and the critical role black voters are expected to play in the 2024 election. jaycox talks about his new report while congress was designed to be the dominant branch it has been significantly weakened. and the rise of online gambling since the supreme court struck down a federal law that prevented 49 states from legalized sports betting. join the conversation live at 7:00 a.m. eastern live, online or at c-span.org. >> american history tv exploring the people and events that tell the american story.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: two fails profile cases in the house and on aid to israel. special counsel report sparking more debate over how president biden's age will affect his chances for a second term. we were to hear your top news story of the week. our phone lines for democrats are 202-748-8000.

republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. if you would like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003. if you would like to richest on social media, that is facebook.com/c-span or on x, @cspanwj. include your name and where your writing in from. let's look at the other top news stories we are following this ek. that special counsel report on president biden's retention of classified documentsseveral big cases in front of the supreme court including donald trump's ballot eligibility, the collapse of the border bill and alejandro mayorkas impeachment vote that failed in th house. benjamin netanya has rejected

a truce proposal and actually gave remarks to his nation after he rejected the proposal on wednesday. [video clip] >> hamas is the obstacle blocking a more peaceful middle east and threatening israel's security. the pressure should be on hamas as quickly as possible. all those three regard for peace and support are for total victory, total victory for security, for peace in the region, total victory to secure our common future. host: there is more news regarding that conflict this morning. a story in new york times, netanyahu tells the military to clear the city of rafah. this would affect over one million gazans and the order comes as biden sharpens criticism of israeli tactics. benjamin not who -- benjamin

netanyahu has drawn plans to withdraw from rafah in advance of an expected ground offensive that has set-top international alarm. in a statement nothing the orders, his office did not give any details of where the evacuations might be carried out , when the military might enter the city, or where me were -- where people might go. many civilians are shuttering in tents and they say there is no were left in gaza to avoid is really shelley -- to avoid israeli shelley. the promised her has come under increasing criticism. the president addressed israel's conduct of the war and here is a portion have his remarks. [video clip] pres. biden: i am of the view that the conduct of the response in the gaza strip has been over

the top. initially, the president of mexico did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. i convinced him to open the gate. he opened the gate on the israeli side. i have been pushing really hard to get humanitarian assistance into gaza. there are a lot of visit people who are starving, isn't people that are in trouble and dying. number two, i was in the position that i am the guy who made the case we have to do much more to increase the amount of material going in, including fuel, and other items. i have been on the phone with the qatari and egyptians and

saturday's to get as much aid as we can into gaza. there are women and children in need of help. that is what we are pushing. i am pushing very hard not to deal with this hostage cease fire. i have been working tirelessly on this deal. how can i say this without revealing it? to lead to a sustained pause. host: let's go to your calls on the top news story of the week. john is in morristown, tennessee on our democratic line. caller: basically, it is time for netanyahu to stand down. under the 1974 congressional budget and impoundment act, president biden should him pound

-- impound every penny of a going to israel. this would get their attention. it would serve as a means for giving -- for getting bipartisan aid to israel, ukraine, and the border act through. congress would have notifications immediately to override or uphold that particular action. the israeli economy is in shambles. i don't think they would last that long. the second consideration is do you have 60 votes in the senate to override a filibuster. host: john mentioned the failure

of the vote in descendant. -- vote in the senate. james lankford was on the floor limiting the opposition from his gop colleagues to that border compromise that he was tasked to negotiate. [video clip] >> some of them have been very clear with me that they have differences with the bill. they say it is the wrong time to solve the problem. let the presidential election solve this problem. i had a popular commentator four weeks ago that talked to that told me flat out before they knew any of the contents of the bill, nothing was out of that point. they told me if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential

year, i will do whatever i can to destroy you because i do not want you to solve this during a presidential election. they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me in the past several weeks. there are other folks that read the facebook post and the twitter post and saw different facts they thought might be true. i told them over and over again they are false. for some reason we still believe everything we read on the internet and it has been hard to break through. a few weeks ago i posted one of my favorite quotes from spurgeon, a preacher from england and he says a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. it could not prove to be more

true than in this. host: more republican pushback to the legislation, and the article from the hill from senator ted cruz who says the border deal was mitch mcconnell's worst mistake. ted cruz went after mitch mcconnell on thursday saying his support for a bipartisan border security deal was his worst mistake and spectacularly stupid. mitch mcconnell backed a deal that got about opposition from house republicans after being endorsed by democrats, including president biden. mitch mcconnell urged republicans to put against it once it was clear it would not be taken up in the house. let's get back to the calls on your top news story. paul is on the line. caller: the biden family needs to take a good look right now

and look at his medical could -- his mental condition. that was a debacle the way he lashed out at reporters. i think it is a case of elder abuse. jill, you should be ashamed of what you are doing to your husband on the world stage. have a great day. host: next is dennis from memphis, tennessee on our democratic line. caller: good morning. what the previous caller just said, at least biden knows nancy pelosi -- we can leave that alone. my topic is israel and hamas. i want to ask my fellow colors, the main thing going on with netanyahu saying i want to destroy. destroy is a horrible word.

who are you going to destroy? that is a hard word. it is time for him to go home. yell have a good day. host: next up is romain from falls church, virginia on our independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. for me, the news story is also -- is gaza and the nonresponse that biden has put forth. the best he can say is the israeli responses over the top. what does that mean?

we are watching a genocide take place live on tv. these are human beings. palestinians are human beings. our political leaders have lost their humanity. they cannot see that the palestinians are human beings just like them. host: i will bring in an article from the associated press about u.s. response to this conflict. it says antony blinken ends the latest middle east mission after a snub of a cease-fire plan. the secretary of state antony blinken left the middle east with public divisions between the u.s. and israel at perhaps

their worst level since israel's war against hamas and gaza began in october. antony blinken was returning to washington after getting a virtual slap in the face from benjamin netanyahu who said the war would continue until this real is completely victorious and appeared to reject a proposed cease-fire plan. relations between israel and its main international ally have been tense for months, but netanyahu's dismissal of a plan the uss has merit as a starting point highlighted the divide. roland is in detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: the previous caller said

we are witnessing a mass murder on the tv. i don't know how this country be forgiven -- this country can be forgiven for allowing this to happen. our relationships with them in the black community is not that well. still, the mass slaughter of palestinians -- maybe i am out of the loop. host: what are you hearing from your neighbors in detroit part of the arab american community about how they're feeling about this issue and what the consequences might be? caller: they are outraged.

they are off the hook outraged. nothing that biden can do to calm them down. i don't know. maybe this is a distraction from what the u.s. is doing to other parts of the world, mass murdering people. i don't know. it is a lot to write about. host: there is another article here from cnn about this issue some of our callers have referenced. biden is called israel's response in gaza over the top. later thursday from one of his sharpest rebukes of israel's military conduct in israel saying the operation to go after hamas has been over the top. he voiced optimism that a deal

being brokered preparing the release apostate is with a prolonged pause in the fighting could lead to a more sustained change in the war. he painted a stark portrait of the suffering in gaza insisting more must be done to stem the humanitarian crisis. let's go to dale in annapolis. my two top stories are tied. one being gaza and the second being the hypocrisy of the republican party. i am listening to senator langford who is a start republican -- a staunch republican. the republican, because they want to get trump back into office, we are going to let this continue on until the election

so he can use it as a talking point. yes, this is genocide. i look at right now, we are supplying israel with a lot of weapons. we are killing a lot of civilians. what hamas did was totally outrageous and it was terrible. right now, it is like president biden said, over top. when oas president andver forget ahu came and spoke to the publican party ofgress only. never spoke to president obama and left. this is one reason why he hopes trump gets back into the presidency.

thank you for taking my call. host: tina is in lakeland, florida on our republican line. what is your story of the week? caller: i stand with israel. they are not palestinians, their militant arabs try to steal israel's land. host: do you think the 25,000 people killed in gaza are militants? caller: they are militant arabs because that is what they are. host: if you could turn down your volume, do you have any other top news stories? caller: that was it. if we had terrorists in our country, we would want them out. host: thank you. next up is david in birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. let me say this to you, i am

around 70 years old and i have been voting since i was 18. president biden -- in my lifetime. i would like to see him do in the next election, past the john lewis putting right act, move the voting age from 18 to 16 come at all be inmates who are in prison who have not committed murder, incest, rape, molest, let them out of prison. in the state of alabama, we have more black men in prison than we do all be combined -- and redo all combined in the state of alabama. we need to find a way we can get them out.

military soldiers that get into the military should be guaranteed when they get up and come home, job and somewhere to stay. we have a problem here in this city with homelessness. biden has been the boy successful president than any other president. we hope we can get trump back on the ticket for the next election . during the george washington -- george bush administration, we got more black people to the polls than any other time. host: you mentioned you are 70 years old. what do you think of the debate over president biden's age and how that might affect his chances for reelection? caller: it is a good chance. it doesn't bother me. i have seen people younger than

him make mistakes. we need him back on the ticket, we need him back for the next four years. i have no problem with that. host: we have a text message from bert -- bird in richmond, virginia whose top story is the spiacounsel's reports revelations and the president's press briefings. "wow. there is no way america could have totally missed this." speaking of that press briefing after the special counsel report came out, president biden on thursday night was responding to questions from reporters about characterizations in special counsel reports about his age and mental fitness. >> -- [video clip] >> four months to would ask

about your age and he would say watch me. people have been watching and they are concerned. pres. biden: that is your judgment. that is not the judgment of the press. >> they said you are too old. it is december, you told me there are other democrats that could beat product -- beat donald trump. why does it have to be you not? pres. biden: i am the most qualified person in the united states to finish the job i started. host: let's go to bed on our republican -- to ed on our republican line. caller: almost 99% of people who vote in this country, the most ignorant people i have heard that have all their degrees, 20 years because professors, still low information, still very ignorant.

host: what is your top news story? caller: [indiscernible] she hates everything going on in this country but brings -- blames everything on trump and republicans. host: we are good to go to crystal and your top news story of the week. go ahead. caller: good morning. my top news story is and will always be gaza because of the mass murdering and genocide. every time i've called c-span, have called in support of biden. this is my first time in my life that i will not be voting free democrats. i will not be voting for anyone. biden has disappointed me from october 8 until now.

the killing and mass murder of babies and women, 2000 palm -- 2000 pound bombs dropping our people. i cannot send more money for these people to be slaughtered. although i am a democrat and a black woman with a black family, my family will not be supporting biden. we are watching these evil men destroy each other. thank you so much. host: you are in pennsylvania which is a competitive swing state and you say your family are planning to sit out the election? caller: my family everywhere, not only in pennsylvania is not voting for genocide this time. it is terrible to have my children watch other children get murdered.

i cannot stand for it any longer and i cannot consciously support biden any longer. i am out. i don't care what he does, and he has done some great things. both men, trump and biden, have lost a few steps. i cannot support genocide. i am a human being and i cannot support it any longer. every democrat who did not for free cease fire has lost my support. thank you very much. host: tommy is in livingston, tennessee on my democrat line. caller: the one thing i've always supported republicans at is border control. now they don't want border control, they want something to run on evidently.

even the border security people say this is a good deal. they are not really in on that. one lady who talked to said she is a lady of color. donald trump wanted to call the military at our people -- because the out on people. she is to start thinking about what he talks about. there is women's rights and social security. they have got to fund ukraine. russia is getting exactly what they want from the republican party. that is what this is about. it donald trump was sick -- sincere about border control, he would go along with this. i would say the democrats did you go along with this. stop this fentanyl from coming in here and republicans have a

chance to do what they have always wanted to. they have nothing to run on. they want to run on women's rights and social security? they want to run on humanity issues? giving insurance to people? let's move on and get people some insurance. the people that don't have, they get less treatment. that is the way it is. let's do this border deal and get it over with. the republicans have got somebody that has more to it than that. this is not a godly thing. if jesus was at the border, but do you think he would do? do think he would not give them food, blankets and clothing? host: speaking of that border deal, here is an article in the new york times talking about the failure of the legislation in

the senate with senator lankford pleading with his party to not allow politics to trump policy. he said there was a right-wing media personality who vowed to do whatever i can to destroy you. with frustration, today we decide if we get to do something about that were not. republicans chose to do nothing as mr. lankford knew they would. the oklahoma republican who spent months in any agonizing matter bipartisan -- was left with little but the political winds he had sustained. i feel like the guy standing in the middle of the field and a thunderstorm holding up a metal stick he told reporters. a few days ago he likened the process to having been run over by a bus and having it back up

over him. rob in west virginia says "the top nery of theis the person investigating biden's handling of classified documents sayisident biden is exhibiting mental decline. i don't understand why democrats did not start or groomi replacement when biden won the election. we have seen before.ive behavior ruth bader ginsburg, feinstein, etc. why cannot these people retire? ego?" ruth from louisville, kentucky. caller: morni. i wanted to say the ableism for biden, do i thk he's too old to be president?

100%. we need to stop actually old ople from -- when running for office. you talked about joe biden having hisress conference and he seemed angry. i would be angry, too, if people wereressing me about the death of my child. at this in time, the ableism is ridiculous. we have known the joe den has a study i -- a stutter. the fact that people are using that instant is getting old. at least he knows the difference between nancy pelosi and nikki haley. host: in that press conference, he did make the mistake of calling the president of egypt to the president of mexico. when you talk about the stutter and people making fun of the stutter as ableism, are you talking about incidents like that? caller: of course. joe biden is old.

i wish she would retire and allow a younger progressive to run but he is not going to. at the same time, am i going to choose him over fascism? yes. i don't want trump to be president because he admitted he will be a dictator. if my choices enabled by by wendy to be fascist or any old guy who makes some old man mistakes -- are an old guy who is a fascist or an old guy who makes some old man mistakes. he did that and i hate that but when is enough enough? when is this country go to decide how old is too old? when are we going to stop allowing people that are making policies that are not going to affect them? they are so old, it is not going to affect them. that is my point.

i would prefer we would have somebody like a progressive, someone like alexandria ocasio-cortez who could be president. she is in her 30's. what she decides to become policy is going to affect her and people like her. i am her age. all i'm saying, and this is my final point, we need to stop allowing people that are this old to run this country. that is a lie wanted to say. you take care of yourself. host: ruth's points about age were brought up in that prime time news conference president biden did on thursday night after the special counsel's report came out. he said he cooperated with that investigation. [video clip] pres. biden: i was pleased to

see you reached the conclusion that no charges should be brought against me. this was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even in the 1970's. counsel acknowledged i cooperated completely. i did not throw up any roadblocks, i saw no delays. i was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed that i went for a five hour in person interview over two days even though israel had just been attacked on the seventh and i was very occupied. i was the -- in the middle of handling an international crisis. i was pleased to see special counsel make clear the distinction between this case and mr. trump's case. special counsel wrote "several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. wyden's are clear -- mr. biden's are

clear. having returned classified documents to avoid prosecution, mr. trump did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he obstructed justice by listing others to destroy evidence and lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, concerted -- consented to the -- instead for a voluntary interview and cooperated with the investigation. i have sent headlines about my woeful retention of documents. this is not only misleading to just plain wrong. host: let's go to franklin in pueblo, colorado on our independent line. caller: good morning. the supreme court in denver charging trump on insurrection.

it is wrong. when those people come into congress, there are people that own congress. that is their own congress. it is not an insurrection because it belongs to the people. you have the squad out there that say to the river to the sea and they are the ones, the lawmakers. they break the law -- a senator in congress and all they did was censor them. host: i would to give our

audience information on the store you are referencing which was the hearing of the supreme court. there is an article about this, the supreme court signaled deep skepticism that, or the power to remove donald trump from the republican primary ballot because of his actions trying to overturn the election results. a majority of justices appeared to think that states do not have a role in deciding whether a presidential candidate can be barred from running under a provision of the 14th amendment, people engaged in an insurrection -- that bothers people from engaging an insurrection from holding office. judges raise concerns about states reaching different conclusions on whether a candidate can run & indicated only congress can enforce the provision at issue. you can find all of that coverage on our website,

c-span.org, as it pertains to the argument of the 14th amendment case. next up, matt on our republican line. what is your top news story? caller: my big story is how these democrats are trying to defend joe biden. it is unbelievable. paul himself said anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows his thursday night press conference was a disaster. he actually lied. it is a fact that he willfully retained documents. it is definitely there. by the way, kamala harris does not have to look for the root cause of the mass motivation because joe let us know -- mass migration because joe let us

know the president of mexico opened the border. when donald trump was president, mexico stop all the caravans. then all of a sudden joe comes in and guess what? caravans out the kazoo. after hearing there is no crisis at the border and everything is secure, all of a sudden it is an emergency. i wonder why? it is an election year. a lot of the brown and black skinned people in this country in the cities being overrun by these migrants, those people are being put in the back of the bus so that the migrants can get all of these freebies they were getting. now it is a problem. it is ridiculous. i can understand why most of the democrats calling in would

rather talk about gaza today instead of about the feebleminded it it we have for a president. thank you. host: i want to follow up on matt's point about president biden's statements about the willful retention of documents. here is a story in the washington post repeating that quote the president made the saying, "i've seen the headlines about my retention of documents. his assertions are not only misleading, they are wrong." in the executive summary of the report, it says our investigation uncovered evidence that president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. in his news conference thursday, the president disputed that report which recommended no

criminal charges concerning biden's handling of classified documents and concluded he willfully retained the documents. he quoted specific packages -- pacific passages to make the case -- said the opposite of what was being reported in nusra reports. a large part of the report is the -- is dedicated to examining whether prosecutors could make a case against the president that would result in a conviction. despite the evidence, the report concludes it would be tough to do brian a case because biden had reasonable defenses. biden had cooperated with the investigation. the report says jurors could decide biden did not retain documents related to afghanistan. it also says evidence suggests he did not willfully retained documents found at the university of delaware and he

did not willfully disclose classified information to someone not authorized to receive it. in many cases the special counsel decided the documents were handled by mistake or not especially important despite the classification. let's go to more of your calls. darrell is in eastpoint michigan on our independent line. caller: the first thing i want to say is i record all of your c-span shows. i recorded the president talking . i want to say that i watched him to confirm what i was hearing. i heard him gasp for more breath after every sentence and after every phrase. this man has dedicated his life,

almost every day he took the train back and forth to his home because he would to be with family. how much can we demand from the president? i think his wife should demand her breasts as a wife to please consider standing down. i also asked nancy pelosi to get the hierarchy of the democratic party to come up with some solution to this problem. i do not want to see this gentleman dying on his first term second term for all the years he has done for us. i think the convention should be opened and maybe even nancy pelosi in spite of her ih -- for

high age should river president. it is a major change we have to go through. it would also be beneficial to have the american people as a group -- host: next is tom in woodbridge, virginia on our republican line. what is your top story of the week? caller: there are so many top news stories. i am a pretty regular monthly call in. if you don't already know, i am a senior intelligence officer or have been a senior intelligence officer and a counterterrorism intelligence officer. i think there are some may think there are some things that are top news. the number one thing i want to say to remind everybody is hamas brutally murdered 1400 people.

everybody i know in the military and intelligence community is sympathetic for the people that are truly innocent in gaza caught in the crossfire of the israelis trying to eradicate the people of hamas. -- the ville of hamas. the problem is hamas hides behind their own women and children and that is a horrific thing. that is what we have to deal with this the way we do. probably the biggest thing in the news right now, three huge things happened this week. biden, the investigation and holding on of classified information. if this was anybody i know, they would already be under the prison. they go on and say he is mentally disabled, he can't remember if he was the president or the vice president or when his son died. this guy clearly -- everybody knows he has had such bad mental

decline that they probably want to invoke the 25th amendment but they can't because if they do they will get kamala harris and the heat kamala harris more than anybody else. the other thing that is big in news today is a supreme court hearing on the colorado case with regard to former president trump. if anybody listened to that, i highly recommend if you do care about these issues, you have got to go listen to the supreme court, the opening remarks for that case. i would be very surprised if it is at the minimum a 6-3 decision for trump. it is likely listening to the back and forth it could be a 9-0 determination in the supreme court that you cannot take trump off of the ballot. that will affect every state in the country right now and affect voters.

we have got a mentally handicapped president sitting in the white house. we have l'affaire going on with keeping trump off of the ballot. people are calling trevor crossan -- tucker carlson when every news organization has been trying to get a public interview with putin. now we get tucker carlson -- all putin probably knew is that type or carlson would put out what he said. putin new if he interviewed with cnn or fox or anybody, they would clip his comments and curate the comments. he knew the tucker carlson would not do that. that is why he did the interview. putin totally dominated that interview. it was putin's message and people to recognize that he is the president of a country. he is going to advocate for his

country. we totally disagree with everything the russians are doing, but that is the message from the russian president and that is all anybody should take at its face value. they should not read too much into it. those are all very major situations that need to be looked at. if you're out there, the last thing i would say is if you go to my website, i have a page called the january investigation. host: canalis go to bill on our democratic page -- democratic line. caller: my concern was the supreme court. a lot of people may not remember that gore versus bush, florida made a decision.

with clarence thomas's wife being part of the insurrection, he should have recused himself. several members of the supreme court are being parked and paid for -- being bought and paid for by special interest. a lot of republicans must have been drinking the kool-aid jim jones had in guyana because trying to support someone who only thinks of himself not as american is a big issue. a lady called in talking about israel. the land where israel is, the jewish people being persecuted in europe were given that land.

the palestinians were there first. that is my comment. host: i want to circle back on the points you made about the supreme court and the role it played in the upcoming election. there is any article from abc news saying americans are divided on how the supreme court should handle former president trump's ballot access but a new majority said they would support the court barring trump from presidential ballots nationally or letting states take that step individually. a national poll finds a division on state-level groupings barring trump from the ballot in colorado and maine. 56% are willing to see him disqualified in all or some states, including 30% who said he high court should bar him in all states and 26% say it should

let each state to decide. here is a visual representation of that poll in terms of the support. people who support having him barred on the ballot and remain in colorado, what the supreme court should do in terms of keeping trump on the ballot and removing trump from the ballot in all states or letting the states decide. next up, jackson is in washington on the republican might. caller: my story is i want to bring up the division social media is causing amongst our youth. i know a few states have motions towards making restrictions on certain social medias. i think that is a good idea because i notice a higher and higher amount of depression and

anxiety amongst younger folks. that is my top story for the week. host: jackson in washington, are they doing anything at the state level to address this issue? caller: i don't think they are. i don't keep up with the news that much. but i turned on c-span this morning and felt like going on a spur. host: thanks for calling in. next up is surely in mansfield, ohio on the democratic line. caller: good morning and think you so much for c-span. i have never seen such hatred as i have from people calling in. i am not a hateful person. my biggest issue is the supreme court. the u.s. supreme court of america, which i used to dearly

respect, is a total disaster. i have never seen it. the supreme court is for one person out of the millions and millions of people in america. what is going to become of our country? i just don't understand. my story is poor tucker carson -- tucker carlson try to be relevant with someone as dangerous as putin is. putin took over that interview, he ran over tucker carlson, he got his word out to the world through tucker carlson. it was an embarrassment. i love joe biden. he is not too old. people talking about him are young, old, and they don't have a clue. all they is donald trump.

that is why they don't want to back. he is a smart man. he has issues, we all have issues. a lot of people say he's too old, they are all themselves. before congress, the senate are old. people, wake up. thank you for c-span. host: tom is in elgin, illinois. good morning. caller: the biggest story touches all the stories, it is a gas lighting. the supreme court are going after thomas. thomas has always spoken like a republican and now they found out he has money. host: we can. . -- we can hear you. caller: you looked like you were reaching to cut me off. trump is supposed to have documents, he was the president.

biden was not supposed to have documents. the january 6 insurrection, now the republicans have congress and they get to look at the tapes and they get to have their people look at them. all the generous six information, secret service, it has disappeared. the fake pipe bombs, all that stuff. the gas lighting, that this was done by just republicans, they had -- host: i am going to let you to get to your other points but i want to address what you mentioned about the progress between classified documents held by biden versus the ones held by former president trump. here is what the special counsel's reports that about that. special counsel was referencing this was a unique situation, saying "the exception is president trump. it is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against mr. trump, but several material

distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's case are clear. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the indictment of mr. trump if proven would present aggravating facts. notably, after given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he also check to justice by lifting others to destroy evidence and then lie about. and in contrast, mr. biden turned in documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, set for voluntary interview, and other ways collaborated -- cooperated with the instigation." i just wanted to point that out for you. caller: you have an article

written about how bad trump is. host: this was the special counsel's report. go ahead. caller: the special counsel are part of the deep state thing with the fbi and the missouri case. you cannot have a president say i am a nice guy and get out of stuff he is supposed to be doing. the other thing is the border. they say trump is a fascist. he has already been the president. he did not walk anybody up. he did not kill anybody. it is -- he was not a fascist. the policies changed the border and they put it on republicans. he has within himself to close the border. to change the policy and opened it up. it is a bunch of deep state gas lighting. host: let's hear from linda in new jersey on our democratic line. caller: good morning.

i have never been polled but i am absolutely for biden. biden and trump i see as a race between good and evil. they're both senile. one is a good guy and the other one is evil as heck. the other thing i see is the supreme court and its handling of the antiabortion and anti-women's health. they wanted that state-by-state. but when it goes to whether or not trump can be on the ballot, it cannot be state-by-state. the border into the capital -- the border and the capital, the democrats should start thinking about the republicans. it was not overrun by rioters and murderers, it was just

tourists. the border, those are just tourists coming up. let's think like republicans, there is no problem at the border, they are just touring. host: letter from charles -- let's hear from charles on a republican line. good morning. caller: we send all of this aid overseas. why cannot some of that aid go to out on people here in the u.s.? we have people starving. we have people that are homeless. and we don't have any means. so why can't there be something allotted for the people in here,

a stimulus check or something? it's been proven, a stimulus check brings down the economy. host: do you feel your representatives in your state of west virginia or west virginia's representatives to congress are moving towards those efforts? caller: yes, i do. host: house -- how so? caller: they have all -- it's here. capito has been fighting for those. host: in west virginia? caller: uh-huh. host: ok. caller: well, we are in west virginia. and right now, we have an overflux of homeless people. why can't something be done for them? host: thank you, charles. that's all the time we have recalls but we will be getting

back to your calls later, but coming up, we will hear from vox reporter christian paz, who will discuss moderate voters and their impact on campaign 2024, and later, our spotlight on podcasts. today, with washington times legal affairs reporter alex swoyer, talking about her podcast, court watch, and cases facing the supreme court. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. we continue with the serious free to choose about milton friedman and his wife. this episode is titled created equal. on lectures in history, boston college nursing professor

lindsay camp on individuals and events that shaped american and global public health systems. on the presidency, a look at the monro doctrine and why defined president monro's legacy. historic campaign speeches, a look at a 2000 eight speech by senator john edwards at a campaign rally followed by 2012 republican presidential candidate mitt romney's speech to supporters following the nevada caucuses. watch american history tv every weekend and find the full schedule on the program guide or watch online at sp.org/history. >> next week on the c-span networks, the house returns tuesday following the democratic annual retreat as the senate could continue work on a foreign aid bill before returning for a two week break over the presidents' day holiday. also tuesday, former house

speaker's nancy pelosi and kevin mccarthy join the u.s. capitol historical society in awarding the 36th clerk of the house, cheryl johnson, presiding over the chamber while members struggled to elect a speaker. wednesday, cbo director -- the cbo director provides a budget and economic outlook to the house budget committee. thursday, the house foreign affairs committee will hear testimony on the doha agreement on the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. watch next week on the c-span networks or c-span now, our free mobile video app. had to c-span.org for scheduling information or watch online anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a healthy democracy does not look just like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly

informed, our 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. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. we continue the serious free to choose, coproduced by milton freeman and his wife rosemarie. this episode is titled created equal and looks at equality in america. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, boston college professor lindsay camp on the individuals and events that shaped american and global public health systems.

at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a look at the monro doctrine and why defined president monroe's legacy. and a look at a speech by john edwards at a campaign rally ahead of the democratic caucuses followed by met romney speech to supporters following the nevada caucuses. watch american history tv on c-span two or watch online at c-span.org/history. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined now by christian paths, a senior politics reporter for vox. welcome. guest: thank you for having me. host: you are here to tell us

about the reporting have been doing about moderate voters. what we are getting wrong about 2024's moderate voters, your latest piece, the voters who can decide 2024 are a complicated bunch. tell us about moderate voters. what do you mean when you say that? guest: the easiest way to understand a moderate voter is to under -- is to see what they are not. we divide the ideological spectrum in the u.s. between conservative, liberal and moderate. they have pretty uniform thinking on policy issues and which candidates they support and party they tend to identify with, liberals and conservative, whereas moderates are neither. they can share some of the opinions liberals and conservatives share.

they tend to congregate outside the parties more or are shrinking parts of the coalitions of the major parties. we see moderate as conflated with independent or undecided whereas they tend to be different but there is some overlap. we think of moderates. that is where it becomes appealing for candidates who want to pursue third-party bids or challenge incumbents to find a way through the middle and reach out to this coalition in the center of the political spectrum but it turns out moderate voters can be more complicated than that.

we try to see if there are some ways we can classify moderate voters because it turns out they tend to be 40% of the american public and occupy around that size of the electorate of elections going back to the 1990's and so who are those people. the easiest way to break it down is to break it into three kinds of categories after talking to academics and researchers so we feel confident in this, where we can break down the disengaged moderate voter. host: you have true moderates, disengaged and the weird moderate moderate -- the weird moderate voters. take us through each of these categories. guest: the true moderate -- i can start with the one that is

harder to define even though it seems straightforward, a true moderate is what we think of only think of a moderate voter and it's a big category. it encompasses the people you might call middle-of-the-road or third wave voters who are either to the left of most elected republicans and to the right of most elected democrats. if you were to poll on policy questions, which is one of the way researchers try to identify these people, the answers they will give and that you will get our around the center of the political spectrum, between what a typical conservative and typical liberal may offer as the answer. one of the go to topics on that is the minimum wage. if you would ask people what level the minimum wage should be, true moderates would congregate around the middle,

the average of what a liberal and conservative might offer as an answer. they are also the kind of people who are more open to compromise, which means they are not as ideological as conservatives or liberals or other kinds of moderates, which means that having -- means what you might call having a disposition but are open to understanding the other side and may be pushing her party or a direction that pushes you and the people you book toward compromise toward the center and they are also receptive to individual candidates. so you have a moderate democrat or republican who might vote but maybe with one specific candidate, they are particularly turned off or attracted to from the other side and we have seen

these people in swing states. a good example is last year or 2022, where in arizona and pennsylvania you saw a lot of voters who may be did not agree with candidates who were election deniers or aligned with former president trump and maybe cast ballots for democrats. that's a true moderate. they tend to be a chunk that's big of the electorate. the next category is the disengaged moderate. somebody who is not very attuned to political news, does not consume a lot of that media that talks about the election, about politics. does not keep up with current events as much, and that is the first thing to understand, they are not really in sync with the political system. host: what about the weird moderates?

guest: they are like the disengaged moderates but are actually engaged. that draws the contrast between the weird and disengaged moderate, they are not easy to place on the ideological spectrum, because they can have a range of opinions and may be conservative on one thing and liberal on another. this is where you would also find the old-school definition of fiscally conservative and socially liberal or something like that. the elected iteration of that and congress has disappeared over the decades. host: we often use the categories of democrat, republican and independent. when wehave people call in. how do you overlap these categories in terms of where liberals, conservatives, moderates land versus these other types of categories. guest: it is great to understand

what has happened to our parties, which is, over the last few decades, we have seen the base and leaders sort themselves out ideologically. so conservatives getting more conservative and democrats becoming more liberal over the last for years, again, both in the positions and opinions they hold and how people identify with them, so that leaves shrinking numbers within democrats and republicans of true moderates and especially weird moderates. they have gone toward the center but that area we call independent voters who are a big bunch of people because that is

the big difference between moderates and independents. independents can be -- true moderates, weird moderates, and that's where you find a lot of people who may have conservative opinions on immigration but liberal opinions on health care or the minimum wage and those kinds of things. host: we will switch it up today and ask our audiences to sort themselves today into the whether you think you might a political moderate. our phone line if you think you are a moderate is (202) 748-8000 . and everyone else, if you don't think you fit in that moderate category, (202) 748-8001. we would be interested to hear what people think, what kind of moderate you are, whether it's a

true moderate or disengaged or a weird moderate. i want to bring up a poll from gallup that does break things down by this sort of conservative-moderate-liberal from january 17 of last year -- two years ago, 2022, the last time they looked at this polling , and it says u.s. political ideology is steady with conservatives and moderates in a time. conservatives and moderates are still tied the largest ideological groups. liberals remain the smallest group at 25% and republicans and democrats ideological identification is unchanged. i want to bring up some of these charts to show that and this is from looking from 1992 to 2021, showing a sort of decline in the -- not much of a decline, but a slight decline in the number of moderates, slight increase in the number of liberals, as you

were talking about, and this is based -- here, says that this continues the close division in recent years between those describing themselves as either conservative or moderate with a smaller share of liberals. in 2021, 37% of americans described their political views as moderate, 36% conservative, and 25% as liberal. i wonder, though, when you are looking at this kind of polling, when you are talking about moderates and their political interests, what sorts of things attract them and what push them away? guest: definitely. one of the big things that the gallup poll shows is there's a lot of party loyalty that plays into identifying how moderate you are both in terms of what

your tradition has been in terms of the candidates you have supported and what kinds of people around you are like, whether you are surrounded by other conservatives, liberals or moderates. that plays a role in you figuring out what kind of moderate or person, voter, you feel like you are, because you do have a lot of places like west virginia, places in the south, that might have had ancestral democrats who began to vote more and more for republicans or more conservatively and maybe you identified as a democrat until your democratic governor leaves and then you switch to the republican side. that filters into your understanding also of, you know, what policy you might want to support, because there's may be a party has been insistent -- there is maybe something a

party has been consistent on and you support that position regardless of who is in charge. also understanding what candidates are doing outreach to. if you hear constantly from conservatives and republican candidates, for example, you might consider yourself to be more -- you might be a moderate but you might have a more -- have more of a bend or ideological lean to one side. the other issue that matters here also tends to do with both the rhetoric that candidates use and the way they speak directly to your lived experience also because ultimately, especially for true moderates, this shows that they are arp particularly

swingy group -- they are a particularly swingy group. differences is the willingness to break with a uniform ideological identity. host: so we are getting quite a few callers who i think have questions for use so i will bring some of them in. we start with barney in zephyrhills, florida, who is a moderate. tell us more about why you think you are a moderate. caller: i think i'm a moderate because i want to see donald trump bring this country to its knees for all the lies that these republicans believe in. i want to help them expose donald trump. host: based on the reporting that you are doing, does that line up with the views of any of those categories of moderates?

guest: it's interesting because what i'm hearing from the caller is there to individual candidates. i wonder what his opinions on things beyond donald trump might be because that might give you a better idea of where on the ideological spectrum they might fall, but it's kind of giving -- it's reminded me a little bit of one of those weird, idiosyncratic moderates might offer, which is issues on which they are -- they hold very strong positions even if there is a little bit of a mix on some of the other policy issues. the issue here is a candidate, donald trump. that is kind of where i would place them.

host: ok. let's go to jared in wilmington, delaware. go ahead, jared. caller: i like that you have this breakdown of where people fall on the spectrum. i'm interested in where i might fall if i give you what i have got. i am ok with 15 weeks abortion. i do think that the government should do a lot more in subsidizing impoverished people. i believe that the government should have their hands off women's bodies and have no say in it whatsoever. and i do think that donald trump is a clear and present danger to democracy but also think that joe biden is really old and is not doing what he should be doing and the people who elected him, millennials, are differing with him on israel and palestine

so he should cut aid to israel and look at the community of palestinians. i don't know where i fall on your spectrum but i'm interested to find that out. guest: i think you offered a perfect kind of demonstration of how broad the true moderate the -- the true moderate category is. you are the perfect candidate -- voter for a candidate to reach out to for that because you offer a bit of, you know, mediation on specific policies. abortion is a great example. the israel-palestine conflict is another example where you are not offering that either elected democrats or republicans are offering right now and you probably, on a different kind of spectrum, someone michael you centerleft. i would call you a true moderate

in that regard because it does seem like you are saying there are specific candidates that turn you off or you are concerned about their issues that you are thinking about consciously and there is, you know, definitely some openness to compromise, sounds like, that you approach politics with, which is something a true moderate exhibits pretty well. you are a perfect candidate for political parties to reach out to because you sound like you can be persuaded and that's ultimately where elections are decided. you turn out to base but then you have to work on persuasion. host: to bobby in garvin, oklahoma, who is a democrat. you don't think you are a moderate? caller: i'm a diehard democrat. i'm a biden supporter all away. i'm a progressive on some things but a moderate on others.

i'm a progressive on helping all the poor people, i'm progressive on the wars. i understand israel has to do what they have to do but we cannot let them destroy the palestinian peoples. it's not the palestinian people's fault that they are in a situation that they are in. we have to feed those people. i mean, we have to be humane. the bible says be humane to the people of the world. and i'm totally against the supreme court. i would abolish it tomorrow. host: before i let you respond, i want to go back to that gallup polling and look at one of the charts they have, which is democrats' political ideology from 1994 to 2021. this chart shows the distribution of where democrats land in terms of being conservatives, moderates or

liberals, and you can really see that the percentage of liberals in the democratic party has gone up significantly starting at 25% considered themselves liberal in 1994 up to 50% of democrats considering themselves liberal in 2021. those in the party considering themselves conservative went from 25% in 1994 to 12% in 2021. given what we just heard from bobby, what do you think of these numbers? guest: it definitely explains that story arc within the democratic party's membership, which is it sounds like there are maybe one or two issues on which he might be a little more of a moderate on, but, you know, everything else that we can understand put him on that liberal track.

more definitely a liberal voter, american, and it kind of shows what's happened with the democratic party too. the leadership is going to more -- has gone more liberal and you have had an increased willingness to identify as liberal. events like barack obama coming onto the scene to progressive politics to donald trump arriving on the scene. even if rates of moderates, conservatives and liberals have kind of remained the same, within the parties, there's been a stark difference in how much they have changed and how liberal has been less of a taboo word within the democratic party and more the standard, as we saw now 54% claiming to be liberal

in the party, and moderate being less of a default option. host: i want to ad text message we received from alan in west virginia who says, xtmists are responsible for so many probms it's shame that the truly moderate politicians do not get more media coverage but they probably a n dramatic and entertaining enough and therefore are not as good for ratings as the extremists." you were pointing out in your reporting, christian, that there are not all that many moderates in congress. guest: yeah. it is true and it's why it's kind of hard to both identify a vast moderate voting bloc or

any kind of moderate elected coalition. the moderates that we do see tend to be more -- they differ depending on if they are in the house or senate because the house has always been a chamber of polarization and the summit has tended to be a chamber of moderation -- the senate has tended to be a chamber of moderation, but as we have seen willingness of the candidates and elected officials to change their opinions, to grow and evolve as their party is growing and evolving, it's why we have three -- we have kyrsten sinema, joe manchin. on the republican side, mitt romney or susan collins or lisa murkowski, who in the senate

kind of represent what is left of the moderate identity. and they are not really moderates in the sense of -- joe manchin being the exception -- but they are not moderates in the sense that they are trying to strive toward the center. they are just moderating as a true moderate does, moderating around the ideological positions of their parties, but it's true, if you look at voting records and candidate statements and platforms, that center does not exist anymore in congress at all. host: let's now hear from emily in worcester, massachusetts, who is a moderate. good morning. caller: good morning. i probably should be talking with the previous segment because i'm 90 years old.

i do my own things. i drive a car. i do all my shopping. i do all my banking. i do all my stuff around the house. they call and say don't you need some help? no, i don't need any help. i do all my own stuff, which means that -- host: do you have a question for christian about this moderate-liberal-conservative divide? caller: well, i am kind of -- well, i have voted republican and i have voted democrat. i am registered as independent. i am not registered as either party but i wanted to say that i

am still living. i drink what i want to drink. i eat what i want to eat. host: thank you. emily, i want to use your points to bring up another chart from gallup about the ideological distribution of independents, independents like emily. she said she was registered as an independent. that has been pretty consistent over time. 46% in 1994 saying they were moderate, 48% in 2021. liberal 18 percent to 20% over that time period. and basically a 1% change, within the margin of error, in terms of those who are conservative. it seems there's a lot of overlap. guest: there is a lot of overlap and it mirrors what we see in the rest of the country. i think emily was making a great point showing, in this case --

it is difficult without hearing more, because as she said, she doesn't feel represented by either party. she doesn't feel where she might stand on the ideological spectrum. that shows a little bit of how important it is to understand how engaged in the political process and the news people are. that also illuminates the independent question you posed because a lot of independents also -- there is some debate in the scholarly world about whether independents exist, true independents versus soft partisans, who might be true moderates in that sense, where they might have some slight allegiance to one party but don't want to say that so they choose the independent option in polls, but it shows this category is pretty broad and it does -- it really does feel like

the home for folks who don't feel the political spectrum gets or describes them or that the political parties feel like home to them. and so there is some room for -- in that cohort. that's why it's kind of hard to, as a political reporter, see other people in political media talk about independents or moderates in these big, monolithic terms because there are so many differences in those categories. we established at the beginning independent is one category and moderate is helpful to filter down from there and moderate can be filtered down even more. host: a couple more callers. let's hear from our caller in fond du lac, wisconsin, an independent voter. where do you think about where you stand on the

liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm an independent voter but technically i vote for my interests. for example, like, i go to rallies and listen to the parties and, you know, ask questions. i expect them to answer questions for me. so usually, for example, my first election, i voted for bernie sanders because i found that bernie sanders, you know, what he was campaigning for, 96% of african-american people that she campaigned about free health care -- people -- he campaigned about free health care. if you bring that health care

program, i want to work for you. host: what other issues are priorities for you? caller: other than health care, number two, bernie sanders said he would give two years college tuition free. i'm going to vote for him because that's a plus for me. minimum tax, $15 an hour. if you look at african-american people who work in restaurants, for example, $15 an hour, they are going to say hell yeah. so now -- host: that probably gives you quite a bit to go on. guest: i would definitely categorize you in the moderate field as a kind of idiosyncratic or weird moderate in that the policies you are describing are

cohesive and coherent and you have reasons for supporting those but you file outside the liberal-conservative dichotomy -- but you fall outside the liberal-conservative dichotomy and what you are describing is not necessarily what a true moderate described in terms of how strongly they support those position because it sounds like you have your convictions about health care policy, minimum wage and college affordability and affordability in general. those are the kinds of things that make you that kind of moderate, somebody who is engaged, who can describe the positions the candidates have, who can describe the reasons you support the positions you hold. that makes you an engaged voter and also somebody who is, you know, outside of the left-right spectrum. host: let's hear from nate in las vegas, nevada on a republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm actually a trumpican.

god bless emily. she reminds me of my grandmother. some of your other callers have been saturated so much by the corrupt media. host: where you think you land on the conservative-moderate-liberal spectrum we have been talking about here? caller: i'm a conservative but when i was a younger man i was probably more liberal but as time goes by you get more -- you get a little bit more tight, is the expression i would use. but this whole thing about, you know, we have let the democrats control things in this country, things like single mom. no, you are a mom. things like student loans. it's a loan. pay it back. the whole idea of this moderate business is for democrats to

think these elections are going to be close. they control just about everything and there's lots of liberals and socialists and progressives -- whatever label you want to put on them -- that far outnumber us by many, many, many. a lot of it comes down over racial lines. host: what do you think of that polling we were siding earlier from gallup that showed conservatives and moderates outnumbered liberals in the u.s., at least according to those polls? caller: i am suspicious of that. they want to put this on so they can get their democratic turnout to come out because they want to make everybody think that it will be close whereas on the republican side we have to get everybody to try to turn this country. donald trump did a great job and just an example the other day with biden when biden said he put this country back on the right track. not one reporter challenged

that. not one reporter said wait a minute, mr. president. look what you did in afghanistan, with our economy. look what you did -- host: i want to get to the chart from the gallup poll, which i know you are suspicious of, but they also broke down over time republicans political ideology the same way they did with democrats and independents, and that shows a shift to becoming more tight, like you were describing. in 1990 4, 50 8% of republicans said they were conservative. that's up to 74% in 2021 of those who said -- in 2021. of those who said they were liberal republicans, that started at 8% and went to 4%. the number of conservatives who consider themselves moderate has decreased from 33% in 1994 to 22% in 2021. what can you tell us more about

republican moderates specifically, christian? guest: as you described, they have gotten smaller, have become a smaller part of the republican coalition, which gets to something the caller was describing, which is when he said republicans have to get everyone out to vote, that aligns with the sins that republicans often feel like they have to get all the conservatives in the coalition to come out. that was one of the best -- the bets that donald trump made in 20 and was it -- was iffier on in 2020. the republicans have tended to be able to count on conservatives turning out to win specific elections in that regard, but that shift in moderate thinking and self identification is one of the challenges now that the republicans face. what we have seen in the

republican primaries so far, it is a smaller subset of the party that identifies as moderate, but that differs nationally. if you look at different states, we see in iowa and new hampshire, when we have the option of conservative versus moderate candidates, republicans, like nikki haley, there's a pretty large -- it's small but not insignificant group of republicans, moderate republicans, who do not want to vote for donald trump and who wanted to vote for nikki haley. when you look at some of the exit polling, they did not necessarily want nikki haley but did not want to vote for donald trump. that shows you with an overlap -- shows you an overlap with the cohort of those people who might call themselves moderate republicans, people who are particularly turned off from donald trump. the does not mean they will go running to the democrats but

into this thinking to this group of voters who fall outside the party to might be frustrated with the options they have. host: naomi's in maryland on our moderate line. go ahead. caller: i'm a registered independent and i like to look at each candidate, their platform, what they truly have done, what they truly have not done, just the actions that people are taking and weigh those against my sort of sense of integrity. i am -- i think i'd tend to lean a little bit more -- i want to say democratic. i am not liberal. and i'm certainly not a far right republican. i'm terrified about the upcoming elections. because i think there is a

republican who is in the lead in the polls who was involved in an insurrection. it frustrates me greatly that the supreme court is -- i mean, i understand it, but it's very frustrating that the supreme court is leaning towards allowing an insurrectionist. it just does not seem right than an insurrectionist should be able to run for the presidency -- right that an insurrectionist should be able to run for the presidency but not for sort of a lesser post. i voted for biden and i like some of what he's done in terms of the economy. i think he's done an incredible job. i like that he is trying to grow the middle class and uplift the

bottom. host: let's go ahead and give christian a chance to respond to some of the points you raised. guest: i think you are pretty much a true moderate, as true moderate as you can get, given that you seemed very informed on the topics. you said you look a candidate specifically and their track records and you have specific reasons but you vote the way you do. you are not voting randomly. all that shows that you are the kind of voter that if you are the biden camp, they want to win you over. in the trunk cam, they may not be as sure if they will be able to -- the trump camp, they may not be a sure if they will be able to reach out to you, but other republican candidates might see an opening. what you are describing is pretty much a true moderate.

host: last call for now, freddy in indianapolis, indiana, also a moderate. go ahead, freddie. caller: i consider myself to be a strong moderate democrat. i hope i am, anyway. i believe in law & order and if a person does wrong they should go to jail equally. i believe if a police officer shoots an unarmed man he or she should go to jail. i believe in a woman's right to choose. i believe men should not participate in women's sports. i believe those people coming across the border should be slowed down but i understand the law as most republicans does not. host: you want to take a stab at that? guest: i am between putting you between the true and idiosyncratic moderate category because you are able to lift up

specific issues you care about and described a lot of moderation in the positions you have. you understand why liberals or conservatives think a certain way but think maybe we should be little -- be a little closer to each other rather than for their way. i might put you in the true moderate category and that since. it sounds you are pretty ideologically consistent. you are not tossing out random opinions like we should shut down the border but also open on abortion policy. so we are seeing how diverse these categories are, especially moderates. it's a complicated category. it is not easy to call everybody one kind of moderate. host: we will have to end at their. thank you so much, christian paz, senior politics reporter for vox writing about moderates. thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. lots of fun. host: coming up, our spotlight

on podcasts series with washington times legal affairs reporter alex swoyer to talk about her podcast courwatch and cases facing the supreme court, but first, more of your comments on the issues and stories you have been following this week. you can start calling in. the numbers are on your screen. and we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at seven p.m. eastern, we continue with free to choose, coproduced by milton friedman and his wife in the 1980's. this episode is titled created equal and looks at equality in america. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, professor lindsay camp on the individuals and events that shaped american and global

public health systems. at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a look at 200 years of the 1823 monro doctrine and why defines james monroe's legacy. and then historic campaign speeches, a look at a 2008 speech by john edwards at a campaign rally ahead of the nevada democratic caucuses followed by 2012 republican presidential candidate mitt romney's speech to supporters following the nevada caucuses. exploring the american story. watch american history tv on c-span two and find a full schen your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee

meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no interruption and no commentary and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> a healthy democracy does not look just like this. it looks like this, where

americans can see democracy at work, citizens are truly informed and our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to 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: welcome back. we are looking to hear from you on your tonews story of the week. some of the stories we have been watching at c-span ilude the reactiono the special counsel report on the classified documents held by president biden when he was a former vice president. e supreme court and from's ballot eligibility, the collapse of the border bill in the senate this week, the impeachment vote failing in the house of representatives for heland

securityecretary alexander mayorkas and rejection by benjamin netanyahu of a peace proposal to hopelly end the ongoing conflict in the gaza strip. speaking of that mayorkas impeachment vote, house speaker johnson spoke with reporters at the capitol wednesday after that vote failed in the house and the night before. here's that clip. [video clip] >> what happened yesterday with the vote on secretary mayorkas? why bring that to the floor if you did not have the votes? >> it was a setback but democracy is messy. we live in a time of divided government and have a razor thin margin and every vote counts. we have a duty and responsibility to take care of this. we have to hold the secretary of

the department of homeland security accountable. mayorkas needs to be held accountable, the biden administration needs to be held accountable, and we will pass those articles of impeachment on the next round. host: let's hear your thoughts on the top news story of the week starting with elijah in hilton head island, south carolina oou ahead, elijah. caller: i am first of all a veteran. i would like to say that is weird -- that it's weird we have people acting crazy. host: what's your top story of the week? caller: about biden and the situation he was caught up in. they couldn't do anything to him. i.e., no problem. he did his job. in the meantime, look at donald trump, when he did. he willfully decided not to give

back the information the fbi requested. now they have him in court. over to the border. the border is a problem because they made it a problem. host: who is they? when you say they made it a problem? caller: the republican party. if it was not for nafta, the border would not be bombarded because they opened up nafta to suppress and depress my people. we didn't have to work for low wages anymore. because of that reason, they got immigrants to take the jobs we no longer wanted to take because -- so with this gentleman at the border they are trying to impeach, the man did his job.

i don't see a reason why they will hold him responsible for something they created. host: let's hear from anthony in pikesville, maryland on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning to you, ma'am. thank you for c-span. i don't think you can just simply have a single story about the list you had up. i'm going to call it the dysfunctional family of washington, d.c. was the top story. the biggest thing that happened yesterday as we are now questioning whether or not the supreme court actually sees -- then you had the special counsel report. his professional opinion was welcome but his personal opinion was not. he is not a psychologist. he has no business saying the

president can or cannot do this beyond the fact of saying yes or no. of course, we know that congress is not getting along. i'm a moderate. even though we are growing in numbers, we don't see the conservatives reaching across the aisle to us. i'm not big on liberalism and i'm not very big on extraconsera conservativism, so it's a dysfunctional family that we have in washington. they call themselves are leader. host: sam in arkansas on our independent line. good morning. caller: my top story is the tucker carlson going to moscow to conduct an interview with president putin. first of all, tucker carlson is a journalist. journalists have been conducting

such interviews with controversial leaders for years. for example, dan rather did it with saddam hussein. barbara walters interviewed fidel castro and gadhafi in the past. they now want to sanction mr. carlson, potentially banning him from entering the european union, because they claim that he interviewed a war criminal. first of all, prudent has not even stood -- all, putin has not even stood trial for war crimes yet. just like in our country, colorado and maine have attempted to ban former president trump from the ballot for insurrection. he has not stood trial for insurrection crimes. you know, and, if i'm not mistaken, in our country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. it seems -- there's something

going on and if you go against this narrative you are being censored. and i'm not really sure what these people are afraid of. perhaps it is the truth. thank you. host: thank you for the call. noris is in san bernardino, california on our democratic line. go ahead. caller: actually, i'm in orange county, actually. host: apologies. go ahead. caller: one of my biggest stories was the fact that the immunity of president trump where they just determined he is not immune from prosecution. i think when it's all said and done i don't think he will do any time or anything like that but i think it's telling when you are looking for that much immunity -- i'm not suggesting he's actually guilty or anything, but i thought that was pretty stark. may i make another comment? a lot of people like the gentleman talking about how the economy is terrible, i'm sorry,

the economy is not terrible. i'm a little bit of a younger dude but all i'm seeing is that the economy is pumping out. even fox news said it and you have heard it on other republican or conservative leaning outlets, the economy is going great. anybody that wants a job can get a job. we don't have soup kitchens, don't have people in line down the street. just because conservatives are saying the economy is terrible does not make a terrible. just because president trump says certain things doesn't make it true. the economy is going great. i fall in the middle and i vote for america regardless of who is president. that is my take. thank you for c-span. have a wonderful day. host: a bit more information about that case that noris was referencing about the immunity case for former president donald trump. here's an article from nbc news. an appeals court determined

trump is not immune in 2020 election interference case. trump is likely to ask the supreme court to intervene to further delay the trial in washington, d.c. a federal appeals court tuesday rejected donald trump's broad claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged criminal acts he committed as president and trying to overturn the election -- in trying to overturn the election in a chain of events that led to the january 6 attack on the capitol. he will almost certainly appealed to the supreme court in a bid to prevent the trial from going ahead as scheduled. the supreme court can make a decision about whether to hear the case and could fasttrack a ruling. they gave him until monday to appeal. in a post, trump called the ruling so bad, so dangerous, writing a nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. his campaign spokesman said trump respectfully disagrees with the d.c. circuit judge go

decision and will appeal in order to safeguard his presidency and the constitution. now caller: good morning and i will compliment you because you are doing a great job. two quick points, this has to do with the special prosecutor's findings regarding the documentation. this podcast provided the information that the special prosecutor who accumulated the information has the authority, is not unusual to accumulate all the information that was accumulated during his research. what was unusual and not unprecedented, it's not always

leaked when the prosecutor comes to his conclusion and garland allow that leak. president biden's comment about israel going over the top, 6000 people were killed and pearl harbor, in the tokyo bombing's alone 100,000 people were killed. 69, 70 cities were bombed in tokyo. i doubt president biden would have called those decisions by truman over the top. war is a nasty thing and sometimes in order to get rid of the bad guy, there is collateral damage.

i think you're doing a great job. host: i want to follow up on your point about the content of the council's report. there was an article at cnn that the white house will not rule out releasing redacted transcripts with the interview with special counsel hur from earlier this week. they did not rule the possibility of releasing the transcript about his handling of classified documents. i don't have any announcement but it is a reasonable question and there is classified stuff to work through. this was on whether or not biden

would allow a release. biden is also expected to lead a task force to make recommendation about the document retention process. this came shortly after harris offered a defense of his psychological acuity. what i saw in that report, the comments made by the prosecutor were gratuitous. let's hear from colin from washington dc. caller: the story of the week is the failure of state policy

against pakistan. we are to get to the point, the elections were trending to a victory of imran khan with the blessing of the united states and i want to encourage c-span to bring on someone to speak about what is happening in pakistan. we are talking about rigged elections and you can just watch fox news, that is what is being said. but this was a rigged election going forward because of state department policy.

this morning social media was blocked in pakistan because that is where the coverage is happening. host: just because you are the first person who brought up pakistan i want to provide some information from cnn, this came down just about one half hour ago. those associated with imran khan won the most seats with the surprise victory marked by slow counts and rigging accusations. independents are associated with khan's party.

the pakistan peoples party has the third but none of the three major parties will when the majority in parliament and will be unable to form a government on their own. making it unclear who will be picked for prime minister. caller: thank you for covering that. in response to the previous caller as justification of war crimes in world war ii for palestine. we signed a geneva convention so anyone who questions that justifies genocide in the upset of human rights. think he would have a great day. host: next step is dave in

lakeland, florida. caller: some of this is old. the comments about the election, you have your list there. the number one thing in your earlier segment, you cut off the republican person talking and i saw that. i want to give you my opinion. abortion. we don't talk about it anymore but you are killing so many babies a day? they get psyched out by a vacuum cleaner. and we don't even talk about it anymore? how many murders a day are we doing?

host: i will mention in our upcoming segment we will be discussing abortion cases coming out before the supreme court. caller: i'm not done yet. what is happening with our prices on everything? everything is up 20% or more? it is the crisis that biden has caused. then the border crisis, you know that biden caused this.

you people have people in your family with dementia, why can't you see it? i see it and many other people see it. you just have to look. i am so disgusted. you put up the polls and most of the conservatives are censored. i don't even respond to polls or phone calls. they are censorship and that's all i have to say. host: dave was mentioning the ongoing debate over biden's security. what the special counsel report said we will put it up on the screen. mr. biden's memory was wares. he did not remember when he was vice presint forgetting when his term ended.

forgetting on the second day when his term began in 2009? he didn't even remember within several years of when his son vote died in his memory was hazy when discussing the afghanistan event. next step is miles. caller: hey, good morning. thank you for taking my call. biden sat for five hours a day and he couldn't remember exact dates. he's got a little bit on his mind, he is the president of the united states. he has been doing a great job. he is an old guy and he admits it. how do you say someone has dementia when he is running a country as well as he has?

on the other head of the coin, we have a guy on trial for treason. treason is great again. make sure we all get golden toilets next because this is going nowhere. leave him on the ballot. he is going to get destroyed. the guy talking about abortion with the vacuum cleaner. women's lives are at stake. republicans took away their right to health care. what about ectopic pregnancy's, guys can't have that. it will never bother them. the great talking point was that democrats have abortions to the

point of birth. this is such deceitful live because some pregnancies have problems in the mom or baby can't make it and there are doctors of women that have to deal with but just to do it as a choice shows you how weird they are. that never happens. thank you for letting me ramble and you're doing a great job, you are awesome. host: next up is lawrence in louisiana. caller: good morning. you are doing a great job. with all of the things going on, it is needed in this country. one of my top stories is the

inability of the parties to get along and pass legislation. when the words compromise and negotiate no longer exist. host: what would it take to change that? caller: i think it would take people finding common ground. realizing there are things we agree on then disagree on. it is unfortunate and shameful when each side gets an advantage on the other whether it is biden or trumps chaos and the other side keeps harping on it and they keep getting back at each other and in the meantime, nothing is getting past.

hopefully, the youth of this country will learn from this and will change the way things have been going these past decades. it is a sad situation and from hearing all of your caller and you are letting them have their say. maybe that is the step in the right direction. there are a lot more things we agree on then disagree on. i appreciate you hearing me out. host: in the effort for the congress to get things done i want to mention the senate will return today at noon for more debate on that 95 billion for an to israel, ukraine and taiwan. you can watch that live on

c-span two, c-span.org or the app. let's hear from robert in indianapolis, indiana. caller: there are two things i would like to bring up. majority of the people, it doesn't make a difference which program you are with. they should be thinking biden for those mask mandates because they would be dead if they hadn't followed those things. host: are you saying the mask mandates were damaging or helpful? caller: i think these people should feel lucky. host: the first mask mandate

happened under trump. caller: i know he tried to hide that information from the people and i think he caught a pretty bad himself. i would like for someone in your organization and show protesters in russia being arrested for carrying plague science and a piece of paper. and that is where we are headed if we don't follow what that other candidate is trying to do. host: next up is bubba in memphis, tennessee. caller: i heard a couple, maybe two or three democrats: save the trump was involved in the insurrection. was he found guilty of that?

host: i don't believe there has been a trial. caller: they keep saying he was involved in an insurrection and i don't think even people who have been bought up of insurrection? host: the closest is conspiracy. caller: you need to correct them . biden can fix this border deal. all he has to do is pull the pin out and he could do whatever he wants. host: what do you think of the senate bipartisan order legislation that fell apart this week? caller: i don't think they should have blasted. it had too much garbage in it. biden can fix it on his own but

they don't want to. i had another thought until you interrupted me. host: i apologize. sorry i made you lose your train of thought. let's go to renee on the independent line. caller: i am so disappointed in america. i blame a lot of it on the media. host: this site your top news story of the week? caller: the media normalizing lies and lack of integrity instead of challenging them and reporting the news. host: thank you for calling in with their comments.

that is all the time we have for your top story of the week. next up we will hear from washington times reporter alex swoyer talking about her podcasts " court watch" that's coming up after the break. ♪ sunday on c-span q&a the author of scribners talks about the family's history as the biggest publishing house. >> those advances cap winston churchill solid financially. >> when he was out of office, he really earned his livelihood.

the multivolume set of the history of world war i with the advance he got on that, he bought a rolls-royce. that sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. you can listen to q and a are free c-span app. nonfiction book lovers c-span has a number podcasts for you. on q&a, and hear wide-ranging conversation with nonfiction authors making things happen. the about books podcast takes

you inside the best nonfiction books, authors and booksellers. download afterwards on our website or wherever you get your podcasts. a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. get informed, on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal," continues. host: we are joined by alex

swoyer a legal affairs reporter of the washington times. welcome to the program. tell us about court watch, which court do you focus on? guest: i primarily focus on the supreme court i put out an episode every month and hope to get court watchers from both sides of the aisle. i have former clerks on that highlight upcoming cases and break down arguments that have just happened. in the next episode i will have someone break down what we heard earlier this week on the trump ballot issue. and then we will have the abortion pill case. host: how did you get interested in this? guest: i went to journalism

school and i was a student reporter there was a murder covered in so i went to law school after journalism school and i have been able to use both degrees in my coverage for the court. i am a licensed attorney but here in d.c. i focus on the supreme court. host: who do you see is your target audience and who do you hear from? guest: my goal is to make sure that if you are not a lawyer but you want to know what is going on, that is my audience. i try to not get too wonky and in the weeds, something a lay person understand. that is really the goal. i love people who email me and

need certain topics covered that they don't understand. in the ballot case they could shoot me an email and i would address it in the next episode. host: there were oral arguments in the question whether trump should be removed under the 14th amendment. what were your takeaways? guest: i've been covering the court since 2017 and it is not often you have the justices on both wings of the court agreeing . when i left the court i thought, clarence thomas and justice jackson are in agreement. they were talking about the 14th amendment and how its purpose was to rein in the southern states. they were critical of the

people's arguments. host: speaking about justice ketanji brown jackson emerged as an unlikely ally of president trump when they heard arguments over an effort from the republican primary ballot. jackson, a liberal justice seemed sympathetic to one of the off ramps that would keep him on the ballot and hinted at by trump's own lawyer. it was originally meant to keep southern confederates coming back to office.

can you talk about what we heard in the oral arguments in how we can translate that to what the court might decide? guest: on that point you are referencing, i think justice jackson made trump's lawyer better than he did. she took the text of the closet said i don't see the word president here. there are other positions listed and if the framers intent was this to be used for the presidency why wasn't it there? you usually think about originalism and that is geared towards the conservative wing but she came out as a contextual us on the court. there was an argument about the whole office. the language in the cause and

the reason that is important because they say this is about holding office and not running for office. congress can remove this by two thirds vote so this is up to congress, state doesn't have a majority. host: close look at a condensed version of section three which th amendment says no person should hold the office who having previously taken an oath to support the constitution shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the state. i want to also play you a clip of the oral arguments but during thursday's oral arguments

justice roberts asked jason y urray whether the 14th amendment allows states to hold someone guilty of insurrection? [video clip] >> if colorado's position is upheld there will be disqualification proceedings of the others and some of thos will succeed. ey will have different standards of proof, different rules about evidence. maybe it's beyond a reanable doubt. i would expect a good number of states that whoever e democratic candidate is, you are

on the ballot and it wi come down to a handful of states that will decide the presidential election. that is a daunting consequence. >> the fact that there are frivolous apications of her provision. >> you mig think they're frivolous but the people bringing them may not thi they are frivolous. inrrection is a broad term and if there ia debate about it that will go into the decision and we will be deciding whether it was in insurrection when one person does that as opposed to someone else. do we wait until the time calling ballas to find which states are valid. >> we haven't seen anything like january 6 since reconstruction.

>> other states may have different views of what constitutes insurrection but you're saying it's all right because someone else will decide whether or not it is in insurrection. >> this court can me it clear that in surrection is extraordinary and requires a concerted group effort to resist through violence. host: what does the outcome of this case mean for other states looking at disqualifying donald trump from the ballot? guest: chief justice suggested there could be a political tit for tat. he is usually middle of the

court so i watched him a justice kagan and kavanaugh and they echoed the same concerns. kagan said why would be up to a state to make decisions for another state? if president trump were to lose this case, i think it would result in more litigation because a lot of people are looking at the general election ballot but there is a case about the primary ballot. the secretary of state can't put a disqualified candidate on the ballot. the states are going to need clear guidance. host: we will be interested to

hear your calls and questions and comments from your audience. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we start with pete on the democratic line. caller: for the supreme court case, how unprofessional is it for a clarence thomas not to recuse himself when his wife was intimately involved in january 6 insurrection activities on that day in the coup d'etat leading up to january 6? eileen cannon, she is supposed to be a judge. her actions of florida are

somewhat reprehensible. how long can she get away with it before a judicial conduct board to recuse her because she is making a sham and putting us at risk? guest: on justice thomas, the court put out guidance on their recusal standards and it has been we are seeing work its way out. justice jackson recused and justice alito recuse recently from something. with justice thomas of this was something with his wife, even though she is a supporter of donald trump. i don't know if that would impact some of the cases about

january 6 defendants. i think this was about specifically colorado and primary law and how it impacts judge how do justice been working on the campaign that would be an obvious conflict. they don't have to be forced to recuse it is up to the justices themselves. eileen cannon, the judge of florida overseeing one of the federal cases against donald trump. i have not been watching it as closely as the supreme court until it works its way in that direction but she has allowed donald trump attorneys to have exposure to witnesses that the federal government is worried

about security and safety standards. host: next step is timbo. caller: hello america i have a question for you. i think the supreme court wants donald trump on the ballot because that means democracy is an action. let them decide if they want putin's lapdog as president. you better wake up. host: i don't know if you have any comments to that. guest: it is interesting because i was one of the arguments what do people think about it? we will have to see what happens with the court. host: chris and tulsa, oklahoma.

caller: i want to talk about the blackout with the kennedy campaign. host: do you have a question about the supreme court? that.r: i i'm afraid what this is going to lead to with the bush v gore with the supreme court picking our president again. you know how the al khor deal did it. somehow the supreme court picked our president for us. host: he makes an interesting point. given what happened with bush v gore what kind of appetite they have for picking presidents? guest: the justices will above did not get involved in cases of political magnitude.

the interesting thing about bush v gore is how quickly that was decided. they had oral arguments of the decision was issued the next day. given our primary schedule, colorado is having their primary march 6. they usually take months putting a ruling together. host: david n illinois on the democratic line. can you hear us? we will try to get him back and in the meantime, let us go to the gym and south carolina. caller: good morning, how are you doing?

regardless of politics, how many of the justices -- guest: all the justices have great credentials. all of them have different backgrounds. i think that helps complement each other. since 2017 and the changing makeup on the court. some reporters would go years without a new court member and i have seen for. sometimes i wish there were cameras in the courtroom because no matter who they were appointed by they tend to get along.

justin kagan and kavanaugh often whisper and laugh and justice sotomayor a gorsuch. i think the american public with -- would be good to see that. host: we have coverage of our efforts to get cameras in the supreme court over the years and what different justices have said about cameras in the courtroom. now, let us go to charlie and arkansas on the republican line. caller: i just thought the supreme court is outdated. they have been making this decision about abortion my whole life. when is supreme court justice passes away we should all be able to weigh in on it.

we wouldn't have to pay these people for a lifetime. can you imagine joe biden being appointed for a lifetime? i think this is a good idea, what do you think? guest: they have been talking about imposing term limits. there was an effort to study ways to change the court. there were different proposals letting someone serve for 18 years. but judges rotate from lower courts. so far nothing is taken out. host: i want to point to some

polling about public opinion of the supreme court which remained near record those. -- lows. with only 44% approving, 49% have trust or confidence in 39% say the high court is too conservative and 42% say just about right 17% say it's too liberal. what is your take on the declining view on the supreme court? guest: our nation is moving into a divided row in all these cases working their way to the supreme court enforces the justices to weigh in.

ballot access for a presidential candidate on the republican side. because of where the nation is politically, whatever the court does they have to think carefully of the political impact and i don't think judges want that. they want to look at the law. they put their oath above anything else. it's unfortunate for the american public you hear so much of the media about these cases when something does not go their way in the court immediately becomes politicized. host: thomas in virginia on the republican line. caller: a point earlier, i

always understood the constitution was a bill to allow the states enough rights to remain independent and i think that gets lost in the argument. mr. cook wrote a book what do you think you will get from a judge when you appoint them and that's devote their own mind. guest: i think it is good for a to vote their own mind. there is always talk about the trump appointees and hearing cases involving donald trump at the same time with justice jackson and she became a better

advocate for donald trump than his own lawyer was. it is interesting to listen to what the justices actually say. there is no prediction on how they will come out. there was painting just as gorsuch in terms of being a conservative justice and he surprisingly joined justice roberts looking at sex stereotypes for lgbtq employees and civil rights. we can't ever predict which way the justice will come out. host: bill and northbrook, illinois. caller: my comment would be this. the people who wrote the constitution were geniuses in the amount of thought that is gone into the amendments is

extraordinary. based on that, the idea that a single person in a single state could keep an individual off of a federal election, you know that cannot be right. there is too much thought that is gone into our amendments to contemplate such a thing. that is my comment. guest: that was something justice jackson and thomas both discussed in terms of looking at the history of the court that was really a check on states at the time. they thought it would be contrary to allow one secretary of state to allow that much power.

host: we have chip on a democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was disappointed in my state we did not have the argument from mr. murray, they did not stick to the actual verbiage specifically keep going back to that point. neil cocktail made that point very clearly and i thought we would have had a much better chance if we could have to the actual verbiage of how the 14th amendment was constructed on section three. host: what specific verbiage are

you referencing? caller: i don't have that in front of me right now. but i know they didn't stay on that specific point as it was written. i think if we could've made a stronger case for states rights and i think that is what is going to come down to. as the founding fathers wrote this language. we would've had a better chance. it seems like everybody thinks it will be a 9-0 decision. guest: i think some critics are disappointed there wasn't more language about insurrection and that wasn't really explored during oral arguments.

that was something that was not really explored. host: what about this idea of states rights they came up quite a bit in the discussion around the abortion debate in one of our callers support the rights to make decisions about abortion but here they are a lot more skeptical. guest: this is generally thought to be a core that is pro states rights. when you hear questions about the intent of the 14th amendment people are scratching their heads and it looks contradictory. you have to think each case that they way they are evaluating something different and in the

abortion context they were talking about the history of the states had dealt with that. here this is a case of course protection. i think sometimes we have to think about the actual issue, clause or statute being debated. host: gabriel on the republican line. caller: i think this has to be the composition of the court being technocratic. this ways on how they solve these problems when they bend

and twist on what they have had for breakfast. you have a very good way of answering things but think about the composition of the court and it being technocratic or composition of lawyers from corporate backgrounds instead of being what it used to be warren, sandra day o'connor. how does that influence their decision-making process and should that be a change requirement for new judges on the bench? guest: i guess one of the questions you mentioned past

judges who had political backgrounds. we don't see that now because the idea is that it justices should not be tainted by politics or have leanings although many people look at the polling numbers still feel that way. they feel there is a political motivation and that seems to be a problem. i think i mentioned before, i am surprised by many of them. often times it works as it should. i would've never gone into the arguments thinking judge jackson would be advocating for a pro-trump outcome. host: in perry, north carolina, go ahead paul. caller: the charges of seditious

conspiracy have been brought up in this broadcast. what happens if he is on the ballot and he wins, but is then ineligible to hold office and congress does not waive that? host: i think the caller was referencing the sum of the january 6 defendants were charged with seditious conspiracy. guest: i don't know if he was referring to the case working its way through d.c. over january 6 fraud charges. as the supreme court going to have to take a question about

presidential immunity? it looks like it could be time for them to hear this case but it an appeal has to make its way through the d.c. circuit judge. they could hear arguments in april or may and have a decision by june. host: lou is in new york on the democratic line. caller: this is been an interesting discussion. i am a lawyer and i want to push back on one thing discussed earlier and that was the earlier discussion about why the supreme court is unpopular. i think the guest was to general when they said we have divided country with different political views. we have had a president

involvement in their public behavior. justice thomas, the revelations about his personal expenses and his wife ginni thomas involvement in january 6. justice alito shaking his head no during the stated the union address during president obama and taking a victory tour in italy after the dobbs decision. you have speeches given to organizations like the federalist society. it's much more pronounced on the conservative side giving very intemperate speeches. president biden saying i will appoint a black woman supreme court justice whatever her qualifications are. the merrick

garland nomination blackballed by mcconnell. they brought the supreme court into the public eye more than a seat in the past 35 years. guest: the blocking of merrick garland from his appointment by obama, that is politics. with the justices and their involvement with organization and the tenant go a different way on the political spectrum or comments of been made. alito shaking his head with president obama. a lot of people pointed to when

they called donald trump of faker as she sat on cases like the travel ban. when it comes to ethics concerns, there is a question about where you filed these grievances. the first step the justices have done and acknowledging these outcries is implement a code of conduct but who really enforces it? host: franklin and washington, d.c.. -- in washington dc. caller: i'm a lawyer as well and could you way in on a comet colleagues have made. there is a paper i have a

structured settlement and i need cash now. do you think that is relevant here? host: let's go to randy on a republican line. caller: i have really enjoyed your discussion today. my question is this, if colorado wins the case, the republican states would say this democratic candidate, we will take them off the ballot. wouldn't that be awfully dangerous if it got down to a few states getting to elect the highest leader in our country.

i am not a lawyer, i just have common sense. guest: that is exactly what chief justice roberts is proposing that that could be an outcome of this decision of what state help that much power. what if colorado were to win and what would happen next. other states really could put him on the ballot even if colorado but the problem would become the general, what would happen with electoral votes? there would probably be litigation. more litigation, chaos. it would not be smart for other states to put trump's name on

the ballot. but given the direction of the arguments, sotomayor was sympathetic to the voters arguments. i'm not sure if we will end up exploring that route. host: that is all the time we have today. thank you so much alex swoyer host of the podcast, " court watch". guest: thank you. host: that is all the time we have for washington journal today we will be back here with another program and we hope you call back again. ♪