traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> this is joe. >> when you are connected, you're not alone. >> cox suppos c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

conversation on the various legal challenges of donald trump with hugo lowell. the headline of your latest piece from yesterday -- trumps trial calendar becomes clear. start with the first part of that headline, the trial calendar remind viewers where we are. >> we now have a trial scheduled in new york for march 25 and we have jury selection starting. that's the first concrete date we have. for a long time, we were thinking that the federal january 6 case might be the first one to go to trial. that was originally scheduled for march 4 but because of trumps delay tactics, we are in new york first and now that's on the calendar and trump has an idea about how his legal cases will play out so i think that's

a degree of clarity we didn't have. as for the rest of the cases, it will be up to the supreme court. we need to figure out how this will play out and begin to the connected nature of these cases. justice is don't want to schedule stuff before they know it's going on with the rest of the trump calendar. i think this is a good way to get started. host: what are the delay tactics you are referring to? guest: he's made no secret of the fact that his legal strategy for all of these cases is to find ways to delay which favor the defense in these cases. with trump specifically, he has managed to settle on this avenue of presidential immunity. unlike all the other things he wants to get the indictment dismissed. it gives him a special thing when he appeals. he is granted an automatic stay and it freezes the underlying case. when his lawyers discovered that

avenue, they kind of honed in on that and that's why you are seeing the january 6 case in washington on hold while he goes to the supreme court to argue the immunity claim. host: how can we determine when that case might go to trial? guest: it gets complicated. the first thing to note is the judge who is the presiding judge in the washington cases always said trump will get his full seven months to prepare when the scheduling was first set on march 4. trump submitted his appeal to the circuit on december eight. went to calculate when a trial might be is to take the time between december 8 and march 4 which is the amount of time he had left and then add whatever further delays we get in this case in that time period. if it's roughly three months, we have from february 12 which is

when the d.c. circuit issued its mandate and trumps filing to the supreme court and whatever the current date is. that gap is expanding so when ever the supreme court finally issues a judgment, let's say they return it to the judge and they denied the immunity claim, that's when the three month clock, the remaining three month clock restarts. host: what of the supreme court thinks about this for a while and we see the big cases come out at the end of their term. what if they wait until the end of this term? guest: it's a real possibility. because people want to see the way this case progresses, they would like to see quick resolutions are no resolutions but i think there is a strong chance that the supreme court waits on this issue potentially toward the end of the term as you say in which case we may not have a trial start before election day.

if the supreme court decides we will not take this case and supreme court watchers think of the supreme court decides that from can stay on the ballot in colorado for instance, he might get an unfavorable ruling on the immunity thing and they might refuse to hear the case. when the supreme court in effect decides whether to hear the case or not. if they decide not to take the case in the immunity question, jurisdiction go straight back to the district court and the judge can restart the clock and say you have three months from today to prepare for trial and i will set up ryle -- a trial date in may. if the supreme court waits late into the summer, it could be in july we get a decision postconvention, then we will not have a trial before the election. host: the georgia case and what

we saw last week in georgia, what does that mean for the timing on when or if that case comes to trial? guest: that is the one case we don't have a tentative trial date set. it has already been scrambled little bit because the situation there in essence, the district attorney, had a romantic relationship with one of the deputies. the defendants in the rico case basically alleging there was some sort of kickback scheme or financial benefit that she got out of hiring the external special prosecutor because he was making a lot of money we estimate $700,000 by working on the trump case and that's because they were in a romantic relationship. it's in her interest to keep her on the payroll and her interest to continue the investigation because they went on trips together and they took a cruise

to aruba and the bahamas. she took him to belize. there were about four trips they took together in the argument was this was improper and constituted a conflict of interest and she needs to be disqualified. this is where we get to the hearing last week. i was there for two days and i listened to all the testimony and it was excruciating at times. i don't want to hear about people are sleeping together. the bottom line was the defendants struggled to show that there was any sort of financial kick but that was -- kickback that was concrete. the burden is on the defendants here because they have to show that there was something improper going on in the das office. host: she is not the defendant here? guest: that's right, the trump

camp are trying to show something improper. they struggled to make that showing i think in part because they really didn't have any way to rebut the assertion from the district attorney's office that she was reimbursed in cash for a lot of the trips they took together even if you don't believe that claim, it's a separate issue -- is it really a financial benefit if nathan wade was going to take -- she was going to take on these trips and could afford to. the special prosecutor still had his own law firm so wasn't like the trump case was the only case he had going. when you look at all of that in totality, judge mcafee who is presiding in fulton county needed to decide if they met this burden and technically the burden is actual conflict and that's an extremely high bar to clear. host: we want to invite viewers

to join the conversation. a good time to brennan -- to bring hugo lowell in. call in with your questions or comments. our phone lines are republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. we will get to those calls after you explain where we are in the classified documents on the federal case. guest: we are in something of a limbo in the document case. basically, the document case is to trial in what's known as the information procedures act. it's a multistep process that was enacted to make sure that espionage charged defendants don't just release classified material at trial and eventually blackmail the government to say we will expose all these national security secrets. the term is called grave mail

and to protect against that, there are specific steps the government and defendants have to go through in order to get to trial. section four is midway through the process. it's classified and sealed so there's not really that much going on in the public eye but we do know several things. trump is trying to compel more discovery from the special counsel jack smith. he is trying to make this claim that there was a slack of prosecution and biden wasn't charged in his documents investigation and they are trying to allege there was bias and make arguments in essence that the case needs to be dropped or that specific charges need to be removed. they are trying to get the government to give them more discovery. there is an arcane fight going on behind closed doors about how to define the scope of the

discovery and what trump and his defendant should be allowed access to. he gets complicated because it's all classified or sealed. among other things, we have reported there has been a fight over witness list. trump wants access to and publishing in court filings potential government witnesses. they want to make public from last night, they want to publicize area maps of mar-a-lago and demonstrate that it's all secure. these are the sort of argument they are trying to make in the government says we don't want this coming out. section four is the stage where they had to make the showing to the judge that they want to push back on these arguments. it gets very complicated. host: that's the overview of where the criminal cases stand. we can get to the civil cases as well. when we talk about this topic,

we have plenty of calls already. independent line is up first out of detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i'm glad you mentioned the documents case with trump. the espionage act as a factor there. i would have more sympathy for donald trump if he had pardoned julian assange for wrongly prosecuted under the espionage act because he's a real journalist. you guys are like tmz compared to julian masson so that's why i have no sympathy for trump. host: have you covered much of the julian assange's case? guest: we have. the guardian has a track record of covering national security cases. the only point i would make about him is the circumstances are so different. we keep coming back to the

central core of the obstruction case with trump. the argument was trump's refusal to comply with the grand jury. had he returned the documents, there would be no criminal case. he decided to play something of a shell game where he didn't return the document or was trying to tell his lawyer at the time that there is nothing really bad in there. it went into evidence in this case and was making these gestures and it was recorded by the lawyer. i think that's the difference here in the core of the documents case with trump is obstruction. host: this is michael on the line for democrats. caller: hello. i had a quick question regarding trump. what do you think his plans are if he actually gets convicted? will he stay in the race or will he get voted in? if you are convicted and you get voted in, what happens at that point?

he will be sitting in jail controlling the country? i just want a little clarity. host: walk us down this path a little bit. guest: i think trump will stay in the race regardless. there was a lot of talk last year when the campaign was on sketchy footing if he would drop out if he was indicted and the answer was that this is his ticket to freedom in essence and that's just the caller brings up a good point. even if he is convicted, if he becomes president, there is a constitutional understanding that you don't impede the functions of the presidency. he would be effectively permitted to serve his full-term without being harassed by the government and the justice system. the more important point is trump's return to the white

house, he could potentially sell pardoned himself. this has been discussed. if he is not convicted before the election, he could appoint an attorney general who was sympathetic to him was a loyalist and have him drop the charges. you must remember that in the second trump administration, you will see the justice department under the west wing in a way we haven't seen, at least that is the plan. so you have a very loyalist attorney general and trump can direct them to drop the charges. host: greenville, tennessee, duncan is next. caller: yes, i was going to point out the fact that in the u.s. constitution, political parties and politics is not mentioned whatsoever. it may be different in other countries such as great britain which is where a lot of our laws derived from as well as our political party system. historically, our presidents,

george washington was our only nonpolitical president that served in office on the rest of them were involved in a political party but it's important to point out that george washington knew what politics would do to political parties. they could be destructive to the country in some affect. host: bring me forward two hundred 50 years. caller: in his farewell address, he warned about political parties. it brings us to the trump situation. it's out of hand just like george washington warned us of. we are getting to the point where it's dangerous and you attack people and try to put them in jail and were finding them. it's getting very serious. people are talking civil war. i'm wondering why nobody in the media or investigative political reporters are addressing that situation. you cannot hold a royal title in

the united states. we don't want our political system like that. it seems it would be a perfect election for two guys who were serving a presidential term could somehow reach a resolution were political parties go away and it's like man on man. host: what do you want to pick up on? guest: the fundamental point with these criminal cases and one that the justice department has repeated is that no one is above the law. if you defy grand jury's or don't turn in classified documents or try to overturn the results of the election in the generally six case. this is now a statute before the supreme court it's also a statute that you have to remember, got district court judges have applied across the board and decided it applies to edification. in many ways, trump had the

biggest role to play in stopping january 6 than anyone else. he was directing rudy giuliani and these other lawyers to call up senators and tell them stop the certification. it's such a low bar that the just apartment has to clear on that charge. it makes sense for them to bring that to the prosecution. can you sustain a conviction on appeal? i think that was a close look at this. there was this decision made that this was quite a clear violation of the law. when you talk about the totality of the charges, the underlying theme is trump kind of showed -- grand juries in multiple jurisdictions whether it's florida or the district of columbia returned indictments

like in atlanta. the idea that this is a political prosecution connected to politics runs kind of hollow when a lot of these cases are being returned by a grand jury of your peers. host: how much does donald trump owe and how much is he worth now? guest: it's growing. we have the defamation case earlier in the year. that was about $80 million. he recently had the judgment in the new york ag civil case around $450 million. if you add them together, you're looking that half $1 billion which is a lot of money. we estimate trump to be worth between 350-4 hundred million dollars in liquid cash. that comes from two or three deep -- real estate deals he's

done since being in the white house including his hotels and golf course in the saudi backbencher. the idea if you talk to people around trump, he realized he needed a deal because there might be financial problems coming down the track. he has about $400 million and that's what he testified to in his deputies -- in his case in new york. he will probably have to get an additional source of income but we are not sure where that will come from. when the ideas that the trump advisors have been looking at is a bond company that will require him to put down some collateral. you have to pay a premium for the fees. his preferences do not put his own money down. i think that's the first one in the second point is that his super pac cannot put the money down because that would be in direct violation, that's not allowed. host: why can't he use campaign

funds to pay legal fees? guest: he has to use his personal funds, he cannot use the pack because you cannot have direct coordination between the pack in the campaign. he is trying to find a way to get out of that. he's going to have to find a bill company. host: this is something we read in the last segment. contributions to pro-trump groups are consistently strong but encumbered by 48 million spent on lawyers and legal services. last year, his legal bills eight into a corner of his fundraising efforts. guest: it's paying for lawyers and paying for judgment. you can pay for lawyers and what happens in the documents investigation, a lot of people were political aides of him and his sister was invited.

his campaign lawyer got subpoenaed. trump paid for his lawyers. host: you can pay the bill but not the find? guest: that's right. host: florida is next. caller: good morning. i have to respectfully disagree with the guest in regards to the fairness that he alleges toward donald trump. i'm in my mid-70's and i have never seen the kind of political persecution going on towards an individual that's going on against donald trump. there are a lot of people who are above the law contrary to what you say. they are all democrats. a good example is hillary clinton and the 33,000 emails she destroyed that had already been subpoenaed. 33,000. i may also point out that barack obama took with him close to one

million documents after he left the presidency. may i say justifiably so. as a former president of the united states of america. why shouldn't he be able to have those documents and review and digitize them as he took much too long to do, yet he was never persecuted for that. donald trump did essentially the same thing. he did give back numerous documents back to the archives. there are some he did not give back. he was persecuted for that. he had his home invaded by the fbi. i have never seen anything like this. host: we got your point. guest: first of all, the point about taking documents with you, this is a point that trump makes repeatedly on the campaign trail and on social post. that's not white house the presidential record is. when trump talks about the

presidential record in an interview in the town hall like you did last night, it misstates the law. in essence, the presidential law says all of these documents are government documents and the ones that retain them are the national archives. they are the property of the government. after nixon, they wanted to make sure you wouldn't have former president running off with documents that might be problematic later on or who knows. i think that's the first point in terms of retaining documents. with obama, there is no grand jury subpoena. he claimed the idea of obstruction that was because he played games with the justice department. it was abundantly clear he had to comply with the subpoena. we done reporting on the contents and his advisor said

there's no way they can go after him. he asked if we have to give everything back and they said yes and trump effectively made sure that what they look through in terms of what is compliant with the subpoena, he made sure that he didn't have access. there was a violation of the subpoena. it was not a grand jury subpoena for obama and these are important points. in general, these are not political persecutions. it might seem that way but trump repeatedly engaged in activity that aggravates all of these situations. he takes a course of action against the government. it's not clear and the burden will be on the government at

trial. multiple grand jury's have returned indictments against trump. host: the corcoran issue you brought up, it seems to work for donald trump. guest: he's taken a bit of a backseat as you might imagine. he is not on the filings anymore. one thing the trump guys realized was if they let go of all the lawyers that work on the criminal investigation, they would lose the institutional knowledge of what went on. the only lawyer left who took the lead role in the documents investigation who is still on now. host: ohio, line for democrats go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm glad the guy from florida call before me because he made my point talking about unequal justice when it comes down to the documents case. there is an airman out there now

being charged with leaking classified information's. he is in federal custody. his commander-in-chief has 36 cases against him and he is running for president. you call that equal justice? i don't think so. thank you. host: anything you want to follow up on? guest: it seems to be a point about a pretrial incarceration. this is on a case-by-case basis and the government makes a showing. the idea that trump is a flight risk or that he will leave the country or somehow evade trial is very minimal. his running for president. the idea that happening is zero. if the government tried to have a pretrial limitation imposed on trump, they said you can release him on bond conditions. for most espionage cases, that's

not the case. you have a defendant who are spies or they engage in other espionage activity. that does make them a continued national security risk on a flight risk. at the end of the day, pretrial incarceration is there to make sure this gets to trial. i'm not familiar with the specifics of this case but i would assume it would come down to the fact that this guy host: it's been a couple of weeks since the story. your reading of the government report on joe biden and the documents investigation? guest: the consensus from inside the justice department was the way the report was written. they got into essen nations that went beyond the scope. there is some idea about writing the special counsel reports,

that it's important to state why you don't prosecute someone and it's important to explain how you got to that decision. i think the white house was upset at how the age question came up, how biden's acuity came up. i think that became the central narrative of the case went really what was at issue was it was never clear obstruction and even if biden did have classified documents on the one hand, there is a question whether it was willful and aggravating to extent that it would be prosecuted. the trump lawyers have seized on this in their own case to make the argument that this is selective prosecution. i think it opened that door for them because there is a section in the special counsel report talking about how it there is no need to prosecute biden because

there is an ongoing prosecution of a former president with classified documents. i think that is something that is probably going to get litigated now in the southern district of florida. who knows if it will be successful but that opened the door. host: did robert hurt have a james comey moment? what does that mean? guest: i think not. when we refer to james comey and think about his tenure at the fbi, you think about the justice department placing its thumb on the scale and influencing the outcome of the election. i don't know if that comparison is apt here in part because we are so far away from the election. if you think about james comey reopening the investigation and making an announcement close to election day, a lot of people construed that as putting your thumb on the scale. we are in february. we have months to go especially

this new political cycle when these things really don't stick. i don't know if this will make that much of a difference. people say that biden was old and many people think that and people have their views entrenched. host: you talk to folks at the justice of hartman, were they taken aback at those kind of comparisons that this could possibly be construed as placing their fingers on the scale? have you heard much from them about the blowback on that report? guest: i don't know that they felt they would get as much blowback as they did. i think a lot of former people at the justice department and former people in the criminal division talk about how on its face, reading the report publicly seems to violate these rules of the special counsel

reports which is not the way into politics. around the same time, there is wariness about this publicly because at the end of the day, the attorney general signed off on this report being public. the attorney general told the special counsel this is inappropriate. he gave robert herr wide latitude to write the report. it comes back to merrick garland's aimed -- aims to politicize the justice department. he said he let them reach their own conclusions. host: destruct that out? guest: i think people inside the justice department think that merrick garland should have narrowly tailored the report so it wasn't so descriptive about bidens memory. host: less than 10 minutes left

with hugo lowell from the guardian. this is john waiting in new york, thanks for waiting, independent. caller: i've been watching this but i get the impression that this journalist is focusing like a laser beam on donald trump. i wouldn't, journalist, i would call him a lobbyist for the democratic party, that's my opinion. host: how long have you been working on political investigations and what other ones do you cover? guest: i've been covering the trump investigations and week covered the january 6 committee as well as biden. before that, i covered sports corruption like the national olympic committee and the russian doping scandal. host: no shortage of investigations there. guest: all of these investigations, you get these allegations are these suggestions -- in some instances it's true about political

allegations. in some cases it's not. in the russian doping, it was clear that the kgb were swapping doping samples through a small door in specially constructed laboratory in sochi during the winter olympics. it was clear in my reporting my college reporting that when you are these international hotels in different countries where you have members of the fifa executive committee go up to hotel rooms and brown envelopes filled with cash and there might be some sort of funny business going on. at the end of the day, it comes down to covering a lot of these cases. we've seen them all the way through. it's not about going after trump or biden. looking at the facts as presented during the investigation. there is no shortage of evidence here. the one thing that stood out to

me during the documents investigation was the amount of evidence the trump's own lawyers didn't have access to as it went on because trump hit it from them. h --id it from them. trump's own lawyers were surprised or blindsided by evidence that the justice department presented. i think that was very telling. this wasn't some sort of grand scheme where the government was trying to entrap trump. they had this footage from mar-a-lago. they had these search warrants, not search warrants subpoenas. massive battles that happen before the chief judge and d.c. was extensively litigated by multiple parties. there are massive witness list and this documents case in the january 6 case.

these investigations in these cases being political, you have to turn a blind eye to the sheer amount of evidence that's presented in these indictments. the indictment lays out in excruciating detail how these mar-a-lago employees went around searching for the cctv cameras and shining their torches to figure out which camera was recording. it was event after an event and when the justice department looks at this, gives them no choice but to prosecute. host: how often do you get to ask questions to donald trump and his lawyers compared to how often you get to talk to jack smith or alvin bragg? guest: that's an interesting question. i won't go into the sourcing specifically but the way the reporting gets done in these cases, we speak to these people all the time. we speak to trump's lawyers

often. they are off the record and often it's not reportable. with the federal government side of the law, it's more difficult and more sensitive because of rules. the district attorneys want to protect the integrity of their investigation. host: it's fair to say you talk to the trump team more than the prosecution? guest: that is true. by and large, that's true and in terms of the information, i would get into that. the point is, we talked all these guys all the time. there is a lot of on the ground reporting. i've been to mar-a-lago. i've been down to atlanta whole bunch of times. this is the way we do the job. host: still plenty of calls for you, grand rapids, michigan democrat. caller: good morning. i would like to make the point that i am a democrat i'm an american first.

people break the law, get arrested and get indicted. and people who don't break the law don't get arrested and don't get indicted. we've got people on your still complaining about hillary clinton. she never got arrested. they are about to impeach biden. there's nothing to it. they just proved it with the fbi agent that's a liar. i am a democrat because i don't leave and trickle down economics. i think trump in a lot of trouble in these cases. people should not be sticking up for him. it is america, break the law, you will get in trouble. host: you think about the fbi informant that he was referring to? guest: the court filing yesterday expanded some of the details. he was one of the fbi's informants in the hunter biden

investigation. he's been charged with effectively lying to the fbi. if you look at that court filing, it describes alexander smirnov is a human wall of mirrors. that's the best way of her to put where everything he said seemed to be ally and it was impossible for the fbi to figure out what he was lying about and where he was telling the truth. they decided to charge him. what i think stood out to me was the amount of contact he had with russian intelligence officials. it was quite striking. he had continued discussions with people close to the kremlin about all of these stories. it pulled me back to what the house foreign affairs committee found in the previous congress when they went through the senate investigation into the russia probe and the kind of hunter biden stories of allegations.

because back to 2015 when there were contacts with russia. there is ways to discredit ukraine. this has a long genesis. it's been something that's been percolating through the republican party for some time and it's made its way back through david weiss with hunter biden. i think the core finding speaks for itself, when you have a liar who has been indicted who had contact with the russians and the justice department potential is seeking further perjury charges. i think that is a very strong court filing. it was so big on detail that it was unusual in its scope. host: this is richard calling from canada, good morning. caller: good morning. the judge in new york who find president trump $355 million said it was -- said the property

in mar-a-lago was only worth $18 million. it sits on 17 million acres when it two acre lot, the market value is 150 million. why shouldn't the average american think this judge is corrupt political judge trying to prosecute president trump when he lies about the value of the property and you don't hear one reporter on msnbc or cnn talk about that value that sits on 17 acres with you buildings on it. let me hear what mr. lowell has to say here. guest: this case comes down to asset values. it's also about inflating assets on one side and deflating assets on the other. it's not about the fundamental value of these assets. we've been reporting on this and there's reason to believe some of the properties are worth more. the crux of this case as presented by the attorney general rest on trump inflating his asset values and trying to seek loan so he can pay lower

rates effectively to banks and devaluing his assets when he has to pay taxes to the irs. it's not what is mar-a-lago worth. it's why was he representing two separate figures to two separate entities in a way that benefit him? that was what was being prosecuted. host: if somebody is doing that with their own home, would they be prosecuted for it when it comes to looking for a loan for something they are trying to buy and paying taxes? is that something the average person can do? guest: i don't know if they would be prosecuted for it. it comes down to prosecute jory discretion. he was doing this in terms of his business. trump was inflating the value of his 5th avenue in square footage of histriplex multiple times over.

either your apartment is 10 feet or 100 feet. i think that host: host: is the contention. this is liberty hill, texas, independent. you are on. caller: yes, hugo, i have a question to ask you. january 6, i was sitting at home and i was on facebook. i happened to see the posting by john sullivan. i thought what is going on. this john sullivan was bragging and boasting about successfully breaking in to the capital. i said that's not happening. then i started watching his video and i was shocked. his video revealed the capitol

police directing crowds of people into and throughout the capital. they were laughing and joking, fist bumping. i thought what the heck. then i happened to see -- i watch that video until they shut ashli babbitt. i couldn't believe it. that's when that ended. why is this john sullivan not being held accountable? why is it that --host: we got your question. this is from november of last year. guest: without getting into specific cases because there are hundreds.

that's for the january 6 riot defendants. it's taken time and they will identify these people and build cases with the cctv footage from the capital and charges will be forthcoming. we have spoken to a lot of capitol police officers that day. the fundamental point was they were so overwhelmed and out powered by the sheer number of people that attempted to storm the capital. there was a sense of resignation where they said we will not fight back. it comes down to safety. there is also an element of a complete breakdown in the command and control structure of the capitol police. a lot of the lieutenants didn't know what was happening and didn't know how to respond. i would push back on the contention that the capitol police were encouraging people to storm the capital. the point with ashli babbitt was

she was trying to break through glass into the speakers lobby in the capital when members of congress were there. next to the house chamber in the well, there is a corridor were members, to leave the chamber, you can go through the lobby which is a long hallway. that is a secure area of the capital. it was secured that day especially when the rioters were breaking in. the glass is not bulletproof. it is now but it wasn't then. members of congress were still trying to get out of the capital and trying to get out of the speakers lobby when ashli babbitt tried to climb over the ornate wooden entryway into the speakers lobby. every capitol police officer i've spoken to has basically said we would do the same thing. we would protect the integrity of the speakers lobby and protect members of congress. that is their job.

if anyone tries to climb into a secured zone in a way that threatens member safety, capital police will respond like that every time. i don't know if any other police -- capitol police officer would respond differently. host: you can follow hugo lowell on twitter @hugo lowell and his >> c-span's "washington journal" interviews authors every day this week. watch at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span or online at c-span.org. >> friday night, watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of season's

campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop discovering where candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. c-span now is a free mobile app, featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips.