are interfering and another presidential election. they just spend 24/7 hating on truck. mp. host: let's hear from jason murray. [video clip] >> his main argument is that this court should create an exemption that would applyo

him and him alone. he said section three disqualied all insurrectionist except a president who never held any other offe. there is no rationale for that exemption. section three uses deliberately broad language to cover all sitions of federal power needing an oath. this case es not come down to propositions. the o phrases are two sides of the same coin referring to any federal office or anyone who holds one. his other arguments ignore t constitutional role of the states to run

elections. states can make sure that there votes are not wasted and they are allowed to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are under age, foreign-born, running for a third term or those who engage in insurrection. host: back to the phones to jerry in virginia, a republican. caller: what that special counsel said was, joe biden is guilty of sharing classified documents but we will not prosecute him because he is too incompetent stand trial. and we want to elect him again? we are better than this.

host: a little bit of background about robert hurt, the special counsel that conducted that investigation. this is nbc news, it is a year old but it gives some background. he has been a partner focused on enforcement enjoyed the firm after leaving the justice department as the top advisor to rod rosenstein, he was nominated by tromp and worked on many high-profile matters including those involving national

security and cyber crime. john is in california, a republican. caller: good morning. about the trial, i listened to it twice and i think the strongest point was when the justices asked the lawyer for colorado, what would happen if a red state were to take joe biden off? if the states influence the entire election? colorado had their hat handed to them. when you listen to the colorado secretary of state after the hearing, she got up in front of

the microphone and you have never heard spit it vitriol and trump derangement syndrome like she did. this whole thing was just election interference, a sideshow. they got their hat handed to them. and their true colors came out. you autoplay excerpts from that lady. host: you mention that part about when chief justice roberts predicted it might lead to a tit for tat where they could disqualifyratic states? [video clip] >> if colorado's position is

upheld surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the others and some of those will succeed. they will have different standards of proof, diffent rules about handling. maybe it is beyond a reasonable doubt. in quick order i would suspect, a goodumber of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is, you are off the balt. it will come down to a handful of states that will decide the presidential election. >> the fact that there are frivolous applications of a provion. >> y might think they are frivous but the people who ing them may not think they

are ivolous. insurrection is a broad term and if there is some debatabout it , at will go into the decision d then we will be decided wt is in insurrection and do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots to go through which states are valid and which aren' >> there is a reason it has been dormant because we have not seen anything like january 6 since reconstruction. >> seems to me you e avoiding the question wch is other states could he different views about insurrection. and you say it's all right because we will decide what constitutes an insurrection. >> just like you make clear that

an insurrection is something extraordinary and requires a concerted group effort to resist through violence and not an ordinary application of law. host: back to the phones about the supreme court oral arguments. sally in des moines, iowa. >> i am really upset about this special counsel hur. how dare he put personal opinion, he is not a neurologist or a geriatric specialist. it has no bearing on these documents. evidently, he felt he had to cover his tracks for not signing that they were comparable to

trump. by throwing in the question about president biden's son in the year he died. i think it was toronto president biden. i'm angry and he had a right to be angry. if somebody asked me the year and month and day that my father took his life i could not tell you. is not a day i want to remember. i want to remember the beautiful memories of my brother. i think he was playing lowball. i will vote for biden, and to

john hur. i would be ashamed. host: let's go to an independent, from delaware. caller: i am from delaware and neither he or trump has the ability to stay in. it requires the vitality of a football player. host: rick from ohio. caller: the question about trump begin insurrectionist. what he did not do comes down to his seat and insurrectionist did

he allow the transfer of power to be interfered with and i believe that's the case. i don't understand how the justices have a difficulty understanding one state bringing a case to them. every state brings cases and arguments that need their guidance and decisions on. why should not make any difference if it is one state? he justices, get to work. host: let's hear what former president trump had to say about january 6? [video clip] >> speak to the arguments

leading up to the day that was given voice by mitch mcconnell. >> yeah, i got the gist. he doesn't say that anymore. let me just tell you i heard and i watched and the one thing i said was they kept saying about what i said right after. if it was an insurrection, there were no guns except for the fact that they shot ashli babbitt. there were no guns, no anything. if you take a look at by words, my speech from the rose garden which was very shortly after.

at that time i was on twitter. when you take a look at those 5, 6 tweets you will see very beautiful, heartwarming statements. go home, the police are doing their jobs. beautiful statements. today they said in the words of trump . but if you look at schumer and the supreme court, he sounded like a mob boss. if you take a look at any of them, we could put together a tape of vicious, violent statements made by democrats. maxine water and the vicious statements she made. i said peacefully and patriotically, he said that a

statement was the exact opposite. take a look at the statements i made before and after and you will see a whole different dialogue. host: michael is a republican in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two points to make about yesterday's, the records hearing. biden knew exactly what he was doing when he took those records. at the time he was a vice president and senator and he did not have the right as a presidential candidate. he did not have the right to keep those records and keep them in his garage.

trump captives records and he had the right to keep those records. biden is not senile and he knew exactly what he was doing. the second point i have to make, how is it possible that the democratic party has allowed joe biden to be the presidential nominee. what is their strategy for countering the broad policy he has made and how did they think there is any way he could get reelected given the poor ratings he has been getting? two people in the news came out

and answered my question. one person was a retired green beret and another was a governor. both of them said they believe that the strategy is to allow these things to continue because it will create chaos, provoke an emergency situation that will require them to use emergency text statuses to obviate the vote. host: i want to go back to something you said, you said obama kept classified documents. obama did not keep millions of documents. the claim is that he took 30 million documents many of them classified. the assessment is that is false.

the records are exclusively held and maintained by the archives. millions of them classified documents were transferred after he left office to that facility but neither the personal foundation or the facility have control over the papers. you could find that on ap if you're interested. but speak to rose on the independent line. caller: i am calling to comment on president biden's performance at the press conference. i am grateful that he stood up for himself. i am so disgusted by the press corps treatment. they are a bunch of harpies.

the dominance of women's voices shouting at him. it is shameful. as far as trump is concerned, they can all jump in the lake. host: let's look about his questions regarding mental fitness. [video clip] >> many american people have been watching and they have concerns about your age. >> that is your judgment. that is not the judgment of the people. >> in december you said you believe there are other democrats that could defeat donald trump so why does it have to be you? >> i want to finish the job i started. host: you can watch the full

press conference on her website at c-span.org. we have ingrid, in florida, a democrat. caller: i am so bewildered listening to the supreme court. year after year, i am 74. all of these years republicans have cried out for states rights , states rights. anwe have a statehat wants to do their thing and we can't have states rights according to republicans or the supreme court. i remember when gore lost. they did not let him get a full state recount.

they stopped the vote. as far as insurrectio, trump saying it wasful and a day in the he said you have to fight like hell if you want to keep your countr the people who are bringing the in colorado are for republicane. need to turn the channel and get the news. inhe leaving laid out, norma. she was a republicanr in the house and then a lead the senate in colorado. there are four republicans into democrats crying out for states rights.

one more thing please, special counsel mr. hur, is a republican and i heard thus the way it's supposed to be. but when trump was question he demanded a republican, not a democrat. it is supposed to be the opposite party questioning you. host: let's speak to rich in greensburg, pennsylvania, a republican. caller: my only comment is, i don't know why it is been whitewashed but during his press conference. midsentence he talked about, i can't remember. the lady yelled, that is a long pause.

that's indicative of where we are with this guy. host: ken is next in miami florida. caller: trump is a clear and present danger to america. he will due to the united states what adolf hitler did to germany. he will destroy our democracy and go after minorities including american jews. to the trump supporters i say study history. host: joe in dayton, ohio. caller: good morning from ohio and for those calling donald trump hiller or a fascist and not one person has lived under fascism ended aside.

joe biden was not allowed to have one document. he was a senator and vice president and he retained classified documents, boxes of them. he had them at five different locations and had them at the university and a desk drawer. he also showed classified documents to his ghostwriter and also in that report, he said he didn't remember when he was vice president. granted, c-span doesn't have the time to show 380 pages. they are not going to do anything to joe biden because of his age. host: we do have that report on

her website for people to peruse. and now from kentucky we have a democrat. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. if he wasn't planning and insurrection whited it take three hours to stop it. if you really think he will only do four years and leave, i don't think he would. inc. you for taking my call. host: let's talk to dusty next. an independent. caller: thinking about the ballot, go ahead and give it to donald trump. let him win something for a change. we know he is a complete loser.

and then when they vote on the clause, vote not to give him immunity and then they can do what they need to do. i've been listening to these caller [indiscernible] . host: we have a bad connection, i am sorry. caller: both men are bad for this country on both sides of the coin. insurrection, you need to understand, invasion by immigration is not immigration, is invasion. nobody elected, not even the

president has the right to that. the whole idea of having an electorate is not to represent the masses. it is to be certain that the uneducated do not decide the president and they will look at that and say this is what people think but is this person good for this country? that is their job. is not the idea of representing every body. it came up in the courtroom. i am hoping that for once in my life, and the rate of this court and it is a rain. guess what, we will not be rolled but anyone.

we settled that on 7/4/1776. it is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. which means you cannot divide them. this country would have been much better off but joe biden took down the wall. host: as a democrat who are you voting for? caller: i will not vote for either one of them. host: let's go to don in salinas, california. caller: this colorado case

exposes a massive, deep corruption in our legal system. joe biden has classified documents for years. he bragged, yes, i have them sitting in my garage. yet he is not going to be prosecuted because he is a feebleminded old man? and they go along with it? give me a break. and in this colorado case, is probably going to be unanimously kicked out of the court by the supreme court which tells you that these guys in colorado are crooked. they did not follow the law or the constitution even their own

state constitution. they took it on themselves to throw somebody out they did not like. this is our legal em how is america supposed to have any faith if we have a legal system that attacks see you because they don't like the way you look at them instead of the facts about you? as far as this whole insurrection thing, the fbi is investigating this is a right it. -- riot. host: josephine and livingston, new jersey, and independent. caller: were talking about with the supreme court would comment about. clarence thomas should have recused himself because his wife

was intimately involved with january 6. the roberts court has taken it upon themselves to write their own way to conduct their behavior. history will hold their behavior accountable. the part regarding the state that brought the case. they were republicans, they actually had a trial, a two week trial. it was not a question where they just willy-nilly made a decision.

what went on in maryland? -- mar-a-lago. you have a judge who has already been appointed who has already been rebuked. she is delaying it. but you can only delay so long in that case is the most important of them all because those were our documents that were supposed to be in the national archives. going out of its way to hide them, that is typical child. -- typical trump. host: amen to that lady before me. i have been watching c-span since 1980.

i love you guys. i don't remember seeing anything like this in my lifetime. the supreme court failed totally to even address the issue of insurrection. donald trump did commit and insurrection. he started well before the election. after 60 one court cases, i watched on c-span on saturday afternoon, his thugs gather in d.c. to plan theit went on for d i made notes. the day of, because nobody ever invited a group to washington dc on january 6 previously. that was a new occurrence. the only reason they did was to disrupt the certification of a

duly elected president. and for the supreme court to ignore all of that and to focus on this nonsense, they are absurd. the lady was exactly right. thomas should be removed, not recused, impeached and should be gone, totally collect -- corrupt. host: william, we are running out of time but we will continue this conversation later in the morning. up next it has been one week since the u.s. began military strikes against iran back proxies in the middle east. after the break we will speak with retired navy captain gene moran about what was accomplished. and then later the history and evolution of impeachment in american politics. that caused it -- that conversation with philip bobbitt. we will be right back. ♪ >> today, watch c-span's 2024

campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to see where candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying along with four stand -- first hand recount -- accounts from political reporters, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch the 2024 campaign trail today 7:00 eastern on -- online or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> sunday on q&a the author of " scribners: five generations in publishing" talks about his family's history and share stories about the authors published including instant church hill. >> the advances kept winston

churchill solid financially during his years in the wilderness. >> yes, when he was out of office that was true. he really earned his livelihood and it was expensive. i think i mentioned that the multivolume set of the history of world war i, called "the world crisis," with the advance he got on that he bought a rolls-royce. >> charles scribner ii with his book sunday night on q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span app. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, when citizens are truly informed a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered,

unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal: continues. host: we are back with retired captain gene moran. he spent 24 years in the u.s. navy as a surface warfare officer and currently adjunct professor of policy at florida state university. welcome to the program. i mentioned that you were 24 years in the u.s. navy. several of those years as a navy captain of a destroyer and cruiser. start with your assessment of how u.s. strikes have gone so far? guest: we have changed the dynamic. it is unfortunate it took a couple of months for us to reach the decision that we needed to

to change the dynamic. it should be noted that the forward deployed naval forces have done a tremendous job in reacting to pretty unusual situations with these houthi rebels firing missiles and drones at commercial ships and u.s. ships. this is a degree of intensity that we have not ever seen in the red sea, and for the u.s. navy to have knocks down every threat, quite impressive. it should not come to that, and we should be looking to shoot the archer instead of at the arrows. host: the "wall street journal" is reporting that u.s. drone strikes have killed the iraqi militia leader behind the deadly attack on the american base in jordan. how significant is that? guest: it does matter. we have seen that when we have gone after leaders of ideologies

that there are more people behind them. and that leadership void will be filled. it is just a matter of time. host: talk about kind of that balance that military leaders have to think about when they tried to thread the needle between responding and not escalating. guest: right. what you are seeing is a broader effort to use other tools besides military to try to address what is happening. certainly diplomatic, we pay attention to intelligence information. there are economic factors involved. there are -- those four things work together. in recent weeks the military part has taken the forefront. nobody in the military wants that to be the case. however peacetime rules of engagement and the law of the sea allow us to defend ourselves when threatened.

and, we should expect a right of free commercials shipping -- commercial shipping through international waters in the red sea. we are seeing an unbalanced diplomacy. for a time the lead diplomat was the cia director. i do not think it should be that way. we see that secretary of state performing shuttle diplomacy admirably. we did not get here overnight and it will take time to unwind. host: the houthi rebels have continued their attacks. major general pat writer was asked about that. i will play that and have you respond. [video clip] >> there up three attacks by iranian proxy forces in syria since friday. you say that the assessment is that strike had good effects. how could you say that when there were three more attacks. what would the response be?

and are the troops at those outposts allowed to leave the base and to pursue those who are firing rockets and drones at the bases? >> a couple of things, jennifer. on the last comment, our forces in -- maintain the inherent right of self-defense. if they take appropriate actions to defend themselves they will. in terms of attacks in iraq and syria ends sweettalk these strikes, i am only tracking two incidents, one attack on saturday, february 3. that was >> -- that was two rockets fired at the uss euphrates with no damage reported. i am aware of one on february 4, a one-way attract drone that landed several kilometers from the uss green village. also no reported injuries or

damage to the u.s. facilities. the strikes that we took on friday in response, as i highlighted, to the attacks on u.s. forces in jordan. we will take necessary action to defend forces. >> i believe there was a third strike that killed six cruise fighters. >> i think that one is the latter one that was highlighted and i am aware of those reports of syrian democratic forces killed in that strike. i would have to refer you to them. >> they were on the base where u.s. forces were? >> it was in the vicinity of green village. [end video clip] host: i will get your response but i want to let viewers know that if you have a question you can do so. our lines are open. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can also text us at 202-748-8003.

we are on facebook and ask. we will get your response to that and how military leaders would measure success in these cases. guest: it is a great question in perspective. i have been involved in strike pan -- planning on tomahawk issues and in the joint operations division. i have been an air warfare planner and strike planner with the group that is over there right now on previous deployments. battle damage assessment is something ongoing. we have tremendous intelligence and capability to put ordinance on very precise targets, and great care is taken to make sure that there is not collateral damage. we all see what can happen when civilians are hurt or some other unintended collateral damage takes place. a great effort is made to ensure that does not happen. we rely on intelligence to

determine where are the best places to make a strike and achieve the desired effect. it does take time to assess how did we do? how close did it come? did we miss by 10 feet or a mile? we do not hit with 100% accuracy as hard as we try. no other person in the world has this capability to be this precise. and, to expect to take everything out on the first try is unrealistic. i think the pentagon has indicated and the president and national security team has indicated there will be more of this because it takes time to see how did we do? host: you mentioned intelligence. what can you tell us about how that targeting is done, given that there are no u.s. troops on the ground in yemen? guest: i do not claim to have today's information on who is on

the ground. traditionally, we have advanced forces to some combination of agencies that help us collect information. we also have tremendous electronic resources. it is that fusion of information that helps present a pretty clear picture of operational commanders. host: you mentioned the tomahawk missiles, what could you tell us about those missiles and how accurate are they? and how much does each one of them cost? guest: they are quite accurate because they are based on a local gps system that has only been perfected over decades and a weapon is continually upgraded and what it allows for is a tremendous standoff capability, such as we do not have to put soldiers and sailors in immediate risk. however, the strike planning is

done as a coordinated effort with airpower as well. we have a tremendous capability on any carrier battle group. you also saw the bomber that flew 13,000 miles to spend 25 or 30 units over a target -- minutes over a target over the weekend. it is that integration that shows how to be accurate. as to cost, we are spending expensive weapons on organizations and types of weapons climbing at us -- coming at us of lesser threats. there are other ways to get those weapons, laser and microwave systems. the navy is bringing those to the fleet but they are not forward deployed right now. those would be closer in, last reaction sort of efforts. tomahawk is a sound out -- stand out weapon, more offensive and

meant to do things from a distance. host: how much does each of them cost? guest: over $1 million each. we have been firing standard missiles as well at the ballistic missiles and some drones. we are also firing guns. unfortunately, but fortunately in the end, the u.s. has engaged the close in weapon system, a kind of high-speed gatling gun. that is a last-ditch method. that means that the target was in seconds of impact. fortunately, it worked. and that, i think, contributed to the need to do something a little bit more forceful in the past week. host: we will take calls now starting with martin in louisville, kentucky. democrat. in morning. caller: yes, i have difficulty in our government wanting to get

involved in the middle east going back to 1979. i was in college and the iranian students explained to me that the hatred that you are seeing every night in these death to american -- two america demonstrations are directed at the american government for keeping brutal dictators in power. five years later in the navy i saw that the people looked at american politics the opposite way that we do. we think it is the republican party that wants the united states government involved in sponsoring change in the democrats that want us to stay out of the and let things run the natural course without interference. so, i have difficulty with whatever reason we are over there to protect saudi arabia or any countries that have not had an election. i have difficulty with it. host: can you explain what the u.s. navy is doing in the red sea and the impact on the

attacks happening? guest: it is a fair question to ask in the broader sense, what has our policy with iran gotten us over the last four decades? we have been at it in one way or another with various interests. more specifically to what the navy does, it is forward deployed every day of the year throughout the globe. we have carriers, certainly in the red sea right now and the eisenhower battle group. there are other carriers that are forward employed -- forward deployed with submarines and ships. there is a joke that the navy is always the first to start a war. it can appear that way because they are the ones who are the deployed floors. it is not a garrison force that gets deployed when called upon. we do that to maintain freedom of navigation, and keep sea lines of communication open. it is critical to move commerce

around the world. we saw immediately what happened when the suez canal was blocked. for one day that blocks $9 billion in economic goods moving through that chokepoint. there are chokepoints throughout the world. we routinely test and demonstrate the ability to navigate freely on the ocean commons. host: let us go to newmarket, alabama. independent line. caller: yes, ma'am. good morning. trump repeatedly makes the claim that his boldness and taking out general soleimani had -- and i would appreciate if you would do a bit of fact checking. what was iran's reaction and response? did their activities actually slow after that and to what

extent was actually that attributable to the strike itself? thank you. guest: i think to my earlier point that when you take out the head of ideologies, that there are merely disruptions. other factors start to emerge. i think what we are seeing with this emergence of proxies throughout the region that clearly have a connection to iran are operating with what they believe is more freedom to maneuver. we did not see that previously. so i think that is an outcome. but we as the united states, we have a tremendous capacity to overestimate our ability to bring forth democracy around the world. it is a noble goal, but often we have trouble addressing the fact that we have to live in the world that we live in. we cannot necessarily bend it to

our will. to the point at hand with naval operations, as i said, we try to maintain free communication with the sea and lines of access and communication using established sea lanes. host: kathleen. indianola, mississippi. democrat. go right ahead. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start. if trump did not go tearing down the constitution we would not be in that state. we call once a month. my point is why during pompeo when biden just wanted to bring

them back home. host: she mentioned tommy tuberville. what can you mention about any lasting impacts on those military promotion holds? guest: it caused a perturbation of a flow into leadership positions. the military operates in a pyramid where leaders are built from within, so to speak. you cannot go out to a hiring agency and higher a three-star admiral or general. they have to be grown and trained. when you disrupt that normal flow without warning, the system struggles to respond. now, i think we saw that there were certainly implications where the world gets a vote in this and the bad actors get a vote. they continue to act. we had some situations where senior flag officers and general officers were effectively

wearing two hats at one time while they allowed someone to execute their normal retirement plans and some remain on active duty. the real description were families who expected a flow pattern two changes of duty station. as a father of four daughters, my wife and i moved over 20 times in a 24 year career, that is part of the lifestyle and culture. there are a lot of ramifications to that. that can get lost. to the senate rules about one senator being able to put a hold. personally i have a problem with that. that is too much power in the hands of one, but that is for the senate to figure out. they tried to put a lot of pressure on senator tuberville and they eventually did. but it was not without cost or disruption to active duty military. host: paul in idaho. republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call and thank you, sir, for your service to the country and the rest of the world. my question is is it really beneficial for us to continue to go after the proxies, as they are called? my understanding is that we can slow down some of the rockets and missiles, but is it really work it when -- worth it when we need to go to the head of the stake, cut it off and keep it from continuing directions and orders for the region? i see that there are $1 million in funds from the chinese and other countries and their, selling their oil, the iranians. there is no end in sight. we can continue to go on and on. so i would like an answer for their. host: go ahead. guest: we were playing wacko mole for several weeks --

whack-a-mole for several weeks or months while we reacted to these third parties taking shots at us. you raise an excellent point that we are dealing with symptoms as opposed to the problem. there is a flow of funding throughout the world that allows for these various systems and technologies to get into the hands of these few groups. that is a problem. you know, the tactics they are using go back to hundred years. we saw the barberry pirates do this by trying to take tribute from u.s. sailing ships that would come through. what has changed are the tools at their disposal. they are funded somehow. i used to lead congressional delegations around the world and i spent time in the middle east. i have seen congressional leaders go face-to-face with senior financial officials in various parts of the world,

talking about this specific issue. how do we control the flow of funds into these groups? that needs to be addressed. these are national security issues, these are not navy decisions or anybody in the u.s. military. this is a collection of the national security decision-making apparatus that needs to come to grips with how they will handle this. host: here is call in south lake tahoe. independent. caller: good morning. i have a question for captain moran. the other day i saw a strike on a car and they got a bad guy. i'm wondering what kind of ordinance was that? and was it from a drone? thank you so much and have a good day. guest: i am not familiar with the exact target you are

speaking of. but our precision guided weapons can be launched from aircraft and from drones. they are highly accurate. the degree to which some of those systems are able to be integrated into the situation with israel and hamas, i think it is a different question. they certainly have their set of capabilities, but they are fighting a different type of urban warfare right now. and i am not sure how our systems would necessarily change the game plan that is underway. host: what do we know about the capabilities of those iranian produced grounds? guest: i think we are learning. the face of warfare is changing. it began with the predator drone

in the first recognition by the u.s. that a drone could be armed successfully. and we have seen this evolution take place. believe me, we are learning more about the capabilities every day. i think that is part of our own battle damage assessment and hot wash of how did we do at addressing some of these targets and which systems work better and which systems did not. we will continue to learn those lessons for years. host: independent line in terre haute indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: if you check the archives when former president trump was president. there is an interview where somebody asked him about war. and he made the comment that he was the president, and he made

the comment that i love war. he said it emphatically. and the interviewer said well, what about nuclear wars? and he kind of got that dopey look on his face and he shrugged his shoulders and he never answered that. and i always thought it was kind of odd and a terrible thing for the president. i mean the united states to make that comment. sometimes he does not think before he said something. he must be really enjoying what is going on now. this is absolutely awful what is going on in the world. that is my comment and i do not understand. host: jim in belle vernon, pennsylvania. democrat. caller: i have a question for

captain moran, and i would like a few points afterwards because he would not be in a position to comment on them. captain moran, recently the biden administration claimed that there was no connection to gaza and the deaths of military people in the attacks on shipping. what do you think about that? guest: we can draw a linkage of the proxy groups to iran, whether one caused activity in the -- in the red sea, and that might be a tenuous connection. i think the commented linkage point is iran. host: go ahead. caller: i think he evaded the question which is is there a connection to can -- to gaza. obviously to iran but what about

to gaza? host: you are talking about hamas? caller: i am more concerned about the israeli action. and the fact that president biden funded it. in doing that, he has funding more crimes and that makes him a criminal and co-conspirator in these war crimes. host: charles. fort worth, texas. caller: you know, i do not seem to be on the line i should have been. i was calling in about the presidentas part of the insurrection on january 6. host: ok. we will get to that very shortly. we are going to finish up with our guest first and go to ken in fairfax, virginia.

independent. caller: good morning. happy friday. just a couple of questions and my opinion. so, we consistently and constantly support nations in their efforts to defend themselves against larger nations. and, i guess in our lifetime russia has always been a threat. at what point do we go ahead and eliminate russia so we no longer have to continually support ukraine? and then if you could explain that essentially we give endless funds to certain nations, for example israel. could you explain to those not aware of the 1967 uss liberty incident? could you explain exactly what happened? guest: i would be reluctant to try and recount history. i think we have seen throughout the world that there are nations that sometimes need our help and

at the point of u.s. policy, we have made the decisions to try and help prevent things from escalating in a region so we do not have to fight wars at home. we would what -- we would much rather like to have things addressed overseas so we can live the life and lifestyle that we choose in our own democratic way. sometimes that requires interacting with actors who are of a different makeup than we are and have different views on how the world should be. i have said previously, we have a great capacity to overestimate our capability to try and influence and change minds. not every mind wants to be changed. but to the degree that we can help them support our broader goals of free trade, for example and relative peace, despite the

wars of the last 20 years. the world has been at relative peace from a u.s. perspective. we do not feel threatened today today. that is because we are engaged globally and try to address things before they come to our shores. host: gene moran is a retired surface warfare officer captain with the u.s. navy and adjunct public policy professor at florida state university. thanks you for joining us. guest: good to be with you. host: coming up more phone calls on the two big stories of the day, the special counsel report of president biden's handlin of classified documents and the supreme court al arguments abouthether president trump is eligible to be on the 24 ballot. the numbers are on your screen. republicans, 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-748-8001. independents, 20748-8002. we will be rightack.

♪ host: american -- >> american history to dv -- tv exploring the events that tell the american story. we continue with the series free to choose coproduced by milton friedman and his wife in 1980. this episode is titled created equal and looks at equality in america. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the boston college nursing professor on the individuals and events that shaped american and global public health systems. at 9:30 p.m. eastern a look at the 200 years of the monro doctrine and why it defines james monroe's legacy. at 10:50 p.m. eastern a look at

a 2008 speech by north carolina senator john edwards and a campaign rally ahead of the nevada democratic caucuses followed by the 2012 republican candidate mitt romney's speech. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span twoind a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time on c-span.org/history. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy to listen to all of the podcasts that teacher nonfiction books in one place. you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing histories, biographies and culture from the signature programs about books, afterwards, booknotes+ and q&a.

listen to the bookshelf podcast feed today. you can watch it and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-span.org/podcasts. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are truly informed a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are taking your calls until

about 9:30 eastern time about the two issues we were talking about earlier about the supreme court ballot case in the documents case and the special counsel report. let us start with hearing from the colorado democratic secretary of state, janet griswold, talking to the press outside of the supreme court yesterday. [video clip] >> it is striking steps away from the u.s. capitol where donald trump incited an insurrection and violent mob, where congresspeople ran for their lives. we saw trump lie about his role in the insurrection. donald trump argued that all insurrectionists can be on ballots. and even if he was convicted that he has presidential immunity. i think that it is so outrageous that trump continues to think that he is above the law, the constitution, and court system. you know, we are only here

because donald trump decided to engage in insurrection instead of accepting the loss. we are only here because there is an unprecedented -- unprecedented situation that a president would decide to steal a presidency from the american people. i do not believe that the presidency is a out of jail free card and i hope that justices hold him accountable. [end video clip] host: this is on "usa today" with this harold -- with this headline, clarence thomas should recuse a key himself from the court. "some congressional democrats wants clarence thomas to recuse himself because of his wife's political advocacy. she and her lawyer contended that she has no influence on her husband's judicial opinions. she argues that the 2021

election was stolen. she attended trump's stop the steal rally but did not march to the capitol. she told the house committee investigating the riot she still thought in september of 2022 that the election was stolen. on wednesday the head of the senate judiciary committee urged justice thomas not to participate in the colorado case." let us talk to perry in bellflower, california. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: well, first off i would say that if judge cannon does not drop the case on donald trump's documents. she will probably release gold the prosecution when the case begins again. i do not see how you go forward with it. about yesterday's report. this is very sad about what he

said about the president's current state. it reminds me of harper lee, where scout says to atticus it would be like killing a mockingbird in that movie. literally, the president cannot be put in front of a jury because he would be such a pathetic sight, that it would be like killing a mockingbird. it is very sad. what scares me is that who has been running this country for the last three years? i think that sums it up. i have a lot more but i will leave it there. host: lee, kalamazoo, michigan. republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. out of all of people arrested for the riot at the capital, none have been convicted on insurrection. basically just trespassing and

so forth. none on insurrection. and they want to try him on it and if he is founded and said, that -- and he has found innocent, that is a political play on everything going on. joe biden forced a country to fire a prosecutor, otherwise they were not getting money. that is what i would say is extortion. as an independent anchor, i am a republican and a freethinker, just to see the actions and his mental capacity, it is a sad state of affairs that we are in. god bless america, and hope for the best. host: mike in fairfax, virginia on the independent line. caller: we are in a very dangerous point. we have someone in the white house who is not senile enough

-- who does not have the faculties to stand in front of a jury and be judged by his peers, but he has the faculties enough to be president? what a joke. we should all feel very imperiled right now. at the same time the secretary of state that you have, the woman. you could see the hate in her face and the trump derangement syndrome that she has in her head over trump. you have these crazy women, they are leftist women that are prosecuting him whether it is georgia -- host: do you think it is a woman thing? caller: i have nothing against women. i am a very happily married man to my wife who i love very much for over four years. host: let us go to kreg in capital heights, maryland. morning. caller: i just wanted to say

people have been brainwashed with donald trump's rhetoric but he was involved. he sat there and watched it for over three hours. he was seeing what would go through. any decent president would have called the army up to stop that mess from going on. that is all i have to say. he is not good for the country at all. host: kentucky on the republican line. randy, good morning. caller: i hope that the supreme court rules against trump. even though i am a republican. could you imagine what that would do. you could interpret any president's actions the way you want to to impeach him. we will have blue states having one president and red states having another and we will go from there. you were just talking about insurrection when they are talking about barring trump from

the elections in their states. it is the confederacy all over again. it is shocking that you do not think about these things, am i right or wrong? do you see that and as anybody else see that? plus over there in ukraine? those people are illegal immigrants looking for a better life. leave russia alone and let them come in. host: darlene in gold hill, oregon. caller: i am calling because i believe that mr. hur is not qualified to make the statements that he made and that the news media is going wild about it. the man is not a psychiatrist or geriatric md, and his comments i believe were inappropriate. they are his personal beliefs and it really showed. you know, for him to especially call biden on his son's death.

i cannot tell you how many times that he has talked about his son's death and how it has impacted his family. just saying. and the supreme court. i am sorry, i do not believe in it anymore. i feel like ginni thomas is the 10th jurist. host: let us hear from president biden from last night when he held a news conference after the report came out. [video clip] >> i was pleased to see that he reached a firm conclusion that no charges should be brought against me in this case. this was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970's when i was a new senator. the special counsel acknowledge that i cooperated completely. i did not throw up any roadblocks and i sought no delays. i was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed i went forward with a five hour in

person interview over two days on october 8 and ninth of last year, even though israel had just been attacked by hamas and i was occupied. i was in the middle of handling an international crisis. i was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear the start distinction between this case and mr. trump's. the special counsel wrote and i quote "several material distinctions between mr. trump and mr. biden's case are clear, most notably after given multiple chances to return classified documents to avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment he not only refused to return documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his home, set for

voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." i have seen headlines about my willful retention of documents. this assertion is not only misleading but also plain wrong. [end video clip] host: let us go to tina in alabama. republican. good morning. caller: i appreciate you all. i would like to see some of your reporters up there in the know. help mr. trump out with the deep state stuff. he has never spoken about it and i do believe that antifa infiltrated and caused a riot on january 6. i would like to see more investigation on that. thank you. host: speaking of january 6. here is justice brown jackson asking former president trump's lawyer whether january 6

qualied as an insurrection. [video clip] >> the supreme cou concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters in this case thalt the count on january 6 qualify as an insurrection as defined by section three. and i read your opening brief to accept thathose events counted as insurrection. but then your reply seems to suggest that they were not. what is your position? >> we never accepted or conceded thathis was an insurrecti. we said that president trump did not engage in any acts that can plausibly be cause for insuection. >> what is your argument that it was not? europe reply. -- your reply brief says it does not involven organized attempt to overthrow the government? >>or an insurrection there needs to be a concerted and organized effort to overthrow the united states to violence. >> so a chaotic effort is not an

insurrection? >> we did not concedthat it was an effort to overthrow the governme. >> the events were shameful, criminal and violent but did not qualify as insurrection as the term is used in section three. [end video clip] host: you can listen to that on c-span.org if you missed it yesterday. michelle and los angeles. good morning. caller: good morning. i listened to the hearing, and i thought it was going to be on insurrection as the president answered that question and it was indicated. it was not about whether he committed insurrection or not. the focus of the justices seem to be about whether colorado as one state should be able to decide the fate of a federal candidate for everyone. and that made me wonder because

bush v gore it came down to florida and the supreme court stopped the count and that ultimately led to florida being the state that decided that bush won with the electoral college. for me, it seems like they decided that they do not want to rule because then trump will not -- or anyone will not be able to run if one state decides to bar him from the ballot. i found that that was curious that that was the focus instead of insurrection and whether donald trump's actions applied to the third article of the 13th amendment. host: pat on the line for democrats. caller: yes. good morning and thank you for taking my call. this is a disgrace and shameful,

going after his dead son and his family now. it just proves that some people will do anything to throw some red meat on the floor so that people can lap it up. there is something in the bible talking about how you treat your neighbors. i hope that the evangelicals read more than two and three verses. it also talks about liars and how god hates them because when they lie they are haters. there is nothing worse than a hater, may be a hypocrite. you cannot appoint a justice, but they can. you cannot appoint -- you cannot do this and they can. host: russell, you are a republican, so who did you vote for in 2020. caller: my name is pat, i am not a republican. i am a recovering southern democrat. host: that is right.

caller: i spent half my life being brainwashed by white nationalists and spent the other half trying to make amends. i voted for biden. anybody who votes for trump votes for putin and they are heathens. read the bible. what it talks about these people. i am sorry, i am getting upset and i will have to go. host: russell is next. a republican in blue springs, missouri. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i would just like to say that this whole get trump craze started when he ordered an investigation into ukraine for corruption. this is when this whole craze started. and they are still trying to get him to this very hour of this very day. eight years, however long it has been. they had been throwing everything they cannot him.

it is just nonsense. that is all. host: mark in ohio. also republican. good morning. caller: i just want to make a few comments. first of all it was not in insurrection, there were no guns there. the media just portrayed it as an insurrection to help the democratic party. there is so much conspiracy between the mainstream media, i am not talking about cnn -- c-span but abc and cnn and those networks. if you look at the last eight years and all of their telecasts, i watch them and i tape them. there is so much conspiracy involved that it is crazy. there should be an investigation into that if nothing else. and we are talking about six ways to get even. chuck schumer, head of the democratic senate made a threat to our city six ways to get even

and that insurrection was not in overthrow the government? six ways to get even? that was made after president trump talked about the deep state. that was made after that comment. they were all right with trump when he was running. but when he became president and talked about the deep state they attacked him and it has gone on. host: i want to show you something about what you said about there were no weapons on january 6. you said there were no guns or firearms. caller: pardon me, but the lady that was shot was shot was a u.s. air force veteran. there was no shooting during that. the only shots fired was they killed a white. host: you said that there were no guns. and let me share with you what politifacts said. tucker carlson said "not a single person was found to be

carrying a firearm, not one." they say it is false and here's why. "as the first house hearing dedicated to january 6 attack of the fox news host talking about that and said just to be clear on terms and insurrection is when people with guns try to overthrow the government. not a single person in the crowd was carrying a firearm. that is wrong. court documents, video evidence and news coverage contradicts this characterization. several rioters had firearms and several others had bats and makeshift weapons. we reach out to carlson for comment and they did not hear back. politifacts reviewed the case files of those who were charged and found several defendants who police say were found to have broad firearms and some were charged with having firearms on capitols groundswell others

-- to the nearby." victor is next, clinton township. democrat. caller: i hear trump saying and then his supporters repeating that that this is election interference what is going on with the colorado case and others and stuff with that. my view is that trump new that he did all along. he knew the things that he did were wrong and he knew that eventually charges would catch up with him. that was before he ran for president. so running for president he is using this to try and stay out of jail or negate charges against him. in essence, trump is engaging in election interference by running knowing that he will have indictments against him. that is all i wanted to say. host: carl from red creek, new york.

independent. caller: hello. just the side from the call what you are saying about politifact, it is left wing biased lies. there were no weapons. i watch those videos. there was one pickup truck found after the fact that have some weapons in it. and i think some of those weapons were found in a hotel room. so nobody was armed. host: during the trials. this is what they were saying that in the trials of some of the people arrested and tried they admitted to having firearms with them on the capitol grounds. go ahead with what you want to say about the ballot case. caller: as far as the ballot case. colorado sent third-graders to a high school. as far as joe biden report.

they are not going to charge him. and then he brought up trump and said trump did this. so what was it even doing a report about joe biden's involvement in anything? that is all i wanted. host: that report is in its retired -- in its entirety on c-span.org. it is over 300 pages but everything is there. rick in arkansas, republican. caller: hello. are you there? host: we are here. caller: joe biden is nothing but a political croak of a lifetime. guess what, i will tell you something else, he will never be able to beat donald trump. thank you very much. host: steve. elmont, new york. good morning. caller: hello.

first of all there were hundreds of guys with guns and donald trump said let them through they are not here to get me. that comes from the secret service. to lead with nonsense facts. joe biden's state of mind he is not a quarterback from the nfl he does not have to have split-second decisions to make a call. most things take time to debate and look at and the guide to me seems more qualified than anybody that calls into the show. he has a command of issues like nobody i have ever seen. and these people with the deep state stuff. out in colorado, it is state rights. and then all of a sudden we do not like states rights. and the supreme court was not going to rule against trump. it is for the sake of peace, i

think. certainly it was an insurrection. he tried seven ways to overthrow the insurrection. this was the final way to get his guys with the guns, ak-47's, but they did not allow them in but trump wanted them to come in to intimidate the congress. host: let us take a look at a text from dave in orlando, florida. "it seems to me that the suprem court does not want to identify what an insurrection is. trump will chaos in the future. many callers not seem to care so this text from barbara. "the idea that trump was not an officer. on inauguration day he took the presidential oath of office. as commander-in-chief his orders had to be followed by every person and o in the military. why can' scotus understand that?"

frank paulw yo says i have two com "e first the special counsel remarks proved only one thing, that he has a trump employee. that comment was meant to hurt the president and deliberately he showed his cand ould be fired from his job. i do not care the decision that the sucourmakes. they have proven that they are not truck -- justices, they are trump employees and do not deserve to be on the highest court in the country." and let's go to pueblo, colorado. independent line. it nika? caller: it is nika. i want to start by saying a lot of these issues are not issues we can both sides. the border for one is not a both sides issue. the people from south of the border are native to the americas. this is a native american nation, not a christian nation. this is a secular nation.

this is stolen land, built by stolen people. if you cannot both sides of this, you cannot call the way around. i have two things to say. land back, and left-wing is the best. host: we're talking about the trump ballot and abide in special counsel -- and she's gone. never mind. let's talk to a reporter now we have without, erin doherty -- with us, erin doherty, a reporter for axios. come to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's talk about the special counsel and the documents case. what were -- what did he put out as saying that prosecution was not warranted against president biden? guest: right, so special counsel robert hurt did not pursue charges against president biden. the report concluded that his office felt the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. he wrote in the report he believes a jury would find reasonable doubt at trial. and in part he wrote that biden would come across not only as sympathetic, but a common 3 -- theme throughout the report also had on president biden's memory, and he wrote that president biden, you know, was not capable of the willfulness required to forget -- to convict. he concluded there was no legal basis to pursue these charges. host: remind us of his background and how he came to be appointed special counsel. guest: robert h.e.r. is a former -- robert hurt is a special attorney appointed by former president trump. he was appointed by attorney general merrick garland in 2020 three to investigate biden's documents. he conducted an investigation over a course of a year, interviewing president biden

himself, and dozens of other witnesses. to conduct this -- to produce this sprawling report into president biden's handling of classified documents. host: in what kind of classified information to the president have with him? guest: the report found that the bulk of the documents found fall into two categories. two types of classified materials. the first were documents relating to military and foreign policy in afghanistan, when former president was vice president with former president barack obama. in the second type of classified documents that were kind of found in the report were no books that president biden used throughout his presidency, which included a combination of personal notes he had taken, meeting notes, and other writings. host: and how confidential -- i

mean, how sensitive were these documents to national security? guest: yeah, so, robert hur wrote in the report that he thought that -- he did not pursue charges against president biden, but he did write that the documents in president biden's office in private home did pose a risk to national security, but, again, he did not -- the biggest difference between, you know, this case and former president trump's case, who has faced terminal charges over his handling of classified documents, is that former president trump obstructed the government's efforts to get the documents back. host: and that was mentioned in the special counsel's report. why was it mentioned, and what did he say in the report about it? guest: robert hur made very clear in -- on numerous

different pages in the report that there were differences between former president trump's handling of classified documents and president biden's. the biggest difference was coming you know, president biden's cooperation with the investigation and the biden white house has repeatedly sat and tried to draw stark contrast with former president trump's handling of documents. president trump, immediately after finding the documents, notified the archives of their existence, so he has been cooperative throughout the process. so robert hur clearly emphasized that during his report, and president biden himself pointed that out yesterday during remarks. he said he was glad robert hur noted the differences between president biden's handling and former president trump's. host: the report included characterizations of his memory. what details did it include about that?

guest: the conclusions of the report were a legal victory for president biden. there were no charges recommended. the fallout of the report has seemed that, the political fallout is larger. so, robert hur repeatedly made references and notes about president biden's memory, and pointed to specific details that president biden seemed to forget or seem shaky on during his interviews with investigators. one particular line that robert hur included was that president biden seemed to forget the day that his son died, and we thought president biden spoke on thursday night in an unplanned speech to the american public, and he shot back at many of the characterizations of his memory in -- that were outlined in the report, and specifically against that beau biden line, saying it

was egregious that that was included, and how dare he bring that up. host: right, erin doherty, politics reporter for axios, thanks so much for joining us. guest: thank you so much. host: we will go back to your calls. we will take your calls until 9:30 eastern time on these two topics that happen yesterday. glenn in madison, illinois, democrat. caller: good morning. what a short memory people have. there was $50,000 worth that the proud boys had stashed in weapons that were stashed in virginia. ok? that is one. there is a whole bunch of trump stuff that is -- should be jailed on, with no problem, but right away they've got to give him all of this -- put him on

tv, they ought to keep him off of tv. shut him up and let the one president at one time, not one president and a wannabe that is looking for jail. host: all right. let's talk to david, french lick, indiana, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. very interesting conversation today. i'm going to discuss the double standard of the document investigation. president biden, who by the way had no permission as senator or vice president to take any documents away from the senate or from the vice president's office, mr. trump was president when he removed the documents, and so called them declassify.

they were under secret service protection. meanwhile, biden's documents were sitting in open boxes in the garage and different areas, open to anybody who wanted to get them. it is a complete double standard. the one thing they did that came out of this is that the memory of mr. biden, and i love the way the reporter kind of danced around what the report said. the report said that he could not remember when he was vice president, when he started vice president, on the second day of his interview he was asked if he was still vice president in 2009, he comes out, they have to put them out, they have been hiding forever, he comes out and confuses the king of egypt with the president of mexico, and that is supposed to help? so, they are bragging on no

legal implications, but they are bragging on the fact that, i am a dawdling old man, and that is what they said the jury wouldn't take. they wouldn't put it to a jury because the jury would feel sorry for him because he couldn't member what he did yesterday. host: let's show what the special counsel report said about mr. biden's memory. so, this is a quote directly from theept. says, in his interview with our office mr. biden's memory was worse. he didot remember when he was vice president, forgetting when his ended. "if it was 2013, when did i stop "eing vice president? and for ttg on the second day of the people when his interview began. he did not remember even within several years when his son died. in his memory appeared hazy when describing the afghanistan

debate that was so important to him. you can see that whole report if you would like to read the whole thing on our website. dee is next in newhall, california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for everything, everyone contributing. my points today are aligned with what is going on in the news yesterday. the one with donald trump possibly being taken off ballots, and secondly, with the biden information documents. there is three main points a lot of people are missing, and i think one of the problems we are having is there is a lot of people getting information from places that are spreading disinformation and lies. and a lot of people don't realize that they are actually leaving and spreading lies, because they are not getting -- they don't have proper sources for the information. the three things i wanted to bring up regarding yesterday's news, is one, it has now been

documented that biden's staff move those documents, that there was never anything that specifically says that joe biden put those documents, saw those documents, or actually move those documents to where they were found. that is the first part about that. on the other sides of spectrum, those documents that were found at mar-a-lago were found in donald trump's desk, meaning the person that uses that desk most likely put those documents there. so i would imagine that that is donald trump. second point, biden returned the documents once they were discovered. biden did not obstruct, did not claim they belong to him, that they were his documents. on the upside of spectrum, as i just said, donald trump instead, documents that were marked classified with red labels all over them -- we saw the photos of them too -- maybe they were not found out way, but they did show photos of documents that said classified -- donald trump claimed they belonged to him.

remember those words. they are my documents, he stated over and over. that is disinformation. the last thing that needs to be brought up is that there is no documentation or representation that shows that biden showed any of that information to anyone else, even his ghostwriter. he is a smart guy. he knew what to say. he knows when to censor the things that he is saying that someone else should hear. he even admitted that yesterday in a pressure -- a presser. trump is on tape showing the documents to people that had no business or reason to hear or even see about those documents. all just to boost his own ego, to make himself feel cooler than he really is. host: let's take a look at that part of the special counsel report. it says this. it is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against . trump, butal material distinctions between mr. trump's

case and mr. biden's are clear. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden the allegations set forth in the indictment of esther trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution mr. trump allegedly the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the entire -- the documents for many months, but also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence online about it. in contrast mr. biden turned in classifiedocents to the national archives and the department of justice, consend to the search of multiple lotis, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. and charlize is calling from new york, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a few things i would like to say. i am a democrat, but i'm 76

years old. i can understand and see things, how they are being played, or how they have been played out. i did not believe in colorado trying to get trump off the ballot. because out of his own mouth he said, we are going to go to the capital. i will be with you. ok? he incited. all republicans that have been indicted, convicted, trump for fraud, giuliani for fraud, fox news paying money lie after lie after lie, and i think that is so unfair.

you have republicans, but those were republicans of yesterday. not today. and why people just want to stick to a party when they know they are wrong. host: all right. let's talk to randy next, a republican in acworth, georgia. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i just want to mention to all of my democratic callers how proud you must be that the special counsel were not indict president biden because he is too old and senile. host: ok. and gary, independent, meridian, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the ballot issue first. i'm shocked watching the supreme court. they seem to be third way -- third rate jurists. i think they found correctly

that trump should not have been removed from the ballot, but for the wrong reason. the fact is, if you lead an insurrection he had a right to due process. i was never afforded him. until that happens he has to remain on the ballot. it is not up to any group of individuals to arbitrarily say that he should be removed from the ballot. believe me, with every fiber in my body i oppose donald trump. i would never vote for him. so that is that issue. on the issue of the special counsel investigating president biden, that was a james comey moment. the fact that he spoke about the president indicating nearly that he was senile, is the same thing that happened to hillary clinton before her election. this is going to haunt joe biden not just for a few days or months, but throughout the whole election cycle, and i believe that the house of representatives may even take up

impeachment against the president for that event, because he clearly did ms. handle those documents and should not have done so. that is all i have to say. host: right, and alex, st. paul, minnesota. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i want to start off by saying i voted against trump twice and i used to work for the government. first of all, you are axios reporter is wrong. there were documents marked top-secret, and it is not ok that reporters do not tell the truth to the american people. it is also not ok to have a dual justice. when that happens you set up a nation where half of the country feels like they are not in told the truth or know they are not being told the truth, and you cannot have union that way. to the reporters out there, you have to say what's in the document. everybody can read. it undermines faith in the whole system, so please tell the truth. please read the documents and be honest. that goes for you too, c-span.

you don't tell the truth, you spend things and don't say what is going on. you invoke political act when you want to, you skip other things. you can go review in the appendix to her report all of the markings on the documents that were there. it is a matter of fact. host: that is on our website, c-span.org, if you would like to look at that. some other news just to make re you are aware. trump wins the nevada caucus, consolidating gop power. this is on npr.org. former president donald trump handily won the nevada caucuses yesterday as he continues his march toward the republican nomination. also, politico is reporting that the senate gop helped advance borderless foreign aid bills. senators are still debating how to address conservative demands for amendments as the chamber now stares down a possible weekend in session. diane is next.

good morning, democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm calling in regards to, i watched the supreme court yesterday, in its entirety. i was very disappointed in the way they pushed section three, in that they cannot easily see that someone who has taken a note to the constitution would automatically be included, and the ones that specifically were enumerated were enumerated for that reason, and if they have not taken an note. the difference between office, my understanding is that they are not finders of fact. and, in fact, that the later court already made the decision that donald trump did do the insurrection, was involved. so, if that part is settled, the way that they are applying the constitution is, in my view, troubling. so, that is my take on that.

i thought they came off as a bunch of constitutional lightweights, to be honest. host: keith in washington, d.c., independent line. good morning. caller: hello? host: hi, keith. go ahead. caller: yes, on the court cases, myself, the one thing that i appreciate about being a lawyer is you can always see both sides of the argument and you can also always -- you can discern the issue before the courts. this week we have the immunity case at the d.c. circuit judge and we have the ballot case at the supreme court, and both cases, they are not about trump or biden, they are about the office of the presidency and whether that office is completely immune from any criminal prosecution for, in the ballot case, who decides who can

be on a ballot or the office of the presidency. trump and biden are mentioned, of course, in the arguments, but the cases are not about them, it is about the office of the presidency. another issue is the issue of mental acuity and the extent to which that is a factor. look, you can make arguments both sides, but for trump or biden on that issue. they both say that -- say the wrong name sometimes, and everybody does. so, that could be a factor. but what is more relevant is policy. what are these people going to do on the border? what are they going to do about trade? what are they going to do about ukraine? let's talk about that, and this whole mental acuity thing, i think, should really just be left. thank you. host: let's go to brandenburg, kentucky. line for democrats. caller: yes, on the ballot

thing, i personally would love to see trump taken off the ballot. he doesn't deserve it. he is the worst president we ever had. on the mental acuity thing, they are both old guys. i would rather vote for the gentleman who honestly believes in the united states of america and does his best to do that. thank you all very much. host: all right, and a few programs for you to be aware of coming up later today. this afternoon former polish president like leisa discusses his legacy and the fight against communism at an event hosted by the victims of communism memorial foundation. can watch that at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also on c-span now and online at

c-span.org. and also today a conversation on acquisition and technology priorities for the u.s. with ai force assistant secretary andrew hunter. watch this atlantic council event live at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also on our app, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. tim in arkansas, independent. tim, good morning. caller: yes, good morning back to you. how are you? in this clip you played of joe biden, he got to the end of the clip and then lied about what the guys said. hur listed "willfully removed." you do not stumble into the ski ff and pull documents out. and his staff does not stumble

in and pull documents out. he did take documents, he did pull them -- put them in the center paid by china and accessible by china, and he did have his ghost writer, apparently, see classified documents and destroy classified documents. and all of this without the presidential privilege of being able to declassify such as what trump had. so, there is a definite, definite, definite double standard when hur pulls out the combing moment and said, hillary is as crooked as they come, but we are not going to do anything about it. host: all right, tim. let's talk to sydney next in sulfur, spring -- sulfur springs, texas. republican. caller: quick and short. i think this is maybe putting the cart before the horse on this insurrection deal and taking mr. trump off the ballot.

i think if there is anything to be solved and needs to go back to 2020. on the election, and i think there needs to be a special counsel and probably a trial to see whether the election was actually stolen or not. there are so many things that you hear all over the networks that show, hey, you know, there is something to this, and we are just sweeping in underneath the rug. if we are sweeping and under the rug it is going to hurt the country in the year to come. in my children and grandchildren. and one thing another, is they said, talk about trump said, you know, that you have to fight. for your country and fight for your rights. no, after three impeachments and home invasion and family attacks i understand what he means. you have to fight for your family, your country, whatever it is you have to fight tooth

and nail. host: sidney, what is the appropriate way to fight? caller: the appropriate way is to peacefully marched, which we don't have on either side. all of the marching that was done back in obama's area, don't have none. i didn't hear you. host: i didn't say anything, but we are listening. you said, on both sides. caller: yeah. and then when the democrats marched upon the senate, was that not an insurrection? i don't know. i just think they need to go back to seeing whether the election was stolen or not. thank you. host: let's talk to betty in state college, pennsylvania. democrat. money. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to comment on president biden and his military decisions.

after seeing president biden's dignified transfer of fallen servicemembers, this is what a leader should be. this man is compassionate, but yet when the u.s. is threatened, he takes action. i just don't know how any decent person can vote for trump when he calls g.i.'s who enlist, and those who give their lives losers. he would not visit the graves in france because it is -- it was raining. our service members serving to keep us safe. trump will not. neither he nor his sons serve. they have no idea what it is like to be in the military. thank you. host: david in florida, independent. caller: yeah, hi. this is dave. the economy is as good as it has been that i've seen in the last

40 years. the stock market is way up. my ira is up 20% in the last -- since october. we've got an 8% social security raise, which was a very nice inc. -- very nice increase. host: david, getting back to the two issues, the ballot in the documents? caller: say again. host: i was saying, getting back to the issues we are talking about, which is the ballot case in front of the supreme court and the special prosecutor's report on the documents. caller: well, the special -- the prosecutor was doing his job. and although he was a republican , was actually nominated by

trump, he was doing his job, and i think it went over the line when he called biden an elderly man. that was not called for. host: all right. caller: i don't think he should have done that. host: fried, david, we are out of time for this segment. next, we will explore the history and evolution of impeachment in american politics. that conversation with constitutional scholar and law professor philip bobbitt. stay with us. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile lab featuring featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can stay current with the

latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's networks and radio and a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download for free today or visit c-span.org /c-spannow. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 80 p.m. eastern, joshua green with his book the rebel, where he describes economic populism on the left and the future of the democratic party. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords, the end of race politics, in which he argues that the u.s. should move towards the colorblind approach

towards politics and race. he is interviewed by an atlantic staff writer. watch book tv every sunday on c-span and find a full schedule on your program guide. watch online anytime at a booktv.org. >> if you miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos a key hearings, debates, and events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. the points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on selected videos. the timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea on what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work.

citizens, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, it is the opinion that matters the most, your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by philip bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at columbia university law school and distinguished senior lecturer at the university of texas at austin law school. welcome to the program. guest: nice to be here. host: let's start with secretary mae arcus. house republicans failed to impeach the cabinet secretary. they said that they will try again as early as next week. what is the constitutional

standard for impeaching a cabinet secretary and how or is it different from impeaching a president? guest: i think it is different. the legal standard is treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors. but all civil officers includes not only the president and vice president, cabinet, but also judges. most of our impeachments have been of judges. there is a different standard for the judiciary than the president because it has to do with a particular role in government. you could say that the standards for cabinet officers are more to do with treason, bribery, he or she has less opportunity to commit truly high crimes and misdemeanors because the cabinet office doesn't have the scope that the president has. host: the two articles of impeachment against secretary mayorkas is willful and systemic

refusal to comply with the law and breach of the public trust. do you see that that reaches the level of impeachable offense? guest: no. there are many people who teach and write about constitutional law who do. impeachment has changed since the framers ratified and designed it. it has changed mostly in the last few decades. mayorkas is the far extreme of that change. it's disheartening in a way because we have moved further and further from a legal standard and more into performance art. host: let's talk about history for a moment. the last impeachment of a cabinet secretary was during the grant administration.

his war secretary in 1876. when you compare these two episodes, what can we take from that chapter of u.s. history that can inform this one? guest: he had taken substantial bribes over several years. he admitted this and resigned. the question of bailout is if you could impeach a cabinet officer who had resigned and was no longer a civil officer. he was acquitted mainly on that basis, but there was no doubt that he had accepted bribes. he confessed that to the president. host: staying with history, george mason, one of the founding fathers, considered

adding the words of maladministration to the list of offenses. chip roy supports that issue. [video clip] >> i keep hearing people say that the founders rejected administration. the fact is colonel mason put it forward, mr. madison raised a concern that the term of the 10 year for the senate. there was some debate, governor morris, governor mason withdrew maladministration. there was no rejection, it was a debate and they withdrew. instead of a substitute the language was not there at the time. other high crimes and misdemeanors. ok, go back to what does that mean. i was not there. there are debates about what it meant. the one thing is british common law had developed a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors that included but

was not limited to maladministration. this is a debate that is worthy of academic debate. the fact is, it is up to us. there are no elements of the crime and the constitution, no specific requirement that there be a violation of statute. it is for us, and us alone, to determine. when the secretary violates his duty to the constitution, his oath to defend the people of the united states and secure the homeland, it is incumbent upon this body to call out and reject that secretary. in this case, that secretary is secretary mayorkas. host: what do you make of that? guest: give me a minute to unpack that. the bottom line is counselor roy seems to think that high crimes and misdemeanors is what two thirds of the senate take them

to be. history is not as counsel roy portrayed it and the british precedents are not relevant. treason is a very narrow concept. in the constitution it is not what treason means to us in ordinary conversation. treason can only occur during war time the purposes of the constitution. bribery is a broad concept. being so broad, it is very difficult to apply. you never know whether or not a political action was taken, for example, because a contributor gave money to a campaign to put forward, perhaps, a particular position. because they might have done it anyway. likely that is why the contributor gave him money in the first place. that was mason's problem.

george mason said that treason is too tight and bribery is too hard to prove. we need something else. as counsel roy suggested, he said maladministration. there was debate. it was said that that would convert our system to a british system, a system of parliamentary supremacy where prime minister could be removed by vote of confidence. mason accepted that. it is not correct to say that this was left up in the air. mason withdrew the convention then moved on to bribery sufficient. other high crimes and misdemeanors is not a blank slate. the important word in the phrase is other. trees re-, bribery, and other

high crimes and misdemeanors. those are the crimes that are constitutional in nature. it doesn't require statutory violations, but it must have something in common with treason and bribery. it must be a constitutional crime. something that really goes to the heart of the security of the country. host: we will take your calls for professor philip bobbitt until the top of the hour. you can call by party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. shortly after january 6 you published this opinion in the washington post with the headline, is impeachment the right instrument to punish donald trump? what is your answer to that question? guest: in the context of the second impeachment, i don't have

any doubt that if donald trump had organized this month's-long conspiracy that that would be an impeachable offense. i was pointing out that because it occurred so late in his term, by the time the trial began in the senate he was no longer the president. he was therefore, not the civil officer anymore. the text requires that only civil officers are subject to impeachment. in their zeal to punish president trump his prosecutors try to dispense that and say that he shouldn't be allowed to get away with what he's done. this is not a legal standard. it is a political standard. i must have heard a thousand times commenters say on

television that impeachment is a political matter and not a legal matter. maybe it is becoming so, but this is a constitutional travesty. host: what do you think should have happened after january 6? guest: hindsight is 20/20 as they say. what should have happened is a resolution should have been adopted in both houses and sent to the new administration condemning what donald trump had done and labeling at what it plainly was, the impetus to subvert the electoral process. that would have cleared the decks to agree on the issues now about the 14th amendment section 3 that forbids a person who has either conducted an insurrection or given aid and comfort to people in an insurrection from holding office. that would have been available to the houses then. after january 6 he would have picked up a number of republicans in both houses.

by going for impeachment, which i understand was a natural fallback, i think the great mistake was made. i think in the long run, obeying the law is strictly -- obeying the law as strictly as possible is the best course. host: that brings us to today. you would have heard the oral arguments in front of the supreme court about the 14th amendment. what you make of that? guest: i did listen to the oral arguments. i thought that the questions from the bench were excellent. they tended to focus on whether or not chaos would result in the electoral process if each state could disqualify a president. i think that is a wise and practical,. -- practical comment. i would be surprised if the supreme court upheld the colorado decision. host: joseph in point pleasant

beach, new jersey. caller: how are you? i want to see a couple of things. let me make a couple of my points and then you won't hear from me for the rest of the month. first of all, my grandfather graduated from columbia in 1918, phi beta kappa, his name is on the wall in hamilton hall. his grandson, me, is ultra, ultra maga and he would be disgusted by what is going on in our country. you're telling me that what donald trump did on january 6 was almost impeachable? what he did was constitutionally allowed. he was protesting the electors put into the state with seven states changing the election laws unconstitutionally without state legislators approval. donald trump was about to do that.

the riot was not good and he had nothing to do with that. he made a speech and it got out of hand. the professor, you didn't talk about what they did to president trump. the first week he went into office in the white house they try to undermine him. they had a coup perpetrated by my government. my government. nobody went to jail for that, nobody was impeached, nobody went to jail. host: let's get a response. guest: well, you obviously feel very passionately about this. i'm not sure that we see the facts in the same way. i have seen the 2020 election repeated over and over, all of the various crimes in the states there. were bases -- there were 60 lawsuits brought about on those bases. they were rejected. there were republican and democratic appointees, the

judges were trump appointees themselves. repeating these assertions does not make them true. as for the coup that the caller is referring to, i would be happy to be corrected and informed as to what exactly he has in mind. but just repeating these charges about how the election was flawed and the president gave a speech and danced away, that he wasn't responsible for trying to storm the capital, that the events of january 6 were not part of a month-long campaign begun many months before to try to give him a safety net if he lost the election, all of those things are ignored. host: when he says that he had the constitutional right for he was constitutionally allowed to challenge the results of the electoral college, what do you say to that? guest: that is what the lawsuits were about. host: eva in columbia,

mississippi, republican. caller: i want to talk about joe biden and the impeachment. i want to know who was the first president in the country who was ever impeached and from what. also, they say that all of those documents that he had illegally are not a crime for him because he is old and senile. what about the other stuff? they are investigating the millions that the by thens -- the biden have raked in around the world. they say he was only selling his name. they may have been selling these boxes of documents. just because of your agent your mental capacity doesn't mean that you should be impeached or in jail, because i'm sure that there are plenty living worse who are old and senile. are we going to open the doors and let them out? joe biden isn't above the law and impeachment has been made a

crime simply by the democratic party. host: justice for all. let's get an answer for that. guest: the first question was about the first impeachment. the first president to be impeached was andrew johnson in 1868. the second observation had do with whether or not some elderly person like me is above the law by virtue of decreasing capacity. i think she is right, age alone does not give us a get out of jail free card, but i think that these things need to be proved. you had a many months long investigation by a trump-appointed attorney, special counsel for the department of justice.

it is a full report. i have not read it. i have only seen the headlines, but i don't think, i haven't read anything that supports the claims made by the caller that the materials left in biden's house were sold or barter to foreign powers -- bartered to foreign powers. the newspaper seem to say that biden had been extremely forthcoming. that he had sat for long interviews and allowed investigators to comb his offices and house. so, i don't think that he is above the law. i don't think that he thinks he is above the law. on that conclusion i agree with the caller. host: there is an understanding that the special counsel decided not to prosecute because of his age and mental capacity.

is that true? what are the legal ramifications? guest: i have not read the report. i am not inclined to give a conclusion about it. my guess is that many factors about culpability go into a prosecution. there is an ethical standard that the department of justice, that you should not bring a case that you don't think a jury will convict. that seems right to me. host: joel in newark, new jersey. democrat. caller: first, is it appropriate for clarence thomas to be sitting on cases where the insurrection is an issue? with regards to that question, if you were to be recused and there were a 4-4 split on the

court, what would be the effect of it? with regard to that, can there be a motion filed in the supreme court to have him recused with supporting documentation which would give sotomayor an opportunity to publish a written opinion? the second question is the court yesterday seemed focused on the national rule with regard to the 14th amendment section 3. as the court declared in this opinion, there is now a national rule that donald trump has been disqualified? is that not their role in the constitutional republic? why are we to say that a provision in the constitution is without any effect whatsoever? is that correct?

host: professor? guest: you packed in a number of questions. perhaps if i miss when you can repeat it for me. i believe that the supreme court could have a firm to the colorado fact-finding. the original court held a trial that the president had in fact engaged in insurrection. the problem i believe, and we don't have an opinion yet, the problem i believe is that the court was not persuaded that the findings of a single state's court were sufficient to trigger the amendment. that does not read section 3 out of the constitution, is simply means that there must be some other method of demonstrating an insurrection as the term is used in that section. for example, the joint resolution of congress a few months ago, there was a criminal

statute against insurrection, the former president was tried into that. there are a number of roots rather than having a single state. what i took away from the oral argument was that letting a single state do this would result in a complete patchwork where the former president would be out in some states but not in others. some legislators may react and take president biden off of the roles. i think that that kind of chaos is what they were concerned about. i don't think that they were trying to write the provision out of the constitution. with respect to clarence thomas, i am not aware that he has taken a position on whether or not president trump engaged in insurrection. i am not sure what the caller has in mind. i think that there are standards

for recusal, new standards that have come out in the last few months. in my experience with the judges on the supreme court, they seem to be very capable and conscientious. they differ in their politics and some of their traditional approaches, but i do not think that they are corrupt. i think that charges like that, if that is what the caller was implying, are without evidence, irresponsible. host: republican, good morning. caller: thank you for having me. this is basically an opinion. i think that it is fairly for us to be a little realistic. that it is better for us to give the managing. by the man, i mean donald trump, chance.

we all know he was there. it is not black or white, it is about making the country better, making america better. for me, my question is, if we think that donald trump is trying to make a better america why are we bringing so many obstacles? why are we being so hatred. to show us that he is the one or maybe he is not, why don't we give him another chance? everybody is not perfect. we all have skeletons in our closets. my question today is, what is chance to show us, ok, what he is saying is true or what he is saying is a lie? guest: well, i think former president trump will have many opportunities to do that. i don't have a crystal ball, but

from the oral arguments i think that the supreme court will not strike trump from the electoral rolls on the base of the colorado decision. i think that president trump has other forums in which he will have an ample opportunity to make the case that the charges against him and the four felony jurisdictions are unfettered. he will have good representation. he has a commanding platform. i don't doubt that president trump and his followers want what is best for the country. i think where we may disagree is how to achieve what is best for the country. host: billy on the independent line in gardendale, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have a comment about the supreme court with the ruling about trump. they cannot allow states to take anyone off of the ballot. if they do, that's the first step of us losing our right to vote. now, the judges will be voting, will be determining our president from now on. another thing, as far as biden and the 25th amendment. i hate to say it, but it's true. they would have to include our vice president also, harris, because she is not fit to be a dogcatcher, much less -- host: professor, comments about the ballot case? where do you come down on that? guest: well, imagine a candidate

ran who is not a natural born citizen, a requirement for the presidency, or who was not 35 years of age? i'm sure that the caller would have no objections to the courts sustaining the removal of such a candidate from the electoral ro lls. how do we know something as complicated as masterminding, participating, or giving aid and comfort to an insurrection? it is not as easy as to if someone is 35 or a natural born citizen. removing the court in that decision reads the provision out of the constitution. i don't think that people would really like to do that. host: we only have a few seconds

left, but i wanted to mention that you have honorary knighthood from queen elizabeth ii in 2021. what was that like? guest: it was a lovely honor. i said at the time that i was just a stand in for countless americans who support the u.s./u.k. special relationship. i was of course very honored, but it was really more of one person in place of millions of americans who feel strongly about that relationship. host: professor philip bobbitt, constitutional scholar and law professor at columbia university law school, thank you for joining us. that is it for us today. we will take you to the house for a pro forma session. e chair lays before the house a communication from thehouse